Re: 17 Proofs Of No Evolution

I think it is just as ridiculous to allow "science" to define proof, as 
it is to allow "religion" to do so.... uhmm or are we talking God?


XeNO wrote:
> Apparently you use a much broader definition of proof than science does.
>
> If God is the cause of nature, then there should be some aspect of god 
> that is definable and testable.  
Why?
> Oh, and people have tried that... the best conclusion one can come up 
> with is that supernatural phenomenon are at best not discernible from 
> natural phenomenon.  So we simply take the simplest explanation, 
> because in order to "prove" god did something you would first have to 
> be able to build a model for god... but you yourself claim that god is 
> uncomprehendible, and beyond human understanding--or do you deny that 
> he's posited as being beyond the realm of human senses?
>
> So which is it?
>
> 1.  God is comprehendible by man.
>
> 2.  God is not comprehendible by man.
Wow, there are only 2 possible conclusions in such a large universe, or 
--- in such a small imagination.
>
> If God is not comprehendible by man, then it is fruitless to try to 
> describe nature in terms of God because why should we engage in 
> "comprehending the incomprehensible?"  We can only describe nature in 
> terms of nature--we are limited by our 5 senses, hence Evolution, 
> heliocentrism, quantum physics, etc.
>
> If God is comprehendible by man, then there should be some aspect 
> somewhere that we can empirically confirm or refute him... in other 
> words we'd have to have the capacity to prove or disprove God 
> exists--but we've all figured out that this act is not possible.  
> (Even though lack of evidence certainly suggests otherwise.)  So if 
> God is comprehensible by man--what faculty allows us to do this?
>
> --XeNO
> aa#1901
The major limitation of  western thought, seems to be language. The law 
of the excluded middle, as if (don't you love those two little words?) 
either/or, is some sort of "Universal" (LOL when was the last time 
anyone journey off planet?) determinate.

So here is a good either/or, who is more close-minded, or who 
proselytizes more, a Jehovah's Witness or an Atheist? I think they are 
about as different as natural and super-natural, or Godly and Godless 
--- that is to say, not at all. Let me know when you're through dividing 
the the universe amongst yourself, I can use a good laugh.
>
>
>
> "HVAC" <MR.HVAC@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>
news:f53cf3c7-85d7-49ac-8566-cc75c202eaf3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> Here's the best *proof*
>>
>>
>> 17. THE BIBLE
>> Lastly, and most im****tantly, the Bible says that God created the
>> universe and every living thing, so the world must have been created.
>> In denying this we call God a liar. And so you can see how evolution
>> theory undermines the omniscience and even the existence of God. And
>> if there is no God, why not do our own thing? Or if God is not all-
>> knowing, indeed, a liar, why put our trust in Him? Evolution theory
>> logically leads to these humanistic ideas. Christians must take a
>> stand for the Word of God, or be accountable on that judgment day for
>> the souls of those whom we did not warn.
>>
>>
>> http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/evidences.htm#17

>