Why are those facts? Because a book says they are?
I understand there has been organisms here for a looong time...and we have fossils that show us what was here before us. Just saying it is a fact does not prove anything.
if you admit you understand and know about fossils and organisms being here before us, then i must assume you've seen evidence (proof) for these things.therefore, making it reasonable to consider these as facts.
now, i 100% agree with you when you say "just saying it is fact does not prove anything"
Even the Bible admits that, as I mentioned before.
And to the point of the talking snake, you do realize how long before any form of science that was written right?
How do you know what they got right and what they got wrong?
The rest of it is faith, believing in something that cannot, or has not been prove .
It is no different than your faith in science (as it is the same thing), only I don't feel intellectually superior for it.
Philosophers have had centuries long debate, but if you saw a chair would you classify it's existence as fact or theory?
Would your knowledge of chair construction lead you to a better understanding of its origin? Say how it was probably assembled, what materials were probably used, why it has four legs instead of one?
This would be a theory based upon fact.
If you just saw a chair for the very first time, (say you were a cro-magnon or something) would your belief of what it possibly was change the Fact that it is actually a chair, or make the possibility that it was somehow constructed from cotton candy, an intellectual position?
I am not arguing that there is no such thing as science, I am saying I do not believe in evolution. All I have been told that my faith in religion is not as good as others faith in science. I have provided relevant Bible passages for things that have been brought up, you talked about a chair.
I am looking for what "proof" it is that makes you so certain that I am wrong.
And your right, I don't have to be a woodworking expert to know what a chair is, the fact that it is is what you should look at, not what it's called....
The inescapable fact is that however you section a chair, whether you take apart its legs, or whether you break it down into smaller pieces, or whether you look at the wood particles under a microscope, or whether you use an electron microscope to see the nanoparticles that shockingly are arranged in an orderly fashion, or whether you grind it up and make that chair a liquid and perform and kinds of chemical analysis, you will never find the explanation for the chair’s existence in itself regardless how much you know about the chair itself. You have to go outside the chair to find a reason for its existence. It is the same for everything in the universe and the universe itself. You have to go outside the universe to explain its existence.
Even the most empiricist individual amongst us has a supernatural and unexplained starting point. The Big Bang theory, which many non-theists embrace, tells us that the current laws of physics and what we know about the natural world propose a huge and fundamental problem on how all the matter of the universe and the energy of the universe coexisted into a singularity, and how seconds after the explosion the universe did not collapse into itself. So even for the non-theist, the genesis is always supernatural, and requires faith in something we don’t understand and comprehend, but rather we only apprehend.
You will be very hard pressed to find one empirical scientific fact about Darwinian evolution in the matter which it postulates about the origin of life. In fact, to this day Darwinian evolutionists have yet to provide a single scientific fact which shows how life originated, and how a species metamorphosed into another.
To this day, the fossil record of the Cambrian explosion remains coldly silent about the needed proof that one species could metamorphose into another. The proponents of Darwinian evolution (mainly biologists) like to preach to us about how science has rejects the existence of God, yet the rest of us who do real science find it impossible to equate Darwinian evolution with the scientific method.
The scientific method:
Observe a natural phenomenon >> Ask questions how this may be >> Do research >> Construct a hypothesis >> Test hypothesis by experiments >> Analyze data and draw conclusions >> Report results and submit for peer review.
To this day, the Darwinian evolutionists have yet to provide one empirical scientific fact that follows the scientific method. In fact many speculate that if Darwin knew how intricate, how purposeful, and how complicated a single cell is, he would have never believed in atheistic evolution.
Darwinian evolutionists start from a biased position which a scientist should never do. You never look to fit data into your hypothesis; you construct your hypothesis around the data.
Their starting position is metaphysical and they try to fit pseudo-science into it: There is no God/I want there not to be a God >>> what in nature supports that?
I could go on and on in debunking this fairy tale for adults called Darwinian evolution, but ultimately I don’t care about spending too much energy on a lie. No facts alone have ever changed the hearts of men. Science can tell us a lot of things, but it cannot change the propensity of humanity for irrational behavior. Only God can change the hearts of people, and His realm of influence is best felt when our knees are bruised and bloody because the Christian is praying with the boldness that we have in Christ.
I was looking on twitter and found a link to a review for Thomas Nagel's new book. Thomas Nagel is an atheist and a professor at NYU. The orthodoxy of neo-Darwinisn is killing him. Why?
Read this review:
Title of the Book: Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False.
Science has produced no standard account of the origins of life.We have a superb understanding of how we get biological variety from simple, living starting points. We can thank Darwin for that. And we know that life in its simplest forms is built up out of inorganic stuff. But we don't have any account of how life springs forth from the supposed primordial soup. This is an explanatory gap we have no idea how to bridge.
You are confusing the whole of evolution with the concept of biogenesis.Title of the Book: Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False.
Neo vs old differ only in the role natural selection plays in evolution. There is no confusion on my part regarding neo vs old. Both have a common starting point.
Anyway, I don't expect to change anybody's mind and neither do I expect my mind to be changed by anybody, however it is quite telling when prominent members of a certain theory reject the theory itself.
Ps: the hardest thing about evolution is that it has so many faces and so many names. Many use the term to mean change and adaptation, while the way Darwin used it was to compile into one term the theory that life arose by chance out of inorganic primordial soup, and natural selection is the process that explains all life and the variety within all living creatures.
The funny thing about KyleOU is that he says atheists can't explain the origins of a chair but at the same time, he can't either without making up some story. Just face it...you don't know either. Your knowledge about god and the afterlife is exactly the same as mine.
Ok guys, we'll agree to disagree.
in both scholarly and popular literature you can frequently find references to "darwin's theory of evolution", as though it were a unitary entity. in reality, darwin's "theory" of evolution was a whole bundle of theories, and it is impossible to discuss darwin's evolutionary thought constructively if you don't distinguish its various components.
Dueteronomy 7:6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.
Here we learn that Israel is a special people to God above all the people that are upon the face of the earth.
Romans 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
Here we learn that God is impartial in regards to different persons.
Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
Here we learn that God does not change.
1 and 2 cannot both be true especially if 3 is true.
God made a covenant with abraham...
God made a covenant with noah....
God made a covenant with everyone thru Jesus....
God never changed...only His covenants changed....
but you're welcome to try to explain how God changed....
take your time.....i'm sure you will have to google as many atheist websites as you can find.....to try to explain this.....
but wrt job.....job was rewarded for his faith
God is not a horrible ****.....you are....you have a choice....and you choose evil/satan.....you will receive your due.....
And yes in your paradigm I choose satan over YWHW. Which one gave us the ability to think and which one punishes us for thinking?
And Job was rewarded?. How? With dead children? Great reward.
btw.....do you believe God doesn't exist....or do you just hate Him?
also....do you believe the bible is God's word and is true?
because some of you atheists seem to believe the parts you think make God look bad.....but you think everything else is a myth.....
Exegesis is hard for Christians let alone non Christians. There are absolutely no contradictions in the Bible. I am going to leave it at that.
Then I realized you never said you were gonna stop posting in this thread.