Which the methods of Creation are natural as science sees it.
-
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!
For Evolutionists and a Few Open Minded Creationists
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Abiogenesis. I realize this is an umbrella term for a number of hypotheses, but all the proposed hypotheses I have seen indicate an origin from nonliving chemicals following the laws of chemistry and physics. The deep sea vent hypothesis, the clay hypothesis, and the deep earth hypothesis are among the prominent hypotheses. There are others including panspermia, but this really just pushes the origin back in time to another location.
Nonetheless, no matter how scientific hypothesis propose abiogenesis it remains that it describes only the physical processes, which may be the way God Created life.
I cannot deny that. In fact, I believe along those lines.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Yes, I was going to make this point.
Science will never see divine creation as an explanation. For as long as no natural explanation is forthcoming, it will remain an unsolved problem in science. It would be utterly unscientific for science to give up, throw its hands in the air and say, it beats us, so God must have done it.
Equally, there can never be scientific (that is to say, reproducible) evidence of something that could be agreed to be a sign of supernatural intervention. This is because if it were a reproducible observation, it would be seen as just another new discovery about nature. Whatever it was would then be investigated as a natural phenomenon.
For reasons such as these I am with Cardinal Newman, who observed that the Christian who bases his faith on looking for supernatural intervention in nature is building his house on sand. He is doomed to lose it as science advances.
It is possible that everything in nature is a result of Divine Creation, but science by its nature could never be able to interpret something due to supernatural intervention. This would be a paradox and contradiction to the fundamentals of science and nature.
Agreed.
exchemist
Veteran Member
My sentiments exactly.
Audie
Veteran Member
So, like, if "God" showed up, his face filling the sky,
with some sort of comments to make in all languages
simultaneously, it would be the position of all
righteous scientists that nothing supernatural took place?
Would he have to swallow the moon and **** peach
pits to get some recognition?
exchemist
Veteran Member
I think at that point the scientists would ring up the Vatican and say: "Er, Your Holiness, we think this one's probably for you."
Audie
Veteran Member
Dont be ridiculous, if you can help it.
Audie
Veteran Member
I think at that point the scientists would ring up the Vatican and say: "Er, Your Holiness, we think this one's probably for you."
I think you and shun pretty much detailed the difference
between an atheist and a peachpitter.
exchemist
Veteran Member
What's a peachpitter? Is this some Chinese term?
Audie
Veteran Member
One who **** peach pits. Like if god was to swallow the
moon, and **** peach pits.
Chinese words are one syllable, so it cant be Chinese.
exchemist
Veteran Member
??? My hovercraft is full of eels.
Audie
Veteran Member
Audie-
↑
So, like, if "God" showed up, his face filling the sky,
with some sort of comments to make in all languages
simultaneously, it would be the position of all
righteous scientists that nothing supernatural took place?
Would he have to swallow the moon and **** peach
pits to get some recognition?
Theist response-
Advanced technology would make this happen without much difficulty.
Your response-
exchemist said: ↑
I think at that point the scientists would ring up the Vatican and say: "Er, Your Holiness, we think this one's probably for you.
It is like the difference between sensible and insensible.
Theists have the hardest time being sensible, as so well
illustrated by the insensible answer from the theist
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Ok, you just scored 100 points on my credibility scale.
Not ridiculous at all. Three dimensional projection on a large scale, sound amplification and projection, producing these world wide in different languages, mass hypnosis techniques are not a stretch from existing technologies.
I'm a skeptic by nature. I would have to wonder what I was seeing. Is it God or is it some being or group of beings with technology so far in advance of our own, that it appears to be divine in nature. The peach pit thing may, in fact, sway me to a position that it is God. I would expect a sense of humor similar to our own and don't expect to find that as probable among an advanced, alien civilization.
Certainly, the ability to behave and operate as you describe is beyond our limits, but who knows what tomorrow may bring. Consideration of such events as supernatural would have to be on the table, though how would you ever know for sure. Like being an alleged immortal that is 100,000,000 years old and you die next week. You may think you are truly immortal at age 100,000, but in another 99,000,000 years, that would turn out to be untrue.
Eternulax the immortal. Dead at 26.