Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Originally Posted by Eusebius Well, yes, of course He did.
Yes, in fact, I would agree with that. But don't stop there. God set up Adam and Eve so the Saviour would come to save all mankind from sin and death. Eventually God will succeed in that goal for all mankind too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyl3r
All mankind that subscribe to this belief or just everyone?
Hi Skyl34, the salvation of all mankind is not based upon what mankind does or believe but is rooted in what Christ accomplished in His obedience to the cross and ransoming all mankind (see 1 Tim.2:4-6; Rom.5:18,19).
Hi Skyl34, the salvation of all mankind is not based upon what mankind does or believe but is rooted in what Christ accomplished in His obedience to the cross and ransoming all mankind (see 1 Tim.2:4-6; Rom.5:18,19).
Yeah, I see. Well, it seems there's several verses in conflict with this. Just take for instance, John 3:16. It seems to imply that you must believe in God to not perish but have eternal life?
Yeah, I see. Well, it seems there's several verses in conflict with this. Just take for instance, John 3:16. It seems to imply that you must believe in God to not perish but have eternal life?
Hi again, One of the problems, at least a problem I perceive, is that often people read into a verse the concept that one must, of their own will, make a choice to believe.
For instance, John 3:16 just states:
Joh 3:16 for God did so love the world, that His Son--the only begotten--He gave,
that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.
And we have this just prior to 3:16:
Joh_1:13 who were begotten, not of bloods, neither of the will of the flesh, neither of the will of a man, but of God.
So it is God who begets us by giving us faith to believe. And if one is not given faith to believe? What is their future lot? Such ones do not get age-during life but die and thus perish.
Now, again, we must not read into the word "perish" the idea of permanency. And the same Greek word translated as "perish" and "destroy" is also translated "lost." Jesus came to see and to save the **lost** sheep of the House of Israel. Were those sheep so lost, so destroyed, so perished that Christ could not save them? No.
And John 3:17 gives credence to the truth that God will indeed save all mankind. If you want to know how that is, just ask.
But they might be wrong, too. What they might be experiencing might be an instinctive delusion - like thinking that comets are prophets of some event or other. In fact, they are comets, nothing more. The various kinds of ID run up against the problem of no real reason to say 'something more' and some reasons to say 'just matter doing its stuff'. It is thus more valid to not take the something more option as the more likely one.
"I don't know" is axiomatically what atheism says. I recall a debate between Matt Dillahunty and a minister of some sort and the latter's pitch was to sneer at the atheists saying 'we don't know". The implication being that Theists are right in claiming to Know.
Thus I agree with you. Those guys dumping on our "Don't know" are "silly, rude, and immature". But setting out what is the better logical and evidence -based response to the Something More hypothesis is not. It is reasonable and helpful - to those open to being helped. We can be sympathetic to those who are convinced that there must be Something More. It could be true and it is a very compelling idea. We just say "we don't know" and don't believe until we do know, and we see no reason not to say so if someone makes the "god" -claim. As you came within a whisker of doing. And perhaps should understand that is what you are close to doing.
But that's Ok. The only reason we argue against First cause or ID claims is to maintain our reasonable position against those who would force an acceptance of an intelligent creator on us. Thus, old mate, we are not the ones pushing a choice and are not the ones who are deserving of your censure. Those who insist that their "god" claim is not only more likely but is reliably sure are the only ones who do.
" .... The only reason we argue against First cause or ID claims is to maintain our reasonable position against those who would force an acceptance of an intelligent creator on us. ..."
nope, this is why I will never side with you. I don't pick a side in this battle because "not them ... so anything." that's silly, rude, and immature.
The first cause was "something", that's more valid then saying "nothing" in terms of the earth. Not even 'random applies here.
ID? What you are describing is misleading to those that can't process what you really mean. I doubt you even know, really you are so caught up in your past. What you are talking about is what I call "poof there it is" yeah, I don't believe that either. it does not mean the universe does not know about itself. The data suggest that it does. So is that intellect or not? I have to start at a truth, I am not a philosopher.
now for the design component. Did you knowingly create your teeth? Yet they were created by a very selective process. So we were designed, to the best of the environments ability. No Omni dude and most certainly some very specific first causes. again, I am not a philospher so I can't just make sit up.
" .... The only reason we argue against First cause or ID claims is to maintain our reasonable position against those who would force an acceptance of an intelligent creator on us. ..."
nope, this is why I will never side with you. I don't pick a side in this battle because "not them ... so anything." that's silly, rude, and immature.
The first cause was "something", that's more valid then saying "nothing" in terms of the earth. Not even 'random applies here.
