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.
That's the Holy Spirit's job.You might as well call them "wishful thinking." It might be possible to bring a person like Occam's Barber to Christ, but you will never bring him to Fundamentalism.
Wait, what? What is the Holy Spirit's job? The Holy Spirit brought you to Christ and then you became a Fundamentalist for some other reason? Or did you come to Christ and then the Holy Spirit forced you to become a Fundamentalist?That's the Holy Spirit's job.
I was saved first, THEN became a Fundamentalist.
As we're fond of saying: I'm a Christian by election, and a Baptist by conviction.
Luke 18:17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.I see a rather remote possibility of being Christian, but reverting to the immature shallow mentality of a child is not going to happen.
Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.The Holy Spirit brought you to Christ and then you became a Fundamentalist for some other reason? Or did you come to Christ and then the Holy Spirit forced you to become a Fundamentalist?
Abiogenesis is not an atheistic concept. It's a scientific concept. There is no atheistic position on abiogenesis or the the Big Bang or evolution. It's entirely possible to reject all three concepts and still be an atheist.
This misunderstanding alone would be enough to convince me that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Your central misunderstanding is to assume that life is special. It isn't. You assume it's special because it's familiar. The chemical mix percolating in an early Earth could have produced any number of outcomes. The fact that it produced life is neither amazing nor statistically improbable unless you assume it was destined to produce life. Your critical error is to assume, without reason, that life was a special and intentional outcome. You have confused the cart with the horse.
OB
So atheists keep saying, that the two are not connected.
Except all the atheists on here and elsewhere seem to believe it, or have you not noticed you belong to that tribe!. I assume from your other remarks that you do believe it.
You do realize that no matter how unlikely abiogenesis is, it's still more likely than the Christian alternative.You clearly have bad understanding of the staggering unlikelihood considering the irreducible complexity problem of a self evolving self replicating cell.
If that was true, so what?But There is no evidence that the chemical mix percolating earth did produce life. There is No known process for it. Just a few pieces of conjecture, about how small parts of the process might have happened. And even if those bits might have happened there is no evidence they actually did.
You clearly have no grasp of what is actually being proposed by biologists studying abiogenesis. "Pure random chance" isn't it.You clearly have bad understanding of the staggering unlikelihood considering the irreducible complexity problem of a self evolving self replicating cell. The idea that you think it happened by pure random chance (amongst squillions of other outcomes of nearly life which didnt actually happen for which there is no evidence, or any evidence the process of trying is still ongoing).
I would argue that you're definitely not open to persuasion, and that the evidence demonstrates that you're not.I am not actually challenging the idea that abiogenesis might have happened by random chance. I am open to persuasion, on science not wishful thinking.
If this site didn't require users to post their (lack-of-) faith identifiers you would have no idea that most of us non-believers were non-believers. We would just be a bunch of people supporting non-creationist scientific positions. We would be indistinguishable from the believers who support similar scientific positions.
. Reason and logic don't seem to enter into your behavior.
It wasn't a cheap shot. It was a very astute observation. You don't like to conform to the norm, even when it seems like the logical thing to do. Your reply to me demonstrates that you can put the quotes at the top of the page if you want to...you just don't want to.I could use a similar cheapshot. How does it help?
Stop teasing, I'm not sure I can contain the excitement! So many people have been looking for that sort of evidence - please tell us your big reveal will be on these forums, not on national TV.But Mine has forensic evidence..
You might as well call them "wishful thinking." It might be possible to bring a person like Occam's Barber to Christ, but you will never bring him to Fundamentalism.
My point is it is all staggeringly unlikely.
So the atheist mantra oft repeated that somehow they take a “logical view” of what is near inevitable in their eyes , given enough time and places to happen , is logical hogwash. Atheist belief in random chance abiogenesis with no designer is just that: an unsupported belief bordering on the magical that Dawkins so attacks.
Given the amount of research into such as volcanic vents, if there were something bordering on protocell it would have been found, as would the stream of still born one winged birds or crustaceans rhat can’t make it out of the shell, due to a design flaw in absence of any designer to make sure it does. Even now the minimum cell is staggeringly complex.
Don’t get me wrong: I might even be persuaded it happened.
But most of the so called research is just wishful thinking to fill a void. Create enough smoke, pretend it’s a fire.
The irreducible complexity problem of the minimum self evolving self replicating cell is a serious problem for how any of it happened.
I don’t have to prove anything.
The burden of proof is on those who think it all could have happened by random chance chemistry.
I’m entitled to incredulity. What is proposed is incredible. It’s up to such as bungle bear the case for why he thinks it can.
On the other hand I can point at ACTUAL forensic evidence of host became cardiac tissue in the Eucharist. Life where none existed before.
Bread so intimately intermingled at the edge of the heart tissue nobody could fake it even now. So however incredible that might sound there is at least some evidence it did, and does!
So I’ll stick with the evidence of creation, and offer credulity to the idea it all happened random chance.
My scepticism of the idea of climbing mount improbable to use Dawkins view is from professional experience of optimisation. Dawkins ignores all the problems,
Presumably because he has no experience whatsoever of the subject he writes volumes about.
It’s not “ plausible”. It’s a guess with little or no evidence either that it did, or that it could. Despite a huge volume of money poured on origin of life , all there is is a pile of conjecture about how a few bits of it might have happened.
Dont get me wrong, I might be persuaded it happened , if ever there is evidence, my point is , it is not a logical consequence of enough time and places to happen. The very idea is incredible.
Actually, if you say it is irreducibly complex, you must support that claim.
And funny how that "It's irreducibly complex" argument never seems to apply to God, huh?
And you have actual evidence that sacramental bread actually became cardiac tissue? I assume you mean in some way other than the person who ate it breaking it down and using it to develop heart muscle. That's something I'd love to see.
Irreducible complexity in the context I raised it is undeniable.
It is Simple logic.
There are a minimum number of structures needed 1/ to have an inheritable genetic code 2/ for the cell to use that to be self evolving 3/ to be self replicating 4/ to transpire , since all the previous processes use energy.
The minimum cell we know is fabulously complex.
Prior to the minimum self evolving and replicating cell , whatever existed didn’t evolve, so how was the first step taken? The more complex that minimum cell the more unlikely it is it happened by accident. Simples.
There is plenty of forensic evidence , and many credible scientists involved in analysing the Eucharistic miracles of sokolka, Buenos airies , tixtla , legnica. The existence of white cells shows they were recently live at the time of sampling. Suggest you start with Serafinis book for a cardiologists overview of it. But whatever the strength of that evidence at least there is some! There is only conjecture for abiogenesis from chemical soup. No actual evidence it ever happened or how , or where.
God created everything, no big bang happened.And IF that could be in any way shown to be anything but
a claim, an opinion stated as fact -
Does it mean He created everything just as it is?
Full size mountains, tall trees, etc?
Or that He created the most basic raw materials at the
big bang and then " stood back" and watched?
You seem very awfully sure of your facts- not- in- evidence.
Tell us more of what you somehow " know". Was it one
of the above scenarios or did you detect other facts?
How? God simply said let there be, and it was.Which is entirely irrelevant to the OP, whiich is about "how" not "who."
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?