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.
"...tesrufies of god " AssertionI see what you mean. But there is a difference in what I am getting at. I'm saying all of creation testifies of God ,(testifies of a Creator).
I disagree. The data points to an order and design that can only be attributed to a designer.
Thus far there have been no proofs - no data - against God as Creator. In fact, the data points to the opposite, as an affirmation.
Of the ideas of how the universe came to be, no scientific theory had challenged Creationism (although some have challenged individual ideas about how God created).
Do you believe the First Law of Thermodynamics to be correct?
If so, then there has to be an origin equal to all energy (to include mass) in the universe today.
I disagree. The data points to an order and design that can only be attributed to a designer.
Thus far there have been no proofs - no data - against God as Creator. In fact, the data points to the opposite, as an affirmation.
I see what you mean. But there is a difference in what I am getting at. I'm saying all of creation testifies of God ,(testifies of a Creator).
Every time I have seen this claim, it comes from a god of the gaps, argument from incredulity.
Philosophically speaking, where [some] scientists are attempting to conceptualize the cosmological phenomena being studied, those in the I.D. vein of thinking aren't proposing gaps as much as trying to emphasize (over-emphize??) what they think are indicators of 'design' in nature.
I.D. is, however much I disagree with it, still a bit different than the typical, older style Creationist thinking.
Just to be clear.
No, none of those are examples. Those are examples of energy constraint or utilization.I already did, at least twice.
Here is another. Rain to river to dam to high voltage
Lightning
Trees
How many do you need?
I'm not the one making assertions
It's the same thing...""I don't see how this could have occurred naturally, therefore designed."
It is a philosophical argument (at least in part). It has been the "discovery" that has led some scientists to theism.Every time I have seen this claim, it comes from a god of the gaps, argument from incredulity.
It is a philosophical argument (at least in part). It has been the "discovery" that has led some scientists to theism.
It is also a statistical argument. What are the odds a creature could via natural processes only develop an eye, or a brain? What are the odds nature could evolve into an interdependent system that both produces and consumes? The odds are effectively zero.
It is also a theological argument based in Scripture (that Creation testifies of God, yet men turn from this truth and towards Creation as their "god" and are given over to this depravity).
It is a philosophical argument (at least in part). It has been the "discovery" that has led some scientists to theism.
It is also a statistical argument. What are the odds a creature could via natural processes only develop an eye, or a brain? What are the odds nature could evolve into an interdependent system that both produces and consumes? The odds are effectively zero.
It is also a theological argument based in Scripture (that Creation testifies of God, yet men turn from this truth and towards Creation as their "god" and are given over to this depravity).
Aren't they called "missing links"?Every time I have seen this claim, it comes from a god of the gaps, argument from incredulity.
I agree. But that is exactly how scientists often work (this thread is a good example).Starting with a conclusion is not how science works.
Hey! I take offense to being called a missing link.Aren't they called "missing links"?
Then someone needs to ask those Christians why atheists sill exist.Besides which, many Christians have no issues with science discovering HOW god created.
It is a philosophical argument (at least in part). It has been the "discovery" that has led some scientists to theism.
It is also a statistical argument. What are the odds a creature could via natural processes only develop an eye, or a brain? What are the odds nature could evolve into an interdependent system that both produces and consumes? The odds are effectively zero.
It is also a theological argument based in Scripture (that Creation testifies of God, yet men turn from this truth and towards Creation as their "god" and are given over to this depravity).
You should see my sister!Hey! I take offense to being called a missing link.
So we have "god of the gaps," but you guys don't have "missing links"?
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?