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.
Pfft, God's Not Dead? If anyone wants an example of an atheist strawman, try the main atheist character in that movie.You could try sitting down with your friend and watching the movie "God's Not Dead" together, and then maybe have an intelligent discussion about it afterwards.
Pfft, God's Not Dead? If anyone wants an example of an atheist strawman, try the main atheist character in that movie.
Movies like that aren't for converting non-believers. They're for instilling stronger faith in believers, at best. If they were for conversion purposes, why would the atheist character be such a jerk? You don't attract people to your side by portraying them this way.
XD what turds. Reminds me of my experience having a feminist anthropology instructor. First day of class: "light switches are sexist because I have to raise my arm farther than a man does to flip the switch".I've had a few atheist teachers like that. Not a lot mind, but a few.
XD what turds. Reminds me of my experience having a feminist anthropology instructor. First day of class: "light switches are sexist because I have to raise my arm farther than a man does to flip the switch".
-_- lady, that would happen with anyone taller than you, no matter where the switch was. I even looked up the reason why light switches are the height they are; they used to be up higher, but in the 1970s, were lowered so short women and children could more easily reach them. Their modern height is literally so the maximum number of people can comfortably reach them.
No, i believe in the Truth, with a capital T.
You believe in made up stories that help you deny the Truth.You sure have a lot of that air to fry....No you're not.
You're just forcing your beliefs on me.I don't believe a thing you say.
The evidence clearly shows a huge watery disaster some millennia ago.
We see what we expect: Various strata with dead animals in it = rapid burial.
Nobody 'knows'
how old the earth is, don't be daft.
But you need billions of years to make your fairytale work, not me.
I don't have to work around the problems a high age poses, you do.
Or maybe you just ignore them, or never heard of any.Then you can quote me where i did. Good luck.It's true. It's not science anymore, it's religion under the GUISE of science.
And you fell for it. But you're not alone. You're possibly the majority, at least in our post modern pseudo rationalistic formerly Christian culture...What do you know about how i pick or choose anything?
You pick and choose only the evidence that fits your beliefs. You would even embrace forged evidence if that helps your faith.
But then again, your preachers, i mean peers do the picking for you. Your needs are catered for.Yes, well i'm very impressed.
I think i'll convert to atheism pretty soon.
But ehm... I think it's perhaps a good idea to agree we disagree.
Since this is a Christian Forum, you are supposed to respect my opinion, if i'm not mistaking.
But it's also a general rule for any member to be respectful about other opinions, so i will do my best too.
Have a nice day, and may God bless you.
No, i believe in the Truth, with a capital T.
You believe in made up stories that help you deny the Truth.
You could try sitting down with your friend and watching the movie "God's Not Dead" together, and then maybe have an intelligent discussion about it afterwards.
Yeah, i know many species / kinds have similarities, making things work the same way in a phylum, but why would that point away from creation?
Again, it can be used as evidence to support evolution, but not against creation.
No genetics do that.
The fact that mutation and selection occurs doesn't make evolution true, they're just premises for evolution to be possible.
But is it realistic to expect miracles from accumulating data corruption?
Of course not.
You're lucky if it survives at all for more than a million years or so.
If it wasn't for the reparation system doing its thing, it would be over much sooner.
By itself, gradual changes imply that you'll be stuck with non functional systems until it miraculously becomes operational.
Do you realize how many high level studies here are into our reality and living nature in particular?
Do you think a factory is a complex thing? Or a digital network?
Need i say more?
There's little need for anything other than to point at the level of technology which makes life live.
It reduces every human attempt to create something to childs play.
Why should i ascribe it to dead unconscious forces rather than to a capable intelligent entity with a will to create.
Yes, God. God also answers the question: "Why does anything exist at all?"
It's just the better answer. It's more probable, more plausible, has more explanatory power.
Not just about the mechanics of living nature, but to existentional questions in general.
