Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vonsalza said:
40.png
Bradskii:
40.png
buffalo:
40.png
Metis1:
the singular-- “God”
Click to expand...
You think a singular God is an assumption?

There is more than one uncaused cause?
Click to expand...
As far as Christians are concerned. And that cause is God. But you are claiming an unknown designer. Not God.

Kinda strange for a Christian to propose that God isn’t necessarily the creator of all life.
Click to expand...
I think that’s a very important concept for @edwest to parse.

We’re not attacking God. We’re attacking ID.

Plenty of theist evolutionists are happy to say that God designed evolution to work in a way that didn’t require his continual intervention and then sent the “ball” rolling.
Click to expand...
My apologies to all. The sentence I wrote should have been: ‘NOT as far as Christians are concerned’.
 
Bradskii said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
40.png
Bradskii:
40.png
buffalo:
40.png
Metis1:
the singular-- “God”
Click to expand...
You think a singular God is an assumption?

There is more than one uncaused cause?
Click to expand...
As far as Christians are concerned. And that cause is God. But you are claiming an unknown designer. Not God.

Kinda strange for a Christian to propose that God isn’t necessarily the creator of all life.
Click to expand...
I think that’s a very important concept for @edwest to parse.

We’re not attacking God. We’re attacking ID.

Plenty of theist evolutionists are happy to say that God designed evolution to work in a way that didn’t require his continual intervention and then sent the “ball” rolling.
Click to expand...
My apologies to all. The sentence I wrote should have been: ‘NOT as far as Christians are concerned’.
Click to expand...
No apology required.

Devout IDers here just need to understand an attack on ID isn’t an attack on the concept of God.
 
  1. Because one look at all the monkies and how they have evolved into small humans…or wait they did not “evolve”…
  2. and until something better comes along, science needs to give it try so the theory gets taught as fact because the average public school kid does not know the difference.
  3. and there were no intermediate species that “evolved” into things that at some point could not fly, walk or swim- they were just born “evolved>”
 
That just means it didn’t go extinct, Ed… It wasn’t “re-designed”…
 
Vonsalza said:
Plenty of theist evolutionists are happy to say that God designed evolution to work in a way that didn’t require His continual intervention and then sent the “ball” rolling.
Click to expand...
Did God know what Adam would look like?
 
That and there are two flood accounts and two creation accounts in Genesis.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
Plenty of theist evolutionists are happy to say that God designed evolution to work in a way that didn’t require His continual intervention and then sent the “ball” rolling.
Click to expand...
Did God know what Adam would look like?
Click to expand...
If God is omniscient, yes. If not, I have no idea.
 
No reply yet. Today is not your day. Tomorrow’s not looking good either.

Ed

Hang in there.
 
Vonsalza said:
We’re not attacking God. We’re attacking ID.
Click to expand...
Gee, I’m not so sure. If you shot some fish in a barrel, could it be described as Oattacking’ them? If you club baby seals to death, could it described as ‘hunting’?

I’m sure that these, and many more questions, will be answered during the course of this fascinating debate.
 
Gabika50 said:
  1. Because one look at all the monkies and how they have evolved into small humans…or wait they did not “evolve”…
  2. and until something better comes along, science needs to give it try so the theory gets taught as fact because the average public school kid does not know the difference.
  3. and there were no intermediate species that “evolved” into things that at some point could not fly, walk or swim- they were just born “evolved>”
Click to expand...
There is a point to be made in there somewhere. Or maybe it was satire.
 
laylow said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
We’re not attacking God. We’re attacking ID.
Click to expand...
Well, some of us are. 😉
Click to expand...
Not me. I’m decidedly a member of Club Theism.

Intelligence requires God. Science answers the “why” questions when we look outward. Faith answers the questions when we look in a mirror. Without it, we tend to get all nihilistic.

And boys, nihilism is just unhealthy.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
Kinda strange for a Christian to propose that God isn’t necessarily the creator of all life.
Click to expand...
Who said that? He is. Recognize when I speak with the science hat on vs the philosophical.
Click to expand...
Remember you said that ID has a scientific hat and a philosophical hat? Thus confirming that they are one and the same? Remember Dover.

Ah, we’ll always have Dover. They wore grey and you wore blue…
 
Vonsalza said:
Not me. I’m decidedly a member of Club Theism.
Click to expand...
Yes, I am very aware of your stance. (although, I guess it could have changed in the past few months) Theism requires intervention. That goes further than the evidence points me.
 
laylow said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
Not me. I’m decidedly a member of Club Theism.
Click to expand...
Yes, I am very aware of your stance. (although, I guess it could have changed in the past few months) Theism requires intervention. That goes further than the evidence points me.
Click to expand...
Last reply then it goes private as it violates the topic - the intervention is at death. I conveniently don’t have to prove that. I can’t without dying, in which case I can’t come back to show you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top