Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[dlamberth]

I have. That's how I know it's impossible.

I like your wonderment.
But within life and this Universe, because of it's creativity is the stuff of diversity in what it creates. No out side controlling entity needed. This Universe is a packaged deal of forever birthing. It's like an infinite womb, always and forever giving birth.

 

[AV1611VET]

No out side controlling entity needed. This Universe is a packaged deal of forever birthing. It's like an infinite womb, always and forever giving birth.

And we know who the father is, don't we?

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

"You can have my kids, so long as you worship me."

 

[dlamberth]

And we know who the father is, don't we?

We might have differing understanding of that I suspect.

 

[disciple Clint]

What's this then?

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

It means what we have a rational moral mind and we are created to rule over our domain just as God has a rational moral mind and is sovereign. It has nothing to do with our physical body, God does not have a physical body.

 

[disciple Clint]

Actualy... there is. As long as the ideas attributed to Jesus, are held as sacred... you dont need anything else

and what is your evidence for what you have posted?? Do you think that Jesus said, you can disregard all Scripture as long as you accept My ideas, or did he say, Matthew 5:17 New International Version (NIV) The Fulfillment of the Law 17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. New International Version (NIV) and John 17:17-23 English Standard Version (ESV) 17 Sanctify them[ a] in the truth; your word is truth. "Many people today do not believe in the authority of the Old Testament as Scripture. However, Jesus had some quite different things to say regarding the Old Testament. Here is a brief list of some of what Jesus taught about the Old Testament:" The Old Testament: What did Jesus teach about it? | carm.org

 

[Larniavc]

You can not have crystals without the water or molten rock or whatever is forming crystals. They don't form themselves from nothing.
You can not have adaptation unless something has all the necessary components to adapt. Miss one piece of the puzzle in the whole thing falls apart.
When Darwin came up with his theory it was assumed that a cell was pretty simple. We know better now. At what point do we just admit that life is too complicated to have just happened?

What measurement of complexity are you using to define something as too complicated?

 

[Bradskii]

No, ID isn't God meddling. It's God creating a system that he runs.
Not some little god inside creation scurrying around and tweaking things.

Gee, that took some time to get through 36 pages of...discussion. Anyway, there didn't appear to be a lot of posts addressing the problem in the OP. But the above is quite relevant re evolution versus ID.

We can skip the problems that ID has with it being accused as creationism with a false nose and a stick-on moustache trying to sneak in the back door of the science department and perhaps concentrate on the actual difference between the two.

Both attempt to describe the process whereby we came to be as we are at this moment. And for the purpose of answering that question I am quite happy to agree that God exists and is ultimately responsible for literally everything.

As far as ID is concerned, the proponents of that process claim that 'a designer' has caused certain aspects of life to come into existence which wouldn't have done so via natural processes. Those natural processes, as we can agree for the purpose of this post, designed, set up and run by God in a manner that we can describe as being the result of the evolutionary process. Because we aren't discussing evolution v creationism, it's evolution v ID. And ID accepts most of the processes of evolution. They just say that some things cannot have happened 'naturally' but have required 'a designer' to step in and create something that woukdn't have occured 'naturally'.

We're all adults here so let's agree that this unknown and intelligent designer is actually God.

So we are left with the fact that God decided to instigate a process that would result in us. But...couldn't arrange it so that He'd end up with exactly what He wanted (and this from an omnipotent being?). So we are perhaps entirely part of the God ordained natural process (which we call evolution - the means by which God created us) but parts of us - say our eyes for example, required God to step in at some point and 'create' them as opposed to them being part of His natural process.

Have I got that right?

 

[Frank Robert]

So God allowed for adaptation, by encoding thier DNA, and he created the environment.
It just kicks the can further up the road. Nature didn't create itself and it certainly could not function as it does without a designer.

You have it backwards. There is no reason why an omni God could not have created the laws of nature including the DNA which is the belief within most mainstream denominations. From what I understand of Christianity acceptance or disbelief of evolution in not important, the real important stuff is a belief in the resurrection and that Christ is the savior.

 

[Mr Laurier]

and what is your evidence for what you have posted?? Do you think that Jesus said, you can disregard all Scripture as long as you accept My ideas, or did he say, Matthew 5:17 New International Version (NIV) The Fulfillment of the Law 17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. New International Version (NIV) and John 17:17-23 English Standard Version (ESV) 17 Sanctify them[ a] in the truth; your word is truth. "Many people today do not believe in the authority of the Old Testament as Scripture. However, Jesus had some quite different things to say regarding the Old Testament. Here is a brief list of some of what Jesus taught about the Old Testament:" The Old Testament: What did Jesus teach about it? | carm.org

Well, I don't believe that Jesus said anything about it. But I DO believe that some of the individuals who are incorporated into the Jesus character, wanted a more fair and equitable world.
A world without Roman troops stationed in every town. Where rich merchants used their gold to help alleviate the suffering of the poor. Where greed and corruption were a thing of the past.
Of course, you might not care about these things. But I do.

