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.
No, that question has not been asked in this forum; this was the question you asked:The question was "can you believe in God and not grow confused about who God is in the process?"
What is more irrational: listening to something you can't see, or being the thing you can't understand?
No, that question has not been asked in this forum; this was the question you asked:
Try again.
Since I believe in neither God nor sin (except as conceptual abstractions), I don't find myself ensnared by them.Listening to something you can't see, is what we do when we sin; being something we can't understand, is what we do when we try to be God.
When I said "can you believe in God and not grow confused about who God is in the process?" I was putting the chasm between sin and God in sharp focus.
If you confess your sin and trust God, you are not snared by these things.
I don't believe in literal perfection either, so your proposed questions are just dull theological abstractions.The point being when we try to reach perfection without God, we can't do it (I said there was a relationship between the rationality of one and the rationality of the other, because without confession you can't be rational about either and therefore you can't perfect "either")
This is not meant to confuse you, but rather to bring into focus: what is it, that I am trying to perfect? Am I trying to perfect sin? Or am I trying to perfect Godlessness? (they are not the same thing)
And that is why there are humans, and there are still apes.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean the first species to have some cells specialized for more light more sensitivity than the rest of the cells in its body? More sensitive to sound?
It would be hard to tell when a species began to develop a concentrated area of peristalsis in its circulatory system to the degree that you could call it a "heart."
The clock, because it shows evidence of intentional human manufacture--tool marks, mold lines, the use of non-natural or refined materials, etc.--from which intentional human design may be inferred. If those evidences are absent then design may be present but there is no basis for an inference. I would have no way of concluding whether the wood was designed or not.
That is not a basis for assuming God, or any other supernatural being. Those principles have also been shown to be tenuous, if not actually false.
As I said last time - yeah, no.
Please don't use your misunderstandings of physics to "challenge" evolution. Quantum mechanics doesn't "say" any such thing about people (and has absolutely no relevance to legal proceedings). I could try to explain why the relative motion of two points on the Earth at no more than a few cm per year isn't going to invoke any "simultaneity" issues, but it wouldn't be useful.
None of this impacts evolution, including the evolution of apes.
Evolution, and the evidence for it, aren't dependent on these sorts of metaphysical arguments. Period. This is veering far from ape evolution and into forbidden apologetics.
How did snakes develop those glands, fangs, mechanisms, and "cocktails of venom" that work together to kill their prey, but don't kill the snake itself? Simple. There were a whole "cocktail" of different mutations spread out over many years.
Oh, you found a quote? I suppose you would like us to be impressed, huh?
Were you aware that science is based on finding evidence, not on mining quotes?
Non sequitur.
Even if you were to demonstrate that God was the cause of the first life form--which you have not yet done--that would not prove that all future life forms were caused by the same God.
Why cannot mutation and natural selection be the cause of the origin of species?
Ah, your reference to "the Fall" was a dog whistle for Bible thumpers? You yourself don't actually believe there was an Adam and Eve who were created from scratch several thousand years ago that fell when they ate an apple they were told not to eat?
There can be. It depends on what the tenets of the accompanying religion are.
Then there is insufficient evidence to accept any claim of their existence.
Evolutionary origin of venom is still up for debate, but the prevailing hypothesis is that venom was the result of mutations to existing salivary ducts. Like a lot of things in evolution, it was most likely a modification/re-purposing of existing biological structure.
And again, your personal incredulity or the ability of biology to explain a particular aspect of evolutionary history does nothing to actually invalidate the ToE.
Replied to soon, huh?
This is what you missed in my previous post (#653) in italics.
-------------
Quantum mechanics says a person could be present at different places at the same time but "alibi" is still valid in judicial courts. Theory of Relativity says there is no absolute simultaneity but we know Homo Sapience arrived after Apes, correct?
Let us stick to the classical understanding - an object cannot escape a universal cause unless it is acted upon by an external agent so, the order in the diversification of life posits (pre) design because it is the disorder that increases with time.
---------------------
I don't deny (theistic) Evolution, certainly based on Quantum mechanics or Relativity.
I believe Adam and Eve were the first Christians; first humans were created long before Adam and Eve , in Gen 1:27. In order to keep this thread on the intended context, I respectfully decline to discuss this any further.
For most part of Earth's existence, Moon's gravitational field caused frequent tsunami's.
Not being a Christian this isn't my position to defend.@Shemjaza @FrumiousBandersnatch
Many Christians are comfortable with Theistic Evolution. What I am trying to prove is that there is Intelligent Design behind the origin and diversification of life.
The quote was from a link pasted by "Gene2memE" #634.
I do believe in Science and I know we are not living in Alice's Wonderland. That's why I am having hard time agreeing with (some) Evolutionists that environmental changes like fire, thunderstorm, flood, "survival of the fittest" etc. transformed mud (inorganic matter) to Amino acids and diversified it into thousands of millions of complex species !!
Let me give this another try.
a) Primitive life surviving the hostile environment of early Earth and progressing to higher form implies the involvement of an intelligent mind.
Across the range of life there's more then just asexual reproduction and sexual reproduction with two sexes. There are also species who sexually reproduce, but are all effectively both sexes. There are species who reproduce in different ways in different circumstances.b) The primitive bacteria, presumably unisex, split into complex male and female species with the instinct to live together and multiply shows the involvement of an intelligent mind.
c) Physical beings having metaphysical properties like life, instinct to protect their children, consciousness, free will etc. of humans shows the involvement of an intelligent mind.
if you are still not convinced, out of curiosity, what would it take you to believe Intelligent Design? If there is nothing - even in theory - that can convince you about the the involvement of an intelligent mind, I am not going to waste anyone's time.
Simple life is far hardier then complicated life.From #628
Origin of life is arguably the most complex event known to humans. It is so complex that some scholars believe the early forms of life like Amino acids or Protein molecule came from outer space. The life originated at the time when Earth was hostile to living forms, with harmful radiations, devastating tornadoes, earthquakes etc. For most part of Earth's existence, Moon's gravitational field caused frequent tsunami's. Yet, the primitive life not only thrived but it advanced to more complex forms. Doesn't this prove the involvement of an intelligent mind?
From #653
..an object cannot escape a universal cause unless it is acted upon by an external agent so, the order in the diversification of life posits (pre) design because it is the disorder that increases with time.
What are you talking about? Scientific formulae are not based on infinities, cause/effect or any of the metaphysical ideas you claim. And yes, I am sure I want to call some of them tenuous - you do know, for instance, that causality has been violated?The principles we are talking about are the ones upon which Science is based on - we cannot establish any Scientific formulae in Alice's Wonderland, correct? You sure you want to call the principles "tenous" ?
What metaphysical object interacted with the grass outside my window to make it green?Why would someone disagree with a deductive conclusion?
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?