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.
Now, now, that's just silly. Non-pecking type of woodpecker, indeed. I think what you are talking about here is the peckerless pecker. It had a limp, downward curved beak incapable of pecking even the least pecker-resistant wood (sometimes called peckerwood).
BEHOLD, THE PREFLOOD WOODPECKER!!!
Prove me wrong then.
In fact, be the first one to prove me wrong, by simply challenging an Atheist where he gets the idea that God doesn't exist.
I think I speak on behalf of every single agnostic on this board when I say that that you don't have to challenge an Atheist to find out where he gets the idea that God doesn't exist. It's obvious. They believe in science. It's fairly well documented that that is the case.
No kidding!
But whose beliefs do Agnostics constantly challenge and ridicule? Christians. There's no balance here. But that's their prerogative, though.
Gezwut!No kidding! But whose beliefs do Agnostics constantly challenge and ridicule? Christians. There's no balance here. But that's their prerogative, though.
I'm agnostic because I believe there might just be a God. A God who created evolution and science, and basically let us discover all this stuff out for ourselves, like any good parent should.
Gezwut!
I am BOTH an atheist and an agnostic, just as there are people who are BOTH agnostics and christians. (I.E. people following Pascal's wager.)
Alrighty --- again that's none of my business --- or the point I'm making.
Which is...?
I'll have to take your word on that --- on second thought --- I won't. To me, when a scientist sees the word "miracle," he's trained to automatically think, "didn't happen." Thus, saying this or that was a "miracle" is tantamount to saying this or that "didn't happen."
By [scientific] definition, you're not supposed to.
What scientific hypothesis doesn't go strongly against a global flood? Any that did, would automatically be ruled out by definition. If there was solid evidence everywhere that there was a global flood, I'm sure "scientists" would work overtime to come up with a natural explanation.
I'm under the impression that the Big Bang is a religious belief - but I'm sure you disagree.
See, there you go. You automatically called it a "myth," rather than "an as-yet unproven hypothesis."
Then what about all the religeous scientists? Bet you they still believe in miracles. And I can't speak for anyone else, but there was certainly no anti-miracle training in my degree program.
I can't speak for "religious scientists," or "religious geologists" who supposedly were the first to "falsify" a global flood,* but I'm sure they had a heyday watering down Genesis 1-11 - (not to mention the rest of Scripture).
A christian who accepts the evidence of god's creation...
...as well as the bible is still going to accept the important messages - there is one god, who created all and Jesus died for their sins.
Which is what, exactly?
And what happened to Original Sin? Is that swept under the carpet?
[/size][/font]
Everything we see when we look at the earth and the universe. You know, the things you believe god created?
As far as I understand it, everyone has the predisposition to sin, so everyone needs saving. The names Adam and Eve mean earth and hearth in Hebrew. It's obvious to me that these are archetypes of humanity, not specific individuals. I'm not christian, so none of this bothers me, but as far as I know the vast majority of christians accept gods creation over words men wrote about god when the two disagree.
I'm not trying to start a holy war here, but I've had to go back more than once and edit a post because I thought I was talking to an atheist, only to find out he's an agnostic, or Buddhist, or even a theistic evolutionist.
It's disgusting --- I can't tell you guys apart.
If this is your explanation, then I'll stick to my original statement: I'm sure they had a heyday watering down Genesis 1-11.
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?