Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Ten Laws of Creationism and Intelligent Design
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(2)
Message 16 of 75 (791195)
09-12-2016 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
09-12-2016 1:02 PM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
Why not? If it says something about the distant past then it's telling us the truth about that distant past. It tells us about Creation, it tells us about the Flood. If it's God's word and He cannot lie then it's telling us the truth about those events.
Who says god cannot lie? God can do whatever he chooses based on what believers indicate.
And this brings up a fantastic thought experiment: if a god wanted to truly test his creation, a great way to do so is give the creation the ability to critically think but at the same time, allow false information to permeate in the world. The actual 'test' would be for those that could look at the data and evidence and realize the true nature of the universe.
It is a simple concept in the end: either there is one 'true' religion that gets everything right and all the others are wrong. Which is clearly false. Or, more plausibly, all religions are false and that science (which is demonstrable) is correct.
I see, and you've had a conversation with Him about this and know He wouldn't do it that way?
I am curious: do you not see the irony in you making a sarcastic comment towards someone by asserting the absurdity of their perceived communion with the divine while simultaneously believing in a book written by people thousands of years ago that claimed the exact same capability?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 09-12-2016 1:02 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 01-28-2017 11:35 AM Diomedes has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(2)
Message 31 of 75 (803838)
04-05-2017 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Davidjay
04-05-2017 8:12 AM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
All three of your examples are provable, as the Flood is true history. (And can be proven mathematically to be significant)
What does 'can be proven mathematically to be significant' mean? Are you stating that you have some mathematical proof of the flood? Because I would like to see it.
Evolutionists claim that Dinosaurs were struck by comets is unprovable and almost on the verge of complete insanity and totally unscientific.
Right. But leaving the world in the hands of two horny teenagers and talking snakes is perfectly plausible.
Science and math and design prove creationism
Proof please?
Evolution does not abandon its premises of luck and chance even though it has never been proven and they have no evidence
Except that there is copious evidence. Read about Professor Lenski's work.
I back science, and rational thinking rather than the lucky chances and so called beneficial mutations put forth by religious evolutionists
Then you know nothing about science since 'lucky chances' and randomness are commonplace. Read a little more about how evolution truly works and while you are at it, read about quantum mechanics.
Science shows design, laws were not created by random chance, no laws are evolving.
Once again, PROOF PLEASE? And what do you mean by 'laws'? Are we now getting into legal arguments?
Science backs creationism as creationism shows design. Evolution is without design or purpose or clarity, just miraculous miracles of chance and luck.
And for the last time, PLEASE PROVIDE A PROOF. If science backs creationism, show us the peer reviewed material and experiments that validate this claim.
And on an aside, the 'miraculous miracles' are what exist in the realm of religion, not science. The bible is full of them. So if you take issue with miracles, you are going to have a tough time reconciling the bible with your views.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Davidjay, posted 04-05-2017 8:12 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(2)
Message 47 of 75 (803884)
04-05-2017 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by dwise1
04-05-2017 12:03 PM


Re: Reading Genesis literally but not scientifically
Davidjay, you have already proven that you know nothing about evolution. There is no need for you to prove that you are a blithering idiot as well!
Too late.
Actually, I think the guy is just trolling us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by dwise1, posted 04-05-2017 12:03 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024