RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

essentialsaltes -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/19/2008 6:06:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
Isn't it convenient that evolution cannot be falsified! In truth, it's not even a hypothesis, because a hypothesis could be tested.


If a flock of flying pigs suddenly appeared in Belgium, evolution would be falsified as a universal theory.

Why Belgium? Just cause it sounded funny.



drmark -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/19/2008 6:09:59 PM)

Miracles greater than that have occurred innumerable times over 6000 years, es, and I fail to see you fleeing the sinking ship of evolution!



essentialsaltes -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/19/2008 6:26:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

Miracles greater than that have occurred innumerable times over 6000 years, es, and I fail to see you fleeing the sinking ship of evolution!


So you agree with me that such a creation of a truly novel species out of nothing (i.e. not from similar ancestors) would falsify evolution. Excellent. Now you recognize that evolution is indeed falsifiable.



Nothingman -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/19/2008 6:31:43 PM)

quote:

The question I was trying to get at is why would Christians take what atheistic evolutionist say at face value when they obviously can come only have one conclusion based on there world view, “there is no God”?


Because that simply is not true, and you should stop saying or thinking it is. There are many theist evolutionists. Alister McGrath, the most recent public apologist for Christianity, is a biological scientist and Christian theologian and firmly believes evolution is true. That has no more bearing on his religious views than his acceptance to believe in the heliocentric concept of the universe. I might remind you that for centuries the geocentric concept was endored by all and sundry, especially by the Catholic Church. When Galilao proposed the heliocentric view he was condemned by the Church for preaching anti religious falsities and forced to recant his theory. We all know, of course, that the geocentric was false. The point is The Bible is not a scientific document and scientific theories should not be derived from it just as religious doctrine should not be derived from science.



Nothingman -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/19/2008 6:43:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

and this physical evidence indicates that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Nope, your interpretation of some of this evidence leads you to that conclusion. Someday you may figure this out!


seriously? that's a sad argument my friend...

Let me ask you....are you a scientist? What's your field of expertise? I'm just curious how you were able to find out that the entire science establish just "interpreted it wrong".

I would really recommend taking a first year geography or geology course. Its quite straighforward and very convincing.



Nothingman -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/19/2008 6:47:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

At least my interpretation is in good company, since it represents the scientific consensus on the issue, based on all the evidence and multiple lines of inquiry.

Yes, science by democratic vote is about one-half step above faith-based religion, es! At least with that you have the comfort of many other like-minded fanatics to justify your faith.


again...I'm almost embarrassed to call myself a Christian here. Almost. Good thing Christianity does not hinge on this narrow attitude toward science and that this view is only a symptom of the comparitivly small amount of fundamental Christians within Christiandom.



Nothingman -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/19/2008 6:51:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: davelinde

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMeeks

The problem, of course, is that it calls universal sin into question. It's almost impossible to account for universal sin with gradual human evolution unless there was an event that killed off all but two individuals and these two individuals somehow starting 'walking with God' and then broke the fellowship.

It's simply not theologically possible.




Yes - that's exactly my question. When I was young I heard a pastor teach that a literal interpretation of Genesis was possible OR that as we learn more science "facts" we can conclude that maybe God "used evolutionary processes to create" and that's really what Genesis meant. The bottom line was that good science and good theology were not in conflict, both MUST be true.

Well, I never thought too hard about it and always had this idea that maybe it was by fiat in a 24 hour day or maybe it was by evolutionary process with God as the driving force. It honestly was not that crucial to me. But then I had a reason to think it through and ran across the issue of original sin. In my opinion, that issue is enough to make the whole idea a non-starter. There needs to be a real Adam or there is no reason for a real Jesus.

Am I misunderstanding the view of a theistic evolutionist? Seems no one wants to touch this question yet? Maybe no one who has a good answer has seen it.


Do you really NEED the story of Adam to show you that the concept of original sin is real? Everyday that I live I am aware of the truism of sinfullness. I have no opinion on the story of Adam and whether it is literal or not. I do think that if it is not literal, its meaning is no less relevent. All I will say is that perhaps it would be more fruitful to understand the ethos and meaning of the story of Adam than focusing on the more shallow understanding of its literal occurance.

