Posted on 09/04/2009 8:50:36 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
I'd like to see one IDer in this country who doesn't think the designer is the Christian God. ID, and all of the ICR's work, starts with a pre-defined conclusion: God did it. In the ICR, all work must be done towards proving the world is only 6,000 years old. That is not science.
The idea of an old Earth and of natural selection came about gradually based only on the evidence, and in the face of persecution from the religious powers who considered such results to be heresy. That is science.
And this is inferior to the a priori "God didn't do it," just how?
How about Dave Scott, Antony Flew, Jonathan Wells, David Klinghoffer...and the list goes on and on and on and on.
That is because those questions you asked me are a matter of faith and fall outside of the realm of science.
Anyone who claims otherwise lacks a basic understanding of science.
He's a liar and the father of lies.
Jesus speaking ......
John 8:43-45 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!
Ping me when you get an answer. I’d love to see that one.
Perhaps you are afraid of the answer. You are new to these threads so you are excused for not knowing.
The ToE and all of science's work starts with the pre-defined conclusion: __________ (fill in the blank) did it.
And I'd also like to know how *God did it* is any different than nature (or whatever you want to fill in the blank with) did it.
Your noob is showing....
I’m expecting something more akin to moving the goalposts, to be honest. I didn’t get a lucid response from the poster who claimed an evolutionary timeline was compatible with the days of Creation, upthread, either.
So how would you disprove those “empirical facts” ?
Cold Water is one of many unscrupulous liars for Darwin on FR. Enough said.
How could they be disproven, Ira? You said that you already believe they really happened on faith. If you believe they really happened, then you accept the infallible history of God’s Word over biased evo-atheist historical reconstructions based on scientific sounding guesswork.
Science doesn't say "God didn't do it." Most scientists are religious, even Darwin was religious when he developed his theory. Those scientists are trying to discover God's creation.
The only thing science rules out is miracles because it is based on evidence, and miracles require no evidence. Plus, science has its limits. It can only discover what is within the system, or it wouldn't make any sense. A designer doesn't fit because a designer is outside of the system. It's like a mouse locked in a box in a lab theorizing about the CEO of the company. There is no evidence of the CEO or of his nature, so anything in that area must be on faith, not science.
It's fine if you want to believe there is a designer. There's nothing wrong with that, and science would be going outside of its area to try to disprove that. What's wrong is equating that belief with science.
Read my last to RC.
Actually, you are quite mistaken. If miracles occur in nature, then they are both miraculous and empirical fact. As such, if miracles occur on a grand scale, such as creation week, or a worldwide flood, they will leave their mark on nature, and thus can be investigated by science. In the same way, if a history book of the future were to tell us that mankind almost perished in an all out nuclear war, if true said nuclear war will have left its mark in the real world, even if we were not there to observe it.
I never said that I accepted a literal translation of the bible.
They are accepted on faith because they are not supported by empirical evidence. That is why it is called “faith”
Now we can agree to disagree on this matter, however I do believe that you owe me an apology for your earlier inappropriate posting.
As a Christian I have already forgiven you for your transgression.
You were talking about how civil you are. I just showed that you can get quite nasty yourself.
Of course, my first preference is that these threads remain civil ... your fellow Darwin-drones
There you go again. I try to stay civil on these, but this is a fine example of how I get personally attacked by a Christian first. So far in this thread I have attacked ID, I have attacked the ICR, I have attacked the articles, but I have not personally attacked a FReeper. I even tried to diffuse some incivility. I haven't called names, definitely not you.
Yet here you are, drawing first blood calling me a "Darwin drone." Like I said, it's always the creationists who get nasty with me first. So set me straight, is that a very Christian thing to do?
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.