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.
Sinners in the hands of an angry God?And since you and I are both humans, what does that make us?
Sinners in the hands of an angry God?
(You, of all people, should get this.)
Finding tetrapod tracks about 15My earlier or so isn't a big deviation to evolutionary timelines. Especially when we're taking about the origin of tetrapods which occurred within a timeframe of about 400Mya to 370Mya to begin with. If we found tetrapod tracks occurring hundreds of million years prior, that might be an issue.
so where is the bounds? by pushing it 30 my eariler? 40? 50? in which point you will admit that evolution is false?
What is your explanation of the observed fossil record that appears to show evolution from mammal-like reptiles to mammals? Did mammal-like reptiles and true mammals all live together in a pre-Flood Garden of Eden? Alternatively, did the Permian mammal-like reptiles all suddenly die out, with God creating and then exterminating progressively more mammalian assemblages during the Triassic period? Unless creationists can offer a hypothesis that both explains the observed facts better than evolution does and makes testable predictions, scientists are going to continue to reject creationist ideas in favour of evolution.
Well, not kidding as I've explained to you already, I accept it as the best explanation of the biodiversity of life on this planet. Feel free to show me any other model and the evidence in support of it that produces actual real-world results we can use.Bugey,
This is where you are trying to kid me that you 'don't presume anything', but still 'accept the theory of evolution'.
Well, it's a model built on observation and evidence - otherwise it wouldn't have been a scientific theory in the first place. You do know what a Scientific Theory is, right? It certainly isn't a supposition without evidence... that's just blinkered nonsense.What is a theory? It is "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.‘Darwin's theory of evolution" (Oxford dictionaries online 2017. s v theory). So a theory is a supposition, not a proof with evidence.
Whoa! Wait! How did the definition suddenly have a 'Pre'supposition attached to it, where did that come from? Also, it seems you don't know what a 'Theory' is as it relates to Science. In science, a 'Theory' is a well-established model of some aspect about reality. a Theory generally explains a body of facts, observations and can comprise of laws, formulas and conditions that appy. it provides an explanatory framework we can then use to make useful predictions about further observations and discoveries that the Theory would apply to - and I'll touch on this in a sec. In short, there is no higher position an idea can hold in science than a Scientific Theory. It literally is the pinnacle of Science.Therefore, you do have a presupposition that the theory of evolution is true 'as the best explanation of the biodiversity of life on this planet'. It has not been proven. If it had been, it would not be called a 'theory'.
the Theory of Evolution is probably the most well-tested theory in all of science. We know more about Evolution than we do about Atoms, Gravity, the Big Bang and Germs.A theory can't be 'the best explanation' until it is tested and the evidence is found to support it. The testing of it also needs the ability to falsify it.
Why? It's one thing to assert it doesn't, another thing to explain why. Do you disagree the baby doesn't communicate by default, or do you think it had to presuppose it didn't first? How is that different from a potential believer that may take up any number of religions available to them that isn't Christianity, or perhaps not take one up at all until there's an appropriate amount of evidence to indicate the correct religion to take up?Your analogy about the new born baby doesn't hold water.
No God is denied at all - it's just that the topic of God doesn't fall under the subject of Science - unless you have some method by which God could be scientifically considered? Anyway, as discussed above, there is no Dogma, there's actually Evidence and testable predictions that make the Theory practical and useful. Do you deny vaccines exist? Do you deny that we can determine your relatedness to any other human (and for that matter any other life form on this planet) through your DNA? Do you deny we have made tremendous strides in farming and food production than ever before in human history?Yes, there is a reason why evolution is taught nearly universally in the classroom. It's the promotion of dogma without evidence for macroevolution. It comes with lots of fancy dresses to try to 'prove' evolution but it is really bluff, but the younger youth don't get what you are trying to do in the classroom. It also means the God factor of the Creator God is denied and can't be brought into the classroom.
Okay, well why don't I know this? Why hasn't God made this known to me? there's been more than ample time to make himself known to me before this (40+ years of open and honest inquiry before I took a scientific view of all religions...) - am I not important to him? Why would he give me a thinking apparatus and let me think otherwise with it if he wanted to have a personal relationship with me?You do, but you won't accept it. God doesn't believe in atheists. This is what he thinks about the evidence of His existence that you reject. I didn't invent this. It is God's estimate of your ability or inability to see God's attributes in creation and what causes your blindness to them. With this evidence, you are 'without excuse' before God:
Okay, who wrote this and how do you know? Why should this writing mean anything to anyone wthout knowing where it came from? Here's the thing - the Theory of Evolution is backed by Evidence and practical use. What evidence do you have for these writings being authored by God, and of what practical use does it have in reality?18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator – who is for ever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worth while to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practise them (Romans 1:18-32 NIV, emphasis added).
You have the evidence of God's existence and his eternal power and divine nature right before you every day you live, but you you turn God away. Why? Take a read of verse 18.
That's what all secularists, humanists, agnostics and atheists do, including yourself.
Well that's no problem, I understand. By that I'm going to assume you're in Queensland - Me personally am in Canberra - I'm on nightshift at the moment so will be here for quite some more hours yet...I'm sorry I can't respond to all you said. It's bedtime for me, 11.35pm, Monday night.
I've read it many, many times. I've also read the Qur'An/Hadeef (though not in Arabic) and the Hindu Vedas. I've also looked into the Egyptian Religions from wence pretty much all middle east and european religions descended from, including the Abrahamic religions.If you are 'always open' to the evidence, read that section of Romans 1 again and again and get the understanding of why God does not believe in atheists and that they will be 'without excuse' when they face God in judgment. His existence is screaming at us all in creation.
Are you saying God isn't powerful enough to prove he's real? even by personal revelation? I don't accept your unsupported assertion that I have presuppositions and you certainly haven't offered any evidence for it besides your own presupposition that your bible is written by a God, so is it that you aren't taking this seriously, are you just trolling me to be funny?Bugey, your presuppositions are too embedded to allow you - at the moment - to consider God's view of the evidence for himself and the creation of the universe.
Sounds like it doesn't matter who dies, or when?
And if we "reject" Him, He will kill us.
Perhaps they prefer their idea of self to your idea of God?
Ah, here's your error -- you don't know the difference between intelligence and knowledge.
You speak like someone that was taught to ignore the bad parts of the bible.
Of course, you have Biblical support for this interpretation, correct?
Only if you keep the atheist definition of die, which is to be eliminated forever. Their worst nightmare is to wake up to Judgment.
No. He lets us have our own free choice even if that means eternal damnation.
Good, since they have eternity with self, to realize what they missed. That's Hell.
No, that would be an unbeliever's problem. Intelligence is inherited and knowledge is obtained. The false ToE teaches that we develop our intelligence through mindless nature, BUT they cannot explain the process and WHY they cannot repeat it, so they lie and claim that it's Science. Of course Buffoons will believe anything in order to remain in their godless condition.
Who ate first? Was it Eve? Yes. What happened when she ate? Did she lose her Shekinah Glory which kept her from showing her nakedness. Gen 3:7 Of course she did.
Now, it's your time to explain HOW Eve could have tempted old Adam
Hmm. Maybe we should try a catchy jingle, huh?So you won't accept "pictures" or "words" now?
LOL
Nature can design things, such as snowflakes.
And now you say your fictitious self reproducing cars have babies and DNA. Then they are not cars.
You seem to be talking about animals that look like cars. If an animal looked like a car then it could still evolve, yes.
I see you now agree that animals can do some things that watches cannot. Great. So we will ignore all your arguments that said since watches cannot evolve therefore animals can't evolve.
but not something like a watch or a robot. right?
why not? so call it a self replicating car. bascially its still a car.
its only a belief rather then science.
I see you now agree that animals can do some things that watches cannot. Great. So we will ignore all your arguments that said since watches cannot evolve therefore animals can't evolve.
but not something like a watch or a robot. right?
why not? so call it a self replicating car. bascially its still a car.
Animals can do some things that watches can't do.not realy. since you cant prove that animals can evolve from other kinds of animals. and again: even a self replicating watch cant evolve naturally. like an animal cant.
You are moving the goalposts. You said nature can't design things.
And so far you have given no evidence that nature can not design a zebra.
Wrong. An animal "car" that has baby animal "cars" is not basically a car. It's more like a horse.
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?