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.
I think it would force me to ignore the obvious fact that evolution happens without any evidence of an intelligent designer being involved.
I'm not aware of any.
I don't think it's possible to create a watch made only from wood.
I'ld love to be shown wrong on that one though. A 100% wooden watch sounds like something I'ld like to see. .
What definition of evolution do you hold by the way?
The ones actual scientists do when talking about actual science - see e.g. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_02 for a basic intro.
here something very close (although its a sun watch):
Sun watch stock photo. Image of clock, shade, science - 44200870
You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! (James 2:19 ESV)
Is God looking for people to believe he exists? Or people who will trust in him and do his hard work here for a few decades as disciples?
People willing to be disciples if they got evidence seem to get evidence.
There is plenty of evidence but also plenty of things Christians expect out of their relationship with God that goes unfulfilled for lifetime. But that seems true of all of our knowledge and desires. It is a rare day that the atheist has all their knowledge and desires fulfilled.
It may be the transcendent visionary nature of our soul that craves things that are eternal and yet hidden in this earthly life.
Real scientists do not agree on a lot of things when they are talking about real science.
Do you i.e. think micro-evolution is proof for macro-evolution?
The change over time theory in your basic intro for example is a weak argument an can not be used as proof for macro-evolution whatsoever.
That's pretty vague. Which ones disagree with the definition I linked to?Real scientists do not agree on a lot of things when they are talking about real science. So this is not a very strong answer.
Do you i.e. think micro-evolution is proof for macro-evolution?
The change over time theory in your basic intro for example is a weak argument an can not be used as proof for macro-evolution whatsoever.
No because it is a category error.
Why not?
Because it doesn't support your case?
No, I took a long time to discard all "personal experiences" from other religions. They may have the same roots but one needs to understand that connections to determine from where they arise.Not what I meant.
I meant that you were rather quick to discard all the "personal experiences" from all religious believers that follow a religion that is vastly different then yours. Islam and christianity share the same abrahamic roots. They are the same "family" of religions.
I think the problem here lies in what you are conceptualizing as "personal experiences"Except off course, for all the hindu's alive today that claim personal experiences with the divine, as well as the many many writings from for example ancient greece and rome where they express similar experiences.
Islam claims that Allah is unknowable. If the religion itself makes that claim, how do you claim differently?Half my family is muslim or from muslim background. I think I know a thing or two about islam.
To say that muslims don't claim personal experiences with the divine, is beyond ridiculous.
No, they can't all be right and obviously aren't. Anyone from any religion can substitute words or even use the Bible as their foundation but truth is truth and it is up to everyone to determine it.I'm talking about all religious people. You can't all be right. Yet, you're all very convinced of your own religious beliefs, which you all motivate with the same kind of (bad) evidence.
There is no argument you can give, that the religious of other religions can't also give. Just by substituting words like "god" and "jesus" with their own divinities.
Example?Except for the many writings they left behind.
No, in fact, it does not. Faith can not be found without knowing God first.To demand faith, is to demand exactly that.
I never said evolution is not a real process. The fact that a beak of a bird gets bigger or smaller due to circumstances over time can never be proof for a beak being there in the first place. And indeed because there's still a lot of 'we don't know ' we still do not know the Darwinistic view of macro-evolution correct. There still are no, regardless of evolution, things popping in to resistance out of nothing. This is a major flaw in your theory of evolution.Off course. That's because there is plenty we don't know. Disagreement is what drives progress.
There is also a lot that scientists DO agree on. Like evolution being a very real process.
Only creationists seem to think that there is a difference.
In reality, biologists don't see these as 2 different processes.
1+1+1+1+1+.....+1+1+1 = big number.
I never said evolution is not a real process. The fact that a beak of a bird gets bigger or smaller due to circumstances over time can never be proof for a beak being there in the first place. And indeed because there's still a lot of 'we don't know ' we still do not know the Darwinistic view of macro-evolution correct.
There still are no, regardless of evolution, things popping in to resistance out of nothing. This is a major flaw in your theory of evolution.
so if you will find such a watch with a self replicating system. will you agree that this kind of watch will be evidence for design rather then evolution?Myeah....
I'm talking about an actual watch. Not a stick in the ground with a circle drawn around it. That's a time-telling contraption, sure. But not exactly what people generally mean when they use the word "watch".
It's been many moons since I've been here, but I'm back in part for nostalgic reasons and, in part, to maybe help others along the way as they have helped me. I'm still seeking truth wherever it may lie so all commentary is welcome!
To the point. If the Christian God is a personal, loving, all-powerful being who has - according to the Bible - created the universe with all its complexities, miracles, and wonders then surely this God understands and can communicate the simplicities of the English language. Yet, no one on Earth - aside from the Biblical perspective - has heard His voice?
Simply put, why can't God simply say, "Hi" to us?
so if you will find such a watch with a self replicating system.
will you agree that this kind of watch will be evidence for design rather then evolution?
[1] He's not human .I'm still seeking truth wherever it may lie so all commentary is welcome!
To the point. If the Christian God is a personal, loving, all-powerful being who has - according to the Bible - created the universe with all its complexities, miracles, and wonders then surely this God understands and can communicate the simplicities of the English language. [2]Yet, no one on Earth - aside from the Biblical perspective - has heard His voice?
Simply put, [1]why can't God simply say, "Hi" to us?
I never said evolution is not a real process. The fact that a beak of a bird gets bigger or smaller due to circumstances over time can never be proof for a beak being there in the first place.
And indeed because there's still a lot of 'we don't know ' we still do not know the Darwinistic view of macro-evolution correct
There still are no, regardless of evolution, things popping in to resistance out of nothing.
This is a major flaw in your theory of evolution.
No because it is a category error.
No, I took a long time to discard all "personal experiences" from other religions.
I think the problem here lies in what you are conceptualizing as "personal experiences"
Islam claims that Allah is unknowable
If the religion itself makes that claim, how do you claim differently?
No, they can't all be right and obviously aren't. Anyone from any religion can substitute words or even use the Bible as their foundation but truth is truth and it is up to everyone to determine it.
Example?
No, in fact, it does not. Faith can not be found without knowing God first.
I don't know if you realize, there were these people called prophets who's sole responsibility was to commicate God's word. What we do know about God is by means of what theologians call natural revelation, are God's divine attributes and eternal nature. (Rom. 1:18-22). Direct revelation isn't so simple since we are sinners, if God speaks directly to you your probably going to freak out.It's been many moons since I've been here, but I'm back in part for nostalgic reasons and, in part, to maybe help others along the way as they have helped me. I'm still seeking truth wherever it may lie so all commentary is welcome!
To the point. If the Christian God is a personal, loving, all-powerful being who has - according to the Bible - created the universe with all its complexities, miracles, and wonders then surely this God understands and can communicate the simplicities of the English language. Yet, no one on Earth - aside from the Biblical perspective - has heard His voice?
Simply put, why can't God simply say, "Hi" to us?
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?