- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,117
- 34,056
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
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.
There is nothing there, Redleghunter, to show that Christ went down a list of books and sais these are the canon. And there is nothing here to indicate that Christ considered anything in the OT to be inerrant. Citing passage in no may means the source you are taking it form is inerrant.
Let me see if I have this straight.
God creates the following human and chimp sequences, and it is considered a gain in information.
ATTATAGGGCTC --Human
ATTATCGGGCTC --Chimp
The process of mutation produces the exact same differences, and it is considered a loss in information:
ATTATAGGGCTC --Human
ATTATCGGGCTC --Chimp
Care to explain how the same exact outcome is considered a gain in information in one instance, but a loss of information in the other instance?
Hydrogen and oxygen carry instructions on how to combine atoms to make water. Same thing.
There is no qualitative difference between what DNA, proteins, and RNA do than what any other molecule does.
It matters quite a lot -- it also matters that you can't give a definition.
What's "information"?
Yes, evolution is a theological discussion. And you are using "religion" her in the pejorative sense of the term, which is inappropriate.
I see you're still stuck in the mud.
What morphologically changed?
Why is evolution considered theological?
Because it leads to the questions: who made the natural laws that cause evolution? Laws are legislated - were they legislated by an overmind, or did they come into being without intelligence, themselves the product of random accident?
It all goes back to the question of the uncaused first cause. Natural law MEANS cause-and-effect, going backward in a chain. Eventually, you get to the first domino. Who or what made the domino, and what made it fall, and why is it that there is a law that it falls, and why does its fall cause the next thing to happen. Who or what set the parameters of cause and effect?
Naturalistic evolution views the living creature as a meat machine, a sophisticated interaction of chemicals, behaving as they must under the natural law. Evolution, then, is the inevitable result of the interaction and permutation of these different chemicals over oceans of time.
The theological question remains in a very ancient universe where everything evolved chemically and physically from the Big Bang - why is there natural law, and what caused the Big Bang, and what caused whatever there was that existed as the material OF the Big Bang.
The theologist says "God is the uncaused first cause."
The atheist rejects that answer as a cop-out, and seeks to extend back the cause before the Big Bang - in string theory, for example.
The ultimate atheistic solution is to find a "diesel-engine universe" that, through strings, expands and contracts in cycles-of-cycles forever, in both directions. If that is so, then there is no "first", because the "first cause" of THIS manifestation of the universe is merely the FINAL act of the last universe, returning to a Big Crunch. Then one can have a material nature that "always was and always will be".
Alas, there does not appear to be nearly enough gravitational sources in the universe to pull the expansion back together, so our universe looks to be a unidirectional arrow, a ray from a starting point, rather than the dot on a number line that stretches forward and backward forever.
These matters are ultimately theological at their core.
Because it leads to the questions: who made the natural laws that cause evolution? Laws are legislated - were they legislated by an overmind, or did they come into being without intelligence, themselves the product of random accident?
Naturalistic evolution views the living creature as a meat machine, a sophisticated interaction of chemicals, behaving as they must under the natural law. Evolution, then, is the inevitable result of the interaction and permutation of these different chemicals over oceans of time.
The theological question remains in a very ancient universe where everything evolved chemically and physically from the Big Bang - why is there natural law, and what caused the Big Bang, and what caused whatever there was that existed as the material OF the Big Bang.
The theologist says "God is the uncaused first cause."
The atheist rejects that answer as a cop-out, and seeks to extend back the cause before the Big Bang - in string theory, for example.
These matters are ultimately theological at their core.
Because it leads to the questions: who made the natural laws that cause evolution? Laws are legislated - were they legislated by an overmind, or did they come into being without intelligence, themselves the product of random accident?
It all goes back to the question of the uncaused first cause. Natural law MEANS cause-and-effect, going backward in a chain. Eventually, you get to the first domino. Who or what made the domino, and what made it fall, and why is it that there is a law that it falls, and why does its fall cause the next thing to happen. Who or what set the parameters of cause and effect?
Naturalistic evolution views the living creature as a meat machine, a sophisticated interaction of chemicals, behaving as they must under the natural law. Evolution, then, is the inevitable result of the interaction and permutation of these different chemicals over oceans of time.
