Circular Reasoning?

Started by JesusIsAlive21 pages
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I am sure you love to see my statements as silly in your own, limited mind, JIA. But as my statements are based on rationality and logic, the rational and intelligent man will see their foundation, and also judge your juvenile responses accordingly.

What juvenile responses? It is my opinion.

Look, let's just agree to disagree, huh, how about it?

You ain't ever gonna change what I believe/know and I perhaps am not the one that will lead you to Christ. So let's just move on.

Originally posted by Bardock42
How so?

Because you refuse to apply the same rationale, logic, and intelligence to creationism as you do to evolution. You say, "where, where is the evidence for God?"

(The whole time that you are asking that question you are breathing the air that He created for you to breath. All of life and matter all around you is shouting God's existence and yet you still disbelieve)

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Because you refuse to apply the same rationale, logic, and intelligence to creationism as you do to evolution. You say, "where, where is the evidence for God?"

(The whole time that you are asking that question you are breathing the air that He created for you to breath. All of life and matter all around you is shouting God's existence and yet you still disbelieve)

I do the same for evolution. Just that I get evidence for it. I apply the exact same way of finding the truth to both. One gives me the certainty that it exists and the other (God) does not.

I am breathing the air that exists by chance.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, nearly ALL of it is based on theory. And yes, that can change, unlike dogmatic religion, which cannot. Another victory for Science. You cannot try to combat me with one of science's strengths.

What makes a theory a theory rather than just a hypothesis is the existence of evidence. A theory is refined and improved over time as more evidence becomes available.

What is not reasonable- never reasonable- is to think something is so when there is absolutely no evidence for it, outside of the realm of philosophical debate.

Your idea that there is evidence for God is simply a statement with no backing. There IS no such evidence, and you saying there is does not change that.


What you actually mean is that you cannot see the evidence.

Originally posted by sonnet
What you actually mean is that you cannot see the evidence.

But that's the thing with real evidence, everyone can see it. Cause it exists beyond ideologies.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But that's the thing with real evidence, everyone can see it. Cause it exists beyond ideologies.

O don't twist my words, You can see the evidence, your corrupted mind just won't accept the fact that God is clearly visible in His creation all around us because by aknowledging that, you have to acknowledge God and that will cause a big dilemma in your life.

Originally posted by sonnet
O don't twist my words, You can see the evidence, your corrupted mind just won't accept the fact that God is clearly visible in His creation all around us because by aknowledging that, you have to acknowledge God and that will cause a big dilemma in your life.

That is bullshit. The existence of a world that can be explained through many different theories does not prove the existence of one of them (God).

Ha ha, "corrupted mind." This is why I don't even bother trying to talk to people like this...

Originally posted by sonnet
O don't twist my words, You can see the evidence, your corrupted mind just won't accept the fact that God is clearly visible in His creation all around us because by aknowledging that, you have to acknowledge God and that will cause a big dilemma in your life.
There is as much evidence that God exists as in the Santa Claus.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That is bullshit. The existence of a world that can be explained through many different theories does not prove the existence of one of them (God).

God is not a theory though, He is very real. Just a pity you won't accept the obvious. It could save your soul.

Originally posted by sonnet
God is not a theory though, He is very real. Just a pity you won't accept the obvious. It could save your soul.
God is a concept and an idea not real in the slightest.

Originally posted by ThePittman
God is a concept and an idea not real in the slightest.

Sorry to inform you that you are wrong. But I guess you feel comfortable rather believing that there is no real God.

Originally posted by sonnet
Sorry to inform you that you are wrong. But I guess you feel comfortable rather believing that there is no real God.
😆 Sorry that you are so miss guided that you believe in fairy tales of people that would have thought a Bic lighter was magic.

Originally posted by ThePittman
😆 Sorry that you are so miss guided that you believe in fairy tales of people that would have thought a Bic lighter was magic.

😈 And Satan smiles down at the world and those he blinded so completely that they cannot see the light of Christ any more.

Originally posted by sonnet
😈 And Satan smiles down at the world and those he blinded so completely that they cannot see the light of Christ any more.

You seem to know too much about Satan.

