W
William_Scott
Guest
You as well IWantGod […now logging out from Catholic Answers for the next couple of weeks…]
Last edited:
- Status
W
Wozza
Guest
You have just spent a couple of hundred words confirming your previous position. You are either incapable of understanding what is being said or are purposely ignoring it.IWantGod:
You as well IWantGod […now logging out from Catholic Answers for the next couple of weeks…]
Anything that is described as supernatural INCLUDES God. Anything that is described as being natural also INCLUDES God. Whatever process God has used to bring us to this point has INCLUDED God.
Can that not be made any clearer?
Yet you want to differentiate His methods by classing them as natural or supernatural. As if that makes any difference to Him. One we can understand via science, the other we cannot. It makes no difference to us. It makes no difference to Him. Apparently it makes a difference to you.
Your argument is not with us. Take it up with Him
W
William_Scott
Guest
Wozza, I can tell we share much in common (such as our need for sunlight and our need to derive energy from the food we consume).
That said, I agree as stated above that natural and supernatural processes include God. As my post stated my beef is not with the idea that God works through natural processes, but with the naturalistic origins myth itself (which IWantGod sadly compromised on
). My post likewise stated that in contrast with this fanciful myth, your Bible and modern science require supernatural processes for origins.I realize that only a tin-foil hat guy like me would feel this way, but I actually think taking the observations of modern science seriously matters (such as the fairly well-documented notion that life does not spontaneously arise from non-life–in contrast with the thinking of the primitive minds in Darwin’s day). Further, I’m so radical that I even think taking God at His Word matters. I only share this silly conviction with all of the Church Fathers and the theologians of the Church for the first 1800 years of her history (including Augustine)–virtually all of whom believed in a young earth and a literal Genesis 2-11 (some differences on whether the first Chapter of Genesis occurred in one day or seven days–but what’s a few days between friends).
Now my words about leaving this thread mean nothing…I’m just going to skulk away now…
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
It’s true that God can directly make possible what is not possible by instrumental means. But you misunderstand my position. I accept the scientific definition of evolution, and i think it’s the most reasonable explanation. But obviously, considering that i am a Christian, i don’t believe that any physical event is possible without the power of God. In other-words, while i certainly believe that physical reality exists by the power of God, i also believe that God allows physical reality to act according to it’s given nature, and it is this process that science studies.
So no, i don’t believe that God is a tinkerer, and yes i do believe physical reality has all the principles required to achieve all the physical results that we experience around us. And if you really believe in the power of God, why would you doubt that?
In otherwords, what difference does it make?
Last edited:
W
William_Scott
Guest
Great, I do too–well except for the whole evolution thing.
Totally in agreement here (we know Christ upholds the laws of nature as Scripture states).
Wait…you agree that rocks (through the working of purely natural processes, including rain, cosmic rays, etc.) became people? My faith in your naturalistic origin convictions is restored.
I will cite here to the innumerable boring posts I have written above on why my faith in the naturalistic origin myth is really, really weak (despite my belief in God’s power working through supernatural and natural processes). If it makes no difference, why do you insist on pointing out the folly of us poor, lowly peasants who believe in the origin fables of ignorant goat-herders? You seem like a really nice guy, IWantGod, and although we disagree on the reasonableness of believing our parents were funny looking rodents (or, rodent-like creatures for you scientists in the crowd), I think we can still be friends. [On the other hand, I think Wozza and I may have to settle for frenemy status
]
Last edited:
W
Wozza
Guest
There are two people who think you are a tin-foil hat wearing fundie. You, on your own admission are one of them.Wozza:
Wozza, I can tell we share much in common (such as our need for sunlight and our need to derive energy from the food we consume).
That said, I agree as stated above that natural and supernatural processes include God. As my post stated my beef is not with the idea that God works through natural processes, but with the naturalistic origins myth itself (which IWantGod sadly compromised on
I realize that only a tin-foil hat guy like me would feel this way, but I actually think taking the observations of modern science seriously matters (such as the fairly well-documented notion that life does not spontaneously arise from non-life–in contrast with the thinking of the primitive minds in Darwin’s day). Further, I’m so radical that I even think taking God at His Word matters. I only share this silly conviction with all of the Church Fathers and the theologians of the Church for the first 1800 years of her history (including Augustine)–virtually all of whom believed in a young earth and a literal Genesis 2-11 (some differences on whether the first Chapter of Genesis occurred in one day or seven days–but what’s a few days between friends).