The theological question remains in a very ancient universe where everything evolved chemically and physically from the Big Bang - why is there natural law, and what caused the Big Bang, and what caused whatever there was that existed as the material OF the Big Bang.
The theologist says "God is the uncaused first cause."
The atheist rejects that answer as a cop-out, and seeks to extend back the cause before the Big Bang - in string theory, for example.
The ultimate atheistic solution is to find a "diesel-engine universe" that, through strings, expands and contracts in cycles-of-cycles forever, in both directions. If that is so, then there is no "first", because the "first cause" of THIS manifestation of the universe is merely the FINAL act of the last universe, returning to a Big Crunch. Then one can have a material nature that "always was and always will be".
Alas, there does not appear to be nearly enough gravitational sources in the universe to pull the expansion back together, so our universe looks to be a unidirectional arrow, a ray from a starting point, rather than the dot on a number line that stretches forward and backward forever.
These matters are ultimately theological at their core.
Because it leads to the questions: who made the natural laws that cause evolution? Laws are legislated - were they legislated by an overmind, or did they come into being without intelligence, themselves the product of random accident?
It all goes back to the question of the uncaused first cause. Natural law MEANS cause-and-effect, going backward in a chain. Eventually, you get to the first domino. Who or what made the domino, and what made it fall, and why is it that there is a law that it falls, and why does its fall cause the next thing to happen. Who or what set the parameters of cause and effect?
Naturalistic evolution views the living creature as a meat machine, a sophisticated interaction of chemicals, behaving as they must under the natural law. Evolution, then, is the inevitable result of the interaction and permutation of these different chemicals over oceans of time.
The theological question remains in a very ancient universe where everything evolved chemically and physically from the Big Bang - why is there natural law, and what caused the Big Bang, and what caused whatever there was that existed as the material OF the Big Bang.
The theologist says "God is the uncaused first cause."
The atheist rejects that answer as a cop-out, and seeks to extend back the cause before the Big Bang - in string theory, for example.
The ultimate atheistic solution is to find a "diesel-engine universe" that, through strings, expands and contracts in cycles-of-cycles forever, in both directions. If that is so, then there is no "first", because the "first cause" of THIS manifestation of the universe is merely the FINAL act of the last universe, returning to a Big Crunch. Then one can have a material nature that "always was and always will be".
Alas, there does not appear to be nearly enough gravitational sources in the universe to pull the expansion back together, so our universe looks to be a unidirectional arrow, a ray from a starting point, rather than the dot on a number line that stretches forward and backward forever.
These matters are ultimately theological at their core.
If time did not exist before the Big Bang, there might not have been a before. These matters are so complicated, our common sense might not apply. Also, evolution is not a 'law', it's a process that just happens.
Why not a non-random natural process?
Ok that is the reason for my question of theology in relation to evolution. So far you are focusing on cosmology. Which I agree one must start with, origins. Origins are the 'dog' that wags the tail. Whereas we have evolution, a tail, try to wag the origins dog. That is why chance plus a lot of time must be programmed.
That would mean there was a purpose or something governing the natural process.
An honest answer. I believe we are purposeful beings yet if I understand your point we live and have our being in a purposeless universe.
That would mean there was a purpose or something governing the natural process. If not you are back to random.
Evolution merely explains how life changed once life was here. Evolution does not deal with the origin of life any more than the germ theory of disease deals with the origin of life. Evolution certainly doesn't attempt to explain nor need to explain the origin of the universe.
Also, "I don't know" is a perfect acceptable answer for the origins of the universe. However, it is completely irrational and illogical to take that area of ignorance and claim that it is evidence for God doing something. That is known as the God of the Gaps fallacy.
If you want to claim that God created the universe, then you must produce evidence that this is the case. Pointing to the lack of any other explanation is not evidence for your own evidence-free explanation.
Exactly we were discussing origins. Yet for evolution to work there must be a whole lot of time in billions of years to make it plausible.
Not really. We observe an ordered universe which has laws. We are also curious beings with purpose. We just take it from there.
Yes He told us He did.
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?