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 no. What does "works through" even mean? Is God causing mutations. Causing selection?
Ambiguity + Ancient Allegory isn't exactly compelling.
Why no just skip the God part and say life is natural? Why the added complexity if a being that doesn't want you to wish you had your neighbors stereo?I suppose you could put it that way. I think it implies a physical intervention that I don't think is justified, but whatever. I think it is perfectly clear what I meant. God allowed life to develop through naturalistic means, as opposed to divine intervention.
The fact that you don't find it compelling doesn't really concern me. As a purely spiritual belief, it works just fine for me.
Why no just skip the God part and say life is natural? Why the added complexity if a being that doesn't want you to wish you had your neighbors stereo?
You're welcome to it. But calling it a "purely" spiritual believe isn't correct.
You're talking about a subject concerning reality.
The explanation for the diversity of species.
Your views on this matter are that supernatural elements coerce natural elements.
I was just trying to find what evidence you have of this. If you don't have any just say so.
This is a contrivance! You're cherrypicking to assemble a mosaic worldview that fits all of your facts. There is no Biblical support for anything remotely like this. You can't just invent new dogma.
Theistic evolution is vegetarian spaghetti with meatballs. Science can not include magical explanations. End of story. Period. Case Closed. Done. BAM.
My NIV says "Dust of the ground". Technically AV is correct. Genesis 2 doesn't say "Dirt".
The point is that science requires critical analysis. Religion holds itself immune to such things. This makes science and religion fundamentally inconsistent approaches to discerning what is real and what is not. Theistic Evolution fails to reconcile this inconsistency.
I wouldn't. You either survive the crash or you don't, there's no reason to think there's any intervention.
Would I also have to thank Him if I died in a car crash? Or would it be my next-of-kin's responsibility to thank Him for that?
Correct.Science now accepts "Souls" as part of physical reality?
It's not even clear to me that it does add an extra layer of complexity. Which is more complex, a self-existent, uncaused space-time filled with uncaused mass-energy obeying self-existent, uncaused physical laws, or a self-existent, uncaused creative agent? I haven't a clue how to evaluate that comparison, and I'm not even sure it means anything. This isn't an argument for the existence of God. It's just a reminder that at bottom science has no explanation for the universe either; fundamentally, we have no idea why any of it is here or behaves the way it does.Even as an atheist, I can't agree with desimusxvii on his idea that you can't rationally believe in theistic evolution. Now, desimus, if you mean that you can't take the Bible literally and believe in evolution at the same time, I would agree with you, but there is no reason to believe a deity who created this universe DOESN'T exist. Of course, there is no reason to believe one DOES exist, either - and that's why I'm an atheist - but I don't see any issue other than, as you pointed out, the fact that you add an extra, unnecessary layer of complexity.
What are you talking about? I've never used either "magic" or "poof".How refreshing to hear you guys stop calling it "magic" --- at least in this thread.
Now if he can just get you guys to stop saying, "poof".
It's not even clear to me that it does add an extra layer of complexity. Which is more complex, a self-existent, uncaused space-time filled with uncaused mass-energy obeying self-existent, uncaused physical laws, or a self-existent, uncaused creative agent?
It's not even clear to me that it does add an extra layer of complexity. Which is more complex, a self-existent, uncaused space-time filled with uncaused mass-energy obeying self-existent, uncaused physical laws, or a self-existent, uncaused creative agent? I haven't a clue how to evaluate that comparison, and I'm not even sure it means anything.
No reasonable person needs a reminder that our knowledge, senses, and sources are finite. And within our finite knowledge, it's pointless to add an extra layer of 'goddidit' when explaining ANYTHING. If you want to, be my guest. However, I just don't see what's gained from such act.This isn't an argument for the existence of God. It's just a reminder that at bottom science has no explanation for the universe either; fundamentally, we have no idea why any of it is here or behaves the way it does.
This is exactly my point! How can one reconcile being a scientist AND being religious. It's a wife-beating cop. There is no integrity in that. Either you hold the pursuit of knowledge to a certain standard or you believe in magic. Doing both is confusing and not constructive.
Theistic evolution is vegetarian spaghetti with meatballs. Science can not include magical explanations. End of story. Period. Case Closed. Done. BAM.
Umm, you might want to read up on Theistic Evolution. {snip}
You'd best not make assumptions. Who knows how my strategy will unfold.
I personally know religious people that are superb scientists.. at work. But when they get home they shed that persona and believe in magic. As I've said before, to me, this is like a policeman that enforces the law all day and then goes home and beats his wife. It's lacking in integrity. I'd be fine with religion if they'd let go of trying to explain how the world works, and stop trying to undermine science.
LOL.
Right. And there is no such thing as life.
That's absurd.there is 0 evidence of extra-terrestrials.
Is It Raining Aliens?
Mysterious red cells might be aliens
Red rain could prove that aliens have landed
That's absurd.
Is It Raining Aliens? | Popular Science
CNN.com - Mysterious red cells might be aliens - Jun 2, 2006
Red rain could prove that aliens have landed | Science | The Observer
"Personally, I'm absolutely convinced that extraterrestrial creatures have stopped on our planet because of the many traces they left behind." -- Viatscheslav Zaitsev, philologist, 1968
"Anyone who thinks that there is not enough evidence to prove the existence of UFOs, has simply not studied the evidence." -- David E. Twichell, author, 2001
I don't need peer-review because I have physical evidence.Peer-reviewed research citation proving this speculation or please just stop insisting that aliens exist.
...By either Von Daniken's approach or by Sitchin's...
Tom Van Flandern, astronomer, 1993
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?