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.
Theological wisdom is a dime a dozen.Theological assertions are wisdom. God is the absolute, infinite and eternal truth. The one uncaused reality. Finite man and his material universe isn't the cause, it is the consequence.
Apart form the mercy ministry of revelation, finite man can't help but to create an illogical universe in his conception of origins.
Yeah, man. Exactly! That would be supernatural and we know that because we contrast that with the natural way dogs are born.If we collected all of the elements that that make up a dog, put them in separate piles an observed them congeal together, and a dog popped out, then yes, that would be supernatural.
No. I'm not going to speak for all atheists, but they don't have to avoid the explanation of the beginning of life by diverting attention to evolution. You can both try to understand evolution, and the origins of life without unnecessarily conflating the two. Now, trying to undermine evolution by appealing to the origin of life question...that's some avoidance.The supernatural happened long ago when the creators of life organized the patterns which eventually evolved into dogs of today. Atheist avoid the explanation of the beginning of life by drawing attention to the evolution of that life as evidenced in the fossil record as well as the living product of those implantations today.
To prove such an assertion you have to show consciousness existing without needing a brain.Man transcends the material as a conscious being. If we were just machines we wouldn't have two different interpretations of the origins of life.
Life begets life, that doesn't avoid life's progressive evolution.Yeah, man. Exactly! That would be supernatural and we know that because we contrast that with the natural way dogs are born.
No. I'm not going to speak for all atheists, but they don't have to avoid the explanation of the beginning of life by diverting attention to evolution. You can both try to understand evolution, and the origins of life without unnecessarily conflating the two. Now, trying to undermine evolution by appealing to the origin of life question...that's some avoidance.
To prove such an assertion you have to show consciousness existing without needing a brain.
Does evolution occur?Life begets life, that doesn't avoid life's progressive evolution.
Consciousness is transcendence. To observe is to be apart from.
The evolution of life up to the dawn of man was characterized by "sudden" mutations with intermittent variations of adaptation. I will use the cell phone analogy again. Suppose there had always been a cell phone signal with towers to transmit but no hardware intelligent enough to receive it? When man-mind first appeared on earth roughly 1,000,000 years ago, then and there was mind capable of being conscious of it's consciousness; introspection.Many animals also have consciousness. Are they are transcendent?
Where is the dividing line between those with transcendent consciousness and those that are just ordinary matter? For it seems to be a continuous variation from viruses to human, with many incremental steps in between. Wherever one puts the break, it has to be arbitrary.
I don't know of any convincing evidence for life implantation on earth. What seems like common sense to me doesn't seem like common sense to others. But then there is the gift of revelation, but materialists reject that out of hand, so there isn't much we can do.OK, so call our bluff and provide convincing, real evidence for your preferred alternative.
Ok, so you accept that humans evolved from one celled creatures over a long period of time?The evolution of life up to the dawn of man was characterized by "sudden" mutations with intermittent variations of adaptation.
What part of the brain "answers the phone"? If there are signals from outside directing the brain, then one would expect there is something in the brain handling that communication. We don't see that. Instead we see, in humans, a brain that is very similar to that of other apes, only much larger with minor other changes. Where is the "antenna" and "receiver"?I will use the cell phone analogy again. Suppose there had always been a cell phone signal with towers to transmit but no hardware intelligent enough to receive it? When man-mind first appeared on earth roughly 1,000,000 years ago, then and there was mind capable of being conscious of it's consciousness; introspection.
Depends. There isn't a biological process that allows for the formation of gears and pullies and such, so it would probably still have to be designed. If the factory was made of organic bits and we weren't around to actually see how it came to be, then it could have evolved.so if there was such a factory that can produce cars automatically you will conclude design or natural process?
Ok, so you accept that humans evolved from one celled creatures over a long period of time?
Mutations, almost by definition, are "sudden". What would a gradual mutation even look like?
What part of the brain "answers the phone"? If there are signals from outside directing the brain, then one would expect there is something in the brain handling that communication. We don't see that. Instead we see, in humans, a brain that is very similar to that of other apes, only much larger with minor other changes. Where is the "antenna" and "receiver"?
And who were the parents of the first human that was able to "answer the phone"? Were his parents unable to "answer the phone"?
Studies have shown that the brain makes a decision before our consciousness is aware that we are making the decision. In the experiments, people are told to sit still and then push a button while watching a moving pointer. Then they say where the pointer was when they decided to push the button. We can see a burst of brainwaves just before they push the button, which obviously is when they are making the decision to push it. Interestingly, that burst of brainwaves occurs before the person is aware that he is making the decision, as determined by where the pointer reportedly was when he decided. To me, that means the brain itself is making the decision, that the burst of brainwaves represents the decision, and consciousness is just coming along for the ride. If you think consciousness is something outside the brain, that makes the decisions and sends signals to the brain, then why does the increase in brainwaves occur before the conscious decision?
No. Functional organization alone is not evidence of design.so a car that can replicate iteslf and made from organic components isnt an evidence for design?
Isn't that basically a dog?so a car that can replicate iteslf and made from organic components isnt an evidence for design?
so a car that can replicate iteslf and made from organic components isnt an evidence for design?
or a horse.Isn't that basically a dog?
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?