I don't think that's relevant.
Actually, many people become creationists or doubt the ToE from a position of assuming the ToE is true.
On the other hand, historically creation is the default position if you had to chose between creation and 'chance'.
But then again, when we want to adhere a purpose to our existence and existence in general, it's a logical step to suspect there is a God of some sorts.
This does not change the plain logic that the natural most likely has a super natural origin, for things do not create themselves (that would be a logical fallacy).
Nice try, but you were referring to our solar system.
That's not even true.
They have their foundation in medicine and biology, often through trial and error, usually through discovery of how organisms work.
Well please let me know when you can test and reproduce evolution from a common ancestor will you? I will swallow my pride and say well I guess they were right all along. So far all they have is supposition based on assumption. We have yet to show a plant can become an animal.I'm sure that to your average creationist, real science appears to be a bunch of mumbo jumbo.
Ultimately, it's irrelevant what they think.
Oh I've been educated by the best of them. But somehow they still can't point to any real verifiable testable reproduced evidence of a common ancestor. It's still all an assumption.It is clear from your post that you do not even understand the nature of evidence. Would you like to learn? It is not that difficult of a topic, yet creationists seem to be scared to death of the topic.
Hmm... Please give me the experiments that actually have reproduced life from a common ancestor or even proven that by chance and time we actually evolved from something we have never seen or found.Carry on lying to yourself, why don't you?
You are simply wrong. And I seriously doubt your claim.Oh I've been educated by the best of them. But somehow they still can't point to any real verifiable testable reproduced evidence of a common ancestor. It's still all an assumption.
No just point me to the experiment that shows that all things came from a common ancestor and how we reproduced the results to show it's validity. Of course you would need to work backward to find the common ancestor, bit I don't think we can do that.You are simply wrong. And I seriously doubt your claim.
We can test the theory of evolution in many ways, you simply do not understand the scientific method. Scientists are not allowed to make assumptions, that is what creationists do.
I think that we need to go over the scientific method first. And then evidence, and then I can explain how the theory is tested. Are you game?
That would be pointless. You already demonstrated that you do not understand the basics of science.No just point me to the experiment that shows that all things came from a common ancestor and how we reproduced the results to show it's validity. Of course you would need to work backward to find the common ancestor, bit I don't think we can do that.
I said evolution is observable and testable. Just not evolution where all living things that came from the same common ancestor. It just assumed so.
No just point me to the experiment that shows that all things came from a common ancestor and how we reproduced the results to show it's validity. Of course you would need to work backward to find the common ancestor, bit I don't think we can do that.
I said evolution is observable and testable. Just not evolution where all living things that came from the same common ancestor. It just assumed so.
We're just dismissing your naturalistic models.
We believe in God, who by definition is Creator of everything.
It is you naturalists who NEED your naturalistic models to support your (un)beliefs.
You need billions and billions of years to give chance a chance (so to speak).
And you need lots of money, endorsements and public platform to sell it.
Who provides this?
Not the scientists in the field, they just do science for who pays them to do science.
But if you want to make a name in science, you'll have to be 'liked' by the facilitators.
So you've all been had big time by the opinion makers who are no Christians, but who do have axes to grind.
Christians are not (supposed to be) the puppets of the elite, worldly people unfortunately are.
Science is an awesome collection of disciplines.
But where it concerns the origins of things, it has been raped into an opinionating authority, a religion under the guise of science.
How human....
...... how right St Augustine was all those centuries ago.
That is not true. We can trace the genomes of various species to find the evidence, not only of their commonalities, but also of the branching that has occurred to produce new species.
And that's all common ancestry is. It's a branching tree and the common ancestors are the forks in that branching.
Oh...and your 'experiment gotcha' fails. Not all scientific progress has been achieved as a result of repeatable experiments. We have a good understanding of the formation of our earth and our solar system, but as far as I know, no one has replicated an experiment that recreates planets...
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?