Posted on 07/22/2005 4:46:53 AM PDT by Nicholas Conradin
This is not nearly as obvious as you seem to think it is.
Revealed to whom? Why do you trust that person? How do you double-check that person's claims?
I suppose God personally came and made this revelation to you?
My Bible explains in rather simple terms to rather simple people that God created the heavens and the earth, but not the details of how…
---
An attempt at a personal attack?
The Bible states simply and clearly in Exodus that God made the world in six days.
If you believe a God cannot do evil and that God created everything then how do you reconcile that with the existence of evil?
great post.
It does. The anti-evo crowd assumes you know that these other disciplines are part of the "study of evolution".
I'm a would-be writer. When I write, I create and control a universe -- certainly, though not with the level of detail as God.
But there are times, when my characters start taking over. I can feel them taking over, telling me what they want to do. I could force them to change, but I follow their lead, because it makes things more interesting.
Does God do that? Well, we are created in God's image. So if would-be creators let their creations take over the reins, then it follows God might well do the same.
I would have said selection rather than chance, but this Christian has no problems with science, or specifically, evolution.
If you want to formulate this a diametric opposition, wrt to which there is no possible compromise ever, then your problem isn't with "a" theory but rather with all scientific theories. All scientific theories implicitly assume the regularity and law abiding character of nature, i.e. that miracles don't occur within their applicable domain.
This, of course, is an "operational" assumption, made simply for the purpose of doing science, and not therefore a direct challenge to extra-scientific claims. But accepting this understanding in any form would necessarily eliminate "diametric opposition" and I suppose amount to a "compromise".
By your "logic" the theory of photosynthesis, for instance, denies God since God certainly could change (or replace with sheer miracle) the chemical reactions occurring in cells and their plastids. But then militant, fulminating extremism invariably leads to stupid results.
We had a nearly identical analysis of nmh's #3.
...great minds ;-)
Uh, no thanks! I'll pass.
I just love it when you weigh into these threads! Leftists and Creationists are equally irrational. The most troubling thing is that the Creationists actually believe what they espouse.
Thanks! Plamely the Crevos are the early risers around here.
You are not descended from a chimp. However, you and a chimp are descended from a common ancestor.
You may believe it or not as you like. Doesn't change the fact either way.
Good question. You could say it's biblical literalism, and a concern with human uniqueness. Those are both probably part of it, but it's not that simple.
For instance, as I've pointed out several times, the Bible affirms in many passages that God is intimately, personally and directly involved in the creation of individual humans; not just the species, and not just Adam and Eve. This includes "forming" and "shaping" the "inward parts" of humans in the womb, and "knitting them together of bone and sinew". (Excuse possibly not exact quotes from memory.) Yet you never, ever hear a fundamentalist complain about human embryology being taught as a strictly naturalistic discipline.
Sure it does. Please engage brain before posting.
Life must.
Of course, it does too.
Even a child knows that life is differentiated from non-life,
Please state the exact differentiation. We'll wait.
that a test tube of chemicals cannot give birth to another test tube of chemicals.
Sure it does, once your sloppy undefined term "birth" is narrowed down appropriately.
While research into the origins of life may have been "fruitful", it still lacks the essential point of proof that is the foundation of any peer review system.
Congratulations, you managed to screw up a fundamental principle of the scientific method while attempting to "lecture" the rest of us on it. Science does not deal in "proof". Indeed, outside of artificial self-contained realms such as propositional mathematics, "proof" is an impossible standard to achieve in any real-world endeavor.
So far, no "peer" has been able to reproduce what God claims: life from constituent components.
No one has managed to catch any god in the act of doing so either. Call that one a draw. But that doesn't negate the successful research results which you attempt, and fail, to just hand-wave away.
You will recall that the inability of the scientific peers of Ponds and Fleishman to reproduce their cold-fusion experiment was the basis to label these claims as being unfounded. Why the double standard?
There is no double standard, unless you're trying to assert that anyone has actually claimed to have successfully produced life already, and then no one bothered to replicate their process. Until then, there's no double standard at all. The research that *has* been done confirming various aspects of abiogenesis hypotheses, on the other hand, *can* and *has* been reproduced. Science 1, you 0.
Let's be honest: evolutionists need to prove that God is not who He says He is: the creator of life.
Let's be honest, you haven't a clue what you're talking about. The *majority* of American evolutionists are *Christians*. Sorry if that makes your head explode, and destroys your ignorant prejudices about what evolutionists "need" to do.
Indeed, it seems to me these folks are frantic to find any other possible way to explain life- other than it was created as a deliberate act by a higher power.
You "seem" to not have any real familiarity with the actual research. Your bigotries about people you misunderstand are duly noted.
A Creator that does not exist, or at least who has a major claim to his power nullified, cannot make any demands of humanity and certainly has no business setting standards of morality by which He will judge humanity in the resurrection. (Daniel 12:2, Rev 20:12) Indeed, the entire concept of a resurrection to judgement is mooted by evolutionary theology. When life comes from nothing, nothing is the standard for life.
Yawn. Let me know when you get back to talking about something that is actually a significant motivation for the scientists you don't know much about. Your conspiracy theory about them looking for excuses to sin is laughable, and quite simply false.
Why else would a Creator matter, or make necessary such lengthy and angry replies to the mere suggestion that evolutionists start from a faulty assumption, an assumption it is forbidden to mention in polite company.
You don't get "angry replies" about the "mere suggestion" that a creator might have been involved (a lot of us believe that to be the case) you get exasperated and annoyed replies from folks who are sick and tired of being called fools and charlatans by people who wouldn't know an endogenous retrovirus from a retroposon, and who argue against evolutionary biology using childishly flawed fallacies, ignorant claims, and outright propaganda, and who know next to nothing about the field they're attempting to "lecture" the rest of us on, and who say such bone-headedly insulting things as "even a child knows" in order to belittle a topic that is actually extremely complicated and nuanced, and has multiple layers of complexity as one looks deeper and deeper into it. Know anyone like that?
As one of the "Murphy's Laws" says, "if the problem seems simple, it's only because you really don't understand it properly."
I agree. Their issue is not whether evolution is a valid scientific theory, but is it a threat to their religious belief. I've never had a problem in balancing the theoretical with the spiritual because they are not the same subject to me. To others, such as Muslim terrorists and Intelligent Designers, religion is all there is. Had Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin in a fundamental Christian retreat, a Muslim Mosque, or a Jewish Chabad, most of those posting on this thread would not be here.
An attempt at a personal attack?
____________________________________
No...
____________________________________
The Bible states simply and clearly in Exodus that God made the world in six days.
____________________________________
But it does not say how...
...and just how long is six days to a God that has no begining and no end? How long is a day in a week that starts with no light?
I have a hard time understanding why some Christians feel so threatened by these concepts. Is your version the spirt truely that weak? Mine isn't...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.