I apologize...the internet was slow and I hit post again and again...obviously...I apologize to those here. God, grant me patience, but hurry. It irked me greatly that I didn't see a way to simply delete my repeated posts...so I tried to save you the trouble and remove the text. Again, sorry.
Originally posted by jaywillCan you prove the tooth fairy does not exist?
[b]+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm going to assume you do not believe the tooth fairy exists...now prove that it does not exist.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Do you think that a belief in an intelligent creative law giver behind the natural laws that govern the universe and a tooth fairy who allegedly puts a dime under children's pillows w ...[text shortened]... hope to demonstrate that both ideas are equally qualified to be dismissed by the thinking man?[/b]
3 edits
Originally posted by TheSkipperIt doesn't interest me one way or the other.
Can you prove the tooth fairy does not exist?
What does interest me is how life always derives from life. If so there must be a final and ultimate Life which is uncreated and eternal.
What also interests me is that in history there was this man Jesus of Nazareth who behaved like there is indeed a final uncorruptible and indistructible Life that is divine and able to overcome the grave.
He spoke that way as no other man ever spoke:
"And now, glorify Me along with the Yourself, Father, with the glory which I had with You before the world was." (John 17:5)
"Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being I AM." (John 8:58)
"Jesus said to her, I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes into Me, even if he should die, shall live." (John 11:25)
"Do not fear; I am the First and the Last and the living One; and I became dead, and behold, I am living forever and ever; and I have the keys of death and of Hades." (See Rev.1:17,18)
Since the theory of Evolution seems sometimes to be nature's method of progressing towards a stronger and stronger life which is more and more fit to survive - I am just taking a short cut and examining the life of Jesus as the indistructible and ever surviving and adopting Life.
I think perhaps the Evolutionists are hoping the theorized process will arrive at a man so adaptable and everlasting as Jesus. I think what they are longing for has already been provided by the incarnation of God into a man and Savior - Christ.
I admit that this is not a scientific thought. And I am really fascinated with science.
I think I am more fascinated though with Christ's claim to be the eternal and uncreated Divine Person. He must be the source of all other lives somehow.
Originally posted by jaywillI know it doesn't interest you! Look, I'm just trying to convince you that attempting to proove a negative is a pointless undertaking, yet one you continually ask people to do.
It doesn't interest me one way or the other.
What [b]does interest me is how life always derives from life. If so there must be a final and ultimate Life which is uncreated and eternal.
What also interests me is that in history there was this man Jesus of Nazareth who behaved like there is indeed a final uncorruptible and indistructible Life tha ...[text shortened]... ternal and uncreated Divine Person. He must be the source of all other lives somehow.[/b]
The evolutionist is as unable to proove Genesis wrong as you are to prove the tooth fairy does not exist, and these two facts are equally meaningless. I don't care what you believe about how life began...for all i care you can believe the enitre universe popped into existence at 9am on October 23rd, 4004 BCE. Just stop asking people to disprove the Bible and think their inability to do so actually means something.
If you want to look at the creation myth (the biblical version; there are many others which predate Genesis) as a valid, and competing theory with Evolution, be my guest. However, I suggest you make your point by explaining why your idea of an invisible creator-God which cannot be verified, tested or interviewed makes more sense than hundereds of years of scientific inquiry.
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionOh really?
[b]What does interest me is how life always derives from life. If so there must be a final and ultimate Life which is uncreated and eternal.
Immediately with the contradications. Not a good start.
I think . . .
I think . . .
I think you're off your rocker.[/b]
Well let's see. If such a thought as I express about the possible future of the Evolution process is not seriously entertained in scientific journals it certainly lies in the imagination of popular science fiction.
Why else do New Agers, SETI types, and UFO buffs always hope that some great superior civilization is up there somewhere among the stars?
Many of them hope that Evolution has somewhere else produced the next higher step of civilized life.
As C.S. Lewis dryly noted - Evolution is the belief in a natural process that goodness is what comes next.
(Not his exact quote).
2 edits
Originally posted by TheSkipperWell, I see your point. However, I think they also have a hard time proving that a non-human one day gave birth to a human.
I know it doesn't interest you! Look, I'm just trying to convince you that attempting to proove a negative is a pointless undertaking, yet one you continually ask people to do.
The evolutionist is as unable to proove Genesis wrong as you are to prove the tooth fairy does not exist, and these two facts are equally meaningless. I don't care what you be ...[text shortened]... rified, tested or interviewed makes more sense than hundereds of years of scientific inquiry.
The art work employed on behalf of the theorists usually depicts the creature N as something like an ape and creature N+1 as a human being.
You just stretch the matter out over millions of years to lessen the impact of the idea behind an elongated gradualism which you hope will be more plausible.
Originally posted by jaywilli think it is testament to how far you have drifted from reality that I used to read your posts and think some of them have some logic - this is rubbish.
Oh really?
Well let's see. If such a thought as I express about the possible future of the Evolution process is not seriously entertained in scientific journals it certainly lies in the imagination of popular science fiction.
Why else do New Agers, SETI types, and UFO buffs always hope that some great superior civilization is up there somewhere among ...[text shortened]... is the belief in a natural process that goodness is what comes next.
(Not his exact quote).
(not my exact quote)
Originally posted by jaywillHuman beings ARE apes, numbnuts.
Well, I see your point. However, I think they also have a hard time proving that a non-human one day gave birth to a human.
The art work employed on behalf of the theorists usually depicts the creature [b]N as something like an ape and creature N+1 as a human being.
You just stretch the matter out over millions of years to lessen the impact of the idea behind an elongated gradualism which you hope will be more plausible.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by snowinscotlandNo it is not rubbish. If men have a hope that an evolutionary process could eventually turn a bacteria into a human being why should they not have hopes for what it will do in the future eons with what comes after humans?
i think it is testament to how far you have drifted from reality that I used to read your posts and think some of them have some logic - this is rubbish.
(not my exact quote)
Perhaps you never considered the logical extension of the theory.
You don' t think from worm to man is a pretty impressive progress? So? What's down the road a few hundred million years?
Go back to sleep. - An exact quote.
2 edits
So one poster rebukes me that science cannot conclusively prove that God did not create man.
So what is the implication of Evolutionist Richard Dawkins announcing the "God Delusion" to the thousands who buy his book?
What's the implication? I think it is that Dawkins' "science" has made a belief in an Intelligent Creative God obsolete and delusional. And those who persist to believe in creation simply are not with the lattest scienctific knowledge.
Some evos seem to want their cake and eat it too. Science cannot prove a negative yet Evolutionist R. Dawkins can announce to the world that it is now "delusional" to hold a belief in a creating God.