There is no evidence againts the Theory of Evolution.

[Hoghead1]

Why would i need to prove anything to you? Christians are not seeking mans praise but Gods praise. The opinion of a random poster on the internet makes no difference to me.

Then why do you bother to post? Your comment makes no sense.

 

[Hoghead1]

If he is wrong, he will answer to God in the end -- not Darwin.

Your comment, AV1611, is not at all relevant to the discussion. I am concerned with the here and now, what validity there is in imager of Christ we carry around in your heads, how it fits the real guy. And who sys God is going to be judgmental? I believe that when we get to Heaven, God is going to ask us if we have any interesting snap shots to show and share, what interesting and beautiful things we have done with our lives.

 

[AV1611VET]

I believe that when we get to Heaven, God is going to ask us if we have any interesting snap shots to show and share,

Sorry.

I've never seen a hearse pulling a U-Haul.

 

[lesliedellow]

I believe that when we get to Heaven, God is going to ask us if we have any interesting snap shots to show and share, what interesting and beautiful things we have done with our lives.

That is what happens when you decide you can do without the Bible, and invent a God who is more to your own liking. The Reformation was fought in order to liberate Christianity from Papal domination, but now modern "evangelicals" have decided that they can liberate themselves from the Bible as well.

 

[Hoghead1]

Sorry.

I've never seen a hearse pulling a U-Haul.

Yes, and you haven't been before God either.

 

[Hoghead1]

That is what happens when you decide you can do without the Bible, and invent a God who is more to your own liking. The Reformation was fought in order to liberate Christianity from Papal domination, but now modern "evangelicals" have decided that they can liberate themselves from the Bible as well.

That is not at all an accurate assessment. For one thing, the Bible is not a book on metaphysics, tells us very little about how God is built. That's why the fathers went so heavily on incorporated Hellenic metaphysics. The other issue is exactly what authority should the Bible have. Are we going to assume it is abolstuel inerrant? Wouldn't that make an idol out of the Bible and be but bibliolatry, turning the Bible into a paper pope? I seem to recall that Karl Barth rejoiced in finding errors in Scripture as this kept one from making the Bible equal to or greater than God. Certainly the inerrancy of Scripture no longer seems a safe assumption. The Bible, divinely inspired or not, was written by males in a racist, sexist, prescientific culture and then does reflect their biases. Many biblical accounts were written long after the events took place. There are around 100 major cont4radictions in in Scripture. The Bible is an inaccurate geophysical witness and not an objective historical witness. What's canon and what not is at the arbitrary dictates of the fathers, who did not always agree. Like it or lump it, those are stubborn facts that must be taken into account in our assessment of Scripture.

Another important issue is the model of picture of God as he is in his own nature that we carry in our heads. The traditional or classical Christian model of God came largely from Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture. Not only is it based on an out-of-date metaphysics, but it fails to meet the needs of many believers. How can one put any faith into a God who is void of body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable and unmoved by the world? I know I sure can't put any faith in such a cold God. What's the purpose of believing in a God who doesn't at all meet any human needs, wants, and desires? So yes, how comfortable we are with a particular model of God, how well it first with our understanding of reality, is definitely a test of its validity. If you make God completely alien to us, as per classical theism, then God collapses into a threating, dehumanizing alien intruder. If you picture God as too much like us, then God becomes too familiar and uninteresting. You have to hit a balance here, which can be very difficult to do. If we are gong to have a beautiful relationship with God, then we needd to think of God as both alike and yet different from us. Unity in diversity is the key to b beauty.

 

[lesliedellow]

What's the purpose of believing in a God who doesn't at all meet any human needs, wants, and desires?

That one sentence just about says it all. Never mind whether God exists or not, we will believe in him if and only if he is there to dance to our tune and service our desires.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, and you haven't been before God either.

Someone's been reading The Shack, hasn't he?

 

[joshua 1 9]

You tried to claim that Darwin was wrong, but now you agree that Darwin was right?

Scientific consensus changes over time. As you have explained many times: new information comes along and that changes what we believe. Here is a Wiki article, maybe that will help you to understand. "There are many philosophical and historical theories as to how scientific consensus changes over time."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

 

[joshua 1 9]

In the end, you will have to answer to Zeus for being wrong.

Pagon religions were prominent in pre civilized societies. Is that what you want to associate yourself with? A return to the way life was before people settled down into cities and began to produce their own food rather then to plunder the produce of others? The Vikings were given land in Normandy on the condition that they gave up their pagan beliefs and converted to Christianity and that is exactly what they did.

