What the hell is "faith based money"? Money given by religious people? Money is money. There's just as much, if not more, given by secular charities. Some of the largest charities out there, like the American Red Cross, are on the front lines of tragedy and disaster every day.
No, faith cannot be verified because anyone can have faith in anything they want, whether it's true or not. You can have faith in leprechauns and Santa Claus if you like, even though we know those things simply are not true.
Faith means nothing except to the emotionally and intellectually weak.
Yes faith can be verified to the person of faith. Mine has been many times. So it is exactly as I have said.
So now anyone who has faith is emotionally and intellectually weak? Man I know some people of faith who would laugh at the ignorance of such an untrue blanket statement.
No, faith cannot be verified by anyone. It can be justified, it simply cannot be demonstrated to be objectively true to anyone, including the believer. Faith is an emotional crutch, it's a means of feeling better about the world when you cannot accept it for what it actually is. It's a security blanket for those who are too weak to cast it off and deal with reality as it is. You can laugh at it all you want, that doesn't change a thing.
You have to admit, evolution is the best we got right now.
No, faith cannot be verified by anyone.
It can be justified, it simply cannot be demonstrated to be objectively true to anyone, including the believer.
Faith is an emotional crutch, it's a means of feeling better about the world when you cannot accept it for what it actually is. It's a security blanket for those who are too weak to cast it off and deal with reality as it is. You can laugh at it all you want, that doesn't change a thing.
I disagree, I think the holes make it not feasible and it's not proven. I think it's the best secular explanation and that's why many chose to accept it.
Would you say the best secular explanation is worse than the best theological explanation. Because if it is, and if it is the best secular explanation, then it is the best explanation we have.
How does he get over the issue that YEC requires God to be a liar? After all, if the world was only 6,000 years old, then basically physics doesn't apply in practice as to what we see today. Either God lied in the Torah or he is lying to us now as to how the world operates.
How can one be a Christian when their belief requires their God to be the biggest deceiver of all time?
I think the best secular explanation is false, leaving only a theological explanation that I believe is more strongly supported by scientific evidence than even the secular one.
You think the theological explanation is more strongly supported by scientific evidence than evolution?
There's nothing "above" reality, sorry. Just because he has a lofty delusion doesn't make it any less of a delusion.
Faith means nothing except to the emotionally and intellectually weak.
Yes I do, I also believe evolution is false and highly implausible if God did not have a hand in guiding it. I can understand theological evolution as a guided process by God (even though I disagree with it). However, a random process that resulted in biodiversity and life via the theory of evolution is impossible, unproven, and false.
Life didn't occur via the "theory of evolution". And your last statement is just conjecture and opinion.
I've really never that point argued - that the theological explanation is more strongly supported by scientific evidence than evolution, or even by any.
By life I mean the creation of species. I understand secularists believe in abiogenesis (which is also false) as the mechanism for the first cell ever spawned.
I do believe that the theological explanation is supported more so by science. It doesn't surprise me either. I believe God is real, that Christianity is truth, and it only confirms my beliefs with evidence when I see how science supports my theology.
This is a meaningless statement. It is meaningless in the same way that the term "square-circle" is meaningless and "north of the north pole" is meaningless. You are using language but attempting to use language in a way it that is nonsensical. Perhaps your statement triggers an intuitive or emotional response for you but it is nonetheless a meaningless statement.The system which his God is understood is above "reality" and logic.
Precisely what is that level? Can you describe it? State its properties, rules, principles, or guidelines? It is as illusory as a square-circle.That is the whole point. You are conversing on one level and he on another.
I can just as easily say, I understand the religious believe in creation (which is false). Let's not turn this into a conversation where we trash the other side.
I know what you believe, but I was trying to get you to explain more, by asking indirectly. I'll be more direct this time. What is your theological explanation and how is it supported more so by science than evolution is?
No, faith cannot be verified by anyone. It can be justified, it simply cannot be demonstrated to be objectively true to anyone, including the believer. Faith is an emotional crutch, it's a means of feeling better about the world when you cannot accept it for what it actually is. It's a security blanket for those who are too weak to cast it off and deal with reality as it is. You can laugh at it all you want, that doesn't change a thing.
I have said nothing negative about evolutionists. All I've stated is that I believe they are wrong and that I am right based on scientific evidence. If you look at the thread I would say it is the creationists who receive most of the irrational trashing.
I believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis. I believe God created life. I'm a molecular biologist, I've read enough publications and have studied enough genomic sequences and protein products to see that these things didn't happen by random chance or chaotic mutations. Things have been designed in an intelligent and organized way. I don't believe the randomness of unguided evolution could have done this. Evolution cannot prove that a direct creature was the missing link between two proposed evolutionary species. They haven't looked at DNA or genomic sequences and found where the mutations have occurred that led to beneficial protein products that produced a new trait. It's all speculation and unproved assertions. I believe life was intelligently designed by God the Creator.
I consider it more a debate between the educated and the ignorant.
Well, trash is a poor choice of words on my part. I should have said something more like let's not make assumptions or guesses.
That's cool that you're a molecular biologist, what research do you focus on?
Everything you basically said was discussed in court cases on intelligent design, when they tried to pass it off as science - almost the exact same arguments if you can imagine. That things are too perfect to happen by chance, etc. Every single example of that was disproved by modern evolutionary theory - they can be explained.
When I split your argument down, it is basically this: "It's all speculation and unproved assertions. Evolution cannot prove that a direct creature was the missing link between two proposed evolutionary species." This as an unproven assertation on your part, because it's not speculation, there's quite a bit of evidence behind it.
On the other hand, for your argument, you say: "I believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis. I believe God created life. I believe life was intelligently designed by God the Creator. I don't believe the randomness of unguided evolution could have done this."
I'm seeing your beliefs - I'm not seeing how scientific evidence verifies them.
Its a methodological problem. YECs such as digsbe think like this:
1) Assumption: The bible is literal truth and inerrant.
2) Assumption: My sects interpretation of the Bible is unquestionable.
3) Evolution/geology contradicts #1/#2 therefore Evolution/geology is wrong.
YEC arguments center entirely around criticizing "holes" in evolutionary theory. Most of these "holes" are strawmen which have been explained over and over again. Just visit the FlatEarthSociety if you want a living proof example of something similar.
Even if evolution was wrong then YEC would still have to prove YEC theories are correct. You'll notice ZERO scientific support for YEC theories. That is exactly where it becomes obvious that YEC is not even a viable alternative. It is intellectually bankrupt. It is a position held only by irrational certainty, ignorance, and indoctrination.
That's cool that you're a molecular biologist, what research do you focus on?
No, you are a molecular biology UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT.I
I'm a molecular biologist
I HIGHLY doubt that as an undergrad. You've been taught the basics. Have you even completed your organic chemistry courses yet?I've read enough publications and have studied enough genomic sequences and protein products to see that these things didn't happen by random chance or chaotic mutations.
what hypothesis do you propose? What would you reasonably expect?Evolution cannot prove that a direct creature was the missing link between two proposed evolutionary species. They haven't looked at DNA or genomic sequences and found where the mutations have occurred that led to beneficial protein products that produced a new trait. It's all speculation and unproved assertions.
I believe life was intelligently designed by God the Creator.
Lulz, I am clearly wrong. You win.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?