nPeace
Veteran Member
It was to me apparently. Forgive me. i must be a little slow. I'll pay more attention to the sub-forum in the future.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Question to Creationists: What's the Mechanism?
- Thread starter Heyo
- Start date
-
- Tags
- #creation #magic #mechanism
Genesis says clearly that the earth, and water, existed before the stars. Do you deny that?You did what? Read the Bible, and not cherry pick parts and separate then? No you didn't. You would have to be more super than The Flash, and Superman, to do that.
However, if you read Genesis 1:3-5 and still conclude what you have, then the "now what" query is answered in the later part of this post.
ciao
- viole
nPeace
Veteran Member
Of course I do! Emphatically so.
nPeace
Veteran Member
No. See. You are lacking that one quality of a child... that's so important.
Heyo
Veteran Member
And what is it? Not being able to read and understand text? Or to believe in fairy tales?
Ciao
- viole
GardenLady
Active Member
I am a theist of the mainstream Christian persuasion, believe that God had/has a creative role, and accept scientific findings about the evolution of life and deep time. I do believe that evolution was guided to some extent, but do not at all believe that any species was “poofed” into existence.
As to the mechanism that God used for the creation of life and subsequent (and ongoing) development of life, I don’t know. And despite having enough interest in natural history to own books, visit museums, and occasionally hang out here, I don’t spend time wondering about the specific mechanism. But I feel confident it did not involve poofing or a rib.
As to the mechanism that God used for the creation of life and subsequent (and ongoing) development of life, I don’t know. And despite having enough interest in natural history to own books, visit museums, and occasionally hang out here, I don’t spend time wondering about the specific mechanism. But I feel confident it did not involve poofing or a rib.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
You are lacking many qualities of a mature, educated adult. That is very important to be a successful creationist.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Tour has abandoned reason and science to become a literal screaming skull for Jesus.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Well, since it's off topic, it's neither, imo.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Since you asked... again, to be direct with you, it's a lack of humility, and thus not being able to understand what you are reading in a book that is obviously no children's story book, nor "Beauty and the Beast" and suchlike.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
I am not a creationIST -but it would seem science is saying that the atoms which perfectly lend themselves to DNA self-replication simply poofed into existence -from a singularity which simply poofed into existence.
They gave the big poof a name, but they aren't offering up any actual mechanism which necessarily preceded the packaged specificity and extreme purposeful complexity of the singularity.
Self-replication of arranged atoms -with some alteration -is the mechanism for change for all DNA-based species. The big bang poofed atoms into existence, but what was the mechanism which caused them to be written into the singularity/big bang -which essentially transformed some or all of what was into very-specifically what is? If we consider the singularity referenced against simplicity itself, it must have been extremely complex -though in a compressed state. How did it get that way? How was it packaged then extracted/un-packaged?
It seems to me people are looking in the wrong place for divine creativity (though once active, DNA can be altered deliberately -as our own example shows).
Last edited:
Heyo
Veteran Member
Yep. There is no place for creativity in evolution.
Which example? Do you mean our ability to change DNA based on our understanding of it?
Well, how do you know? If they told you when you were a child that Pinocchio is sacred, and proof of the divinity of the Blue fairy, and that the Bible was for kids, with things like people living three days inside a whale, how would you know?
Ciao
- viole
Astrophile
Active Member
That is not what science says. Hydrogen, which is one of the elements that compose DNA, did originate in the Big Bang. However, the other elements of DNA (i.e. carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and phosphorus) were produced by nuclear fusion in stellar interiors, like most of the elements that do not form part of DNA.
nPeace
Veteran Member
How do I know it's not a fairy tale. Its historical reliability. Its scientific reliability. It's reliable prophesy. Its amazing overall harmony. It's tried tested and proven practical value. Its confirmation....
I could go on.
One thing the person spoken of at Psalms 10:4 will always overlook, is the fact that man in his limited understand and ability who thinks that he knows what he does not know, does not know what he thinks he knows.
(That just seemed like something fun to do)
Basically, the humble individual does not think he has knowledge of all the forms of energy out there, so when he questions the things he does not understand, he will, on that basis, ignore the things that he does.
In fact, he will use that as his excuse ("get out of jail free" card) to dismiss everything related.
Paul put it this way..."men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way" - Romans 1:18
The one who comes to understand does not gullibly accept everything. They ask questions. They try to understand. They look for indicator that what they are hearing is the truth.
Here are two examples... Acts 8:30, 31 ; Acts 17:11, 12
Many books of fiction are historically accurate
Well, not really. The first page alone contains tons of ridiculous scientific mistakes. Actually, I wonder what motivates scientifically literate people to go to page 2.
It is not. The main prophecy that characterises Christianity, the advent of the Messiah, is not recognised as a fulfilment by other readers of the same prophecy. The Jews. So much for reliability.
Ciao
- viole
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
No, actually.
The theory is about how it occurs. Being, reproduction with variation followed by selection (in a nutshell).
That species share ancestors, the tree of life, is a genetic fact.
Which also matches geographic distribution of species and comparative anatomy.
It's as factually as it gets.
In court, this type of evidence is considered evidence good enough for convictions (or overturning convictions).
In paternity cases, it is considered evidence good enough to demonstrate that man X is definitely the biological father of child Y.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
The Pope's response to it was something akin to "God is not a wizard with a magic wand"