It's Always Sunny - evolution versus Christianity

[Huggy Bear]

Oh my god, seriously?  Now I feel like you are playing dumb.  I don't know how much more clear I can be:  A scientific theory is the highest level of graduation in science.  It is comprised of many, many scientific facts that have been demonstrated repeatedly to the degree that they have predictive power, and can accurately describe how something works.  No, not every theory in science may be considered a fact (yet) but a theory CONTAINS FACTS.  And to Rob's point, evolution in particular has been so well demonstrated that it is considered scientific fact.  The problem here is that you simply refuse to accept the lay-person's use of the word "theory," is not the same as "scientific theory."  No one can force you to see this, but that doesn't make it any less true.

I'm not saying that a theory isn't based on facts, I'm saying that the facts can be misinterpreted. Do you agree or disagree?

I feel like we are going around in circles here, Huggy.   Not only did I acknowledge that my word choice was imprecise, I went ahead and corrected myself.  That is to say:  necessary building blocks for life have been demonstrated to arise both naturally and artificially in the lab.  Building blocks that, by the way, happen to fit theoretical models scientists are positing for potential mechanisms of abiogenesis.  Imagine that.  

Further more, I went on to explain that my poor word choice was in no way detrimental to the point I was making.  Remember "follow the evidence"?  But alas, you ignored all that.

First of all you didn't correct yourself, were corrected, because had I not forced the issue you would have gone on believing LIFE (And I used THAT term instead of abiogenesis deliberately multiple times, to make sure there was no confusion) had been created in a lab. While I commend you for being one of the only atheists here to admit being wrong, don't get it twisted.

Interestingly enough, I see you're pretty lenient on what you consider life to be when it fits your agenda, may I ask if you're pro-life or pro-choice?

Ah, the old:  "you're just not reading it right" defense.  Sorry, but you don't get to say the bible is true because it says so in the bible.   That is like, the antithesis of evidence.

"For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power." - 1 Corinthians 4:20
"And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:" - 1 Corinthians 2:4


I posted video evidence that this power can and has been demonstrated. Also in another thread I posted a picture which has been thoroughly tested scientifically.

https://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/tag/george-j-lacy/

---

---

This picture was the only one that turned out on the entire film taken by two Douglas Studios photographers, James Ayers and Ted Kipperman. Ayers took the photo to Rev. Branham, who said that he was not greatly surprised. He testified that just before the picture was taken he heard the Pillar of Fire descend into the building with a sound of rushing wind.

To quote the Bible:

"And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them." - Acts 2:2-3

George J. Lacy, Investigator of Questioned Documents, and often hired by the FBI in that capacity, subjected the negative to every scientific test available. At a news conference, he stated, “To my knowledge, this is the first time in all the world’s history that a supernatural being has been photographed and scientifically vindicated.”

videos and pictures are the epitome of evidence, whether YOU accept it as evidence is another.

Exactly. You go along with science until it hits a point where there is an undeniable contradiction, at which point you default to your unsupported beliefs, instead of following the evidence.  You not being able to fathom that life arose from non-life, and that we all share a common ancestor has no bearing on whether or not it's actually true.  This is a fallacy from personal incredulity.

Unsupported belief as in life arising from non-life?

Also, You not being able to fathom that there is a creator has no bearing on whether or not it's actually true.

See how that works?  

You're not listening.  I don't care if she was telling the truth.

Well at least we got that out of the way?

If you are going to assert that what supposedly happened to this woman was the result of divine intervention versus a rare medical occurrence, you have to demonstrate that.  You must first demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't natural, and then you must demonstrate that it was God.  You cant.

What? Are we in court room?

If the above is what is required for you to actually form your own opinion, you must be a real delight.

So, for some reason God decided to use philosophical language and incomplete descriptions for the laws governing his own universe, yet he takes the time to explain in detail the rules for acquisitioning and beating of slaves?  Right.

Here we go.

Despite the fact the the Hebrews never had a system of chattel slavery, and that the words slave, and slavery appear only once in the KJV bible (which proves there is a difference between slavery and indentured servitude), and not in the context of what you speak of.

However I'll leave that one for another discussion, because I'll get the blame for derailing the thread, not you.

Lol, sure, and way to leave out the most important part.  Every essay links to the original research it uses, and the website also self-corrects with a 'report' link for errors.  Hmm...'critical thinking,' and 'self-correcting.'  There are those phrases again...  

You use the term self-correcting as if the website does it automatically and there is no human input. Someone recognizing an error and taking the steps to correct said error IS NOT THE WEBSITE CORRECTING ITSELF. Also you're making the ASSUMPTION that everyone that reads those articles are already so well versed to be able to spot errors in the first place. When you stated that abiogenesis had occurred in a lab, how many people here corrected you? see my point?

My question was; are you willing to accept non-peer reviewed sources as evidence?