Replies

This flies in the face of simple logic. Evolution is a fact of science.Will you please explain to me how "LOGIC" evolved in a darwinian, scientific, materialism world. Where is the gene for logic? Where is the gene for a theory which is derived from a biological system? You have examined the genome. It must be there. Remember, according to you, materialism is all that there is. How does brute matter evolve to consciousness? According to darwinists, the physical world is all that there is. Why can't the liver, spleen or pancreas provide for consciousness? Given your non-negotiable starting point, I will be interested in your answer. Will you explain why brute matter provides for sentience. How did that happen? In other words, how do you get something from nothing? HOw do you get consciouns, living, thinking, feeling, believing creatures from material which does not have that? That would be getting something from nothing. How do you get mind to squirt forth from mindless, dead , brute matter? If darwinism cannot account for rationality, then how is it they claim they are the arbitors of rationality? How does 'rational thought' come forth from covalent bonds of atoms? Remember, scientific materialism says all there is is matter/energy/time/space continuum. How can someone who believes that, who cannot possibly account "scientifically" for rational thought, lay claim to be the arbiter of rational thought and "simple logic" as you say? If you can not account for these things bay materialism you are faced with denying they exist. This leads me to another question....Why do you believe anything at all? If you cannot accout for logic or reason in a darwinian-only world why believe anything. Atoms and molecules don't reason...they react. Please enlighten us with your explainations.

Your argument is a straw man.

The evolutionary theory does not address the origins of life, it only shows how life has changed since it inception. This is an often-repeated misconception.

Science does not address things outside of the physical world because they are not testable, or repeatable so they cannot be falsified. If it cannot be falsified then it is not Science.

It is surprising with the degrees you have that you did not know this.

Remember, according to you, materialism is all that there is. How does brute matter evolve to consciousness? According to darwinists, the physical world is all that there is. Why can't the liver, spleen or pancreas provide for consciousness? Given your non-negotiable starting point, I will be interested in your answer. Will you explain why brute matter provides for sentience. How did that happen? In other words, how do you get something from nothing? HOw do you get consciouns, living, thinking, feeling, believing creatures from material which does not have that? That would be getting something from nothing. How do you get mind to squirt forth from mindless, dead , brute matter? If darwinism cannot account for rationality, then how is it they claim they are the arbitors of rationality? How does 'rational thought' come forth from covalent bonds of atoms? Remember, scientific materialism says all there is is matter/energy...

This must account for the scientists studying prayer and then with a complete straight face, the cultists parrot the demand that God be kept out of the science classrooms or demanding religion not be dragged into the science classroom or science debate while simultaneously dragging the Pope into the equation. :)

Seriously, liberals are all over the map. I think they simply gave up on getting out the myriad memos and are so utterly confused they just don't even try to keep up anymore. Such as "origins is somehow sterlie from or unrelated to evolution", for instance.

This has too many red flags screaming ***CULT***!!!!!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Like everything else, thought evolves. A monkey is a more sentient being than an amoeba, so is a snake.

If you are asking about the origins of life, that is another matter. Nobody knows how life was generated. Personally,, I think life is only capable of being produced by the hands of God. BUT if somebody tomorrow was able to “create” life in a test tube, my interpretation of God's handiwork in the matter by having created the laws that allowed that life to be “created” would sustain my faith.

People like you would be standing there with no response because you have painted yourselves into a box by a myopic reliance on a restricted, very personal and very literal interpretation of one small section of scriptures.