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.
Unlike Wilbur (Charlotte's Web), those pigs did not talk.
No, I typically conclude that they are wrong. That this happens repeatedly, often on the same topics, has biased me to be highly skeptical of the arguments produced, that is true. But I do not simply declare the arguments wrong, I demonstrate that they are.Maybe your bias has you automatically assuming others are wrong.
In my experience (been doing this for about 20 years), I would say the overwhelming majority - "they" is shorthand.When you say “they” are you lumping all creationists into the same category?
What evidence does it actually present FOR 'Intelligent Design', as opposed to attacks on evolution?Darwinism Under The Microscope is a good book that presents intelligent design. You should check it out.
No, my argument is to point out the inconsistency in creationist claims, and that the ones having to do with genetics (in this case, karyotypes) are nearly always based on aq lack of understanding of the subject matter.Hi SLP,
So, your basic argument is that God could not have made creatures that look the same with the karyotype issue that you're bringing up? I'm just wanting to make sure that I'm actually understanding the point of this thread before getting involved.
Thanks Ted, but I have a feeling that given your stated position, no amount of education would alter your pre-conceived conclusions.Yes, I readily admit that this 'karyotype' science isn't within the realm of my understanding, as I imagine it likely isn't in most people's. But, if you're willing to take the time to educate me, I'll be happy to listen to any argument that says that God can't have done what He is said to have done because of...
God bless,
In Christ, ted
It is also possible that it was all made-up.I personally believe the Genesis account and take it as literal. All things are possible with God.
It’s quite probable that the snake was possessed by Satan. That is not an impossiblity.
No, I typically conclude that they are wrong. That this happens repeatedly, often on the same topics, has biased me to be highly skeptical of the arguments produced, that is true. But I do not simply declare the arguments wrong, I demonstrate that they are.
Like in this thread - I provided pretty clear evidence that they are wrong to claim Scadding proved vestigials are not real, or that they do not provide evidence for evolution.
In my experience (been doing this for about 20 years), I would say the overwhelming majority - "they" is shorthand.
What evidence does it actually present FOR 'Intelligent Design', as opposed to attacks on evolution?
Maybe your bias has you thinking this book is good because you want to believe that it is.
The author of that 2002 book is a medical doctor (supposedly), that also wrote such books as "God's Prescription For Healing: Five Divine Gifts of Healing" and "Come Unto Me: God's Call to Intimacy."
Maybe HIS bias has him finding God where God is not present?
The problem with your thinking stems from the root and that is that Christianity is a religion based on faith and not science. We may use science but it is not what our beliefs stand on. We believe God said, “let there be light” and there was light. There is no real scientific way to measure that statement because it’s based in faith. I tend not to argue science with atheists because it is a fruitless discussion. My beliefs are based upon faith not science. Without faith it is impossible to please God.
Science excludes miracles just in the definition of physical laws.Many Christian beliefs go against science such as Jesus raising the dead or the parting of the Red Sea. That is why Christianity is based in faith not science.
Because you are attempting to argue science with people of faith.
No, he is countering an attempt at a scientific argument made by people of faith.Because you are attempting to argue science with people of faith.
Did you not notice that the OP countered the arguments of CREATIONISTS re: karyotypes?
True enough, and I've encountered some of the same resistance. However, I've also encountered some of the same resistance among atheists who have essentially refused to acknowledge that a viewing the Theory of Evolution through, and only through, the lens of Philosophical Naturalism can be, and often is, counter-productive to helping their own cause of gaining both respect from Christians or educating them.Handling with Kid gloves, 'in your face', etc.... Doesn't seem to matter.
When someone will produce an already-refuted set of claims, have it refuted again, only to re-post it a few weeks later - can we really lay that at the feet of someone that was 'mean' to them?
No, he is countering an attempt at a scientific argument made by people of faith.
Keep in mind that the discussion is not about theism vs. atheism. It is about bad scientific arguments made by some theists.
So, "rules for thee but not for me" is it?
Do you not see that the OP is a RESPONSE to arguments by people of faith against science?
He is countering an argument made by creationists. Do you understand the creationists' argument? Faith in God does not come into it.Honestly I don’t really comprehend the argument you are trying to make but that is of little concern to me because my faith is in God.
Hyper creationists generally don't acknowledge the difference.True enough, and I've encountered some of the same resistance. However, I've also encountered some of the same resistance among atheists who have essentially refused to acknowledge that a viewing the Theory of Evolution through, and only through, the lens of Philosophical Naturalism can be, and often is, counter-productive to helping their own cause of gaining both respect from Christians or educating them.
So, I think atheists would be better served by advocating a position in line with Methodological Naturalism when attempting to present (and/or enforce) their views to various hyper-Creationists.
Hyper creationists generally don't acknowledge the difference.
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?