It's Always Sunny - evolution versus Christianity
February 25, 2016 at 11:51 am
(This post was last modified: February 25, 2016 at 1:26 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(February 25, 2016 at 1:21 am)Huggy74 Wrote: And Charles Darwin published his theory on evolution in 1859; whats your point? are you saying all scientific research done before 1950 is unreliable?
Wow. Really? Still? False analogy, Huggy. Big time. A single, non-peer reviewed examination by one guy cannot be compared to a scientific theory. But you already know this (I hope by now) and your desperation is showing. I'm sorry if you can't grasp the nature of a scientific theory, but I'm done beating that dead horse.
Quote:what he concluded was that there had to be a light in that position to form an image on the negative, I don't know about you but I don't think lights hanging over people heads out of nowhere is a naturally occurring phenomenon; And something that can't be explained using the laws of nature by definition is supernatural.
Light isn't a naturally occurring phenomenon? But, okay. Let's take a different approach here. For the sake of argument, let us say this picture is an authentic photograph of God, or some type of divine, godly energy breaching the natural world. Whatever you want to call it is fine with me. Talk me through this: As this minister was giving his sermon, for whatever reason God decided this was an important moment to step in and reveal himself. But, he didn't actually reveal himself, did he? No one reported seeing anything in real time while he was preaching.
So, let's revise the above: God wanted to step in and reveal himself. So, he figured the most efficient way to do so would be to hang over this minister's head (invisible), but then tamper with one guy's camera (ruining all the other pictures because...why again?) so that later on, his divine energy could be seen on the film? Do you understand how little sense this makes when you actually think about it? Don't you think maybe, just maybe, there was something wrong with the photographer's camera, and the man who critically examined the photo simply missed something? dropping all preconceptions, which scenario seems more likely to you?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
