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.
Why do you keep digging that hole? There are no degrees of impossibility. Things cannot be "more impossible" or "equally impossible". You should have used "likely" or "unlikely". It's fairly basic English... what's more impossible?
An inorganic watch replicating itself?
Or, an inorganic watch suddenly becoming a living organism?
They are equally impossible... (that was the answer).
I'm done now, thank you.Now, to get you off your jag? Seems impossible.
Jesus Christ, the single most influential man ever, taught that "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: ..." (John 6:44)
That is the problem. Our Father gives, by His Holy Spirit, some people the ability to hear and to see what is irrefutable Truth. These people who are drawn are the same who hate and repent of evil. If anyone doesn't want to repent of all evil, they can stay hidden in the darkness until death comes upon them, and then they will know that they loved the darkness because their deeds were evil. The love of the Father is therefor not in them. (John 3:19)
I have already given the proofs that I have experienced and witnessed. These weren't good enough and will never be good enough, because they are being disbelieved, ignored, or otherwise simply forgotten about, because that's how the "darkness" operates. I could feed five thousand men, not counting their women and children, with a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish, and afterwards gather up 12 bushel baskets full of food fragments after all those thousands of people ate their fill, and you could be there and the truth would still elude you, somehow, just like it did the disciples of Jesus, who had been there to see Jesus' miracle of the loaves and fish, yet still did not know that He had all the power of God and was going to raise Himself from the dead after being crucified, just as He foretold He would do.
The disciples of Jesus couldn't fully know Him until they had received the power of the Holy Spirit, after His Resurrection and Ascension. Then they knew full well Who Jesus Christ is.
The disciples of Jesus couldn't fully know Him until they had received the power of the Holy Spirit, after His Resurrection and Ascension. Then they knew full well Who Jesus Christ is."[/I]
Why do you keep digging that hole? There are no degrees of impossibility. Things cannot be "more impossible" or "equally impossible". You should have used "likely" or "unlikely". It's fairly basic English.
I'm done now, thank you.
-_- though cave systems continue to form and collapse through observable natural and unintelligent processes.The complex cave systems are designed by the Father, through His Logos, and by His Spirit,
-_- it's a hoax, especially the healing part. Like I told you before, if this liquid actually cured illnesses, someone would be selfless enough to go to a hospital and cure as many people as they could before they were removed from the premises. Or perhaps to a nursing home or hospice filled with dementia patients. Why aren't YOU doing that? If you don't doubt the healing properties at all, what is stopping you?just like the myrrh streaming from holy images that scientists can't explain,
-_- no one in their right mind would ignore a genuine panacea, regardless as to where it came from. Even if your view of humanity is so low that you think no one is capable of sharing their "healing myrrh oil", are you willing to perpetuate that selfishness yourself? You have two cotton balls, that should be enough for at least two people at a minimum.and so just ignore (unless the scientists are people of faith).
-_- you'd never claim that god designs cars, because you very well know humans do it. Cutting down a tree wouldn't mean that I designed the stump, and likewise what developed as a result of any processes you attributed to a designer are not in and of themselves designed by said designer.All that exists is of God, and God's handiwork, whether accomplished by natural or supernatural processes, everywhere.
-_- differences in mineral composition and the fact that one is an igneous rock while the other is metamorphic (differences in formation). That items have differences doesn't mean that either of them must be designed, especially not if they aren't even made of the same materials.Rocks have design. What distinguishes slate from granite?
-_- because there is variation in the materials and conditions that exist on the planet. It's not like we are getting different stuff from identical conditions, dude.Why do we have different kinds of rocks? Why not all one kind?
-_- it's just the difference between cooling that occurs slowly versus quickly. They are also rocks. Most of them are useless aside from looking pretty, and given that the god you believe in hates covetousness with a passion, it makes no sense for it to design them at all. It's like how questionable it is that birds are so heavily influenced by sexual selection. It doesn't help a peacock any to have that big, beautiful tail, but you believe that YHWH would be willing to design peahens to be so shallow that they won't mate with a male that isn't colorful.Gems? What about them?
-_- these are elements, their atoms have different numbers of protons, etc. Which, by the way, nuclear fusion in stars creates different elements, which all stem from hydrogen. If all elements consisted of the same number of protons, electrons, etc., you'd have a point, but since they are all structurally different and continue to form via natural processes, you don't.Gold was designed to be distinct from copper... and on and on we go.
-_- differences in mineral composition and the fact that one is an igneous rock while the other is metamorphic (differences in formation). That items have differences doesn't mean that either of them must be designed, especially not if they aren't even made of the same materials.
-_- because there is variation in the materials and conditions that exist on the planet. It's not like we are getting different stuff from identical conditions, dude.