This gets into a whole other issue of religious myths and their role in religion, but that is for another discussion.



Nothingman -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/19/2008 7:06:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

No one KNOWS, in the proper sense, that there is a God.
Oh, come on, Nothingman, the Law of Causality is as "proper" as it gets. Feel free to post any example of a resulting event not being caused by an event greater than the result. Thus, if you believe the universe is a real event, then only Creator God could have caused it. Case closed!


The problem with that argument is that you can simply ask, "who created God" and then you'd be forced to deny one of the premises that your argument rests on, namely, that every event must be caused by an event greater than the result.



drmark -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/20/2008 12:13:38 PM)

No problem at all, Nothingman. Obviously, God exists uncreated and transcendent to time, space, and matter since He is the only Cause great enough to result in the universe composed of time, space, and matter!



cybrjewls -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/21/2008 4:41:43 AM)

Greetings Real_Solitude! Your faith is in your hypothesis. That things changed all on their own. Nowhere in scientific reasoning does this have to be the case. For instance, the second law of thermodynamics is readily violated by this hypothesis. It takes power to keep things together and wisdom to make and build things. For God, it only takes His Word. For it is written: everything was created for Him and through Him and by Him; for in the beginning was The Word, and The Word was with God, and The Word was God. He was with God in the Beginning rejoicing in His deeds of Wisdom and Power.

How could you deny that there exists things within the realm of your own understanding that you know are not described by science alone? Explain to me the feelings that you have for your family. Don't you want what is best for them?

As to Redemption: God made a certain deal with lucifer during the time after he had fallen from heaven that he should be able to rule the empires of the earthly realm until all of God's Words are fulfilled. Therefore, when Adam and Eve fell He pronounced the Judgment (decision) upon the serpent (lucifer) that he would strike Christ's heel, but Christ would crush his head. We know that there are qualitatively evil things that exist in the Governing of our Nations and, even, our own households. For it is written: from now on a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.

How can you not perceive that a person or animal is pronounced dead, not only when the body stops functioning. It is when the spirit leaves the connection with the earthly body that death occurs. Jesus overcame this and returned to His Body in The Resurrection. Don't you want to live forever and ever? I know that Jesus has the Power to give Life to whomever He chooses to give it to in eternity. He put to death the death that we deserve at The Cross at Golgatha outside of Jerusalem.

You asked me how come people on earth have faith. Please believe that Jesus Loves you and The God of Heaven sent Him to endure horrible punishment instead of you and me.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude

quote:

ORIGINAL: prophetica

1. Yes, it is easy to believe that God's plan for redemption was through The Holy Spirit in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

2. Yes, it is faith to believe in the resurrection of the risen Christ 3 days after suffering at Golgotha

3. The hypothesis of 'evolution' is basically that things change over time. By faith, some could understand that God is actively involved in creation as it is written in Genesis for In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And, it is written that God will create all things new in the paradise of the new heaven and the new earth after the Millennial rule of Christ Jesus.[/link]

Therefore, we know from Scripture admonishion that God will continue His creation in paradise.


I would like to ask you a few questions, prophetica.
Why is it easy to believe that God's plan for redemption was through the holy spirit in the virgin birth? Why would an omnipotent god need such things in order to redeem his creation? Why would a perfect god even need to redeem a creation? Was it necessary to use a virgin?
Basically, why is it easy to believe that something without flaw can create something that goes so awry as to need to correct it, and why is it easy to believe that natural laws were broken to achieve it?
What makes this any easier to believe than any of the other impossibilities of the thousands of other religions that have existed over the ages?

In the same vein, why is Jesus' resurrection easy to believe in? Why is it necessary to the story? What makes this miracle easier to believe than any of the miracles claimed by any other religion?

And yet despite believing in these physical impossibilities, why is it hard to believe in a scientific theory that has (with change) withstood more than one hundred and fifty years of strict scientific scrutiny? You easily accept the miracles proclaimed in the Bible, yet demean one of the most amazing scientific theories of all times by calling it a hypothesis. Why?

