Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nope, Not playing this game. I supported my claim. You never supported your claim that Flew denied reality in this matter. Your turn to support your claims for once with a valid source.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why are Jehovah's Witnesses reluctant to discuss their faith?
- Thread starter Jose Fly
- Start date
Nope, Not playing this game. I supported my claim. You never supported your claim that Flew denied reality in this matter. Your turn to support your claims for once with a valid source.
They are....empirical science, not suppositions.
nPeace
Veteran Member
You did as usual - you supported nothing.
Not hardly. They may use science, but there arguments for an intelligent designer are entirely faith-based.
What is the scientific evidence for God? Your Nobel Prize awaits.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Now you are lying. You made a bogus claim. It was challenged. Rather than supporting it properly you tried to shift the burden of proof and you lied when you did that.
But then we both know that you can't support your bogus claims. This is a game that you play far too often.
EDIT: From the very start I told you that Flew did not have a problem with evolution. His problem was with abiogenesis. The article that I linked supported that claim. So it was a lie to say that I did not support my claim.
Meanwhile you attacked Flew by claiming that he denied evolution (aka reality). You were requested to support that claim. You did not do so.
Last edited:
Regarding your last sentence....
It comes down to discovering how the 1500-page Biblical context harmonizes w/ itself. It’s from one Author *, so it presents one set of tenets that don’t conflict with each other. (It seems Isaac Newton was very close to finding it, with only a little help from others. Amazing guy!)
* Jesus’ Father, John 17:17; Luke 10:21. (Not Jesus).
Empirically based.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
As long as one ignores all of the self contradictions in the Bible.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nope. And in fact that really makes little sense. In the sciences one's arguments need to be evidence based. But then creationists, as a rule, do not understand the concept of evidence.
Newton was close to finding what? The Bible has multiple authors. I know of no evidence that supports one version of religion over another. Believers of each think their version outshines all the others.
They are not. You can keep repeating it until your fingers wear out, but that will not create observations of God, a creator, and intelligent designer or whatever they choose to call the Creator. Like many fundamentalists, the ID proponents realize how much of an authority science has become. In a vain effort to justify their beliefs (weak faith I suppose) they have turned to science. Science does not deal in what someone believes, so it is a nonstarter from the get go.
Intelligent design is not empirical science.
And fundamentalists do.
Show us the evidence.
Do you see science as the new yardstick to judge your beliefs by?
Lol.
1) Purposeful interactive systems. Like between flora and fauna (carbon dioxide, and oxygen reciprocation.) Even down to the clownfish / anemone symbiosis. (Evolution explains that developed, how exactly?) It is design.
2) The Cambrian Explosion. Separate creative events. (Where are the obvious precursors? Surely they’re there...right?) The mammalian Explosion, 66 mya, is similar.
3) The sheer diversity of organic body plans. (Darwinian processes have no evident creative power, to explain such scale we observe.... oops, there’s empirical data again!)
4) Irreducibly complex systems. Like the bacterial flagellar motor (which apparently came after the T3SS), the blood-clotting cascade, and others, suggested by Behe.
These are just some obstacles to evolutionary mechanisms.
But the purposeful nature of these examples, indeed of all systems, imply design.
Does science have to validate God in order for you to believe in God?
I’m sure with your understanding, there’d be tons.
Do you think you got your understanding from the Bible’s Author, Jehovah?
So your evidence is you claiming it, but not demonstrating it. Show us the evidence.
What?
No. That is you claiming something. Oops.
IR has been fully refuted. I know. I know. You are in denial about that too. Who woulda guessed it?
Perhaps some of them are but there I see no empirical evidence for ID here. Just some proposed obstacles to evolution. You do understand what empirical evidence is don't you?
But the purposeful nature of these examples, indeed of all systems, imply design.[/QUOTE]Another claim that you have not provided any empirical evidence for. Are you certain you know what empirical and evidence mean?
I am not sure why you opened with LOL, unless you were laughing at how silly these answers are.
I was expecting a little more than empty claims, a list of possible problems for evolution and a God of the Gaps argument.
Did I call denial on this one? I sure did.
Do you have evidence that men did not write the Bible? Oh, oh. There's that pesky little problem you have again. Evidence. I know. Just declare something. You seem to believe that is evidence.
I have no issue with you or that you have a belief. But you keep arguing to establish your beliefs as fact. That may be the case for you and great if it is. But you fail to understand that you do not have objective, empirical evidence to convince me or anyone else that your beliefs are "The Beliefs" and we all should have em. You have nothing to put up in an argument with the science. Do not feel bad. No one does.