Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
How Do Creationists Explain Dolphins?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Pats" data-source="post: 27507794" data-attributes="member: 87266"><p>Mystman, after I thought more today I had more thoughts I really should've included in first post.</p><p> </p><p>While I completely understand your post and your POV, science is and always has been utterly useless in matters of religion. Ergo, my response to the OP. Christianity and faith is that it is not testable by means of science, they are matters for the religious and the philosophical, IMHO. </p><p> </p><p>This is why I have a problem with mixing creationism and science at all.... "Creationism" is by definition an unscientifaclly testable miracle. For those who hold to its literalism, it is a mistake for them to make attempts to show "proof" that it occured by science. Contrary wise, we have verifiable scientific evidence that speaks volumes against literal creation... there's no scence in these "If God created everything, then why did or didn't he do xyz?"</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>I am by no means suggesting it be ignored. I am suggesting that the OP does not make a better arguement against creationism than creationism makes in favor of itself.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>I am not a Creationist. However, I certainly do not think the purpose of God's creation was strictly to provide humans with a place to live... therefore, I'm going to with hold comment on your other points. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Pats, post: 27507794, member: 87266"] Mystman, after I thought more today I had more thoughts I really should've included in first post. While I completely understand your post and your POV, science is and always has been utterly useless in matters of religion. Ergo, my response to the OP. Christianity and faith is that it is not testable by means of science, they are matters for the religious and the philosophical, IMHO. This is why I have a problem with mixing creationism and science at all.... "Creationism" is by definition an unscientifaclly testable miracle. For those who hold to its literalism, it is a mistake for them to make attempts to show "proof" that it occured by science. Contrary wise, we have verifiable scientific evidence that speaks volumes against literal creation... there's no scence in these "If God created everything, then why did or didn't he do xyz?" I am by no means suggesting it be ignored. I am suggesting that the OP does not make a better arguement against creationism than creationism makes in favor of itself. I am not a Creationist. However, I certainly do not think the purpose of God's creation was strictly to provide humans with a place to live... therefore, I'm going to with hold comment on your other points. :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
How Do Creationists Explain Dolphins?
Top
Bottom