Rob Osborn Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 If you believe in God, do you believe that God engineered your appearance or do you accept that your appearance is the result of the combination of your parents DNA? Do you believe the Grand Canyon, on Gods good earth, was carved out by angels or did it form naturally through erosion? Is it your belief that all things must have been directly controlled by God and that God does not allow for any natural process?I am of the belief that my DNA is traced back to God himself and not some animal. The Grand Canyon lars we see were deposited during the events surrounding the flood in Noahs day then the canyon formed initially in rapid catastrophic erosive events as large bodies of water were still escaping the upthrust lands after the flood. God allows for all of nature to move and do according to his laws. Mans origins from a lower species is not one of His laws or nature. Didnt happen that way.
cinepro Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 For example, an answer might be something like-God created the first DNA strands that would allow life to be jumpstarted.Thats what I am looking for because I am of the belief that evolutionists really have no place for the Creator in the creation. Show me otherwise. You would be correct in assuming that scientists (including "evolutionists", both those who believe in God and those who don't) won't allow "God" or other supernatural factors into their theories. This isn't a flaw in "science", it's why it works so well in the first place. If it was somehow an improvement to include supernatural factors in scientific theories, then they would do it, and the rate at which scientific knowledge progresses and explains the world around us would increase. 1
Rob Osborn Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 You would be correct in assuming that scientists (including "evolutionists", both those who believe in God and those who don't) won't allow "God" or other supernatural factors into their theories. This isn't a flaw in "science", it's why it works so well in the first place. If it was somehow an improvement to include supernatural factors in scientific theories, then they would do it, and the rate at which scientific knowledge progresses and explains the world around us would increase. The lack of acknowledging God into the equation of life has caused us to continue on in darkness and doubt. There is nothing good about kicking God out of the equation and as such they will just continue on in doubt and darkness forever and ever. As for me I welcome God into my science and as such I walk daily in light and truth.
Freedom Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 I am of the belief that my DNA is traced back to God himself and not some animal. The Grand Canyon lars we see were deposited during the events surrounding the flood in Noahs day then the canyon formed initially in rapid catastrophic erosive events as large bodies of water were still escaping the upthrust lands after the flood. God allows for all of nature to move and do according to his laws. Mans origins from a lower species is not one of His laws or nature. Didnt happen that way.You didn't answer my question. Do you believe that God engineered your appearance or do you accept that your appearance is the result of the combination of your parents DNA? Do you have any scientific evidence to support your claims about the formation of the Grand canyon? Are there any canyons that came into being as you describe it? How do you define 'lower species'? How do you explain the vast number of species that exist today compared to the number that were present on the Ark?
Rob Osborn Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 You didn't answer my question. Do you believe that God engineered your appearance or do you accept that your appearance is the result of the combination of your parents DNA? Do you have any scientific evidence to support your claims about the formation of the Grand canyon? Are there any canyons that came into being as you describe it? How do you define 'lower species'? How do you explain the vast number of species that exist today compared to the number that were present on the Ark? My appearance is the combination of the many variances of genetics in DNA stemming back to God himself. So you could say that I am in the direct lineal image of God being his seed. There is ample sites on the web that discuss the rapid formation of the Grand Canyon. Do a search. There are canyons that have been documented as eroding very fast. Lower species is in reference to the animals of which I myself do not consider humans to be classified as such. Not sure how many different species were on the ark. I don't think anyone could know for sure without some direct revelation. We do know that the vast majority of species are indeed water critters and wouldn't need to be saved on an ark. Studies have been done to show the ark could hold at minimum some 30-40,000 different species. Many insects themselves could also be sustained outside the ark. Its almost a mute point to debate what and how many species were on the ark because we lack way too much information.
cdowis Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Evolution must address how life first evolved. Evolution just doesnt pick up somewhere aling the way where we start studying it from that point. Evolutionary theory has a basic tree of life where life first began. I think you are conflating evolution with biogenesis. While evolutionists often deal with both, they are two different subjects. Edited January 10, 2014 by cdowis 1
Rob Osborn Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 I think you are conflating evolution with biogenesis. While evolutionists often deal with both, they are two different subjects. The theory of evolution must cover how life first evolved otherwise its incomplete. They are the same subject. Evolutionists try to steer clear of abiogenesis because it goes against the very laws of nature but the truth is they embrace it- they have to, otherwise they are n the intelligent design camp...God forbid!
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 The theory of evolution must cover how life first evolved otherwise its incomplete. They are the same subject. Evolutionists try to steer clear of abiogenesis because it goes against the very laws of nature but the truth is they embrace it- they have to, otherwise they are n the intelligent design camp...God forbid!Of course the theory of evolution is incomplete as in it doesn't cover everything. It doesn't comment on the origin of the earth, quantum mechanics, or which kind of ice cream is best (peanut butter chocolate of course). Evolution has a defined scope and its scope does not include abiogenesis. They are not the same subject at all! Evolution studies the change of inherited characteristics of biological population over time. If you don't have a reproducing biological organism you can't have evolution. I'm really sorry that upsets you.On a side note, scientists in general do not shy away from abiogenesis. There is just no way at this point (and likely never will be) to make a theory out it. 1
Rob Osborn Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Of course the theory of evolution is incomplete as in it doesn't cover everything. It doesn't comment on the origin of the earth, quantum mechanics, or which kind of ice cream is best (peanut butter chocolate of course). Evolution has a defined scope and its scope does not include abiogenesis. They are not the same subject at all! Evolution studies the change of inherited characteristics of biological population over time. If you don't have a reproducing biological organism you can't have evolution. I'm really sorry that upsets you.On a side note, scientists in general do not shy away from abiogenesis. There is just no way at this point (and likely never will be) to make a theory out it.The study of evolution does include how life first evolved. Thats pretty common knowledge. Every science book I own that discusses evolution includes how life first evolved.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Evolution must address how life first evolved. Evolution just doesnt pick up somewhere aling the way where we start studying it from that point. Evolutionary theory has a basic tree of life where life first began. You cannot discount the facts that even the first evolved critter must have evolved from something.Your answer doesnt address what I asked. Evolutionists have an issue with God getting involved with how life first originated. That is why I asked the question. I am interested in if people who believe in both the Creator and evolution reconcile the two. For example, an answer might be something like-God created the first DNA strands that would allow life to be jumpstarted.Thats what I am looking for because I am of the belief that evolutionists really have no place for the Creator in the creation. Show me otherwise.Already answered the first part of this post. I think we are talking past each other mostly. The most direct answer to your question that I can give is "I don't know." I personally have no idea whether God created the first DNA strands (its possible) or if setting up the fundamental constants of the universe was enough (also possible). Why must I tell God what He did? For me it is enough to say that because of God, the universe and all that is in it exists. I do not dictate to God how he must of done it or what level of hands on involvement is the minimum amount required. I fail to see how that leaves no place for a Creator. I trust that God did not purposefully leave false evidence to lead us astray. I trust that God wants us to use our intelligence to figure out the world around us. To put another way, you could use the same logic you apply here to say that if the earth isn't the center of the universe God must not have had a hand in creation. Or how about in order to believe in a Creator, I have to believe every time an object falls, its because God is pushing down on it. Why is it okay to believe that God just set up gravity, but God could not have used evolution?
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) The study of evolution does include how life first evolved. Thats pretty common knowledge. Every science book I own that discusses evolution includes how life first evolved.CFR that evolution is defined from a scientific standpoint to include abiogenesis. Maybe you could just find some reference in the wiki? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution Edited January 10, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding
Rob Osborn Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 CFR that evolution is defined from a scientific standpoint to include abiogenesis. Maybe you could just find some reference in the wiki? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtmlhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2bStudyorigins.shtmlTake it up with Berkeley folks. I know they are way more schooled than me in evolutionary theory. Here is what they say-"However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from."
