Evolution, GOD and complete Chaos (inventor, news, benefits, education)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Scripture means only one thing. It is the duty of the reader to learn how to interpret it correctly.
I have to tell you. I place very few expectations on an omnipotent supreme being. But high on the list would be the capacity to deliver a single volume of unambiguous prose that didn't require "interpretation."
The Judeo-Christo-Islamic god was not quite up to that particular task.
The hard cold facts are, laws must first start out as a hypothesis, then graduating to theory, before becomming accepted as a law.
Wrong.
Laws of nature are completely and excruciatingly empirical. They require neither hypothesis nor theory. Hypotheses and theories are often developed in an attempt to explain those laws, but the laws come first.
You've never done a second of actual science in any point of your life, have you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Do you think Newton's laws of gravitational forces sprang into existence without first having formed the hypothesis, then a theory about the force labeled gravity?
Of course. Newton made no effort whatsoever to explain gravity and offered neither hypothesis nor theory regarding it. He simply came up with an equation that explained the observations.
All what stuff about black people? There is nothing in the Bible about "black people."
And yet, the great Biblical debate of the 19th century was how best to Biblically defend the enslavement of blacks.
The opposing camps were the Biblical Monogenists (those who insisted that blacks were human beings, but that slavery was their punishment as part of the Curse of Hamm) and the Biblical Polygenists (those who believed that blacks were not even human beings, but instead were beasts of the field created on day six of creation week).
Neither of them ever considered that slavery might be wrong since... well... the Bible is completely cool with slavery. Even the New Testament.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
Besides, the Mormons also use a Book called "The Book of Mormon," written by Joseph Smith (who is their "prophet," if I remember correctly). I have no idea what might be in there, but whatever it is, it is not part of the Gospel of Christ, or the Old Testament Scriptures. The final Revelation was given long before, as recorded in the Bible. Anything else is heresey.
One man's heresy is another man's revelation. Whichever of them is right still worships an incompetent god who seemingly can't manage to get his ideas across.
I have to tell you. I place very few expectations on an omnipotent supreme being. But high on the list would be the capacity to deliver a single volume of unambiguous prose that didn't require "interpretation."
The Judeo-Christo-Islamic god was not quite up to that particular task.
To paraphrase an omnipotent liberal, you'll have to read it and find out what's in it before you pass on it.
To paraphrase an omnipotent liberal, you'll have to read it and find out what's in it before you pass on it.
You are aware aren't you that non believers generally know the bible far better than believers do...Mostly because many of us are former Christians, and in our struggle to stay with our faith we investigated the bible pretty thoroughly....
When was the last time the bible was changed due to 'oops, we were wrong' issues?
"Self-correcting"?
How can the same people who were wrong the first time be trusted to be factually accurate when they directly contradict what they previously assured us was correct?
Sorry kiddo, but you don't get to tell me something came from nothing without redefining "nothing" to include something capable of creating something.
How can the same people who were wrong the first time be trusted to be factually accurate when they directly contradict what they previously assured us was correct?
Sorry kiddo, but you don't get to tell me something came from nothing without redefining "nothing" to include something capable of creating something.
Nobody ever said something came from nothing. There's no such thing as nothing.
You are aware aren't you that non believers generally know the bible far better than believers do...Mostly because many of us are former Christians, and
in our struggle to stay with our faith we investigated the bible pretty
thoroughly....
There's absolutely no doubt about that. Not only did most of us investigate the bible pretty thoroughly, but other religions, as well.
So the creationist cannot justify removing the exploring nature of science and say well you cannot reproduce evolution or put it into a container like a bottle of pills so don't teach it, thats not right.
Actually yes, we can.
Have you not heard of Dr Richard Lenski's 25 year long mutation-based speciation experiment with e-coli? Over 50,000 generations now....
Why don't you honestly address a point, rather than injecting mindless drivel?
The first false suggestion you try to pass off is that there is ONE definition of evolution. Nothing could be further from the truth, which explains why you'd promote such distortions. The truth is, evolutionists can't even agree on one concise definition. We have the foundational Darwinian theory which has been tweeked, altered, molded, updated, as evolution science itself has "evolved"
But to be clear AND honest (something that I would thank you to do for a change), I am referring to the most widely accepted premise for which most evolutionists agree, that being that modern evolutionists theory DOES NOT even attempt to explain the "origin of life". That this matter is a seperate issue ... "abiogenesis". Do you agree or disagree? It's a very simple question.
If you disagree, then do provide the evidence, or a link to the science which defines the origin of life in evolutionary terms. If however you do agree that evolution does not even attempt to address origin of life, then it can't claim to disprove "creation", because that is what creation addresses ... the origin of life.
This is so simple and basic, even you should have no problem understanding the point.
Like I said, why not try educating yourself on the topic. Or are you trying to make your posts look foolish on purpose?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.