 

[Estrid]

I have. That's how I know it's impossible.

The very definition of " facile".

 

[disciple Clint]

Well, I don't believe that Jesus said anything about it. But I DO believe that some of the individuals who are incorporated into the Jesus character, wanted a more fair and equitable world.
A world without Roman troops stationed in every town. Where rich merchants used their gold to help alleviate the suffering of the poor. Where greed and corruption were a thing of the past.
Of course, you might not care about these things. But I do.

I did not know that you do not believe that Jesus existed and is a character made up by others. So would historical evidence that Jesus existed as a person change your view?

 

[Estrid]

You have it backwards. There is no reason why an omni God could not have created the laws of nature including the DNA which is the belief within most mainstream denominations. From what I understand of Christianity acceptance or disbelief of evolution in not important, the real important stuff is a belief in the resurrection and that Christ is the savior.

It is though an indicator of education and thinking ability,
which in turn reflects on their faith.

 

[Estrid]

Gee, that took some time to get through 36 pages of...discussion. Anyway, there didn't appear to be a lot of posts addressing the problem in the OP. But the above is quite relevant re evolution versus ID.

We can skip the problems that ID has with it being accused as creationism with a false nose and a stick-on moustache trying to sneak in the back door of the science department and perhaps concentrate on the actual difference between the two.

Both attempt to describe the process whereby we came to be as we are at this moment. And for the purpose of answering that question I am quite happy to agree that God exists and is ultimately responsible for literally everything.

As far as ID is concerned, the proponents of that process claim that 'a designer' has caused certain aspects of life to come into existence which wouldn't have done so via natural processes. Those natural processes, as we can agree for the purpose of this post, designed, set up and run by God in a manner that we can describe as being the result of the evolutionary process. Because we aren't discussing evolution v creationism, it's evolution v ID. And ID accepts most of the processes of evolution. They just say that some things cannot have happened 'naturally' but have required 'a designer' to step in and create something that woukdn't have occured 'naturally'.

We're all adults here so let's agree that this unknown and intelligent designer is actually God.

So we are left with the fact that God decided to instigate a process that would result in us. But...couldn't arrange it so that He'd end up with exactly what He wanted (and this from an omnipotent being?). So we are perhaps entirely part of the God ordained natural process (which we call evolution - the means by which God created us) but parts of us - say our eyes for example, required God to step in at some point and 'create' them as opposed to them being part of His natural process.

Have I got that right?

That's how I understand it. Basically saying they are smart
enough to figure out what God wasn't smart enough to do.

 

[Mr Laurier]

I did not know that you do not believe that Jesus existed and is a character made up by others. So would historical evidence that Jesus existed as a person change your view?

Of course it would.
Just as historical evidence that Jesus was a composite of many gods, heroes, and historical people, changed my view 30 years ago.


Edit: PS, below my name, 5th line down, The word "Atheist".

 

[renniks]

So we are left with the fact that God decided to instigate a process that would result in us. But...couldn't arrange it so that He'd end up with exactly what He wanted (and this from an omnipotent being?). So we are perhaps entirely part of the God ordained natural process (which we call evolution - the means by which God created us) but parts of us - say our eyes for example, required God to step in at some point and 'create' them as opposed to them being part of His natural process.

Have I got that right?

Not in my understanding. In my understanding, the whole process is supernatural in some sense, just because of the fact that it's created and maintained by a supernatural Being. I think they just use the eye as an example because it obviously could not develop by chance.

 

[Estrid]

Of course it would.
Just as historical evidence that Jesus was a composite of many gods, heroes, and historical people, changed my view 30 years ago.


Edit: PS, below my name, 5th line down, The word "Atheist"evidence.

Depends on the quality of the evidrnce. For the already convinced,
any sort of evidence will serve.

For those trained in any sort of intellectual discipline the standards are
different.

 

[renniks]

You have it backwards. There is no reason why an omni God could not have created the laws of nature including the DNA which is the belief within most mainstream denominations. From what I understand of Christianity acceptance or disbelief of evolution in not important, the real important stuff is a belief in the resurrection and that Christ is the savior.

So? I was making the point that whatever processes God used, science has no answers other than "Nature did it." Just as we say "God did it." Only nature has to start somewhere. How can it create itself?

 

[Speedwell]

Not in my understanding. In my understanding, the whole process is supernatural in some sense, just because of the fact that it's created and maintained by a supernatural Being. I think they just use the eye as an example because it obviously could not develop by chance.

What exactly do you mean when you say "by chance?"

 

[renniks]

What measurement of complexity are you using to define something as too complicated?

I find it impossible to believe that life of any kind just happened by blind chance.

 

[Estrid]

Not in my understanding. In my understanding, the whole process is supernatural in some sense, just because of the fact that it's created and maintained by a supernatural Being. I think they just use the eye as an example because it obviously could not develop by chance.

Obvious, as in " facile", again.
It used to be obvious that heavier- than -air flight
was impossible.

'Find it impossible to believe " is key to creationist mentality.