-_- it's just the difference between cooling that occurs slowly versus quickly. They are also rocks. Most of them are useless aside from looking pretty, and given that the god you believe in hates covetousness with a passion, it makes no sense for it to design them at all. It's like how questionable it is that birds are so heavily influenced by sexual selection. It doesn't help a peacock any to have that big, beautiful tail, but you believe that YHWH would be willing to design peahens to be so shallow that they won't mate with a male that isn't colorful.
-_- these are elements, their atoms have different numbers of protons, etc. Which, by the way, nuclear fusion in stars creates different elements, which all stem from hydrogen. If all elements consisted of the same number of protons, electrons, etc., you'd have a point, but since they are all structurally different and continue to form via natural processes, you don't.
-_- not to mention that segment of the periodic table dedicated to elements WE invented. A rock found in nature made of Hassium would be as miraculous as it was unnatural, given that even the most stable isotope of it has a half life of 10 seconds. We see no such things.
I did not say complexity requires a designer.Demonstrably not the case, as complexity in and of itself has NOTHING to do with whether or not something is designed.
If a motor can be reproduced or found that was not designed, this would falsify the proposition.Design as purpose, intelligent design, is an unfalsifiable proposition.
A motor is evidence of intelligent manufacture.Intelligent design is inferred from evidence of intelligent manufacture.
If the machine was designed to make shoes, then the design of the shoes was built into the machine.An additional contention: designing a system which results in an end product is not the same thing as designing the end product. A person that designs a machine that makes shoes is not also by default the designer of the shoes.
Show me one. Then show me how you can prove it wasn't designed.If a motor can be reproduced or found that was not designed, this would falsify the proposition.
A manufactured motor is evidence of intelligent manufacture. What about a naturally occurring motor like the flagellum?A motor is evidence of intelligent manufacture.
Show me one. Then show me how you can prove it wasn't designed.
A manufactured motor is evidence of intelligent manufacture. What about a naturally occurring motor like the flagellum?
Nope.Do you have a design?
Only thanks to ADHD pills, and even with them my thoughts get pretty disorganized and unfocused.Is there an order to your thinking?
-_- I'd never describe someone thinking as "designing their thoughts". Especially since most of your brain functions are not the result of conscious effort.Do you design your thoughts and how you are to express them?
Most likely not; if I do, I am unaware of it.Do you have a designed goal for being here?
-_- sure, in a literal machine, you might put in a specific design (that could come from a mind entirely independent of that which designed the factory), but unless you don't believe in free will, any changes in the environment which are in some regard connected to animal life are not the direct input of the creator you believe in. Beavers make dams that change the course of rivers, for example, and this would result in a different erosion path than what would have originally occurred.If the machine was designed to make shoes, then the design of the shoes was built into the machine.
-_- motors aren't complex. Plus, I can polish a rock, and so can natural processes. That is, just because humans build motors doesn't automatically mean that nothing vaguely similar to a motor can develop in nature. And yes, a bacterial flagellum is only vaguely similar to a motor in that a part of it spins. That's all, nothing about the mechanisms of how it works are the same as a human designed motor, and the components of a flagellum are also very different.I did not say complexity requires a designer.
I said the complexity of a motor requires a designer, as is evident by the motors humans produce.
And there lies in that final sin
That man should think himself so high
To know completely god's every whim
And reach above to grasp the sky
But all they shall hold is empty air
The knowledge of god they shall not reach
God did not put heaven there
For those who don't practice what they preach
Indeed. But not more impossibleI know there are no degrees to impossibility. In the literal closed in definition of the term itself. But, context makes one able to think outside of that box you desire to construct.
If I were to say, " its impossible to clear the snow off the road today?" That would not equate with the same force as saying it would be impossible to fly you to Jupiter in five minutes.
A fortiori.. If its impossible to this? Then certainly, it would have to be impossible to do that!~
Was it? Or was it to demonstrate that your use of language is incorrect?I can understand your need for impatience being your shield. For, it seems impossible for you to admit to my logic at this point. For you already have maneuvered the conversation to make me look stupid. After all? That was your goal.
Your entire argument is "in context...." If you wish to use that argument, then let me point out the context - you are using a spoken convention in a written medium. That does not make your argument correct, it shows poor understanding of contextual use of language.Thinking outside of the restraints of your etymological box you keep putting me in (as to be able to put me down with) seems to be where you wish to maintain it. But, keep in mind. I will continue to reason.
Hello pot, meet kettleFor its not impossible to make a point to others who do not have the same axe to grind. After all.. agendas must be protected. At all costs. That is not impossible to see. If it were "impossible?" You would be on solid ground. You just want to use some debaters technique and run away.
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?