Evolution? How?

By the way, i am not claiming to be an expert on naval architecture, either. However, i am a student of history, and one to the longest abiding interests in history which i have is naval history.

I assert, without equivocation, that the vessel you're plumping for was simply not possible.

How did old Noah keep the secret from his neighbors for over a century? You know, people will talk.

Setanta wrote:

By the way, i am not claiming to be an expert on naval architecture, either. However, i am a student of history, and one to the longest abiding interests in history which i have is naval history.

I assert, without equivocation, that the vessel you're plumping for was simply not possible.

How did old Noah keep the secret from his neighbors for over a century? You know, people will talk.

I don't think he tried to keep it secret. The Bible describes Noah as 'a preacher of righteousness' who by his deeds 'witnessed to the ancient world'.

BTW the term 'preacher of righteousness' doesn't mean Noah was sinless. Far from it, as the Bible itself plainly shows. That's why Noah 'found grace in the eyes of the Lord'.

Preach on -- it can only be designed to convince onceself that the facts of evolution are guesses and they would have us believe they aren't even educated guesses. It's a blind faith that all those events in the Bible, more especially in the Old Testament, have but very little historic proof, nor any kind of geological proof or any other kind of proof whatsoever. Yada, yada, yada in the pulpit as much as one wants, it's not in the least believable or, better yet, thinkable.

No, rl, it is those of your mindset who have problems with fact and reason - let me rephrase that - have A problem with reason and fact; to such as endorse the proposition you forward, reason and fact are foreign concepts - that is the problem. That which does not comport with the fairytale of which they are convinced must be dismissed. ID-iots do not propose, nor even seek, answers; they are unwilling to attempt, even incapable of, an understanding the questions.

Demonstrate objectively and in forensically valid manner that religious faith be differentiable from superstition.

Superstition is man made (for the most part) , religion is man made (also, for the most part) but truth is purely God made...

Sorry, Rex, that don't cut it. Petitio Principii cannot support an argument; it simply runs in circles, chasing its own tale (and yes, I mean "tale", as in fairytale, not "tail" as in caudal appendage).

Quote:

Superstition is man made (for the most part) , religion is man made (also, for the most part) but truth is purely God made...

Truth is subjective and man made. What is truth to one is a lie to another. But both will claim God as the author.

timberlandko wrote:

Sorry, Rex, that don't cut it. Petitio Principii cannot support an argument; it simply runs in circles, chasing its own tale (and yes, I mean "tale", as in fairytale, not "tail" as in caudal appendage).

That is a matter of an "opinion" which do not share...

RexRed wrote:

timberlandko wrote:

Sorry, Rex, that don't cut it. Petitio Principii cannot support an argument; it simply runs in circles, chasing its own tale (and yes, I mean "tale", as in fairytale, not "tail" as in caudal appendage).

That is a matter of an "opinion" which I do not share...

Demonstrate that be not a factual statement but rather opinion or conjecture.

I submit that a premis dependendent on [Petitio Principii[/i] be an illicit premise, invalidating the proposition proceeding from it, and I submit that in the absence of unambiguous, incontestable, independently verifiable, empirical confirmative evidence, the proposition that there be a deity or deities is perforce an assumption, not a fact.

I submit that none of the foregoing is opinion, but that it is fact.

Rex,
Tell me. You are so convinced, yet you don't provide anything convincing. Why is that?

Just because many claim - earnestly and perhaps in all honesty - to have seen the Loch Ness Monster does not mean such a critter exists, and while such a critter might exist, all indications are it does not.

That doesn't mean there's no reason to seek confirmation of the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, that simply means that the existence of the Loch Ness Monster has not been demonstrated.

It, the Loch Ness Monster, remains undemonstrated, and in that the requisite condition is not demonstrated, no argument proceeding from the premis that the Loch Ness Monster exists can be valid. Same thing.

No, rl, it is those of your mindset who have problems with fact and reason - let me rephrase that - have A problem with reason and fact; to such as endorse the proposition you forward, reason and fact are foreign concepts - that is the problem. That which does not comport with the fairytale of which they are convinced must be dismissed. ID-iots do not propose, nor even seek, answers; they are unwilling to attempt, even incapable of, an understanding the questions.

Demonstrate objectively and in forensically valid manner that religious faith be differentiable from superstition.

A bud must be tender to sprout and bloom...