[_ Old Earth _] Was Jesus an ape?

[azlan88]

Evolution may be judgementally neutral, but God is not. There is no way that God made humanity with souls, sentiments, and superior intelligence by means of a blind, natural process. It is foolishness to think that he would have taken so little care in making the human creation.

 

[Barbarian]

Evolution may be judgementally neutral, but God is not. There is no way that God made humanity with souls, sentiments, and superior intelligence by means of a blind, natural process.

You're right. Souls, He give us directly. But why would it bother you if he chose to use nature to give us superior intelligence?

“The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency†St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1).

It is foolishness to think that he would have taken so little care in making the human creation.

Turns out nature is up to the purpose for which He created it. As usual, He did it right.

 

[azlan88]

You and I seem to disagree about whether evolution devalues man. Why, though, do you prefer evolution over creationism? Is it because you're afraid that the evidence for evolution is too compelling to be challenged?

 

[Barbarian]

You and I seem to disagree about whether evolution devalues man.

God says we come from dust, and to dust we return. But our bodies are not who we are.

Why, though, do you prefer evolution over creationism?

The truth matters. If the truth was different, I'd believe something else.

Is it because you're afraid that the evidence for evolution is too compelling to be challenged?

Reality and God cannot be at odds.

 

[azlan88]

You're not answering my question. Were you lead to believe in the theroy of evolution because you were afraid that the evidence for it is too compelling to be challenged?

 

[lordkalvan]

Evolution may be judgementally neutral, but God is not.

What does this homily have to do with whether or not evolution is evidentially supported?

There is no way that God made humanity with souls, sentiments, and superior intelligence by means of a blind, natural process.

Why is there 'no way' that God chose to use a natural process as part of his/her/its creative exercise? God apparently uses natural processes for a lot of other things to do with what is asserted to be his/her/its creation, after all.

It is foolishness to think that he would have taken so little care in making the human creation.

On the contrary, one could as well argue that the evolutionary process reflects exactly the care that God did take in bringing about humanity: it is, after all, a quite magnificently wonderful process when you stand back and consider it absent your theological imperatives.

 

[azlan88]

Ah! You show your true colors! You didn't refer to God as a masculine being! You don't even know the nature of God! You cannot make judgements about the origin of the universe if you don't know God.

 

[jasoncran]

Ah! You show your true colors! You didn't refer to God as a masculine being! You don't even know the nature of God!

Lord kavlan is not a christian but a type of atheist that see good in the morals that we teach.

 

[azlan88]

Is that correct, Kalvin?

 

[lordkalvan]

Is that correct, Kalvin?

I have never hidden my 'true colours'. Perhaps you would like to address the points I raised?

 

[azlan88]

Because everything revolves around God and comes forth from Him, we need to address the nature of God before we move on to anything else.

 

[Brokendoll]

Because everything revolves around God and comes forth from Him, we need to address the nature of God before we move on to anything else.

Am I to understand by this statement that you do not think we should engage ourselves in scientific endeavours at all?

 

[ChattyMute]

Because everything revolves around God and comes forth from Him, we need to address the nature of God before we move on to anything else.

Actually, when discussing science (And this is the science forum), God shouldn't be included at all. Science has nothing to do with the supernatural. It only deals with the natural.

Addressing the nature of God belongs in another forum.

 

[jasoncran]

Christianity and science is the name of the forum, not the science only forum. World view does affect things.

 

[azlan88]

Very good Jason. And, if that's not reason enough to discuss God, Christians would argue that because God is the creator of all things and that his hand in the creation is observable, than it is actually unscientific to exclude His involvement in the natural world. Shutting down discussion about God doesn't improve knowledge, but hinders it.

 

[ChattyMute]

Christianity and science is the name of the forum, not the science only forum. World view does affect things.

Yes, world view does effect things. I didn't say it didn't.

What I meant, and what I thought I said, is that God cannot be discussed scientifically since God is supernatural. Which means we cannot discuss the nature of God scientifically.

Sorry for confusion.

Azlan, I said nothing about shutting down the discussion of God. This is a Christians forum after all. But the discussion you were trying to have on the science form cannot include science at all. It is mostly biblical. So why should it be on the science forum?

