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.
Nothing. Until Judgment Day rolls around and you find yourself held accountable for the things you could have known but brushed aside with "I just don't know". That, my friends, is a sobering thought.
Nothing. Until Judgment Day rolls around and you find yourself held accountable for the things you could have known but brushed aside with "I just don't know". That, my friends, is a sobering thought.
Um, your lack of knowledge regarding the origin of the loggerhead's sophistication. You do not know the evolutionary origin, so what is keeping you from accepting another sort of origin? Really, friend, with the Bible so readily available, you should have no excuse not to know the origin of the loggerhead's magnetoreceptors. Omit the word evolution.Exactly. My lack of knowledge regarding the evolution of loggerhead magnetoreceptors. What's the problem?
He does show himself through things such as the loggerhead sea turtle. You admit there is no evolutionary explanation, but do not take the next logical step by accepting that this tough situation is no longer tough if a God does indeed exist. Since you cannot come up with an answer, why not accept God's answer and keep your hands down at your sides rather than covering those eyes supposedly "searching" for God to show Himself?Which brings me to wonder why, then, your god remains aloof? With the threat of eternal damnation and torture, and his alleged want for all to be saved, why doesn't he simply show himself?
Um, your lack of knowledge regarding the origin of the loggerhead's sophistication. You do not know the evolutionary origin, so what is keeping you from accepting another sort of origin? Really, friend, with the Bible so readily available, you should have no excuse not to know the origin of the loggerhead's magnetoreceptors. Omit the word evolution.
Um, your lack of knowledge regarding the origin of the loggerhead's sophistication. You do not know the evolutionary origin, so what is keeping you from accepting another sort of origin? Really, friend, with the Bible so readily available, you should have no excuse not to know the origin of the loggerhead's magnetoreceptors. Omit the word evolution.
Your who argument is basically:He does show himself through things such as the loggerhead sea turtle. You admit there is no evolutionary explanation, but do not take the next logical step by accepting that this tough situation is no longer tough if a God does indeed exist. Since you cannot come up with an answer, why not accept God's answer and keep your hands down at your sides rather than covering those eyes supposedly "searching" for God to show Himself?
Um, your lack of knowledge regarding the origin of the loggerhead's sophistication. You do not know the evolutionary origin, so what is keeping you from accepting another sort of origin? Really, friend, with the Bible so readily available, you should have no excuse not to know the origin of the loggerhead's magnetoreceptors. Omit the word evolution.
So if I do not know the evolutionary origins of something, I should just say "goddidit" and move on? No. God o' teh Gaps, indeed.
Not too long ago, I received the third issue of Creation magazine for this year. This high-quality magazine puts many conventional publications to shame just by being void of distracting ads and packed full of captivating graphics. But it goes far beyond that: it is loaded with information people don't hear every day. There is a reason it is sent to more than 100 countries.
As usual, this issue contained a good article about a specific species of animal that cannot be adequately explained by evolution. This time it was the Loggerhead sea turtle.
The answer that makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside, if you will, is the same answer that has explanatory power...for the loggerhead sea turtle.So we are correct in assuming that the only answer that you will accept is one that "satisfies" you and makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside... rather than one that has explanatory power?
I am not "just bringing up questions we don't currently have all the answers for." I am providing data that is explainable via biblical creationism at the expense of evolution theory.No, all you have to do is provide evidence that falsifies the theory of evolution. Just bringing up questions we don't currently have all the answers for is not sufficient. Because that would invalidate every scientific theory we have.
I readily recognize and am excited about what observational science can do. But I am sometimes an ungrateful recipient of all of this, yes. But how about looking around at your pumping heart, listening ears, and seeing eyes, something that we take for granted every single day? Again, we're dealing with two different kinds of science.Look around you at the technology that science has provided and you take for granted every single day. That demonstrates the dependability of science.. not a bunch of platitudes about what makes you feel good and secure inside.
Yes. And just about every one of those evidences for evolution is just as powerful an evidence for creation.Nonsense. Evolution is easily disproved, if the evidence is out there. For example: find a genetic sequence of a whale which bares closer homology to a tuna than to a cow. Or find a chimera with bird feathers and a snake's head that feeds milk to its young. Find a Cambrian layer with the bones of cattle and sheep. The list is endless.
As for your whale-tuna-cow argument, if genetics were intelligently designed by one designer, we should expect to see similarity among living things, just as a human artist often has a favourite way of painting, for example. That is, an master designer of all living things should call for evidence that these living things have been designed with the same concept in mind.
As for your chimera-snake argument, if living things were created by a master intelligent designer, then it should only be expected that living things would have orderly characteristics.
Your cambrian argument is perhaps best answered by suggesting the order in which animals would naturally be buried in a catastrophic flood.
In short, you are not progressing by listing evidences for biblical creationism.
How is it explainable by evolution?Why are the peacock's feather colors not explanable by evolution? do you just attach the label, "not explanable by evolution" to everything that you or some creationist mathematician cannot figure out yourselves?
How is it explainable by evolution?
It's resorted to when people do not know how something works, aka the God of the Gaps argument. For example, Newton could not apply his laws of motion to the planets and get a stable system (mix of inaccurate data + no reliable multi-body equations) and claimed that they were only stable because God made them that way. We later revised the calculations and found that it does indeed work. Whenever science cannot explain something, people often just jump to "goddidit" instead of inquiring further for an answer. It shows a lack of curiosity and a willingness to simply give up. That's what's wrong with it.Friends, excuse my ignorance but precisely what is wrong with "Goddidit" it it offers a better explanation than evolutionary 'science' can offer?
He does show himself through things such as the loggerhead sea turtle.
You admit there is no evolutionary explanation,
but do not take the next logical step by accepting that this tough situation is no longer tough if a God does indeed exist.
Since you cannot come up with an answer, why not accept God's answer and keep your hands down at your sides rather than covering those eyes supposedly "searching" for God to show Himself?
You do not seem to have read the article I linked.Sexual selection. They get selected because female peacocks are attracted to blue and green feathers with circles on them. Even if they don't live as long, and are more attractive to predators as well, they still are able to pass on their colourful plumage genes before getting eaten.
Friends, excuse my ignorance but precisely what is wrong with "Goddidit" if it offers a better explanation than evolutionary 'science' can offer?
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?