Creation of God

Originally posted by dj2becker
...Christianity is not a religion...

False.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
False.

True. For many it is simply a religion. But for those who have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ it is more than just a religion.

Originally posted by dj2becker
True. For many it is simply a religion. But for those who have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ it is more than just a religion.

Personal relationship? Whaddaya mean, like a studio loft on Castro Ave. decorated in pastels and lace and a Pomeranian named Muffin?

Originally posted by Halitose
Has he claimed divinity? Does he exhibit any supernatural traits? Is he just a Hollywood cheese fest?

To be perfectly honest, I never entertained the idea; perhaps he's the god of roundhouse kicks and bad acting -- I'll concede as much.

Whoever said it was the Chuck Norris of bad-holywood action film notoriety? Pretty presumptious of you, Hal.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Strawman.😏

Why? Genesis has been shown scientifically (with evidence and everything) to be flawed. No room for interpretation there.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I think Adam will disagree with you.😞

Anyway, why is this any more credible that me saying that God has always existed?

We can always check your hypothesis by giving Chuck a shot of mercury... If he has always existed, then I suppose a spoon-full of potassium cyanide would give him lots of energy...

Didn't work for Jesus now, did it? Why should Chuck incarnate be any different?

Originally posted by dj2becker
My God has a lot better things to do. Why don't you invite him? He won't resist the offer to stay in your heart, once you've cleaned it out for Him. 😏

When He's taken up lodging in your heart I bet you'll forget all about the poison contest. 😵

What could possibly tie up your gods time? If he's omnipotent, then nothing. In which case, he certainly has time. Maybe he's scared.

Originally posted by dj2becker
True. For many it is simply a religion. But for those who have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ it is more than just a religion.

False. Christianity IS most certainly a religion, not a fact. Where is your cold, hard, solid, physical evidence of god? Without that it comes down to belief, and is therefore a religion.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
False. Christianity IS most certainly a religion, not a fact. Where is your cold, hard, solid, physical evidence of god? Without that it comes down to belief, and is therefore a religion.

OK. So where's you cold, hard, solid, physical evidence that evolution created life?
The simple truth is, you don't have any. You simply think evolution is more likely the cause than God. Dare I say, you BELIEVE it's more likely than God? Does that make science a religion?

DF

Originally posted by DragonFriend
OK. So where's you cold, hard, solid, physical evidence that evolution created life?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the TOE doesn't attempt to describe how the first single-cell life forms developed. It only describes where they went from there.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Why? Genesis has been shown scientifically (with evidence and everything) to be flawed. No room for interpretation there.

You're not talking of the TOE are you? If not, I'm dying to hear it...

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Why? Genesis has been shown scientifically (with evidence and everything) to be flawed. No room for interpretation there.

That's a rather extravagant claim there my friend. If you wish to make the argument that the rather biased evaluation of a small sample of data (and yes, I consider it small in the great equation) should hold some water against the Genesis creation account, you are walking straight into fallacy (in my opinion).

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I will say this once more.

You can not validate religion with science, and you can not validate science with religion. The two are irreconcilably based upon entirely different predications. My religion does not need to meet scientific criteria, just as your science does not validate itself via theological criteria. Both are entirely and highly fallible due to the limitation of perception inherant to our physical being.

Science observes the natural world. That is all. Theology records human experience of the unobservable.

Universal truth is an elusive thing, and the truth is we are both fallible my friend. You place your faith in the provable, though short sighted. I place mine in the limitless, though intangible. Niether one of us really has any right to say we know a damn thing. We are both merely observers attempting to understand.

Best Regards,

Omnislash 🙂

Originally posted by David C
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the TOE doesn't attempt to describe how the first single-cell life forms developed. It only describes where they went from there.

Yes I am afraid David C you are wrong but I know the feeling well too!

Much work has been done into the pre-cellular origins for life specifically on the so called "RNA world" put forward initially by Woese, Orgel and Crick and developed by Gilbert with ultimately a Nobel prize in Chemistry going to Cech and Altman in 1989.

An entity to be "alive" requires essentially "only" multiplication, variation and what is techincally termed an unlimited heredity. I will not go into it but self-replicating and crucially enzymatic molecular machines termed ribozymes are crucial to this. The first artifical replicator was created in 1986 by von Kiedrowski. If you are keen to learn I would recommend the popular science book: The Origins of Life - From the Birth of Life to the Origins of Language by Maynard Smith and Szathmary, Oxford Press, 1999.

I am curious what you anti-evolutionists make of the inexorable progress of the H5N1 avian influenza through Europe at present that evolved from a virus first found in Gunadong south-east China a decade ago.

This in my view is why this anti-evolutionary ignorance is so pernicious as kids are being taught poor science such as this "irreducible complexity" and "creation science" nonsense when the truth is science possesses the best explanation of the origins of life on this planet including the apperance of Homo sapiens in Africa quite recently geologically speaking.

The vast majority of all species that ever lived on this planet are now dead so all the rich diversity of life including all the people around us possess a very deep and profound bond and come from a long lineage of survivors that ultimately trace their ancestry back to these initial replicators at the beginning of life in a necessarily unbroken chain for literally billions of years. This is the richest cosmogony we have as humans and is essential to our very survival.

Originally posted by dj2becker
You're not talking of the TOE are you? If not, I'm dying to hear it...

nope, but i'll do it tomorrow. Suffice to say the sun came into existance before land plants. (that's a hint btw)

Originally posted by micarr
I am curious what you anti-evolutionists make of the inexorable progress of the H5N1 avian influenza through Europe at present that evolved from a virus first found in Gunadong south-east China a decade ago.

This would be micro-evolution. I don't think there is much debate over this. It is macro-evolution that is questioned by many. Perhaps once H5N1 evolves into a kind of bird we can talk again...