Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 15,266
- 7,504
- 31
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
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.
There are many many things we will never know. Past and future.
There are no “credible” creation scientists.
right.
not by human but by any intelligent. when we see a spinning motor we know that someone design it. we cant know who made it but we know for sure that someone did . right?
That's true. Thanks for pointing that out."Design" is an unfalsifiable proposition and can never be proven. The presence of design can sometimes be inferred from appropriate evidence, but it can never be ruled out and never "proven." Those shells on the beach allow for a strong inference of design for reasons already given, but natural forces cannot be absolutely ruled out.
I agree. A theory is discarded because it cannot explain some phenomenon. Even after we acquire new knowledge, the phenomenon remains the same and so does the explanation.No doubt, but once a scientific theory is falsified it stays falsified. The acquisition of new knowledge, the falsification of subsequent theories won't bring it back. It's already too late for the world to have been created in 4004 BC or entirely covered with water in 2600 BC. Those propositions can never be revived by new discoveries.
you can say the same for a car motor. so you will conclude the same if you will see a car motor?You have left out the option of evolution. You cannot disprove evolution by leaving the option for evolution out of the consideration of possibilities. That is the error of assuming the conclusion in order to prove the conclusion.
Every one of them.
Every one of them.
Yes, and also including Thor, Zeus, Poseidon and Darth Vader.Including God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
I've never met this god guy, but tell him he's wrong too, next time you see him.God disagrees with you since He is a Creationist.
Me.Should we believe you or God?
I didn't say it was a problem.
Obviously our eyes function well enough to not be a problem.
Is it not true that a blind eye which provides a sharp HD image WITHOUT a blind spot, is objectively better then an eye which provides a sharp HD image WITH a blind spot?
That may actually not be correct. Studies indicate that celaphods can perceive colors.
In any case, the colorblindness, assuming it is the case, is not a result of not having a blind spot, but rather a result of not having cones and only the equivalent of rods.
Hilarious ignoring of me pointing out that you, to argue against evolution of the eye, are pointing to an article with as title "Evolution gave the eye...."
Yes, and also including Thor, Zeus, Poseidon and Darth Vader.
I've never met this god guy, but tell him he's wrong too, next time you see him.
Me.
(Unless I start making claims that don't comport with reality)
A flagellum isn't a motor, it just looks like it.
God is a right-wing fundamentalist Evangelical Protestant? I think in that case I would believe Hitchslap.I God disagrees with you since He is a Creationist. Should we believe you or God?
Well ... so much for your credibility LOL
As you well know, life on Earth is much more complex than a car. And natural processes cannot make a car. It is impossible.they can also claim that a car evolved by a natural process. so what?
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?