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.
Hmm. How do ideas have "objective independent existence" (per the definition of "real" you quoted)?
You cant show me one. Or can you?
How is it that die hard evolutionists fail to appreciate the mathematics of probability? This article Infinite Monkey Theorem - Rational Disciple, which is predicated on the realizations of Stephen Meyer, Doug axe and Bill Dembski,
is just another example of the glaring obviosity that chance is a weak inference.
Atheist Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer, realized this long ago and is famous for the quote:”The chance that higher life forms might have emerged through evolutionary processes is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein.”
For anyone who understands the difference between philosophy and the scientific method, is there a better inference to the best explanation for the origin of life? Especially given the multiplicative nature of probabilities re the fine tuning, the Goldilocks zone of the earth, origin of first life, origin of human life and finally the order we see in the universe that is vast and not merely a small patch of order the size of our solar system? I get the probabilistic resource multiplication, but that’s speculative and want to remain scientific.
Thank you for your feedback.
Say what?I wouldn't even bother to try. Surly you know there were several ways of using the term, yet you grab one and say if you can't prove this you are wrong about the others? What exactly is your point?
Let's cut back to the chase... did I use the term wrongly? You know, what started the argument.
I should have stuck with my original "ignore the silly question" lol
Time will prove just how wrong evolution is. Many scientists are deserting evolution, and not just Christians. I was blessed to be taught both as a possible scenario. I was not a Christian. My dad was an atheist and pushed me towards evolution. I could not accept evolution.
We know that tornado's ocasionally put together some pieces of mechanical parts together.
and every day the creation of the new cylinders would be happening a million times a second, potentially ending up with the 747.
Here is the failure of the tornado in a junk yard analogy, here is how the reality of it is.
I used the term exactly as you said you meant to use it.... right down to the dictionary definition you provided.
Hmm. How do ideas have "objective independent existence" (per the definition of "real" you quoted)?
When scientists conflate adaptation and evolution, that is dishonest.
I picked the first one.And you aren't paying attention.
Did you happen to notice other definitions for "real" there?
And what do you think the "potential" likelihood is of that ending up a 747?
I'm afraid you just created the failure, and made that Tornado analogy look good.
I can tell you that evolution is a crock. Non-evolutionists are doing the same work with just as good results. James Tour has restored a rat's severed spine to where the rat has almost normal mobility. The tech is patented and will eventually be used for human injuries. Non evolutionists are designing gene therapies to solve inherited genetic disorders.
When you can tell me how life came into being by some spontaneous event, I may change my mind. Until then (and science has been striving for 60 years to find out), I will not accept evolution. Oh, I'm 68. OOL research is no further advanced than it was when Miller first started out. There is only one reason that scientists embrace evolution. It gives them an excuse to reject God. I can assure that the excuse will not hold good in the next life.
I picked the first one.
See, this is exactly why we cant just assume we can "check the dictionary" to figure out what another person intends to say in discussions like this.
I dont even know how you used it. I'm just defending the idea that if someone is confused about possible different meanings of word you used, dont be awkward and pedantic.... just tell them which meaning you intended and save a lot of grief.Then you now know not to just grab the first one?
That is unless you want to be contrary and create a completely needless argument like here.
Just because you grabbed the wrong sense of the term out of several doesn't mean we can't assume the right one is not in the dictionary. We have to use a bit of common sense along with the dictionary.
3rd time I believe... Did I use the term correctly?
I dont even know how you used it. I'm just defending the idea that if someone is confused about possible different meanings of word you used, dont be awkward and pedantic.... just tell them which meaning you intended and save a lot of grief.
I can tell you that evolution is a crock. Non-evolutionists are doing the same work with just as good results. James Tour has restored a rat's severed spine to where the rat has almost normal mobility. The tech is patented and will eventually be used for human injuries. Non evolutionists are designing gene therapies to solve inherited genetic disorders. When you can tell me how life came into being by some spontaneous event, I may change my mind. Until then (and science has been striving for 60 years to find out), I will not accept evolution.
Oh, I'm 68. OOL research is no further advanced than it was when Miller first started out.
There is only one reason that scientists embrace evolution. It gives them an excuse to reject God.
You've seen lots of things you haven't seen created.Go look.
I'm not telling them anything. Use common sense or be contrary, that's the choice. But I will say, creating confusion is no way to defend an argument, it only stalls the inevitable.
Every physical thing that is real, exists, and nothing I have ever seen existed unless it was created.
I dont even know how you used it. I'm just defending the idea that if someone is confused about possible different meanings of word you used, dont be awkward and pedantic.... just tell them which meaning you intended and save a lot of grief.
Only failure is that you don't understand chemistry or evolution,
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?