phonon
Posts: 396
Joined: Nov. 2006
|
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/2006
Denyse:
| Quote | | We know that, contrary to the preposterous claims of materialists, the universe did not create itself. |
You KNOW that?
See. That fits my definition of Faith.
Faith: Believing you know something to be true when really you don't.
| Quote | | Now, as a traditional Christian, I think (no big surprise here) that Christianity offers the best account of the human condition. But in doing so, I leave the quarks and neutrons and naked mole rats aside, and ask people to consider what we know of our own lives. What lies between what we are and what we know we should be - and what can possibly bridge the gap? |
God you're writing style sucks, Denyse.
Ok, Christianity offers the best account of the human condition. Fine, if you want it that way. Now, however you want to define the human condition, what the heck does the human condition have to do with the process of evolution? Evolution would happen whether there were humans or not. And since you ask people to disregard "quarks, neutrons, and mole rats" and look at their own lives, then you are simply asking people to disregard the world around them, to stop trying to figure out how nature works and only think about what affects them directly. Also, how would you know what you are and what you should be without investigating the world around you?
| Quote | | In matters of this sort, intelligent design is not the answer. It only prevents us from evading the question. |
What the heck does that even mean? Oh! I get it, Denyse. Intelligent Design allows us to believe in God, while evil Darwinian thinking does not. This isn't the slightest bit true. Of course, you know that, Denyse, which means that you are a liar, yet another liar for Jesus. Yes, Jesus would be proud.
Who Would Jesus Deceive, Denyse? Oh, I know Jesus deceived us all when he put the light beams from distant stars in place 6000 years ago. He deceived us all when he buried dinosaur fossils, all in a certain order. Maybe you CAN show us the way to heaven Denyse. My bad.
And then Barry A delivers one of my all time favorite UD quotes: | Quote | BarryA
01/26/2007
11:03 pm
Denyse, I don’t agree.
Here you touch on the distinction between “general” revelation and “specific” revelation, both of which are taught in Christian doctrine.
Psalm 19 says the heavens declare the glory of God. This is the general revelation. You are correct that the heavens do not name the specific name of the God whose glory they declare, but the fact that they declare the glory of any God means they declare that God exists.
The Bible declares the glory of the triune God of the Trinity. This is the specific revelation. The specific revelation is supported by the general revelation. Our faith in the God specifically revealed in the Bible is increased because we can see the works of a God manifest in the heavens.
In the same way, ID is general revelation. It does not reveal the specific God of the Bible, but it makes the God of the Bible more believable because it makes it more likely that a God exists at all. |
Thank you for your honesty, Barry A Tard.
Wait, this whole thread is a treasure trove of IDiocy.
| Quote | | ID in its purist form has nothing to do with the Gospel (ie its good science)...But! It is a good primer and helps open ppls heart who have been stuck under materialism and evolution, for the Gospel. In my evangelism exp., this subject is a big hurdle and must be faced head on and that’s where ID comes in. |
Ah, yes, it opens your heart. That's what good science does! So does a good cardiac surgeon, I've heard.
| Quote | | When Pasteur disproved abiogenesis and Lematrie proposed the Big Bang, I’ll grant they were serving the Lord, giving glory to God and providing a good Christian witness, but they weren’t evangelizing. |
Wow. I just love love love this thread. | Quote | | Cosmological and biological ID are complete no-brainers |
You said it, bub. | Quote | I agree with Barry. I would also point out that there is nothing in either ID or Christianity which would preclude the Designer from identifying Himself in one or more of His designs. Actually, He already has done so, revealing the Gospel in an instance of CSI found in Nature.
|
I had no idea that when William Dembski, Father of the New Science stumbled upon the concept of CSI, that it would ever reveal the Gospel of the One True Triune Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amazing what the New Science can uncover!! Praise Jesus. | Quote | It was asked,”How does something being designed dispute materialism?” If the something is a beehive, perhaps it doesn’t - at least not initially. There are only certain ways bees CAN design a hive, left to themselves.*
*It is a separate question how bees came to discover even this way to build a hive, without assistance. I suspect there is enough in the insect world alone to sink Darwinism, but that is a topic for another time. |
Denyse. You are 100% pure grade-A unadulterated Tard. And in the same post Denyse opines: | Quote | If the something is a universe, however, we must know that there is an intelligence beyond or apart from or behind ours. Doubtless, greater than ours.
In this atmosphere, the materialist looks busily for a way it could all have just sort of happened. |
While the IDiot reads the Bible to find revelation of the intelligence that was beyond and apart from or behind ours. (Great writer, that Denyse.) Let's leave the real science to real scientists, huh. Oh that's right. You already do. | Quote | | Your point “It is the EVIDENCE that is accumulating every day, that refutes Darwins feeling that God played a very small part in the design of living things, that ID addresses” is well taken. |
Did I say God? Darn, I meant the Intelligent Designer. Darn Darn, quick email DaveScot. Delete Delete Delete!
--------------
With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
|
