If You Are Certain God Exists Why Prove It?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

According to the report, the dust of the earth was brought to life through the power of the word of God. Sounds like magic to me.

This would be abiogenesis via abracadabra. Maybe we can call that abracagenesis.

Abiogenesis via natural chemical processes would be different, going from very simple to less simple over time. We see that happening everyday.

 

[James Brown]

If life from non-life is impossible, how did Jehovah do it?

 

[Learner]

I think the reason why some people seperate or keep seperate abiogenesis from evolution, is because there is NO evidence the abiogenesis occurs "naturally" - life coming from inanimate, dead matter. Hence the replies, "abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution""

Ideally with both combined... this would be the WHOLE 'explained' process system.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think the reason why people seperate or keep seperate abiogensis from evolution, is because there is NO evidence the abiogenesis occurs "naturally" - life coming from inanimate, dead matter. Hence the replies, "abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution""

OR, the actual theory of evlution actually deals with how life changes over time, not how life originates.
The effort to conflate the two only comes from creationists trying to pretend that holes in abiogenesis weaken the evidence for evolution. But they are separate scientific inquiries. One could be completely disproven tomorrow without affecting the other a whit.

 

[Learner]

I agree, it doesn't weaken evolution. Evolution is more credible in comparison to abiogensis. Abiogensis in regards to this discussion, IS the alternative counter-explanation to Aesthetes and theists explanation: It ddn't happen naturally, it was God who made life.

 

[Wiploc]

I think the reason why some people seperate or keep seperate abiogenesis from evolution,

The reason is that words have meaning. Abiogenesis (whether magical or natural) came before evolution. Evolution (whether guided by gods or by nature) started after abiogenesis.

They are different things; they have different names.

is because there is NO evidence the abiogenesis occurs "naturally"

But there's evidence it occurs by magic?

 

[Learner]

The reason is that words have meaning. Abiogenesis (whether magical or natural) came before evolution. Evolution (whether guided by gods or by nature) started after abiogenesis.

They are different things; they have different names.

Indeed, both were mentioned in other posts and responses. I just put them together, highlighting one was more credible. The less credible of the two, the only alternative to creation.

is because there is NO evidence the abiogenesis occurs "naturally"

But there's evidence it occurs by magic?

No evidence of magic (which is unbiblical) either. There is of course the inability to explain a process beyond comprehension or defining with the best words (like me).

I suppose it would be understandable to naturally say and think "it appears to be like magic."

 

[Tharmas]

And dinosaurs? They're called dragons, as various cultures attest to them. Moreover, they've found T-Rex collagen and red blood cells, which cannot be 65 million years old.

I've heard this claim about dragons before. I always wonder what these "various cultures" you mention called the many smaller, pony-sized or dog-sized or chicken-sized dinosaurs. And, you assert that the collagen and blood cell remnants that have been found in fossilized dinosaur bones "cannot be 65 million years old." Why do you assert that? Can you be more specific about why you disagree with the explanations offered by the scientists who discovered it?

As for your claims concerning astrophysics, your argument seems to be that since astrophysicists don't agree about every detail then all of science is wrong and you can assert whatever you want. Yet everywhere we look, the universe screams it's of a vast age.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But there's evidence it occurs by magic?

No evidence of magic (which is unbiblical) either. There is of course the inability to explain a process beyond comprehension or defining with the best words (like me).

I suppose it would be understandable to naturally say and think "it appears to be like magic."

I wonder if Aesthete is going to complain that Learner is playing games of semantics?

A supernatural being waves his hand and a non-linear, unnatural process occurs...but it cannot be called, "magic." Because...(checks notes)...because there's no magic in the book with stories about talking snakes, and scrying bowls, and water turned to wine, and a lich, and witches, and curses, and "straked" goats from "straked" sticks.

Yeah.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Anyone else think it's weird to insist something DID happen at a snap of God's fingers, but adamant there's no way God could have done it over 3 billion years? Or just me?

 

[James Brown]

"God did it" has a poor track record. All these things that we thought that God did turned out to be natural processes after all.

