:) Surely you can understand that such vast amounts of evidence cannot be sumerized in a few sentances on a message board; However, if you are interested in the evidence. I would suggests the answers in genesis website as well as the book "More than a Carpenter" by Josh Mcdowell. There are many other books on the subject of appologetics as well. C.S Lewis is one auther you might want to look at.
The evidence for intelegent design is overwhelming, as is the evidence of Jesus being God. Christianity is very logical. I suggest you study the "evidence" before making such illogical statements.
And just for the record "God was the Creator" is infact the default hypothesis that we came up with from the "evidence".
Evolutionists/Atheists have been and are still trying to disprove God's existence and have failed to do so.
Unfortunatly I think you're sadly mistaken. If you ever take the time to study the christian faith you will find that it is infact very logical. Your assumption that there is no evidence for the faith is rather neive. I have no problem with your denial of God, but to say there is more proof for evolution than God is simply not true.
May I suggest the book "More Than a Carpenter" By: Josh McDowell. It's a very logical book.
Re:sigh .. there is no such thing as "macroevoluti
on
Shapes of Time
·
· Score: 0
A mutation can produce a change in an organisim. That can be observed. I wonder if there have been any "good" mutations observed (meaning mutations that don't kill an organism). If so I'd love to hear about it? I also wonder if these mutations have been observed to be inherited in the next generation? I've also heard that mutations observed today are caused by the deteroration of genetic information. Anyone care to refute that?
That is the most absured anology I have ever heard in my entire life. It's almost as stupid as the "me thinks it's a weasle" demonstration.
The first problem is your changing the question:
Originaly you are answering the question "How was the fish Made"
Then in your analogy you answer the question "Where did the "fish/car" come from"
Asking where something came from or how it was made are two entirly different things. So if you said the the train or the boat made the car, I would think you were a mad man.
Here's a better anaolgy:
A little parable by this author ('A Tale of Two Fleas', Ex Nihilo 2(3)37-38, July 1979) told of two scientific fleas living in a motor-car, pondering how it came to be. One insisted that, since it was the most logical conclusion from the evidence, the car was not made by processes operating in the car. The other demanded that such religious ideas not be brought into the flea schools, because science could only deal with the sorts of processes observable and operating today. To propose a maker who could not now be seen, and a process of making that was no longer operating, was by definition unscientific in spite of the fact that it happened to be true! This flea was locking the investigation into the belief that the way the world WORKS is also the way it ORIGINATED. He believed that anything else was breaking the rules of science. Hadn't their science developed by means of studying only the present-day, naturally occurring processes in the car? His 'rules', of course, meant that it became impossible for him to deduce logically the correct explanation in the case of the car.
Evolution is Jokes
on
Shapes of Time
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Evolution is science's biggest failure.
Any one who has any basic knowledge of information theory should know this.
The anti-theistic physicist Paul Davies admits: 'There is no law of physics able to create information from nothing'
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazine s/docs/v22n2p50.asp#box
Not to mention recent studies of the magnetic field s pointing to a young earth.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-242.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-203.htm
Slashdot Mirror
:) Surely you can understand that such vast amounts of evidence cannot be sumerized in a few sentances on a message board; However, if you are interested in the evidence. I would suggests the answers in genesis website as well as the book "More than a Carpenter" by Josh Mcdowell. There are many other books on the subject of appologetics as well. C.S Lewis is one auther you might want to look at.
What Evidence are you talking about?
The evidence for intelegent design is overwhelming, as is the evidence of Jesus being God. Christianity is very logical. I suggest you study the "evidence" before making such illogical statements.
And just for the record "God was the Creator" is infact the default hypothesis that we came up with from the "evidence".
Evolutionists/Atheists have been and are still trying to disprove God's existence and have failed to do so.
Everyone seems to be assuming that this is an exact science. I doubt we understand the brain that well yet.
"If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't"
Unfortunatly I think you're sadly mistaken. If you ever take the time to study the christian faith you will find that it is infact very logical. Your assumption that there is no evidence for the faith is rather neive. I have no problem with your denial of God, but to say there is more proof for evolution than God is simply not true. May I suggest the book "More Than a Carpenter" By: Josh McDowell. It's a very logical book.
A mutation can produce a change in an organisim. That can be observed. I wonder if there have been any "good" mutations observed (meaning mutations that don't kill an organism). If so I'd love to hear about it? I also wonder if these mutations have been observed to be inherited in the next generation? I've also heard that mutations observed today are caused by the deteroration of genetic information. Anyone care to refute that?
May I suggest the book "More than a Carpenter" by Josh Mcdowell.
I would also suggest that you take a look into the subject of appologetics. C.S. Lewis is another author you might want to read.
Name one mutation that has been observed to be anything but harmful?
That is the most absured anology I have ever heard in my entire life. It's almost as stupid as the "me thinks it's a weasle" demonstration.
The first problem is your changing the question:
Originaly you are answering the question "How was the fish Made"
Then in your analogy you answer the question "Where did the "fish/car" come from"
Asking where something came from or how it was made are two entirly different things. So if you said the the train or the boat made the car, I would think you were a mad man.
Here's a better anaolgy:
A little parable by this author ('A Tale of Two Fleas', Ex Nihilo 2(3)37-38, July 1979) told of two scientific fleas living in a motor-car, pondering how it came to be. One insisted that, since it was the most logical conclusion from the evidence, the car was not made by processes operating in the car. The other demanded that such religious ideas not be brought into the flea schools, because science could only deal with the sorts of processes observable and operating today. To propose a maker who could not now be seen, and a process of making that was no longer operating, was by definition unscientific in spite of the fact that it happened to be true! This flea was locking the investigation into the belief that the way the world WORKS is also the way it ORIGINATED. He believed that anything else was breaking the rules of science. Hadn't their science developed by means of studying only the present-day, naturally occurring processes in the car? His 'rules', of course, meant that it became impossible for him to deduce logically the correct explanation in the case of the car.
Evolution is science's biggest failure. Any one who has any basic knowledge of information theory should know this. The anti-theistic physicist Paul Davies admits: 'There is no law of physics able to create information from nothing' http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazine s/docs/v22n2p50.asp#box
Not to mention recent studies of the magnetic field s pointing to a young earth.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-242.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-203.htm