Byblos wrote:
I'm having a hard time understanding what you're saying.
Why would God be forced to do anything? He could just as well leave us to our
own devices but in his infinite wisdom and love he reveals himself to us,
subtly through natural wonders (including science), and more directly through
the Bible, prophecies and their fulfillment, the culmination of which is Jesus Christ.
If it weren't for these interferences a lot more people would be lost.
Fair enough Byblos. That is where my English is not as good as I wished.
I did not mean God is "forced", i.e. he cannot avoid. Of course it is free to do what it pleases.
I was referring to physical actions aimed to help the physical universe to
be life friendly, species to appear, species to get extincted, mutations to occur or similar things.
I agree its spiritual actions are expression of its loving nature.
I keep considering a diminishing attitude to consider the physical universe needs divine maintainence
as far as life evolution is considered.
I believe God would be a good enough designer to start a physical universe
so that it can work on its onw still hitting its goal.
Byblos wrote:
This again makes no sense. Either God interferes or he doesn't.
You can't have it both ways. Inserting something to make life spring
up on its own is interference. And if God can interfere in such a manner,
why not the way we claim he is?
see
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 4595#44595
I think it better renders what I meant to say.
Byblos wrote:
That's the trouble Angel. It is basically an unsupported opinion and nothing more
(with all due respect, of course).
No lack of respect. I agree it is just unsupported opinion. I presented it that way.
I disagree your opinion is better supported, but that is not what we are going to discuss here.
As far as the bible is concerned, if you consider the Bible as the only source, YEC is the best supported.
Not for that YEC is true.
Byblos wrote:
Somewhat but not entirely (it will do for now though).
Just to repeat one thing, either God created the universe or he didn't.
It is meaningless to say God did not create anything physical but everything physical
came about because of what God initially set up. They are one and the same.
see
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 4595#44595
Is it clearer than before?
Byblos wrote:
You're right, science doesn't know much about abiogenesis.
I totally agree with that.
Then why is it taught as fact in schools? Why is it projected as an incontrovertible truth?
Why do Darwinian Evolutionists peddle it as a proven theory?
Well I know what they tought me. They never said abiogenesis was an incontrovertible truth.
Not to me at least, nor to anybody in my country.
They told me, and I agree, that *evolution* was a very solidly supported scientific truth.
They told me that abiogenesis is a scenario, still to be specified and which it is the only
currently possible naturalistic scenario.
They also tought me, and I agree, that there is no fact that clearly contradict such possibility
though positive evidences are still lacking.
My impression is that you tend to mix abiogenesis and evolution. I might be wrong though.