by KateWild 113 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Getting back to topic and the OP Again
I have come to the conclusion that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. However the scientific evidence available is compelling enough for me to believe that a Creator is responsible for life on earth. I have shown my scientific perspective in past posts.
No one yet has shown me how my conclusion is wrong.
Kate xx
So, since you are making public claims of evidence, how are you demonstrating a connection between a unknown creature made of unknown material and the water cycle? What cause and effect are you demonstrating, what causation that's evidence for something you cannot describe rather than either evidence of something different or not evidence at all for the thing you cannot describe.
There is no need for anyone to show your conclusions false, it's up to you to show them true or at least connect the dots. So far you have failed to do that.
Viv, nothing you say is relevant or sensible I have answered you. Stop being silly. You are just making a fool of yourself hahahhahahahaha! but I am having fun LOL
So, since you are making public claims of evidence, how are you demonstrating a connection between a unknown creature made of unknown material and the water cycle? What cause and effect are you demonstrating, what causation that's evidence for something you cannot describe rather than either evidence of something different or not evidence at all for the thing you cannot describe.
There is no need for anyone to show your conclusions false, it's up to you to show them true or at least connect the dots. So far you have failed to do that.
Viv, Priceless!!!!!! hahahahaha so now you're spamming the thread by posting the same thing multiple times. You've got ASD too mister I suggest you research it instead of spamming this thread.
Not at all, Kate. I simply am asking a question regarding your claims. It's rather curious how much work you are putting into not answering. It's a relevant question that goes to the very core of your claims.
So, since you are making public claims of evidence, how are you demonstrating a connection between a unknown creature made of unknown material and the water cycle? What cause and effect are you demonstrating, what causation that's evidence for something you cannot describe rather than either evidence of something different or not evidence at all for the thing you cannot describe.
There is no need for anyone to show your conclusions false, it's up to you to show them true or at least connect the dots. So far you have failed to do that.
Viv, just hang on. I have a PM. I'll be back in a sec xxxx
Viv, spamming again. I have answered your question already. I haven't actually made any claims. Are you entirely sure you have read all my posts on this thread? Is it possible you could have missed my explaination of my perspective?
Oh dear the air is blue and the posts are getting heated....wait a minute that reminds me of agood pub in central London, the blue post rupert St soho china town.
Great on sunday afternoons usually live music and london old fashioned charm.
Best wishes
From Kate:
Claim 1: I have come to the conclusion that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.
Claim 2: However the scientific evidence available is compelling enough for me to believe that a Creator is responsible for life on earth
Claim 3: However the water cycle is interesting and is more evidence that god is the Creator. When I look at the hydrogen bonding in water, clouds and rain, the desalination process I see how God makes water.
Claim 4: The hydrogen bonding in water is unique and in no other non-aqueous molecule is hydrgen bonding found.
As we can see from a quick scan of your posts, you have made many claims. I not particularly interested in the claims themselves (with the exception of claim 4, hydrogen bonding occurs in many other molecules that at non-aqueous, but that's neither here nor there), but rather in the criteria used to determine what is evidence, why you think the evidence points to what it does, why you think something is evidence of something that you cannot define what it is, what is the connective body of fact and logic that get you to the idea that the water cycle is proof of something you cannot define existing and having done something you can't explain.
I've seen your explanation of your perspective, of course, I am interested in it quite a bit. My questions are about illuminating how your thinking process gets these things connected.
