Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Signature in the cell

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by voltaire View Post
    What doesn't sound like the God of the bible to you?
    This vapourish, immaterial and timeless entity you are trying to pass off as your God, The Bible describes a very different God than that, It describes one that interacts with the world, so which is it.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Inzl Kett View Post
      “Don't look now, but there's one too many in this room and I think it's you.” - Groucho Marx
      “I have met a lot of hardboiled eggs in my time, but you're twenty minutes.” - Oscar Wilde
      A .22 caliber post in a .357 Magnum world.
      Get back to me when you know what you are talking about otherwise don't waste my time.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
        Except that no one designed the designer.
        Hang on a minute in your first post you said this:

        "I will never understand how someone can see the wonders of our universe from the smallest to the largest and think it all came about by chance and there was no design and/or engineering."

        Either everything needs a designer or it doesn't so which is it?

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
          And it's the evolutionist's insistence that t "must' have been such an event that turns my ears off; such arrogant ignorance is not worth listening to .
          I appreciate that your most common strategy in your struggle against reality is to try to ignore it.

          Stuart

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Stuu View Post
            Firstly, the philosophy of science says that all conclusions are permanently provisional on new contradictory evidence coming to light.
            That doesn't stop the majority of the scientific community from making declarative statements regarding what is a fact.

            Originally posted by Stuu View Post
            On the other hand, the philosophy of most religions is that their holy books, which contradict one another, are divinely-inspired truth.
            So what? You have a point?

            Originally posted by Stuu View Post
            So science wins that argument before a fact is even considered:
            Wins what argument? Who is this science fellow you keep talking about? What is his address?

            Originally posted by Stuu View Post
            science permanently acknowledges it could be wrong.
            I don't know who this science fellow is, but the philosophy of science states that nothing is ever certain.

            Originally posted by Stuu View Post
            However, when people are unwell, they tend to place their trust in science by going to the doctor, not in scripture-based treatment at the temple.
            They place their trust in a doctor, not this fellow called science whose last name you guys never mention. There is no such thing as scripture based treatment, so you are talking about a nonexistent situation.


            Originally posted by Stuu View Post
            Secondly, you have to cherry-pick to get a list of biblical claims where an ancient writer has guessed modern science correctly.
            I've never done such a thing, so you must be talking to a figment of your imagination.

            Originally posted by Stuu View Post
            The same is true with ancient philosophy: Democritus guessed right about atoms but Ptolemy guessed wrong on how vision works.
            What does have to do with anything being discussed?



            Originally posted by Stuu View Post
            Thirdly, if you think science is unreliable, then you are really being hypocritical to use it as the yard-stick by which to judge the supposed foreknowledge of scripture.
            Did I say this science fellow was unreliable? Never met him, and still don't know his last name. Statements of fact coming from the mouths of scientists, however, have been wrong before. Does that make them unreliable? For ultimate truth, yes. As a means of getting to ultimate truth. no. I am not using science as an ultimate yardstick to judge scripture. All I am saying is that the pronouncements of scientists in the past regarding scripture have had to be retracted when further scientific knowledge is gained. The point is that pronouncements of scientists regarding the truthfulness of scripture are not final. They show scripture to wrong and then a hundred years later, they show scripture to be right.

            Originally posted by Stuu View Post
            Following this argument, it could be that scripture is completely wrong about everything.
            And it could be that scripture is completely right about everything. Scientists have no business making truth claims about scripture period.

            Originally posted by Stuu View Post
            Fourthly, we are still waiting for even one valid example of this. We were promised 51.
            Serpent dove gave you a quote of adrian rogers. I referred you to her quote. If she or him were mistaken, oh well. I don't research every thing a poster says on this forum and neither do you punk. Go suck on a rotten egg while waiting on your list of 51.

            Originally posted by Stuu View Post
            Stuart

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Stuu View Post
              [God did it (Ge 1:1)] "Sorry, what did you[r] [G]od do? Exactly?"
              God created (Ge 1:1).

              See:

              Genesis 1:1 by Henry Morris

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                [Not impressed (Lk 16:31)] "It looks like you won't be testing that question, though doesn't it."
                That's up to you (Jn 3:19). God will not drag you to heaven (Re 22:11).

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                  ...[S]o we should trust the Southern Baptist convention president to know what is "scientifically accurate"?
                  Ad hominem.

