How Modern Christianity has failed Christians (page 17)

cofty

CA - Abiogeneis still has only hypothesis, nobody says otherwise. Progress is very promising though.

DD - I don't understand your question could you explain please?

EntirelyPossible

I can demonstrate everyday that information can only come from greater information and not be generated on its own.

Define "information".

Life must come from life, and cannot come from non life.

Define "life".

God does not exist inside one of them. They exist more inside of Him.

Merely a thought stopping, intellectually lazy statement to defend a rapidly diminishing biospehere for god.

Watch an episode about something simple, like toothpicks. Look at all the planning and inovation involved in making the machines, that run the machines, that run those machines that make the toothpick. Behind it all is intelligence.

I find toothpicks all the time that did not have a maker.

Christ Alone

No more definitions for you, EP. Look em up if you want the correct one. When I cut and paste the definition of "nothing" from the Oxford dictionary on another thread, you said that my definition was incorrect. Your tricks are now see through.

Christ Alone

CA - Abiogeneis still has only hypothesis, nobody says otherwise. Progress is very promising though.

Nobody but Phizzy. But...Agreed

Deputy Dog

cofty

Yes or No are you a commited naturalist? You said I'm avoiding the hard questions. Does naturalism answer ALL the hard questions?

EntirelyPossible

No more definitions for you, EP. Look em up if you want the correct one. When I cut and paste the definition of "nothing" from the Oxford dictionary on another thread, you said that my definition was incorrect. Your tricks are now see through.

I simply want to know what you mean by life. It's hardly my problem if you use words you don't understand in the incorrect way. You are tying to talk science but using non-scientific definitions. I am actually trying to help you.

Christ Alone

And it's hardly my problem when I define them correctly and you say they are incorrect. I've seen you do it with many others. If you call something "incorrect" as if you know the correct answer, give it. Like I said, I gave you the dictionary's definition of "nothing" (without telling you it was the dictionary's definition) and you said I was incorrect. So I'm not playing your game. Just calling something "incorrect" is not "helping". If I'm wrong, correct me. Tell me how and why I'm wrong.

Also, I'm sorry that some wish that believers would just admit to no evidence and reason and "just believe". But that's not how I work. I must have reasons for why I believe.

cofty

Yes or No are you a commited naturalist? - DD

Data Dog - your question seems to come out of context. I won't accept a label like "naturalist" unless you define it.

I am convinced there is no supernatural realm.

I am certain that methodological naturalism is the key to discovery.

There are many questions for which we don't yet have an answer we can be sure about.

There are other things like evolution - the common ancestry of all living things that evolved over millions of years - that is beyond sensible dispute.

Does that answer your question?

What made you ask - Are you telling me you're not a commited naturalist?

EntirelyPossible

And it's hardly my problem when I define them correctly and you say they are incorrect.

And this is where I am trying to help you. You are using common definitions for words in a scientitific context where they don't mean the same thing as what you find in the Oxford dictionary. "Charm" on a quark is very different from something you wear on a bracelet or something someone does.

I've seen you do it with many others. If you call something "incorrect" as if you know the correct answer, give it. Like I said, I gave you the dictionary's definition of "nothing" (without telling you it was the dictionary's definition) and you said I was incorrect.

You were. You were trying to use the common definition of nothing in a scientitic discussion where it means something vastly different. That's what I am trying to get you to see. You need to understand the scientific meaning of the word.

If I'm wrong, correct me. Tell me how and why I'm wrong.

I would rather teach you fish that give you a fish.

Also, I'm sorry that some wish that believers would just admit to no evidence and reason and "just believe". But that's not how I work. I must have reasons for why I believe.

Good for you!

BTW, trying to define "life" may not be as simple as you think. That's why I asked.....it's a teaching moment.

How Modern Christianity has failed Christians

Share this