Scientists announce a breakthrough in determining life's origin on Earth—and maybe Mars

[Neogaia777]

The way I explain it is that it is written and interpreted by men. So either the the authors didn't consider that paradox, or the readers are mistaken about god's tri-omni attributes.

Well, those are definitely some other possibilities that some could be convinced into be buying into believing I guess also, but it's just not what I believe personally however though, etc...

Let's put it this way. If the creator of the universe is both omnipotent and omniscient, then everything that happens in the universe is just the way he wanted it. Else, he'd have made it differently.

Yes, and everything has been going in a completely deterministic fashion according to that Ones will from the very beginning, including all of what has both been happening, and has happened, not only with us, but also with God the Spirit and God the Son's will (or choices or acts or actions or inactions and decisions) as well, etc...

What I would "like" to believe is irrelevant, imo, as it is not a choice.

Whether it's a choice or not is based on ones level of knowing or knowledge, and since you and I are both not all-knowing, and we don't know what all the prearranged/foreordained choices/decisions are, then we still choose and still have a choice somewhat, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Well, how do you explain God in the OT's expecting certain things to happen (or not happen) that either did happen, or else did not happen in the OT then?

I believe in God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit (God the Spirit), and in only one of these always being fully omniscient from the very beginning always, etc, for it is the only way I can see of explaining some things that happened both with God's chosen people in the OT, and with whom I believe to be God the Spirit in the OT, etc.

Or to put it bluntly, I don't believe Jesus was referring to God in the OT most of the time when He talked about God the Father being both His and our Father, and most definitely was not doing this most of the time especially when He used the term "Our Heavenly Father", or "our Father who both was/is, or who has always resided in Heaven", etc.

Jesus great cunning in keeping the veil pulled over peoples eyes about this, even when telling them outright, and to their very face, etc, is/was truly remarkable, etc...

He truly conquered just like He said He would, and did, etc...

But this is not the time for veils anymore, but it is the time for those veils to finally be lifted, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

How else was God the Father supposed to be able to show Himself to us without others doing so, etc...?

Think of God the Spirit, or God in the OT, as being the beginning of this maybe, and Jesus the middle of this maybe, and one day we know and see the end of this maybe, and then we will finally have the complete story of God the Father finally maybe, etc...

God Bless!

 

[46AND2]

Whether it's a choice or not is based on ones level of knowing or knowledge, and since you and I are both not all-knowing, and we don't know what all the prearranged/foreordained choices/decisions are, then we still choose and still have a choice somewhat, etc...

God Bless!

Knowing negates the need for belief. Which brings up an interesting thought: if god is all-knowing, he has no beliefs. Something either is or isn't, and he knows which. So why would he place value on belief from us?

 

[Neogaia777]

Knowing negates the need for belief. Which brings up an interesting thought: if god is all-knowing, he has no beliefs. Something either is or isn't, and he knows which. So why would he place value on belief from us?

I don't know, and I don't know if the Father truly does, etc...

For all who will believe, He has already foreordained/predestined to believe, and also those who will not, or don't believe, etc, but I just know that the Ones who do desire it (God the Spirit and God the Son) show us what the Father might have been, if He could have been, previously, so we might look more deeply into maybe why they desire it maybe, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Frank Robert]

Both evolution and special creation can both be true.

See here: Solution to the creation/evolution debate...?

God Bless!

From reading your post, I think you would like Peaceful Science. It's a forum where you can interact with scientists, theists, apologists, agnostics, atheists, and even creationists. The founder, Dr. Swamidass is an evangelical Christian. His recent book the Genealogical Adam & Eve has been endorsed by apologists like Dr. William Lang Craig to atheists like Dr. Nathan Lents.

 

[Frank Robert]

The answer is plainly in sight....God created everything.

If God did so he did it in a way that can be discovered and unraveled even though it isn't an easy road.

 

[Neogaia777]

From reading your post, I think you would like Peaceful Science. It's a forum where you can interact with scientists, theists, apologists, agnostics, atheists, and even creationists. The founder, Dr. Swamidass is an evangelical Christian. His recent book the Genealogical Adam & Eve has been endorsed by apologists like Dr. William Lang Craig to atheists like Dr. Nathan Lents.

