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.
It is almost as if creationists have admitted to themselves, subconsciously, that they cannot actually offer any positive supporting evidence FOR their mere beliefs, and are content to simply attack 'the other.' This is true, whether the creationist is a one-line snark master, or a verbose citation and quote bombing autodidact.
I'm not clear why order would suggest intelligence. I can see that, at a stretch, it might, but I cannot see any prima facie reason it should be so. Would you explain your thinking please?You mean you don't think that an orderly universe tends to suggest intelligence at work?
I'm not clear why order would suggest intelligence. I can see that, at a stretch, it might, but I cannot see any prima facie reason it should be so. Would you explain your thinking please?
I'm still struggling; that might relate to the definition of information (or that of processing, but the former seems more likely.) So, for example, what information is being processed when a Giant Molecular Cloud collapses to produce a number of stars?Order means information is being processed.
STILL no evidence FOR creation/ID
I get sad seeing creationists and atheists arguing, when they actually have quite a lot in common. Both groups tend to be viciously opposed to the idea that Genesis 1-11 is parable.
Don't know.so how did it all start?
Yes.Should there be some?
Question begging assertion.God spoke the universe into existence from nothing.
Yes, skip that one for there is no actual evidence for it. Just empty wishes.Should there be an ion trail? plasma cloud? time crystals? documen... (skip that one)
“We either base our 'confidence' on reason (evident probabilities, past experience, competence, etc) or we base our beliefs on faith, which is blind by definition. Faith is the most dishonest position it is possible to have, because it is an assertion of stoic conviction that is assumed without reason and defended against all reason. If you have to believe it on faith, you have no reason to believe it at all.”For non-believers, the evidence will be different than what believers consider to be evidence. I think that it also comes down to faith. Belief. If I could put God through the scientific process to satisfy every non-believer that God exists, then it would cease to be faith. This is always the line in the sand between atheists and theists...atheists lack faith, whereas theists believe that their faith is enough.
“We either base our 'confidence' on reason (evident probabilities, past experience, competence, etc) or we base our beliefs on faith, which is blind by definition. Faith is the most dishonest position it is possible to have, because it is an assertion of stoic conviction that is assumed without reason and defended against all reason. If you have to believe it on faith, you have no reason to believe it at all.”
― AronRa
Correct - I am not so easily impressed by simplified slogans, I guess.You mean you don't think that an orderly universe tends to suggest intelligence at work?
So no evidence for creation or ID. Got it. Thanks.Don't give me "random". It's even more meaningless than claiming miracles - a kind of secular version of a god of the gaps.
So it is our fault that your "folk genetics" isn't real?To the individual, and then to the community at large. This is done through natural selection, and even then may not produce a new "species". Man has mutated over the eons as he has adapted to the various surroundings he finds himself in, and yet he has not formed a new species.
Added a bit of relevant detail that you accidentally left out.Maybe I just don't care. There are enough other things to contemplate on rather then argue the difference between the creationist 10,000 year belief that a tribal deity breathed life into the dust of the ground and a fully formed adult human male emerged , and the secular belief in millions of years beginning with a puddle of "mud" that eventually "evolved" into modern man.
How did you determine what these odds are? What variables did you employ?The odds for the formation of say a single eyeball are just too great.
Classical genetics is still a thing. Molecular genetics did not 'replace' it. Do you understand the difference?And molecular genetics, as was classical genetics, will be replaced by yet another theory ad infinitum.
So you've got nothing.And it is all a guessing game of "estimates".
What are you even talking about?And yet the molecule is being broken down into even smaller "parts". And who knows what will come after that.
Do you write this poorly on purpose?There are plenty of evidences for creation. You are probably not able to apprehend any of them. Do you understand that it would take a college education to see an evidence with uses calculus? If you are only a middle-school student, you won't be able to see the evidence even it is laid right before your eyes.
What about circumcision? Its not specifically creation related, but in the bible, God commanded the Israelites to circumcise all boys on the eighth day after birth. You might not believe the bible, but the Jews still practice this ritual on the eighth day today, which is evidence the bible is true in its account.Most interestingly, no creationists presented anything even close to evidence. It was all the usual antics...
If god wanted little boys to have part of their penis removed, why didn't he design it that way to begin with?What about circumcision? Its not specifically creation related, but in the bible, God commanded the Israelites to circumcise all boys on the eighth day after birth. You might not believe the bible, but the Jews still practice this ritual on the eighth day today, which is evidence the bible is true in its account.
Modern science not only provides evidence for the health benefits of circumcision, but indicates that the eighth day is the ideal day to perform the procedure due to optimal levels of vitamin K. How would an ancient people know not only the benefits of removing the foreskin (from a very sensitive and important organ), but also know when the optimum time to perform the procedure was, in the absence of the Designer who completely understands His creation?
Remember the fall? In the beginning, man and woman didn't wear clothes. If wearing clothes, you don't really need excess skin for protection. Circumcision just removes the excess skin, not part of the male genitals.If god wanted little boys to have part of their penis removed, why didn't he design it that way to begin with?
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?