The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

[Morley]

MG 2.0

You're saying the reason God doesn't talk to us is that he is a hidden God and will only appear to those who fervently and sincerely seek him.

I'm saying that according to God's own Holy Books this is not true. That he seems to randomly talk to some individuals, who are, for instance, herding their father-in-law's sheep or participating in the stoning of saints.

[Doctor Steuss]

I'm just catching up on this thread, so I apologize if someone already addressed this:

So you think abiogenesis just happened through random mutation? Organelles, nucleus, cell walls/membrane, etc.?

You appear to be confusing abiogenesis with other aspects of evolutionary theory.

Saying abiogenesis happened through random mutation is like saying we evolved from monkeys.

Outside of the stuffy halls of tweed, disagreements with science often arise from not understanding it, rather than its shortcomings.

[MG 2.0]

I'm just catching up on this thread, so I apologize if someone already addressed this:

So you think abiogenesis just happened through randomness? Organelles, nucleus, cell walls/membrane, etc.?

You appear to be confusing abiogenesis with other aspects of evolutionary theory.

Saying abiogenesis happened through random mutation is like saying we evolved from monkeys.

Outside of the stuffy halls of tweed, disagreements with science often arise from not understanding it, rather than its shortcomings.

Fixed it.

Have scientists explained the jump from inorganic matter to living cells? Organelles, cell wall, etc.?

Do you think it was random or not?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

MG 2.0

You're saying the reason God doesn't talk to us is that he is a hidden God and will only appear to those who fervently and sincerely seek him.

I think I’ve already been rather clear. With some scriptures to boot.

I'm saying that according to God's own Holy Books this is not true. That he seems to randomly talk to some individuals, who are, for instance, herding their father-in-law's sheep or participating in the stoning of saints.

But the time and place is of God’s choosing and these isolated instances are then used as ‘witness statements’.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor Steuss]

Have scientists explained the jump from inorganic matter to living cells? Organelles, cell wall, etc.?

They have certainly explained far more aspects, and developed models through laboratory testing, and computer modeling than "on the third day..."

Looking at how far the understanding has come over the last 100 years is absolutely mind-blowing. Just how far science has come in the last 10 years is incredible.

Do you think it was random or not?

No, I don't think it was random. At least no more random than planetary orbits.

Things like convergent evolution seem to indicate that there are certain pathways that are more favored than others. If we were to create a duplicate earth, that had the exact same conditions at every step of the way, life would likely develop the same way that it has this go-around.



ETA (as a rhetorical aside): There are some competing theories for why only a small percentage of birds species have a penis, when that’s unusual for vertebrates. There are theories on why mammals have fewer types of cone cells than many other organisms. Scientists know how pill bugs turn blue when infected with a specific virus, and have theories of the potential reasons why.

Each includes complex reasoning and evidence, built upon observation, replication, and existing known phenomena. What exactly is the theological theory for each of these? What is the theological theory for why the only pigments that mammals are able to produce are melanins? What is the theological theory for why mantis shrimp have the "equipment" to see more colors than they actually see? Why, within a theological framework, would a specific kind of bird develop a wing structure that isn't advantageous to flight?

[MG 2.0]

Have scientists explained the jump from inorganic matter to living cells? Organelles, cell wall, etc.?

They have certainly explained far more aspects, and developed models through laboratory testing, and computer modeling than "on the third day..."

Looking at how far the understanding has come over the last 100 years is absolutely mind-blowing. Just how far science has come in the last 10 years is incredible.

So no.

It’s been a while since the 1952 Miller-Urey experiment . Not much has happened since then in as far as coming to anything near a conclusive determination as to the origin of life.

Interestingly, more questions than answers have resulted. See:

https://www.history.nasa.gov/CP-2156/ch1.2.htm

LOTS of questions and concerns. Scroll to Prebiotic Earth for the meaty stuff. Back towards the beginning of the paper some important questions are brought up too.

And yes, I read it (for the benefit of Morley, Doc, and others).

