> Off Topic Discussions
Worlds most prominant atheist stumped.
phazel:
--- Quote from: Kent on April 17, 2008, 12:50:03 PM ---
If we would say that God created the universe, we would have to say how He did it, to satisfy the evolutionists. If we know how He did it, then we could probably find a way to do it too.
It's a never ending argument.
--- End quote ---
Thats actually not true. Scientifically you need to formulate what God is and give evidence to demostrate why the "what" is a cause.
God is a "possibility" and scientifically there is little more than speculation to assert that a God does anything in our world or life. It doesn't matter how unexplainable something is, that does not demonstrate anything scientific that it must be a God.
phazel:
--- Quote from: hillsbororiver on April 17, 2008, 12:56:45 PM ---
Micro evolution is one one thing but an entire new species? Even a wing or how about the eye? The fossil record shows them appearing all at once, fully formed and functional.
--- End quote ---
The problem is that micro evolution, IS evolution and one only has to research a bit to find that new species of mosquitos have been discovered based upon an environmental change.
The difference is that science has not observed large changes most notably called Macro evolution. The issue is whether the evidence against it automatically means God did it simply because science does not have an answer.
And while you may not agree with the 6 literal day account of creation, THOSE are the people who are trying to get even worse science taught than evolution ever thought about being. I guess it is a matter of picking your poison.
Kent:
--- Quote from: phazel on April 17, 2008, 01:22:10 PM ---
Thats actually not true. Scientifically you need to formulate what God is and give evidence to demostrate why the "what" is a cause.
--- End quote ---
And do this how?
What is the possible "scientific" explanation for that 70 million year old soft dino tissue?
--- Quote ---God is a "possibility" and scientifically there is little more than speculation to assert that a God does anything in our world or life. It doesn't matter how unexplainable something is, that does not demonstrate anything scientific that it must be a God.
--- End quote ---
This is what I mean. It never ends. Scientists will always call it speculation, because as far as I can tell, the existence of God cannot be scientifically proven. How does one show another a Spirit? Nothing I or anyone else can say will convince an evolutionist, any more than an evolutionist can say anything that will change a creationists mind.
Now where I agree with you is that a lot of people believe that the earth is only 6000 years old. All because some monk sat down and figured it out using geneaologies (sp?).
Nothing short of an act of God will change their minds either. They make creationists look stupid.
phazel:
--- Quote from: Kent on April 17, 2008, 01:40:43 PM ---
--- Quote from: phazel on April 17, 2008, 01:22:10 PM ---
Thats actually not true. Scientifically you need to formulate what God is and give evidence to demostrate why the "what" is a cause.
--- End quote ---
And do this how?
What is the possible "scientific" explanation for that 70 million year old soft dino tissue?
--- End quote ---
Here is the difference.
You first question is the point scientifically. Why should science recognize something you cannot even formulate something for?
The second question is another problem. What does that lack of explanation ACTUALLY demonstrate? Does it really demonstrate God? If it does, please explain.
hillsbororiver:
--- Quote from: phazel on April 17, 2008, 01:29:26 PM ---
--- Quote from: hillsbororiver on April 17, 2008, 12:56:45 PM ---
Micro evolution is one one thing but an entire new species? Even a wing or how about the eye? The fossil record shows them appearing all at once, fully formed and functional.
--- End quote ---
Hi Phazel,
You missed the point. A small dog through environment and diet and breeding becomes a bigger dog it is still a dog, not a bear or a tiger or an ape. The genetics that allowed for this were already preprogrammed into it's genes. It was not a series of birth defect random mutations over billions of years that produced this result.
The problem is that micro evolution, IS evolution and one only has to research a bit to find that new species of mosquitos have been discovered based upon an environmental change.
It is still a mosquito. Are you going to say that a caterpillar spinning a cocoon, crawling in it and emerging as a butterfly proof of evolution as well?
The difference is that science has not observed large changes most notably called Macro evolution. The issue is whether the evidence against it automatically means God did it simply because science does not have an answer.
Nothing happens without God, period. Take Him out of the equation and all we have is nothingness, if you do not believe He exists and is sovereign then this discussion becomes rather pointless, don't you think?
Look at the fossil record, as Dave pointed out and innumerable articles and journals declare, these "new" forms of life appeared fully formed. Show us the in between fossil as fins evolved into hands and feet. As I asked you before can you name one birth defect that has been beneficial and passed on to the children of the person that was born with a defect?
And while you may not agree with the 6 literal day account of creation, THOSE are the people who are trying to get even worse science taught than evolution ever thought about being. I guess it is a matter of picking your poison.
If you are saying you believe God used evolution (preprogrammed the entire process, I have no problem with that, if you are implying we are the result of random selection then I emphatically disagree.
I will pass on both the arsenic and the hemlock thank you. ;)
Peace,
Joe
P.S. This is like debating politics so I will bow out.
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version