If you'll humor me, I want reasons, not just answers.



unclemonkey -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/21/2008 7:15:13 AM)

ORIGINAL:Nothingman
quote:

I have no opinion on the story of Adam and whether it is literal or not. I do think that if it is not literal, its meaning is no less relevent. All I will say is that perhaps it would be more fruitful to understand the ethos and meaning of the story of Adam than focusing on the more shallow understanding of its literal occurance.

Do you think it matters if the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ is literally true or just a story?



essentialsaltes -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/21/2008 10:37:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: prophetica
Greetings Real_Solitude! Your faith is in your hypothesis. That things changed all on their own. ... For instance, the second law of thermodynamics is readily violated by this hypothesis.


The second law is not violated by evolution. Otherwise, snowflakes could not happen 'all on their own'. The second law states that the total disorder of a closed system always increases. The earth is not a closed thermodynamic system, since it receives power from the sun.



unclemonkey -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/21/2008 2:13:17 PM)

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:

The second law is not violated by evolution.

Maybe not for theistic evolution because it assumes God actively controlled putting the required mechanisms in place, but it certainly does for mindless evolution.
The problem with the overly simplistic view of thermodynamics you are promoting is that mechanisms for controlling the energy entering the system must already be in place for the local reduction in entropy to occur. Just feeding energy into a system without the mechanisms in place to control that energy will ONLY increase entropy.
E.g. when you eat a steak the usable energy you obtain from that steak came from the sun. If your overly simplified view had any merit you wouldn’t need to eat, you could just stand in the sunlight to obtain the energy you need. Can you do that?



essentialsaltes -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/21/2008 2:56:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:

The second law is not violated by evolution.

Maybe not for theistic evolution because it assumes God actively controlled putting the required mechanisms in place, but it certainly does for mindless evolution.
The problem with the overly simplistic view of thermodynamics you are promoting is that mechanisms for controlling the energy entering the system must already be in place for the local reduction in entropy to occur. Just feeding energy into a system without the mechanisms in place to control that energy will ONLY increase entropy.
E.g. when you eat a steak the usable energy you obtain from that steak came from the sun. If your overly simplified view had any merit you wouldn’t need to eat, you could just stand in the sunlight to obtain the energy you need. Can you do that?


I didn't claim that adding energy automatically reduces entropy. All I said is that the second law only applies to closed systems and the earth (or the biosphere, or your body, or a snowflake) is not a closed system. Therefore, the second law is not violated by evolution, because it just doesn't apply to the situation.



unclemonkey -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/21/2008 6:46:49 PM)

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:

I didn't claim that adding energy automatically reduces entropy.

Your over-simplified explanation makes the claim that energy introduced to a system without mechanisms already in place to control that energy might decrease entropy rather than increase it. THAT is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

quote:

Therefore, the second law is not violated by evolution, because it just doesn't apply to the situation.

But it DOES apply. Your dilemma is the question of where the mechanisms came from. With no mechanisms in place to begin with the addition of energy will ONLY increase entropy. A mechanism must already be in place to build the mechanism you need. Have you ever heard the phrase “catch 22”?
What source do you propose for the first mechanism?



Veritas -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/21/2008 7:02:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:

I didn't claim that adding energy automatically reduces entropy.

Your over-simplified explanation makes the claim that energy introduced to a system without mechanisms already in place to control that energy might decrease entropy rather than increase it. THAT is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

He made no such claim.
quote:


quote:

Therefore, the second law is not violated by evolution, because it just doesn't apply to the situation.

But it DOES apply. Your dilemma is the question of where the mechanisms came from. With no mechanisms in place to begin with the addition of energy will ONLY increase entropy. A mechanism must already be in place to build the mechanism you need. Have you ever heard the phrase “catch 22”?
What source do you propose for the first mechanism?

Mechanisms are not relevant. The laws of thermodynamics apply whether you have mechanisms in place or not. The second law can only be applied to closed systems. If you want to argue that the second law is somehow violated, you need to specify a closed system. Where is your closed system?



essentialsaltes -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/21/2008 8:30:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
But it DOES apply.

No, it doesn't.


To avoid repetition, I fully endorse Veritas' reply.



SavedbyGrace2007 -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/21/2008 10:13:53 PM)

Very likely my answers are matching some those who already replied (at least in sprit), but here they are:



quote:

Some of these questions follow the assumption that you interpret your Bible according to what science says.


