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.
The laws of physics don't apply to God. If He wanted to reverse the rotation of the earth today, no force that exists could preclude it.
It's classic Darwinian evolution in no uncertain terms, in his grandfather's book on zoology. He credited the muse in the frontpiece putting her inside the cover page. Of course you are not required to have an actual argument as long as you insult creationists, I actually feel sorry for you.
The quote is right there for you to see, and yet you still ignore it.I have seen the quote and read the record of the Inquisition of Galileo as well as the other historical accounts. It need not be in that quote, now your begging the question of proof on you hands and knees. I always know I have you guys when you are reduced to ad hominems. It used to take me a while but these days it's all you guys have. I'm going to miss the good ole evolution/creation controversy, it was a lot of fun but all good things must come to an end.
Sounds exactly like creationism. Creationists can't refute the science so they scare their fellow christians by labeling evolution as an apostasy and heretical. It is history repeating itself.They were well aware of Galileo's astronomical observations and the model he was using, he even told it to Pope Urban personally. It only got to be a problem when the professors at Pisa couldn't refute him so they appealed to the Catholic theologians claiming that Simpiico in one of his books was actually the Pope. Wrong again but at least you are consistent.
Quite a bit, actually. I grew up in the church, 4th generation in fact.What could you possibly know about Christian theism?
Biology is about life, both past and present. Evolution explains both the history and current state of life. Always has, always will. Evolution explains why the mixture of characteristics in fossils falls into the predicted nested hierarchies. The current genomes of living species is entirely contingent on the evolutionary history of life.You are equivocating the Darwinian naturalistic assumptions with evolutionary biology, they are not the same thing at all. Biology is about living systems, not dead ancestors so don't go mixing up your natural history with the genuine article of natural science. It's like crack, once you are hooked on it you'll be a fallacy junkie if your not already.
How about facts and evidence?How about Moses or Darwin?
Creationism does not.I choose the Word of God because it stands up under evidential test . . .
And those are?whereas Darwinian universal common descent relies on transcendent naturalistic assumptions.
Nope, that requirement is found nowhere in science. If God has a measurable and detectable influence on nature then God is part of science. Nothing in science excludes God. Nothing.You are required to assume that all causes are from natural law rather then God, that is the first assumption.
Where?No, they are not used in the genuine article of science but they are used in Darwinian zoology.
Then go to this thread and show me the errors.You made so many fundamental errors in our debate on ERVs it is strange that you would desperately cling to that failed homology argument. In fact, it's pathetic.
I choose the Word of God because it stands up under evidential test whereas Darwinian universal common descent relies on transcendent naturalistic assumptions.
Ok one last question: why did God tell Noah to build an ark and put animals in it when him and these animals could have easily walked to somewhere the flood wouldn't have struck? he had 120 years to do that.
Moses did not write genesis,
If they sincerely believe that The Theory of Evolution contradicts the Genesis account [despite what Genesis actually states], I can understand why they would insist that The Theory of Evolution is contra-scriptural. But how could that be considered inherently ATHEISTIC?
After all, just because some hypothesis allegedly contradicts the Bible does NOT logically require that that hypothesis denies the existence of God.
Is it simply rhetorical shock value? After all, "The Theory of Evolution contradicts a young earth creationist 6,000-years-old-earth interpretation of the Bible" is not nearly as inflammatory as saying, "The Theory of Evolution denies the existence of God!"
So is the claim simply rhetorical hyperbole for the sake of motivation---as the creationist rabble-rouser preaches to the choir (and the visiting "creation science" speaker passes the hat for donations?) Politicians on all sides of the political spectra learned this fund-raising trick long ago: Rant against the evils of the much-to-be-feared villain and exaggerate the danger as much as possible. The donations will pour in.
For most atheists, their only commitment to science and evolution is to the extent that they believe evolution allows for an explanation of creation without a creator.
Prove it.That's right, Adam, Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham, and a few others wrote Genesis.
Moses edited it.
