Evolution and Creationism both have equal value and scientific evidence to support them.

[Autodidact]

I am attacking ideas not scientists. I have no problem with the data. I have a problem when they interpret that data thru the eyeglasses of presupposition.

That thing you're attacking, what you're calling "interpeting data thru the eyeglasses of presupposition," that's what the rest of us call science.

The only "presuppositions" they use are those necessary to do science. For example, scientists do not "presuppose" that God does not exist.

They "presuppose" (any normal person would say "assume") that it is possible to learn about the natural world through our senses, that there is continuity in the natural world and so forth.

What you are calling "interpretations" science calls conclusions. Conclusions based on evidence.

If you want to assert that the idea of ToE is not based on the evidence, that all Biologists are a bunch of deluded liars who have no clue how to do science, then it's on you to show that. Feel free to start any time.

 

[Autodidact]

Does science say there is no God?

Nope. Why can you not grasp that? I've explained it at least ten times. Would you like me to break it down to a simpler level for you?

 

[Autodidact]

I possess the Spirit of God. Therefore I am capable.

Lu 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

1st Corinthians 2:15 But the man with spiritual insight is able to understand everything, although he himself is understood by no one.

Wow, I bow to your arrogance.:bow:

 

[Autodidact]

I gave you scripture that says "all" who posses the spirit can discern the Spirit. I have no human ability, my ability is of the Spirit, which is God's. If credit is to be given it is yto be given to the Spirit, not me. I am merely a vessel.

Possibly the most arrogant vessel yet to appear at RF, which is saying a lot.

 

[Autodidact]

If science does not address "God". what are you basing your "OPINION" on?

You seem to want to debate atheism, which you cannot tell from a scientific theory in the field of Biology. May I suggest that you first learn what each of these terms means, then start a thread to discuss the one that interests you, atheism?

 

[Luminous]

If science does not address "God". what are you basing your "OPINION" on?

as you can see, Wotan is Agnostic. he has no "opinion" only TRUTH.

 

[painted wolf]

I gave you scripture that says "all" who posses the spirit can discern the Spirit. I have no human ability, my ability is of the Spirit, which is God's. If credit is to be given it is yto be given to the Spirit, not me. I am merely a vessel.

And yet others "with the Spirit" are given the opposite message... why is that? How do you know you are the one who is right?

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

And yet others "with the Spirit" are given the opposite message... why is that? How do you know you are the one who is right?

wa:do

That's easy, they don't really have "the spirit." How do we know? Because they disagree with Danmac, and he has "the spirit!"

 

[Danmac]

Nope. Why can you not grasp that? I've explained it at least ten times. Would you like me to break it down to a simpler level for you?

If science does not have an opinion on God stop trying to use science as a source to prove that there isn't a God. Since science cannot offer a scientific conclusion about God, all you can do is speculate without evidence. You see, you do have faith. Only in reverse.

 

[Danmac]

And yet others "with the Spirit" are given the opposite message... why is that? How do you know you are the one who is right?

wa:do

Others who say they have the spirit. There are a lot of wolves in sheeps clothing.

 

[McBell]

If science does not have an opinion on God stop trying to use science as a source to prove that there isn't a God.

Would you please be so kind as to link to the posts of those who you claim are doing this?

Since science cannot offer a scientific conclusion about God, all you can do is speculate without evidence.

What are you talking about?
I do not speculate about the existence of god.
Until such time as I get evidence of his existence I could care less one way or the other.

You see, you do have faith. Only in reverse.

Huh?
Oh, yes, I forgot about your equivocations.

 

[McBell]

There are a lot of wolves in sheeps clothing.

thanks for the heads up.
Now, what makes you think that you are not one yourself?

 

[Autodidact]

If science does not have an opinion on God stop trying to use science as a source to prove that there isn't a God. Since science cannot offer a scientific conclusion about God, all you can do is speculate without evidence. You see, you do have faith. Only in reverse.

What on earth are you talking about? This is a thread about the Theory of Evolution and Young Earth Creationism. As I have told you many times, if you want to discuss atheism, start a thread. And please do me the courtesy of asking me what I think, rather than telling me. I assure that you have no idea. Not that that has ever stopped you.

In any case, this post seems to assume that science is the only source of information in the world. Is that your position?

 

[Autodidact]

Others who say they have the spirit. There are a lot of wolves in sheeps clothing.

A lot of people who claim to be Christian but aren't? A lot of people who claim to know what God wants, but don't?

 

[painted wolf]

Others who say they have the spirit. There are a lot of wolves in sheeps clothing.

yes, Satan apparently has a silver tongue. How do you know the spirit you hear is of god?

Don't you find the fact that you have to bend the truth and misrepresent the data a bit odd? Is that really the way god would want to be defended?

I have no issue with you having faith in the creation story... but when you claim scientific evidence in place of faith... then you must be prepared to deal with empirical data. IMHO it is folly. If nothing else it tempts you to break the commandment on false witness.

One teaching of the Bible that is fully in sync with my faith.... pride goeth before the fall.

wa:do

 

[Wotan]

"If science does not have an opinion on God stop trying to use science as a source to prove that there isn't a God."

I am not using science to disprove A god. I am using science to disprove your myth which happens to include YOUR god. Your favorite book of myths is factually incorrect and contradictory. Science has demonstrated that. This is a very old planet in a much older universe. All life is related and has been around for a very long time, most of the planet's history. There was no global flood. Bats are not birds and the earth is definitely moving.

Now if you feel that ALL that must to be true for your god to exist - well that's your problem. As noted many others have no such problem. Maybe you should to talk to them.

You certainly ain't getting anywhere here.

 

[Danmac]

"If science does not have an opinion on God stop trying to use science as a source to prove that there isn't a God."

I am not using science to disprove A god. I am using science to disprove your myth which happens to include YOUR god. Your favorite book of myths is factually incorrect and contradictory. Science has demonstrated that.

So you are using science to disprove God. Only thru proxy. Ok I get it.

 

[Wotan]

So you are using science to disprove God. Only thru proxy. Ok I get it.

Obviously not.

What IS it about these people that they CANNOT get past the assumption that everything is about their ideas and their myth?

 

[Danmac]

yes, Satan apparently has a silver tongue. How do you know the spirit you hear is of god?

Because people that don't believe in God take issue with me. With you they do not.

Don't you find the fact that you have to bend the truth and misrepresent the data a bit odd? Is that really the way god would want to be defended?

My Bible says God created man not ape. When I stand before my God I will stand on what his book says.

I have no issue with you having faith in the creation story... but when you claim scientific evidence in place of faith... then you must be prepared to deal with empirical data. IMHO it is folly. If nothing else it tempts you to break the commandment on false witness.

Science just hasn't found out that it is wrong on the one common ancestor thing yet. Just like the cosmological constant. In time they will.

One teaching of the Bible that is fully in sync with my faith.... pride goeth before the fall.

wa:do

I find my identity in Christ, not in myself. I am an imperfect creature. In Christ I am complete. The glory goes to Christ not me.

John 7:18 He who speaks of himself seeks his own glory, but he who seeks the glory of Him who sent Him is true, and no unrighteousness is in Him.

 

[Autodidact]

So you are using science to disprove God. Only thru proxy. Ok I get it.

No, you don't. Science is neutral on the question of whether God exists. Science has a lot to say about how old the earth is, how it got here, why there is such a variety of organisms, and so forth. Your personal religious myth makes claims about these things, which are false, as science shows us. These claims happen to include your God, but the earth is 4.56 billion years old whether God made it or not. That disproves a God who made it 6000 years ago. It does not disprove God in general, or tell us anything about whether a God made it.