My Abiogenesis Challenge

[Paul of Eugene OR]

There was a starting point

The fact that it was an adaptation does not rule out that it was a mutation that was beneficial and is spreading through the population. Your objection fails.

 

[miknik5]

Well, my contention is yes, that non-believers cannot 'see' Him, because He hides Himself from them. All those prophets and priests and witnesses, well, as far as the unbeliever is concerned, they are mad, misguided, power hungry, or socially programmed. Until such time as the unbeliever needs Him, and searches out God with an open heart. And then, and only then, the unbeliever will understand.

Further, it is my contention that there is no objective proof God exists, and never will be. If there was such objective proof, then everyone would have to believe, not because they want Him, but because it would be a logical necessity. And that would ruin the beauty of the voluntary relationship believers have with their ideal God, who rules His Kingdom not as an authoritarian autocrat but through our loving relationship with ultimate perfection.

Or, so it seems to me.

Best wishes, Strivax.

Thomas comes to mind?

Blessed are those who have not seen but believe

Or

Blessed those who take no offense in ME

 

[miknik5]

The fact that it was an adaptation does not rule out that it was a mutation that was beneficial and is spreading through the population. Your objection fails.

I wasn't talking about digesting sugars in milk

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Can I also ask one to read 2 Thessalonians 2 to see if the sophisticated minds of scientists can grasp what is going to happen whe. "HE who holds all things back is taken out of the way"?

I fail to see why that would be part of THIS discussion.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I wasn't talking about digesting sugars in milk

Well, the challenger (Kwcrazy) posted this:

I'm still waiting for someone to show a benevolent mutation advancing a species by creating new genetic information and copying it to the reproductive system

and I was merely giving such an example.

 

[miknik5]

I fail to see why that would be part of THIS discussion.

GOD is the one who holds all things back but when HE lets go (when HE temporarily removes HIS HEDGE) all the things that we held to as long-held truths will no longer hold

I asked about Nebuchadnezzar

And I asked about gehazzi

Some unexplainable things will happen

Make sure that you do not charge/attribute/blame (curse) GOD for these unexplainable things

 

[HitchSlap]

GOD is the one who holds all things back but when HE lets go (when HE temporarily removes HIS HEDGE) all the things that we held to as long-held truths will no longer hold

I asked about Nebuchadnezzar

And I asked about gehazzi

Some unexplainable things will happen

Make sure that you do not charge/attribute/blame (curse) GOD for these unexplainable things

Your opinions might be better received in the theology section.

Just a suggestion.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

GOD is the one who holds all things back but when HE lets go (when HE temporarily removes HIS HEDGE) all the things that we held to as long-held truths will no longer hold

I asked about Nebuchadnezzar

And I asked about gehazzi

Some unexplainable things will happen

Make sure that you do not charge/attribute/blame (curse) GOD for these unexplainable things

God will make all these things happen - but we better not say it was God? Does that really make sense to you?

 

[miknik5]

God will make all these things happen - but we better not say it was God? Does that really make sense to you?

Yes

GOD is the ONE who held all things back

When HE removes the hedge (temporarily) because the tine of the harvest is near, Satan will have full reign

And men, ignorant to the truth will look left and right at troubles and woe and look up and curse(blame) GOD and be cast into utter darkness so they will believe the lie and ultimately will receive the wrong mark

And it won't be for life

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe you should come into all conversations pure

lol

 

[Astrophile]

You flat earth believers make believing the Bible look silly and God will bring that subject up against you on judgement day.

I'm assuming you are a flat earther because you wouldn't be a hypocrite and deny the literal teachings of the bible on the subject of the earth's shape, the sun's motions, and the unmoving state of the earth . . . while refusing others the right to make similar allowances for the discoveries of science about the age of the earth and the common descent of all life.

Or would you do just that? Along with special pleadings about why its ok for you to do that?

It puzzles me that Christian fundamentalists and Biblical literalists strain at gnats like evolution but are willing to swallow camels such as atomism, the sphericity of the Earth, heliocentrism and universal gravitation. Even in Galileo's time, Christians understood that heliocentrism and similar ideas were likely to 'fill the world with devilish atheism' (which, of course, they did). The fact that so-called Bible-believing Christians accept atomism, heliocentrism and universal gravitation shows that they have been as much blinded by science as the most fervent evolutionist.

 

[AV1611VET]

It puzzles me that Christian fundamentalists and Biblical literalists strain at gnats like evolution ...

I don't consider myself as "straining at evolution."

The Bible says otherwise ... that settles it.

 

[Astrophile]

You believe you were born to human parents and made by God . . . . that's no more or less contradictory,

No offense, but that's probably the single craziest thing I've ever heard.

So which was it? Were you born to human parents or made by God?

 

[Astrophile]

I don't consider myself as "straining at evolution."

The Bible says otherwise ... that settles it.

So do you swallow the camels of atomism, a spherical Earth, heliocentrism and universal gravitation? The Bible definitely says that the Earth is flat and either stands on pillars or floats on water and that it is immobile, and it doesn't mention atoms or universal gravitation any more than it mentions evolution.

In addition, history should tell you that atheism began to spread once people started believing that the Earth was in orbit around the Sun and that the planets moved according to a law of gravitation.

 

[AV1611VET]

So which was it? Were you born to human parents or made by God?

Both.

Isaiah 1:1a The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz,

Isaiah 49:5a And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb ...

 

[AV1611VET]

So do you swallow the camels of atomism, a spherical Earth, heliocentrism and universal gravitation?

I don't consider those "camels;" but if they are, then YES to your question.

The Bible definitely says that the Earth is flat and either stands on pillars or floats on water and that it is immobile,

Science says otherwise, so I disagree that the Bible says what you think It says.

... and it doesn't mention atoms or universal gravitation any more than it mentions evolution.

The Bible is not a science book.

 

[miknik5]

It puzzles me that Christian fundamentalists and Biblical literalists strain at gnats like evolution but are willing to swallow camels such as atomism, the sphericity of the Earth, heliocentrism and universal gravitation. Even in Galileo's time, Christians understood that heliocentrism and similar ideas were likely to 'fill the world with devilish atheism' (which, of course, they did). The fact that so-called Bible-believing Christians accept atomism, heliocentrism and universal gravitation shows that they have been as much blinded by science as the most fervent evolutionist.

THeres a difference between heavenly and earthly food

MANNA or quail

Your post is just quail or quail

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

. . .Science says otherwise, so I disagree that the Bible says what you think It says.. . .

So on some subjects, you let science inform you, in spite of the Bible? But not on other subjects.

So consistency is not your strong suit.

 

[AV1611VET]

So on some subjects, you let science inform you,

Absolutely.

... in spite of the Bible?

Never.

But not on other subjects.

My Boolean Standards:

1. Bible says X, science says X = agree.

2. Bible says X, science says Y = go with Bible.

3. Bible is silent, science says X = go with science.

It's that simple.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Absolutely.Never.My Boolean Standards:

1. Bible says X, science says X = agree.

2. Bible says X, science says Y = go with Bible.

3. Bible is silent, science says X = go with science.

It's that simple.

How did you come to give the Bible its authority over all other evidence? What evidence did you use to conclude all other evidence may be ignored?