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtmlhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2bStudyorigins.shtmlTake it up with Berkeley folks. I know they are way more schooled than me in evolutionary theory. Here is what they say-"However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from."Close. I see now where we talk past each other. There are evolutionary biologists studying the question of abiogenesis. This is true. It does not change the fact that the theory of evolution is silent on the issue. Believing in evolution requires no firm commitment on how life got started. Edited January 10, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding
thesometimesaint Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 How did life first evolve on this earth according to the theory of evolution? That is more of a "miracle" than Jesus walking on water or turning water into wine. Evolution doesn't concern itself with how life first evolved on this earth. That is abiogenesis.SEE Again I have no problem with miracles, but once the solution is determined then it is no longer a miracle.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 You would be correct in assuming that scientists (including "evolutionists", both those who believe in God and those who don't) won't allow "God" or other supernatural factors into their theories. This isn't a flaw in "science", it's why it works so well in the first place. If it was somehow an improvement to include supernatural factors in scientific theories, then they would do it, and the rate at which scientific knowledge progresses and explains the world around us would increase. The lack of acknowledging God into the equation of life has caused us to continue on in darkness and doubt. There is nothing good about kicking God out of the equation and as such they will just continue on in doubt and darkness forever and ever. As for me I welcome God into my science and as such I walk daily in light and truth. This is not true. While faith healings and priesthood blessings have their place, it is the understanding of modern biology, the germ theory of disease, improved crops and godless science that have extended our lives, prevented up to 1/4 of our children from dying before the age of 5. Godless science cures cancer, stops disease, makes the lame walk at a much higher success rate than any religious practice I know. Are you saying that these methods, by ignoring God in their development and implementation, are somehow abhorant to God? That they are works of darkness?
thesometimesaint Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 I see. And how are such "truth claims" verified? The only way I know is through prayer.
Freedom Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 My appearance is the combination of the many variances of genetics in DNA stemming back to God himself. So you could say that I am in the direct lineal image of God being his seed. There is ample sites on the web that discuss the rapid formation of the Grand Canyon. Do a search. There are canyons that have been documented as eroding very fast. Lower species is in reference to the animals of which I myself do not consider humans to be classified as such. Not sure how many different species were on the ark. I don't think anyone could know for sure without some direct revelation. We do know that the vast majority of species are indeed water critters and wouldn't need to be saved on an ark. Studies have been done to show the ark could hold at minimum some 30-40,000 different species. Many insects themselves could also be sustained outside the ark. Its almost a mute point to debate what and how many species were on the ark because we lack way too much information.Your refusal to answer the question is evidence of the serious flaw in your argument. It is very easy to determine how many species were on the ark. The bible tells us the exact size. All you have to do now is see now many species of land animals could fit. You will find yourself with a bit of a problem.
thesometimesaint Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 http://creation.com/creation-scientists That should get you started. Also, a good quick read with geologists and other scientists about the creation, flood and the Grand Canyon-http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Canyon-A-Different-View/dp/B00CF6EPLM That is a "Christian" ministry not science. Again you can believe anything you want. But that belief isn't science. From the perspective of science Creation is still going on. A Global Flood is a scientific impossibility. Here is better explanation for the Grand Canyon.
