Hans Blaster
On August Recess
- Mar 11, 2017
- 21,647
- 16,343
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
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.
If you consider the truth that the data and evidence in science point to existence of God to be false or non existent, then you are anti science.
That science does not speak one way or another about God, I don't see how it's being highjacked by atheist. A person can worship the God of their choice and still be a scientist. They can even be a scientist that studies some aspect of evolution and still see God in that process. All science does is open the windows into the process. That's all it should be doing.As I said, Science today has been hijacked by atheistic and materialistic naturalism - yet owes its very existence to those who believed in God.
That's just outright silliness. The existence of God is objectively untestable .. so if the conclusion formed from the data of some test was an untestable God, then it wasn't objectively tested via the scientific method, was it?chad kincham said:If you consider the truth that the data and evidence in science point to existence of God to be false or non existent, then you are anti science.
That's just outright silliness. The existence of God is objectively untestable .. so if the conclusion formed from the data of some test was an untestable God, then it wasn't objectively tested via the scientific method, was it?
You equate God with human scientists and then claim both as being 'persons'?You can test and experience God as a person and be sure of him, scientists are persons too,
Experience is one way of giving meaning to our knowledge .. so is objective testing.NBB said:.. so science is made of personal experiences, without the talent etc of scientists there would be no science.
I've been here since 2006, and I've seen well-educated people bring up that triad more than once as an example of the failures of Christianity.How does academia misrepresent those? Please be specific.
Evolution is a process of change. It’s not an equation.You can experience God and be sure of him the same a scientist is sure about 1 + 1 = 2, but evolution is not 1+1 at all.
You can experience God and be sure of him the same a scientist is sure about 1 + 1 = 2, but evolution is not 1+1 at all.
I've been here since 2006, and I've seen well-educated people bring up that triad more than once as an example of the failures of Christianity.
QV the date of this post: Post 878
Which is?When it happened seems obvious, it’s when Darwin published his bogus theory of evolution.
not at all, use whatever evidence you can find, an article from a reliable source confirming your statement would be fine and easy for you to obtain if you are correct in your statement.So you want all the books, copied out diligently for you.
The simplistic tripe that gradualism leads to vertical evolution of lower animals into higher life forms via natural selection, wherein he wrongly assumed that the lateral evolution he observed can continue until vertical evolution occurs.Which is?
"A" is a garden variety Chimpanzee.All these guys are human beings.
The simplistic tripe that gradualism leads to vertical evolution of lower animals into higher life forms via natural selection, wherein he wrongly assumed that the lateral evolution he observed can continue until vertical evolution occurs.
Of course that’s impossible, and the modern synthesis added mutation to natural selection as the hoped-for mechanism that could drive macro evolution.
not at all, use whatever evidence you can find, an article from a reliable source confirming your statement would be fine and easy for you to obtain if you are correct in your statement.
Yes, even though the are all duplicates of the same test.
I think you are using some weird definitions.The simplistic tripe that gradualism leads to vertical evolution of lower animals into higher life forms via natural selection, wherein he wrongly assumed that the lateral evolution he observed can continue until vertical evolution occurs.
Of course that’s impossible, and the modern synthesis added mutation to natural selection as the hoped-for mechanism that could drive macro evolution.
I think the problem is that you will never accept any evidence that exposes the Turin Shroud as a fraud, no matter the test, or the evidence.Yes, even though the are all duplicates of the same test.
Kind like Nebraska Man, isn't it?You have latched into this one scrap of linen, and tied your whole faith to it.
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?