Why almost all coal was made during the same period

[Ivan Hlavanda]

Because of the physical properties they exhibit.

Who gave them the physical properties? Why would they have physical properties?
Why do you trust your brain on this if everything is just random?

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

Yes it can.

We see no examples of that today. We can't observe it, we can't repeat it. Evolutionist cannot explain the problem of chirality. The odds for 250 parts coming together is two times 10 raised to the 476th power. That's going to be a two with 476 zeros following after it. That's the odds for the first cell to come into existence on it's own!

 

[Larniavc]

That's the odds for the first cell to come into existence on it's own!

No it isn't you made that up.

 

[Larniavc]

Why do you trust your brain on this if everything is just random?

It's not random. I dunno why you keep saying that.

 

[Larniavc]

Evolutionist cannot explain the problem of chirality.

In your own words what is the issue with chirality that is not explained by circularly polarised radiation?

 

[Pommer]

I don't have problem with evolution as long as there is a Creator who created everything and is driving the forces of evolution. If you however want to argue on evolution without a Creator then there is a problem, because something cannot come from nothing.
If evolution is change over time ,ok, if evolution is adaptation over time, ok, but evolution without an intelligent Creator behind it is simply nonsense.

Even if evolution is true, it requires God. Because you need a universe in order to have biological evolution, and you need the laws of nature to be what they are to drive evolution and that requires a mind to keep them going in a direction. You cannot have this happening just spontaneously out of nothing.

The only “thing” that we know drives life on the Earth is that bright thing that moves across the sky each day.

 

[AV1611VET]

The only “thing” that we know drives life on the Earth is that bright thing that moves across the sky each day.

Sol?

 

[Pommer]

Sol?

I prefer S*l, lest we take the L*RD’s name in vain. /s

 

[Hans Blaster]

Who gave them the physical properties?

That's a malformed question. There is no reason to suppose a "who".

Why would they have physical properties?

Also a misformed question? "Why" implies intent. There is not reason to suppose intent

Why do you trust your brain on this if everything is just random?

Everything isn't "just random" and our brains are all that we have to trust. Everything we perceive goes via our brains. The trick is to reason out rules that allow us to detect self-deception.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't have problem with evolution as long as there is a Creator who created everything and is driving the forces of evolution. If you however want to argue on evolution without a Creator then there is a problem, because something cannot come from nothing.
If evolution is change over time ,ok, if evolution is adaptation over time, ok, but evolution without an intelligent Creator behind it is simply nonsense.

That's the distinction between faith-based ideas and evidence-basied facts.

Belief that God is the driving force and Creative Agent and Source behind the material universe and its natural phenomenon is a position of faith.

There are scientists who believe this.
And there are scientists who don't believe this.

But both scientists are working with the same facts, the same data, and doing the same science.

Science does not lead us to faith. That isn't a defect of science. There are lots of things--in fact, most things--don't lead us to faith. From a Christian faith-based view that isn't a problem, in fact, that's what we expect.

That's because traditional, historic Christian teaching holds that faith comes not by reason, but by supernatural grace. We can find this throughout the Epistle to the Romans for example, from the first chapter where Paul says that in spite of God's power on display throughout the created world, people don't acknowledge and recognize God--but instead do their own thing. Paul is more explicit in Romans 10, "How can they call on Him whom they have not heard? How can they hear if no one is sent to preach? ... So faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word".

Expecting science to address or incorporate religious teaching and claims of religious faith would be to do science wrongly. It would result in pseudo-science, because science is a particular discipline with a particular methodology: Science relies on a naturalistic methodology, as it addresses naturalistic phenomena of the observable world.

Shoe-horning religion into science would not only break science, it inevitably hurts religion as well.

This is why pseudo-science is not only a problem for science, it's also a problem for people of faith.

Even if evolution is true, it requires God. Because you need a universe in order to have biological evolution, and you need the laws of nature to be what they are to drive evolution and that requires a mind to keep them going in a direction. You cannot have this happening just spontaneously out of nothing.

And that's a religious or philosophical argument. But not a scientific one.

Theology is theology.
Science is science.

If someone tried to insist that that automobiles with internal combustion engines don't make any sense without God involved would not provide any deeper insight into how the internal combustion engine works.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Bradskii]

If someone tried to insist that that automobiles with internal combustion engines don't make any sense without God involved would not provide any deeper insight into how the internal combustion engine works.

This I like.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

Science does not lead us to faith. That isn't a defect of science. There are lots of things--in fact, most things--don't lead us to faith. From a Christian faith-based view that isn't a problem, in fact, that's what we expect.

Christian faith isn't blind faith. We believe the Bible. Why? Because Bible is a witness account book. Many men over millenia testify of speaking to God, for exmaple Abraham, Jacob, Moses and many others in Old Testament.

Then in New Testament, there are hundreds of witnesses about Jesus and His ressuraction. Of course the argument is how can we trust that. We look at the lifes of those who testified. The diciples of Jesus were scared and afraid to lose life even though they were with Jesus and saw His miracles and they denied Him countless times, but after they claim they saw resurrected Jesus, all of the sudden they do not deny Him and spread the news of ressuraction even when they threaten them with life, they are beaten agai and again. Why would they change so radically and suddenly unless they saw ressuracted Jesus.

The Old Testament, book which was wrote hundreds of years ago, prophesised about Jesus in perfect detail. The book of Daniel was written in the 6th century BC, and yet it perfectly predicted the kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. And many other countless facts about the Bible which came to be true.

Because evidence od God is Jesus Christ Himself. God said none is righteous, not even one, we are all guilty of sin, yet God sent His Son to die for us sinners. He took the punishment for all the sin. He never sinned yet He suffered and died in place of a believer. Such love is not human.

