Replies

The chances of life arising by itself are less than statistical zero science tells us. Yet it is believed because the only alternative is that God created and that is unacceptable. What kind of reasoning is that? It is nothing but denial of the probable and adhering to the impossible in order that certain implications be avoided.

If you have already decided this to be impossible, than I guess it is and there is nothing I can do to convince you otherwise. I don't buy that it is impossible for the processes of life to begin in the manner suggested. With plenty of energy available the formation of organic chemicals has been shown to be possible. The organization into more complex self-replicating molecules is not completely understood, but is not mathmatically impossible.

Here's my big point of the day: The Theory of Evolution does NOT disprove or in any way contradict the existence of God, or suggest that God could not have had a subtle influence in the creation and development of life on Earth. If you take the Bible as completely literal, then this is not possible, but we can never agree then and we might as well give up the argument. If you accept that the Bible teaches TRUTH instead of FACT then I do not understand the problem in suggesting that the mechanism by which God created life is evolution. This does not contradict ANY of the current evidence, allows current Evolutionary theory to stand as is, and reconciles both with faith in God as creator of the human race. Evolution is NOT anti-God, and there are INNUMERABLE Christians of deep faith who take this approach. Abiogenesis is proposed as a theory because it fits with currently available evidence, NOT because it is an alternative to God somehow.

PLEASE let me know what you think of this. I think this a critical part of this debate and it never gets discussed.

Evolution is NOT anti-God,

Dear gomaaa,

There are two kinds of evolution, theistic and atheistic. Atheistic, the type most often found on these threads, is anti-God. It has materialist presuppositions which are not rational but are necessary to justify a worldview. Theistic evolution borrows heavily from atheistic evolution and carries with it not only most of the problems of atheistic evolution but adds a few new ones as well.

I find it surprising that the atheistic evolutionists and the theistic evos team up against the young-earthers when theistic evos rely on something outside of this universe which the atheistic evos cannot abide.