Do you think it was random or not?

No, I don't think it was random. At least no more random than planetary orbits.

Things like convergent evolution seem to indicate that there are certain pathways that are more favored than others. If we were to create a duplicate earth, that had the exact same conditions at every step of the way, life would likely develop the same way that it has this go-around.

Was convergent evolution ‘a thing’ back in the days before abiogenesis? Would those certain “pathways” have been a thing?

I agree that there were very limited possibilities in what would occur during the creation of the earth, and life upon the earth, without the extreme calibration that seems to be evident in its origins.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

MG 2.0

You're saying the reason God doesn't talk to us is that he is a hidden God and will only appear to those who fervently and sincerely seek him.

I think I’ve already been rather clear. With some scriptures to boot.

No, you really haven't. The scriptures you pasted don't suggest that God only appears to those who seek him.

I'm saying that according to God's own Holy Books this is not true. That he seems to randomly talk to some individuals, who are, for instance, herding their father-in-law's sheep or participating in the stoning of saints.

But the time and place is of God’s choosing and these isolated instances are then used as ‘witness statements’.

Paul was not a witness. He constructed the major framework for Christianity.

Moses was not a witness. He was the single most significant prophet of the Old Testament.

Samuel the prophet, called as a child, was not a witness. He too, was a major prophet across numerous religious traditions.

Jonah wasn't a witness. He was told to call a people to repentance.

These don't even take any research. They pop into anyone's mind who is thinking about this.

God calls whom he will call. He's not held to your rule of speaking only to those who seek him out (and, oh, any exceptions belong to the two-or-three-witnesses rule). Where do you even get these things?

[Doctor Steuss]

It’s been a while since the 1952 Miller-Urey experiment . Not much has happened since then in as far as coming to anything near a conclusive determination as to the origin of life.

Conclusive? No. But I strongly disagree that "not much has happened" since then.

We've discovered simple organic molecules in comets. We've found them in meteorites. In the 80's we figured out that there are RNA molecules that can do double-duty as a kind of enzymatic kick-in-the-pants for potential metabolism pathways.

The basic building blocks seem to form pretty commonly in the universe. You state that "more questions than answers have resulted," and that's likely very true. But, what answer do we find from theology on why the same organic molecules that act as building blocks for life as we know it here on earth, exist in interstellar gas clouds?

When Brahma was creating the universe from himself, he figured "hey, I'm going to toss some of this in various parts of this infinite void that we created but isn't being used for anything, and the vast majority of creations on earth will never even know exists.... By the way Vishnu, you're going to have to expend extra power to maintain all of this extra stuff." What compelling reason is there to find this more or less probable than the creation mythoi of Mormonism, or Scientology, or Zoroastrianism? Are we truly to believe that Brahma's creating the universe and life is more compelling than the theories that science has been able to develop through observation and testing?

By the way, the extremism of the frozen accident theory that arose from Miller-Urey isn't still the only theory on the block. And while science is continuously creating more questions with each answer, theism is continuously creating more questions with no answers.

[sock puppet]

And while science is continuously creating more questions with each answer, theism is continuously creating more questions with no answers.

Precisely.

[MG 2.0]

I think I’ve already been rather clear. With some scriptures to boot.

No, you really haven't. The scriptures you pasted don't suggest that God only appears to those who seek him.

But the time and place is of God’s choosing and these isolated instances are then used as ‘witness statements’.

Paul was not a witness. He constructed the major framework for Christianity.

Moses was not a witness. He was the single most significant prophet of the Old Testament.

Samuel the prophet, called as a child, was not a witness. He too, was a major prophet across numerous religious traditions.

Jonah wasn't a witness. He was told to call a people to repentance.

These don't even take any research. They pop into anyone's mind who is thinking about this.

God calls whom he will call. He's not held to your rule of speaking only to those who seek him out (and, oh, any exceptions belong to the two-or-three-witnesses rule). Where do you even get these things?

Brick wall.

Regards,
MG