Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
The Blind Atheist: The Unscientific Root of Atheism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="lucaspa" data-source="post: 1131091" data-attributes="member: 4882"><p>If you are arguing (as you say) against atheism in your book, why do you accept the basic statement of faith of atheism and have anything "natural" be without God? Have you read the Fontispiece to Origin of the Species? I suggest you do.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Here is where you get very vague about how the new gene in the nylon bug arose. It is a <strong>random scrambling</strong> of existing sequences by an insertion mutation. God was conspicuous by His absence as a direct cause of this mutation. How can you identify that God reached down and with His "fingers" moved those wiggling and squirming chemicals such that a new nucleotide was inserted in that gene at that place? If not, if it was indeed due to what you call "natural forces", then how can we tell that similar events were also not natural? Now you have to go thru each and every event and falsify the natural. Have you done that?</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>So He continues to intervene? Big whoop. Why would science care? Science is the study of the physical universe. If the physical universe is shaped by gaps between members of the universe as God <em>directly</em> intervenes, then that is what happens and that is that.</p><p> </p><p>You are ignoring how science works:</p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">"...what we learned in school about the scientific method can be reduced to two basic principles.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'">"1. All our theory, ideas, preconceptions, instincts, and prejudices about how things logically ought to be, how they in all fairness ought to be, or how we would prefer them to be, must be tested against external reality --what they *<strong>really</strong>* are. How do we determine what they really are? Through direct experience of the universe itself. " Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations, pg. 38.</span></p><p> </p><p>What we "want", or "prefer them to be", has nothing to do with it.</p><p> </p><p>You are also ignoring history. After all, God directly intervening to cause a world-wide Flood that caused geological features was <strong>the</strong> prevailing scientific theory from 1700-1831. Also, ID was the prevailing scientific theory from 1800-1859. ID is the same as Special Creation, which was the theory that Darwin falsified in Origin of the Species.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Unfortunately, that last is not Biblical. Whatever god it is, that "continued intervention" as ID says is <strong>not</strong> the God of the Bible.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="lucaspa, post: 1131091, member: 4882"] If you are arguing (as you say) against atheism in your book, why do you accept the basic statement of faith of atheism and have anything "natural" be without God? Have you read the Fontispiece to Origin of the Species? I suggest you do. Here is where you get very vague about how the new gene in the nylon bug arose. It is a [b]random scrambling[/b] of existing sequences by an insertion mutation. God was conspicuous by His absence as a direct cause of this mutation. How can you identify that God reached down and with His "fingers" moved those wiggling and squirming chemicals such that a new nucleotide was inserted in that gene at that place? If not, if it was indeed due to what you call "natural forces", then how can we tell that similar events were also not natural? Now you have to go thru each and every event and falsify the natural. Have you done that? So He continues to intervene? Big whoop. Why would science care? Science is the study of the physical universe. If the physical universe is shaped by gaps between members of the universe as God [i]directly[/i] intervenes, then that is what happens and that is that. You are ignoring how science works: [font=Arial]"...what we learned in school about the scientific method can be reduced to two basic principles. "1. All our theory, ideas, preconceptions, instincts, and prejudices about how things logically ought to be, how they in all fairness ought to be, or how we would prefer them to be, must be tested against external reality --what they *[b]really[/b]* are. How do we determine what they really are? Through direct experience of the universe itself. " Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations, pg. 38.[/font] What we "want", or "prefer them to be", has nothing to do with it. You are also ignoring history. After all, God directly intervening to cause a world-wide Flood that caused geological features was [b]the[/b] prevailing scientific theory from 1700-1831. Also, ID was the prevailing scientific theory from 1800-1859. ID is the same as Special Creation, which was the theory that Darwin falsified in Origin of the Species. Unfortunately, that last is not Biblical. Whatever god it is, that "continued intervention" as ID says is [b]not[/b] the God of the Bible. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
The Blind Atheist: The Unscientific Root of Atheism
Top
Bottom