evolution question

[Michael]

I think I understand what your saying. God created the universe the way that it is so that abiogenesis could take place only once at a specific point in history which formed life. This processes may never be re-created, unless God allows it. Am I understanding you correctly?

That is a viable possibility. It's also quite possible that God "designed" the physical universe, and the process called abiogenesis, in a way that allows for life to flourish *everywhere* in the universe whenever and wherever God allows/designs/sustains it.

 

[Chriliman]

That is a viable possibility. It's also quite possible that God "designed" the physical universe, and the process called abiogenesis, in a way that allows for life to flourish *everywhere* in the universe whenever and wherever God allows/designs/sustains it.

Gotcha. How do you believe God created the Angels?

 

[Loudmouth]

This universe has an apparent beginning and I don't think God would allow that unless he was trying to tell us that he created the universe, not that he is the universe.

I go to scripture to figure out the truth and this is what I've found to support my position

Deuteronomy 10:14-16
"Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the Lord's thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is."

This makes it clear to me that even the heavens above the universe belong to God. Meaning He is even above the heavens of the universe. He's making it clear that He is the highest possible being.

Revelation 20:11
"And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them."

This makes it clear that when we are being judged by God at the end of time, God's presence will cause the earth and the universe to flee away. To me this means God can't possibly be the universe. He's is something entirely greater and more powerful.

You can interpret these verses however you want. But I think it's clear that God is trying to inform us that He is the creator of even the heavens of the universe, which are both greater than the earth.

Some more food for thought.

Psalm 139:
"13For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb. 14I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well.…"

The Bible says that God knits us together in our mother's womb. Science tells us that it is a very natural process of gene cascades, tissue differentiation, and so forth. It would seem to me that a literal interpretation would be falsified by the science, but then why require a literal interpretation even when it says that God directly creates each and every one of us?

It would seem to me that abiogenesis is just as "problematic" as embryonic development.

 

[Michael]

Gotcha. How do you believe God created the Angels?

I have no idea.

 

[Chriliman]

Some more food for thought.

Psalm 139:
"13For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb. 14I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well.…"

The Bible says that God knits us together in our mother's womb. Science tells us that it is a very natural process of gene cascades, tissue differentiation, and so forth. It would seem to me that a literal interpretation would be falsified by the science, but then why require a literal interpretation even when it says that God directly creates each and every one of us?

It would seem to me that abiogenesis is just as "problematic" as embryonic development.

I interpret that verse as God being very patient and intentional when creating me. It says "And my soul knows it very well..." it does not say "And my mind knows it very well...". True knowledge of God is not head knowledge, it goes deeper than that. You have head knowledge of God, don't you? Why don't you believe? I think it's because you haven't had an experience that goes to the depth of your soul. Whether or not you will have such an experience in this life, only God knows.

 

[Loudmouth]

I interpret that verse as God being very patient and intentional when creating me. It says "And my soul knows it very well..." it does not say "And my mind knows it very well...". True knowledge of God is not head knowledge, it goes deeper than that. You have head knowledge of God, don't you? Why don't you believe? I think it's because you haven't had an experience that goes to the depth of your soul. Whether or not you will have such an experience in this life, only God knows.

Do you view the science of embryonic development as problematic for those beliefs?

As to your other questions, I grew up in the church and even took some university level classes which is where my knowledge comes from.

 

[Chriliman]

Do you view the science of embryonic development as problematic for those beliefs?

As to your other questions, I grew up in the church and even took some university level classes which is where my knowledge comes from.

No.

Do you want to lack belief in God?

 

[Loudmouth]

No.

If God can create us through natural processes while we are in the womb, why not abiogenesis?

Do you want to lack belief in God?

No more than you want to lack belief in Leprechauns, Bigfoot, or UFO's. I can't make myself believe in these things, just as you probably couldn't make yourself belief in Leprechauns.

 

[Chriliman]

If God can create us through natural processes while we are in the womb, why not abiogenesis?

I think God had to create a starting state for all life. After this initial starting state, He allowed it to grow and flourish. Mankind was special because He created us in His image. I'm still pondering and questioning how He did this.

No more than you want to lack belief in Leprechauns, Bigfoot, or UFO's. I can't make myself believe in these things, just as you probably couldn't make yourself belief in Leprechauns.

I do want to lack belief in those things because they would be a waste of my valuable time to seek them out. I keep forgetting about them, but atheists keep bringing them back up as if they exist.

God isn't necessarily a waste of your time, otherwise you wouldn't spend so much time questioning other people about His existence. Therefore, don't you have more reason to believe in God than you do Leprechauns, Bigfoot, or UFO's?

 

[Loudmouth]

I think God had to create a starting state for all life.

Why?

I do want to lack belief in those things because they would be a waste of my valuable time to seek them out. I keep forgetting about them, but atheists keep bringing them back up as if they exist.

Now you know what it feels like to be an atheist when theists keep bringing up God.

God isn't necessarily a waste of your time, otherwise you wouldn't spend so much time questioning other people about His existence. Therefore, don't you have more reason to believe in God than you do Leprechauns, Bigfoot, or UFO's?

It isn't a waste of my time talking to theists like yourself, at least not all of the time.

If a belief in Leprechauns was a common belief in the US which affected public policy then I would probably be on LeprechaunForums.com discussing why we shouldn't throw out scientific theories just because of religious beliefs.

