|
Post by quest on May 15, 2019 9:10:57 GMT -5
I find this a curious phenomenon, hmmmm,
I can’t understand evolution , and evolutionists
can’t understand creation. Why is it ?
Hmmmm
😊 thank you
|
|
|
Post by Hmmmmm on May 15, 2019 10:22:23 GMT -5
I find this a curious phenomenon, hmmmm, I can’t understand evolution , and evolutionists can’t understand creation. Why is it ? Hmmmm 😊 thank you After reading it seem clear to me that the evolutionists posting here do understand the claims made by creation oriented people but reject the reasons given to support those claims. From your posts you do not understand evolution because, in a nut shell, you do not understand the theory of evolution.
|
|
|
Post by quest on May 15, 2019 11:34:23 GMT -5
I find this a curious phenomenon, hmmmm, I can’t understand evolution , and evolutionists can’t understand creation. Why is it ? Hmmmm 😊 thank you After reading it seem clear to me that the evolutionists posting here do understand the claims made by creation oriented people but reject the reasons given to support those claims. From your posts you do not understand evolution because, in a nut shell, you do not understand the theory of evolution. As well, i do likely think i do understand the “claims made by evolutionists “ . What scientists like Dr James Tour ( or me for that matter) do not understand is the “mechanism” that drives evolution theory? (Also given in a nutshell) PS: even the theoretical “mechanisms “ do not hold True in the long run. And thus i cannot accept the So called “mechanism” that would absolutely prove that Creation (and the creation of a cell with DNA) is anything short of a Very complex and irreducible ). ie : the cell needs to come fully created, and able to function under the guidance of a DNA that was programmed by its Creator to carry out the replications necessary for plant and animal life And in the particular order as to sustain that which was created to be so sustainable. Thank you for that great comment, my friend Hmmmm 😉
|
|
|
Post by quest on May 15, 2019 11:43:41 GMT -5
in order to have a logical “mechanism” that would drive the evolutionary theory,
we we need to “ditch that part about being ‘unguided , haphazard’ “
eh?
thanks
|
|
|
Post by quest on May 21, 2019 7:30:45 GMT -5
i like to believe that there is a truth to the
proposition that “all men/women are created ‘equal’ ” .
of course this certainly needs some creativity
to create a system that can encourage these
concepts, as we find people needing to be
enlightened and driven to work together for the “common good” of all people ..
What could this “common good” be identified
to be? A philosophical good, an altruistic good,
a good ‘goal’ , that the “goal of one” may be
the “goal of all”. Then we need some
outside structuring, such as is “unselfish” ,
to see the the ultimate beauty of “each tree, within the forest” - And the value each tree contributes
to the “goal”.
Hmmmm, the “common goal/good”. ( a university of good goals?)
thank you
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Feb 19, 2020 20:12:22 GMT -5
My logic is science which tells me there is no creator. Life started in a primordial soup and evolved. I admit I can't explain what life is or how the first spark of life came to be... yeah, I know all about those simple sugars, etc, but that tells me nothing I can wrap my head around. Life consumes, which is the best explanation of what defines life, but what life "is" is beyond my comprehension. Simply because I have no better explanation, doesn't leave me buying into a creator. What I believe has to make sense to me. A creator doesn't make sense, especially in light of all the questions I've had over the years that have never been answered to my satisfaction. I’m still trying to wrap my head around the comment in the OP that guest4 postulated that “the reason for creation was to show god/love”.. my brain, again hurts. That idea in itself cannot make any sense whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 20, 2020 13:00:20 GMT -5
I can buy into a random combination of proteins and sugars causing some kind of "lifelike" organism, but what I CANNOT fathom is the random creation of DNA. How do you feel about RNA? With either blueprint , there needs to be a link between RNA/DNA and the “building blocks” ie : would a RNA know ahead of ‘time?’ what elements could be available to be arranged , and whether they were able to self construct the compounds they Depend to self sustain , in order to die or Self propagate into another form could be ? And yet an intelligent oversight is the Logical solution as opposed to haphazard ness? RNA lives and dies but the intelligence to Create them is eternal imo
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 20, 2020 13:03:46 GMT -5
