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.
Then why is it said that before you can believe in God you must first believe in God?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.
How can you trust something you don't even know is there? you must believe God is there before you can trust God.You can not trust someone without knowing them. You can not know them fully until your trust in them has been confirmed.
Likewise. I will say you're much easier to talk to than pretty much every other creationist on this forum.
I think the fault lies with the people who fell for the lies first, the rest just followed the leader.
I am not allowed to show you the evidence on this forum.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.
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.
How can you trust something you don't even know is there? you must believe God is there before you can trust God.
I am not allowed to show you the evidence on this forum.
How did you know that certain things can not be discussed on this forum? do you know there are taboo subjects?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?
I thought you might at least ask why I can not show you why,Was it perhaps to make false representations on my position, knowing that I would not be able to actually defend them?
I have nothing to be dishonest about, you are the one doing the defending.Dishonesty comes in many forms.
Evolution happened Loudmouth.
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.
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.
The evidence for that?
So you disagree with those secular scientists who claim it does appear to be designed just as if life was expected?
There is no evidence of a universal common ancestor, you are changing the goal post here.
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.
How would the laws of logic arise in a material universe?
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
There is no reason to believe that a universe created by God would be irrational or inconsistent in its behavior,
Why would genetic markers eliminate Common Design?
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?
Could you expand on this?
Why does common design necessitate a nested hierarchy?
The human intellect evolved to understand a rational, logical, and mathematical universe. The universe came first, not the mind.
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.
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.
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.
I don't know.
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.
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?