On that point, the tragedy is, you believe a purposeless mechanism (earlier posited as Yahweh's method of creation), is responsible for giving everything a purpose for existence.
Upvote
0
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.
On that point, the tragedy is, you believe a purposeless mechanism (earlier posited as Yahweh's method of creation), is responsible for giving everything a purpose for existence.Yes, but the analogy is about evolution. And evolution has had, if not quite all, more than half the time in the world. And evolution has no teleological purpose, so your complaint (that it would be absurd for evolution to achieve its purpose in this way) has no force.
That would be JEPD.Well, AV1611, your remark about JERD does seem a bit silly ...
What does DH stand for?Hoghead1 said:... and I honestly wondered just how much literature you have red on the DH.
...
There is no evidence to suggest that a God exists. Until then, my position of an agnostic-atheist stands.
OK this might explain things. I thought you were both Christians in a Christian forum.I don't know that. Why would I even think that?
Why, because I disagree with you? Is it my fault that you have your own definitions which you've twisted to fit into what you've chosen to believe?
Evolution is a theory of common origins which pretends that all of live began with a single common organism and progressed from there. As a scientific theory it's laughable because it can only be supported by circular reasoning. None of the required biological processes have ever been found to exist. Is there a commonality throughout creation? Certainly. What would one expect when the same Creator using the same elements and the same blueprint for life creates plants and animals with similar related characteristics to live in the same environment.
Knowing that matter cannot be created, that it is not infinite, and that it exists proves that the answer of origination cannot be found within the universe. Science requires an external creator. Of course, the laws of physics have no bearing on your personal definition of reality, do they?
It's called the First Law of thermodynamics; you know, science stuff; the stuff you ignore while pretending molecules-to-man is scientific.
No kidding? I'm impressed! So because something outside of the physical world cannot be tested outside of the physical world, you who have a supernatural soul denies its existence. Boy, are YOU in for a surprise! You can't disprove that the supernatural exists. You doubt it based on your own non-experience. However, many of us have had actual experiences and know it to be true. To us, your claims illustrate foolishness.
I do.
You are preaching a theory of the origin of species that can't explain the origin of the species and you think I should apologize??
Impossible is a word we used to describe things that can't happen.
Oh, you can explore anything you want, but you can't get around the fact that amino acids cannot create a single protein without manipulation, let alone the minimum of 200 proteins required to form the simplest of living things; let along the problem of chilarity and the insane probability of 200 left handed proteins.
I don't care.
There is no evidence whatever for a magical Frankencell begetting all living things. That's just what someone told you and you believed it. Funny that you can believe a simple cell can create all living things but that a very real God cannot.
OK this might explain things. I thought you were both Christians in a Christian forum.
If you guys are stumped by your need for empirical data concerning the existence of an almighty creator, you guys are stuck on page one. At the risk of derailing this discussion, is it even possible for a maximally great being to exist?
I'm well acquainted with the word and its variations thanks.No, please note this area of the forum is open to those that are not believers. I noticed earlier that you misuse the term "solipsism". You probably based that on an errant interpretation of the poster's religious beliefs.
No.I'm well acquainted with the word and its variations thanks.
Do you believe in an almighty creator?
On that point, the tragedy is, you believe a purposeless mechanism (earlier posited as Yahweh's method of creation), is responsible for giving everything a purpose for existence.
IIRC, radiometric dating also reveals living snails as being tens thousands of years old.
My bad I meant to say some living snails. It varies and is not the benchmark for determining reality.Not all snails, no.
In one particular situation that we understand, naïve use of radiocarbon dating may yield faulty answers.
As with any tool, radiometric methods need to be used appropriately, if the best results are to be obtained.
Yes, that can happen. That is because one can use a test improperly. Kent Hovind dishonestly used papers that explained when you can't use C14 dating and tried to claim that means that you can never use it. You should be able to see the logical error in that.My bad I meant to say some living snails. It varies and is not the benchmark for determining reality.
Since I've never attacked you I have no clue what you are referencing. I've made light of some of your posts which are fair game, but they were so helplessly wrong what else could one expect? Seriously, how many times has it been made clear that Genesis 2 is NOT a creation account?Look, KW, your post contains one too many personal attacks on me. I don't put up with that and it is against the rules here.
No, thanks.So, in that you have to ask me what it means, that is a huge red flag that you really have no absolutely no real knowledge of concepts such as JEDP and then ought to educate yourself on the basics before you comment.
This is a complete fallacy. Natural selection occurs as a result of fitness.
It's occurance does not validate unguided mutation.
