Lon
Well-known member
You answered your own question.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Bacterial resistance to antibiotics- what is the Creationist explanation?
- Thread starter chair
- Start date
I think it is fair to say that many of your opinions have been disproved by science, but you have not said what the supernatural is, so no one really has anything to say about it yet.
Again, you still have your work ahead of you to explain what you mean by a god. And that's before you get to explaining how a god makes a human by breathing into dirt, or doing magic on a rib. At the moment, science says you are talking nonsense, and I hope you would agree that, prima facie, it is nonsense.
Stuart
Right Divider
Body part
You can play your silly games all that you want.
Stooping in idiocy will not help your argument.
I don't need to describe how God did it. The fact that He said that He did is proof enough.
Your "god" of science is a false god.
The creation of life by "natural" forces is no less miraculous than what the Creator says that He did.
Science has time and again shown that life does NOT naturally spring from non-life. :cigar:
Well, you used the word supernatural. What do you mean by that?
What, actually, is a god?
There is no proof in you claiming it. If you want to convince me, you haven't sorry. It is clearly nonsense. If we are talking science then your word counts for nothing just as mine is also worthless. There is no unambiguous evidence for what you claim at all. Humans are not made from ribs and dirt. We know exactly how all humans became humans. We don't need the stories of the Bronze Age. They didn't know but we know now.
What is a god? In what way is one god false and another true?
I can agree on the word miraculous, but we probably think of different things when using that word. It is very likely that life, in some form or other, is commonplace in the universe. Perhaps if we knew how common we might not think so much in terms of miraculous events. It is still amazing to think that the universe has produced at least one species capable of thinking about the universe.
It still depends on what you think life is. The chemical problem with that is we do see pieces of the puzzle forming spontaneously all the time, for example fat molecules make little balloons that look like primitive cell membranes, but we haven't made the conditions that produce a cell because we don't know exactly what they were. The biological problem with what you claim is that on earth the molecules of life are good food for the bacteria that already live here so nothing spontaneous could ever get started newly.
Have you thought about the theological problem of claiming that life does not spring from non-life? Your god must be made of cells, or carry out the recognised functions of life such as reproduction (of other gods?) or respiration, have need for nutrition and so on.
Stuart
Right Divider
Body part
Beyond the natural. Unexplainable by natural laws.
God is the creator and sustainer of all things. That you know nothing about Him is too bad.
No, you don't. Just more bluff and bluster.
You need to take some time to do your own research on the topic.
More unsupported babbling. I thought that you wanted to stick to science and not just some personal philosophy.
If life was produced by "random chance" what makes "one species capable of thinking about the universe" anything more than just random activity in the brain?
:dizzy:
:rotfl:
Your childishness has long since lost its entertainment value.
Last edited:
If something is beyond the natural, then it is not explainable by natural laws. It is therefore not science.
Right Divider
Body part
You have a bad definition of science. :juggle:
Since your definition of science isn't one that is found in the dictionary--as mine is--what is your definition of science?
Right Divider
Body part
Such pride...
Science simply means "knowledge" and does not, by definition, require a naturalistic/materialistic world view.
Many, if not most, branches of modern science were founded by people with a Christian world view.
Science -- the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
How do you propose to study that which you say is "beyond the natural" through observation and experiment?
Right Divider
Body part
That is some peoples definition.
I would call that naturalistic science.
You can't. Not all science (knowledge) is like that.
Example: past historical events.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
What you wrote--what you are calling "mine"--isn't found in the dictionary. That is, the nonsense you wrote, here, isn't found in the dictionary:
Here's the definition of science that is found in the dictionary:
| the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding |
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Whenever fools such as yourself say things such as, "There is no God", "There is no god", "There are no gods", "God doesn't exist", or "I don't believe in God", or "I don't believe in a god", or "I don't believe in gods", etc., you have your work ahead of you to explain what (if anything) you mean by "God", and/or "a god", and/or "gods". Now, of course, it's not necessary that, when you say "I don't believe in God", or "I don't believe in a god", you mean something; for indeed, fools such as yourself are quite in the habit of saying things meaninglessly.
You missed it (as usual for you). From your link:
3a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Let's see what (if anything) you have to say about whatever it is you would call "evidence".
When chair claims that something (say, E) is evidence, on what (if anything) is chair basing his claim that E is evidence? When chair claims that E is evidence, is chair's claim baseless?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
I already saw that. What (if anything) is your point?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Missed what? I saw that. What (if anything) are you trying to say?