Now my words about leaving this thread mean nothing…I’m just going to skulk away now…
Last edited:
W
William_Scott
Guest
Tin-foil hats are actually very avant garde (in addition to shielding the brain from electromagnetic fields, etc.
)
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
There you go again with the rocks theory again. If the theory of evolution is so absurd to begin with, why do you feel the need to misrepresent it?
I said it’s sufficient for the physical structures we see around us. However, i think that the behavior of organisms stinks of goal direction which would require intelligent information. Science cannot measure or tell us where that information came from, it can only describe the behavior of physical things and the physical processes involved, and as far as that is concerned i completely agree with the science. There is still a debate on whether or not the human intellect is physical in nature or not. I don’t think it’is physical, but science can only describe the physical processes of the brain and doesn’t have much to say about the mind beyond that.
Last edited:
W
William_Scott
Guest
With the exception of it being a simplified statement of the issue, what exactly in my statement “rocks (through the working of purely natural processes, including rain, cosmic rays, etc.) became people” is wrong? The primitive earth was essentially one big lifeless rock and according to all orthodox speculations on the matter of life origins (excluding the infinite regression of the fringe extraterrestrial explanations), life arose in some yet to be determined way from the array of lifeless chemical elements which constitute this rock and swirl around and interact with this rock.
W
Wozza
Guest
Unless you want to amuse yourself, IWG, I would ignore these ‘hail-fellow-well-met, gee I’m just a tin-foil hat wearing fundi who shucks, don’t know much about these durn modern scientific theories’ posts.William_Scott:
There you go again with the rocks theory again. If the theory of evolution is so absurd to begin with, why do you feel the need to misrepresent it?
I said it’s sufficient for the physical things we see around us. However, i think that the behavior of organisms stinks of goal direction which would require intelligent information. Science cannot measure or tell us where that information came from, it can only describe the behavior of physical things and the physical processes involved, and as far as that is concerned i completely agree with the science. There is still a debate on whether or not the human intellect is physical in nature or not. I don’t think it’is physical, but science can only describe the physical processes of the brain and doesn’t have much to say about the mind beyond that.
I for one welcome them.
I
IWantGod
Guest
You and i both know that a rock didn’t just get up and walk. That’s what i mean by misrepresentation. If abiogenesis is true then there were very specific chemical reactions involved in forming the first cell structures. A Rock didn’t simply become a cell, and the only reason you presented it that way was to make it look absurd. I’m here to announce that you failed.
Last edited:
W
William_Scott
Guest
Err, misrepresentation is not happening when the people who the post is written for (you and other readers of this thread— sad lot that we are) are not at any risk of being misled by the representation.
You must have a very low view of of the brave few who are still reading this thread if you think they would be misled to believe from my posts that abiogenesis and molecule to man evolution teaches that rocks just got up and walked in a single day (although if you apply the key fudge factor—ridiculous amounts of time—rocks plus the lifeless chemicals interacting with them do eventually sprout legs and walk). All that said, I will concede that I have failed in doing a good job exposing the foolishness of naturalistic origin beliefs. I’ll have to leave that task to more articulate souls. Thanks for the interesting interchange.
W
William_Scott
Guest
Thanks Wozza, someday I hope to be really smart. But I’ve been ignorant for so long, I don’t know if it’s possible. Regardless, I hope you have a merry Christmas. [And if I even think of writing another post my wife will make sure that I cease to exist…so try to have fun over the Christmas season without my ridiculous posts guys]
Last edited:
S
sevenswords
Guest
Dawkins has moved on to aliens did it…
P
PickyPicky
Guest
No, no, I hope you know that is a particularly reprehensible piece of quote mining.
S
sevenswords
Guest
The high priest talking origins, … Aliens did it…
I
IWantGod
Guest
Clearly Mr Dawkins is an atheist, and it’s no secret. That in itself does not lend legitimacy to his ideas.