I have been to scientific conferences where evolution is discussed. We do not sacrifice animals at the altar of Darwinism. There is nothing religious about it. All we have is your pathetic attempts to project your own flaws onto others.
The quote is right there for you to see, and yet you still ignore it.
Sounds exactly like creationism. Creationists can't refute the science so they scare their fellow christians by labeling evolution as an apostasy and heretical. It is history repeating itself.
Quite a bit, actually. I grew up in the church, 4th generation in fact.
Biology is about life, both past and present. Evolution explains both the history and current state of life. Always has, always will. Evolution explains why the mixture of characteristics in fossils falls into the predicted nested hierarchies. The current genomes of living species is entirely contingent on the evolutionary history of life.
How about facts and evidence?
Creationism does not.
And those are?
Nope, that requirement is found nowhere in science. If God has a measurable and detectable influence on nature then God is part of science. Nothing in science excludes God. Nothing.
Moses did not write genesis, there is too many evidence by analyzing genesis that is against it.
Prove it.
For most atheists, their only commitment to science and evolution is to the extent that they believe evolution allows for an explanation of creation without a creator.
Nonsense. The "commitment to evolution" is based on evidence, mathetes. That's what everything dictates. Many or even most atheists (Most I know, including me) would happily acknowledge the existence of a god, if sufficient evidence were to be presented. If god is proven to be real I'll spin on a dime. Happily, too. But that would have nothing to do with evolution, which has no say on the existence of a god.
Evolution is not anti-theistic. The only reason it seems like it to some is is because of a certain group of american conservative christians who say it is. Heliocentrism held that very same role for quite a while. Perhaps, after 153 years it is time for you guys across the pond to join the rest of your brethren who never really had much problem with this in any event? Why do you think it is primarily among you guys this is a problem? Do you think you're right and all other christians are wrong, even though the evidence supports those who hold that evolution is true?
Evolution defined as what exactly? I only ask because evolutionists are obsessed with commingling their naturalistic assumptions with the genuine article.
More mistakes, mark. First off, you're making the mistake of bringing cosmology into the mix, we were talking about evolution. That would be biological science, not cosmology.The only reason that evolution seems antitheistic is because Darwinian logic dictates naturalistic explanations rather then God, all the way back to the big bang. Evolution has long been defined as the 'change of alleles in populations over time', which is perfectly consisted with an ex nihilo creation with living creatures fully formed by divine fiat.
Show me the evidence then. But PLEASE do your due diligence, I honestly can't be bothered with logical fallacies and wooly thinking disguised as evidence.So much for 'evolution', however you think that term is supposed to be defined, being based on actual evidence. By the way, you do have evidence for God, you just choose to ignore it.
circular reasoning, mark. We do not have evidence because you - or the bible - say we have evidence. You are the one who claims you have evidence of something, God's existence, so you have the burden of proof here. As I have said before, I'll reconvert to christianity or hinduism or whatever if I am actually convinced it is true. But you will not convince me by citing bible verses all day long; Just copy pasting text will not convince me, you need hard evidence and I do not think you have any. Especially since you tend to go so hard out on attacks against evolution and science when you apparently do not really know what you are attacking. You may think you do, but from your posts the opposite appears likely.For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Romans 1:20, 21)
Have a nice day
Mark
Prove it.
I can't.
I don't have the ability to see the past, like you guys claim you can.
Those genealogy tablets are called "colophons."It's like the supposed genealogy tablets that Adam, they say, wrote the genealogy on. I don't know where people get these ideas but the Pentateuch is attributed to Moses...
Joshua is given credit for writing Deuteronomy 34.... even though he probably didn't write that part that says he died.
Prove it.
I can't.
I won't dispute that, but that kind of sight is extremely myopic -- moreso than science.Everything you see right now is in the past. One cannot properly experience the present since everything takes time.
I take most of my claims from the following sources, in descending order: 1) the Bible, 2) basic doctrine, 3) my Boolean standards, and 4) suppositions [educated guesses].If you can't, then don't make the claim.
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?