ID? What you are describing is misleading to those that can't process what you really mean. I doubt you even know, really you are so caught up in your past. What you are talking about is what I call "poof there it is" yeah, I don't believe that either. it does not mean the universe does not know about itself. The data suggest that it does. So is that intellect or not? I have to start at a truth, I am not a philosopher.
now for the design component. Did you knowingly create your teeth? Yet they were created by a very selective process. So we were designed, to the best of the environments ability. No Omni dude and most certainly some very specific first causes. again, I am not a philospher so I can't just make sit up.
Your stance is too thin.
As is yours if you are arguing in favor of "slow" evolution. The fossil records are missing to support that. Your argument is that "they have yet to be found???"
What has been found is great spurts of evolution within some species which, along with the absence of fossil records of major transitions between species, is reason enough to consider something else is afoot. You are no more swayed by evidence than are young earth creationists.
Try reading microbiologist Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis---How New Developments in Science Challenge Orthodox Darwinism. Darwinian theory certainly accounts for the microevolution we find, but it's a poor explanation for macroevolution. We can't find any evidence for the macro because there are no fossil records for the same.
You might also read secular Jew David Berlinski's works. He doesn't argue for creationism, but he does argue against the self-assured arguments of orthodox Darwinists. While you and others are all for arguing FOR evidentiary science, you apparently aren't willing to look at any yourselves that might conclude your preconceived notion of random evolution might be as far off base as Eusebius' idea of biblical creationism. Berlinski would be as quick as any to scoff at biblical creationism and probably ID as well. In fact, he doesn't even believe in God--but he does recognize that the evidence we have now simply does not support orthodox Darwinism. That's his axe to grind with orthodox Darwinists.
Now the sad thing is creationists, as literal biblicists, always grasp at any straws and consider him to be an "ally" when nothing could be further from the truth. It is like Eusebius' unlearned argument that Einstein believed in ID, when Einstein could only at best be called a deist of nature because he loved the symmetry he found in nature, not because of any belief in God whatsoever. It was nothing more to him than a figure of speech.
The model for macroevolution requires leaps from one species to another as Eusebius argues earlier in the thread (or another, they all run together after awhile). There ought to be some "bridge" between two species where there are only gaps. That is what gradualism in Darwinism requires--but no proof in any species ever. Darwinism requires the development of whole new classifications of organisms and animals--a new genus, or family, order, or class with new major bodily innovations. There is none of that available with the evidence at hand. Surely there would be one fossil somewhere that points to it. But in fact there are none.
That doesn't mean ID is the answer (although I believe ID is behind it). But it does mean an honest above board "take me where the evidence leads" person would not buy into something for which there simply aren't sufficient transitory fossils to reach that conclusion. What you and others have done is what Darwin did---SURMISE the lineage from available data. It's even more difficult than that because random mutations in DNA is problematic. Advantageous mutations are exceedingly rare--they are almost always self-destructive.
Now we may agree to disagree regarding ID. My point is that sticking to the Darwin of gradualism is no more scientific than saying God created the earth in six days and didn't create the sun until the fourth. It may not reach the same level of ridiculousness, but it is far from being scientific.
End of rant. I have more important issues to address which ARE germane to the Christian faith--none of which rely on either Darwinism, Creationism, nor anything in between.
Yes, in fact, I would agree with that. But don't stop there. God set up Adam and Eve so the Saviour would come to save all mankind from sin and death. Eventually God will succeed in that goal for all mankind too.
Ooh that doesn't sound right now does it? Think about what you are saying! Did God also plan the holocaust in preparation for the second coming? Why does God have to have a goal for all mankind? He's God, the almighty etc, he can just create it right in the first place! Unless of course he doesn't exist in which case all the scenarios that unfold throughout history are just plain bad luck!
Darwinism requires the development of whole new classifications of organisms and animals--a new genus, or family, order, or class with new major bodily innovations. There is none of that available with the evidence at hand. Surely there would be one fossil somewhere that points to it. But in fact there are none.
Great post!
However, there are indeed transitional fossils and Darwinism does not require anything since Evolution is going to occur regardless of calling it Darwinism or simply Evolution.
However, there are indeed transitional fossils and Darwinism does not require anything since Evolution is going to occur regardless of calling it Darwinism or simply Evolution.
Individuals in a species show a wide range of variation.
This variation is because of differences in genes.
Individuals with characteristics most suited to the environment in which they live are more likely to survive and reproduce.
The genes that allowed the individuals to be successful are passed to the offspring in the next generation.
I think the point should be made that "great spurts in evolution" within a phenotype can be attributed to environmental change, whether massive or local.
I think the point should be made that "great spurts in evolution" within a phenotype can be attributed to environmental change, whether massive or local.
Yes!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
