Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Evolution is a myth? Please explain:

We don't know x, therefore God is a really, really silly argument. A work in progress shouldn't make assumptions. Science examines and tests evidence, forms hypothesis and theories based on this process of discovery and does not say "well, dang, we don't know this, by golly, God must have done it"

Yes, as I said, the existence of a Creator can't be proven one way or the other scientifically, so why engage in sceintific arguments about it? Unless of course you're envious, and you want to try and take away what others have..

Ringman,

Surely you caught these……

Two recently posted “statements of faith” …… no evidence from the fossil record…. no transitional forms…. do not have a clue as to how the first life ever got started…. based on simple observation of “genetic variation” …

“How life got started in no way, shape or form negates the fact that life evolves in response to environmental conditions, genetic diversity, mutations, etc....”

“Nobody is claiming that life just pops into existence here, there and everywhere. It may be an extremely rare event or it may be common, emerging wherever the conditions are right, complex chemistry interaction, energy input , etc....none of which has a bearing on the fact that there is life on Earth and it does evolve according to environmental conditions, genetic diversity, mutations, etc....”

Gotta have a lot of “faith” to believe without evidence.

Of course, there is this:

“I'm not the one being obtuse. It is you who is trying to impose a meaning to faith that is not applicable. The bible itself defines faith as a belief held without evidence; Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen - Hebrews. But maybe you just don't understand the definition or significance of faith.”

This statement demonstrates almost complete ignorance of what constitutes biblical faith or the origin of faith.

Can post from a cut and paste and be totally oblivious to the understanding and meaning of what was posted.



Edit to add: Oh, and then there is the origin of the universe. Hawkins and Krauss have been discredited, so they are left only their limited imaginations to explain the origin of the universe. They say.... well, we know it happened and we have "faith" that …...somehow..... it happened but we are sure that God didn't do it.

for a guy that converses with snakes, you got a lot to say for yourself.

Gosh, when did I say I conversed with snakes?

That is such a cool story.

My neighbor down the road has a bunch of goats. Perhaps if I go to him and perform some tasks, I can get him to pay me with the spotted ones. Then I, too, can strip some branches of almond and poplar trees and place them where his goats will water and I'll end up with more spotted goats and grow exceedingly prosperous.


By trickery no less.


Geno

The evidence against materialism. Interview with neurosurgeon Michael Egnor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqHrpBPdtSI

" Unless of course you're envious, and you want to try and take away what others have.."

What exactly do you have that others might want to take away?

I can't speak for smokepole, but it seems that what others desire to take away is ….truth.... and peace and assurance.


There is at least one avowed atheist on this site that has openly said that his desire is to prevent others from "believing the lie of Christianity." He loves to sow the seeds of doubt. I give the guy a bit of credit.... he openly states why he posts on these Christian topics.After all, this is the internet and it is the campfire, so have at it.


The thief comes to steal and destroy.

Some folks here are more involved in virtue signaling and some sort of juvenile "rah, rah, hooray for our team." They use a lot of rhetoric and few facts.

Leroy?

Why do you think this is about something I have?

Once again, it's been a while. Science and religion do not conflict. Science is about things we can see and measure. Religion is about things we cannot see and measure. And do not quote scripture to me. I see ithe bible literary work teaching morals, not as a textbook teaching science.

What an absolute loon you are!

If 10,000 astrophysicists found evidence that gas clouds condense into stars, and the Hubble Space Telescope photographed it (which it has, by the way), and YOU found ONE astrophysicist that fell down the stairs and broke his arm, you would claim that "all astrophysicists have broken arms."

It is not possible to defend Genesis based on anything one can observe anywhere in the universe.

And...do YOU believe in talking snakes???[/quote]


You resort to ad hominin. I'm not surprised.

Your arrogance is exceeded by your naivety. The idea you think you know something about the universe is amazing.

You need to read more carefully the Text you want me to address. I don't believe in talking "snakes", but do believe a snaked deceived Eve. Just as I believe a donkey spoke to Baalam.

The God Who created the snake and the donkey can certainly give them voice if He wants.

Of course the most famous scientific theory of the 20th century and the foundation for nearly everything after is at its most basic form an elaborate mathematical explanation trying to explain away and avoid accepting the most obvious results of one of the most famous scientific experiments of all time.

Skeptics trying to make broad statements from their attempts to interpret a few verses.

Thomas saw the evidence that Jesus deliberately presented and believed. We all are faced with believing evidence on the basis of other verifiable witnesses. Jesus gave others the opportunity to witness His resurrection so their testimony would be the evidence to be considered later for those who would not see Jesus for themselves. I never went to the moon, but I can believe it is possible because others have provided evidence of doing so. The person is a fool who denies all evidence that they have not personally experienced. As Luke records, Jesus resurrection was testified with many infallible proofs.

Faith believes what it cannot see or experience on the basis of evidence--faith is the substance (reality not theory) it is the evidence ( the confidence in the proofs) of things not (personally) seen.

Skepticism never allows a mind to make a sound interpretation of scripture--but honest inquiry can.

I argue from the common logic that all design has a designer. Please explain to me in real time when that is not true. Evolution prevents the mind from accepting some of the most basic forms of common sense.

The reality of the world that we live in testifies that all intricate design has a designer. A designer designing something is less incredulous than meticulous design spontaneously occurring. Therefore it is more scientific to believe in the Intelligent design of intricate systems than in a random origin. Either way a miracle is required, but a designer is far more scientifically demonstrated. A scientific test cannot be performed with an intelligent design for the test. When we understand that creation is a miracle - it would be obtuse to suppose that a finite mind could properly assess what is absurd on the part of the infinite designer when the finite mind has no to way to evaluate infinite knowledge.

It's not about whether you believe in talking snakes, its about whether you believe in spiritual beings that can masquerade for deceit. People still masquerade and deceive today and we still use the expression for that as "being a snake."

Snowflakes.

The systems of the universe which produce snow or snowflakes are intricate.