Creation vs. Evolution

[Rosenritter]

I ha:nono:d read that quote long before you'd ever posted it. He was simply saying he wasn't a Jesuit and that he didn't believe in a personal God. He never meant that he didn't believe in any God. Thus, unless you are shallow and miss 'from the perspective a Jesuit priest.' Such is a false perception and completely wrong. You've seen the quotes and should know better.

Just an interruption... Lon, I'm sure you have your own reasons why you appreciate Einstein. Maybe he was a nice guy, maybe clever, maybe interesting, and he certainly had great hair... but ultimately does it really matter what he thought of atheism and theism in the whole scheme of things? Let me put it this way - Einstein could be atheist or Satanist and it wouldn't affect my belief. Likewise, I am sure that if he was a devout Christian or Jew it wouldn't change any of the humanistic evolutionists minds here either.

 

[Tyrathca]

Rosen seems to be objecting to people not considering miracles a valid scientific explanation...

Let me spell it out for you, if you say something can be explained scientifically that means you can explain it without your God suspending the laws of physics for it to happen. Even if you assume the existence of a god that does not then make a miracle a valid example of a scientific explanation. It's a miracle plain and simple, don't try to pretend it is anything but a miracle.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[DavisBJ]

I must have got you confused with the sometimes-polite Humanist on this forum. My apologies to you both.

I am just me, and little concerned with whether or not I fit within some of the labels people use, like “humanist”. But I am in Japan, mostly on family business, with only a tad of touristing mixed in (Having previously resided in Japan for a few years, I am pretty much past the tourist stage).

Thanks for prepending the “polite” in front of humanist. I will try to keep that intact, but that will not dissuade me from sometimes being very pointed in what I say.

 

[DavisBJ]

Unless whatever created you 'can give' intelligence, then you cannot have intelligence (and/or meaning, or purpose etc.) Necessarily, whatever you have from the universe, is a property of or outside of it. Has to be. It is a reflexive truth.

I can’t see that this is much more than yet another packaging of the fallacious “Intelligent Design” argument. A million rabbits live near a cliff, and have a high mortality rate from falling off the cliff. A few of them, purely by virtue of the genetic variations each individual has, sense the edge of the cliff (via visual cues, touch, sound, whatever). They don’t fall off, and thus live to have more offspring than the average rabbit. A few millennia later, falling off the cliff is now a rare event. They have gained a simple form of intelligence that allows them to avoid cliffs. Repeat over eons, and instead of cliffs, animals are computing interstellar rocket trajectories.

 

[Rosenritter]

Rosen seems to be objecting to people not considering miracles a valid scientific explanation...

Let me spell it out for you, if you say something can be explained scientifically that means you can explain it without your God suspending the laws of physics for it to happen. Even if you assume the existence of a god that does not then make a miracle a valid example of a scientific explanation. It's a miracle plain and simple, don't try to pretend it is anything but a miracle.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

I understand that feel obliged to support anyone who flies your team colors, but try to follow this please. The objection voiced by DavisBJ is that a fish could not possibly hold a human, or any of the events could have happened, it is supposedly unscientific. Here, let me help spell this out for you instead:

Miracle events:
Jonah receives message from God
Super storm summoned on top of Jonah.
Storm ceases when Jonah thrown overboard.
Giant fish prepared.
Giant fish chooses to swallow Jonah.
Giant fish safely carries Jonah to Nineveh.
Giant fish tosses Jonah out on dry land.

I listed all of those events as miraculous because that word means it is an action from God. Human actions are not miraculous, and natural events are that which would happen without divine or human intervention.

Human caused events:
Jonah flees on a ship in the opposite direction from Nineveh.
Sailors choose to draw lots.
Jonah is thrown overboard.
Jonah prays while under distress from being in stomach of whale.

These are actions that also defy the normal courses of nature, but are actions carried out by normal people with capabilities like you or me. As a rhetorical question, does one normally refer to any of those human actions as "scientific?" The answer is no, one doesn't. You don't normally talk that way.

Let's look back at the events I classified under the "miracle" category for one reason or another.

Davis earlier said that the storm was "scientific" and not requiring intervention. Yet within this context the storm is miraculous, it was created for a reason, and it ceased when its task was complete.

Next we consider that God prepared a great fish. Yet what does Davis object to about the fish? Does he object that the fish was prepared (perhaps even created specifically) for the task? No, he doesn't object to the miracle, he objects that a fish couldn't possibly swallow a human. It is perfectly scientific that a fish could swallow someone. You just need a large enough ratio of fish to human. The ocean is known for holding creatures of incredible size, all of which are "fish" within our context.

Let me spell out an example of an "unscientific" version of this story. If it had said that "God prepared a small fish to swallow Jonah" then that would be unscientific. There is no way for a small fish to swallow a person without suspending disbelief. Just because YOU haven't been swallowed by a large sea creature does not mean it is outside the realm of possibility.

In fact, let me put this in perspective for you. The chances of amino acids randomly combining together to form anything at all is next to zero. Making that more difficult is that naturally occurring enzymes destroy your combinations at rates several times faster than they could randomly form. You'd have better chances of solving a jigsaw puzzle by watching the pieces be shaken about on a platform by a machine. Then, should you somehow against all conceivable odds form ONE chain of DNA.... it does nothing by itself, because that's only a mechanism that is used to store the pattern. Something else has to be built that knows what to do with the data. Has this ever been reproduced? No, it hasn't. Does it have any chance of being reproduced? No, it doesn't. But I imagine at least one of the crusaders on this forum will argue that it somehow could given infinite repetitions. Yet you can't solve a jigsaw puzzle by shaking the box. You want me to believe your miracle and call it "science."

It is a known fact that there are large sea creatures, also known that they sometimes swallow things whole with no particular intervention required. Given a large enough sea creature with intelligent direction there is no reason to claim it would be "unscientific" for it to be able to swallow a person as required.

I have been very clear both now and before what constitutes "miracle." Now please explain to me why it is "unscientific" to think that a fish could swallow a human whole.

 

[DavisBJ]

I understand that feel obliged to support anyone who flies your team colors, but try to follow this please. The objection voiced by DavisBJ is that a fish could not possibly hold a human, or any of the events could have happened, it is supposedly unscientific. …

Just a quite note - though I am quite adamant about allegiance to the methodology under which science operates, I am willing to deviate a bit. If you claim the dramatic Biblical type miracles occurred, and are occurring, then tell me where and when so I can come along. Give me enough lead time to prepare the requisite scientific equipment to document what the conditions were before, after, and especially during the event. Be glad to include your name as co-author in the peer-reviewed paper documenting the event, along with the supporting data, measurements, etc.

 

[Tyrathca]

I understand that feel obliged to support anyone who flies your team colors, but try to follow this please.

I understand that you feel the need to object to anyone who doesn't fly your teams colours, but try to follow please.

The objection voiced by DavisBJ is that a fish could not possibly hold a human, or any of the events could have happened, it is supposedly unscientific.

The objection is it can't happen without a blatant violation of physics. It requires magic / miracles.

It cannot happen without direct and active divine intervention. Please do try to follow.

These are actions that also defy the normal courses of nature, but are actions carried out by normal people with capabilities like you or me. As a rhetorical question, does one normally refer to any of those human actions as "scientific?" The answer is no, one doesn't. You don't normally talk that way.

Actually yes, those actions are within the scientifically plausible. Man turning lead to gold with a wand is not scientific, man building a boat with some tools is. Man surviving being in a whales stomach is not scientifically plausible, man surviving on an island is plausible.

If you want to say that your God suspended the laws of physics to allow Jonah to survive in a whales stomach then that is fine. But don't try to pretend that it is anything other than what it is, dont try to pretend that it is possible within the realm of Science even with intelligent intervention.

Davis earlier said that the storm was "scientific" and not requiring intervention.

In case you need to be reminded, the point that being made was that we know storms can happen. We know someone can't survive in a whales stomach.

Yet within this context the storm is miraculous, it was created for a reason, and it ceased when its task was complete.

Or maybe it was just a storm and we should stop trying to anthropomorphise it? We know storms can start and stop.

Let me spell out an example of an "unscientific" version of this story. If it had said that "God prepared a small fish to swallow Jonah" then that would be unscientific. There is no way for a small fish to swallow a person without suspending disbelief. Just because YOU haven't been swallowed by a large sea creature does not mean it is outside the realm of possibility.

