God created evolution

That's a classic circular argument by Mr Lewis. He's using one claim of the Bible - that the Hebrews were God's chosen people - to support his own claim that the myths of The Bible must also have been chosen by God and must therefore be truths.All these claims come out of the same book and there is no evidence to support any of them.

That's all true, but it doesn't mean that Lewis is wrong either. In the end it is a faith.Having said that though, it is my view that Chrsitianity makes sense of the world, and my life in a way that nothing else that I know of does. I'm not pretending that I have investigated in great detail all religions or worldviews but I have given it thought and investigation.Virtually all of the books I read are either books on science, theology or both. Frankly I find the two subjects complimentary but that isn't something I can prove either, at least in the way that we consider something to have been proven. Frankly the more I read the more I have become convinced of the basic truth of Christianity.PS: In fairness to Lewis I should add that he prefaced those comments with this statement. My present view - which is tentative and liable to any amount of correction --My present view is that he was correct.Edited by GDR, : To add the PS.

That seems like a bad plan. It's like reading books about France and elephants and coming to the conclusion that elephants come from France. Maybe you should broaden your horizons. So your confirmation bias seems to be working just fine. How about your critical thinking?

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

When I consider theology I've read Dawkins and Sagan as welll. I've read books on comparative religions and I read through threads on this site. I have tried to get a balanced view. That isn't to say that my view is completely objective which puts me in the same boat as everyone else.The majortity of the books on science I have read have been written by non-Christians. The one I got the most out of was "Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene. In my case that took a couple of re-reads but I found I learned more each time through.

OK. Would you like to start a new topic giving your explanation on how Christianity or religion in general provides some sort of sense, meaning or purpose in life? Because whenever I ask any relgious person what this great "meaning" is that religion is supposed to provide, I always hit a brick wall.

Further to my last post, I may as well launch the new topic from my own perspective.

this is simply not true. all secular science is, is a tool to provide unbelievers with information thatsupports their unbelief and rejection of the Biblical account. this is also not true. the ancients knew the world wass round and plotted maps with considerable accuracy (ptolemey and others). the babylonians had a world map and all fishermen who fished the oceans knew it as well. this is untrue as real christianity rejects all alternatives to the biblical accounts. only those who want to do secular science accept alteratives to God's word. there is about as much evidence for TE, PC., as there is for regular evolution---zippo. this is also untrue, christians are anti-secular science which tries to deceive people by creting false alternatives to th biblical account. there is much good work science can do if the secularists would get out of the way. this is a false asumption. the Bible has never been discredited and such an idea is just wishful thinking on the part of secularists. also not true, if it were unguided (and this thought flies in the face of so many evolutionists arguments) then evolution is not needed and doesn't deserve the credit it is being given.all evidence points to a one time supernaturqal act by God who used His power to create all that we see in the universe today. this is misguided thinking and a false attribution to evolution. species become extinct because they are over-hunted by greedy men, or their habitats are destroyed by modernization, wars, natural disasters, construction and so on. evolution has nothing to do with it. all of this is just wrong and cannot be proven using any field. it is also just stupid.i think that provides enough information right now, God did not create nor use evolutionary means to achieve His will. evolution in any form and natuiral selection do not exist and never has and evolutionists cannot prove the did nor provide the correct evidence to support any contention that they do.

And what evidence do you have to support that assertion?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

it is very simple:1. sense--everything has an order, there are boundaries for reproduction, behavior, direction, etc. and they are not subjective nor subject to the changing whims of man or human leadership. in other words, there is an ultimate rule that trumps man.2. meaning-- we are put here for a reason, we are wanted whereas evolution does not want nor cares about the creatures it supposedly guides developement. even when we are rejected by men and women we know that God accepts us as we are (but that doesn't mean we get to continue to live in and practice sin)3. purpose-- for the glory of God.in contrast, the fake theory of evooution provides nothing that makes sense, gives no meaning or purpose to life or existence and renders existence useless because their is no reason to be here if evolution were true. there is no reason for origins to take place at all under evolutionarythinking.evolutin is a lie meant to deceive people and lead them from the truth.

I don't see how the order you describe above has anything to do with proving the existence of a creator, or provides any "sense". Evidence? I never said it did care, nor did I claim it "guides development". Anyway, you claimed that God created evolution. That's the title of your topic. Are you now saying that God doesn't care for us or guide evolution? Again, evidence? And for what reason or purpose does he accept us? Ah, so in fact, he doesn't accept us for what we are. So God is a vaccuous, egotistical bully - everything he apparently thinks is sinful. Interesting...So we give him a big round of applause, an Oscar, a Nobel prize, all the chocolate he can eat. Then what? He just wants more and more of the same for eternity? That's the great purpose of the universe? And this is why he created billions of years of evolution, the dinosaurs, the dodo, neanderthals, the Tasmanian devil, Princess Diana, your dead pets, all came and went just so we can say how glorious God is?

