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.
But you will accept the existence of gravity by observing its effects, won't you?But I don't take any of these as particular evidences for the existence of a deity or deities.
I would consider you a literal fundamental dispensationist when it comes to science. Yet your against literal fundamentalist christians. Perhaps because you are so much like them and you have so much in common with their approach and perspective.What you have is a round peg and a square hole, with science and the bible.
Dont get me wrong, it is entertaining observing you trying to make them fit.
Do you believe that man created God rather then God creating man? Because I have no doubt that the God you do not believe in is a God that you created and not the True God that created mankind.But I don't take any of these as particular evidences for the existence of a deity or deities.
Clear evidence for humans believing in (varied) deities, certainly.
But we already know that humans are very good at that, to the point of being able to turn almost anything into a religion.
Not at all, there is perfect harmony between true science and the Bible. Both Science and the Bible were given to us by God. We know that God can not contradict Himself. If people see a conflict then they lack understanding of Science, the Bible or both.let us proceed on to the Genesis account of creation. It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts
We have Science to tell us how. The Bible was given to tell us why.Another problem with the Genesis account is that it does not make it clear how God creates.
What I said here is a common knowledge of science. Light existed way way before our Sun.
You're suggesting there was some other energy source the earth used besides the sun that would have enabled plants to flourish. Support your claim or retract it.
Do you like to develop a theology of Unicorns? What is your first piece of content on that?
But you will accept the existence of gravity by observing its effects, won't you?
That they are both invisible and pink, of course.
And that it is so important to hold the two parts of this apparent paradoxical dichotomy in "creative tension" to quote a commentary from an entirely different theological tradition.
Rather than deduce that the impossibility of both being simultaneously true undermines the consistency of the whole proposition.
If you asked an atheist about the origin of things, they have two choices: 1. Do not know; 2. Evolution.
There is no third option.
The so-called evolution theory avoided the origin problem because it can not answer the problem.
If it can, then it WILL include it.
Technically speaking, unicorn is an option. That the universe was created by a giant, nonsentient toe twitching is an option. They haven't been disproven. This is why evidence is so important in science for distinguishing the garbage ideas from the ones that are actually likely to represent reality.I do not see any content of the Unicorn theology yet. Have you hit the wall already before the first step?
Creation, Evolution, or Unknown.
Unicorn is not an option yet.
Technically speaking, unicorn is an option. That the universe was created by a giant, nonsentient toe twitching is an option. They haven't been disproven. This is why evidence is so important in science for distinguishing the garbage ideas from the ones that are actually likely to represent reality.
Yeah, only evolution does. Ancient book doesn't count.First it needs a content. Then the content can be examined by other means, for example, evidences.
So far, other options have no content yet.
I would consider you a literal fundamental dispensationist when it comes to science. Yet your against literal fundamentalist christians. Perhaps because you are so much like them and you have so much in common with their approach and perspective.
Ah, you have not yet understood the key modality of IPU's.I do not see any content of the Unicorn theology yet. Have you hit the wall already before the first step?.
Creation, Evolution, or Unknown.
Unicorn is not an option yet.
Actually, you are incorrect. Many of the properties of electricity were known before the existence of electrons was known.In your example, we do need to first understand the function of electrons in atom. The nature of electron Must Be a part of electronics. When we study life, we should understand, for example, the evolution of DNA.
Ah, you have not yet understood the key modality of IPU's.
This cannot be "worked out" or understood. It is a matter of granted enlightenment.
To those who know (the truth), any further explanation is redundant.
Unicorn (IPU) would go under "Creation" in your triage.
Actually, you are incorrect. Many of the properties of electricity were known before the existence of electrons was known.
I mean planets, which include our earth.
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?