So no, our faith is not blind.

Shoe-horning religion into science would not only break science, it inevitably hurts religion as well.

I see no reason why to chose God or science.

If someone tried to insist that that automobiles with internal combustion engines don't make any sense without God involved would not provide any deeper insight into how the internal combustion engine works.

But combistion engines don't create themselves. Or should we just wait long enough?

 

[Larniavc]

But combistion engines don't create themselves. Or should we just wait long enough?

That’s because they are artificial. Non artificial things like organisms don’t need to be designed.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Christian faith isn't blind faith. We believe the Bible. Why? Because Bible is a witness account book. Many men over millenia testify of speaking to God, for exmaple Abraham, Jacob, Moses and many others in Old Testament.

Then in New Testament, there are hundreds of witnesses about Jesus and His ressuraction. Of course the argument is how can we trust that. We look at the lifes of those who testified. The diciples of Jesus were scared and afraid to lose life even though they were with Jesus and saw His miracles and they denied Him countless times, but after they claim they saw resurrected Jesus, all of the sudden they do not deny Him and spread the news of ressuraction even when they threaten them with life, they are beaten agai and again. Why would they change so radically and suddenly unless they saw ressuracted Jesus.

The Old Testament, book which was wrote hundreds of years ago, prophesised about Jesus in perfect detail. The book of Daniel was written in the 6th century BC, and yet it perfectly predicted the kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. And many other countless facts about the Bible which came to be true.

Because evidence od God is Jesus Christ Himself. God said none is righteous, not even one, we are all guilty of sin, yet God sent His Son to die for us sinners. He took the punishment for all the sin. He never sinned yet He suffered and died in place of a believer. Such love is not human.

So no, our faith is not blind.

I'm not talking about blind faith. I'm talking about faith--which is the power, work, and gift of God from outside of ourselves. Reason, evidence, and even personal experience can't create faith--they may serve and benefit faith, but they cannot create it.

I see no reason why to chose God or science.

You mean to choose one or the other as though they are mutually exclusive? Me neither. Which is why I'm both religious and fully embrace science as science.

But good science and good theology involve recognizing which is which. Any intersectionality between science and theology requires a good and healthy understanding of both.

But combistion engines don't create themselves. Or should we just wait long enough?

That is certainly a difference between non-living, non-replicating things like car engines and living, replicating things like life.

But positing that God is behind evolution remains a theological/philosophical assertion, not a scientific one. Science cannot speak of the invisible and hidden providence of God in the created universe because that's simply not the purview of science. So to make that position is not a scientific one, it is a theological and/or philosophical one.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

That’s because they are artificial. Non artificial things like organisms don’t need to be designed.

Yes they do.

We are going in circles here.

Lastly, if you found out Christianity was true, would you be a Christian? If yes, then gospel is the most beautiful message in the world, that God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

Any intersectionality between science and theology requires a good and healthy understanding of both.

We don't need to understand both. We don't have to understand science to believe there is a God.

But positing that God is behind evolution remains a theological/philosophical assertion, not a scientific one. Science cannot speak of the invisible and hidden providence of God in the created universe because that's simply not the purview of science. So to make that position is not a scientific one, it is a theological and/or philosophical one.

God is behind every force in the universe since He is the Creator of everything, and nothing happens unless He wills it. So if there is an evolution it is only because God is driving the evolution. God created science. I don't understand what you aiming at.

 

[Astrophile]

Yes they do.

We are going in circles here.

Lastly, if you found out Christianity was true, would you be a Christian? If yes, then gospel is the most beautiful message in the world, that God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The beautiful message of the gospel also says that we must cut off our hands and feet and pluck out our eyes rather than risk being thrown into hell, where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched (Mark 9:43-48). It also says (Luke 14:26) that if anybody does not hate his father and his mother, his wife and his children, and his brothers and sisters, he cannot be a disciple of Jesus (and will presumably be punished by being thrown into hell).

What has this got to do with the formation of coal?

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

What has this got to do with the formation of coal?

Nothing. I was asking that question Larnievc who I had the discussion on coal and other things. Its up to him whether he will read it, think about it, answer it.

that if anybody does not hate his father and his mother, his wife and his children, and his brothers and sisters, he cannot be a disciple of Jesus (and will presumably be punished by being thrown into hell).

This passage says that you should hate if you love your mother, child or anyone else more than God, you should hate that. God commands to love your parents so if something seems to contradict, we must study it as God cannot contradict Himself. And if someone wants to study the Bible, they must look at the literature, grammar, the language, the people of that time etc.
Why should we hate it that we love someone more than God? Because God comes first, and if you love someone more than God, you are saying they are greater that God, they are more worthy, and that is sin. Just because we love God, does not mean you will love other less, on the contrary, your love for every human being on Earth will increase.

we must cut off our hands and feet and pluck out our eyes rather than risk being thrown into hell,

This is not literal, as cutting our physical limbs will do nothing as the sin comes from the heart. Bible teaches about preserving life, and that includes not hurting one self. So what Jesus means is that sin is deadly and it takes people to hell, and we should cut off sin drastically. Like if you meet a deadly snake, you don't play with it. Cutting of limbs will do nothing as I said, because all sin, even desire to sin, comes from the heart.

 

[AV1611VET]

The beautiful message of the gospel also says that we must cut off our hands and feet and pluck out our eyes rather than risk being thrown into hell,

Obviously a figure of speech.

 

[Larniavc]

Yes they do.

We are going in circles here.

Lastly, if you found out Christianity was true, would you be a Christian? If yes, then gospel is the most beautiful message in the world, that God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Please show how loving things are designed. Is a nucleotide designed? If so how can you tell?