I think you have him confused. He never claims this, nor is this his topic. It's Kanedotca's topic. You are responding to archaeologist.

Duly noted.I know all is well in the world when the 'Tard is looking out for me.

Your theory tha t God is growing and thus had to grow from something lesser in order to be able to create what we see now is not compatabile with a supernatural being. The God of Catholicism is a God existing outside of space and time. This God is all knowing and therefore cannot grow, God is God for all time as we know time. God's Providence provides us with what we need if we use our free will to follow God. Creation in the sense of life is God's plan being carried out in what is called evolution by man. We cannot know and will never know the reason why God does something. Creatonists must get beyond the literal intrepretation of the bible in order to accept this continuining plan of God's creation. Science must bet beyond the belief that all things will be known to man. Science will discover what God has determined it will discover.

What a hoot! For sure! Just take that whole thing about the heliocentric solar system: first popularized when Galileo had that problem with the Catholic power structure, furthered by the famously anti-religious Isaac Newton, and now shoved down our throats almost daily by NASA -- the only reason for any of that is to reject the Biblical account that the Earth is at the center! And all those things like landing men on the moon, getting close-up views of all the other planets and the sun itself -- they're all just for the sake of rejecting the Bible, nothing more. Right -- real christianity, like the Christian Scientist sect, rejects medicine, because medicine is a product of secular science: it's provided as an alternative to God's word, and obviously its sole purpose has always been to reject the Biblical account of illness. (Let's see... what exactly was the Biblical account of illness?)You are a Christian Scientist, aren't you, archie? Or maybe Amish? Prayer is the only true christian way to deal with appendicitis, staph infection, rabies, polio, smallpox, etc. Really, all those petty demands that these secularists make about using evidence and proper logic -- way too limiting and constraining, and it takes so long to get anything done!Just think how much quicker things would happen if they just let the religious scientist make whatever claims he or she thinks is consistent his or her own interpretation of whatever Bible passage he or she wants to pick regarding a given question. And the best thing about it: being right or wrong makes no difference, because even if the religious scientist decides to make a prediction, whatever happens is God's Will™ anyway! Amen! Yep, just because the Bible never mentions bacteria, viruses, plate tectonics, atomic and molecular structures, etc, all the knowledge we've acquired about these things doesn't discredit the Bible. Obviously God is pushing these things around and just not telling us about it explicitly -- why should He? I mean, what good does it do to know about these things anyway? Right ... that is, so long as all the evidence you ever look at is the contents of the Bible. Clearly, not only the wooly mammoths but virtually all dinosaurs were hunted to extinction by man long before Noah's flood -- a few pterodactyls may have survived the flood (even without having a berth on the ark), and they were hard to hunt down, but they were naturally drawn to the Tower of Babel and shared its fate. Trilobites were not only over-hunted -- the few that survived the tumultuous currents during the flood were finally done in by the parting of the Red Sea. ... and opens the flood gates for making up lots of new information, to answer any sort of "scientific" question with any number of novel, imaginative, and dogmatically correct answers -- indeed, we can have more answers than dogmas!And who knows, maybe some of these answers will lead to even more dogmas, which will be just as distinct, internally inconsistent and mutually incompatible as all the existing dogmas. All that is needed is to get one true christian to claim something as dogma, and one or more others to accept it, based on some suitable passage from the Bible, and that's like a walk in the park (or into the revival meeting).

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

DANEDOTCA writes

quote:

---

Let me propose the thought that god is growing and thus had to grow from something lesser to become the being capable of creating what we see around us. This leads us to the thought that an immature or inexperienced god could have created our planet in its most primitive form. This showing that creation is true but happened billions of years before our understanding. Now this childlike god continued with creation in an orderly form and continued to practice, as a any professional begins with tiny menial tasks in their trade to learn the more complex works that they will later be known for. In the time that it took for the earth to cool and life to spring forth and pass through it’s ages, our god was able to learn and mature.

---

I have seen reference on this board and in scientific writings by Richard Dawkins, Ernst Mayr and others that , if God designed the universe, God's design is defective etc. In your post you refer to God as being immature or inexperienced.
If you are discussing the Supernatural, then I believe you have to accept the definition of supernatural. A supernatual being is all knowing, all powerful, all loving and eternal. By definition that being cannot design defectively or be immature or inexperienced.
You cannot judge a supernatural being by human standards. I'm not saying you have to accept a supernatural being, but if you write about that being you must comply with the definition.
ThanksEdited by shadow71, : No reason given.