That being said, i like the idea of aliens seeding life on other planets.
Last edited:
P
PickyPicky
Guest
I have no particular liking for Mr Dawkins, and he was unwise to give this hostage to fortune. But to suggest that he believes life was seeded by aliens is nonsense. What he was saying was that even if it were seeded by aliens those aliens would have to have evolved.
Here we are:
Here we are:
W
William_Scott
Guest
I agree with much of the defense Dawkins makes for his remarks, however, his famously awkward interview with Ben Stein betrays the weak, unscientific nature of his blind faith in the delusion of a self-creating cosmos and life which begat itself (whether via directed panspermia or the equally ludicrous idea that earth seeded its own life).
Sadly, it is obvious from his statements in the Ben Stein interview and elsewhere that Dawkins has granted far more credence to the patently unscientific notion of directed panspermia (at least prior to realizing how silly he sounded when he spoke in overly favorable terms about our alien forefathers) than he has ever conceded in public regarding the creative power of the One in whom Dawkins lives, moves and has his being.
Last edited:
W
William_Scott
Guest
Dawkins is really a man of faith. He and the whole evolutionary gang (including our theistic evolutionary brethren) have a deep and abiding faith in the unseen truths of evolution. They take it as an article of their mystical faith that a ridiculous number of DNA replication/recombination errors and other damage to the DNA of either brainless sea sponges* or virtually brainless comb jellies and their offspring eventually produced the conscious human mind and opposable thumbs (in other words, we’re really mutant comb jellies or sea sponges). There are many other tenants of this faith which beggar the imagination, yet our evolutionary friends are not kind to the weak in faith. You must not question, only believe.
Those who do question or (Chance forbid) point out the embarrassing lack of clothing on this Emperor are deemed loathsome heretics, who have wandered from the hallowed path of naturalistic orthodoxy.
To step outside the bounds of this naturalistic origins faith system is to make yourself subject to the wrath of its highly evolved, really, really smart adherents, who spend great quantities of time and other precious resources, just like the martyrs of old, proving the totally obvious truth of their imaginative faith to countless simpletons.
Well, I could keep going but I’m out of here once more until after Christmas, so I wish everyone a Merry Christmas and allow the cosmic rays that penetrate your heart (and other vital organs) this Season to mutate you into a better you.
p.s. A final word to the poor lost souls who are still following this thread, even if you’re not too keen on having your DNA reworked by cosmic rays over this Blessed Season, just remember as you gather around the Christmas tree with your mutant sea sponge family the wondrous truths of fide evolutionis (pardon my pig latin), meditating therein on the gentle mutating cosmic rays and the glorious multitudes of errors in the copying of DNA, etc. that caused sea sponges to become gentlemen and scholars.
[*Or, sea dwelling sponge-like creatures for any who think it is disrespectful to refer to our dim-witted forefathers as “sea sponges”]
Those who do question or (Chance forbid) point out the embarrassing lack of clothing on this Emperor are deemed loathsome heretics, who have wandered from the hallowed path of naturalistic orthodoxy.
To step outside the bounds of this naturalistic origins faith system is to make yourself subject to the wrath of its highly evolved, really, really smart adherents, who spend great quantities of time and other precious resources, just like the martyrs of old, proving the totally obvious truth of their imaginative faith to countless simpletons.
Well, I could keep going but I’m out of here once more until after Christmas, so I wish everyone a Merry Christmas and allow the cosmic rays that penetrate your heart (and other vital organs) this Season to mutate you into a better you.
p.s. A final word to the poor lost souls who are still following this thread, even if you’re not too keen on having your DNA reworked by cosmic rays over this Blessed Season, just remember as you gather around the Christmas tree with your mutant sea sponge family the wondrous truths of fide evolutionis (pardon my pig latin), meditating therein on the gentle mutating cosmic rays and the glorious multitudes of errors in the copying of DNA, etc. that caused sea sponges to become gentlemen and scholars.
[*Or, sea dwelling sponge-like creatures for any who think it is disrespectful to refer to our dim-witted forefathers as “sea sponges”]
Last edited:
- Status