The proposition that the Incarnation is true. If we didn’t have it, there’d be no grounds for faith (i.e. in the transcendent) whatsoever.
1 Like
I think I see, but maybe you could explain a bit more. Thanks
Sorry Randy. Rationality does not need God at all, cannot lead to God. It’s atheistic without having to be theistic in the first place, except in the evolution of the history of ideas. Theism comes before atheism in the record. Although obviously, even a thousand years before Christ, there were ‘fools’. Starting now, with rationality, one ends with nature, eternal, infinite nature. I’ve just finished Dawkins’ perfect The God Delusion. 15 years late. I wept at the terrible perfect beauty of it. I wouldn’t have been matured by suffering enough to be able to say that then. I’d have sneered at Dawkins’ courage. I spoke out loud to the Lord with tears in my eyes and said all that. It’s such a paradox as God has evolved in me to the best He can ever be this side of death, but as His image has refined, it has attenuated to the smile of the Cheshire cat. He doesn’t fill the void any more. There is no rational reason whatsoever for the physical, the natural, suffering, loss if there is the transcendent. Why does His smile remain? Jesus. The Jesus claim is so outrageous it distracts from the meaninglessness of existence. That has me in tears right now. More. Jesus is the Cheshire cat smile in the void.
1 Like
If Darwinist propaganda presents theoretical branches between phyla as factual, what other misleading “facts” is it serving up to the masses? Little wonder so many people have learnt not to take the historical claims of evolution science seriously.
Which “mass murders” are you referring to? If executions are ordained by God, they don’t qualify as “murders”.
He still shines brightly and there is nothing feline about his smile. Ask Maggie or George. They (and I) along with many others can tell you that your derogatory ‘micromanagement’ is a gross mischaracterization and a foolish insult to a Father’s intervening and loving providence. You may have grown, but only in your own eyes.
Do we have any examples of matter forming from nothingness? Besides the universe which exploded into existence 13.8 billion years ago, is there one example of matter originating from the complete absence of anything?
Little kids know what adults can’t remember. I think Jesus called himself the Son of Man because like a child, He knew what life is all about–GOD—even though He grew into adulthood. That, I think, is one of his most important attributes. He hadn’t lost the ability to see life for what it really is.
David’s life was micromanaged by God, too. Listen to his frustration and complaint about it in the Psalm read this morning at church:
Fossil specimens, molecular evidence, and morphological similarities all provide factual support for evolutionary connections between phyla. For example, many of the originally puzzling Cambrian fossils prove to be intermediate between various modern animal phyla. DNA provides strong support for particular patterns of relationships between the phyla. For example, in the animals the bilaterians are well-supported as more closely related to each other; deuterostomes are more closely related to each other; etc. Many morphological characters also associate phyla, such as the patterns of early development, the distinctive jaws of the Gnathifera, the body chambers of deuterostomes, etc. Beware of anti-evolutionary propaganda. “Darwinist” and “Darwinism” are not particularly meaningful terms; they are used largely as pejoratives (not just by anti-evolutionists) and so do not help much in conveying your meaning. Not all evolutionary claims are sound, but arguments against them need to be well-developed.
2 Likes
Ciara,
When speaking with a Christian who rejects evolution, I will often mention that the first two chapters of Genesis have two very different creation stories. They have different orders and methods of creation.
This is evidence directly from the Bible that we are not to read the early chapters of Genesis as literal history, as the two creation stories are literally incompatible as actual history.
I will also point out Psalms 18/2 Samuel 22 as an example of a telling of historical events in a way that is valuable but not literal history. These passage tell the story of God protecting David from Saul; they are lovely and true but not literal history. In David’s case, we have the literal history and the flowing prose of hyperbole.
No, God did not fly down on a cherub hurling lightning with smoke pouring from his nostrils, but God did protect David.
1 Like
How are they misleading?
1 Like
Presenting theortical branches - based on an assumption (universal common ancestry) - as factual fossil evidence certainly qualifies as ‘misleading’.
The branches are based on evidence, not assumption. Part of that evidence is features shared by early fossils, just as it is based on the features found in modern species and the DNA of modern species. Again, the nested hierarchy is an observation, not an assumption.
4 Likes
Nested hierarchies exist only within phyla. There is no fossil evidence of a nested hierarchy that connects all phyla.
Your Darwinist model of universal common ancestry seems to rely on fossil evidence that is hoped for and theorized, but is not known to exist.
You don’t need fossils to construct nested hierarchies. You can use the physical characteristics of living species and their DNA.
You would be wrong. The biggest piece of evidence is DNA and how that DNA is shared by all living species.
2 Likes
Sorry to be a party-popper, but I prefer empirical evidence to wishful thinking built on an assumption built on a theory.
When the fossil evidence that demonstrates universal common descent is discovered, wake me up. Meanwhile, I’ll remained unconvinced that UCD is a valid theory.
Sequencing DNA is an empirical observation.
We don’t expect to find fossils of tiny single celled organisms. Why would you expect to find such a fossil?
1 Like
We have found some, but they are incredibly rare, hence the point still stands.
1 Like
To complicate things more, the same people who demand fossils for the last universal common ancestor will probably not accept the hominid transitional fossils as evidence for common ancestry between humans and chimps.
3 Likes
Sequencing DNA of organisms that lived millions of years ago is not an empirical observation, so all you’ve got and all you’ll ever have is a theory.
So you admit Darwinism is built on fossil evidence that doesn’t exist.