I am new to these forums, this is my first post. I've thought about theistic evolution before, and reading through Genesis this verse gets my attention: "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." - Genesis 1:11
Later in Genesis 1:29 it says "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."
My problem then, is if theistic evolution is true, why did fruit trees evolve before animals that would eat the fruits existed? Not only that, but the fruit from the trees were good for eating. Even if the fruit trees somehow evolved seed bearing fruit without animals to eat the fruit, how would the fruit become good as food for animals that didn't yet exist through the process of natural selection?
Of course it is.Evolution isn't a belief system.
No, it's a DISTORTION of biology; an unprovable theory of origins that takes what is known and extrapolates it into a fanciful but not remotely possible theory of molecules-to-man. Speciation is observable to a point, beyond which sterility always results. Nothing that can be observed in biology would be any different given that all speciation came from base pairs saved from a great flood. It's not my fault you don't know how to evaluate scientific evidence. You just repeat what other people told you. Why not repeat what Christ told you?It's the foundation of biology that is supported by several independent scientific discipline that all come to the same conclusion.
Yes, since I was about 12. News flash. Evolution has never been observed and repeated attempts to test it have proved it doesn't happen. As the eradiated fruit lies. What happens when the experiments fail? Evolutionists proclaim them a success and herald the experiment as validation of their chosen belief.Do you know the definition of the word theory in the scientific context?
Ahh. there it is again; the quintessential heart of the condescending diatribe packaged and repeated by self aggrandizing wanna-be's everywhere; you don't believe my lies, so you must not understand my lies. Don't think that the dung you sling hasn't been slung before; especially in academia where those too incompetent to compete in the real world hide in the classroom and try to indoctrinate others into believing things they themselves cannot fully grasp. This is not to besmirch the 15%-20% of good teachers, of course. Education, unfortunately, has yielded to indoctrination and socialization. Thinking in general and free thinking in particular are highly discouraged.I don't think you understand how to use the scientific method.
Get off your cloud. We aren't putting forth a theory in Gullible Science Weekly. We are discussing how the world was created. There is one Creator and by His hands were all things made that were made. You stand in the middle of the creation in awe of how it created itself without being willing to take a step back and realize that it absolutely could NOT have created itself. You have a ladder with no first step. You dedicate your soul to the promotion of someone else's theory that you can't possibly demonstrate. For all you talk about testing and falsifying, no experiment has ever demonstrated YOUR theory to be true. In fact, the closest thing to increasing complexity you guys can come up with is a bacteria that adapts its diet.... which is what bacteria do.If this is your hypothesis, please tell me what test you can run that demonstrates your hypothesis to be true.
Wow, did you seriously write that?Every single discovery science has ever made throughout history turned out to be natural. No God needed.
The laws of thermodynamics demonstrate the impossibility of the auto-origination of anything in the physical world.Thermodynamics has nothing to do with evolution.
Easily tested. Ever feel guilty when you do something you know is wrong? Did you know there is no scientific reason for that? The knowledge of right and wrong is intrinsic. It dates back to Adam. There is no biological explanation for guilt. As for the existence of the human soul, out of body experiences are not particularly rare, but they aren't physically provable. There have been cases of people reporting things that they saw during operations when they could not possibly have seen them, yet they are accurate to the smallest detail. How does this happen without a soul? Curious minds ask questions. Dull minds pretend in never happens.Why should I believe something exists if I cannot observe and test it?
Ever hear of Miller-Urey? They tried to create proteins from amino acids using conditions that could never possibly have existed on the planet. They had some success manipulating things, but in doing so they demonstrated that the odds of even a single protein being formed naturally made it a statistical impossibility. That 200 left handed proteins could natural y formHow has natural causation for life been disproved?
Why is it that whenever someone looks at the same evidence and comes to a different conclusion THEY are lying?You don't care that a creationist site is willing to lie about self replicating RNA?
Believing in impossibilities and teaching them as scientific truth is not a logical conclusion. At least with God you have a supernatural entity beyond the laws of science. Evolution does not.It's what the evidence tells us.... It follows evidence to it's logical conclusions.
Oh, there is tons of evidence. If you want physical proof you won't have that until it's too late.There is no evidence to suggest that a God exists.
Evolution doesn't have a purpose of changing organisms, but rather it is the process by which they change. You walk to work, which is 20 miles away. Describing that journey in 20ft increments is entirely possible.Aside from the fact that you're assuming you have all the time in the world, it would be absurd to walk 20 ft 5,280 times with the express *purpose* of getting to work.
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?