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.
God's glory isn't limited by the size of the trees. Do you live in a house with wood in the walls? Logging is about being able to make stuff from what God made.Here in the NorthWest, old growth forest is very much teaming with life. Logging is about money. Money is not truth. The Life Force of the an old growth forest is where Truth resides. It's also the kind of place that God's Glory becomes alive in matter.
It's not about the size of the trees. It's about the depth and breath of life in an old growth forest that only an old growth forest can grow. Logging is about money. Money has nothing to do with God.God's glory isn't limited by the size of the trees. Do you live in a house with wood in the walls? Logging is about being able to make stuff from what God made.
ID is totally and completely Christian!!Creation just means a Creator. I doubt it's gonna be a " Christian" class. Probably more like ID.
I agree. We're long overdue to wipe our hands of abiogenesis, and come up with another hypothesis to test.
No it doesn't point to any particular God.
I don't agree that Abiogenesis hypotheses and theory of Evolution are untestable.Now, in the same way that we can't test evolution through from, say, bacteria to man, we can't test a natural process of abiogenesis. Because the proposal is that under conditions of which we aren't exactly sure of, over periods of millions of years, untold numbers of mini experiments were being carried out in some verion of the primordial soup every single second accross an entire planet. Which eventually produced, not life, but inanimate material that had one or two chacteristics of life.
'Non-derivability' doesn't rule out that there will be 'a something' which can ultimately be tested (or is testable), someplace, sometime, in a very big universe.Each new biological innovation begets a new functional niche fostering yet more innovation. You cannot predict what will exist, he argues, because the function of everything biology generates will depend on what came before, and what other things exist now, with an ever-expanding set of what is possible next.
...
Life’s emergence might rest on the foundations of physics, “but it is not derivable from them”
Obviously, if you find that the evidence points to a creator, you are free to pick one. Lots of Jews, Muslims, etc. believe in a similar creation story even though they believe different doctrines about who God is.You must know your credibility drops a few points when you suggest that. Anyone reading your posts with an open mind would be discouraged to treat anything else you say as being credible if you try to maintain such a monstrously nonsensical position.
There is no data supporting god(s).Obviously, if you find that the evidence points to a creator, you are free to pick one. Lots of Jews, Muslims, etc. believe in a similar creation story even though they believe different doctrines about who God is.
No, they dont.Thousands of Scientists believe otherwise. But I guess we should all go with what you believe, oh random internet dude...
I don't agree that Abiogenesis hypotheses and theory of Evolution are untestable.
I'm not at all sure your wording there, accurately describes the central issue (and the essence of the objections presented thus far(?) .. not that anyone has come up with any better accuracy in their descriptions of their objections yet either, mind you).
Stuart Kauffman says:
'Non-derivability' doesn't rule out that there will be 'a something' which can ultimately be tested (or is testable), someplace, sometime, in a very big universe.
What's this then?You must know your credibility drops a few points when you suggest that. Anyone reading your posts with an open mind would be discouraged to treat anything else you say as being credible if you try to maintain such a monstrously nonsensical position.
Only on paper.But...we can propose different aspects of each process and test them individually.
Yup ... it's a game of connect-the-dots, isn't it?Bradskii said:And those small parts go to make up the whole. As it does with evolution and as I believe it ultimately will re abiogenesis.
Obviously, if you find that the evidence points to a creator, you are free to pick one. Lots of Jews, Muslims, etc. believe in a similar creation story even though they believe different doctrines about who God is.
'On paper' is what counts when it comes to what 'really exists' means.Only on paper.
Your attempts to trivialise the quest of human understanding of origins of life betrays your own faith.AV1611VET said:Yup ... it's a game of connect-the-dots, isn't it?
What's this then?
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?