 

[SteveB28]

Pagon religions were prominent in pre civilized societies. Is that what you want to associate yourself with? A return to the way life was before people settled down into cities and began to produce their own food rather then to plunder the produce of others? The Vikings were given land in Normandy on the condition that they gave up their pagan beliefs and converted to Christianity and that is exactly what they did.

Excuse me?

Firstly, Zeus was a GREEK god, not a Norse one.

Secondly, societies were already established well before the Greek gods were constructed.

Thirdly, the Vikings also lived in organised societies. That they plundered other lands is hardly unique to pagan cultures. The British Empire? The French, Belgian, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish empires? The Romans?

 

[Hoghead1]

Someone's been reading The Shack, hasn't he?

Sorry, I have no idea that "The Shack" is?

 

[Hoghead1]

That one sentence just about says it all. Never mind whether God exists or not, we will believe in him if and only if he is there to dance to our tune and service our desires.

Well, why not? What's the point in having God that doesn't satisfy, that is threating and alien? A God like that is no God to me, just a tyrant, a Devil that I feel it would be my sworn oblation to rebel against.

 

[pat34lee]

If there was it would mean the ToE was wrong.

As it is wrong, there is all kinds of evidence proving it.
The problem isn't evidence. The problem is the money
is backing evolution because it is the only viable origin
theory without God as creator.

 

[SteveB28]

As it is wrong, there is all kinds of evidence proving it.
The problem isn't evidence. The problem is the money
is backing evolution because it is the only viable origin
theory without God as creator.

Errant nonsense! If you want to make it rich in biology, you do so by breaking down established theories, not by shoring them up!

 

[SteveB28]

Well, why not? What's the point in having God that doesn't satisfy, that is threating and alien? A God like that is no God to me, just a tyrant, a Devil that I feel it would be my sworn oblation to rebel against.

Surely the point is this: if the God cannot be shown to exist, it is irrelevant as to claims regarding its 'satisfying' potency.

 

[Hoghead1]

Surely the point is this: if the God cannot be shown to exist, it is irrelevant as to claims regarding its 'satisfying' potency.

Who says it is impossible for God to exist? I can think of any one of a number of classical proofs and contemporary ones as well that demonstrate the existence of God. Also, you need to take a closer look at this satisfaction issue. It would seem to be the case that human have a deep need for a God and may even be hardwired to believe in God. Now the system that creates the needs always satisfies them. We need warder, and there is water, etc. So why should God be an exception? We need God, therefore there is a God.

 

[smaneck]

Of course they know that the mutation theory is now defunct and it has been proven to be wrong.

Proven by whom?

There is a lot they do not know yet they deceive themselves into thinking that most everything is known.

There is always a lot we don't know, but so far nothing has been found that would falsify the theory of evolution.

 

[SteveB28]

Who says it is impossible for God to exist?

And nor did I say it was impossible; merely that there is no evidence of it. So why consider its 'satisfaction power' if you can't establish its existence?

I can think of any one of a number of classical proofs and contemporary ones as well that demonstrate the existence of God.

And they have all been shown to fail. Miserably.

Also, you need to take a closer look at this satisfaction issue. It would seem to be the case that human have a deep need for a God and may even be hardwired to believe in God.

We are pattern seekers and 'agent detectors' as part of our hard wiring, yes. We evolved in a manner that has led us to imagine we see many things that may not exist. We survived on the savannahs far more efficiently by making 'false positive' errors, rather than the alternative.

Now the system that creates the needs always satisfies them. We need warder, and there is water, etc. So why should God be an exception? We need God, therefore there is a God.

The amputee needs a new leg, therefore a leg appears? The blind child needs vision, so vision is created?

What tripe.

 

[Hoghead1]

And nor did I say it was impossible; merely that there is no evidence of it. So why consider its 'satisfaction power' if you can't establish its existence?



And they have all been shown to fail. Miserably.



We are pattern seekers and 'agent detectors' as part of our hard wiring, yes. We evolved in a manner that has led us to imagine we see many things that may not exist. We survived on the savannahs far more efficiently by making 'false positive' errors, rather than the alternative.







The amputee needs a new leg, therefore a leg appears? The blind child needs vision, so vision is created?

What tripe.

Well, for the sake of a good discussion, why don't you present some to the proofs and show why you think they have failed?
Your amputee example overlooks a couple of things. People may well starve to death and die in the desert. But there is food and water on the earth. People need legs to function, and there are legs. The fact you can't meet a specific need at one time, does not mean the system does not provide for that need. Also, I think there is far more to believing in God than just the fact we need order. Human imagination is never very free. Just about anything we imagine has some basis in reality. All our concepts, no matter how strange they are, came for out experiences. So if there was no God, if no human ever encountered a God, we would simply have no concept of God., wouldn't even have the word.