Of course someone can be swallowed by a large sea creature. The unscientific part is surviving the experience since by your own criteria "three is no way for (someone to survive inside a sea creatures stomach) without suspending disbelief"

I haven't been thrown in the centre of the sun either yet somehow I don't think you'll object to me saying I can't survive that either.

The chances of amino acids randomly combining together to form anything at all is next to zero.

Yeah no, your lack of understanding of biochemistry not withstanding.

Making that more difficult is that naturally occurring enzymes destroy your combinations at rates several times faster than they could randomly form.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict you can't actually specify what these "naturally occurring enzymes" are or what "your combinations" they destroy. I'd find it hilarious if you do specify the enzymes and they turn out to be made of amino acids though....

Then, should you somehow against all conceivable odds form ONE chain of DNA.... it does nothing by itself, because that's only a mechanism that is used to store the pattern.

And? I don't know what the first life looked like other than I don't think it started with DNA (though I could be wrong about even that). Me not knowing something doesn't mean you know something though.

I don't know what causes the accelerating expansion of the universe either. Doesn't mean I should defer to a kook who thinks the cause is leprechauns and magical rockets.

FYI though we are no longer talking about evolution now. We are talking about abiogenesis.

It is a known fact that there are large sea creatures, also known that they sometimes swallow things whole with no particular intervention required. Given a large enough sea creature with intelligent direction there is no reason to claim it would be "unscientific" for it to be able to swallow a person as required.

And if you could find someone who had objects to the idea of a person being swallowed by a sea creature then maybe you'd have a point rather than a strawman. But you know as well as I that the objections have always been about someone SURVIVING being swallowed for days.

I have been very clear both now and before what constitutes "miracle." Now please explain to me why it is "unscientific" to think that a fish could swallow a human whole.

Goal post shifting noted.

If you want to redefine what is meant by miracle then go ahead but don't expect the rest of the world or any of us to pay attention. If you want to argue against people saying that someone couldn't be swallowed by a sea creature then go ahead but don't expect anyone else to argue back about it. If you want to argue that they can survive the process for days without as you call it "suspending disbelief" then you might have someone to talk to.



Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[Rosenritter]

In case you need to be reminded, the point that being made was that we know storms can happen. We know someone can't survive in a whales stomach.
Or maybe it was just a storm and we should stop trying to anthropomorphise it? We know storms can start and stop.
Of course someone can be swallowed by a large sea creature. The unscientific part is surviving the experience since by your own criteria "three is no way for (someone to survive inside a sea creatures stomach) without suspending disbelief"
Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

I'm going to ask a question. My understanding is that you claim that "Jonah" simply didn't happen. Why then, pray tell, are you now arguing that the storm just started and stopped on its own? Do you not realize how inconsistent that is with your own position? You can't take both positions that it didn't happen AND that the start and stop of the storm was mere coincidence... why, it would seem like you were arguing anything just for the sake of arguing...

And I'm going to make a short statement. Yes, there were voiced repeated objections that a sea creature couldn't exist that could swallow a man whole... or that God couldn't create a creature of sufficient size, take your pick. Size was questioned in more than one post. Examples were demanded of proof that a creature could swallow something man-sized intact. It's no wonder this board gets nowhere when such commonplace items are given the third degree.

 

[Tyrathca]

I'm going to ask a question. My understanding is that you claim that "Jonah" simply didn't happen. Why then, pray tell, are you now arguing that the storm just started and stopped on its own?

I'm just saying that it's not hard to believe a story that storm happened, given attributions of agency behind it can be easily ignored.

Its rather harder to suspend disbelief for something you know can't happen without extreme intervention in the laws of physics, especially when the story doesn't even acknowledge that problem.

And I'm going to make a short statement. Yes, there were voiced repeated objections that a sea creature couldn't exist that could swallow a man whole... or that God couldn't create a creature of sufficient size, take your pick.

I'm not sure the problem of size people were referring to was one of being able to swallow so much as it was their internal dimensions for someone to live in.

Examples were demanded of proof that a creature could swallow something man-sized intact. It's no wonder this board gets nowhere when such commonplace items are given the third degree.

Examples were wanted of creatures who could swallow a person whole and they could theoretically survive .



Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[DavisBJ]

Let me speak plainly. You are confused. Specifically, you are confusing the terms "atheist" and "scientific." There is no *atheist* explanation for how a storm plus a whale would conspire against a disobedient prophet to bring him to a major metropolis, but that is not what you challenged. What you do demonstrate is a raging bias that prevents you from evaluating claims sensibly.

I'll pretend for a moment that you're capable of appreciating logic. When proceeding with a proof, there are certain assumptions which are required to be accepted as true. Is there anyone here that has taken college level mathematics? Perhaps they might know what I am talking about?

A long time ago I think I took college math. More recently, and thusly more distinct in my memory are the numerous hours I stood in front of college classes teaching math. So you will not find I am easily cowed by amateurish lectures on logic.

<snip silly lecture on logic> … The required assumption in the book of Jonah is "God." … There is nothing "unscientific" about the story.

I will give you credit for having the temerity to start with God as a pre-condition, and then almost immediately declaring that there is nothing unscientific about the story. Since that is apparently where we differ, can you show where God is accepted within the scientific community as being within the aegis of science?

Guillaume Rondelet (1554) recorded finding a giant shark with a whole man in its belly. The man was still wearing a full suit of armor. Rondelet was a professor of medicine at the University of Montpellier. The man was dead, but the suit of armor indicates that it was swallowed whole. You can Google for more details rather than accusing me of making it up.

Here is what I came up with:

This is a rather bizarre one that has never strictly been confirmed, but according to Guillaume Rondelet, an esteemed French naturalist from the 16th Century, the remains of a knight still wearing his armour were once located in the gut of a Great White shark. Rondelet had a strong interest in marine life and was held in high regard within the world of science, so the chances are that he was telling the truth about this grisly discovery.​

I did some more searching to see if this account was from what Rondelet himself saw, or was an account he was forwarding. I was unable to come up with anything. If you have more definitive information, let me know.

P.S. If I were God, and were preparing a great fish to swallow a man, I think I might create the large version of the fish I had in mind, rather than the small version. If DavisBJ were God, he would be like "Oh man, what do I do? No matter how many minnows I create they are all too small. Maybe I will try a salmon next. I'll start with a small salmon."

If I were a Hebrew in Old Testament times, the story of Jonah might seem far more palatable due to the paucity of scientific understanding in that iron-age group of nomads. It would make a great story for making a point about obedience to the Hebrew God.

And if I were you, in a prior post I would not have chosen a picture of a lady standing in the mouth of Megalodon to illustrate my point. When you are desperate enough to have to use a picture of the jaws of a sea creature which is believed to have gone extinct a few million years before Jonah supposedly had his misadventures, well then …..

 

[MichaelCadry]

:nono: I had read that quote long before you'd ever posted it. He was simply saying he wasn't a Jesuit and that he didn't believe in a personal God. He never meant that he didn't believe in any God. Thus, unless you are shallow and miss 'from the perspective a Jesuit priest.' Such is a false perception and completely wrong. You've seen the quotes and should know better.
"Oh Lon, you are right." "Thanks Stuu."



Yes it is. He repeatedly said "Spinoza's God." He was ever a pantheist.


He was inclusive but he was 'mad' that atheists tried to use him for their godless universe. So, no, he wasn't just saying science without religion was lame. He was saying anyone without acknowledging God was lame. For him thinking and science were the same thing.
As a pantheist, inclusion was his aim. Anything 'exclusive' like atheism and a personal God, was out. Pantheism agrees that God causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust.
I could have. That it bothers you I didn't? Noted.


:nono: Spinoza's God cannot be intelligently denied. He exists and has to. I could discuss with them why God must necessarily be able to be personal too, but neither of them are alive. I'll wait until I cross that bridge with a pantheist.

Has to be, rather. Unless whatever created you 'can give' intelligence, then you cannot have intelligence (and/or meaning, or purpose etc.) Necessarily, whatever you have from the universe, is a property of or outside of it. Has to be. It is a reflexive truth.

Dear Lon,

From what I've read, I'd have to say that you are right about the matter. I'm no expert of course, but I have to say, the writing is on the wall. I just had to chime in.

Praise The Lord!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Let me speak plainly. You are confused. Specifically, you are confusing the terms "atheist" and "scientific." There is no *atheist* explanation for how a storm plus a whale would conspire against a disobedient prophet to bring him to a major metropolis, but that is not what you challenged. What you do demonstrate is a raging bias that prevents you from evaluating claims sensibly.

