William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
|
William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
|
 RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 20, 2015 at 8:39 am
(February 20, 2015 at 8:37 am)Stimbo Wrote: Congratulations, you just discovered Occam's Razor. Mind you don't cut yourself. Hrhr
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
 RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 20, 2015 at 8:54 am
That's easy for you to say.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
 RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 20, 2015 at 12:08 pm
(This post was last modified: February 20, 2015 at 12:11 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
(February 20, 2015 at 4:18 am)emilynghiem Wrote: Some people don't get how leaps are made into Global Warming That's because some people don't understand science, and others don't understand bullshit.  RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 22, 2015 at 12:35 am
(February 20, 2015 at 12:08 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:(February 20, 2015 at 4:18 am)emilynghiem Wrote: Some people don't get how leaps are made into Global Warming I'm happy to debate anyone here on evolution. The evolution which purports to explain the emergence of complex life from the most simple single celled organisms, not the "change over time", bunk.  RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 22, 2015 at 12:40 am
(February 22, 2015 at 12:35 am)YGninja Wrote: I'm happy to debate anyone here on evolution. The evolution which purports to explain the emergence of complex life from the most simple single celled organisms, not the "change over time", bunk. There are at least a dozen evolution thread here. Start a new one if you like.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
 RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 22, 2015 at 12:41 am
(February 22, 2015 at 12:35 am)YGninja Wrote:(February 20, 2015 at 12:08 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: That's because some people don't understand science, and others don't understand bullshit. It's not going to be a good debate to be honest.  RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 22, 2015 at 12:44 am
(February 22, 2015 at 12:35 am)YGninja Wrote: I'm happy to debate anyone here on evolution. The evolution which purports to explain the emergence of complex life from the most simple single celled organisms, not the "change over time", bunk. Are you saying that you think there is a side to evolution that does not correlate to gradual change over time? You must have confused us with the christians, they are the ones who believe the magic "POOF" of life into mud statues and the creation of bovine DNA strands by the colored pole method.
Find the cure for Fundementia!
RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 22, 2015 at 12:52 am
(This post was last modified: February 22, 2015 at 12:54 am by YGninja.)
(February 22, 2015 at 12:44 am)Brakeman Wrote:For evolution to happen things must change over time, but change over time alone is not evolution, which is the process theorised to explain the arrival of complex life from the most simple.(February 22, 2015 at 12:35 am)YGninja Wrote: I'm happy to debate anyone here on evolution. The evolution which purports to explain the emergence of complex life from the most simple single celled organisms, not the "change over time", bunk. RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 22, 2015 at 12:59 am
(February 22, 2015 at 12:52 am)YGninja Wrote:What else do you think evolution is that is more than change over time?(February 22, 2015 at 12:44 am)Brakeman Wrote: Are you saying that you think there is a side to evolution that does not correlate to gradual change over time?For evolution to happen things must change over time, but change over time alone is not evolution, which is the process theorised to explain the arrival of complex life from the most simple. Why would you believe magic god dust to be a better answer? Would change over time plus a little magic fairy dust make evolution more appealing to you?
Find the cure for Fundementia!
 RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 22, 2015 at 1:04 am
(February 22, 2015 at 12:52 am)YGninja Wrote: For evolution to happen things must change over time, but change over time alone is not evolution, which is the process theorised to explain the arrival of complex life from the most simple. Um, change over time is how simple life diversified to become more complex. Evolution, as it was initially discovered, was based on observations of organisms changing over time, which had implications about the diversity of life, but it wasn't theorized to explain the diversity of life from a common origin, that just happened to be an idea the theory led to, that happens to have been borne out via observation and evidence since then.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects! |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
