If common appearance = common DNA

[Jordan Mays]

-_- tempting people into the fiery pits of hell for all of eternity seems pretty evil to me.

You're an atheist?

 

[Jordan Mays]

Do you have statistics to back that up?

How many misscarriages occur every year in the world? or are you just looking for a way out?
Don't you find all this even a tiny bit childish? I know I do.

 

[AV1611VET]

How many misscarriages occur every year in the world?

If you think miscarriages are from God, you've got another think coming.

I'm going to assume you're suspending your option to think like an atheist to accuse God of this, so let's dance.

Miscarriages are the result of the Fall, and not by an order of God.

In fact, God said He would prevent them from being done by another being.

Malachi 3:11 And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field, saith the LORD of hosts.

So you can blame God if you want to.

After all, if you're willing to suspend your atheistic mindset to do that, go right ahead.

I do it myself sometimes with the Bible.

But if you're going to think like a Bible believer, then put the blame where it belongs, and let the scientists blame it on God.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Nope, it's that evolution theory ignores the historical evidence:

"The LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground...From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth." -- (Genesis 2:7, Acts 17:26).

This is a claim, not evidence. You're committing a circular fallacy

My evidence is the same as yours, but interpreted differently.

That's not how science works. Repeated experiments and confirmed predictions evolution makes about the natural world demonstrates that your "interpretation" is wrong.

Yes.

Those who ignore the records of history can't be that smart.

Your argument is basically "If the evidence disagrees with my literal interpretation of the bible, then the evidence is wrong". That's intellectually dishonest. The ability to hand wave away an overwhelming amount of evidence that contradicts your beliefs is astounding.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Can you demonstrate to us that your wife loves you? or do we just take your word for it?

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Show us the evidence.

She demonstrates it to me through her visible and tangible actions. Is it possible it is all a ruse to get her hands on my hundreds of dollars or something like that? Sure. But everything indicates she genuinely loves me and I will proceed as if it is true. I have a high level of confidence about it. It's also something that can be falsified. Which is nice for a truth claim.

Whether my wife loves me or not should have very little barring on your life so you are free to believe it or not with virtually no consequence. So yeah, take my word for it. Or don't. Who cares?

Now if you want me to believe that there is a specific deity that created everything and wants me to view gay people as abominations and think people I love are going to Hell, I require a good deal more evidence for that claim versus you telling me your wife loved you.

 

[pitabread]

Nope, it's that evolution theory ignores the historical evidence:

"The LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground...From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth." -- (Genesis 2:7, Acts 17:26).

Yeah.... I don't think you quite know what "historical evidence" is.

 

[pitabread]

That the pilot will land the plane safely.

What if it's landing on autopilot?

 

[Doveaman]

She demonstrates it to me through her visible and tangible actions. Is it possible it is all a ruse to get her hands on my hundreds of dollars or something like that? Sure. But everything indicates she genuinely loves me and I will proceed as if it is true. I have a high level of confidence about it. It's also something that can be falsified. Which is nice for a truth claim.

Whether my wife loves me or not should have very little barring on your life so you are free to believe it or not with virtually no consequence. So yeah, take my word for it. Or don't. Who cares?

Well I'm not questioning your wife's love for you. I sincerely hope she does love you, and you her.

But I can also say to you, take my word for it that God loves me. Or don't. Who cares?

My point is this, you cannot demonstrate to me that your wife's love for you is real, just as I cannot demonstrate to you that God's love for me is real. However, we do accept that their love is real on the basis of faith inspired by their actions towards us.

So, yes, in your marriage you live by faith in her love for you, just as I live by faith in God's love for me.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Well I'm not questioning your wife's love for you. I sincerely hope she does love you, and you her.

But I can also say to you, take my word for it that God loves me. Or don't. Who cares?

My point is this, you cannot demonstrate to me that your wife's love for you is real, just as I cannot demonstrate to you that God's love for me is real. However, we do accept that their love is real on the basis of faith inspired by their actions towards us.

So, yes, in your marriage you live by faith in her love for you, just as I live by faith in God's love for me.

I have confidence that my wife loves me. I have very good reason to believe it is real based on actual experiences. I can see her smile, feel her hugs, overhear her talking about me, witness all of the acts of kindness. It is absolutely reasonable for me to proceed under the impression that she loves me. So far, nothing that resembles a god has demonstrated anything remotely close to this toward me.

