Intelligent Design, Science & Religion

[one.opinion]

2 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

I Have had some nasty debates before about these topics that descend into name calling and your character shows in how you handled yourself.

God Bless. 

Ok, I will respond to this :-) I have also had some experience with ugly debates and I have come away from a thread or two that forced me to ask my Lord for forgiveness. Thank you for the pleasant exchange and for the kind words.

I greatly appreciate your ability to stand firmly on what you believe without resorting to vilifying my position.

Grace and peace, my brother.

[ChessPlayer]

Sorry for my delay in getting back to the topic. I was on vacation and tend not to do things online if I can avoid it when spending time with family. It seems like one.opinion has been dealing with some of the objections presented by dbchristian. It seems like the debate has come to a close. I am glad that we could come to a peaceful resolution of respectful disagreement. Grace and peace to all my brothers in Christ that have contributed to this conversation. 

[Mike Mclees]

On 8/21/2019 at 8:49 AM, Justin Adams said:

I see we are no longer encouraged to think much. So easy to latch onto something that requires little imagination. Can you imagine God using so-called evolution over millions of years of natural selection? All those partly formed animals etc as He 'experimented'. The one legged goat. How did it survive to breed? Especially if its eyes were only partly formed. It is mass ugliness of gargantuan proportions to imagine this 'progress'. I mean; the amoeba in the swamp... how did it get fins? How can it know to swim? How would it know what land was? Millions of years is a cop out - it means LESS than zero.

Evolution often equates to godlessness. Or the other extreme of Gnostic thought - we are all gods etc. The theology of the Nachash. (הָֽאִשָּׁ֖ה אֶל־ הַנָּחָ֑שׁ מִפְּרִ֥י עֵֽץ־)

Just think. 

Where did the amoeba come from? did it just appear and developed into multitudes of life forms. Plants animals trees insects.  Why do they leave out the point zero of everything. what was before point O ? 

[Justin Adams]

14 minutes ago, Mike Mclees said:

Where did the amoeba come from? did it just appear and developed into multitudes of life forms. Plants animals trees insects.  Why do they leave out the point zero of everything. what was before point O ? 

YAHWEH

[The Barbarian]

4 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

Where did the amoeba come from? did it just appear and developed into multitudes of life forms. Plants animals trees insects.  Why do they leave out the point zero of everything. what was before point O ? 

Actually, an amoeba is a rather complex organism.    Complex, even compared to some other simple eukaryotes.    The evidence shows that the first living things were much, much simpler; bacteria-like prokaryotes.    From where did they come?   God says that the earth, water, and atmosphere brought forth living things, which is remarkably similar to the things scientists are discovering about the origin of living things.

 

[Justin Adams]

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Actually, an amoeba is a rather complex organism.    Complex, even compared to some other simple eukaryotes.    The evidence shows that the first living things were much, much simpler; bacteria-like prokaryotes.    From where did they come?   God says that the earth, water, and atmosphere brought forth living things, which is remarkably similar to the things scientists are discovering about the origin of living things.

 

You got your quote wrong. I did not say that.

[The Barbarian]

9 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

You got your quote wrong. I did not say that.

I see that now.   Sorry.

 

Edited December 9, 2019 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

ddd

Edited December 9, 2019 by The Barbarian

[omega2xx]

On 8/23/2019 at 11:10 AM, one.opinion said:

No, it is an accurate assessment based on my experience. I’ve asked others if they would like to discuss such pitfalls, but I haven’t received any follow-up responses.

I routinely ask other if they would like to discuss the evidence.

This is the question I asked earlier in this thread - “I will be happy to discuss with you why I disagree with this dismissive assessment. Are you willing to have a discussion where both parties attempt to understand the other?”

No, but I find that a large portion of people that disagree with the evidence for evolution are unfamiliar with the evidence for evolution. It may be a harsh observation, but it is not unfair.

 

If they disagree with you, you declare them not qualified, without any discussion.  There are Christian scientist more qualified than you who reject evolution.

Love, peace, joy

[one.opinion]

39 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

If they disagree with you, you declare them not qualified, without any discussion.

Why are you making false statements again? You know this isn't true.