I wouldn’t bother. It was the first attempt to unify Christian belief.
To claim such a noble origin speaks for itself.
RIchard
Post deleted by author
Yours are, but mine stems from my beliefs.
There is no such thing as Hindu evolution, or Satanism evolution or Wiccan evolution. But there is such a thing as Nontheistic evolution. In fact that is the theory promoted by science (et al) because science does not accept the existence of God so sees no need to include Him.
Richard
I was not offended. I don’t get offended people like you. I understand that you’re doing the best you can with your heart you have and the brain you have. But what I do is block arrogant and ignorant people. You are not worth my time to respond to or even think about after this comment.
2 Likes
I’m so sorry to hear that.
If science is unable to describe the past, then it can describe absolutely nothing, as all observed events took place in the past. What fundamental difference is there between archaeology of Sumer and paleontology of Goretown, South Carolina? Also, how do oil companies make money by following old-earth geology if it can’t describe the past?
2 Likes
Putting “Godless” in front of “evolution” is a word game. As far as I can tell it’s due to not understanding evolution, which neither includes nor excludes God, it merely proceeds as science always has, making the best explanations on the basis of the evidence that humans can see.
The Christian one – one, holy, catholic, and apostolic,
What about mindless gravitational mechanisms? or mindless meteorological mechanisms? or mindless physics mechanisms?
Why is it that people think that they’ve said anything about biology, or chemistry, or physics when they put the word “mindless” in front?
3 Likes
Sincerity is not what they’re lacking.
That.
1 Like
If someone cannot understandingly concur with the Nicene Creed, it is likely that they are heterodox or not Christian at all.
1 Like
I didn’t mean science can’t describe anything that took place in the past. I was referring to knowing the full history of life on earth.
All we have are snapshots of that history in the form of fossils, and usually millions of years separate snapshots of any alleged evolutionary lineage.
Science cannot know what happened between fossil snapshots separated by millions of years … or even how any of the creatures depicted in the snapshots came into existence. All science can do is offer a theory predicated on methodological naturalism.
Geology uses the snapshots of history (fossils) to determine the relative ages of earth strata … gaining that knowledge doesn’t rely on knowing what happened between the snapshots or even how the creatures depicted in the snapshots came to exist.
I’m not aware of any natural mechanism that can produce a living organism, much less one made in the image of God.
Some folks claim to know how a bacterium can eventually evolve into a human being via natural mechanisms … but they can’t prove that their claim is true, so I don’t take much notice of folks like that.
I don’t know.
Okay, that’s much clearer. I was initially wondering whether you were promoting a “you-can’t- know-anything-about-it-if-you-weren’t-there” type of approach.
In that case, I agree that our knowledge about the past will never be perfect, and that we have to just do the best we can with the data we’ve got. I should know; I do paleobiological research on mollusks as a hobby, and the sites that preserve any given formation are really patchy where I’ve studied.
1 Like
It must be God’s will which holds us to the earth and not that Godless gravity.
It must be God making the lights and computers work and not that Godless electricity.
It must be God making the sun shine and not that Godless nuclear physics.
It must be God making our bodies work and not that Godless chemistry.
It must be religion and rhetoric making some people’s mind work and not education and intelligence.
I think God wanted a relationship with His creation so He was interested to see what we would do – how we would adapt to our environment and evolve better strategies for survival. When He saw us using cooperation then He said, “it is very good.”
Since it was just His design according to some, then by their way of thinking He must have really said, “I am so good – such a clever engineer and designer.” …thinking, “now let’s sit back and watch this machine do as I have planned according to my design. Then the religion mongers who speak for me can tell the scientists to shut up and do what they say.”
Sure you are. Since for you it is all just one big machine designed by your watchmaker god, you must be aware of the mechanism of reproduction he put into his machines.
Since I don’t believe in the design of living organisms. Neither reproduction nor evolution (genetic and prebiotic) are mechanisms but the efforts of living things to find their own answers to the challenge of their environment… sometimes even listening to the Good Shepherd.
Not anymore. Now we have a record of the step by step changes recorded in the genetic code by which the species evolved. Now we can read that record to find out when any two species diverged from a common ancestor.
Some folks claim to speak for God and thus to know better than the scientists who actually look for evidence to find out what happened. But them folk can’t prove their claim is true, so I don’t take much notice of folks like that.
Where is the mind (intelligence) in the working of science?
Science basically tries to understand the mechanics of how thing s work be they physics, chemistry , biology or any thing else. There is no intelligence to be see, What there is is a wonderful order and structure that guides and controls. ( You call some of them laws)
thhe only “mind” in creaton is God’s but sceince cannot (or will not) see that.so the result is "Mindless"
Do you see any sort of mind in these?
If there was any sort of mind controlling the weather then weather forcasting would be trying to second guess that mind. (And faill every time instead of just some of the time)
Meteorology is goverend by equalisation of high and low air pressure in a (futile) attempt to make it all the same. But that is not intelligence, that is just status quo.(Nature abhors a vacuum)
Richard
In that case, how do supppose the first organism come into existence?
If there was no design, all that’s left is chance.
There is no conflict. Scientist are just understanding the working of the unitverse we live in. Speaking for God rarely involves such trivia. You claim God is interested in relationships. Sceinece is only interested if those relationships are between thngs they are studying.(and they can identify them)
But in a purely factual and discernable means. They cannot see God so they cannot identify if or when He is involved (in theroy a Christian can)
Neither can science every time. Instead it hypothesises. Christians beleive (have faith) I might suggest that scientist have faith in what they can measure and refuse to ebelive anything outside that view.
If your criteria is proof then faith becomes a problem for you. I could quote scripture here but I am not convinced it means enough to you.
Richard
… except when it comes to the history of life on earth, no one can ever know “what happened” … it’s impossible.
All science can do is theorise about what might have happened according to the confines of methodological naturalism. Do you think reality is confined to methodological naturalism?
What “claim” are you talking about?
Hmm, let me think … Is my faith in God as strong as my faith in methodological naturalism? Tough question!
Wow! Can the genetic code describe the (alleged) step-by-step evolution of the double-circlation heart of a repitle/mammal from the single-circulation heart of a fish?
Can the genetic code describe the (alleged) step-by-step evolution of the hollow fangs of a venomous snake?
Can the genetic code describe the (alleged) step-by-step evolution of a spider’s silk glands?
Can the genetic the selection pressures that (allegedly) produced said evolutions?