 

[azlan88]

No offense, Chatty, but you are looking at reality through the grid of your world view. If you put down the grid, then facts won't pass through it like water through a colander. The supernatural's influence is observable through the natural universe. Is there not a saying that you can tell a painter by his painting? Let me put it this way: If some mold was sitting in your fridge and it looked like mush, then you can not assume that it was designed. But if it had multiple colors and looked exactly like Albert Einstein's face, then you can be certain that it as designed.

Take another example. Suppose you were walking through an ally when you found a trash heap against the wall of the building. It looks like it was just thrown there, so you cannot assume that it was intended to be a grand observance to others. But if the steel pipes, stray screws, and other junk was put together to look like even a moderately impressive model, then you can be certain that it was designed for somebody's pleasure. Now take that example and apply it to our own world.

Our atmosphere had to be fine tuned to an exceptional degree or else life would not be able to exist, and if our earth were any closer to or further away from the sun, then life would not be able to be sustained, either. Not to mention that the planets keep the earth in proper orbit. Just these observances alone are powerful indicators that there was an intelligent being behind the universe' assembly. Now just consider that we humans have eyes with which to see the observances and others of extraordinary beauty in the world around us. Even earth's creature's drive to self-preservation indicates that the intelligent designer is a benevolent being who enjoys watching His creations flourish.

 

[ChattyMute]

No offense, Chatty, but you are looking at reality through the grid of your world view. If you put down the grid, then facts won't pass through it like water through a colander. The supernatural's influence is observable through the natural universe. Is there not a saying that you can tell a painter by his painting? Let me put it this way: If some mold was sitting in your fridge and it looked like mush, then you can not assume that it was designed. But if it had multiple colors and looked exactly like Albert Einstein's face, then you can be certain that it as designed.

Take another example. Suppose you were walking through an ally when you found a trash heap against the wall of the building. It looks like it was just thrown there, so you cannot assume that it was intended to be a grand observance to others. But if the steel pipes, stray screws, and other junk was put together to look like even a moderately impressive model, then you can be certain that it was designed for somebody's pleasure. Now take that example and apply it to our own world.

Our atmosphere had to be fine tuned to an exceptional degree or else life would not be able to exist, and if our earth were any closer to or further away from the sun, then life would not be able to be sustained, either. Not to mention that the planets keep the earth in proper orbit. Just these observances alone are powerful indicators that there was an intelligent being behind the universe' assembly. Now just consider that we humans have eyes with which to see the observances and others of extraordinary beauty in the world around us. Even earth's creature's drive to self-preservation indicates that the intelligent designer is a benevolent being who enjoys watching His creations flourish.

You are looking through your own world view as well. You can say whatever you want. But science will NEVER deal with the supernatural. That is science 101.

You can't tell every painter by his painting. Only if it is famous or a very well known painter who's work and styles have been studied. You wouldn't be able to tell my sister's painting from mine.

You lost comment in the first paragraph makes no sense.

Or you can assume that person was bored. There are multiple reasons why people do what they do. Not just one. And I'd say the saying for assuming, but it would be against the rules.

You assume that we have to exist; that our life has a purpose. Maybe it does, but science can't tell us. Only other people can. The universe is vast and the time we've already been through in this universe is almost uncompromisable. The odds of life forming are very small, but when given the space and time; it will likely happen.

We have eyes because at several points through out time, we had several beneficial mutations.

Creatures try to survive because they don't want to die; perfectly natural. It's instinct to survive. Maybe God gave that instinct. Science can't tell.

Now, back to topic.

 

[azlan88]

I'm not saying that science can detect God. I am merely saying that by observing the universe and everything in it, we can conclude that an intelligent being must have designed it. Look at it this way. Can you tell that the Mona Lisa was painted by an intelligent being, or was it just there for no reason? The answer is obviously that somebody painted the Mona Lisa by its complexity and precisiveness alone. Just the same, you can tell by the universe' complexity and precisiveness that it was designed. You can't flick a paintbrush through the air in random directions and expect to paint the Mona Lisa, and niether can the universe assemble itself randomly, by chance, and for no reason and become what it is now.

 

[lordkalvan]

Because everything revolves around God and comes forth from Him, we need to address the nature of God before we move on to anything else.

You still haven't addressed the points I raised.