...Do you even believe in Evolution in the first palce?

[AV1611VET]

Example?

The parting of the Red Sea, Jesus' resurrection, the burning bush, Daniel's three friends in the furnace ...

You know -- basic Sunday school lessons that kids should learn.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science and faith were never meant to be separated -

Well if you're going to keep the two together, you're going to have to prioritize by subordinating one over the other -- which is exactly what David did in Psalm 19, where he talks about God's wonderful creation in harmony with the Scriptures.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually it's expanding and speeding up.

Um ... have you ever watched the mainspring of a clock that's "winding down"?

 

[KWCrazy]

It is unlikely and unproven that any deity exists.

The probability that the universe came into existence by purely natural causation is zero.
The probablility that abiogenesis could have created first life is a mathematical impossibility.
The probability that EVERYONE who has ever reported witnessing or experiencing a supernatural occurence is simply lying about it is zero. Therefore, the possibility that the natural world is the only existence is also zero.
The possibility that science could prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural is zero. Science is the study of the natural world only.
It is extremely unlikely that those who demand physical evidence of God will ever get it until they stand before Him to explain their lack of faith.
It is extremely unlikely that those who reject God during their lives will be accepted by God after their deaths.
It's extremely likely that anyone who seeks God through faith will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit; therefore it is extremely unlikely that those who deny the existence to those who have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit will be considered wise for their rejection of soverign truth.
It is extremely likely that Psalms 14:1 is absolutely correct.

 

[Tomk80]

The probability that the universe came into existence by purely natural causation is zero.

No it's not. However improbable the probability of the universe coming into exisence is, the probability of a supernatural deity existing is lower.

The probablility that abiogenesis could have created first life is a mathematical impossibility.

No it's not. However improbable the probability abiogenesis is, the probability of a supernatural deity existing is lower.

The probability that EVERYONE who has ever reported witnessing or experiencing a supernatural occurence is simply lying about it is zero.

No, it's not zero. But even if it is, it's irrelevant. People reported witnessing a supernatural occurrence don't have to be lying, they can simply be wrong. And given the tendency of pattern recognition of humans, that probability is quite a bit larger than 0.

Therefore, the possibility that the natural world is the only existence is also zero.

Given that your premises are faulty, this conclusion is as well.

The possibility that science could prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural is zero. Science is the study of the natural world only.

If the supernatural has an effect on the natural world, which is your claim, science can in principle study it.

It is extremely unlikely that those who demand physical evidence of God will ever get it until they stand before Him to explain their lack of faith.

But then, as shown above, it is extremely unlikely that this God exists.

It is extremely unlikely that those who reject God during their lives will be accepted by God after their deaths.

But then, as shown above, it is extremely unlikely that this God exists.

It's extremely likely that anyone who seeks God through faith will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit;

Given the many people who did so and failed, this statement is wrong.

therefore it is extremely unlikely that those who deny the existence to those who have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit will be considered wise for their rejection of soverign truth.

But then, given that all those people claiming to have the "indwelling holy spirit" are likely incorrect, that is quite irrelevant.

It is extremely likely that Psalms 14:1 is absolutely correct.

No, it isn't.

So many statements, and every single one of them false. Quite an achievement.

 

[BarryDesborough]

The parting of the Red Sea, Jesus' resurrection, the burning bush, Daniel's three friends in the furnace ...

You know -- basic Sunday school lessons that kids should learn.

Believe in those miracles if it makes you happy, but a miracle, by definition, is an event which is an exception to the natural. We're talking about evolution here. Any miracles that contradict it?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Um ... have you ever watched the mainspring of a clock that's "winding down"?

Very good, AV -- you've discovered how your analogy is wrong -- now all you have to do is admit it.

 

[Heissonear]

The probability that the universe came into existence by purely natural causation is zero.
The probablility that abiogenesis could have created first life is a mathematical impossibility.
The probability that EVERYONE who has ever reported witnessing or experiencing a supernatural occurence is simply lying about it is zero. Therefore, the possibility that the natural world is the only existence is also zero.
The possibility that science could prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural is zero. Science is the study of the natural world only.
It is extremely unlikely that those who demand physical evidence of God will ever get it until they stand before Him to explain their lack of faith.
It is extremely unlikely that those who reject God during their lives will be accepted by God after their deaths.
It's extremely likely that anyone who seeks God through faith will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit; therefore it is extremely unlikely that those who deny the existence to those who have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit will be considered wise for their rejection of soverign truth.
It is extremely likely that Psalms 14:1 is absolutely correct.

KW is bold in listing these probabilities to Naturalists who are confident that they have opposing evidences. But he did not come up with these statements solely through the physical.

 

[Loudmouth]

KW is bold in listing these probabilities to Naturalists who are confident that they have opposing evidences.

KW is bold for claiming to have probabilities without showing any math. All KW has are empty assertions.

 

[Tomk80]

KW is bold in listing these probabilities to Naturalists who are confident that they have opposing evidences. But he did not come up with these statements solely through the physical.

KWCrazy made a lot of statements without backing any of them up with any evidence, hence we have no reason to accept them as true.

The fact that he did not come up with his statements solely through the physical (or, to use some synonyms for that statement: made stuff up, pulled them from his nether regions, spouted a lot of bovine excrement) makes his statements unverifiable nonsense that can be rightly ignored.

 

[AV1611VET]

Believe in those miracles if it makes you happy, but a miracle, by definition, is an event which is an exception to the natural. We're talking about evolution here. Any miracles that contradict it?

Of course ... the order in which it occurred; such as whales before land animals.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Of course ... the order in which it occurred; such as whales before land animals.

How is that a miracle and not a mistake?

 

[pjnlsn]

Yes -- I get the message: It's still unlikely and unproven that any deity exists.

I'm not of that persuasion however.

It's still true that the existence of any deity is unlikely and unproven.

 

[pjnlsn]

Of course ... the order in which it occurred; such as whales before land animals.

What is written in the Bible need not be true.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is written in the Bible need not be true.

Is Israel the Promised Land?

 

[HitchSlap]

Is Israel the Promised Land?

Have you been to Israel?

 

[AV1611VET]

Have you been to Israel?

No, and I don't intend to go.

I would however like to know if our Christian-Seeker, who said that what is written in the Bible need not be true, believes Israel is the Promised Land or not.

 

[pjnlsn]

Is Israel the Promised Land?

Hmm?

Well, as before, where that has to do with God, as in in that this is the land that it is said God promised the Israelites, I should say again that the existence of any deity is unlikely and unproven.

Other than that, I don't know.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hmm?

Well, as before, where that has to do with God, as in in that this is the land that it is said God promised the Israelites, I should say again that the existence of any deity is unlikely and unproven.

Other than that, I don't know.

The existence of God is both unlikely & unproven, and yet you don't know if Israel is the Promised Land or not.

Hmmm...

Sounds to me like you have some reservations about writing God out of your life totally.

There's hope for you yet, my friend.

 

[pjnlsn]

The existence of God is both unlikely & unproven, and yet you don't know if Israel is the Promised Land or not.

Hmmm...

Sounds to me like you have some reservations about writing God out of your life totally.

There's hope for you yet, my friend.

No, I mean that Israel is unlikely to be the Promised Land, in that this is said to be something God is said to have promised to a certain group of people, and yet that there exists at all any sort of deity is unlikely and unproven.

But if there's some other meaning to the phrase 'Promised Land' you're referencing, I don't know.