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.
So have you become a Native American creationist (spirits, white buffalos, manatou, etc.), or do you recognise that a mix of oral history and legends isn't a reliable way of examining the past?The native Americans have story tellers who memorize the histories they tell. Such an historical narrative is considered to be more accurate then a written account in cultures that maintain them.
That wasn't my point, the point was the oral tradition is considered more accurate then written histories.So have you become a Native American creationist (spirits, white buffalos, manatou, etc.), or do you recognise that a mix of oral history and legends isn't a reliable way of examining the past?
No. We don't even know what the state of His knowledge was generally, with respect to the omniscience of God the Father, although He made it clear that He didn't know everything. As a man of His time, He may well have believed the Genesis stories were in some sense historical. On the other hand, figurative interpretations of Genesis have been entertained by some for as long as the book has been in existence, so we just can't know. What we do know is that the specific interpretive doctrines of the creationists, Sola Scriptura, literal inerrancy, perspicuity and self-interpretability are all Protestant novelties unknown in the time of Christ.In your opinion, is there any way to verify what His thoughts were?
But not in any way reliable... so?That wasn't my point, the point was the oral tradition is considered more accurate then written histories.
I think you are failing to note the word “alone” that I generally try to follow the words “evolution” and “biology” with in my comments, meaning I do not subscribe to the notion that they “alone” are the answer to why we are here. I do not deny some form of evolution or variation is part of that process, but it still puzzles me that anyone would consider such a means to have come about on its own without God, and the mysteries by which He accomplishes things.
That's your opinion, which is beside the point.But not in any way reliable... so?
The thought never occurred to me, call it what you will, God acting in time and space to create life is essential doctrine. After that science is fine and of course, evolution starts there. This isn't about biological adaptive evolution, no one who seriously thinking about the issues has a real problem with that. This is about the point of origin and thus, beyond the reach of natural science. To get into the core questions of our origins you have to go beyond that methodology of science, not stand against it.In my opinion ( and all religious beliefs are opinions because we really have no way of confirming any religious beliefs) God created using natural methods and we’re unable to figure out His/Her fingerprints . Since we can’t find the evidence that God did anything I have no problem whatsoever leaving it out of science. Now I do believe that God did create everything but adding a religious belief (or any other manic juju) to science is saying that you’ll shoehorn a untestable hypothesis into valid research just because. It makes no sense to do that .
Perhaps so, but the notion that He must have done so using naturalistic forces as understood by science, or did so instead of using naturalistic forces, is not.God acting in time and space to create life is essential doctrine.
Which the methodological naturalism of science does not do.Assuming exclusively naturalistic causes...
Ok the Big Bang doesn't bother me, God spoke and BANG!, there is was. As far as the Miller-Urey experiments the came up with some very crude amino acid sequences that were random, scattered and not connected to anything remotely resembling life.The Big Bang has been confirmed by physicists and so has inflation. This isn’t my field so... As far as life starting from chemicals there has been enough evidence in the decades since miller Urey to support that as well . Jack Szostak has been doing a lot of work on this and I’m seeing new research about it almost every month . There’s still no evidence for creationism
Will we ever get it done? I suspect that if we ever do, life will appear to have come about by exclusively natural causes--just like every other natural phenomenon we have investigated. You're looking for God's greasy fingerprints on His work. You won't find them.Ok the Big Bang doesn't bother me, God spoke and BANG!, there is was. As far as the Miller-Urey experiments the came up with some very crude amino acid sequences that were random, scattered and not connected to anything remotely resembling life.
"The key thing," Szostak says, "is to get started: to go from zero genes to one gene." This moment of "getting started" is the focus of Szostak's research: to discover the first "living chemistry", or, as Szostak puts it, "that transition from chemistry to biology": when a clump of molecules first became a living thing. (Biochemist Jack Szostak's Search for the First Cell, 2012. Harvard)How close are we? Genetic material is missing, perhaps RNA. They claim progress in 2012, he claims in a few years he is optimistic that they will get the recapitulation of the origin of life. Question, did he get it done?
You just made it clear that you don't find it reliable.That's your opinion, which is beside the point.
I don't really care what the method of communication is, I take truth where I find it. I'm not opposed to science, or oral tradition for that matter. First and foremost I know what they are and I can come to a conclusion based on what they communicate when I encounter it.You just made it clear that you don't find it reliable.
You accept science when you don't disagree with its results.
You accept oral traditions when you don't disagree with the results.
Maybe it's not the systems that are relevant to you, just that it gives you the result you want.
so according to this logic: a grain of sand+another one+ another one+billions times the same we will get this?:
image from FIESA Sand Sculpture Festival 2018 - Pêra, Algarve - Portugal Confidential
Ok the Big Bang doesn't bother me, God spoke and BANG!, there is was. As far as the Miller-Urey experiments the came up with some very crude amino acid sequences that were random, scattered and not connected to anything remotely resembling life.
"The key thing," Szostak says, "is to get started: to go from zero genes to one gene." This moment of "getting started" is the focus of Szostak's research: to discover the first "living chemistry", or, as Szostak puts it, "that transition from chemistry to biology": when a clump of molecules first became a living thing. (Biochemist Jack Szostak's Search for the First Cell, 2012. Harvard)How close are we? Genetic material is missing, perhaps RNA. They claim progress in 2012, he claims in a few years he is optimistic that they will get the recapitulation of the origin of life. Question, did he get it done?
I don't really care what the method of communication is, I take truth where I find it.
I'm not opposed to science, or oral tradition for that matter.
First and foremost I know what they are and I can come to a conclusion based on what they communicate when I encounter it.
I think you are failing to note the word “alone” that I generally try to follow the words “evolution” and “biology” with in my comments, meaning I do not subscribe to the notion that they “alone” are the answer to why we are here.
I do not deny some form of evolution or variation is part of that process, but it still puzzles me that anyone would consider such a means to have come about on its own without God, and the mysteries by which He accomplishes things.
How close are we? Genetic material is missing, perhaps RNA. They claim progress in 2012, he claims in a few years he is optimistic that they will get the recapitulation of the origin of life. Question, did he get it done?
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?