Thanks for that link; I really should spend more time reading his blog and less time here...
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.
Thanks for that link; I really should spend more time reading his blog and less time here...
I'll answer your question if you answer this question first:
What is the sound that blue tastes?
Still making threads with titles indicating epistemology, yet really have nothing to do with epistemology.
Truth is not a thing. It is a label that behaves as an adjective. You're misusing it as if it was some object that requires a source to exist. Again.
Its simple, I'm claiming to be correct that truth is infinite and timeless. Meaning I am not the original source of truth and you are not the original source of truth and a finite universe is not the original source of truth. Only an infinite and timeless existence can be the source of truth. My positions is that this infinite and timeless existence is God. Have I made my position more clear to you?
What the heck is this then?
I believe both God and truth are eternal and timeless. Along with love, forgiveness, mercy, grace and whatever else is good.
The opposite is true for hate, deceit, pain, suffering and whatever else is bad. These are finite in that they have a beginning but no end.
I was mistaken in saying God is the source of truth, what I clearly meant was God is truth. This is what I believe to be true.
Have I made myself clear?
I'm sorry. I didn't realize that the attributes of God (eternal) aren't allowed in arguing. By God's very nature He is immortal and eternal. It doesn't matter what you label it. It's just as valid a claim for the origin of God as any claim you can come up with for the origin of the universe.
Just because which atom will decay is impossible to predict (at least for us) doesn't make it entirely chaotic. There is chaos, yes, but there's order within that chaos. If it were truly absolutely chaotic there would be no way to tell which atom will decay and no way to predict how long the overall decay would take.
A symbiotic relationship requires two different parts for either to survive. So in order for symbiotic relationships to work, the two organisms would've had to "evolve" together in just they way they live now. The chances of that happening through the work of random mutation are so minuscule that it would be equally rational to claim that the whole process of "evolution" could occur in less than 2,000 years.
As far as the gospels, you choose to believe that the other gospels copied the account of Mark's gospel because otherwise the similar accounts would be more evidence of their truth. That's not a fact.
If you could show any examples of these "positive mutations" you claim producing a more advanced species, perhaps you would have an argument. Then again, who's to say the positive ones will last anyway? Unless they give the mutated organism an extreme advantage and occur in more than one living organism at a time the chances of their survival beyond a single generation are extremely remote. That entire line of reasoning (that only the positive ones will last) is based entirely upon the idea that this must be how all life evolved. There is no empirical evidence that "positive mutations" actually occur (despite thousands of experiments on insects), let alone survive to create new and improved species.
In fact, there's very strong evidence that negative mutations continue from generation to generation. That's why many issues (from things as innocuous as baldness to things as serious as heart disease) have been shown to be passed on genetically. At the rate that these "positive mutations" would supposedly occur, enough negative mutations would be seen that the species would entirely die out before a positive one got the chance to occur - let alone survive.
And keeping the "non-mutated lines" pure wouldn't work for that either, since studies also show that the more closely related you are to a sexual partner the more likely your offspring are to be born with mutations (particularly negative ones).
Also, when the copying of a cell goes wrong, it's still orderly. It's still the same process. It's just that there are errors. It's called death, and is a result of man choosing to defy God in the first place and choosing evil over God.
It's funny, superstitious people believed in abiogenesis before Pasteur disproved it. Now superstitious people believe in it again, but they add millions of years to the equation and say that makes it rational.
As far as the "aliens," even if they did exist, they still had to come from somewhere. At some point, either something or someone always existed or something came from nothing.
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?