It's Always Sunny - evolution versus Christianity

[LadyForCamus]

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

That's not what you said, it's what you are saying now. You've created a circle that you think is going to get you to, "evolution might be wrong" but it won't.

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

Yes, you found my error before I did. Congratulations. I feel no shame in admitting mistakes. But for the THIRD time now, it in no way detracts from the point I was making; a point that for the third time now, you have refused to acknowledge.

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?

Not that it is at all relevant, but I am pro-choice.

"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.

LMFAO, are you serious?! I didn't think it could get any worse than that Christian Doctor Phil video you showed be, but wow. You have outdone your self. No Huggy, videos and pictures are not in any stretch of anyone's wildest imagination the "epitome" of scientific evidence. So, you must believe in Big Foot and Loch Ness too then, if these are your standards for good evidence? Randomized, double blind, placebo controlled clinical trials are considered the “Gold Standard," and you will not be able to produce even one in support of any of your claims. I actually laughed out loud at this one, thank you.

unsupported belief as in life arising from non-life?

Not unsupported. There is that point I keep making that you don't want to acknowledge.

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

I don't think I ever said I couldn't fathom such a thing, so don't straw man me, please. God either exists or he doesn't. If or when there is convincing evidence that said God exists, I'll happily believe in him. Until then, I stand at the default position. I don't believe in things without good evidence.

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.

To form a belief in an extraordinary claim? You bet I require the above! See, I actually care whether or not my beliefs are true. I actually care about how closely my beliefs reflect the reality I live in. This is important to me. Extraordinary claims like God and the supernatural should require extraordinary evidence (not just pictures and videos) before accepting them as true. Especially when you are basing your entire life's philosophy around them. To believe without evidence is another way of saying, "gullibility."

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.

Believe me, I have no interest in opening that can of worms right now. I was simply giving some context in support of my point, which you ignored. Shocker...

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?

*sigh*. Of course not, and many of those articles ARE peer reviewed, and all of them link to original research, and the website itself aligns with the mainstream conclusions reached by the scientific community. But, no matter. If that source gets your panties in a twist, there are many others.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

I think this is where we part ways. When someone starts quoting bible verses as "evidence" is when I check out. Thanks, I'd like to say it's been fun, and NOT a headache but...