{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
7/13/2015 9:58:20 AM
18
See you started off great. 10/10.
Juat lost all your credability at the end there.
Yes there is no solid proof yet. However it is the most obvious choice.. you filled in the gaps with a wizard did it and want to discredit something which has small proofs. ? Deflated balloon.
Now I don't want to fight on this, just point out that scientific assumptions are changed as we learn more. Religious assumptions are the denial of science. I refuse to go with the magic wizzard theory. Unless there is a shred of evidence for the magic wizzard theory.
English
-
You can't fill a scientific gap with something that isn't even remotely scientific. Yes, there are holes in the scientific theory if evolution. But this doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't true, it could equally mean that there are just simply things that we don't understand or haven't learned yet.
-
由SSG ACM编辑： 7/13/2015 7:48:23 PMSome of these holes are not even adequately theorized (e.g., organic manifestation from non-organic material, the superseding evolution of human intelligence, the inability of natural selection to develop new biological functions, et cetera).
-
Your argument makes no sense. You go and point out the flaws in a scientific theory, then you claim that nullifies the theory. You then use something that isn't even accepted by the scientific community to prove your statement. I would have accepted intelligent design... maybe, but God? You can't fight a battle with science then use god as the answer. It just doesn't make sense.
-
由SSG ACM编辑： 7/13/2015 8:42:57 PMThe truth isn't accepted by the "scientific" community because they want to test the supernatural with tangible tools. How well do you think that would go? The point of God existing isn't to satisfy their thirst for a daily appearance.
-
I love how you put science in quotes, as if science isn't defined by a clear set of actions. If you find me some intangible tools I'm pretty sure the scientific community would be happy to use them. As long as you prove that they exist and work of course.
-
If I assume "God," I wouldn't be wrong since it solves the paradox. One of the most popular tactics for atheists to often tackle would be the question to God's possible existence. To which I would respond simply by saying, "God, by definition, created everything (Jn. 1:1; Gn. 1:3), including the time dimension that we exist in; however, He isn't affected by time (2 Pet. 3:8); therefore, He doesn't exist in time; thus, He doesn't require a cause." Everything in evolution involves finite things that obviously had an origin, but what began our own possibility of existence or consciousness of such existence without an infinite cause?
