martin frobisher

The elephant in the room is the violence of Islam.

Islam was and always has been spread by the sword. Whereever Islam meets other faiths, there is conflict. What other faith calls the entirety of other faiths/non-believers the "house of war"?

Yes, some "scientists" do daft research just to get their institution in the headlines and their name known for next time a research grant comes up! Let's not damn all the scientists that do steady serious work that goes unrecognized because of the few bad apples though, guys...

Some people state that a Christian cannot believe in evolution. This stance unfortunately plays into the hands of people like Richard Dawkins, paints many Christian scientists as not truly Christians and above all relies on a misinterpretation of scripture. Saying that Christians must believe in a literal interpretation of the creation account (which one of the two?) is adding to the Gospel and extra-Biblical.

It's unfortunate that you won't address the points being made Shiloh. They are very substantial, indeed fundamental, so why are you so evasive?

I do indeed care to disagree if I'm allowed to. And surely an apologetics forum needs contention to be a true apologetics forum? I am pointing out the flaws in Shiloh's approach, and if I'm allowed to pursue my points to their conclusion, you will see the flaws too.

No, you are trying to manufacture confusion where none exists Care to prove your assertion? No I am not essentially saying that at all. I never said that the possibility of scientific thought must prove a creator. That is a value you are assigning to me No, it's a summation of what you have said, whether you acknowledge it or not. Which certainly is a contradiction! See above for details..... ...and I have explained the problems with that approach ad nauseum Care to prove that assertion?

Irrelevant. The fact is, you misinterpreted the text of Romans 1:19-20. Whether she tells you, or I do. It is truth, nonetheless Truth? Fact? Such a dogmatic assertion needs to be proved - are we still playing by the same rules that one has to prove ones assertions? Or are we now on your rules? I'm confused. They might have been able to study creation in terms of the details we can today, but that does not mean that what can be observed would not be reflective of the creator Ignoring the apparent typo, you're missing the point. When you don't understand how the universe works, everything seems wondrous. Actually what I said is that it is not surprising that creation has the order it does primarily because God is a God of order, and not a God of confusion Not so. You said "So we expect the universe to operate in a logical manner because God is logical, consistent and omnipresent." Cart before the horse, our observations should be this because God is like this. No, you have continued to make the oft repeated assertion that I am contradicting myself. I simply asked for you to for you to show me where the contradictions lie in my posts. You have failed to do so. Therefore, your assertion possesses no meritNot on this thread actually Shiloh. I always forget on a particular thread whether we have to prove our own assertions or disprove the others' assertions? Remind me again?

Well I am pointing out the implications of what he's saying - the fact it may not be apparent to you is all the more justification for pointing it out. Stick to your own posts maybe rather than tell others what to post?

Your line of reasoning is very confused. You are essentially saying that the possibility of scientific thought (which by definition tends to exclude the study of supernatural phenomenon that disobey the normal rules) must prove the existence of a creator. It's a non sequitur.

The verse states: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead." If what you said is correct, would not the passage state: "For the power of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, that is even his eternal power and Godhead." ? The point she is making is that you are misinterpreting the text. I think nebula can speak for herself.

...which is why your approach is flawed. Since in NT times they couldn't study creation in the same way as we can know, they took it on faith that creation reflected God's glory. Now we can study God's creation, it will be self-evident as to whether creation is orderly or not. We don't have to surmise as you have that creation must be orderly because God is! It's been clearly posted. It is you that has brought up the question of contradiction, that was not my line of argument.... so let's try and think clearly here please?

Not sure the point you're trying to make

Yes, we're going to go round in circles here I suspect. Can we learn about creation from observation? Yes/No? Are we currently debating on the basis of having to prove assertions, or disprove assertions?

Sorry, are we back to the usual rules of having to prove assertions or your rules of having to disprove assertions? If you are surmising characteristics of creation from the creator as you have done, that is flawed.