Why creationists can never convince me that evolution is false.

[HitchSlap]

Who is this "Yahweh" your video is talking about?

Your god.

 

[VirOptimus]

No. None.

What did Jesus turn water into?

 

[Believer000]

Primates, not monkeys.


See my sig.

Can't seem to view your sig. What does it say?

 

[Astrid]

If you wish to believe your ancestors are monkeys...you have that right read God's word when/if you mature a bit though.

The mature intellect understands that
only uneducated creationists think there has ever
been any claim of monkey ancestry.

And they would get it too, that human
beings are a species of great ape.

Then too, some mature past the egoism of thinking that
their chosen reading of scripture is somehow the final
word in Truth

 

[Believer000]

Who is this "Yahweh" your video is talking about?

Yahweh is the Hebrew word for God.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yahweh is the Hebrew word for God.

AV is KJVO, so the only proper interpretation is his.

 

[HitchSlap]

What did Jesus turn water into?

This?

 

[HitchSlap]

Lol, still getting used to using this site. God is real, you realise that?

I realized he was as real as I ever realized he was.

 

[HitchSlap]

I was an atheist for 27 years.

After twenty seven years, what caused you become a theist?

 

[Astrid]

Few experiments are conducted without an expectation of the outcome, or more usually possible outcomes. For example, if A happens that suggests X is true, if B happens then Y is likely true, if C happens, we need to do some more thinking. So, yes the results are observed, but rarely without a hypothesis or three as to the possible outcomes.

A great many of them. Feel free to list exceptions.

Nonsense. There are nuances as to details of finescale mechanisms, that expand and clarify the theory. Common descent powered by natural selection/sexual selection/genetic drift of variability arising through mutations.

Keep telling yourself that. It won't make it true.

In my lexicon an axiom can hardly be an assumption, or vice versa.

An ordered universe that can be understood by humans might now be considered axiomatic, but that is because the result of centuries of scientific investigation are best explained if those assumptions are true. Personally, I still consider the assumptions provisional, like all results in science: to date they appear to be valid, but that could all change tomorrow. Until it does the results seem amazingly useful.

Science can handle anything that comes along.
Religion is hard and brittle, subject to shattering.

We've heard as much admitted, by statements like:

"If there was no Flood then then Jesus was
a liar, the Bible is a lie".

 

[Ophiolite]

Science can handle anything that comes along.
Religion is hard and brittle, subject to shattering.

We've heard as much admitted, by statements like:

"If there was no Flood then then Jesus was
a liar, the Bible is a lie".

Your example presents a fundamentalist argument and is not typical of the thinking of most Christians, in my experience.
Some aspects of science might also be described as "hard and brittle", especially the attitudes of some (a minority) scientists. Equally some aspects of religion are "flexible and mellow".

 

[AV1611VET]

What did Jesus turn water into?

Dry land.

Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

 

[VirOptimus]

Dry land.

Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Did he turn water into wine or did he turn it into grape juice?

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

The assumptions on an ordered physical universe and that the human mind can comprehend reality are not provisional; they are believed to be axiomatic. If invalid then the whole science enterprise would have to be abandoned.

Oh but they are, and again, axioms are accepted to be true without discussion, but they can well be false, they are provisional to a given argument.

 

[AV1611VET]

Regarding education, you still show no sign
that you know what "scientism" even is.

The religion of the Antichrist, in my opinion.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did he turn water into wine or did he turn it into grape juice?

Yes.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yes.

Which one?

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

In my lexicon an axiom can hardly be an assumption, or vice versa.

An ordered universe that can be understood by humans might now be considered axiomatic, but that is because the result of centuries of scientific investigation are best explained if those assumptions are true. Personally, I still consider the assumptions provisional, like all results in science: to date they appear to be valid, but that could all change tomorrow. Until it does the results seem amazingly useful.

Here we go again, I learned axiom as a mathematical term with a specific definition, but as we keep seeing, it also has a muddy colloquial definition that leads to all manner of equivocation.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread is closed for flaming all around!


As a reminder, the Statement of Purpose for this forum includes:
​

Discussions here should be on the nature of creation and evolution, not focused on bashing or uplifting those who are proponents of these beliefs. Do not flame other viewpoints. Christianity and creationism cannot be called a myth or fairytales, and evolution should not be called pseudoscience nor should evolution or science be called a religion..

Blasphemy: It is considered blasphemy to insult or mock Christianity or any part of the Trinity-Father (God), Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit during the discussions and debates.
​

The site rules apply as well.​

​

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

There was need for a small cleanup, for off-topic posts and flaming.

MOD HAT OFF​