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.
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.Such a debate would be based on a false dichotomy. Naturalistic abiogenesis and universal common descent does not rule out a creator god.
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.The conflict comes from those who see the Bible as a history and science book.
Which they are not doing qua science.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.
I don't see ID as science at all.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
So why were you berating those who "simply refuse to even entertain the possibility that we were designed.?"I don't see ID as science at all.
Who is 'they.' Because there are all sorts of 'they' who deny an uncreated Creator 'because of' the science.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.
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.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.
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.Who is 'they.' Because there are all sorts of 'they' who deny an uncreated Creator 'because of' the science.
Debatable. But only debatable with those who consider all the evidence and not impeach what they want.Irrelevant to mention people that left behind no evidence of their existence whatsoever.
Why would they?All in all, science does not deny the existence of G-d.
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?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?
The Nicene Creed.Said where exactly?
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.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.
Or maybe I'm just thinking of specific details that remind me of it.Really? It sounds as if you are unfamiliar with the details of that particular hoax.
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.)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.
Don't take any of my comments here too seriously. I'm here for fun, not to resolve the issue.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.
I agree however, our atheist friends don't and use 'science' to say God does not exist. All for fallacious reasons of course.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.
Which this 'something' would be what exactly?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.
AgreeThat we were created by God.
Absolutely not.Do you really believe that if the Discovery Institute is wrong that the only other possibility is that we came into existence by chance?
The Nicene Creed.
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?