                  You should trust God's word (Jn 3:12).

                  "You believe God (revelation) or you believe man (speculation)." J. Vernon McGee

                  ...feather problem

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by DaveDodo007 View Post
                    This vapourish, immaterial and timeless entity you are trying to pass off as your God, The Bible describes a very different God than that, It describes one that interacts with the world, so which is it.
                    The God I described matches the God of the Bible. It interacts with the world. What stops a vapourish, immaterial and timeless entity from interacting with the world? Time is a mathematical construct. You cannot do calculations without it. It is not a reality itself however.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by DaveDodo007 View Post
                      Hang on a minute in your first post you said this:

                      "I will never understand how someone can see the wonders of our universe from the smallest to the largest and think it all came about by chance and there was no design and/or engineering."

                      Either everything needs a designer or it doesn't so which is it?
                      Everything that has mass, energy and occupies space and time and possesses a gravitational field needs a designer. Anything that doesn't possess any of those attributes doesn't.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by serpentdove View Post
                        God created (Ge 1:1).

                        See:

                        Genesis 1:1 by Henry Morris
                        So where does the linked page say what your god did? Exactly?

                        Your statement "god created" appears to be contradicted by it:

                        The work of making and forming consists of organizing already existing materials into more complex systems, whereas the act of creation is that of speaking into existence something whose materials had no previous existence.

                        So when you say "god created" you have said nothing about how the "created" matter becomes DNA in living cells, even by Henry Morris's terms.

                        I guess we can put "speaking" matter into existence alongside "breathing" into some of that matter to make a human. Science has a real, evidence-based explanation for why there is matter in the universe. It does not depend on platitudes.

                        Stuart

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by voltaire View Post
                          What stops a vapourish, immaterial and timeless entity from interacting with the world?
                          How could you possibly know about this either way, inhabitant of space-time?

                          Stuart

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by voltaire View Post
                            That doesn't stop the majority of the scientific community from making declarative statements regarding what is a fact.

                            So what? You have a point?

                            Wins what argument? Who is this science fellow you keep talking about? What is his address?

                            I don't know who this science fellow is, but the philosophy of science states that nothing is ever certain.

                            They place their trust in a doctor, not this fellow called science whose last name you guys never mention. There is no such thing as scripture based treatment, so you are talking about a nonexistent situation.

                            I've never done such a thing, so you must be talking to a figment of your imagination.

                            What does have to do with anything being discussed?

                            Did I say this science fellow was unreliable? Never met him, and still don't know his last name. Statements of fact coming from the mouths of scientists, however, have been wrong before. Does that make them unreliable? For ultimate truth, yes. As a means of getting to ultimate truth. no. I am not using science as an ultimate yardstick to judge scripture. All I am saying is that the pronouncements of scientists in the past regarding scripture have had to be retracted when further scientific knowledge is gained. The point is that pronouncements of scientists regarding the truthfulness of scripture are not final. They show scripture to wrong and then a hundred years later, they show scripture to be right.

                            And it could be that scripture is completely right about everything. Scientists have no business making truth claims about scripture period.

                            Serpent dove gave you a quote of adrian rogers. I referred you to her quote. If she or him were mistaken, oh well. I don't research every thing a poster says on this forum and neither do you punk. Go suck on a rotten egg while waiting on your list of 51.
                            Let me know when you have something relevant to say about biblical scientific claims, or have worked out what I was saying to you about the provisional nature of scientific conclusions, or understand how much the safety of the medicine you take or the medical procedure you undergo is based on the scientific method of testing known as the double-blind trial.

                            Stuart

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by DaveDodo007 View Post
                              Hang on a minute in your first post you said this:

                              "I will never understand how someone can see the wonders of our universe from the smallest to the largest and think it all came about by chance and there was no design and/or engineering."

                              Either everything needs a designer or it doesn't so which is it?
                              I never said everything needs a designer.

                              Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                              I appreciate that your most common strategy in your struggle against reality is to try to ignore it.

                              Stuart
                              So you take what I said, rephrase it and throw it back at me? That's lazy.
                              sigpic

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
                                So you take what I said, rephrase it and throw it back at me? That's lazy.
                                No, I was just reflecting on your own statement that you don't listen to what you consider to be "arrogant".

                                Of course you never said what was arrogant about it.

                                It's not me that's lazy.

                                Stuart

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X