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.
Where are your proofs to your assertion? If what you say were true and evolution were not a fact our life span would be greatly diminished..So back up your empty assertions or withdraw from the debate.
Consider the results of a 2009 Pew Survey: 31 percent of U.S. adults believe “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.” (So much for dogs, horses or H1N1 flu.) The survey’s most enlightening aspect was its categorization of responses by levels of religious activity, which suggests that the most devout are on average least willing to accept the evidence of reality. White evangelical Protestants have the highest denial rate (55 percent), closely followed by the group across all religions who attend services on average at least once a week (49 percent).
The BIG BANG is a scientific fact as much as the theory of electromagnetism is, and the latter theory is the one that gives YOU the opportunity to be debating in this thread without links or corroboration I might add.
You believe God created /started the BIG BANG...fine...Science cannot and currently does NOT necessarily deny that. BUT YOU CANNOT deny the BIG BANG and then use your computer....that is an oxymoron.. Oxymoron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I disagree. Applied science used the principles of electromagnetism to produce computers.
The big bang is just a theory based on the past like evolution. The past is gone and all we have is interpretations of the facts in the present. A better interpretation throws out the lesser. So, the big bang and evolution are historical science and are not related to applied science that produces computers and microwaves. Therefore no oxymoron.
"I am asserting that the scientifically discernible and validated attributes of the universe are sufficiently Godly to qualify as God "
Must be my memory is acting at it's worst again because I can't remember you answering this before.
What are those attributes,again, that you deem sufficient to qualify as a God...or more to the point, what attributes do you think a god must have?
Indulge me....or maybe just a quick rehash for the benefit of the newcomers.
GldnRule has supplied the simplified version. It is virtually everything about reality that you take for granted without explanation, then assign it to "nature," and then circularly use to "explain" everything (including "nature" itself) as "It just is" . . . it is "natural."
Where are your proofs to your assertion? If what you say were true and evolution were not a fact our life span would be greatly diminished..So back up your empty assertions or withdraw from the debate.
What are you talking about evolution has done nothing to increase our lifespan!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
Consider the results of a 2009 Pew Survey: 31 percent of U.S. adults believe “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.” (So much for dogs, horses or H1N1 flu.)
Breading out traits already present in the Kinds of animals created by God is not proof of evolution. And last I heard H1N1 is still a virus! It did not become another creature like a dog. All virus' have a signiture. The common cold has over 3000 variations of it's signiture. That is why you can keep catching a cold. This version of the H1N1 is the same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
The survey’s most enlightening aspect was its categorization of responses by levels of religious activity, which suggests that the most devout are on average least willing to accept the evidence of reality. White evangelical Protestants have the highest denial rate (55 percent), closely followed by the group across all religions who attend services on average at least once a week (49 percent).
Majority does not dictate truth. Truth is truth. Many Christians are swade by the lies of evolution, because they do not see how evolutionist twist the truth. The major lie that evolutionist make is the redefining of words mid sentance. Or what is refered to as the ol' bait and switch technique. It is subtle. That is why you o sanspeur have been fooled as well!
I disagree. Applied science used the principles of electromagnetism to produce computers.
The big bang is just a theory based on the past like evolution. The past is gone and all we have is interpretations of the facts in the present. A better interpretation throws out the lesser. So, the big bang and evolution are historical science and are not related to applied science that produces computers and microwaves. Therefore no oxymoron.
Your ignorance is overwhelming...Evolution is not a historical science. Evolution is continuing today as it has in the past and will in the future...Your dogma inspired disbelief has no effect on it...It cannot be stopped.
What are you talking about evolution has done nothing to increase our lifespan!
Breading out traits already present in the Kinds of animals created by God is not proof of evolution. And last I heard H1N1 is still a virus! It did not become another creature like a dog. All virus' have a signiture. The common cold has over 3000 variations of it's signiture. That is why you can keep catching a cold. This version of the H1N1 is the same thing.
Majority does not dictate truth. Truth is truth. Many Christians are swade by the lies of evolution, because they do not see how evolutionist twist the truth. The major lie that evolutionist make is the redefining of words mid sentance. Or what is refered to as the ol' bait and switch technique. It is subtle. That is why you o sanspeur have been fooled as well!
Nothing here but assertions...can't back them up, can you?
GldnRule has supplied the simplified version. It is virtually everything about reality that you take for granted without explanation, then assign it to "nature," and then circularly use to "explain" everything (including "nature" itself) as "It just is" . . . it is "natural."
Oh no! You're not going to get away with that again.
What we attribute to nature is not all you indicate adds up to your god.
We're just back once more, to your reluctance...refusal?....to define god so we are all using the same terminology.
I do not require Nature to be sentient.....I would require God to be all that nature is plus be sentient/aware/purposeful to fit my definition.
There's mine.....yours?
Oh no! You're not going to get away with that again.
What we attribute to nature is not all you indicate adds up to your god.
We're just back once more, to your reluctance...refusal?....to define god so we are all using the same terminology.
I do not require Nature to be sentient.....
I see . . . just exactly what do you require "Nature" to be . . . and what exactly IS it anyway?
Quote:
I would require God to be all that nature is plus be sentient/aware/purposeful to fit my definition.
There's mine.....yours?
That would fit your BELIEFS . . . since it is based in conceptualizations . . . not verified scientific attributes. However, there is no reason whatsoever for the Creator-of-all-that-exists to conform to your conceptualizations . . . is there? BTW . . . It would also fit my BELIEFS as well . . . but that has nothing to do with what is verifiable about our Creator . . . which is more than sufficiently Godly.
I see . . . just exactly what do you require "Nature" to be . . . and what exactly IS it anyway?That would fit your BELIEFS . . . since it is based in conceptualizations . . . not verified scientific attributes. However, there is no reason whatsoever for the Creator-of-all-that-exists to conform to your conceptualizations . . . is there? BTW . . . It would also fit my BELIEFS as well . . . but that has nothing to do with what is verifiable about our Creator . . . which is more than sufficiently Godly.
Which brings us right back full circle to........what we call nature, you call God.....semantics................................b ut then you add on a few things so that it no longer fits the common idea of nature, which does not require purposeful creation or direction.
And to go along with your entire synopsis..............which does not require believing naturecould send Jesus to earth as a human form delegate.....does not require believing that said Jesus was a delegate
I'm hesitant to hit 'submit' because my mind is on a plumbing problem so the above might be disjointed but since it's all typed and I dislike typing..........
Superior intelligence? Someone with superior intelligence would not use arrogance and excessively ignorant use of smilies to make a point.
I see my posting style "goes over your head".
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.
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.
.
