• 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.

Why ... (2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kellyvee

Guest
In Christianity, one must begin with a relationship with God first. I don't know of anyone that claims a relationship with God would also claim that they had faith in God first. Faith and trust are almost synonymous in the Christian's life.
Then why is it said that before you can believe in God you must first believe in God?
You must have faith that a God is there before you can believe in a God.
You can not trust someone without knowing them. You can not know them fully until your trust in them has been confirmed.
How can you trust something you don't even know is there? you must believe God is there before you can trust God.
This is where the children come in.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Likewise. I will say you're much easier to talk to than pretty much every other creationist on this forum.

Thank you. Agreement may not always be an option, but respect and human dignity always are and I hope to continue to receive and give that in our conversations. :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0
K

Kellyvee

Guest
I think the fault lies with the people who fell for the lies first, the rest just followed the leader.

I think that for a discussion to commence on this subject, it would be best to put it in the correct forum. You made a pretty direct accusation of dishonesty among a certain set of people. I hope you have evidence for such a claim.
I am not allowed to show you the evidence on this forum.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Then why is it said that before you can believe in God you must first believe in God?
You must have faith that a God is there before you can believe in a God.

Where is it said?

How can you trust something you don't even know is there? you must believe God is there before you can trust God.

You know HE is there. You may start with a belief that He might be there. Something happens in your life that makes you wonder or you question whether or not it might be true. However, you are not going to just claim you trust God without a reason behind it. To have God reveal Himself to you is in my opinion the only way someone begins to trust God and to have faith.



This is where the children come in.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I am not allowed to show you the evidence on this forum.

So why did you knowing full well that this is not a discussion that can take place in this forum, pipe in and make such a bold and sweeping comment? Was it perhaps to make false representations on my position, knowing that I would not be able to actually defend them? Dishonesty comes in many forms.
 
Upvote 0
K

Kellyvee

Guest
So why did you knowing full well that this is not a discussion that can take place in this forum pipe in and make such a bold and sweeping comment?
How did you know that certain things can not be discussed on this forum? do you know there are taboo subjects?
Was it perhaps to make false representations on my position, knowing that I would not be able to actually defend them?
I thought you might at least ask why I can not show you why,
saying that I think you already know why I can not show you why,
you also know I did not make a false representations on your position and your statement should read
'knowing that I would not be 'allowed' to actually defend them'.
Dishonesty comes in many forms.
I have nothing to be dishonest about, you are the one doing the defending.
I don't pray to or worship evolution.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
Evolution happened Loudmouth.

Did the separate creation of kinds happen?

It is happening now. You are looking back into creation. Obviously, mankind has put its twist on it. You claim that God wouldn't do it this way, but obviously if He exists which we claim, you are seeing the past through your worldview's presuppositions and see the two as something separate but they aren't.

Why would God create separate kinds so that they reflect an evolutionary history that never occurred?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
1. Separate species
2. Kinds

spe·cies

[spee-sheez, -seez] Show IPA noun, plural spe·cies, adjective
noun 1. a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind.

2. Biology . the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.



However, species definition is considered difficult in the scientific world.

I said what kinds "could" be.

Species should be hard to define if evolution is true since species are always changing, and speciation happens over several generations. For living species, we define speciation by gene flow in sexual organisms. Of course, there are a whole host of species in the act of speciation with different levels of gene flow between the populations.

However, you are talking about kinds which are groups that did not evolve from a common ancestor, so kinds should not present the problems that speciation does.


No, I said that they could be Kingdoms, or phylum or species. We don't know what God meant by the word kind. There was obviously a reason that HE pointed out the creatures were after their kind.

So why not a single kind that all life evolved from?

What you don't understand is that you are very willing to accept what you don't know as long as it is within a materialistic worldview.

Baloney. I always ask for evidence.

See, you rest on presuppositions that will allow for unknowns in your worldview as long as they are in keeping with your core beliefs. You don't need evidence for a universal common ancestor, or the actual evolutionary path that lead to one thing or another or to know if life came from non-living materials. You will not bend to the possibility of anything else.

I HAVE EVIDENCE FOR UNIVERSAL COMMON DESCENT. That's the whole point.

None of my beliefs require a single line of descent. I would be just fine with several origins of life. I just follow the evidence, and if the evidence indicated multiple origins of life that is what I would accept.

You keep projecting your own close-mindedness onto me. That is a big mistake.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
The evidence for that?

Forces affect the material world and are amenable to scientific testing.

So you disagree with those secular scientists who claim it does appear to be designed just as if life was expected?

I agree with the secular scientists that the designs are due to natural processes.

There is no evidence of a universal common ancestor, you are changing the goal post here.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,466
4,001
47
✟1,120,935.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
I always find it interesting to watch as unbelievers try so hard to make believers into these little caricatures of human beings. I have seen some ranting incoherent evolutionists that would make the craziest fundamentalist look like Einstein.