I'll pretend for a moment that you're capable of appreciating logic. When proceeding with a proof, there are certain assumptions which are required to be accepted as true. Is there anyone here that has taken college level mathematics? Perhaps they might know what I am talking about? The assumptions are stated plainly and past that you take logical steps based on those assumptions. You are not allowed to keep calling foul because you dislike the assumptions. If the steps show there is inherent contradiction in spite of the assumptions, then you have disproved said assumption.

Am I moving too fast for you? Please forgive any apparent disdain, but you seem to not grasp this concept. You are free to state ahead of time that you disagree with the assumption, but not to call the proof invalid while you accept said assumption.

I will not translate that into English for you. The required assumption in the book of Jonah is "God." You whale and howl that the story is "unscientific" but the parts you protest are not "God" but rather minute details like "fish." Then you cry out because the assumption you already accepted for sake of argument, "God", preempts your objection completely. There is nothing "unscientific" about the story. Absolutely non-atheistic, most certainly, but not against scientific principles. When you can understand and admit that difference I will take you seriously.

Just in case you don't get it, intelligent causes for events are not "unscientific." You constantly invoke circular reasoning when you insist that bible events must have unintelligent random causes before they can be believed. Or in other words, you pretty much insist that all the events described as caused by God must have been able to happen without God.

I'll spell this out again. You have the right to believe "there is no God" but to accept the premise of "The God that can create life from nothing exists and took action" and then dispute details such as "God couldn't create a fish that big" or "God couldn't have put Jonah in a near coma to reduce air usage" is just STUPID. You are arguing all the wrong points.

Not that I am taking you seriously now, but just something to sit in your stomach:

Guillaume Rondelet (1554) recorded finding a giant shark with a whole man in its belly. The man was still wearing a full suit of armor. Rondelet was a professor of medicine at the University of Montpellier. The man was dead, but the suit of armor indicates that it was swallowed whole. You can Google for more details rather than accusing me of making it up.

P.S. If I were God, and were preparing a great fish to swallow a man, I think I might create the large version of the fish I had in mind, rather than the small version. If DavisBJ were God, he would be like "Oh man, what do I do? No matter how many minnows I create they are all too small. Maybe I will try a salmon next. I'll start with a small salmon."

Dear Rosenritter,

Yes, I agree with you. God is the one Who makes storms through Himself, Jesus and His angels. See Rev. 14:14 KJV}. It tells of the Lord causing some tornadoes. I should know. I had a vision/ out-of-body experience about it. It was explained to me that they were the tornadoes that went from Brandenburg, KY though Xenia, OH, and northwards through Michigan. There was a white tornado and a black tornado. And they ran for a path of 200 miles. Well, if you do the math, 1,600 furlongs equals 200 miles, since there are 8 furlongs to one mile. Some of the worst tornadoes ever. Without God's approval, all rain and snow and storms, etc. are controlled by Him, Jesus, and His servants, the angels. There is NO Mother Nature!! Who do you think makes the high and low pressure areas and causes them to combine. It is God!! God can do everything. You are thinking with a man's limits instead of what God can do. If God says He did it, yes, He made it happen!!

Michael

 

[DavisBJ]

Dear DavisBJ,

What in the hell do you know??

Don’t know, never been there. According to you, that place is far, far under my feet. The only way I can conceive of getting there is to tie myself to a subducting oceanic plate, and hope that in a few million years my body gets incorporated into the mantle, and not burped out the cone of some volcano.

As far as mountains being formed, I can't say I know for sure, but I get this feeling that they were formed when the tectonic plates moved and countries ran into each other causing a great buckling. And it would let ocean water pour under tectonic plates rush under plates and create mountains. And we know that undersea volcanoes can make an island, so I'm sure they could make mountains on a continent. These are just some of my ideas. I'm not saying any of this is fact yet, but these are some things that I ponder upon. God could have caused extreme earthquakes to make mountains. …

Mike, when a man wants to walk to a particular place, but gets really drunk first, still once in a while he might accidentally stagger close to his intended destination. That’s the way you are in this post – surprisingly close to some credible ideas. You tempt me to show you the last few steps, but then I think back to the several other times I have found myself in this situation. And I sadly realize that it just doesn’t help much to pour gas into a leaky gas tank.

