{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/1/2015 10:28:48 PM
4
This Philip E. Johnson guy needs to hear about the God of the Gaps fallacy and so do you OP.
Just because science hasn't found a way to explain it yet doesn't mean that it was automatically 'God's Work'. That kind of thinking is exactly why we have people opposing the advancement of technology and why the world doesn't already have mass produced, effective hovercraft.
The poor fools you are.
English
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/2/2015 6:55:39 AM(1) Evolution has no explanation as to it's own origin. Atheists try to explain this, but are never under the same conclusion. (2) Darwin stated, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree...The difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection , though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered subversive of the theory." (3) Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, He is the creator of time; therefore, He is not limited by the time dimension He created. So He has no beginning in time, and the Bible concurs that God is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity (Isaiah 57:15); therefore, He doesn't have a cause.
-
Edited by TechnoKat: 5/1/2015 10:41:58 PMYour major fallacies here are treating an unproven, illogical and impossible being as fact and refusing to accept that a half a century ago the technology required to create the tablet device that I'm using to type this message was so advanced it was considered a joke. Science and technology are ever changing, ever adapting. Evolving and learning. It's the nature of science itself. Fact is that the Bible has been proven to be fallible and inaccurate since no two renditions of the book can be traced back to a source or even agree on the aspects of the content inside. And since the bible is the only source from which people detract any 'definitive' information on 'God', neither can be held as viable sources of correct information. GG though. You tried.
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/2/2015 7:00:50 AMThank you for explaining how technology and only technology is the only thing on earth that's under macro-evolution, and thank you for mentioning nothing that has anything to do with biology. God, it is almost every other day someone says, "Technological advancements; thus, we have evolution." Please, when and if you respond, state something related to the topic.
-
Well, when you understand the rules of Argument vs. Counter-argument you might actually get what I just said. The rule in question here being that when providing factual evidence to counterbalance a statement or prove it false, you might want to actually use facts, rather than "Well the book says that God did this, so god did this, not science, nature or anything possible." Welcome to debate class, 101.
