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.
I don't need to define or explain anything. Design in nature is self evident. The burden is on you to demonstrate how everything came from nothing, how the first life spontaneously came from non life, developed the ability to reproduce itself in the first generation, and then went from the goo through the zoo to me and you.
I don't need to define or explain anything. Design in nature is self evident. The burden is on you to demonstrate how everything came from nothing, how the first life spontaneously came from non life, developed the ability to reproduce itself in the first generation, and then went from the goo through the zoo to me and you.
On what basis do scientist have for expecting there to be mathematically precise relationships in nature which can be studied and understood
if the universe was not created by an intelligent designer rather than the product of random chance?
Lets stay on the topic of Christianity & Science.
There is no conflict with science. Just with some scientists conclusions. And the scientific community is full of conflicting ideas anyway. To suggest that science is a unified front of ideas is silly.
3) Science is unified. But since you have no understanding of Science you make these absurd claims. There is some controversy, it is at the edges of understanding, just as it should be.
No, it was magic feed corn.HOWEVER, in one of the Christmas specials, it was pointed out that Kris Kringle's reindeer required the ability to fly by the application of "magic pixie dust;" to allow Kris and his friends to escape Herr Burgermeister Meisterburger.
You know, if I were to say "typical atheist" I would be chastised because you would run to the mods and say I was flaming them with a stereotypical comment. Lucky you that atheists hold a position of reverence on a Christian website.Typical christian.
Blatant lie. Science isn't unified on anything. Consensus is the antithesis of science.Science is unified.
"Typical atheist;" thinking that those who disagree with his position must be ignorant.But since you have no understanding of Science you make these absurd claims.
Why is that different then mixing water with sulfuric acid?
Yes, it's interesting how it is the non-scientists with no experience in a field who presume to tell us what it is like. They are the same people who whine about how academia operates----while never having served on a university faculty. "
Okay ... thank you!No, it was magic feed corn.
Yes, it's interesting how the scientists with no experience in a field who presume to tell us what it is like. They are the same people who whine about how academia operates----while never having worked a day in their life. They can get it to work on paper, but not out in the real world.
I would not run to any mod. However, this behavior is typical. Perhaps you need to go back and look up the word "typical". I see this kind of behavior on virtually every single thread, that would make it typical.You know, if I were to say "typical atheist" I would be chastised because you would run to the mods and say I was flaming them with a stereotypical comment. Lucky you that atheists hold a position of reverence on a Christian website.
Really? Like chemistry? Or Physics? Have you ever taken a Science class? Because it does not sound like it.Blatant lie. Science isn't unified on anything. Consensus is the antithesis of science.
No, you may want to actually read the discussion. This is about not addressing points. Not about disagreement. You can't really be disagreeing if you cannot even address the issue. This is about ignoring points. Try to keep up."Typical atheist;" thinking that those who disagree with his position must be ignorant.
Would you clarify a little more by what you mean by "scientists with no experience"? I ask that because your description after that statement is more of a description of a person with little to no academic science background, which would include yourself. Just asking.
How does that make it any different from the arguments presented by atheists which don't seem to change whatever from person to person?I would not run to any mod. However, this behavior is typical. Perhaps you need to go back and look up the word "typical". I see this kind of behavior on virtually every single thread, that would make it typical.
Actually, that's paraphrasing an argument that evo's and atheists post repeatedly; that consensus is not a part of science. You don't read very much of what your fellow atheists are posting these days, do you? For example, when someone states that the laws of physics are accepted as irrefutable by science, the very next post is a disagreement with even this most basic fact.Really? Like chemistry? Or Physics?
Yep; plus biology, human biology and psychopathology. In addition to science, I have also studied the word of God, have had personal experiences that prove the existence of the supernatural and the glory of God, and I've debated with self-enlightened atheists for years. It's kind of hard to listen to so-called enlightened people state conclusively that supernatural beings do not exist when you have seen them personally.Have you ever taken a Science class?
I did.No, you may want to actually read the discussion.
Who says your points are valid? For example, you can say that it's impossible for a dead man to return from the dead, but the resurrection of Christ had so many witnesses the Romans couldn't even refute it. You can say that geology proves a rock to be a billion years old, but an omnipotent God could create it in an instant.You can't really be disagreeing if you cannot even address the issue. This is about ignoring points.
Some information Evolutionists conveniently ignore. When you've read it, lads and lassies, go the Uncommon Descent, and keep up to date with it, then you won't keep embarrassing yourselves:
1) Only minor variations within species have been demonstrated or observed!
2) coded sequential information such as that found in DNA has never been seen to originate from any unguided chemical processes!
3) life reduction experiments clearly show there are NO EXAMPLES of simpler life that evolutionists postulate must have existed to give rise to the functionally complex life we see today!
4) selective breeding only results in trait optimization and distinct limits not new morphological distinction!
5) mutations are a degenerative process that accrues more prohibitively operational damage than it can possibly overcome by any controversial or occasional good mutation!
6) Examples of Macro evolution cited by evolutionists are totally within the bounds of a known process called ADAPTATION and do not result in new body plans or body parts that build new function.
Incidentally, quantum mechanics makes it clear that mind - and that means the personal mind of the Observer - is the basic reality, not matter. Observation of reality is intersubjective. There is no such thing as objective reality. That should have been a hammer-blow to materialists, eighty years ago.
(snip)... For example, you can say that it's impossible for a dead man to return from the dead, but the resurrection of Christ had so many witnesses the Romans couldn't even refute it. (snip)...
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?