DaveDodo007
New member
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.
Signature in the cell
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
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
Get back to me when you know what you are talking about otherwise don't waste my time.
DaveDodo007
New member
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 appreciate that your most common strategy in your struggle against reality is to try to ignore it.
Stuart
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.
That's up to you (Jn 3:19). God will not drag you to heaven (Re 22:11).
You should trust God's word (Jn 3:12).
"You believe God (revelation) or you believe man (speculation)." J. Vernon McGee
...feather problem
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.
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.
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
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
I never said everything needs a 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?
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
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?
God's statement (Ge 1:1). God said he created. Believe him (Jn 3:12).
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
[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:
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.
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