Proverbs 25:2 (The Message)

2 God delights in concealing things;
scientists delight in discovering things.


quote:

1. Do you believe in the Virgin birth when science says that this is impossible?



Yes. You'd have to believe in the existence and power of God and Theistic Evolution to my knowledge accepts this. Virgin births aren't an everyday occurance (unless it's asexual reproduction or something (hermaphrodite?)). Jesus' example is way apart from evolution in my mind though.


quote:

This is a big one.
2. Do you believe in the resurrection of Christ without scientific proof.
(I’m really curious about this one as I have heard that some churches getting rid of this teaching.)



I certainly hope they don't because it would be a very, very big mistake all around . . .

Yes, I believe Christ was resurrected. By faith as a Christian I believe this.


quote:

3. Where does Adam and Eve fit into your theology? Were they real or stories made up to teach us lessons?



I'm not a scholar or theologian, so I guess I'll put it in very lay terms. The beginning of creation up to (but not including) Abraham is Biblical Pre-History to me. The Bible is composed of many parts or forms and written by different men over hundreds and hundreds of years -- all inspired by God. Some things can be taken literally while others can be allegory.

All of the Bible, regardless, is about spiritual truth. It's the Word of God. I take more of Pre-History as allegory while for example as time moves on (Abraham forward) as far more literal. Everything to me in the New Testament should be taken literally.

Allegory doesn't mean there is no truth present. Jesus spoke in parables, but that didn't make His parables any less valid. I guess essentially these are simply different forms of understanding.

People often ask, for example, "Who was Cain's wife? Where did she come from?" Good question! Where did those other people come from . . . ? They weren't mentioned before. Right there is a sign to me that there's more going on here that's not being addressed in the Bible because it seems it's not relevant to the subject of the Bible -- which is about God and His relationship to mankind (and mankind's reconciliation to God). If this discrepancy didn't bother the author (Moses) then why should it bother anyone else . . . ?

I use the same reasoning about the dinosaurs. Why aren't dinosaurs in the Bible? Dinosaurs have nothing to do with the relationship between God and mankind. (Although some have managed to fit them into the Bible however).

How one interprets the Bible is the key to me.


quote:

4. Evolution is the best answer for the evidence if there was no God. But You know that there is a God then why do you cling to a hypothesis that excludes God or any supernatural event out of hand?



Because I don't think evolution excludes God. What I don't understand is why as many Christians as there are don't accept evolution (and I believe many Christians do accept evolution -- you just don't hear enough from them). This stems from a literal interpretation of these earliest parts of the Bible. That probably is the real disagreement here.


quote:

Because that simply is not true, and you should stop saying or thinking it is. There are many theist evolutionists.



Ah! Thank you, yes!. :)


quote:

The point is The Bible is not a scientific document and scientific theories should not be derived from it just as religious doctrine should not be derived from science.



Absolutely. The Bible tells you how to get to Heaven -- not exactly how the heavens go . . .


quote:

again...I'm almost embarrassed to call myself a Christian here. Almost. Good thing Christianity does not hinge on this narrow attitude toward science and that this view is only a symptom of the comparitivly small amount of fundamental Christians within Christiandom.



You're not alone, please don't be embarrassed (even almost) to be a Christian. We should speak up more about this and yes it is a very good thing Christianity does not hinge on this narrow attitude toward science.

Christianity is much more broader than I think even some Christians realize.


quote:

Do you really NEED the story of Adam to show you that the concept of original sin is real? Everyday that I live I am aware of the truism of sinfullness.



In a real sense, Adam and Eve almost do become irrelevant when it comes to the situation regarding the sinfulness of man. What does it matter to a present-day sinner regarding salvation?

Indeed, look around. There is sinfulness and sinful people all who need salvation. How they got that way is one thing, but the vital importance of what salvation is and how to obtain is what is most crucial. Man today is a sinner, whether Adam and Eve once "literally" existed or not.

Someday we'll know all these answers for sure. As Paul said:


12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. (1 Corinthians 13:12)



God Bless. :)



Nothingman -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/21/2008 10:53:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:Nothingman
quote:

I have no opinion on the story of Adam and whether it is literal or not. I do think that if it is not literal, its meaning is no less relevent. All I will say is that perhaps it would be more fruitful to understand the ethos and meaning of the story of Adam than focusing on the more shallow understanding of its literal occurance.