teddyaware Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) A Global Flood is a scientific impossibility.And there we have the essence of the debate in one simple statement. I would say that for an infinitely and eternally powerful God, immersing the total surface of the earth in a sheet of water, in some locations perhaps only a scant fraction of an inch thick, would be quite an easy feat. Remember, the immersion of the entire surface of the earth under a sheet of water doesn't necessarily mean the water level had to be as high as Mount Everest. God Could accomplish the same feat by a sheeting effect caused by worldwide torrential rain. Did you ever think of that?Besides, scientists say it's impossible to raise a rotting dead body back to life, or translate a lost and dead language without any training whatsoever. Should I believe the honored scientists or should I believe the word of God? Edited January 10, 2014 by teddyaware
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) And there we have the essence of the debate in one simple statement. I would say that for an infinitely and eternally powerful God, immersing the total surface of the earth in a sheet of water, in some locations perhaps only a scant fraction of an inch thick, would be quite an easy feat. Remember, the immersion of the entire surface of the earth under a sheet of water doesn't necessarily mean the water level had to be as high as Mount Everest. God Could accomplish the same feat by a sheeting effect caused by worldwide torrential rain. Did you ever think of that?Besides, scientists say it's impossible to raise a rotting dead body back to life, or translate a lost and dead language without any training whatsoever. Should I believe the honored scientists or should I believe the word of God?Careful there. I would hardly call a "scant fraction of an inch thick" a global flood. Are you sure you are taking your scriptures literally enough? Perhaps you should follow the link in Cinepro's signature to this article. I'm not saying that God can or can't immerse the total surface of the earth with water. I'm saying that if he did, he destroyed all the evidence of having done it. Edited January 10, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding 1
teddyaware Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Careful there. I would hardly call a "scant fraction of an inch thick" a global flood. Are you sure you are taking your scriptures literally enough? Perhaps you should follow the link in Cinepro's signature to this article. I'm not saying that God can or can't immerse the total surface of the earth with water. I'm saying that if he did, he destroyed all the evidence of having done it. After thousands of years, a rainstorm wouldn't leave much, if any, evidence.
thesometimesaint Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 And there we have the essence of the debate in one simple statement. I would say that for an infinitely and eternally powerful God, immersing the total surface of the earth in a sheet of water, in some locations perhaps only a scant fraction of an inch thick, would be quite an easy feat. Remember, the immersion of the entire surface of the earth under a sheet of water doesn't necessarily mean the water level had to be as high as Mount Everest. God Could accomplish the same feat by a sheeting effect caused by worldwide torrential rain. Did you ever think of that?Besides, scientists say it's impossible to raise a rotting dead body back to life, or translate a lost and dead language without any training whatsoever. Should I believe the honored scientists or should I believe the word of God? But a scant fraction of an inch isn't what the Scriptures say. Neither it is near enough water to baptize the entire global as some Apostles have claimed, Nor is it enough water to float a boat the size of the ark described in the Scriptures. The Scriptures claim: "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered". Genesis 7:19 Of course I thought of that. I just have a hard time reconciling what I know of science and what I know of my chosen religion. I have a firm testimony of the Gospel, and fully believe that I will be Resurrected. I also firmly believe JS translated the BoM through the gift and power of God. What I can't do is support those beliefs through science. I have no problems with science or God. I do have problems with foolish ideas trying to conflate them.
thesometimesaint Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 After thousands of years, a rainstorm wouldn't leave much, if any, evidence. Yes it would. IE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods
teddyaware Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Yes it would. IE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods I'm talking about rain, not a "cataclysmic flood." I believe it's likely there was a cataclysmic flood, at very least in the immediate area of Noah's land, but the rest of the earth only needed to be covered by a thin sheet of water caused by the torrential rains, something an omnipotent God would find very easy to do. If you leave the fact that God is a God of miracles out of your investigations, as a member of the Church you're in for a lifetime of frustration. Edited January 10, 2014 by teddyaware
teddyaware Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) But a scant fraction of an inch isn't what the Scriptures say. Neither it is near enough water to baptize the entire global as some Apostles have claimed, Nor is it enough water to float a boat the size of the ark described in the Scriptures. The Scriptures claim: "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered". Genesis 7:19 Of course I thought of that. I just have a hard time reconciling what I know of science and what I know of my chosen religion. I have a firm testimony of the Gospel, and fully believe that I will be Resurrected. I also firmly believe JS translated the BoM through the gift and power of God. What I can't do is support those beliefs through science. I have no problems with science or God. I do have problems with foolish ideas trying to conflate them.But in they end they are going to harmonize and science and religion will become one and the same. Until that day, I wait patiently for that day when God will reveal how all of these seemingly "impossible" things actually took place.32 Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things—33 Things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof—34 Things most precious, things that are above, and things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, and upon the earth, and in heaven. (D&C 101) Edited January 10, 2014 by teddyaware 1
Recommended Posts