To all the Christian evolutionists/Old Earth Creationists

[FredLC]

I really am sorry I can't be more helpful, but that's just how I feel. We are God's creations. God is so far beyond our comprehension in every conceivable way (I mean, he's GOD), that we cannot possibly apply our views on him.

But if we are to consider God good when his actions do not follow what we tiny humans consider "good", in consideration of his High Authority, than doesn't saying that "God is good" loose the meaning that religious people intent it to have?

Under this criteria, God could have a bunch of ten-year-old girlscouts ass-raped and still be called "good", because he is so above us that we cannot comprehent the ultimate goodness of such action in the incomprehensible fabric of the universe.

Regards .

 

[bhsup]

@El Machin...er, your name is on the other page!
Hrm...

No, I'd say probably not, but I'm not in a position to say with 100% certainty. There was Job, which God specifically allowed Satan to brutally "mess with" to test his faith, so in that particular instance perhaps God did want him harmed to show Satan what Job's reaction would be. There also may be times when God does believe that harming someone will help them grow in some other, spiritual way and he wants to guide them down that path (just speculating here, keep that in mind).

However, overall I'd say God probably lets the world go as the world will naturally go. So as a blanket statement that every harm is wish by God, I would have to disagree with it.

@FredLC
I really don't know what to say. I'm not a theologian and I've tried my best to explain. Unfortunately, I am not up to the task of articulating my 'gut feelings' on this issue well enough. The bad things that happen on Earth are ultimately traceable back to Satan. That in no way absolves anyone of any bad deed they commit, mind you, but Satan is there behind everything. God has given us a glimpse of his plans to deal with Satan. Why he doesn't do so now, I don't know and frankly would never dream of interrogating God about. It's not our place.

Beyond that, all I can suggest is that when you die, ask him yourself why he lets bad things happen.

 

[MRM]

Hrm...

No, I'd say probably not, but I'm not in a position to say with 100% certainty. There was Job, which God specifically allowed Satan to brutally "mess with" to test his faith, so in that particular instance perhaps God did want him harmed to show Satan what Job's reaction would be.

Why need an all knowing tests ? If he don't know the outcome without test he is not all knowing

 

[bhsup]

Why need an all knowing tests ? If he don't know the outcome without test he is not all knowing

... perhaps God did want him harmed to show Satan

And again, I just said perhaps. I don't know for sure why what happened to Job happened and I'm not going to try to defend or justify it. God would be justified in wiping us all out if he wanted to. He created us and he can destroy us.

 

[ironduck]

I really am sorry I can't be more helpful, but that's just how I feel. We are God's creations. God is so far beyond our comprehension in every conceivable way (I mean, he's GOD), that we cannot possibly apply our views on him.

So how do you know that god is all-good?

The bad things that happen on Earth are ultimately traceable back to Satan.

Is Satan behind the earthquake in Pakistan? I thought that was plate tectonics. Lots of innocent people getting mangled and killed though.

God would be justified in wiping us all out if he wanted to. He created us and he can destroy us.

Destroying us would be good? I thought he loved humans.

 

[El_Machinae]

He's defining anything that's God's will as good. My catholic friend does the same thing. I can't really pierce the barrier so that I can understand where they're coming from. I've tried logic puzzles, extrapolations, analogies. Not of my attempts have allowed me to understand the statement.

To me, it would be obvious that God should be held to a higher standard than a person. But they seemingly hold Him to a lower standard and hand-wave, calling it "beyond my understanding".

 

[bhsup]

Is Satan behind the earthquake in Pakistan? I thought that was plate tectonics. Lots of innocent people getting mangled and killed though.

Bad wording on my part. I meant "bad actions by people", not natural events. Apologies for the confusion.

 

[FredLC]

VRWCAgent:

Well, considering the terms of your reply, I will withdraw from discussion.

It's that your argument is entirely of faith, you do not wish to rationalize things.

This is not criticism, BTW. Considering how logically impaired faith is, that is the most coherent posture for believers, IMHO - "yeah, I know it sounds bad, but I have a gut feeling that it's good because God certainly knows better".

That said, live happily.

Regards .

 

[bhsup]

I won't argue with that at all. It's not logical at all. Totally based on faith.

And you live happily as well!

 

[Archbob]

Well historical accounts can't be really "proven" that they happened long after all who witnessed the event are dead. For instance, you can't factually prove that King Tut ever existed except by past recordings. You never saw king Tut and neither has anyone thats been alive. Thats what the parting of the Red Sea was, it is a recorded event of a historical account. We can't really prove it because none of us were there 2600 years ago.

As for Abiogensis, the evidence is still too sparse for me to believe it. It isn't really logical that life comes from non-life. Aristotle's view on how some life generated from "frothing slime" has been proven wrong a long time ago.
I've read more on the Miller experiments, the farthest he ever got was 13 proteins. There just isn't enough sufficient enough factual evidence for abiogensis as there is for evolution for me to warrant it as factual.

1. Abiogensis is not consistence with current accepted natural laws(life does not come from non-life)

2. We haven't actually even come close to witnessing the producing of even simple bacteria from scratch.

 

[El_Machinae]

VRWC is an exceptional example, in that he's willing to take an Internet-pounding for hours on end.

But I certainly think that morality should be rationalizable. Fully. If it isn't, then how do you convince someone else to adopt yours? You can't. You'd need to use brute force. Is it too high of a standard to hold people, that they should be able to rationalize what they do? If I say "why did you do that?" I want someone to be able to say "here is the good that the action caused, and here is the harm".

And brute force 'conversions' of morality, are undesirable.

 

[Archbob]

And brute force 'conversions' of morality, are undesirable.

