Where Did Humans Come From?

[JAL]

And of course, God being the ominpotent Creator, He has no need to tinker with creation to make it work.

All-powerful doesn't have to mean infinitely powerful. Nothing can meaningfully be described as infinite because infinity is not a specific number. At best one could speak of potential infinity. For example a piece of matter is limitlessly divisible if you continue to split the pieces over and over. But any ACTUAL division - that is at any moment of time - you're currently stuck with a finite number.

 

[JAL]

Design is what limited creatures do. God creates. Doesn't matter if you confuse the two.

Exactly. A finite being as I've been stating this whole thread. Seems you prefer to debate someone else rather than discuss MY views.

 

[JAL]

As St. Paul points out, even gentiles know in their hearts without the law.

Nope. That's an incomplete reading of Paul. The heart has the POTENTIAL for knowledge of God - but it is the grandeur of Nature that triggers this recognition. Even if you disagree with that flow, nonetheless Paul is referring to Nature at Romans 1:18-20.

(A) might work for someone who God gave that knowledge. But Paul's statement:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

Is more compelling when one learns more about creation. The growing evidence for abiogenesis, for example, is confirmation that the Earth did bring forth living things. The evidence for common descent again confirms the power of a Creator who could use nature to do His will.

Paul isn't dealing with Darwinian students.

 

[FaithT]

Yeah, there's that one too. But I don't sweat it either!

I guess this is where I offer a shameless plug for the benefits of the fields of Historiography, the Philosophy of History, the Craft of Historical Writing and even Hermeneutics. These can come in handy when you want to assess how the Gospel of Luke doesn't sync with Josephus in regard to some issues like the one involving Quirinius, or as to how historical writings [all historical writings] are constructed and why different historians disagree with one another, whether they do so today or "yesterday."

Oh, I forgot! I need to add from the above that the study of Natural History and Anthropology also come in handy where the collision of Evolutionary science and the book of Genesis is concerned. It's always good to keep this mind, Sis, since it means that no one necessarily has the last, decisive word on either The Word or the World.

Do you have a background in those above disciplines?

 

[renniks]

Can you explain further?

It has to suppose that some how millions of life forms evolved at the same time, against impossible odds.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you have a background in those above disciplines?

Partially, but not specifically nor fully. I'll honestly confess that I am no expert since none of the fields that I have referred to are those that I've earned any academic credentials within.

However, my academic background does lend itself to the study of the areas of concern that you've voiced.

 

[The Barbarian]

It has to suppose that some how millions of life forms evolved at the same time, against impossible odds.

What do you think the odds are? Can you show us your math?

Given that we see new species evolving on a regular basis, it would seem pointless to argue that it's impossible.

 

[renniks]

What do you think the odds are? Can you show us your math?

Given that we see new species evolving on a regular basis, it would seem pointless to argue that it's impossible.

The common calculation is:

Assume that the ribozyme is 300 nucleotides long, and that at each position there could be any of four nucleotides present. The chances of that ribozyme assembling are then 4^300, a number so large that it could not possibly happen by chance even once in 13 billion years, the supposed age of the universe.

And that's just to begin life. To have 10000 humans suddenly evolving from advanced apes at once is beyond ridiculous.

 

[The Barbarian]

As St. Paul points out, even gentiles know in their hearts without the law.

Nope. That's an incomplete reading of Paul. The heart has the POTENTIAL for knowledge of God

Well, let's take a look...

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: [15] Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another,

No, he says that they know the law in their hearts.

Exactly. A finite being as I've been stating this whole thread. Seems you prefer to debate someone else rather than discuss MY views.

Perhaps you should show us that God is a limited being.

Job 42:1
Then Job answered the Lord and said, “I know that You can do all things, 2:And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.

Omnipotence is not an attribute of a limited being.

 

[The Barbarian]

What do you think the odds are? Can you show us your math?

Assume that the ribozyme is 300 nucleotides long, and that at each position there could be any of four nucleotides present. The chances of that ribozyme assembling are then 4^300, a number so large that it could not possibly happen by chance even once in 13 billion years, the supposed age of the universe.

Well, let's take a look at that. Let's do a thought experiment.

Take a deck of cards, shuffle them well, and then deal them out one at a time, noting the order. The likelihood of that order is one divided by 52 factorial, which is about:
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001239

Do it again, and you'll get another equally unlikely seguence. Happens every time you do it.