Originally posted by sonnet
😈 And Satan smiles down at the world and those he blinded so completely that they cannot see the light of Christ any more.
How could you take the writings of people that had no understanding of the world and how it works and believed that everything was magic or some type of power? They believed the world was flat, that the Sun revolved around the Earth and that the Earth was at the center of the universe.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I do the same for evolution. Just that I get evidence for it. I apply the exact same way of finding the truth to both. One gives me the certainty that it exists and the other (God) does not.

I am breathing the air that exists by chance.

A scientific study of the universe has suggested a conclusion, which may be summed up ... in the statement that the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician.2
--English physicist Sir James

This [conviction in the existence of God] follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity.3
--Charles Darwin

The first conditions that determined the basic constants of nature and the emergence of life were set in place with amazing exactness. To give an idea of how precisely the universe appears to have been constructed, it is enough to think of a golfer who can hit his ball from Earth to a hole on Mars! 7
--Contemporary philosopher Jean Guitton of the French Academy

The fitness... [of these compounds constitutes] a series of maxima-unique or nearly unique properties of water, carbon dioxide, the compounds of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen and the ocean-so numerous, so varied, so complete among all things which are concerned in the problem that together they form certainly the greatest possible fitness.8
--Lawrence Henderson, a professor in Harvard University's department of biological chemistry

The fitness of water [for life] would in all probability be less if its viscosity were much lower. The structures of living systems would be subject to far more violent movements under shearing forces if the viscosity were as low as liquid hydrogen... If the viscosity of water was much lower, delicate structures would be easily disrupted . . . and water would be incapable of supporting any permanent intricate microscopic structures. The delicate molecular architecture of the cell would probably not survive.

If the viscosity was higher, the controlled movement of large macromolecules and particularly structures such as mitochondria and small organelles would be impossible, as would processes like cell division. All the vital activities of the cell would be effectively frozen, and cellular life of any sort remotely resembling that with which we are familiar would be impossible. The development of higher organisms, which is critically dependent on the ability of cells to move and crawl around during embryogenesis, would certainly be impossible if the viscosity of water was even slightly greater than it is.10
--molecular biologist Michael Denton

Plants do not proliferate in a field to the point where they become crowded. They do not engage in a "struggle for existence" where natural selection would preserve the strong and destroy the weak. Plants tend to control their populations by sensing the density of the planting. When the growth is dense, plants produce less seeds; when growth is thin, they produce more seeds.11
--Israeli biophysicist Lee M. Spetner

Nothing is more extraordinary in the history of the Vegetable Kingdom, as it seems to me, than the apparently very sudden or abrupt development of the higher plants.12
--Charles Darwin

... I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition.13
--Dr. Eldred Corner of Cambridge University

How does an acorn know it has to grow into an oak tree and not into a sunflower? . . . The science of biology took a pivotal turn about 40 years ago when biologists began to learn how information plays its role in living organisms. We have discovered the location of the information in the organism that tells it how to function and how to grow, how to live and how to reproduce. The information is in the seed as well as in the plant; it's in the egg as well as in the chicken. The egg passes the information to the chicken it becomes, and the chicken passes it to the egg it lays, and so on.14
--Dr. Lee Spetner

Indeed, the only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation.16
--well-known paleontologist and curator of the American Museum of Natural History Niles Eldredge

… What spectacular variety we see among living things, both variation within kind and the stupendous number of different kinds. Most of us are awed by the spectacular variation in color, size, form, features, and function we see both within and among the incredible diversity of living things that grace our planet. Why so much variation?20
--former evolutionist Professor Gary E. Parker came to the conclusion (along with many other scientists) that the theory of evolution was invalid. He based this conclusion on research he conducted into paleontology and biology.

So wonderful an instinct as that of the hive-bee making its cells will probably have occurred to many readers, as a difficulty sufficient to overthrow my whole theory.21
--Charles Darwin

I remember well the time when the thought of the [amazingly complex structure of the] eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of complaint... and now, trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick! 23
--Charles Darwin

The first, and main, problem is the very existence of the big bang. One may wonder, What came before? If space-time did not exist then, how could everything appear from nothing? What arose first: the universe or the laws determining its evolution? Explaining this initial singularity-where and when it all began-still remains the most intractable problem of modern cosmology.7
--Andrei Linde

If God created all things down to the smallest particle to atoms then how can it be explained though science and not some mystical power, why would he make it so that it can be explained through science?

To test our faith silly! 😄