I will also say that brute force morality is also not endorsed by God. People shouldn't come to God by might or power, only by the spirit of God.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, you certainly can't bring someone to God with brute force (unless I'm right about the God module), but you can certainly use power to enforce morality.

In Canada, I can get thrown in jail for creating a SCNT clone (basically, injecting DNA into an egg to make a stem cell). This law was made for 'moral' reasons, and it's being enforced on me.

And, IMHO, they have not rationalized the morality of the law. And that pisses me off.

 

[bhsup]

VRWC is an exceptional example, in that he's willing to take an Internet-pounding for hours on end.

Happy to have the discussion, actually. I'm sorry I couldn't be more fulfilling in answering your questions, but as FredLC pointed out, it's rather hopeless when much of my position is just "faith".

 

[ironduck]

Well historical accounts can't be really "proven" that they happened long after all who witnessed the event are dead. For instance, you can't factually prove that King Tut ever existed except by past recordings. You never saw king Tut and neither has anyone thats been alive.

I've seen his body. I've also seen hieroglyphs that say it's him. So although it could be a lie, there's nothing that really indicates that it is.

However, there's much that indicates that Moses didn't part the red sea - our knowledge of physics and our historical knowledge of the technology present at the time.

Anyway, historical records are historical records and not really relevant to the discussion in my opinion. If god wants us to know him he can just do it, he doesn't need us to find him in historical records.

I've read more on the Miller experiments, the farthest he ever got was 13 proteins. There just isn't enough sufficient enough factual evidence for abiogensis as there is for evolution for me to warrant it as factual.

I dunno why you keep talking about the Miller-Urey experiments - that was 50 years ago. There have been experiments since then that has revealed all 20 amino acids (amino acids are building blocks of protein, they're not protein themselves).

There have been many small steps that indicate the likelihood of abiogenesis as Perfection has already explained. For instance, Jack Szostak did some experiments that showed how a mixture of rna, fatty acids, and clay particles quickly led to the spontaneous formation of cell-like constructions with the fatty acids creating the vesicles around rna binding to clay particles. As the vesicles grew in size they broke up and thereby multiplied the cell-like structures. These kind of findings all add to our knowledge of how life might have come about. Since we can't know for sure yet isn't it just as unreasonable to write it off as impossible as it is to say that it was definite?

1. Abiogensis is not consistence with current accepted natural laws(life does not come from non-life)

I didn't realize this was a natural law. Life doesn't form out of nothing, but inorganic molecules->organic molecules->macro molecules is hardly 'nothing'.

 

[Perfection]

Well historical accounts can't be really "proven" that they happened long after all who witnessed the event are dead. For instance, you can't factually prove that King Tut ever existed except by past recordings. You never saw king Tut and neither has anyone thats been alive. Thats what the parting of the Red Sea was, it is a recorded event of a historical account. We can't really prove it because none of us were there 2600 years ago.

Well, first off I must laugh at your example, because King Tut certainly did exist, we kinda have the mummy to prove it.

Now onto the idea of accepting historical documents. It is scientifically responsible to accept historical documents as often correct, however it must be noted that they are not infalliable. Superstition and exaggeration (or flat our lies) can easily make it into such a work. Correspondence with archeological evidence and known physical laws are important

As for Abiogensis, the evidence is still too sparse for me to believe it. It isn't really logical that life comes from non-life. Aristotle's view on how some life generated from "frothing slime" has been proven wrong a long time ago.
I've read more on the Miller experiments, the farthest he ever got was 13 proteins. There just isn't enough sufficient enough factual evidence for abiogensis as there is for evolution for me to warrant it as factual.

Well, you should think outside of Miller Urey. More amino have been produced by other researchers with altered experimental setups. You should also note the ability for certain small molecules to display life like properties of self replication. You should note the spontaneous formation of lipid bilayers by phosholipids (just like a cell membrane), indications of possible past simplier systems in present life. The ability of RNA to act enzymatically. These all are evidences for steps in abiogenesis.

1. Abiogensis is not consistence with current accepted natural laws(life does not come from non-life)

That's not a currently scientifically accepted natural law.

2. We haven't actually even come close to witnessing the producing of even simple bacteria from scratch.

How much evidence do you need to view an evidenced theory over a nonscientific one?

 

[El_Machinae]

Would he count the creation of a virus from inert constituents?

 

[Archbob]

Proof as in you need to actually create a single celled bacterium of some sort from the conditions that simulate early earth conditions. Sure if you can create a virus somehow from conditions that simulate early earth than I would be inclined to believe you.

And no, there haven't been any experiments that have produced all 20 amino acids, at least not that I know of.

As for Moses parting the Red Sea defying Physics and Technology, that doesn't really matter because if God really did give him the power, then he can do it regardless. God can defy Physics and technology. If he did it by some technological method, it really wouldn't be an act of God, would it?

When dealing with Cases of God, you can throw physical laws outside the window, because a really really powerful God doesn't need to obey our physical laws.

 

[Bluemofia]

When dealing with Cases of God, you can throw physical laws outside the window, because a really really powerful God doesn't need to obey our physical laws.

Which is precisely what annoys me, is the more people learn about nature, and put parts of the bible under question of it's validity, the more people say how all powerful god is, and how he doesn't need to follow the rules.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Which is precisely what annoys me, is the more people learn about nature, and put parts of the bible under question of it's validity, the more people say how all powerful god is, and how he doesn't need to follow the rules.

That is only true when god is anthropomorphized into the image of man. God as a separate willful being outside of creation can and must be able to interact with his creation as he chooses, even if he breaks the laws of his creation.