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.
Backwards thinking. The point is God made the things we are studying. The very laws of nature point to a lawmaker. Order instead of chaos points to a intelligent being designing the universe. This isn't outside science it's why science works. Or at least real observable science, not darwinism.If some sort of god or superbeing wants to mess with any of these things we are studying it will make it impossible for our methods to work. Such changes would be outside the scope of what science can examine.
Because they are pre disposed to accept the darwinistic explanation, they assume some process started itself...The problem with intelligent design is that it can explain everything.
When ID enthusiasts examines an image of bacteria with flagella, like this one
View attachment 297648
they will usually default to intelligent design because their belief leads them to expect design. For others who have a bit of knowledge of evolution of living organisms understand that the flagella evolved via natural processes.
Thats not how science works.Because they are pre disposed to accept the darwinistic explanation, they assume some process started itself...
Only where it contradicts the Bible.Creationists think science is intellectually bankrupt ...
I'd rather be intellectually bankrupt than spiritually bankrupt.Estrid said:... because if not they'd have to face that
that they are.
Darwinism isn't science, then.
It doesn't matter what it's called. What matters is what ideas influenced the theory."Darwinism" doesn't sound like the name of a science. Probably, because that's not what evolutionary biology is called.
Calling evolution "Darwinism" is inaccurate and only serves to muddy the waters. Clear and accurate terminology is very useful to discussion.
You mean observation of reality and building testable hypotheses.It doesn't matter what it's called. What matters is what ideas influenced the theory.
And those ideas are...It doesn't matter what it's called. What matters is what ideas influenced the theory.
How was it "faulty"?No I mean Darwins faulty premise of gradual evolution
It wasn't a premise. It was a conclusion he drew from less data than we have now. Now we know that evolution is still gradual, but not always slow.No I mean Darwins faulty premise of gradual evolution
No I mean Darwins faulty premise of gradual evolution
Note the date of that post (7 February 2009).It sure is, as you are demonstrating.
Like I said, Brad ... keep posting ... you'll say something right about me eventually.Pointing out that you were obviously being called out 12 years ago for the same thing doesn't absolve you from thinking that enough time had passed to give your views another airing.
It's kinda wierd that you want to tell us 'Hey, I did it before as well' as some form of defence.
Backwards thinking. The point is God made the things we are studying. The very laws of nature point to a lawmaker. Order instead of chaos points to a intelligent being designing the universe. This isn't outside science it's why science works. Or at least real observable science, not darwinism.
Brad, I don't know what your problem is, but this conversation is now getting older than the both of us put together, and I'm about ready to end it.You show me yet more examples over a period of 12 years of what you did just a few days ago. And you take umbrage at the very suggestion that you were completely innocent of any ulterior motives.
No.You were found out. You should have checked the meaning of the phrase before you started. But I guess you had no reason to. You didn't realise what it meant until you were called out. At least you have learned something about the book today.
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?