The list is a LOT longer than I have noted. It includes EVERY aspect of the natural world which is required for our existence. And they must all be myths according you you. Perpetuated by those pesky science-loving atheists! Because God doesn’t need to use any of them.
Which applied science?rossum:
I’m actually a society certified smart guy in a field of applied science with the honourific and designatory letters that go with it. I may come across as arrogant at times, because in real life my opinion, obviously not about these matters but stuff that is practical, has monetary value. Just trying to impart some wisdom before I can’t any more. Take it, or as you have chosen to do, leave it.
Not necessarily, although the popularized notions of the actual scientific data usually are. This is most likely a misunderstanding of my position rather than a strawman argument.
The complexity of living beings did not arise randomly from the intrinsic properties of matter, nor is the diversity observed in nature merely the result of the utilitarian concept of survival of the fittest, the fittingest, or what have you. God created light and proceeded to bring into existence matter, time and space; He created living organisms from those basic substances, beginning with single cell creatures. The information that comprises a cell was utilized in bringing into existence whole organisms, comprised of cells, specialized and organized into tissues, as part of organ systems, which are all united as one being which exists in relation to its environment, incoporating what is other to itself into its own body, Growth and reproduction are aspects of the nature of all living things, qualities they possess and reflect the relationship with what is around them, that are not present in matter itself. Animals are characterized as distinct from plants in that they have instinctive perceptions, feelings and behaviours.We, as distinct from animals can know and act with a free will, thereby allowing us to love and thereby connect with transcendent Reality.
You are using what you say are your qualifications to give weight to what you say. It’s only reasonable to ask in what field those qualifications are held. If arguments make sense whatever your background then it seems pointless in mentioning them.
Nah. Your position is completely understood. It takes quite some time to sort wheat from chaff but it’s clear enough.Wozza:
Not necessarily, although the popularized notions of the actual scientific data usually are. This is most likely a misunderstanding of my position rather than a strawman argument.
Why do you do that?
Lot’s of typos, I must say.
Science can say something when those supernatural events have an effect in the material world. Science can observe that a sea is parted. It may not be able to explain why or how, but it can observe and measure the parting.
Clay contains every mineral the human body needs. It is a pretty neat finding.
How utterly dishonest, substituting my words with yours! It’s a pity the quote feature allows for such nonsense.Aloysium:
The list is a LOT longer than I have noted. It includes EVERY aspect of the natural world which is required for our existence. And they must all be myths according you you. Perpetuated by those pesky science-loving atheists! Because God doesn’t need to use any of them.
A serious question…it is NOT rhetorical: Why do you think He used all these other processes yet chose not to use the one?
What? God couldn’t make the minerals necessary for Man out of nothing? He had to use clay?LeafByNiggle:
Clay contains every mineral the human body needs. It is a pretty neat finding.
Evo proponents here tell us over and over evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Do you agree?
That is what He revealed. You can ask Him why when you see Him.
Don’t give me that. One aspect of science is just as valid as another. The same arguments we have been getting ad nauseum against evolution could equally be made against countless other scientific processes. But you demand that we must accept than Man is somehow different from the rest of existence.Wozza:
How utterly dishonest, substituting my words with yours! It’s a pity the quote feature allows for such nonsense.Aloysium:
The list is a LOT longer than I have noted. It includes EVERY aspect of the natural world which is required for our existence. And they must all be myths according you you. Perpetuated by those pesky science-loving atheists! Because God doesn’t need to use any of them.
A serious question…it is NOT rhetorical: Why do you think He used all these other processes yet chose not to use the one?
The science is not an illusion, the myth of evolution is. The problem is that people cannot see what is true, enthralled as they are with the story in which it is cast.
Yes. Abiogenesis is not a necessary prerequisite to evolution.LeafByNiggle:
Evo proponents here tell us over and over evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Do you agree?
You are mistaken. He did not reveal that.LeafByNiggle:
That is what He revealed. You can ask Him why when you see Him.
A counter argument to what your claiming here is that human artifacts made and designed by intelligent humans from materials nature provides whether they be simple such as a hammer or more complex such as a house, a watch, a computer, a car, or an airplane do not assemble themselves together by themselves. Accordingly, why should we think that the highly complex entire world of nature assembled itself together by itself? The processes of nature have limits, they cannot even make a hammer much less build a house. I think it is rather ironic that the theory that all the natural creatures of the world whether animate or inanimate assembled themselves together by natural processes of nature when at the same time the very sophisticated instruments that scientists use to study the highly complex world of nature and its processes are designed and assembled together by intelligent human beings.