So sorry, Mike.

Much Love From God, And From Me,

Michael

Oh goody. You (once again) forgive me?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Don’t know, never been there. According to you, that place is far, far under my feet. The only way I can conceive of getting there is to tie myself to a subducting oceanic plate, and hope that in a few million years my body gets incorporated into the mantle, and not burped out the cone of some volcano.


Mike, when a man wants to walk to a particular place, but gets really drunk first, still once in a while he might accidentally stagger close to his intended destination. That’s the way you are in this post – surprisingly close to some credible ideas. You tempt me to show you the last few steps, but then I think back to the several other times I have found myself in this situation. And I sadly realize that it just doesn’t help much to pour gas into a leaky gas tank.

So sorry, Mike.

Oh goody. You (once again) forgive me?

Dear Davis,

How could I stay mad at you. My anger goes away quite fast. Face it, we're stuck with each other!! By the way, it's not your earthly body that goes to hell. It's your soul and spirit. They pop out of your earthly body when you die. You're still alive, but not trapped in an earthly body which has limitations on how fast it can go.

As far as my credible theories, I want you to know that I just deduced them from what I know about the subject. I didn't get any coaching except from God.

Much Love, In Christ,

Michael

 

[Stuu]

I had read that quote long before you'd ever posted it. He was simply saying he wasn't a Jesuit and that he didn't believe in a personal God. He never meant that he didn't believe in any God. Thus, unless you are shallow and miss 'from the perspective a Jesuit priest.' Such is a false perception and completely wrong.

Lon: Every thing he said came consistently from a pantheist worldview and he repeatedly repudiated any atheistic label.

Albert Einstein: "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."


Stuu: 'science without religion is lame' doesn't mean 'science without god belief is lame'.

Yes it is. He repeatedly said "Spinoza's God." He was ever a pantheist.

"I am not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist."

He was inclusive but he was 'mad' that atheists tried to use him for their godless universe. So, no, he wasn't just saying science without religion was lame. He was saying anyone without acknowledging God was lame.

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses"

That it bothers you I didn't?

I promise you I haven't let it cost me sleep. However, if you need your ego massaged, let me know and I'll see what I can do.

Spinoza's God cannot be intelligently denied. He exists and has to. I could discuss with them why God must necessarily be able to be personal too, but neither of them are alive. I'll wait until I cross that bridge with a pantheist.

It sounds to me like Spinoza's god is everything, in which case it is nothing in particular. And given that there is no unambiguous evidence whatever for any kind of universal intelligence then the obvious provisional conclusion is we are dealing with human wishful thinking. Einstein certainly did a lot of wishful thinking in regards to various theories of physics. It would be entirely consistent that he would wish there to be an overarching spiritual presence, no matter how abstract was his view of it.

Has to be, rather. Unless whatever created you 'can give' intelligence, then you cannot have intelligence (and/or meaning, or purpose etc.) Necessarily, whatever you have from the universe, is a property of or outside of it. Has to be. It is a reflexive truth.

Until you can understand Darwin you will forever make this mistake.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

If you refuse to admit that I actually was interested in knowing if you had technical reasons for your choice between Baumgardner and Brown, fine.

You didn't ask that. You moved there after it was exposed that you knew full well the answer to your actual question.

I have strong suspicions you did not make that choice for technical reasons, and that is why you desperately avoid exposing that ignorance.

:yawn:

 

[patrick jane]

Atheists take a smug approach to debating believers because they know there is no tangible proof of God, or so they think. I say the proof of God is all around us !

 

[DavisBJ]

You didn't ask that. You moved there after it was exposed that you knew full well the answer to your actual question.

:yawn:

But the question that I am interested in now is why did you choose Brown? If you had a rational technical reason, you could have posted it long since. You didn’t post that reason, nor do I think you will. Can’t post what you don’t have.

 

[DavisBJ]

The One who created scientists, also created science. The world around us, as well as the universe speaks of the majesty of our Creator and the truth of His Word.

This has got to be about repetition #2000 of essentially this same scientifically vacuous nonsensical sound byte from 6days.

 

[Stuu]

Atheists take a smug approach to debating believers because they know there is no tangible proof of God, or so they think. I say the proof of God is all around us !

Which god?

Stuart