|
xplanetoseax (July 7, 2008 at 12:26 am)
mikey: "how does that make God more of a liar than if He rather 'planted' the evidence for evolution?" i have no problem believing that God created a mature universe. the only issue here would be pre-fall death. before the fall, there was no death. i suppose God could have planted fossils around, but with the story of genesis, that wouldn't add up.
MikeyFlorida (July 7, 2008 at 12:26 am)
that if God "Planted" the fossils to just "seem" to be in evolutionary order (eg the first life is prokaryotes, then eukaryotes, then a little more complex eukaryotic life forms- then amphibians- then reptiles- then dinosaurs- then birds- then modern mammals- then a few thousand apes (that just SEEM to be bipedal and increasing in brain size)
..consistent in relative physical position and relative position according to their radiometric dated ages, which always complement each other?....
MikeyFlorida (July 7, 2008 at 12:22 am)
"observing it and coming to conclusions that would make Him a liar "
so where did God promise us that evolution theory is false?
and if evolution theory is true, how does that make God more of a liar than if He rather "Planted"... the evidence for evolution.
xplanetoseax (July 7, 2008 at 12:16 am)
mikey: that would be a similar question to how old i believe adam was when he was created. old enough.
MikeyFlorida (July 7, 2008 at 12:15 am)
xplanetose how old do you believe the earth is?
xplanetoseax (July 7, 2008 at 12:15 am)
mikey: you can make an educated guess as to what it may look like, but to expound it as theory is rather arrogant. unlike gravity, or the earth being spherical, you cannot observe and test it while it is happening. we've tried! but we haven't. also, if God created the physical realm (which He did), observing it and coming to conclusions that would make Him a liar would be silly, and holding onto them with not much evidence is futile.
MikeyFlorida (July 7, 2008 at 12:06 am)
"however, you must be able to observe and test these things,"
how are we unable to test common descent?...
MikeyFlorida (July 7, 2008 at 12:04 am)
"implications of naturalism, also, what other road is there but nihilism?"
the only conflict would happen when one misunderstands science altogether, and abandons the primarily spiritual nature of God. God (should God exist) is a spiritual being, at least according to most all religions today. so if we do have ample, constantly mounting evidence that life's development was a natural process, that is an understanding of the physical world still... it does not take away from God's existence.
xplanetoseax (July 6, 2008 at 11:56 pm)
mr flo: i believe i already specified that the scientific method is where we extract theory, such as the theory of gravity, etc. however, you must be able to observe and test these things, and we cannot go back to the last few billion years and test it. it's not empirical evidence. we're throwing our assumptions around.
xplanetoseax (July 6, 2008 at 11:53 pm)
mr mikey: you're right, i am not God, however, i can say what He did, because He gives us His word. i am going to use circular reasoning, very similar to that in science (test the date of fossils by the soil it was in, test the date of soil by the fossils in it) by saying that His word is absolute truth because it was inspired by Him. when you consider all of the implications of naturalism, also, what other road is there but nihilism?not only is there completely refutable evidence, it's also sad |