Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
All the points raised in the OP were answered, in the post that you quoted. You know the part of my post that you deleted. Complaining that your points were not answered after deleting that part is just one more box checked on the creationist bingo card.I see evolutionists use that tactic a lot but not sure why they do it - unless maybe they just don't have answers to the points raised. It is great for emotional content but I find it "less than substantive"
All the points raised in the OP were answered
Obviously more than you can handle.whattt ??? "snark" is not the same thing as "answering the point". I thought we all knew that part and I was just humoring those who chose "snark anyway"... so you say there is "substance in it"?
Hmm, no.
If you mean that a man can put a rabbit in a meat grinder he will have minced meat, no dust. So your post starts already badly.
1) Show me even the existence of such a being before we start to speculate
Atheists will argue that no such being "exists".
Creationists will argue that "no such rock exists"
3) The carbon, phosphor etc of which rabbits are built are organised in very complicated molecules (DNA, RNA, proteins etc). Show me how these molecules can be synthesized in one day from the elements (not yet) formed in step 2. .
Hint: those who get stuck arguing that an infinitely wise and powerful being would most certainly not be capable of assembling biomolecules from dust - are not grasping the points being made here and can choose to ignore all the details that they wish.
I am trying to address those who understand the concepts above.
So cute! You think that we need to observe something that would refute evolution to "prove" it.Because we see bacteria turn into horses all the time?
As Dawkins admitted - evolution is observable -- it just never happens while we are observing.
So we "observe" that it never happens while we are observing.
================================
As Dawkins pointed out "Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening."
‘Battle over evolution’ Bill Moyers interviews Richard Dawkins, Now, 3 December 2004, PBS network
==========================
How does that differ from:
Child: “It has been observed that the Tooth fairy gave me this dollar.”
Adult: Really can we hide and watch him bring you the next dollar?
Child: “no you can never see it happen it does not happen while you are observing – but I say it has been observed anyway. ”
I am trying to address those who understand the concepts above.
'If' evolution is meant to imply that there's no God it's unfaith.Faith is not needed to accept evolution. Only evidence.
Whether there is a God or not, and whether there is evolution or not are two separate questions.'If' evolution is meant to imply that there's no God it's unfaith.
Why do so many creationists think that evolution disproves God? All that it does is to show that Genesis cannot be read literally. Reading the Bible too literally is a wrong that most Christians understand. If one can understand the verses of the Bible as written one would see that it only speaks of the Earth as being flat in both word and deed. Yet very very few Christians believe in a Flat Earth. Why can't the apply that same reasoning when it comes to evolution?'If' evolution is meant to imply that there's no God it's unfaith.
Sure, but the term faith is not the sentiment of superstition and shouldn't be presented as such.Whether there is a God or not, and whether there is evolution or not are two separate questions.
Because they lack the theological background which allows Traditional Christians (and most Protestants) to understand how God can be creatively involved with a natural process like evolution.Why do so many creationists think that evolution disproves God? All that it does is to show that Genesis cannot be read literally. Reading the Bible too literally is a wrong that most Christians understand. If one can understand the verses of the Bible as written one would see that it only speaks of the Earth as being flat in both word and deed. Yet very very few Christians believe in a Flat Earth. Why can't the apply that same reasoning when it comes to evolution?
Respectfully I'm just taking issue with your application of the term 'faith'. Faith is not 'superstition'.Why do so many creationists think that evolution disproves God? All that it does is to show that Genesis cannot be read literally. Reading the Bible too literally is a wrong that most Christians understand. If one can understand the verses of the Bible as written one would see that it only speaks of the Earth as being flat in both word and deed. Yet very very few Christians believe in a Flat Earth. Why can't the apply that same reasoning when it comes to evolution?
Everyone agrees that a man can turn a rabbit into dust into a single day. That is a given.
So then clearly - an infinite being with infinite power and wisdom can turn dust into a rabbit in a single day.
But rocks, dust, gas, and sunlight will never turn into a horse ... nor even be able to turn a bacteria into a horse ... in all of time. They don't "have that as a property of matter" and they don't have the ability to "acquire the skill over time"
=====================
Atheists will argue that no such being "exists".
Creationists will argue that "no such rock exists"
=====================
Hint: those who get stuck arguing that an infinitely wise and powerful being would most certainly not be capable of assembling biomolecules from dust - are not grasping the points being made here and can choose to ignore all the details that they wish.
I am trying to address those who understand the concepts above.
Given the above, I think you may be talking to yourself. .
So cute! You think that we need to observe something that would refute evolution to "prove" it. .
The concepts are clear enough--it's the dichotomy which is false.Ends with "I am trying to address those who understand the concepts above"
Interesting that there are people ready to admit that are not among those that understand the concepts in the obvious post above. I would not have thought that would happen so quickly.
you quote "you" and then ask why I said that?? seriously?
This may help explain the difficulty some claim they have in understanding the concepts in the OP.
Hold on. It’s demonstrable that a man can ash a rabbit but it has not been demonstrated that God can de-ash a rabbit.So then clearly - an infinite being with infinite power and wisdom can turn dust into a rabbit in a single day.
I don't believe anyone is doing it intentionally. I simply notice:Who is doing that?
That first statement is Bob's, trying to compare faith in God with what he calls "faith" in a natural process.I don't believe anyone is doing it intentionally. I simply notice:
"Some will say that one group has faith in the ability of the infinite Being...And Creationist will say that there are others who have faith in the talented rock.
Either way - it is faith".
Now I notice a contradiction: "Faith is not needed to accept evolution. Only evidence".
The term faith changes meaning when referring to being placed in a Person as opposed to a thing, and also when referring to existence as opposed to trustworthiness of Character. You can't have biblical faith in a Person if you don't believe they exist.
In order to shield the flock from learning about it. make the threat as big as possible -- and what danger is bigger than being damned to hell? -- to make sure that the grass root christian does not listen to those pesky "evilutionists", does not read what the ToE really says, does not open a textbook. It's just poisoning the well, in order of keeping the flock from learning.Why do so many creationists think that evolution disproves God? All that it does is to show that Genesis cannot be read literally. Reading the Bible too literally is a wrong that most Christians understand. If one can understand the verses of the Bible as written one would see that it only speaks of the Earth as being flat in both word and deed. Yet very very few Christians believe in a Flat Earth. Why can't the apply that same reasoning when it comes to evolution?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?