 

[Speedwell]

... just as I live by faith in God's love for me.

As do most Christians. So why do creationists think they have to prove it with science? Are they not content with faith?

 

[Doveaman]

Faith is used when there is no evidence which means faith is for the unsure and the wishful thinkers.
Please tell me what it is you think I believe on faith.

That the pilot will land the plane safely.

What if it's landing on autopilot?

Then you have faith that the autopilot will land safely.

Whether it is the pilot or autopilot, you are still putting your faith in something real.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Then you have faith that the autopilot will land safely.

Whether it is the pilot or autopilot, you are still putting your faith in something real.

It is perfectly reasonable to expect something to be safe that has been demonstrated a number of times before it to be safe. Someone might say, "if I rely on autopilot there is a risk that we might crash, but the risk is perceived to be so small that I am willing to proceed." It's not a declaration of the infallibility of autopilot. It's taking actual information into account before making a decision based on confidence levels. It's just not the same thing.

 

[Skreeper]

Then you have faith that the autopilot will land safely.

Whether it is the pilot or autopilot, you are still putting your faith in something real.

We can have a reasonable expectation that the autopilot will work, because all the available evidence points to it. If we had no evidence that autopilots work then we could call it faith.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Hey Joshua, it's been a while. We've already done this song and dance before. We'll go back and forth and in the end you won't provide any scientific references that use the bible.

In the end you won't be able to provide any scientific references that contradicts the Bible in any way.

 

[Jimmy D]

I have confidence that my wife loves me. I have very good reason to believe it is real based on actual experiences. I can see her smile, feel her hugs, overhear her talking about me, witness all of the acts of kindness. It is absolutely reasonable for me to proceed under the impression that she loves me. So far, nothing that resembles a god has demonstrated anything remotely close to this toward me.

Judging from your posts I'm beginning to suspect your wife is ficticious too. So far my wife has demonstrated nothing remotely close to this toward me.


*Only joking, my missus is alright really.

 

[AV1611VET]

So far, nothing that resembles a god has demonstrated anything remotely close to this toward me.

The key word is "demonstration," I take it?

Two words: guardian angel.

 

[Doveaman]

I have confidence that my wife loves me.

That's pretty much what faith is -- confidence, assurance, trust.

I too have confidence that God loves me. That's why I trust Him.

I have very good reason to believe it is real based on actual experiences.

So do I. Nothing beats personal experiences, right?

I can see her smile, feel her hugs, overhear her talking about me, witness all of the acts of kindness. It is absolutely reasonable for me to proceed under the impression that she loves me.

I too can see all God's acts of kindness expressed through His creation, feel His gentle breeze all over my body, read the love letters He sent me, and remember all His wonderful acts of love expressed through His Son. It is absolutely reasonable for me to proceed under the impression that God loves me.

So far, nothing that resembles a god has demonstrated anything remotely close to this toward me.

Well so far, nothing that resembles a wife has demonstrated anything remotely close to this toward me.

I personally have never met your wife, so I have no reason to even believe she exists.

But I'll take you at your word since it is your personal experience and not mine, right.

 

[Doveaman]

It is perfectly reasonable to expect something to be safe that has been demonstrated a number of times before it to be safe. Someone might say, "if I rely on autopilot there is a risk that we might crash, but the risk is perceived to be so small that I am willing to proceed." It's not a declaration of the infallibility of autopilot. It's taking actual information into account before making a decision based on confidence levels. It's just not the same thing.

Well, I'm pretty confident that Jesus was a real person, and the information He passed on through the Scriptures has proven to be reliable over and over again. So, yes, I fully agree with you.

 

[Doveaman]

We can have a reasonable expectation that the autopilot will work, because all the available evidence points to it. If we had no evidence that autopilots work then we could call it faith.

I get the impression you don't like the word faith.

But faith can be based on evidence.

You have faith the autopilot will work because you have evidence that it worked before.

I have faith God's word is true because I have evidence that it works.

If you do not obey God's word you will not find evidence that it works.

Obedience is how you demonstrate that it works.

 

[bhsmte]

We can have a reasonable expectation that the autopilot will work, because all the available evidence points to it. If we had no evidence that autopilots work then we could call it faith.

Yep. I trust the lights will go on when I flip the switch and my car will start. No need for faith, when I have a long track record of reliability.