My logic is science which tells me there is no creator. Life started in a primordial soup and evolved. I admit I can't explain what life is or how the first spark of life came to be... yeah, I know all about those simple sugars, etc, but that tells me nothing I can wrap my head around. Life consumes, which is the best explanation of what defines life, but what life "is" is beyond my comprehension. Simply because I have no better explanation, doesn't leave me buying into a creator. What I believe has to make sense to me. A creator doesn't make sense, especially in light of all the questions I've had over the years that have never been answered to my satisfaction. I’m still trying to wrap my head around the comment in the OP that guest4 postulated that “the reason for creation was to show god/love”.. my brain, again hurts. That idea in itself cannot make any sense whatsoever. Doesn’t nature teach us the living is grounded In loving? Just thinking so
|
|
|
Post by iam on Feb 21, 2020 10:49:37 GMT -5
Probably getting a little ahead of myself with this topic so early, but it seems we're heading in that direction quickly. Guest4 postulated that the reason for creation was to teach us God/Love. But does our universe have a creator at all? And if it does, why on earth do we tend to lump our creator into the same pot as the source of the God-experiences we share? Is Guest4 purely guessing? My head tells me probably were created. To me, it's just numbers: our development on earth is advancing exponentially, and it's not at all hard for me to imagine a time not too many centuries in the future when we could emulate the big bang, in essence creating our own life-bearing universe. And if we could, I'm sure we would. Now, unless we imagine that we are alone in the universe and life has not formed anywhere else, why would we not believe other beings have already reached the stage of creating universes? And if that is so, what are the odds that our own universe was created? I am suggesting that our own universe, however it came to be, is likely to spawn many more universes of our own creation ("we" being the inhabitants of our universe). It would therefore seem statistically probable that we have a creator. More life-bearing universes are being created than are naturally happening. But if we do, and if he/she/it (our creator) is anything like we humans, he probably created us just to see if he could. OK...avoiding "feelings" (which we'll talk about later) what logic tells you we do or do not have a creator? "Now, unless we imagine that we are alone in the universe and life has not formed anywhere else, why would we not believe other beings have already reached the stage of creating universes?" That sounds a little along the lines of what Nathan believes.
|
|
|
Post by iam on Feb 21, 2020 10:56:59 GMT -5
OK...avoiding "feelings" (which we'll talk about later) what logic tells you we do or do not have a creator? I tend not to get too fixated with the creator debate. For me it is one of the those futile debates where no one is ever able to convince those of a different viewpoint. Personally I no longer believe in the existence of a creator but who cares what I believe, beliefs are irrelevant on this thread. What I have noted is that those who promote the existence of a creator most strongly here tend to be those who also believe in [what might be best described as] the Christian God. While I do understand the arguments for the existence of a creator, what I really struggle to understand is the argument (if it can even be described as an argument) that (i) the wonder and splendour of nature provides evidence of creation, (ii) evidence of creation is evidence of a creator and (iii) evidence of a creator (somehow - I'm not sure how) proves the existence of the Christian God. As far I as I can see, there is nothing whatsoever to support the argument that (even if we accept that the world was indeed created) it is the soul saving character in the bible who created the world. The wonder and splendour of nature may indeed provide the evidence necessary to support the existence of a creator but it certainly doesn't provide the evidence necessary to support the existence of the son sending, dead resurrecting character in the bible. I can never quite grasp why bible believers think it does. So, instead of engaging in yet another act of futility and debating the existence (or non existence) of a creator, it may be more useful if we all simply accept (solely for the purposes of this search) the existence of a creator and invite believers to set out the basis on which they make the rather large leap from a position of ..... the wonder and splendour nature proves the existence of a creator ...... to a position of ..... the wonder and splendour of nature proves the existence of the flood sending, Amalekite slaughtering, jealous, vengeful, rib removing character of the Old Testament. It surely doesn't. Matt10 said:OK...avoiding "feelings" (which we'll talk about later) what logic tells you we do or do not have a creator? Jealous, vengeful...are feelings. "Avoiding feelings"... without feeling.