I appologise, it was not my intent to be insulting.

I was trying to be silly and to describe a situation where a relationship didn't invalidate the need for faith.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
How would the laws of logic arise in a material universe?

Only in a material universe can you have true and false. In an immaterial universe anything can be true and anything can be false. Logic is merely the process of something being true or false, so a material world is, by definition, logical.

Every scientist that claims that there is a universal common ancestor. Every scientist that claims an evolutionary pathway that is not reflected in the fossil evidence. There is no evidence that can be tested or observed for a known plant or animal in transition past the species level in millions of years.

What evidence would you accept? What shared genetic markers would you accept as evidence of common ancestry? What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as a transition between species? Let's use humans. What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as transitional between humans and a common ancestor with chimps?
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We do have a right to our opinions, but, in the case, mine doesn't agree with yours. The real problem (from your perspective) is that the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming.

There is evidence for evolution. I don't deny that. However, it is not a problem from my perspective. ToE as defined is absolutely shown to be factual. The fact that evidence for it is so overwhelming is that ToE has taken hold of the mindset of all areas of study. In my view, the common design of all living things, is just what would be expected of a Creator.

There is just so much evidence across a wide range of science disciplines and independent lines of inquiry. It's actually rather remarkable. Now, it's not alone; there are other entrenched theories like the theory of gravity, etc. And I don't think that that is as much a reflection on the scientific psyche as it is a reflection on the strength of the theories themselves.

What is remarkable to me, is that when making theories and researching all the elements a hypothesis requires, the very foundation in which this endeavor is built upon is basically ignored. The question which must be asked (and science will not or can not address) is how is any scientific endeavor possible without the constants of the universe at its base? If it is true that the universe is just an event without purpose or intelligence, why is it so perfectly reflected in a mathematical way? How does a non-intelligent random universe reflect the human intellect?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
The fact that evidence for it is so overwhelming is that ToE has taken hold of the mindset of all areas of study.

Could you expand on this?

In my view, the common design of all living things, is just what would be expected of a Creator.

Why does common design necessitate a nested hierarchy?

What is remarkable to me, is that when making theories and researching all the elements a hypothesis requires, the very foundation in which this endeavor is built upon is basically ignored. The question which must be asked (and science will not or can not address) is how is any scientific endeavor possible without the constants of the universe at its base? If it is true that the universe is just an event without purpose or intelligence, why is it so perfectly reflected in a mathematical way? How does a non-intelligent random universe reflect the human intellect?

The human intellect evolved to understand a rational, logical, and mathematical universe. The universe came first, not the mind.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Only in a material universe can you have true and false. In an immaterial universe anything can be true and anything can be false. Logic is merely the process of something being true or false, so a material world is, by definition, logical.

How does a material universe necessitate true and false? If the universe is a random, non-intelligent entity one could imagine a universe that was disorderly and chaotic. One could imagine that a universe without intelligence as a factor to be unintelligible. There would be no reason to believe it would have a constant mathematical behavior that could be reflected in mathematical equations.

I have not claimed the universe is immaterial. So claiming that an immaterial universe would do anything is immaterial. ;) pun intended.
It is not the universe being immaterial but the forces that govern it.

There is no reason to believe that a universe created by God would be irrational or inconsistent in its behavior, the opposite would be true. If God (the Christian God) exists as I and others claim, the universe would contain logic and intelligence as intelligence comes from intelligence. It is a consistent element in the Christian worldview.


What evidence would you accept? What shared genetic markers would you accept as evidence of common ancestry?

Why would genetic markers eliminate Common Design?

What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as a transition between species? Let's use humans. What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as transitional between humans and a common ancestor with chimps?

Have you personally seen all the fossil evidence in existence today? Do you have the entire fossil evidence possible for all past history? Do you have evidence of transitional living organisms other than species to species evolution in our present time?
 
Upvote 0

StormanNorman

Newbie
Mar 5, 2013
619
3
✟23,295.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
There is evidence for evolution. I don't deny that. However, it is not a problem from my perspective. ToE as defined is absolutely shown to be factual.

There are those who state it as if it's factual, but, in reality, it's a theory .. a very strong theory, but a theory.

The fact that evidence for it is so overwhelming is that ToE has taken hold of the mindset of all areas of study. In my view, the common design of all living things, is just what would be expected of a Creator.

Maybe, but I'm assuming when you say Creator that you are not implying a tangible being like a human. If so, then that is pushing us into the supernatural realm which is outside the bounds of the scientific method.

What is remarkable to me, is that when making theories and researching all the elements a hypothesis requires, the very foundation in which this endeavor is built upon is basically ignored. The question which must be asked (and science will not or can not address) is how is any scientific endeavor possible without the constants of the universe at its base?

I believe that there is an assumption in science that the laws of nature are constant throughout time like, for example, the rate of decay of different isotopes is the same today as it was billions of years ago. Now, that's not just a hopeful guess as there are real reasons to assume that that is true.

If it is true that the universe is just an event without purpose or intelligence, why is it so perfectly reflected in a mathematical way? How does a non-intelligent random universe reflect the human intellect?

I don't know.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
How does a material universe necessitate true and false?

Either two particles collided or they didn't. One of those two things had to happen. Only one of them can be true.

In an immaterial universe a supernatural deity can decide that both happen at the same time if they so wish. Up and be down, black can be white . . . pretty much whatever the deity wishes at any given moment.

If the universe is a random, non-intelligent entity one could imagine a universe that was disorderly and chaotic. One could imagine that a universe without intelligence as a factor to be unintelligible. There would be no reason to believe it would have a constant mathematical behavior that could be reflected in mathematical equations.

There would be every reason that a material universe would have mathematical laws, and I have gone over it in several posts now. I don't see why repeating it again will get through your denial.

There is no reason to believe that a universe created by God would be irrational or inconsistent in its behavior,

So water suddenly turning into wine is not irrational or inconsistent? Man walking on water? Manna falling from the sky? A pillar of smoke to guide a people through the desert by the day, and a pillar of fire at night? I could go on if you like.

Why would genetic markers eliminate Common Design?

What shared genetic markers between species would you accept as evidence that they came about by evolution from a common ancestor instead of being separately created?

Have you personally seen all the fossil evidence in existence today? Do you have the entire fossil evidence possible for all past history? Do you have evidence of transitional living organisms other than species to species evolution in our present time?

Let me repeat.

What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as a transition between species? Let's use humans. What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as transitional between humans and a common ancestor with chimps?
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Could you expand on this?

Sure. Fields of study have originated to explain evolution. Genetic studies and Epigenetic studies are examples.



Why does common design necessitate a nested hierarchy?

Loudmouth a Nested Hierarchy is due to design. I've tried to explain this and it is difficult trying to say the same thing in numerous ways. We as humans discover elements of design whether that be in such simple elements as features to the similarities of strands of DNA. We discover them. We do not create them. We discovered that life forms through out history are related to one another by features or genetic make up and we organize these into a system which relates to the similarities of the organisms in the system. The fact that these organisms have evolved in the past creates a pattern in this history that can be shown to rest in a nested hierarchy. Materialists claim that this is due to a common ancestry beginning with a universal common ancestor. Christians who see that evolution does indeed happen can see that God designed the organisms to adapt and change.

Man has come along and discovered past designs. The design came first, mans descriptions and discoveries are evidence of that design. The nested hierarchy is what they have discovered about the design.


The human intellect evolved to understand a rational, logical, and mathematical universe. The universe came first, not the mind.

Mathematics did not come by man for if by man they come, the universe knew in advance they were coming. If mathematics came from the universe the universe must have known that man would evolve to understand in a rational, logical, mathematical way the universe in which it evolved.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There are those who state it as if it's factual, but, in reality, it's a theory .. a very strong theory, but a theory.

No, evolution as defined: Evolution (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. Has been shown to happen without a doubt. The other tenants of the theory are not so apparent and have not been shown to happen and remain theory.


Maybe, but I'm assuming when you say Creator that you are not implying a tangible being like a human. If so, then that is pushing us into the supernatural realm which is outside the bounds of the scientific method.

Correct in theory. However, we can use logic to determine what is consistent within a certain set of beliefs and that which is not and in doing so we must start with what lies outside of the scientific method to even use it. Logic can be tested with scientific methodology but logic itself is metaphysical in nature. So in reality we use the "supernatural" to initiate the process of scientific methodology.


I believe that there is an assumption in science that the laws of nature are constant throughout time like, for example, the rate of decay of different isotopes is the same today as it was billions of years ago. Now, that's not just a hopeful guess as there are real reasons to assume that that is true.

So there are real reasons that contribute to our assuming that the laws of nature are constant and that the assumption is probably true. We arrive at this conclusion by logic. Logic is not a material entity but a metaphysical one. Logic must be metaphysical or it becomes only relative or subjective in nature. We don't have real reasons to conclude anything if logic is a man made system of knowing.


I don't know.

Thank you for your honesty.
 
Upvote 0

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,795
✟236,977.00
Faith
Seeker
theory, but a theory.
No, evolution as defined: Evolution (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. Has been shown to happen without a doubt. The other tenants of the theory are not so apparent and have not been shown to happen and remain theory.

Such as what? What other tenants are there? Animals change over time, new species emerge, what else is there? What's missing?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.