So now, you've "proven" that evolution and card games are impossible. Does this suggest what's wrong with your belief?

But let's consider you, given your great,great grandparents. The likelihood of a person with your genes, given their genes, is even more unlikely. So you've also "proven" that you can't exist.

And that's just to begin life.

Two major errors there.

First, evolutionary theory acknowledges that life began somehow and describes how it changes. Darwin, for example, just thought that God created the first living things.

The second error is to assume that life at the beginning was as complex as it is now. Which is a huge assumption, and obviously unwarranted.

 

[JAL]

As I stated, you'd likely reject my flow.

As St. Paul points out, even gentiles know in their hearts without the law.

Reasserting your position doesn't disprove my flow. And, as I ALSO stated, it's a moot point because Romans 1:18-20 describes a Nature-based inference, regardless of Romans 2:14.

Well, let's take a look...

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: [15] Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another,

No, he says that they know the law in their hearts.

See above.

Job 42:1
Then Job answered the Lord and said, “I know that You can do all things, 2:And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.
Omnipotence is not an attribute of a limited being.

This is your proof that God can be meaningfully described as infinite? Um...er...Newsflash: an incoherent conclusion cannot be proven.

Secondly the text implies no such thing. Recently we hired a new person at work. He wanted to know who would train him. We told him, "Our best man is John, work with him, he can do EVERYTHING." So this means John is omnipotent? Please.

God is all-powerful - there are no humanly appreciable - no practically relevant - limits to his power. It is indeed the case that no purpose of His can be thwarted.

Perhaps you should show us that God is a limited being.

This I can do - but the burden of proof is NOT on me. All we know for sure are finite material objects. All I believe in are - wait for it - finite material objects. Anything beyond that is an extraordinary claim, viz. "Use the immaterial Force, Luke!" Extraordinary claims cry out for extraordinary amounts of corroborating evidence. That puts the burden of proof on YOU. And that's a burden you cannot meet, because infinitude is an incoherent claim.

 

[renniks]

But let's consider you, given your great,great grandparents. The likelihood of a person with your genes, given their genes, is even more unlikely. So you've also "proven" that you can't exist.

That doesn't make any sense... For me you already have all that existing parts available, not so for the first life.

 

[The Barbarian]

That doesn't make any sense... For me you already have all that existing parts available, not so for the first life.

What existing parts do you think is absolutely necessary for life?

As you see, you personally are much, much more improbable than the example you gave me. And explain to us how an even more improbable shuffled deck of cards can be, when by your reasoning, it's so improbable as to be impossible.

 

[The Barbarian]

Perhaps you should show us that God is a limited being.

This I can do - but the burden of proof is NOT on me.

So you could prove this, but the Evil Barbarian won't let you? Seriously?

 

[JAL]

Perhaps you should show us that God is a limited being.



So you could prove this, but the Evil Barbarian won't let you? Seriously?

I've already done it on other threads. I'll probably do it here too.

Of course it depends on what you mean by "proof". I can't give you 100% proof of anything. I can't even prove that you exist. What I mean by proof is a demonstration that the evidence seems to favor finitude.

Annoyingly, some people take the irrational and irresponsible stance, "If you can't prove your position 100%, my position must be accepted." That's just a biased statement.

 

[The Barbarian]

Annoyingly, some people take the irrational and irresponsible stance, "If you can't prove your position 100%, my position must be accepted."

Um, that's what you just did.

 

[JAL]

Again, the burden of proof doesn't fall on me. I'm the only one who makes no extraordinary claims.

 

[JAL]

Um, that's what you just did.

Um, not.

 

[The Barbarian]

Again, the burden of proof doesn't fall on me. I'm the only one who makes no extraordinary claims.

Looking back at your posts, that's an extraordinary claim in itself.

 

[JAL]

Perhaps you should show us that God is a limited being.

Ok. Provided you agree to the following ground rule. Let me explain. Suppose I made an incoherent statement and then said, "See I just disproved evolution." Unacceptable, right?

That's all I am asking here - that you don't use incoherent statements to rebut my proof. For example you don't get to appeal to the two-natured theory of Christ (the Hypostatic Union) since even mainstream theologians - I cited several of them earlier - admit that it is a humanly incoherent supposition. It's like speaking Chinese to an English-only audience.

There is no point in the two of us trying to speak Chinese to each other.

Do you agree to this ground rule?