 

[Chriliman]

Why?

Because it's logical.

There's two possible logical answers as to how God created life.

1. He created all living things exactly as they should be in adult or matured form and then allowed them to reproduce.

2. He created the basic building blocks of life in a primordial soup and let it run it's course, eventually giving way to life as we know it.

The first option is more biblical and God could definitely do that. The second option is more pleasing to the scientific community.

I don't necessarily care if the scientific community is pleased.

Now you know what it feels like to be an atheist when theists keep bringing up God.

Well you wouldn't be an atheist if it weren't for theist, so maybe you should be more grateful

It isn't a waste of my time talking to theists like yourself, at least not all of the time.

Thanks!

If a belief in Leprechauns was a common belief in the US which affected public policy then I would probably be on LeprechaunForums.com discussing why we shouldn't throw out scientific theories just because of religious beliefs.

If belief in Leprechauns was a common belief, you would be an aleprechaunist. Thats good because so am I.

 

[Michael]

Because it's logical.

There's two possible logical answers as to how God created life.

1. He created all living things exactly as they should be in adult or matured form and then allowed them to reproduce.

2. He created the basic building blocks of life in a primordial soup and let it run it's course, eventually giving way to life as we know it.

The first option is more biblical and God could definitely do that. The second option is more pleasing to the scientific community.

I don't necessarily care if the scientific community is pleased.

Since most Catholics and most Christians worldwide are fine with evolutionary theory and an ancient Earth, I'd caution you about asserting that the first option is any "more Biblical" than the second. The Bible can be interpreted in a variety of unique ways, but the majority interpret the Bible in a way that embraces evolutionary theory as well as an ancient Earth.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because it's logical.

There's two possible logical answers as to how God created life.

1. He created all living things exactly as they should be in adult or matured form and then allowed them to reproduce.

2. He created the basic building blocks of life in a primordial soup and let it run it's course, eventually giving way to life as we know it.

The first option is more biblical and God could definitely do that. The second option is more pleasing to the scientific community.

I don't necessarily care if the scientific community is pleased.

I am still waiting for the logic part?

Believing that God directly forms us in the womb is more biblical. The natural mechanisms within embryonic development forming us in the womb is more scientific. You opted for the scientific one. So why the lack of consistency?

Well you wouldn't be an atheist if it weren't for theist, so maybe you should be more grateful

Just like I wouldn't be an Aleprechaunist without people who believe in Leprechauns.

If belief in Leprechauns was a common belief, you would be an aleprechaunist. Thats good because so am I.

I wrote the sentence above before I read this last sentence. In the end, I think we agree more than disagree.

 

[bhsmte]

I am still waiting for the logic part?

Believing that God directly forms us in the womb is more biblical. The natural mechanisms within embryonic development forming us in the womb is more scientific. You opted for the scientific one. So why the lack of consistency?



Just like I wouldn't be an Aleprechaunist without people who believe in Leprechauns.




I wrote the sentence above before I read this last sentence. In the end, I think we agree more than disagree.

I think we have all been waiting for the logic part, for months.

 

[Chriliman]

Since most Catholics and most Christians worldwide are fine with evolutionary theory and an ancient Earth, I'd caution you about asserting that the first option is any "more Biblical" than the second. The Bible can be interpreted in a variety of unique ways, but the majority interpret the Bible in a way that embraces evolutionary theory as well as an ancient Earth.

Have you seen this video? It seems the evidence is pointing to a young earth, it's just that the evidence is being censored.

 

[bhsmte]

Have you seen this video? It seems the evidence is pointing to a young earth, it's just that the evidence is being censored.

Old arguments, all have been thoroughly debunked.

 

[Chriliman]

Old arguments, all have been thoroughly debunked.

Really? Do you have any sources?

 

[bhsmte]

Really? Do you have any sources?

Yes, real science.

Who is that guy speaking?

What is his background?

 

[Michael]

Have you seen this video? It seems the evidence is pointing to a young earth, it's just that the evidence is being censored.

I was a little put off that it took him 3 minutes to even start on the topic, and somewhere in that 3 minutes he mentioned C-14 dating with respect to dinosaur bones too. The comment he made which he fails to note is that he's claiming that *his own interpretation* of the Bible, a very "literal" one apparently, is the *only* way to interpret the Bible. He's immediately building his case based upon his own personal interpretation of a single book, whereas "most" Christians build their case about history and physics on a variety of materials, *including* their own interpretation of the Bible. His position is simply a self feedback loop. He's beginning with his own personal interpretation of a single book, and ignoring the fact that his "interpretation" of the Bible isn't even the "most popular" way to interpret it. I'm sorry, but this kind of "science be damned" approach to life simply doesn't work for me.

I'm fine with using the Bible as a reference in life, but I'm not fine with elevating your own personal interpretation of that book, a *literal* interpretation apparently, as being the "be all end all" of knowledge. He doesn't even acknowledge the fact that most folks do not interpret the Bible to suggest the Earth is only 6 thousand years old.

 

[Michael]

Well, I got through about 15 minutes, but as bhsmte notes, his arguments are all pretty stale at this point, and his entire belief system is based upon a personal feedback loop. "My personal (literal) interpretation of the Bible is the only way to interpret this book, I interpret the book to claim that the Earth is 6K years old, and nothing else matters." Yikes.