Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: betty boop; James C. Bennett; LeGrande; Alamo-Girl; xzins; Matchett-PI; metmom
So, do you admit what you hold as true could be wrong, too?

That in itself is a great deal more honesty than atheists can handle or will even admit on their own. Particularly since they cannot disprove the existence of God, nor even come up with a legitimate method of abiogenesis to account for life in the first place, let alone provide evolutionary solutions to irreducible biological machines and the creation of the information in dna.

2,662 posted on 06/10/2011 3:14:28 PM PDT by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2658 | View Replies ]


To: Godzilla; kosta50; LeGrande
That in itself is a great deal more honesty than atheists can handle or will even admit on their own. Particularly since they cannot disprove the existence of God, nor even come up with a legitimate method of abiogenesis to account for life in the first place, let alone provide evolutionary solutions to irreducible biological machines and the creation of the information in dna.

I thirst to be proven wrong!

It is not for me to disprove the existence of any supernatural deity, but for you to prove me its existence! You can't prove a negative!

However, I can tell you about flaws I find in the nature of what a supernatural deity would need to posses, to be one. This was discussed earlier on in this thread, but I'll bring it back if you want to hear about my issue with the nature of God:

God is by definition, outside time.

If I stick with the dogmatic beliefs of your religion, this God both creates the Universe, and will destroy it, too. Consider God before creating the Universe.

God existed before the Universe did.

God initiates Creation

God finishes Creation

God destroys the Universe.

In a realm devoid of time, how is this sequence preserved by God?

"...nor even come up with a legitimate method of abiogenesis to account for life in the first place, let alone provide evolutionary solutions to irreducible biological machines and the creation of the information in dna."

Is all science, determined? The answer to this proves your statement above to be patently invalid. As for irreducible complexity, could you provide examples of the same?

2,670 posted on 06/10/2011 3:43:44 PM PDT by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2662 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson