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.
It's a process that happens because of the laws of physics and chemistry and entropy. Thus would say the natural philosophy.Also, evolution is not a 'law', it's a process that just happens.
In general, the subject matter.What evidence makes this a matter of theology?
Actually, no it isn't. You have a tone of utter certitude about things you do not know. And I am certain your wrong from direct evidence...which unfortunately is not of a nature that I can show you. But I can, nevertheless, assert with certitude that yes, God does exist.That is also called "reality".
Yes, I don't think there is a purpose, there is no indication for one, and that's awesome! We don't need a higher purpose, I can give all the meaning I want to my life on this amazing planet as it is, just a rock somewhere in a purposeless universe.
No, this is a common misunderstanding. It is non random, because favorable mutations have an advantage over the rest. Therefore, the fact that they get eaten less than others, is a non-random process. The mutation is random, but the whole process is non-random because of this.
The geologic evidence demonstrates that Earth is 4.55 billion years old. That has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. Whether the universe had an origin or is eternal, the Earth is still 4.55 billion years old. The two things are completely independent.
Yes, you take it to a conclusion that isn't supported by any evidence.
Stories written by men in books are not evidence.
Actually, no it isn't. You have a tone of utter certitude about things you do not know. And I am certain your wrong from direct evidence...which unfortunately is not of a nature that I can show you. But I can, nevertheless, assert with certitude that yes, God does exist.
So, you can construct a reality without God in it, but I know that's false. The truth of reality is that there is a God very much in it, but he's a God that you can't find with instruments, and who hasn't shown himself to you, yet.
When he does, the imperious arrogance of the tone you have taken towards people who have told you the truth will fill you with shame.
So, if you are wise, you will simply accept that what you believe about the naturalistic world is based on the limits of what you have seen and learned, and it makes sense to you. But you will cut out the arrogant ridicule, because some people alive have, in fact, talked to God and been strange places and encountered miracles, and these things are so.
You don't have to believe them, but you don't realize just how wrong your certitude is...which is excusable...and how arrogant it is given that it is so very ignorant...which is less excusable.
But look at that - I said I was going to go get pie, and here I am posting ANOTHER post on this thread.
No need to rage in response - I won't ever see it.
Someday you will realize your error, because you'll have the data you are lacking. And on that day you will wince at the way you spoke to people before. So you should stop doing that part of it, because it's the part that's the most wrong in all of it.
Thr real answer? None. A random blind process can't increase the information to the point a new trait can be coded for.
Can't happen.
Once again...is there information in the code that runs your computer?
Natural selection is debatable....considering the changing circumstances that would allow for something to be selected.
Eolutionism contradicts the bible in many ways.
For example how did sin and death enter into the world? Paul says through one man Adam.
If evolutionism is true that means there was no Garden of Eden.
Secondly, you speak of personal experiencial evidence. How does your personal experiencial evidence explain how dinosaur tissue can survive for more than 65+ MY's?
How does your personal experiencial evidence explain why coal still has C14 remaining in it when it should have decayed long, long ago?
I trust the bible.
I trust the geological column and the fossils that are contained in them. The bible tells us how they got there. The world wide flood of Noah's time deposited them.
After all, God tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam eats. And he dies. But not physically; he lives on for many years thereafter. The death God was speaking of, is not a physical one, but a spiritual one. Hence, no contradiction between God's word and the fact that physical death was always part of nature. Indeed, God acknowledges Adam's own mortality when He expresses concern that Adam, if allowed to eat from the tree of life, might live forever.
Adam received mercy that day. Gen 3:21 tells of God slaying an innocent animal and then using the skin for garments....as a covering. The animal died in Adams place.
Keep in mind Adam began to physically die that day.
The verse is not talking about spiritual death. It is talking about physical death.
That is a revision of scripture. The Bible says no such thing.
Another revison. If you have to rewrite scripture to fit your belief, isn't that an important clue?
If Jesus came to save us from a physical death, He failed. We will all physically die someday. This reinforces what God said in Genesis; it is a spiritual death. Indeed, God clearly says that it isn't physical, because after Adam eats from the tree, and dies, God says:
Gen. 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.
If the curse was a physical death, this would not matter at all. God said Adam would die when he ate from the tree.
See above. Your view is a modern revision of scripture.
Rewrite scripture? I think not. That theology is older than the theory of evolutionism.
Rewrite scripture? I think not. That theology is older than the theory of evolutionism. So, it appears to me it is your camp that is rewriting scripture.
Concerning death and Jesus failing.....lets look at the verse again
1 Cor 15:20But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive..
The resurrection of the dead is being raised from physical death....just as Jesus was raised from physical dead.
Romans 5:12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--
Rewrite scripture? I think not. That theology is older than the theory of evolutionism.
No, doesn't seem so. St. Augustine, about 1600 years ago, pointed out that Genesis was not a literal history. And when he published, his work was spread thoughout Christendom and no one thought to argue with him.
Concerning death and Jesus failing.....lets look at the verse again
Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.
God says that it will happen in the day Adam eats from that tree. But Adam eats from the tree, and lives on physically for many years. So, if God can be trusted to tell the truth, then it's not a physial death. Here's another reason:
Romans 5:12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.
If you sin, you don't die physically. Sinners generally live lives like anyone else. So we know that death isn't what God was speaking of. Remember, if Christ came to keep us from dying physically, He failed. But if He came to save us from a spiritual death, He is victorious.
If what you said was right....resurrection ...would not have been used in the verse.
Can resurrection only apply to physical death?
No, it doesn't have to be that. But when all that scripture is telling you that the death is a spiritual one, it's hard to find any verses that support a physical death.
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?