Do you think it matters if the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ is literally true or just a story?


Did I say it was "just a story"? How about I ask you...IF the story of Adam is not literal, would its MEANING be any less true? I take most of pre-history not as historical, because a history is written by those who were there went it happened. And please tell me, who was there when it happened? Its a pre-history of mythical stories that represent truth. Now I surely do not expect you to even attempt to understand this; your narrow interpretation of the Bible is that of a quotation mark at the beginning and end. No different than Muslims. I for one, think this is silly, and frankly, immature theology. As well as immature, it leads to mistruth, as evidenced by your refusing to respect science. Do you still think the earth is flat and that geocentricity is true "because its Biblical"? Or do you accept that the Christians of the day simply MISinterpetated the Bible in thinking that geocentricity was a Biblical truth? I spend most of my time, when discussing my faith at my university, trying to downplay and refute the conception non-Christiains have of Christianity based on their exposure to fundamentalist, YEC that is prevelent in N.A. Its a shame, because no self-respecting student would EVER consider the world being 6000 year old and as a result, they don't take Christianity seriously. Please, I'm ranting here, but in Jesus' love, I ask you to please reexamine your interpretation of the Bible. And sorry if this offends you but I feel the fundamentalists are doing a real disservice to faith.

Ok I'm done...no hard feelings, honestly. Even though I was probably a lil rude. Sorry. I respect your faith and love for God, and your commitment to him. Honestly.



unclemonkey -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/22/2008 12:07:05 AM)

ORIGINAL: SavedbyGrace2007
quote:

Man today is a sinner, whether Adam and Eve once "literally" existed or not.

When and how did man become a sinner? Did man evolve his sin nature?



unclemonkey -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/22/2008 1:01:53 AM)

ORIGINAL: Nothingman
quote:

Did I say it was "just a story"? How about I ask you...IF the story of Adam is not literal, would its MEANING be any less true?

“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” – 1st Corinthians 15:22
“For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” – Romans 5:19

What is the sense of a literal payment for a fictional debt?

quote:

I take most of pre-history not as historical, because a history is written by those who were there went it happened. And please tell me, who was there when it happened?

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God” – 2nd Timothy 3:16a
Wasn’t God there when it happened?



drmark -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/22/2008 9:10:41 AM)

quote:

The beginning of creation up to (but not including) Abraham is Biblical Pre-History to me.
That's a wonderful way to rationalize your preconceived assumptions of science, SbG2007, but it's faulty hermeneutics. Genesis 1-11 is written in the exact same literary style as Genesis 12-50. There is no interpretive basis to consider A&E, C&A, Noah and family, the Tower of Babel, etc to be any less accurate factual history than the history of the Patriarchs which you seem to believe is true. How did you decide to accept 1-11 as allegory and 12-50 as literal chronological history?

quote:

How one interprets the Bible is the key to me.
Relativistic mumbo-jumbo! What God's Word says, He means. That is the key to real wisdom - Jeremiah 8:9.

quote:

Absolutely. The Bible tells you how to get to Heaven -- not exactly how the heavens go . . .
So creation in His Image, the Fall, the Curse, Original Sin, God's judgement on wickedness, early prophesies of Christ - these have nothing to do with how to get to Heaven? Interesting theology you have, SbG2007.

quote:

What does it matter to a present-day sinner regarding salvation?
What are you saved from, Saved? I'm saved from my sinful nature and that's certainly not a merely "allegorical" fairy tale!

quote:

Man today is a sinner, whether Adam and Eve once "literally" existed or not.
Nope, man today is a sinner, precisely because Adam and Eve literally existed, literally disobeyed, literally were cursed, and literally broke fellowship with their Creator. All of this is literally recorded in Genesis!

quote:

Someday we'll know all these answers for sure. As Paul said:
You've taken this verse totally out of its original context of perfect love when we reach Heaven. Why not follow Jesus' words in John 5:46 - "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me." Do you believe Genesis 1-11?



unclemonkey -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/22/2008 10:24:20 AM)

ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:

quote:

Man today is a sinner, whether Adam and Eve once "literally" existed or not.

