- Jul 6, 2006
- 4,085
- 3,082
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
Applying simultaneous natural and divine causes to the origin of life leaves an invisible creator that one can take or leave.
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.
Applying simultaneous natural and divine causes to the origin of life leaves an invisible creator that one can take or leave.The independent creation of each species is not the only option for a creator. More broadly, identifying a natural cause for a phenomenon does not deny or rule out simultaneous divine causality. I fully expect that the same will be found for abiogenesis and in general that the universe will appear to us to be a "closed system" of natural causality. You are the one who is assuming that anyone who comes to such a conclusion does so in order to eliminate the necessity for a God.
Exactly. The existence of God cannot be proven or demonstrated scientifically. One must have faith.Applying simultaneous natural and divine causes to the origin of life leaves an invisible creator that one can take or leave.
Wonderful news. Any time evolutionists and climate changers feel threatened, things are moving in the right direction.
Christianity is difficult distinguish from Deism if the Creator is invisible, or can be set aside. This poses a difficulty for those trying to harmonize Genesis with natural selection.Exactly. The existence of God cannot be proven or demonstrated scientifically. One must have faith.
Of course, that poses a difficulty for culture warriors who want to impose their version of Christianity on the rest of us.
I don't think there is any danger of confusing deism with Christianity. Deism does not offer us salvation and eternal life through the death and resurrection of the Son of God.Christianity is difficult distinguish from Deism if the Creator is invisible, or can be set aside. This poses a difficulty for those trying to harmonize Genesis with natural selection.
As someone who is not a liberal Protestant, I do not feel that I have lost. Maybe it's just conservative Evangelicals who are losing--not a prospect which disturbs me greatly.The culture war has been won by liberal Protestants. But one can dissent from the majority.
Assuming that life generated itself, or was imported from another planet, is a religious mindset. God is removed from the equation. Yes, it would be helpful if believers in evolution would identify their religious prejudice, and stop trying to pass themselves off as disinterested seekers of truth in white lab coats.
To omit God from a framework means that He is in effect excluded from it. To allow Him in at all subverts the whole framework.
That doesn't make any sense. Does the germ theory of disease exclude God? Does the theory of relativity? Why should the theory of evolution? I suspect that what you are on about is not the existence of God but about your interpretation of scripture--if so, you should own up to it.
Not all science deals with the origin life. Medicine and engineering for instance. To the extent though that a science touches on the origin of life, then it can't be (from a secular standpoint) extricated from evolution. Yes, I plead guilty to an interpretation of Scripture confirming God-created life.
But Darwin explicitly excludes a Creator, calling it "erroneousness" that "each species has been independently created." That doesn't leave much wiggle room. Evolution tacitly approves of the idea of idea of a closed-system in which the here and now is all there is.
But Darwin's book wasn't The Species, but the Origin of. It was clearly concerned with the origin of life, and in the ongoing struggle of each race to compete for the planet's limited resources.Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life and in fact isn't effected one iota by the source of the origin of life. If you think otherwise, then explain how evolution is effected if God creates the first primordial organism 3.5 billion yeas ago?
There is survival of the fittest. But it's Christianity's job to counter this aspect of our fallen humanity, not celebrate it.Your comments are heavy with emotional rhetoric and loaded verbiage, but light on actually addressing evolution. If you think it's all smoke and mirrors, try addressing the substantive claims rather than personal peeves and boogie men.
Interesting. It seems Darwin was a bit of a theist. Wonder why his followers haven't been. With the Darwin bumper fish, and Richard Dawkins flamboyantly anti-Christian rhetoric.1. Darwin was not Saint Paul and Origin is not an epistle.
2. Read this:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. - Charles Darwin, Origin
But Darwin's book wasn't The Species, but the Origin of. It was clearly concerned with the origin of life, and in the ongoing struggle of each race to compete for the planet's limited resources.
Explain in your own words how exactly that proves evolution, and without assumption.
...
And no, I don't understand it. I've offered to listen a few time if someone wishes to dumb it down, and explain it but it never really went anywhere.
There is survival of the fittest. But it's Christianity's job to counter this aspect of our fallen humanity, not celebrate it.
Interesting. It seems Darwin was a bit of a theist.
Wonder why his followers haven't been. With the Darwin bumper fish, and Richard Dawkins flamboyantly anti-Christian rhetoric.
Interesting. It seems Darwin was a bit of a theist. Wonder why his followers haven't been.
With the Darwin bumper fish, and Richard Dawkins flamboyantly anti-Christian rhetoric.
Then why do evolutionists object so strongly to creationism, or even intelligent design? As Ben Stein has shown, even the bare mention of God in a university science class can place ones tenure in jeopardy.Because science and theology are two separate things.
OK, that's one. But polls show that roughly half of biologists are theists and half aren't. 'Darwin's followers' are diverse, just like bowlers are diverse. Because there is no connection between bowling and gods or evolution and gods.
Because it's bad science and because of the political agenda which goes with it. "Bible-believers" want to teach their creationism in public school science classes along with fundamentalist prayer and Bible study which they think has some kind of a right to be there, to the exclusion of the beliefs of other children. They have associated themselves with an egregious right-wing political agenda, pro-gun, pro-death penalty, pro-war and opposed to such things as union membership, child labor laws, workplace safety legislation, environmental regulation and the minimum wage, and they use the Bible, only the "literal and inerrant" Bible will work, to justify that agenda, making it part and parcel of their version of Christian doctrine.Then why do evolutionists object so strongly to creationism, or even intelligent design? As Ben Stein has shown, even the bare mention of God in a university science class can place ones tenure in jeopardy.
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?