- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
But this thread is not about evolution or trying to discount it.
Please read the OP.
Upvote
0
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.
Rigft. It works with the theory of evolution, too. Reproducing couples create offspring which are similar to their parents.
No, but when one theory makes the same prediction as the other theory it is of little interest. In this case both predict that reproducing couples create offspiring similar to their parents. What is of interest is if the two theories make different predictions.But this thread is not about evolution or trying to discount it.
Please read the OP.
Please read the OP. This thread is not about evolution.No, but when one theory makes the same prediction as the other theory it is of little interest. In this case both predict that reproducing couples create offspiring similar to their parents. What is of interest is if the two theories make different predictions.
No, but when one theory makes the same prediction as the other theory it is of little interest. In this case both predict that reproducing couples create offspiring similar to their parents. What is of interest is if the two theories make different predictions.
Which I take to be your admission that creationism does not make any unique predictions.
That is the scientific method. I make a prediction and then perform a controlled test. If I observe, after the test, what I predicted, my test successfully proved my prediction. It's the scientific method.That's not a prediction, that's an observation. Kent Hovind thinks he has a tremendously profound "prediction" that "dogs will only give birth to dogs". Not only is that exactly what evolution says, and a dog giving birth to anything other than a dog would falsify evolution, but it's simply making an observation of something and and claiming it is then a prediction.
It's not.
That is the scientific method. I make a prediction and then perform a controlled test. If I observe, after the test, what I predicted, my test successfully proved my prediction. It's the scientific method.
Wait, I still don't get this - if you had your way, Gen 1:21 says "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind" - which you seem to think is all living forms of life (you know, L.U.C.A and all?), even though it's just referring to the fish - and Gen 1:25 says "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind" which means Whales, Fish and Cattle aren't subject to death? Then there's all the creepy things that creepeth, and all the winged fowl (probably including bats) and all the other beasts (except Cattle) that will never see Heaven, while Whales. Fish and Cattle will be in blissful paradise with you and your Pastor?Scripturally, there are two kinds. One is His kind, a temporary kind, and is subject to death. The other is Their kind or the eternal kind, which is no longer subject to death. A good example is Humanity since Jesus formed us from dust knowing that we would disobey. He also knew that in order to live forever with Him, one MUST be born again by the agreement of the Trinity. (Their kinds) Gen 1:26 Gen 5:1-2 John 14:16
Who are these "many?" I've never heard of them or their argument.A single cell is far more complex than anything designed by "intelligent" man, yet many argue that it was accidentally formed.
Hey, let's do a scientifically controlled experiment to test that theory of yours.How do you know dogs only give birth to dogs?
Those that do not accept the concept of a creator. I know there are more than three, so I said "many".Who are these "many?" I've never heard of them or their argument.
I see--you are using an eccentric meaning of "accidental."Those that do not accept the concept of a creator. I know there are more than three, so I said "many".
Life was either created or it is an accident of nature. One or the other. They are mutually exclusive.I see--you are using an eccentric meaning of "accidental."
Most people realize that (whether there is a creator or not) life did not come about "by accident" but by an orderly series of chemical reactions.Life was either created or it is an accident of nature. One or the other. They are mutually exclusive.
Nonsense. It could've been an accident of Nature that life was created. That's to say that the natural laws of physics and Quantum Mechanics are such that the accidental creation of life was an inevitable result. There you go, not mutually exclusive at all.Life was either created or it is an accident of nature. One or the other. They are mutually exclusive.
i.e. it was an act of some conscious personality's intent, or it just accidentally happened.
"By accident" means there was not a conscious personality driving the method.Most people realize that (whether there is a creator or not) life did not come about "by accident" but by an orderly series of chemical reactions.
That would be an example of a conscious personality (me) driving the method.Do you think that when you mix hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide, the resulting salt is an "accident?"
That's a broad definition... so the wind used to sail a yacht is "by accident"? Amoeba creating energy via photosynthesis is "by accident"? The river nile snaking its way to the ocean is "by accident"? gravity is "by accident"?"By accident" means there was not a conscious personality driving the method.
If the process was set up by a conscious personality, with purpose, it was not an accident. To clarify. Either something was done on purpose, or it was an accident. They are mutually exclusive. To wander into the weeds: If the "accidental" processes were purposefully created, that means there is a creator. Without the purposeful actions of the creator to begin with, none of what you call "accidents" are possible.Nonsense. It could've been an accident of Nature that life was created. That's to say that the natural laws of physics and Quantum Mechanics are such that the accidental creation of life was an inevitable result. There you go, not mutually exclusive at all.
Yeah. I "thought about" those ideas back in the 70's. Even back then, people would say, "so, who created the alien intelligence?" Those all fall under "accidental" at their core, except the last one. In that case, it is accidental unless the "magic" was controlled by a conscious personality with purpose.Then, we have all these other ideas that you seemingly didn't have an imagination for:
All too easy - I reckon you could do with some more imagination tbh, I found that quite a breeze...
- Life is perpetual, being seeded in each Universe either by a natural process carrying over microbes from some other universe via some wormhole style connection.
- Life, again is perpetual, being specially seeded (and not created) by an alien intelligence from an alternate universe or plane.
- Life comes from a parallel dimension that seeds all universes with microbial life from the time it can support it.
- undirected but powerful Magic perpetually creates life on every planet in the universe.
That is creepy. Do you actually believe it or are you just using it as a rhetorical device?At its core, no matter what the theory, life is either accidental or created. If created, it implies purpose. If accidental, it doesn't, making the concept of morality non-applicable.
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?