Nope, man today is a sinner, precisely because Adam and Eve literally existed, literally disobeyed, literally were cursed, and literally broke fellowship with their Creator. All of this is literally recorded in Genesis!

AMEN!



cybrjewls -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/24/2008 5:05:55 PM)

Greetings! Pleases notice that snowflakes do not happen all on their own. Sometimes, the weather is affected by science's pollution of the atmosphere. Therefore, the atmosphere; you say; cannot be viewed as a closed system. Tell me, then, what is the shape of the universe? Is the universe a closed system? We know that the earth is protected, as well, from harmful gamma rays and ultraviolet exposure from space and the sun. Therefore, one can propose that the earth is a partially closed system which receives things from outer space, but filters them. Nowhere in common reasoning, much less science, is it necessary to believe that things are accidents. For the probabitity brought about by such thinking would be so astronomical that it would be viewed impossible within the mathematical reasoning of science, itself. There are causal relationships that science confines itself to describing. The beauty of science is that as our understanding increases, it changes also. But this is because of wisdom added to the system processes known as science. This is not accidental.

Surely you don't believe that today's science is the same as the science used during the time of the Egyptian rule. We know that we the new culture that exists; exists in conjunction with faith. These do not have to be contradictory in our ways of thinking about them, necessarily. For the Egyptians had many things that were spiritual as well. So does our society. It is well within the realm of human experience to understand that people have beliefs. All countries and nations have held certain beliefs and faiths. We know that this is a fact.


quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: prophetica
Greetings Real_Solitude! Your faith is in your hypothesis. That things changed all on their own. ... For instance, the second law of thermodynamics is readily violated by this hypothesis.


The second law is not violated by evolution. Otherwise, snowflakes could not happen 'all on their own'. The second law states that the total disorder of a closed system always increases. The earth is not a closed thermodynamic system, since it receives power from the sun.



cybrjewls -> RE: Theistic Evolution questions. (3/24/2008 5:23:25 PM)

Greetings favorable Real_Solitude! Do you know, by scientific probability, the mathematics for what you are saying exists in the universe? It does nothing but boggle the mind how one could assert that these things are, at all, possible to be in existence through the probability constructs that one would have to take into account for the universe being in the order in which it is now. It is mathematically and physically impossible for these things to exist out of nothing. In fact, it is Catholic Doctrine to believe in 'Ex Nihilio': out of nothing. Therefore, one must use faith; not science; to believe this. It is not science, then, if one must use faith.




quote:

ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude

quote:

ORIGINAL: prophetica

1. Yes, it is easy to believe that God's plan for redemption was through The Holy Spirit in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

2. Yes, it is faith to believe in the resurrection of the risen Christ 3 days after suffering at Golgotha

3. The hypothesis of 'evolution' is basically that things change over time. By faith, some could understand that God is actively involved in creation as it is written in Genesis for In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And, it is written that God will create all things new in the paradise of the new heaven and the new earth after the Millennial rule of Christ Jesus.[/link]

Therefore, we know from Scripture admonishion that God will continue His creation in paradise.


I would like to ask you a few questions, prophetica.
Why is it easy to believe that God's plan for redemption was through the holy spirit in the virgin birth? Why would an omnipotent god need such things in order to redeem his creation? Why would a perfect god even need to redeem a creation? Was it necessary to use a virgin?
Basically, why is it easy to believe that something without flaw can create something that goes so awry as to need to correct it, and why is it easy to believe that natural laws were broken to achieve it?
What makes this any easier to believe than any of the other impossibilities of the thousands of other religions that have existed over the ages?

In the same vein, why is Jesus' resurrection easy to believe in? Why is it necessary to the story? What makes this miracle easier to believe than any of the miracles claimed by any other religion?

And yet despite believing in these physical impossibilities, why is it hard to believe in a scientific theory that has (with change) withstood more than one hundred and fifty years of strict scientific scrutiny? You easily accept the miracles proclaimed in the Bible, yet demean one of the most amazing scientific theories of all times by calling it a hypothesis. Why?

If you'll humor me, I want reasons, not just answers.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI