Bugeyedcreepy
Well-Known Member
- Jun 7, 2016
- 1,660
- 1,431
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
“Your eyes can deceive you. Don’t trust them.” – Obi-Wan Kenobi
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
“Your eyes can deceive you. Don’t trust them.” – Obi-Wan KenobiMatthew 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
"Obi-Wan Kenobi can take a hike." - Edwin Hubble“Your eyes can deceive you. Don’t trust them.” – Obi-Wan Kenobi
As someone who has actually made a new life like this, I can tell you that it was made from already living cells.
So claiming God did it from dust doesn't work, does it?
If your only ingredients are non-living, then you don't make them into a living thing.
Or they just interpret it differently than you, while still regarding it as divine revelation.
Theistic Evolutionists: Say they believe the Bible, but deny a third of it.
It depends on what you mean by "life." If life is an emergent property of biochemical complexity, then it is perfectly logical.I agree that concluding life from nonlife is illogical...
There is no such thing. Naturalistic abiogenesis is entirely consistent with divine providence and though some may use it as atheistic rhetoric that is their private opinion, not science....which is why anti-God abiogenesis is not a viable conclusion for me.
I agree that concluding life from nonlife is illogical, which is why anti-God abiogenesis is not a viable conclusion for me.
I assume you are a logical person which is why I would think you would agree.
You beat me to it! Since nobody has provided a definition of what constitutes life and how to measure or recognise it this is a fairly pointless discussion.It depends on what you mean by "life." If life is an emergent property of biochemical complexity, then it is perfectly logical.
Your statement was not logical itself. How is abiogenesis "anti-God"? It may go against your false version of God, but that does not make it "anti-God". Life probably did arise naturally. That does not tell us that there were no gods. Of course it is creationists that tend to move the goalposts all the way to abiogenesis when they try to defend their Adam and Eve myth. Of course anyone that understands logic at all realizes why that is a terrible strategy in an evolution debate.
Which is not a good reason to deny that it could have happened. In fact it is a logical fallacy, argumentum ad consequentiam. But how life arose and whether God had anything to do with it or not are two separate questions.If abiogenesis isn't anti-God then I'm open to it. It just seems if we assume life can arise randomly through complex biological structures then God isn't needed as an explanation and I can see how this might be an attractive thought process to an atheist.
Which is not a good reason to deny that it could have happened.
In fact it is a logical fallacy, argumentum ad consequentiam. But how life arose and whether God had anything to do with it or not are two separate questions.
Nothing is "outside God's will." Not only that, I think that's the way God willed it to happen.That what could of happened? Life arising randomly? I understand there's an extremely small possibility for that and if it did happen then it would have been outside God's will.
My position is that God was involved in the formation of life on Earth. I don't care what you think Scripture states.My position is that God was involved in the formation of life on earth as Scripture states.
Only creationists make the mistake of thinking that abiogenesis is random. The laws of chemistry are not random. And so far abiogenesis is the only idea that has any scientific evidence at all. I do not believe that there is any reliable evidence for the involvement of any sort of god.If abiogenesis isn't anti-God then I'm open to it. It just seems if we assume life can arise randomly through complex biological structures then God isn't needed as an explanation and I can see how this might be an attractive thought process to an atheist.
Matthew 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
I agree that concluding life from nonlife is illogical, which is why anti-God abiogenesis is not a viable conclusion for me.
I assume you are a logical person which is why I would think you would agree.
If abiogenesis isn't anti-God then I'm open to it. It just seems if we assume life can arise randomly through complex biological structures then God isn't needed as an explanation and I can see how this might be an attractive thought process to an atheist.
Sorry about your luck then.Once again I shall tell you that quotes from the Bible are not actually evidence.
God is self-existent.Except that the question of where God came from is an even bigger problem.
Ah, so.. magic man done it.
Nothing is "outside God's will." Not only that, I think that's the way God willed it to happen.
My position is that God was involved in the formation of life on Earth. I don't care what you think Scripture states.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?