Replies

Just give me facts,...

Abiogenesis is extremely improbable. Obtaining enough beneficial random mutations to go to change ameba to human in any amount of time is extremely improbable as well. i.e. Haldane's dilemma. Faith in either or both is irrational faith.

...and if they are convincing facts, I will change my mind. If you have to reach out to God to change my heart and mind, it tells me that you don't have much of an argument.

I don't have the power to change your heart, or your presuppositions. Paul noted in the book of Romans:

The mind of the flesh is hostile against God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so.

Aquinas put it this way:

To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.

If I present a case that provides a over welling preponderance of evidence supporting intelligent design, it is impossible for you to understand until your presuppositions are changed first. This is not because you are intellectually stupid--in fact I believe just the opposite, I believe that you have a cunning wit and are very intelligent and have a great deal of respect for you as you were created in the image of God. However, the perspective of the heart is fundamental to what the observer can see and is capable of understanding.

Science is based on the physical, repeatable, and inductive, it is not Philisophical as you guys are attempting to claim.

Historical reconstruction is not repeatable, it is based on faith. Historical reconstruction via chance and natural process is unreasonable/irrational faith.

science to make itself useless

The study of the the book of God's world is certainly not useless.

Why is it you have to pray that God will change my heart?

I believe it would be more interesting experiment if you asked God to change your own heart. This would be an interesting experiment for you to try, if you did it sincerely. I know that you believe there is knowledge to be gained via experimentation. Many people in history have performed/repeated the same experiment and have been surprised by joy.

Sorry, but DNA evidence is rather convincing, and it is repeatable.

Fossil evidence, is rather convincing, and it is also repeatable, because the fact is, that if you find a fossil in a certain strata, most likely, you will find another of the same sort, and age in that same strata.

Abiogenesis is not evolution, it is not even a theory at this point, it is a convenient noun for a possible theory of the future, that explains how life came from nonlife, and do not give me Pasteur, you should know better, it is a logical fallacy to use such a silly argument when it comes o abiogenesis. Just because we don't know how scientifically yet, does not mean that it is impossible.

If we went to a completely faith based society, we would be living in grass huts, and hunting and gathering, because science in such a society would be useless.

Science is the how, religion is the why, if you feel that religion also answers the how, then feel free, but get off your computer, because that evil science created that machine you are sitting at.

If someone had looked at electricity and said, well, God did it, we would still be looking at the pretty lightning, and not have a clue how to create lightbulbs, heater elements etc.

Science has brought many things, due to the fact that it is physical, and is limited to the physical word.

As some people say, "god did it", is an excuse in science, and to use such an excuse makes science useless.

Evolution is one of the most rock solid scientific theories there is, and you can whine about how it is impossible to recreate history, but, history is not all that supports it.

The amount of evidence that supports the Theory of Evolution would take literally Terrabytes of space on a computer, and would take up a library the size of the capitol building to hold it all.

To just brush off that much evidence as a marxist plot, or as unscientific, is not only foolish, it's just plain ridiculous. It is ignoring the reality, because your faith won't allow you to deal with the reality.

I am a realist, science, is science, religion is religion, and they are 2 separate entities that have nothing to do with the other.