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.
Iḿ a silly human being.Yip. You're a creationist.
Here's good quote:
This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and not subject to test.
(C Patterson "Evolution" p.15)
By looking, by analysing.
When you find things the laws of nature can not account for,
and things that are purposeful
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."
(R Dawkins, "the Blind Watchmaker")
So even Dawkins admits the evidence points to creation.
How? How does something point to a supernatural cause?It points to a supernatural cause.
What explanatory power does "a supernatural entity did it" have? What predictions can we make as a result of this? How does it further our understanding in any way?Explanatory power.
So, all those hundreds of thousands of scientists, from all over the world, doing their research and publishing their data for everyone else to see and evaluate all are dishonest?I'm suggesting dishonesty on their part, yes.
If that's how you want to dismiss it, fine.So you make a whole hullabaloo about scientists not factoring God in to their work, and then when asked how they should do it, you just reply with 'who cares?'?
I think that really says a lot about you, mate.
You think you can get a clue by something other than looking and analysing?This is not a meaningful answer.
That's just ignorance on your part, iḿ sorry to say.Like what? You have not presented anything that the laws of nature cannot account for.
If that's how you want to dismiss it, fine.
But itś a strawman (or false dichotomy) that you pose.
Because it is not about the scientific aspects of God and how to marry that with science, it is about the origins of existence, which is a set of historical events.
When it is not explained by unconscious natural causes, it is explained by conscious supernatural causes.
For there are just 2 options: chance or design.
I explained this for the n-th time a few posts ago.
It seems you have a highly naive view on humanity and human authority in particular.So, all those hundreds of thousands of scientists, from all over the world, doing their research and publishing their data for everyone else to see and evaluate all are dishonest?
"You think you can get a clue by something other than looking and analysing?"You think you can get a clue by something other than looking and analysing?That's just ignorance on your part, iḿ sorry to say.
Not a hoax, but a 'mistake' i.m.o.
"Hoax" implies foul play.
Who cares?
The question is about our origins.
If dead unconscious things can not explain it, but a conscious intelligent creator can, when everything points to "a mind behind it"...
There are only these two options to ascribe our origins to: chance or design.
So i give you the same answer again, i guess...
If thatś how you want to dismiss it, fine.
Nope. Natural selection is the opposite of chance.For there are just 2 options: chance or design.
You need RANDOM MUTATIONS.Nope. Natural selection is the opposite of chance.
You need RANDOM MUTATIONS.
Otherwise there would be nothing new to select now would it?
Try to remember this, if you can grasp it.
You can't simply ignore one of the 2 premises of the ToE to eliminate the chance component.
Why is that a straw man? Please explain.You suggested scientists are lying to us, it seems that you are retracting those claims? You have also failed to demonstrate any mistakes in these cases.
I'd suggest you give it up mate, if all you have is strawmen (dead things performing miracles)
Evidence for design. Evidence is not proof, but ToE has no proof either., bare assertions (evidence for a creator)
Not you lot, i know.and dishonesty (hoax/lying scientists claims and quote mining) you aren't going to convince anyone.
Hahaha!I should imagine your 'arguments' would only serve to convince anyone (who might be sitting on the fence on these topics) that creationism is intellectually bankrupt.
Actually, natural selection is the opposite of chance.You need RANDOM MUTATIONS.
Otherwise there would be nothing new to select now would it?Try to remember this, if you can grasp it.You can't simply ignore one of the 2 premises of the ToE to eliminate the chance component.
Rather lame excuses there, Cadet.
It is quite clear that the scientific community CHOOSES naturalism and DISMISSES God, and not at all because of the evidence.
Iḿ very sorry to break this to you, but creation is irrefutable.
Even if the sciences come up with models that explain everything, it could still have been created.
I added: But then being adamant about creation would be unreasonable.Right. This makes it a useless hypothesis with zero explanatory or predictive power.
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?