To the evolution deniers

[ruthiesea]

Such a debate would be based on a false dichotomy. Naturalistic abiogenesis and universal common descent does not rule out a creator god.

Neither does evolution. Having taken a number of science classes, I've never seen or heard of a scientific study that has to do with the existence of G-d. That subject is outside of the sphere of science.

All in all, science does not deny the existence of G-d. In fact, there is no conflict between belief in G-d and science. The conflict comes from those who see the Bible as a history and science book.

 

[Almost there]

The conflict comes from those who see the Bible as a history and science book.

I think that is half of it. The other half is those that try to claim that evolution disproves God and simply refuse to even entertain the possibility that we were designed.

 

[Speedwell]

I think that is half of it. The other half is those that try to claim that evolution disproves God and simply refuse to even entertain the possibility that we were designed.

Which they are not doing qua science.

Be that as it may, I--as a Christian--also refuse to entertain the possibility that we were designed. I believe that God is maker of heaven and Earth and of all things both visible and invisible, as it is said. But I am also convinced that ID is bogus science concocted by radical Calvinists at the Discovery Intstute as a Trojan Horse to sneak biblical creationism into the public schools

 

[Almost there]

Which they are not doing qua science.

Be that as it may, I--as a Christian--also refuse to entertain the possibility that we were designed. I believe that God is maker of heaven and Earth and of all things both visible and invisible, as it is said. But I am also convinced that ID is bogus science concocted by radical Calvinists at the Discovery Intstute as a Trojan Horse to sneak biblical creationism into the public schools

I don't see ID as science at all.

 

[Speedwell]

So why were you berating t

I don't see ID as science at all.

So why were you berating those who "simply refuse to even entertain the possibility that we were designed.?"

 

[redleghunter]

Which they are not doing qua science.

Who is 'they.' Because there are all sorts of 'they' who deny an uncreated Creator 'because of' the science.

 

[redleghunter]

Be that as it may, I--as a Christian--also refuse to entertain the possibility that we were designed.

Why? Is it more plausible our existence is due to chance? And if we were not designed, what is your Christian answer to our existence?

I believe that God is maker of heaven and Earth and of all things both visible and invisible, as it is said.

Said where exactly?

 

[redleghunter]

Neither does evolution. Having taken a number of science classes, I've never seen or heard of a scientific study that has to do with the existence of G-d. That subject is outside of the sphere of science.

Well origins seems to be the issue with some. At some point something must come from nothing, or an uncreated Creator must be in the equation.

 

[Speedwell]

Who is 'they.' Because there are all sorts of 'they' who deny an uncreated Creator 'because of' the science.

The point is, it is not the science doing the denying. Nothing that scince has discovered, or could potentially discover, can disprove God's authorship of the universe.

 

[redleghunter]

Irrelevant to mention people that left behind no evidence of their existence whatsoever.

Debatable. But only debatable with those who consider all the evidence and not impeach what they want.

If one applied your standard of proof to transitionals, then they too would be impeached.

 

[AV1611VET]

All in all, science does not deny the existence of G-d.

Why would they?

 

[Speedwell]

Why? Is it more plausible our existence is due to chance? And if we were not designed, what is your Christian answer to our existence?

That we were created by God. Do you really believe that if the Discovery Institute is wrong that the only other possibility is that we came into existence by chance?

Said where exactly?

The Nicene Creed.

 

[Ophiolite]

Well origins seems to be the issue with some. At some point something must come from nothing, or an uncreated Creator must be in the equation.

False dichotomy. "Something" may always have been in existence that was not an uncreated Creator. A Creator may have "appeared" and subsequently set about creating. Life in the universe may have evolved to a point it had the power to go back to the beginning and "start the ball rolling". Possible? Who knows, but narrowing your options down to two is precipitate.

 

[Ophiolite]

Reminds me of piltdown man.

Really? It sounds as if you are unfamiliar with the details of that particular hoax.

 

[Almost there]

Really? It sounds as if you are unfamiliar with the details of that particular hoax.

Or maybe I'm just thinking of specific details that remind me of it.

You don't want to read too much into my more cryptic comments.

 

[Ophiolite]

Or maybe I'm just thinking of specific details that remind me of it.

You don't want to read too much into my more cryptic comments.

OK. Good to know. The motivation for the Piltdown hoax is still debated. It seems reasonably certain that it was not part of a cynical attempt to support evolutionary theory. (Although it was probably a cynical attempt of some kind.)

I have an unanswered post of yours to respond to. It is not forgotten, but I'm finding your comments in it difficult to make sense of. If I need clarification I shall ask.

 

[Almost there]

OK. Good to know. The motivation for the Piltdown hoax is still debated. It seems reasonably certain that it was not part of a cynical attempt to support evolutionary theory. (Although it was probably a cynical attempt of some kind.)

I have an unanswered post of yours to respond to. It is not forgotten, but I'm finding your comments in it difficult to make sense of. If I need clarification I shall ask.

Don't take any of my comments here too seriously. I'm here for fun, not to resolve the issue.

 

[redleghunter]

The point is, it is not the science doing the denying. Nothing that scince has discovered, or could potentially discover, can disprove God's authorship of the universe.

I agree however, our atheist friends don't and use 'science' to say God does not exist. All for fallacious reasons of course.

They take the materialism approach (mostly) that our origins have to come from what we can only observe---nature (as if such is deified) or what 'nature' has left for us to discover.

When as Christians, we know "In the beginning (time) God (Creator) created the Heavens (space) and the earth (matter).

 

[redleghunter]

False dichotomy. "Something" may always have been in existence that was not an uncreated Creator.

Which this 'something' would be what exactly?

A Creator may have "appeared" and subsequently set about creating. Life in the universe may have evolved to a point it had the power to go back to the beginning and "start the ball rolling". Possible? Who knows, but narrowing your options down to two is precipitate.

Appeared out of where?

 

[redleghunter]

That we were created by God.

Agree

Do you really believe that if the Discovery Institute is wrong that the only other possibility is that we came into existence by chance?

Absolutely not.

The Nicene Creed.

Thanks. Was wondering if that or if you were paraphrasing from the original.

Colossians 1: NKJV
13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.