But that one thing over there? God definitely did that.

 

[Keith&Co.]

"God did it" has a poor track record. All these things that we thought that God did turned out to be natural processes after all.

But that one thing over there? God definitely did that.

Meh. Well, any science could be confidently blessed by adding "...because god." as a footnote. Same observations, same peer review, just add the guy-in-the-sky to take the curse off it.

The hard part, of course, is when they say God MUST have done something, that the evidence ONLY supports direct, divine action. That would need a big ol' pile of evidence to support.

 

[Wiploc]

No evidence of magic (which is unbiblical)

When Christians don't believe in some supernatural phenomenon, they call it "magic."

When they do believe, they call it other things. Often, they speak of "miracles" or "answered prayers."

I grew up among Christians, so I defer to Christians on this terminology: Since I don't believe in any of it, I call it all "magic."

 

[Aesthete]

But there's evidence it occurs by magic?

No evidence of magic (which is unbiblical) either. There is of course the inability to explain a process beyond comprehension or defining with the best words (like me).

I suppose it would be understandable to naturally say and think "it appears to be like magic."

I wonder if Aesthete is going to complain that Learner is playing games of semantics?

A supernatural being waves his hand and a non-linear, unnatural process occurs...but it cannot be called, "magic." Because...(checks notes)...because there's no magic in the book with stories about talking snakes, and scrying bowls, and water turned to wine, and a lich, and witches, and curses, and "straked" goats from "straked" sticks.

Yeah.

No evidence of magic (which is unbiblical)

When Christians don't believe in some supernatural phenomenon, they call it "magic."

When they do believe, they call it other things. Often, they speak of "miracles" or "answered prayers."

I grew up among Christians, so I defer to Christians on this terminology: Since I don't believe in any of it, I call it all "magic."

Magic isn't unbiblical. Pharaoh's magicians were able to perform certain enchantments, but were not able to duplicate all the signs from God. Only some. Ultimately, God's power is shown because all power is of God. The Scripture says, in one place, that Satan provoked David to take the census of Israel, which God forbade. In another place, it says God moved David to do this. There's no conflict whatsoever - God works all things after the counsel of His will, and all things were created by Him and for Him. The Bible says, of those who received not the love of the truth that they might be saved, that God will send them a strong delusion that they should believe a lie. 2 Thess 2:1-12 - the lie here is the false gospel of Roman Catholicism, which is what this text prophesies, and the man of sin refers to the popes of Rome collectively. Indeed, the history of Catholicism has many false signs and lying wonders, as the prophecy tells us - e.g., stigmata, levitations, weeping statues, apparitions of Mary, etc. Likewise, even devils are shown to make requests of God, and have those granted (Mark 5:10-14).

And while all this is true and literal, and Pharaoh's magicians really did perform wonders such as turning a rod into a serpent, it's also a metaphor. Men are seen to bow down and worship idols, which are the works of men's hands (Isaiah 2:8). This is spiritually applicable in the New Testament to anyone who is working for righteousness before God and has not submitted himself to the righteousness of God and rested in Jesus Christ for his righteousness. So idolatry, sorcery, etc., is worshiping the creation and not the Creator, which is foolishness. God blinds men so that they will worship a tree as a god, while some laugh and yet they won't repent of their works-idolatry, which is spiritually the same thing. And that's what everyone who, who does not worship God in spirit and in truth. But I worship the Creator of all things in spirit and in truth!

So, yeah, if you actually consider the Bible, you'll see it's the most supernatural book of all. Because we can see all the signs pointing to Jesus Christ in the Old Testament. These were written down before the time of Christ so that we can see God's power in telling the future.

So I don't know what all this fuss is about "magic." All power is of God. God created the whole universe. He is omnipotent. The universe operates in accordance with certain physical laws, but God made those laws and can work outside of them whenever He pleases. To worship the laws of the universe is yet another example of worshiping the creation over the Creator, and is ultimately just as dumb as worshiping a tree. Those laws and constants had to come from somewhere, and God made them. And we discover that the universe is so finely-tuned that even the smallest alteration in the laws of the universe would render life impossible.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Magic isn't unbiblical.

odd, then, that you aren't arguing with the author of that claim....

