Posted on 03/19/2010 4:56:11 PM PDT by chessplayer
What is "intelligent" about it? Things go round and round in circles endlessly while lfying through space.
At least the presupposition that the universe was intelligently designed has precedent to back it up
It does?
No. If I a priori rejected something I wouldn't be asking for a proof.
What do you consider credible proof that you're just not going to blow off as not good enough, or not sufficient enough?
Certainly not someone's word for it.
Politicized science is not any longer science.
Self-contradictions just continue to pile up....
Thank you so much for your insights, dearest sister in Christ, and for your encouragements!
And if they wish to respond to a demand for a reason why they are anti-evolutionist, then they could say they support "Young Earth Creationism" or "the Intelligent Design Hypothesis" or "Panspermia" or whatever.
I think when people have solid evidence they are neither insulted by someone's doubt nor do they have to appeal to anecdotal testimonies and to the ineffable. Only those on shaky grounds seem to feel threatened by someone's doubt.
If you don't believe medicine works, feel free to refuse it. If you doubt gravity, hey be my guest...If you don't believe red-hot stove tops should not be touched, go ahead and experiment. It doesn't bother me.
Science in general, and evolution in particular, is the weapon of choice by the atheists with which to bludgeon Christianity and Christians.
See what I mean. Science and evolution is a "weapon." if someone tells me that one can get cured simply by being covered by a shadow of a very holy man, I don't consider that a "weapon. " I consider it superstition, but I don;t take it as an attack on medicine. Medicine does not require faith, or anecdotal testimonies, or "miracles."
Atheists skepticism about miracles is not proof that they didn’t occur, or disproof of their occurrence
Well, that's because talking donkeys and people living inside a fish for three days does not happen in our world. Maybe in another world, but we live in this world, and in this world that doesn't happen. The Bible describes some other world, not this one.
I do know a Christian surgeon who regularly prays for and with his patients and often has to send them home without operating on them because they were healed. He uses scans and tests for the diagnosis and proof of healing.
More anecdotal testimonies. "Truth" in our world is ascertained by obtaining the same results over and over with a great degree of probability. That means the working model "works." Science is not a competitive religion. Science is a system of models that work consistently and reliably within human limitations and on demand. Religion depends on hope, miracles, grace, fasting, and so on.
If someone wants to bet their life on such a "system" more power to them. I will stay with what works consistently and reliably. If you have pneumonia and you want to be sprinkled with holy water in hopes of being cured, go ahead. I will take my chance with all available antimicrobial agents.
Now, you’re not going to take my word for it. You’re not going to take his word for it. You’re not going to take the word of the person who was healed about it.
No I won't take anyone's word for it, because no one knows what healed that person. When that doctor starts healing every case of pneumonia or whatever he is healing with equal or greater certainty then with standard medical intervention then hopefully the dear doctor will be able to document his new "skill," and share the secret so that all his colleagues can do the same thing.
You’re going to accuse them of lying unless they meet your specific demands for proof, none of which is likely to ever satisfy you.
You are making this about me and I am getting sick of it. Discuss the issue and not what engage what I will or will not say.
But then the question arises, that even if someone provided the requested images and documents, do you have the skill and training to correctly interpret them?
In an anonymous forum such a question is meaningless. Besides, it is irrelevant if I am qualified or not. The criteria against which this doctor's success is measured is the standard of care. When and if his outcomes meet or exceed the best standard medical science can come up with, then he will have something to show and prove. There has been many a scientist who came up with fantastic results that no one else could repeat. He can't just come out and say "I pray real hard and you'all should try it too."
Virtually every medical professional I’ve ever met can point to miraculous healings of some kind.
But these spontaneous outcomes do not represent standard of care, nor does anyone know what caused the remission. Every fourth or so pregnancy is spontaneously aborted. Is that an act of God too?
You’re lack of awareness of them indicates that you are not a medical professional.
Your speculations are amazingly inaccurate.
I could spend the rest of my life googling up testimonies of healings and I have no doubt, you’d find the rest of your life finding reasons for rejecting each and every one of them.
Science has higher standards of proof than mere anecdotal testimonies. And that's good. Otherwise we would be on the same level as detergent commercials. When a patient dies, many will say the doctor killed him; but if he survives, they say God saved saved him. It's pretty weak if you think about it.
There is a healing/prayer room associated with the Cleveland Clinic where a lot of people go for healing and get healed
I realize that this is important to some people and that it may give them hope and a peace of mind, so it is good to have such chapels in places where people face difficult news, such as hospitals.
And if they wish to respond to a demand for a reason why they are anti-evolutionist, then they could say they support "Young Earth Creationism" or "the Intelligent Design Hypothesis" or "Panspermia" or whatever.
That would be fine with me, and I think that's actually what I've usually called anti-evolutionists in these conversations. Because it's the theory of evolution that's at issue, not their (or my) religious beliefs. In the same vein, I'd love to see anti-evolutionists stop framing the question as being about whether one believes in God or not. If we're going to expand the definition of creationist to include everyone who believes in God the Creator, it's going to include a lot of people who accept the theory of evolution, and the anti-evos are going to have to acknowledge that as well.
I don't believe the last two are necessarily "anti-evolution", since they don't disallow the possibility that life was designed with the ability to evolve.
No, but if they’re going to reject them off hand, there’s no point in me wasting my time posting them.
Not all the accounts of healings you find on the internet are anonymous. A simple google search can provide tons of links with names and places for further research.
Is having rejected the anonymous ones reason to assume that verifiable, documented ones will also be rejected?
We live in an age where science is expected to explain everything, but it can't. I think a number of mentally ill people have been possessed by demons. Son of Sam comes to mind.
But it has.
We will always end up at Jesus Christ. He is either who He said He was or He isn't. He proved it for us, or He didn't.
I think more than enough objective evidence is there.
Nature reveals a design. You argue that doesn't mean the designer is God, but the truth of Scripture tells us it is God. The only avenue left is to question the veracity of Scripture, but we are given evidence of it's truthfulness with the fulfillment of prophesy, supernatural events and most importantly Jesus Christ.
Any honest scientist will agree that evolution does not explain the origin of the species. Adaptation to environment can explain how things have changed over time, but inorganic matter becoming organic matter becoming self replicating is too complicated to have occurred by chance.
That’s what these conversations get down to each and every time. Science in general, and evolution in particular, is the weapon of choice by the atheists with which to bludgeon Christianity and Christians.
***************************
Well said.
A lot of verifiable testimony about Bible history in the form of archaeological evidence is already rejected.
Why would anyone presume that testimonies in the internet, even with names and locations, be any different?
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.