*Originally posted by Clarentavious
these boards are not dedicated to christianty (for the most part, pretty much the opposite actually).*
This IS the religion forum, where one might actually find Christians.
*Originally posted by Xev
Does not such testing garner results?*
Oh, Xev, Xev, Xev.
Results aren't what count.
VALID results are what count.
So far, all of science has gotten to where you are now, namely, to the point of thinking that results are what count.
However, valid results are all that count.
Didn't they mention that to you in school?
*There is no rational reason. Perhaps some intellectual satisfaction, but morality is axiomatic.
It is a choice I would make.*
I see that you say that, and that you might actually believe that you would do that.
However, in reality, morality is good thing, and so are health and wealth.
In fact, all of those good things are blessings.
Blessings come from God alone.
Thus, if you are moral, then you will be healthy, wealthy, wise and blessed all around.
Here's your problem.
You aren't in a relationship with God, so none of those blessings are your lot in life.
IOW, you won't actually be moral, but you will be broke and starving, if not in actuality, then relatively speaking.
The way to fix that is to choose life and blessing.
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
(Deuteronomy 30:19, KJV).
*Yes I did. And it is no 'trick'. *
It IS a trick, and here's how the trick works...
1. assemble a bunch of skeletons that look similar.
2. arrange them in order of size or whatever characteristic you wish to identify as changing over time
3. tell people that the skeletons having less of the characteristic are older and the others newer
4. don't bother proving that, merely repeat it over and over
*Microevolution leads to macroevolution over time.*
That's what Lamarck argued, and evolutionists, no less, have repeatedly stated that Lamarckianism does not happen.
That leaves open the question as to what DOES happen, but given the fertile imaginations of evolutionists worldwide, I'm sure that any day now, some actual mechanism for evolution will be proposed.
*Actually it is exactly what you would expect if life evolved from a common ancestor, but you are right about ID.*
That common ancestor thing creates a problem, though.
That theory assumes that all life "evolved" from a single whatever.
From that single whatever, life would have to have spread around the globe in remarkable fashion.
In addition, a common ancestor brings Haldane's dilemma into play with a vengeance, meaning that 4.5 billion years isn't anywhere near enough time to evolve man.
*No, it isn't. *
All that for this?
Why were you arguing for "most" wars if you turn around and recant this quickly?
*What's the point in not arguing for science then?
*Shrugs* I will die, and that will be the end of me. Life will go on.
What am I going to do about it, cry?*
I see, you argue for science because you're going to die anyway, so who cares?
No need to cry, since a person could rejoice instead.
The interesting thing about atheist vs Christian debates is that the atheist almost always ends up arguing for some mythical third choice between life and death or between blessing and cursing.
The point is not that you are to avoid crying, the point is that you could be rejoicing but you're not.
The point is not that you are to avoid cursing, but to have blessing.