There's no conflict whatsoever -

an unsolicited defense of a scripture contradiction no one brought up? Is this to make the case against evolutionary theory stronger?

So idolatry, sorcery, etc., is worshiping the creation and not the Creator, which is foolishness.

cannot agree. Study =! Worship, for one.
We have a universe that we can study, learn to understand, learn to manipulate. The same scientific methods that produce our knowledge of the past are the ones that produced the computers you've used to whine about scientific knowledge.
You wanna make your case? Spread The Word without technology. Just use prayer. See how far that gets The Word.

So I don't know what all this fuss is about "magic."

You don't see the 'fuss' about keeping evolution separate from abiogenesis, so until you're on the right page there, you're not really able to honestly discuss this shit.

Argument from WOW COMPLEXITY ignored as a repeat.

 

[Aesthete]

And dinosaurs? They're called dragons, as various cultures attest to them. Moreover, they've found T-Rex collagen and red blood cells, which cannot be 65 million years old.

I've heard this claim about dragons before. I always wonder what these "various cultures" you mention called the many smaller, pony-sized or dog-sized or chicken-sized dinosaurs. And, you assert that the collagen and blood cell remnants that have been found in fossilized dinosaur bones "cannot be 65 million years old." Why do you assert that? Can you be more specific about why you disagree with the explanations offered by the scientists who discovered it?

Because collagen and red blood cells plainly cannot last 65 million years, regardless of whatever explanations evolutionary scientists want to propound. The findings stand independent of the finder's biases and worldview.

As for your claims concerning astrophysics, your argument seems to be that since astrophysicists don't agree about every detail then all of science is wrong and you can assert whatever you want. Yet everywhere we look, the universe screams it's of a vast age.

"Don't agree about every detail"? That's not even close to an accurate description of the numerous and manifold problems with the evolutionary model, which fails to explain much of the solar system. In the video I posted, he uses quotes from evolutionists themselves that show this.

 

[Keith&Co.]

... the evolutionary model, which fails to explain much of the solar system.

HAAHAAHAAHAA!! Jesus fuck, that's stupid!

 

[James Brown]

Index of Creationist Claims: CC371: Tyrannosaurus Blood


From Creationist claims, one might be led to think that a paleontologist cracked open a T-Rex femur and red blood splashed on the ground.

 

[abaddon]

Those laws and constants had to come from somewhere, and God made them. And we discover that the universe is so finely-tuned that even the smallest alteration in the laws of the universe would render life impossible.

How do you know that? Maybe if the universe were a little different then life would be different from what we see. If the universe were different-enough, then maybe all life would be impossible. But does anyone know how much different a universe must be to have no life? Maybe there's a wider range of possible universes that'd have life in them than humans can know?

Argument by lack of imagination:
P: creationist says he cannot imagine that claim C is true
C: therefore claim D is true.

Maybe try for a more positive case for claim D? Can you say the reasons nonbelievers should believe claim D? Namely that God's magic powers explain origins and complexity.

 

[Learner]

No evidence of magic (which is unbiblical)

When Christians don't believe in some supernatural phenomenon, they call it "magic."

When they do believe, they call it other things. Often, they speak of "miracles" or "answered prayers."

I grew up among Christians, so I defer to Christians on this terminology: Since I don't believe in any of it, I call it all "magic."

No eviidence "magic" was used (by God)... is what was meant. In context that magic i.e. as the bible describes magic, it refers to : conjuring up spirits, repeating word spells and curses, summoning up demons etc.. which to note... is initially all condemned by God (hence unbiblical).

Now of course as I mentioned earlier. I understand the use of the word magic when used in your (plural) argument, when there's an unknown "HOW it's done" process, even if we're to say God did it. "It apears to be like magic" method unknown or observed, so therefore magic, which is fair since I would use the term 'sci-fi' for things like abiogenesis.