I'll check it out, thanks.

God Bless!

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[driewerf]

Just because there are nefarious people pushing the idea that a cat from a fish is evolution theory does not make it so.

You've never heard the phrase: "molecules to man evolution"?

Is that phrase nefarious as well?

Frank Robert didn't say that the phrase "a cat from a fish" is nefarious. He spoke about nefarious people. I hope it is within the capacities of you intelligence to distinguish a phrase from people?
As for the phrase "molecules to man", it is in the most cases used by nefarious people.

This attitude, and the attitude that we "regurgitate nonsense apologetics," are excellent examples of what I mean when I say that evolution breeds hostility.

Nope. It's just that creationism breeds ignorance.

 

[driewerf]

What's this stuff then?

1. Time divided into BC and AD.
2. Organizations such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army.
3. Hospitals built by Christian organizations.
4. Beautiful Christian artwork, edifices, statuary and literature.
5. IN GOD WE TRUST on our coins and UNDER GOD in our pledge of allegiance.
6. The Ten Commandments and other literature displayed in public.
7. Christmas & Easter
8. Symbols on bumper stickers and flags.
9. Public debates in the name of Christianity.
10. Crosses and billboards erected to testify of Jesus Christ.
11. Two major nations founded on His existence.

Man made artefacts, that other religions have in some similar way too. If you consider these as proof for christianity, you'll need to believe islam hinduism etc too.

 

[driewerf]

Molecules to man is an origin of life theory which is separate from the theory of evolution. Whether life stated from a supernatural or from natural events does not negate the evidence for evolution from the LUCA.

I disagree with that phrase for two reasons.
First it suggests a directional goal to the natural processes, as if the whole line was either directed or inevitable.
Second it portrays humans as the end goal or endpoint, which we are not (since we see new species form).

 

[driewerf]

So the phrase "molecules to man" is okay, but the phrase "fish to cats" isn't?

That's like saying "A to Z is fine with me" but "G to U is taboo".

I reject both. But fish to cat isn't G to U. It's G to sigma (σ )
edited with thanks to Thinker Grey.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's just that creationism breeds ignorance.

And evolution breeds hostility.

 

[driewerf]

And evolution breeds hostility.

Nope. Evolution breeds new species.

 

[AV1611VET]

Man made artefacts,

Yup.

Inspired by Whom?

And let me give you a hint:

Psalm 145:10 All thy works shall praise thee, O LORD; and thy saints shall bless thee.
11 They shall speak of the glory of thy kingdom, and talk of thy power;
12 To make known to the sons of men his mighty acts, and the glorious majesty of his kingdom.

... that other religions have in some similar way too.

Yup.

Inspired by whom?

And let me give you a hint:

Leviticus 19:4 Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods: I am the LORD your God.

If you consider these as proof for christianity, you'll need to believe islam hinduism etc too.

Nope.

Guess why?

And let me give you a hint:

Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

 

[AV1611VET]

But fish to cat isn't G to U.

As long as you don't understand, I'm sure you're content.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution breeds new species.

But not new genera.

 

[Frank Robert]

deleted

 

[Frank Robert]

You've never heard the phrase: "molecules to man evolution"?

Molecules to man is evolution or realistically the beginning of evolution.

Is that phrase nefarious as well?

Not at all.

This attitude, and the attitude that we "regurgitate nonsense apologetics," are excellent examples of what I mean when I say that evolution breeds hostility.

My disgust is not with apologists but with those who understand the ToE regardless of their religions beliefs. People like Michael Behe who has a PhD in biochemistry and who understands the ToE even if he doesn't agree with it. There are others at DI, AIG, Uncommon descent et. al. some of whom have graduate degrees from Harvard. They are the nefarious people I refer to in the sense that it is shameful that they knowingly misrepresent the ToE. One can disagree with the ToE w/o mocking it. I say the same about people who mock religious beliefs.