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.
That's another problem that you have to add to your others. When we get a good answer, you'll know about it.The problem I have is how some wish to use that to explain how we got living organisms in the first place.
Never a good answer is offered. You stand in a long line of obscurity.
Yet again, two entirely different matters.Before something can live to evolve it needs an explanation as to how it began. At one time some were foolish enough to try... Their credentials could not save them.
So we are left with what? Evolution takes place with creatures.
Creatures that originated from nothing.
A very nothing that caused the life that will evolve into having animation and function.
Spoken like someone who has no idea what they are talking about. The evolutionary explanation is this:Lol that's not an explanation. That's an assumption. Similarities do not show anything if the sort. That's all they are is similarities. Similarities can just as easily be explained by God created it that way. Cause you have no evidence that it happened the way you claim. There was no observation it happened, no testing to show it can happen and you can reproduce it in the way you cla it happened.
Utterly irrelevant.Before something can live to evolve it needs an explanation as to how it began. At one time some were foolish enough to try... Their credentials could not save them.
So we are left with what? Evolution takes place with creatures.
Creatures that originated from nothing.
A very nothing that caused the life that will evolve into having animation and function.
It's a joke but that not quite the same thingPaleontology, molecular biology, cladistics, philogeny, speciation, embryology, biogeography, comparative physiology, biochemistry, comparative anatomy...the list of scientific methods that all point to a common ancestor goes on and on and on. And the overwhelming evidence that each brings to the table and the odds that they should all point to the same conclusion coupled with a galactically large number of examples from each kinda lends weight to that conclusion.
All that - an amount of information that would take an enormous number of lifetimes just to peruse, versus...what? Creation.com? Genesis? A literal reading of some scripture that defies almost the totality of science itself?
You are joking, surely...
You CAN use all the evidence to showOccam's razor doesn't do that at all. That's another belief. All so called evidence of evolution can be equally used to say creation is the what happened.
It's just as valid as saying evolitiondidit.
How life originated is irrelevant to ToETwo entirely separate areas of scientific investigation.
I agree with with you Isa 55:8-9. It should be obvious to even the dullest among us the the vast majority in developed countries out of sync with the biblical command that we be stewards of the earth.Perhaps? Be hard pressed then?
The only reason you are hard pressed is because your keep projecting your own limited ability into being God.
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isa 55:8-9
It's all in how you read the bible.I agree with with you Isa 55:8-9. It should be obvious to even the dullest among us the the vast majority in developed countries out of sync with the biblical command that we be stewards of the earth.
Taking care of God’s earth
Some people believe that the instruction to ‘rule’ over the earth means we have absolute authority over creation. In this view, nature is a resource for humans to benefit from economically, whatever the environmental impacts. This theology has allowed Christians to chop down tropical forests to grow soya for cattle feed and to pollute rivers with waste products from mines as we dig for precious metals.To challenge these ideas, Christians have turned to the second creation account in Genesis 2. In verse 15, humans were placed in the Garden of Eden and instructed to ‘work it and take care of it’. In other words, God has given us the responsibility to act as stewards of his creation – to care for, manage, oversee and protect all that God owns. What an honour and privilege!This does not give us free licence to exploit and abuse God’s earth. As stewards, we need to act in the owner’s best interests, treating his ‘property’ with respect. We must not use it in a way that causes harm to our neighbours. One day we will have to give an account to God of how we have treated his earth.
If you don't do something about it, Brad, those children are going to witness your consignment to a place you'll regret for all eternity.And four, you think that He was quite prepared to drown young children because He knew how they'd turn out but has not shown the slightest interest in removing people who are considered the most inhuman animals that have ever walked the planet (and we also have the advantage of knowing who they were), responsible for millions of deaths.
You are confusing false with unknown. Science does not have an answer for everything that happens. There are many religious scientists who believe in miracles. Scientists who do not believe in miracles would attribute them to cause unknown.And when all that fails, as it should, then the miracle still isn’t proven to be false it’s just considered to be false.
I agree it is all on how reads the bible.It's all in how you read the bible.
Others take the view that all is corrupted by
sin, and will all be destroyed so we should
just use things in the meantime.
" take care" was for " the garden" not
spoilt place that followed.
This why when you come here to end up in a dead end street.When all evidence points to it then what choice does one have? There is no other theory. Just a religious belief.
Can he ask science if he will be killed tomorrow?You are confusing false with unknown. Science does not have an answer for everything that happens. There are many religious scientists who believe in miracles. Scientists who do not believe in miracles would attribute them to cause unknown.
Besides christian miracles there are many reports of "miraculous cures" by shamans throughout the world. Many would call them miracles, others would say "unknown" while others would say they are false.
Belief is fine as long as it's not introduced as science.You are confusing false with unknown. Science does not have an answer for everything that happens. There are many religious scientists who believe in miracles. Scientists who do not believe in miracles would attribute them to cause unknown.
Besides christian miracles there are many reports of "miraculous cures" by shamans throughout the world. Many would call them miracles, others would say "unknown" while others would say they are false.
You have now become irrelevant in that case.Utterly irrelevant.
Life forms were evolving long before the concept of evolution was around. You are not able to claim that evolution is not valid because there is no testable theory of abiogenesis.
And that's what?Belief is fine as long as it's not introduced as science.
Then it becomes intellectual / scientific dishonesty.
You can ask anything your imagination congers up, chances are you will not like the answer.Can he ask science if he will be killed tomorrow?
Please excuse the pedantry, but strictly speaking he is able to claim this and has done so. It's just that his claim is unsupported, illogical and fundamentally silly.Utterly irrelevant.
Life forms were evolving long before the concept of evolution was around. You are not able to claim that evolution is not valid because there is no testable theory of abiogenesis.
And that's what?
Belief! Science uses faith all the time. Faith is based upon data that can be known. You believe it to be so.
Use of equivocation is intellectually dishonestYou keep on confusing words or meaning of words. There is a hugh difference between faith and belief. A scientist may have faith, i.e, strong trust and confidence in his hypothesis and will test it for evidence while a belief is trust or confidence placed in some person or thing such as a god (no testing necessary).
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?