Originally Posted by Robert_White
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by Robert_White
Originally Posted by Etoh
Both sides fail in the their supporting arguments, because the main supposition is not proven. Anthropomorphism.



The credible empirical evidence supporting Christianity is plethora.


You have yet to present with any.


https://youtu.be/AftOuwOuOYY

https://youtu.be/16ZF-9ZjPAU

https://catholicexchange.com/greatest-historical-miracle-youve-never-heard


You trout out a philosopher from The Discovery Institute and a 52 minute argument from ignorance as your evidence?

Stephen Fletcher, chemist at Loughborough University, responded in The Times Literary Supplement that Nagel was "promot[ing] the book to the rest of us using statements that are factually incorrect."[37] Fletcher explained "Natural selection is in fact a chemical process as well as a biological process, and it was operating for about half a billion years before the earliest cellular life forms appear in the fossil record."[37] In another publication, Fletcher wrote: "I am afraid that reality has overtaken Meyer's book and its flawed reasoning", pointing out scientific problems with Meyer's work by citing how RNA "survived and evolved into our own human protein-making factory, and continues to make our fingers and toes."[38]

Darrel Falk, former president of the BioLogos Foundation and a biology professor at Point Loma Nazarene University, reviewed the book, saying it illustrates why he does not support the intelligent design movement.[39] Falk is critical of Meyer's declaration of scientists being wrong, such as Michael Lynch about genetic drift, without Meyer having done any experiment or calculation to disprove Lynch's assertion. Falk writes, "the book is supposed to be a science book and the ID movement is purported to be primarily a scientific movement—not primarily a philosophical, religious, or even popular movement", but concludes "If the object of the book is to show that the Intelligent Design movement is a scientific movement, it has not succeeded. In fact, what it has succeeded in showing is that it is a popular movement grounded primarily in the hopes and dreams of those in philosophy, in religion, and especially those in the general public."[39]

How did the Discovery Institute do when attempting to push intelligent design against real scientist in a court of law?

That's right, they lost.




You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.

You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell