Re: If evolution is proved. . .

On 27 Mar, 20:01, "RobinsonCrusoe" <exma...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The uniqueness and singularity of creative acts such as those
described in Genesis 1 place their explanation or verification beyond
the range of scientific procedures. Knowledge concerning the nature
and time of such events is dependent on the testimony of reliable
witnesses-on revelation. If it should be proved that complex
biochemicals or physical structures associated with living organisms
could develop from simpler states as a consequence of the ordinary
properties of matter, such proof would not constitute evidence that
these features actually evolved in this manner; it would introduce
only the evolutionary process as one possibility in addition to the
fiat-creation stipulation set forth in the Bible.
The human mind, perhaps any created intelligence, is incapable of
understanding the origin of the universe. A godless approach to the
problem begins with previously existing inanimate matter that
possesses capabilities that naturally result in the development of
life and all other features of the contemporary universe. A God-
related approach begins with an intelligence capable of designing,
constructing, and maintaining all features of the universe. The origin
of either the primary matter required by the first model or the
intelligence required by the second model is humanly incomprehensible.
Nichol, Francis D., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary,
(Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association) 1978.

Since you seem unwilling to defend your position regarding the
statement "If it should be proved that complex biochemicals or
physical structures associated with living organisms could develop
from simpler states as a consequence of the ordinary properties of
matter, such proof would not constitute evidence that these features
actually evolved in this manner"; perhaps you will be more willing to
defend this other statement "A God-related approach begins with an
intelligence capable of designing, constructing, and maintaining all
features of the universe", because that looks to me as if you are
relegating your almighty God to the pitiful level of a pagan nature
spirit that has to constantly tinker with the world to hold it all
together. Better yet surprise us all and defend both positions if you
can.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Greene and the problem of presentism
    ... here are my comments on your page "multiple Nature Theory". ... This paper challenges basic assumptions about time, space, and matter ... a quantum theory of gravity. ... about four forces in the universe we require four of these rules, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • If evolution is proved. . .
    ... properties of matter, such proof would not constitute evidence that ... life and all other features of the contemporary universe. ... of either the primary matter required by the first model or the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: If evolution is proved. . .
    ... would not constitute evidence that these features actually evolved ... understanding the origin of the universe. ... inanimate matter that possesses capabilities that naturally result ... first model or the intelligence required by the second model is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: If evolution is proved. . .
    ... properties of matter, such proof would not constitute evidence that ... life and all other features of the contemporary universe. ... of either the primary matter required by the first model or the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: If evolution is proved. . .
    ... properties of matter, such proof would not constitute evidence that ... life and all other features of the contemporary universe. ... of either the primary matter required by the first model or the ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading