so for the first time ever i went to a church service at my local church (coe) and i have to say it was awful!
it was just like a ritual.
the vicar would say something and then the congregation would all say a phrase in unison back to him.
Bubble, there are few even professing Christians here. "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ" 1 Cor. 3:11.
Faith should be in him. The biblical Jesus has always existed (Micah 5:2, John 8:58).
It's hard to find a solid church, even in the U.S. Most have adopted some form of works salvation.
first off i do believe there are some evidences of evolution or i should probably say adaptation.
i do believe this exists in various forms.. however the deal breaker for me with evolution is the chick or egg problem.
there are tons of theories that get passed around as proof of evolution however these are usually examples much further down the evolutionary chain.. what i mean is let's start at the beginning!
bakhbnerqbnetrqjhb0e9hg0i4g389gh4qbtn q0b=q3jmb0=m mnnrebt8hqgsbjnbhae0=ghvq
Did that take intelligence?
i thought this would be a good time to pose some questions based on the series so far.. if creationism is true these should be easy.
answers that don't involve copy-paste would be really interesting to read.. ... .
1. since some proteins can be assembled in more ways than there are atoms in the universe why do the sequences of amino acids and bases vary between species in exactly the way evolution predicts?
cofty, if someone responded to all 31 of your threads and was able to demonstrate that your points do not show that evolution is a fact what would you do?
chris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
Caedes, Do you still hold to the following?:
If you cannot understand how adding a powerful creator god adds a hugely additional level of complexity to the natural universe then I don't know I can help you. We are not talking about maths we are talking about the concept. Of course any god sufficiently powerful to create universes has to be more complex than it's creation.
If so, by complex do you mean composed of "many parts" (Dawkins type definition)?
and, if so, What is the evidence that a supernatural God must be composed of "parts"???
chris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
Caedes said:
If you cannot understand how adding a powerful creator god adds a hugely additional level of complexity to the natural universe then I don't know I can help you. We are not talking about maths we are talking about the concept. Of course any god sufficiently powerful to create universes has to be more complex than it's creation.
By complex do you mean composed of "many parts" (Dawkins type definition)
If so, What is the evidence that a supernatural God must be composed of "parts"???
Hooberus,
See my post 1968 where I answered your question.
here is that post
Hooberus,
I quite agree there is exactly zero empirical evidence for your god having any parts at all!
chris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
Caedes said:
If you cannot understand how adding a powerful creator god adds a hugely additional level of complexity to the natural universe then I don't know I can help you. We are not talking about maths we are talking about the concept. Of course any god sufficiently powerful to create universes has to be more complex than it's creation.
By complex do you mean composed of "many parts" (Dawkins type definition)
If so, What is the evidence that a supernatural God must be composed of "parts"???
chris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
I also suggested on the last page that there might be more options we can't conceive of yet: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/287553/2/Creationist-Should-Dismiss-Genesis-Quickly#5137293
This is a thread about Genesis (at leat initially). so how about what the Bible says as an option? Thats God did not "come into being" "from nothing" but instead has always existed?
"Thy throne is established of old: though art from everlasting." Psalm 93:2
chris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
Apognophos said:
Believing that an intelligent being came into existence on its own, and then made us, is also absurd. But is it more absurd than the idea that a self-making universe produced intelligent beings who can in turn create things? Either way you are looking at intelligence forming from nothing.
We can't pretend that we have enough information to say which is more likely . . .
Why would those necessarily be the only options?
chris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
Caedes said:
If you cannot understand how adding a powerful creator god adds a hugely additional level of complexity to the natural universe then I don't know I can help you. We are not talking about maths we are talking about the concept. Of course any god sufficiently powerful to create universes has to be more complex than it's creation.
By complex do you mean composed of "many parts" (Dawkins type definition)
If so, What is the evidence that a supernatural God must be composed of "parts"???
we are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural .
selection to account for the complexity of life.
careful examination of the .
Mark
