Is this another one of those"if I dont know the answer, then God is the answer"?
As someone who is not an evolutionist
This concept of a deceptive God is very hard to accept, it strikes me as a much greater challenge to Christianity than any damage the concept of evolution could ever hope to do.
....You would need to propose a God who would create Man with a rational mind, a sense of wonder, and seeking intellect, while creating a universe....
When does Miss Tradesecret’s Bible stupidity ever stop?
Can you believe the two Bible fools Miss Tradesecret and YouFound_Lxam, as if they were the same person in being so Bible dumbfounded!
Wasn't Jesus born 2022 years ago on Christmas day in a manger?
Give or take 3978 according to Bro D.
And how bleak do winters get in Bethlehem?
As someone who is not an evolutionistI'll presume this position is based on a contrived presumption that the theory of evolution in some way contradicts Christian faith, but that just isn't true.
What you are contending requires a direct refutation of the most general principles of most of our physical and biological sciences. As a unifying theory of biology, evolution holds true. Its mechanisms are by no means completely understood and it does not in any way eliminate the mystery of life, question the existence of God, or bring into doubt any of the basic tenets of Christianity.
But it is absolutely central to science.
The theory of evolution is the great unifying principle of biology, as powerful a model to biology as Newton's model was to physics. The conceptual framework of the theory of evolution makes sense of a profoundly wide range of scientific facts and it does it in a magnificent and comprehensive way. It provides a principle of unity, a framework by which science can attempt to explain, to unify, and to order, a vast amount of disparate data into a consistent whole providing tremendous coherence and clarity. To deny evolution you must bring into question the entire interwoven fabric of scientific research.
Flat out denial of the theory of Evolution requires the concomitant denial of an astounding range of scientific disciplines, not just the disciplines of geology, paleontology, archeology, radiometric dating, genetics, and zoology but also such fundamental disciplines as physics, astronomy, astrophysics, chemistry, biochemistry, geophysics, biology, botany, microbiology, and meteorology, and many others. Because of the interrelated aspect of the sciences, you can't really propose that the theory evolution is false without being fundamentally anti-scientific. You can contend that the theory of evolution is incomplete, nobody claims it is complete. If you could in fact, deny the theory of evolution, it would, in effect, unravel the world of science.
And I just don't see why anyone would want to do that. I simply do not see evolution challenging any of the basic tenets of Christianity; unfortunately, I can't say the same thing about your contention here. In order to support the belief that evolution is false, you accordingly have to postulate a deceptive God, don't you?
You would need to propose a God who would create Man with a rational mind, a sense of wonder, and seeking intellect, while creating a universe with the false appearance of tremendous age with the overwhelming evidence of "evolution" occurring in creation as a trick or something. This concept of a deceptive God is very hard to accept, it strikes me as a much greater challenge to Christianity than any damage the concept of evolution could ever hope to do.
Tradesecrte wrote:(1) I will await you definitions to see whether they match or not.(2) It really is going to depend upon how broad or narrow your provided definition of the theory of evolution is going to be.(3) for the theory of definition and then we can go from there.(4 )Let's see what your definitions are and then perhaps we might be able to discuss this properly.(6) Again we are going to have to see how broad or narrow your definition of evolution is.(7) for the theory of definition and then we can go from there.(8) But let's start by you - defining and providing the basis of Christianity
There are more investigative journalists and scholars who have put forth the same theory. Far more plausible than the fictional deity written of in the Bible.
In the existence that exists, why did the non-life evolve to a life form? Does this imply that non-life forms have the ability to be dissatisfied? Or the capacity to want to exist forever? Moreover, how did it come about? Was it intentional, under the guise of the survival of the fittest - although I am not sure how that works. Or was it an accident?
As someone who is not an evolutionist - and what little I thought I knew, seems to becoming more vague every day, so would someone please assist me here.
Now I know that this may well do with the origin of all theories - yet - I am not asking about why or how non-life came into being - we can assume that for the sake of the discussion. I am asking about the evolution from non-life to life.
Now admittedly, having a brain seems better than not having a brain. And the ability to move and communicate seems to be better than not being able to do the same, but they are both value statements.Thanks - in anticipation.
In the existence that exists, why did the non-life evolve to a life form?
