Posted on 04/25/2008 12:26:24 PM PDT by Jim W N
Whether or not the ark has been found, and whether or not ones eschatology states that they are a pre, post, or amillennialist matters not. I am a panmillennialist "...it will all pan out in the end"
As long as science is your authority, and not God, you will come up with answers that deny him. Doubting Thomas had to see, touch, and feel the nail scars in Jesus' palms to believe it was him who was resurrected - and yet Jesus was sympathetic and permitted him to do so.
In the end, what if you are wrong? The world's science is not always accurate. God's science is never inaccurate.
But somehow there is never any real evidence brought back. There's more evidence for UFOs, and a lot more evidence for Bigfoot, than there is for the ark.
And the scientific evidence against a global flood about 4,350 years ago is overwhelming.
You simply listed biological facts (like the design of the ear) and said these were "undeniable proof" of intelligent design. How is that proof? Seriously now. That's like me describing how an internal combustion engine works and saying that is proof of ID. You offered no proof that God was responsible for the design of the ear.
You show a combustible engine and describe how it works - and then try to convince anyone that someone didn't design it and build it. The evidence of intelligent design is in the details of the engine that couldn't possibly have been brought together by random series of events.
The same is true with the innumerable examples and evidence all around you of intelligent design, thus an intelligent-designer God.
That is an opinion.
Now it is an opinion I agree with (I am Christian - but not a YEC) but nothing changes that fact that your view of the need for an intelligent designer for the ear is NOT PROOF that there is one. That is my point. You used phrases like “irrefutable proof” but offer none. You’re in an untenable position friend if you belief your faith in God’s creation is proof of his creation.
I believe I used the phrase “irrefutable evidence” and I offered plenty.
the need for an intelligent designer for the ear is NOT PROOF that there is one. That is my point.
My friend, in a court of law, circumstantial evidence is generally considered the strongest evidence in winning a case. Juries are instructed that if the evidence supports the case "beyond a reasonable doubt", then they must convict. The existence of the untold trillions of examples of intelligent design is all around you. This is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of an intelligent designer. This has nothing to do with what someone wants. This is objective reality that would stand up in a court of law.
You offered none. You offered opinion and faith. No evidence.
This is objective reality that would stand up in a court of law.
It would not.
Your arbitrary stand goes against both common sense and scripture which is curious for a Christian. If you can't do better than this, you may have to concede to the truth of what's all around you.
Holy cow...talk about projection. You're the one offering an arbitrary stand. You offer no scientific evidence that God created the world.
Your arbitrary stand goes against both common sense and scripture which is curious for a Christian. If you can't do better than this, you may have to concede to the truth of what's all around you.
Wrong. You just don;t get it. I believe God created the world. I don;t believe it can be PROVEN scientifically and you have offer NOTHING which proves it. You're whole argument is to point at an acorn and say "look! An acorn! That PROVES God exists".
It does not.
You offer no proof, no scientific proof that ID is the cause of creation. Science can not DISPROVE God created the world either.
This may come as a surprise, but nothing can technically be proven or unproven. That's why all of science is based on hypothesizes and theorems which are in turn based on solid evidence. That's also why the Justice system is based on evidence that exceeds reasonable doubt. Not all doubt, just reasonable doubt. You have dismissed this out of hand without any explanation. That is why I say your stand is pretty arbitrary. You're at odds with the basis of Law and Science, not to mention the Bible (Romans 1:20).
Hmm. I always thought that look was demure.
Gives a new meaning to Dinosaur BBQ.
LOL!
My, what a...liberal thing to say.
Nothing can be proven huh?
I am an engineer and this may come as a surprise to you but there are lots of things that are proven.
We're done. I appreciate your sincerity but you are simply not rational - or rather, you're arguments are not.
Oh...and you left out theories in your list. And facts. And laws.
You're right, I'm probably not going to be able to work with you.
You keep rejecting my arguments out of hand with any explanation. Contempt is not an explanation or a counter rationale.
Again, the list I presented is EVIDENCE, that which Science and Law and the scripture I referenced is based on.
Name one thing you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Merriam-Webster On Line:
Prove. Pronunciation: \ˈprüv\ Function: verb Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French prover, pruver, from Latin probare to test, prove, from probus good, honest, from pro- for, in favor + -bus (akin to Old English bÄ“on to be) — more at pro-, be Date: 13th century transitive verb
1 archaic : to learn or find out by experience
2 a: to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of b: to test the worth or quality of; specifically : to compare against a standard —sometimes used with up or out c: to check the correctness of (as an arithmetic result)
3 a: to establish the existence, truth, or validity of (as by evidence or logic) b: to demonstrate as having a particular quality or worth
4: to show (oneself) to be worthy or capable intransitive verb: to turn out especially after trial or test
I believe my reasoned argument with specific examples of evidence stands the test of Websters definition of prove. Intelligent design stands the test over time of good, honest, experience, validation, quality, and worth. According to Webster's definition therefore, Intelligent Design stands the proof test. So far you have not presented evidence to disprove this.
I guess either chickens are smarter and tougher than that old bad boy, or never mind that ‘Survival of the Fittest’ stuff...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.