When have you ever said anything worthwhile? You're a charlatan and a troll who recycles the same old phrases and pranks, your "try reading" schtick being one of your favourites it seems.
Telling everyone that you're a moron is worthwhile. :thumb:
Nope. Evidence, remember? That's what I deal in. Wake us up when you're ready to discuss the nature of reality. Whining about who said what, when and who is working on something is boring. :yawn:
Nope. I would prefer they respond rationally to the challenges they face, just as I would respond sensibly to a challenge to my beliefs.
Do you have scientific evidence that rivers can turn to blood? Or that a person was transformed into a pillar of salt?
You told me that personhood is a metaphysical term, and that it is something evolutionists think it is added to embryos. As an evolutionist, I’m not aware that anything is added to (human) embryos other than what is added by natural biochemical processes. Do you know how to add metaphysical things to embryos?
Eyewitness Biblical testimony - that's better than science
U mean that ancient religious account from a scientifically ignorant nomadic society? The book in which much of the science in a literal reading of the creation and early history is disbelieved by the science departments of every major university in the world? Nothing but an ancient tattered fable is your evidence?
Watch and learn, folks: This is how to dodge a question like a pro.
Definition from Google: Personhood – “the quality or condition of being an individual person.” I am real, I am a person, and I am just one person. Must be real. Still don’t know how that is something that evolutionists supposedly think is added to embryos.
Bodies of water and rivers and seas can turn red or a red color, God can turn water to blood no doubt, as He made everything. Humans can be reduced to piles of waste and God can turn a person to salt. Do you think those scriptures are literal ?
Punting is not the answer.
This is not about presuppositions; this is about evidence. We can believe whatever we like; the key is — in a discussion over science — to be open to examining your beliefs against the necessities of physical reality. A belief in a non-physical reality makes scientific inquiry at best a secondary endeavor. This does not make a man's ideas invalid or lesser in any way. It simply means that other methods are required in their discussion.
I don't think you've been following the conversation. This is just a rabbit trail.
Likewise, God can literally make a blind man see. We can still hope and pray, for those here in TOL who don't yet have sight.
If the account of the Nile turning to blood has any basis in an actual event, then what you suggest is fine. But the account not only speaks of the river turning to blood, but the water in containers as well. The water (blood) stank, it killed the fish, it was undrinkable. And … if you want this to be metaphorical – “red” instead of actual blood”, then how about a lot of other scientifically silly passages as well. Did the flood of Noah cover the “whole (local – only as far as Noah could see) earth? Were creation days not really 24 hours, but periods of time … etc. etc. Are open to the idea that maybe the Old Testament is carrying a message for people, even if it was authored in a scientifically infantile environ?
God can do whatever your imagination wants Him too, since that is where He has His existence.
You really need to ask?
We know why Davis is happy to talk at a plebe like PJ, but will avoid actual challenges to his nonsense like the plague.
Ouch, I thought you were an Enyart supporter. A decade ago, Enyart went to a museum in Denver, and the curator made a statement to the effect that he (the curator) might not exist. Enyart milked that statement for a long time as an example of how illogical people can get. In my case , the dictionary said “the quality or condition of being an individual person.” Maybe you are inferring that I don’t fit that definition. :mock: Stripe
I finally found Waldo. Since it is you, Stripe, I know that your enjoyment comes from seeing how long you can draw out a conversation so you can, in your Christian persona, call people bigots and morons. It would be out of character for you to give the simple direct answer. But you just gave the answer anyway. “Not brought about by physical means” is a wordy way of saying non-scientific. Thank you, for admitting that you have no scientific evidence for bloody rivers or salty people.
Not true at all. I have never said science is the only source of knowledge. My objection is when your religious cult comes out in direct opposition to science, and then mindlessly babbles “science proves God’s Word”.