Signature in the cell

DaveDodo007

New member
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.:(
 

DaveDodo007

New member
“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.
 

DaveDodo007

New member
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?:rolleyes:
 

Stuu

New member
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
 

voltaire

BANNED
Banned
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.

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?

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?

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.

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.


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.

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?



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.

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.

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.

 

voltaire

BANNED
Banned
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.
 

voltaire

BANNED
Banned
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?:rolleyes:

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.
 

Stuu

New member
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
 

Stuu

New member
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
 

Lighthouse

Star-Spangled Kid
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
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?:rolleyes:
I never said everything needs a designer.

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.
 

Stuu

New member
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
 

Lighthouse

Star-Spangled Kid
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
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
The fact that you don't see what's arrogant about it just proves my point that it's arrogance.

"It must be this way; it can't be any other way."

You really don't see the arrogance in that?
 

serpentdove

BANNED
Banned
"Your statement "god created"..."
God's statement (Ge 1:1). God said he created. Believe him (Jn 3:12).

"...[A]ppears 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."
Only God can make something ex nihilo (out of nothing). Learn about making wine and suspending the First Law of Thermodynamics. :cheers:

See:

Life of Jesus Volume 1: Jesus Tests and Builds Faith Pt 2b (right click, open) by Darrell Ferguson

Only "Science has a real, evidence-based explanation for why there is matter in the universe."

[Edited Sermon Notes Evolution: Fact or Fiction by Adrian Rogers] Did God make man or did man make God? Is man the special creation of almightily God or is God a figment of man’s imagination? 1 Ti 6:20

Evolution: Nothing + time + chance = everything. :dizzy: It's a fairy tale for adults. :hammer:

Why I reject the theory of evolution:

1. For logical reasons

a. Well-trained scientists do not believe

b. Not founded on observation

c. Wholly unsupported by facts

2. Evolutionists do not have answers for:

a. The origin of life

b. Fixity of the species

c. The fossil record

d. The Second Law of Thermodynamics

e. Certain properties that exist which have nothing to do with "survival of the fittest"

2. Moral reasons

a. People are an accident

b. The depraved have believed

3. Theological reasons

a. No first parents

b. No paradise

c. No fall

c. Atonement collapses

Full text: Edited sermon notes Evolution: Fact or Fiction by Adrian Rogers

"When a scientists says he believes the Bible--that doesn't give me anymore more faith in the Bible that gives me more faith in the scientist." ~ Adrian Rogers
 
Last edited:

Stuu

New member
The fact that you don't see what's arrogant about it just proves my point that it's arrogance.

"It must be this way; it can't be any other way."

You really don't see the arrogance in that?
I agree, there is an element of arrogance in that. However, you would have to understand the background to the comment, which includes the fact that there is NO explanation for how DNA came to be the replicating molecule in all living things. If you don't have an alternative then it would be arrogant of you to call this arrogance if Dawkins has the best candidate explanation, which he does.

Stuart
 

Lighthouse

Star-Spangled Kid
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
I agree, there is an element of arrogance in that. However, you would have to understand the background to the comment, which includes the fact that there is NO explanation for how DNA came to be the replicating molecule in all living things. If you don't have an alternative then it would be arrogant of you to call this arrogance if Dawkins has the best candidate explanation, which he does.

Stuart
Prove it.
 

Stuu

New member
Prove it.
You are claiming it is arrogance because there might be other explanations. So you have the burden of proof of your claim, I can't prove a negative.

This is really basic stuff, Lighthouse. Are you up to the conversation?

Stuart
 
Top