G
grannymh
Guest
There is a difference between rejecting a scientifc theory and rejecting God Himself as the Creator.
- Status
L
lynnvinc
Guest
True. Rejecting God is a big sin. Lies are small sins, esp if they do not entail harm to people.
So rejecting evolution would probably be a very tiny sin (if it is a sin – I’m not theologian), while rejecting anthropogenic climate change and persuading others to do so, thereby preventing the mitigation of it, would be a tremendously huge sin, perhaps akin to killing people, but again I’m no theologian. It’s surely not as bad as having an abortion due to having a bad hair day, or killing a gas attendant during a robbery, but I’m thinking it might be about as bad as stealing food from a poor person.
But there is always redemption in the blood of Christ. He forgives the repentant sinner. What is needed is humility to take seriously what the scientists are saying, and not go searching all over the internet for some questionable report from some questionable source to support what we’d like to believe…that we are not complicit in this atrocity against humanity and God’s creation, which He pronounced GOOD.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Even just a decade ago I would have agreed with you on the origin of life. Not anymore. A lot of spectacular research has been done in the meantime, and an origin of life by natural causes is now highly probable, see my article on the evolution website Talkorigins.org:
talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html
E
edwest2
Guest
This is mostly speculation. While I encourage such research, it inevitably leads to this:
stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
With many thanks for your detailed analysis, which (to my surprise) I was able to understand, the issue is no longer a “God of the gaps” argument but a “let’s get rid of God” argument as the link I provide above shows. The Bible tells us that the work of God is evident in His creation. Scientists cannot produce an artificial cell and I am familiar with the work of Dr. Venter. Manipulation at the cellular level appears possible and even atomic level manipulation may be possible, but existing raw material is required.
See Romans 1:20
bible.cc/romans/1-20.htm
Peace,
Ed
stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
With many thanks for your detailed analysis, which (to my surprise) I was able to understand, the issue is no longer a “God of the gaps” argument but a “let’s get rid of God” argument as the link I provide above shows. The Bible tells us that the work of God is evident in His creation. Scientists cannot produce an artificial cell and I am familiar with the work of Dr. Venter. Manipulation at the cellular level appears possible and even atomic level manipulation may be possible, but existing raw material is required.
See Romans 1:20
bible.cc/romans/1-20.htm
Peace,
Ed
G
grannymh
Guest
My area of interest is the first three chapters of Genesis. Regarding your comment regarding St. Augustine above.
Question. Did St. Augustine dismiss the Divine Revelation referred to in the first three chapters of Genesis?
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Nooooooo! Of course not. But, as Pope John Paul II said (quoting Galileo), “the Bible does not tell us how the heavens go, it tells us how to go to heaven”.
And I am quite sure that Augustine would not have questioned Adam and Eve, and original sin, but rather the story of creation of the world. As is common theological intepretation, the central message of Genesis I is that God created the world, not how He did it.
Divine revelation can express itself in many literary forms, including allegory. Jesus spoke in parables too.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
I should specify more:
As is common theological intepretation, the central message of Genesis I is the theological truth that God created the world, not the scientific truth how He did it.
G
grannymh
Guest
Thank you for your patient response. I know most of where you stand. I was curious about St. Augustine because some people appear to have different interpretations of what he says on various topics. I am losing my trust in quotations.
As long as today is my nitty-gritty day, I will add that Divine Revelation can express real events in many literary forms.
G
grannymh
Guest
Now that is a great nitty-gritty.
K
kbachler
Guest
- An example is not a definition. Let’s not use the roster method for miracles.
- Generally, the definition of a miracle seems to be a positive, unexpected event that we do not understand.
500 years ago, a “match” would be a miracle.
1,000 years ago a lens would be a miracle
Define miracle.
K
kbachler
Guest
And on this matter, science has demonstrated that the above quote is in fact wrong.
K
kbachler
Guest
I agree. There are several molecules that replicate. These molecules can arise in reasonably natural circumstances.
But this is not a surprise. More and more the universe appears to be a universe of information, and that physical events are a manifestation of changes in information. We tend to think of the physical events as what is real, and the mathematics/physics/changes in information as an explanation going on “behind the curtain”. But there is reason to believe that the information is real and that the physical events are “merely” a manifestation of the information.
Given this approach, it shouldn’t be as surprising that some information is stored and duplicated.
G
grannymh
Guest
No. 2 is not a good definition because it does not take into consideration expected natural physical laws.
A simple definition is --“A miracle is an extraordinary phenomenon.”
It means that we do understand what physical laws are involved. It means that we see that the physical laws involved allowed an unusual or extraordinary situation.
K
kbachler
Guest
It’s sad that you put mumbo jumbo in a picture and act as though it has meaning.
K
kbachler
Guest
But the above is also incomplete. A lens in 500 B.C. would be a miraculous thing - yet the physical laws for it would not be understood in the least.
My point is that I agree its extraordinary - but that doesn’t imply that its supernatural. There’s nothing Biblical or non-Biblical that says that God’s miracles can’t occur through nature.
B
buffalo
Guest
Your post is a big reason these threads get shut down.
G
grannymh
Guest
Emphasis mine.
Yes, extraordinary is correct.
And the definition is complete because it does not necessarily imply that the event is supernatural nor does it imply that event is not supernatural. I gave you a basic definition of miracle. Some scientists use this definition instead of the word miracle because the definition does not imply anything one way or another. They are describing the event as it is. Period.
Here is another way to look at it in a realistic manner.
A miracle is an extraordinary phenomenon; however, not every extraordinary phenomenon is a miracle.
You may have the last word on miracle. Thank you.
Blessings,
granny
The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.
K
kbachler
Guest
OK…I think (and maybe I misread) that you said that it implied an understanding of physical laws - that was the nit I was attempting to pick. Based on what you are saying above, then we have greater agreement.Emphasis mine.
Yes, extraordinary is correct.
And the definition is complete because it does not necessarily imply that the event is supernatural nor does it imply that event is not supernatural. I gave you a basic definition of miracle. Some scientists use this definition instead of the word miracle because the definition does not imply anything one way or another. They are describing the event as it is. Period.
Here is another way to look at it in a realistic manner.
A miracle is an extraordinary phenomenon; however, not every extraordinary phenomenon is a miracle.
You may have the last word on miracle. Thank you.
Blessings,
granny
The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.
K
kbachler
Guest
I don’t see why you would think that. Anyone can draw a graph and label it with words that have no underpinning in either logic or actual fact and then try to advance it as though it has meaning. I don’t really care WHAT the words are, or the intent of the graph. We can still have a reasonable expectation that you deal with facts and logic.
- Status