|
|
|
Post by guest4 on Feb 21, 2020 12:11:51 GMT -5
I tend not to get too fixated with the creator debate. For me it is one of the those futile debates where no one is ever able to convince those of a different viewpoint. Personally I no longer believe in the existence of a creator but who cares what I believe, beliefs are irrelevant on this thread. What I have noted is that those who promote the existence of a creator most strongly here tend to be those who also believe in [what might be best described as] the Christian God. While I do understand the arguments for the existence of a creator, what I really struggle to understand is the argument (if it can even be described as an argument) that (i) the wonder and splendour of nature provides evidence of creation, (ii) evidence of creation is evidence of a creator and (iii) evidence of a creator (somehow - I'm not sure how) proves the existence of the Christian God. As far I as I can see, there is nothing whatsoever to support the argument that (even if we accept that the world was indeed created) it is the soul saving character in the bible who created the world. The wonder and splendour of nature may indeed provide the evidence necessary to support the existence of a creator but it certainly doesn't provide the evidence necessary to support the existence of the son sending, dead resurrecting character in the bible. I can never quite grasp why bible believers think it does. So, instead of engaging in yet another act of futility and debating the existence (or non existence) of a creator, it may be more useful if we all simply accept (solely for the purposes of this search) the existence of a creator and invite believers to set out the basis on which they make the rather large leap from a position of ..... the wonder and splendour nature proves the existence of a creator ...... to a position of ..... the wonder and splendour of nature proves the existence of the flood sending, Amalekite slaughtering, jealous, vengeful, rib removing character of the Old Testament. It surely doesn't. Matt10 said:OK...avoiding "feelings" (which we'll talk about later) what logic tells you we do or do not have a creator? Jealous, vengeful...are feelings. "Avoiding feelings"... without feeling. Hmmm, in other words , it’s futile to have feelings about other Peoples feelings , if we cannot account for the value of Our personal feelings?? As in: I believe so and so doesn’t feel correctly about the situation at hand , I sure wish he felt the same as I do! Hmmm🤐😁 (Not!) Can we prove our feelings are intelligently based. ??
|
|
|
Post by iam on Feb 21, 2020 13:10:36 GMT -5
said:OK...avoiding "feelings" (which we'll talk about later) what logic tells you we do or do not have a creator? Jealous, vengeful...are feelings. "Avoiding feelings"... without feeling. Hmmm, in other words , it’s futile to have feelings about other Peoples feelings , if we cannot account for the value of Our personal feelings?? As in: I believe so and so doesn’t feel correctly about the situation at hand , I sure wish he felt the same as I do! Hmmm🤐😁 (Not!) Can we prove our feelings are intelligently based. ?? I am not an intellect or consider myself intellectual. Been there done that and I aim rather for simplicity. I don't find many/any conversations here that doesn't bring out feelings of some sort. People feel they way they do because of their personal feelings or lack thereof. But the person that brought up this thread requests "avoiding feelings" which I feel isn't happening in this conversation.
|
|
|
Post by guest4 on Feb 21, 2020 13:30:57 GMT -5
Easier said than practical.
then how can we separate our feelings from Our beliefs?
Hmmm, I feel my beliefs are as logical as others feel theirs to be. Maybe
|
|
|
Post by So then on Feb 22, 2020 3:53:43 GMT -5
Its its easy to state something that we don’t believe , in fact there are millions of things I don’t believe, that others believe,!
And turn it into a “platform” of a superior ideology?
Yes , I begin the association of people that don’t believe in evolution!
We dont don’t start atrocities, we love our neighbors as ourselves, we do unto others as we would have them do unto you!
in other words our goal is to overcome that “human nature” that we were born with! (And visit the fatherless and the widows In their affliction/s , and keep u spotted from the worldly)
hmmm, wouldn’t that be an honorable associations?!!
thank you
|
|
|
Post by So then on Feb 22, 2020 21:05:15 GMT -5
its its easy to state something that we don’t believe , in fact there are millions of things I don’t believe, that others believe,!
And turn it into a “platform” of a superior ideology?
Yes , I begin the association of people that don’t believe in evolution!
We dont don’t start atrocities, we love our neighbors as ourselves, we do unto others as we would have them do unto you!
in other words our goal is to overcome that “human nature” that we were born with! (And visit the fatherless and the widows In their affliction/s , and keep u spotted from the worldly)
hmmm, wouldn’t that be an honorable associations?!!
thank you
And then we know that evolution is not “Logical”
And as such it is unintelligible, and has no place
in any Institute of the Highest Learning , except as
fictional literature in English department! 🤫
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by guest4 on Feb 24, 2020 23:52:44 GMT -5
Hmmm, in other words , it’s futile to have feelings about other Peoples feelings , if we cannot account for the value of Our personal feelings?? As in: I believe so and so doesn’t feel correctly about the situation at hand , I sure wish he felt the same as I do! Hmmm🤐😁 (Not!) Can we prove our feelings are intelligently based. ?? I am not an intellect or consider myself intellectual. Been there done that and I aim rather for simplicity. I don't find many/any conversations here that doesn't bring out feelings of some sort. People feel they way they do because of their personal feelings or lack thereof. But the person that brought up this thread requests "avoiding feelings" which I feel isn't happening in this conversation. Yes, it’s difficult to know the intention of the request to not be influenced by our “feelings”.. it may may be that he was trying to get people to be more analytical minded, instead of “ I think we have the answers “ when we are just speculating without doing a serious search for the answer. But since no one can claim to know the answers then we resort to what we think.feel/ or believe . That’s what i feel they are doing anyway. thanks for your analysis of all these replies!!
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Feb 25, 2020 7:40:28 GMT -5
Probably getting a little ahead of myself with this topic so early, but it seems we're heading in that direction quickly. Guest4 postulated that the reason for creation was to teach us God/Love. But does our universe have a creator at all? And if it does, why on earth do we tend to lump our creator into the same pot as the source of the God-experiences we share? Is Guest4 purely guessing? My head tells me probably were created. To me, it's just numbers: our development on earth is advancing exponentially, and it's not at all hard for me to imagine a time not too many centuries in the future when we could emulate the big bang, in essence creating our own life-bearing universe. And if we could, I'm sure we would. Now, unless we imagine that we are alone in the universe and life has not formed anywhere else, why would we not believe other beings have already reached the stage of creating universes? And if that is so, what are the odds that our own universe was created? I am suggesting that our own universe, however it came to be, is likely to spawn many more universes of our own creation ("we" being the inhabitants of our universe). It would therefore seem statistically probable that we have a creator. More life-bearing universes are being created than are naturally happening. But if we do, and if he/she/it (our creator) is anything like we humans, he probably created us just to see if he could. OK...avoiding "feelings" (which we'll talk about later) what logic tells you we do or do not have a creator? Quote: what logic tells you we do or do not have a creator? Creation itself! So god is immune to regression?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2020 14:16:27 GMT -5
Quote: what logic tells you we do or do not have a creator? Creation itself! So god is immune to regression? sorta kind..until the end of course then he becomes the God of revenge and punishment again....
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 25, 2020 17:55:02 GMT -5
So god is immune to regression? sorta kind..until the end of course then he becomes the God of revenge and punishment again.... So then, at the moment he's just out on good behavior trying to lure people into believing in him? But when he gets back into absolute power again, he shows his true colors of revenge and punishment?
|
|
|
Post by So then on Feb 25, 2020 21:16:46 GMT -5
I disagree,
the concept of sin is what separates sinful man from G-D
It is the separation from G-D that Jesus couldn’t face , as
He took the guilt for human sins.
Jesus was sorrowed immensely by even the thought
Of this separation. Even though he knew it would be
Very temporary.
Lost eternity , means eternal separation from G-D,
Which will bring regret that we lost our opportunity to be with Him
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2020 21:26:10 GMT -5
sorta kind..until the end of course then he becomes the God of revenge and punishment again.... So then, at the moment he's just out on good behavior trying to lure people into believing in him? But when he gets back into absolute power again, he shows his true colors of revenge and punishment? i think a better word than lure is convince....
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Feb 25, 2020 21:37:12 GMT -5
So god is immune to regression? sorta kind..until the end of course then he becomes the God of revenge and punishment again.... Did god have a beginning? Or always “has been”..
|
|
|
Post by So then on Feb 25, 2020 21:52:08 GMT -5
sorta kind..until the end of course then he becomes the God of revenge and punishment again.... Did god have a beginning? Or always “has been”.. G-D lives in the present . the-eternal present , in other words always alive
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Feb 25, 2020 21:54:02 GMT -5
Did god have a beginning? Or always “has been”.. G-D lives in the present . the-eternal present , in other words always alive So, did god have a beginning?
|
|
|
Post by So then on Feb 25, 2020 21:59:20 GMT -5
G-D lives in the present . the-eternal present , in other words always alive So, did god have a beginning? Can we examine the concept of eternal?? its incomprehensible, just as I accept its validity. G-D wasn’t created, no beginnings no ending
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Feb 25, 2020 22:05:24 GMT -5
So, did god have a beginning? Can we examine the concept of eternal?? its incomprehensible, just as I accept its validity. G-D wasn’t created, no beginnings no ending God wasn’t created, no beginnings no ending.. how do you know?
|
|
|
Post by So then on Feb 25, 2020 22:15:02 GMT -5
Can we examine the concept of eternal?? its incomprehensible, just as I accept its validity. G-D wasn’t created, no beginnings no ending God wasn’t created, no beginnings no ending.. how do you know? Logic
|
|
|
Post by So then on Feb 25, 2020 22:19:29 GMT -5
Right from the Logos,
He created the beginning of all things
Gen. 1:1
|
|