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's an intuitive judgment. I learned it in first year algebra as part of "checking your answer" strategy: Is your answer reasonable? For example, if I'm adding 34 and 28 and I get 368, the answer is not reasonable.What evidence have you based this conclusion on?
It's an intuitive judgment. I learned it in first year algebra as part of "checking your answer" strategy: Is your answer reasonable? For example, if I'm adding 34 and 28 and I get 368, the answer is not reasonable.
The Holy Ghost.And who is the author of the Bible?
Actually, its more like there is insufficient evidence to prove the existing theory. IOW Evolution, fact. Theory of evolution, unproven.So, argument from incredulity, basically.
Can you point to any actual evidence to support your conclusion?
Actually, its more like there is insufficient evidence to prove the existing theory. IOW Evolution, fact. Theory of evolution, unproven.
I see an infinite regress of support coming on with "the holy ghost" as the answer all the way down.How do you know this?
The Bible says it; that settles it.How do you know this?
I see the old "prophesying is not writing" argument coming.I see an infinite regress of support coming on with "the holy ghost" as the answer all the way down.
If you want to research it yourself ... you know, the educated thing to do?No, you don't get it; it's not worth the trouble.
Intuition can be a guide to what is true. As people say sometimes that they should have trusted their gut feeling.Actually, its more like there is insufficient evidence to prove the existing theory. IOW Evolution, fact. Theory of evolution, unproven.
There simply isn't. You weigh it just like a jury weighs the evidence. There's simply not enough to convict.How do you justify your claim that there is insufficient evidence to explain evolution?
I know about it; I even know who invented it. But nothing about the doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration, or any other theory of biblical inspiration for that matter, enjoins any particular genre determination for any of the texts. If you want to believe that the Genesis creation stories are 100% accurate literal history, go right ahead. but the doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration does not require it.If you want to research it yourself ... you know, the educated thing to do?
Anyway, if you want to research it yourself, the doctrine is called: verbal plenary inspiration.
Enjoy learning something!
And yet at the same time, there is absolutely overwhelming evidence that life has evolved from one celled organisms to all we have today. Man may have been made from the dust of the earth, but there were a gazillion steps in between!You are right that there is insufficient evidence for the theory of evolution. The evidence shows that natural selection is insufficient for evolving complex organisms and that there are other mechanism that are more responsible. Your intuition is telling you like it tells many people that something doesn't add up and there is assumptions about what evolution by natural selection can do.
I don't think you can say there is absolutely overwhelming evidence that life evolved from one celled organisms. Some say it was the other way around. To be honest I don't really know what happened back then. The evidence is not clear. You can make assumptions based on patchy evidence but I do not think we can confidently say what happened step by step. Also it is a big assumption to say that Neo Darwinian evolution was the cause of that process. The evidence actually shows that evolution by natural selection was not involved and was incapable of evolving complex life. There was also a high level of complexity very early on and evolution could not have had time to evolve gradually through a step by step process. So if anything it seems that there was a code already in place that directed the course of life even if it was from a single ancestor.And yet at the same time, there is absolutely overwhelming evidence that life has evolved from one celled organisms to all we have today. Man may have been made from the dust of the earth, but there were a gazillion steps in between!
The Bible says it; that settles it.
2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
There simply isn't. You weigh it just like a jury weighs the evidence. There's simply not enough to convict.
Technically, it's detecting infra-red radiation, which is a form of light. It's rudimentary, but it's there.
Can't say that I get the gist. To me it sounds like an argument just for the sake of arguing to seek acceptance from others by somehow using some trivial logic which has no merit.Funny thing about that: it's not correct, repeats of snowflake shapes have been seen. There's just so much variation in snowflakes, and they are so small, that it's unlikely for random individuals to take notice. That is, from the scope of a light microscope. There might be a few water molecules of difference or something, but you get the gist.
.
So why did you even address it if you pay the uniqueness no regard? It's just something simple...you could definitely make those same chemical processes before the world began. Turn back time, I'll wait.Except snowflakes, regardless of being unique or not, form simply through chemical processes.
.
I really don't want to have to explain where the concept of the "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" question. That is like THE CLICHE question concerning this. And to just totally ignore it and say something completely different, has no bearing on my question. Your answers are to your own thoughts in your head. I said nothing of single celled organisms.Also, the chicken-egg thing doesn't make a whole lot of sense in a context of the first life being single celled.
.
You're literally speaking to yourself again because unless someone on here happens to be an arachnologist, I would speculate that no one cares. And if that were a real occurrence, dumping nuclear waste, the industrial revolution, vehicle emissions, and a multitude of other atrocities against the planet would have to be factored into a deformed spider with a defect. Look up what depleted uranium does to kids then readjust.....Created spiders with the defect of dying from inadequately shedding their exoskeleton and thus being strangled horribly over hours and hours? .
A. (I am quoting you here) "I don't think" [your words]Life has so many problems that I don't think any competent creator would want to have their name associated with it.
.
ancient Earth waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back........in 2013.-_- except abiogenesis experiments have demonstrated that simple cells do form under conditions that mimic those of the ancient Earth back in 2013.
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?