The Problem with Christians

[LadyForCamus]

Wait, who is Randy???

[abaris]

Wait, who is Randy???

Did you join up after he got banned? The most arrogant religious prick. Rivaled only by Drippy. Claims to be a catholic, but former evangelical, baptist, whatever. Still swears on the OT although that's no longer the official catholic position. Only good with quoting apologists and selling the quotes as his own. Also the reason why he got banned in the first place.

[LadyForCamus]

Wait, who is Randy???

Did you join up after he got banned? The most arrogant religious prick. Rivaled only by Drippy. Claims to be a catholic, but former evangelical, baptist, whatever. Still swears on the OT although that's no longer the official catholic position. Only good with quoting apologists and selling the quotes as his own. Also the reason why he got banned in the first place.

Oh, wow. That was definitely before my time! Damn, why do these crazy people waste our time...*sigh*

[AJW333]

If God is eternal then how is it he could have a "first thought?"

If he didn't have a first thought, then how does he have any thoughts?  It's on you to explain the nature of your claim.

Being eternal means never having a beginning. If God has no beginning, there cannot be a "first" anything.

[AJW333]

Scientific or personal?

Are you kidding?  You already know the answer to that mr. Science student.

Recapping the question

"Christians believe that God is very active in this world and in the lives of those who believe."

Christians believe on the basis of reason, personal revelation, experience, inner conviction, reading Scripture, etc etc. You can't really put these things under the microscope of scientific scrutiny. As I have said a few times, Christianity is a faith, not a science. It is a bit like you asking for the scientific proof that Mozart wrote good music. To some, he was a musical genius but to others, his stuff is horrible.

[robvalue]

OK, I've been thinking about this "design" business. I can think of three distinct ways an intelligence could be involved in the "creation" of humans.

I will demonstrate each one by an analogy.

1) Initial setup: I fashion a series of connected pipes, and then I released a load of marbles into them. I step back, and take no further part.

2) Influence within continuity: As above, except I am allow to gently tilt the pipes so as to guide the movement of the marbles.

3) Influence without continuity: As above, except I'm also allowed to reach in to take marbles out, put them somewhere else in another pipe, remove them altogether or introduce new marbles.

Which of these three most closely represents what you guys think about the "design" aspect of life? You may well all have different answers.

I'll repeat this question as I didn't get any answers yet.

[AJW333]

The same argument can be used against you. The entire education system in the west has been taken over by pro-evolutionists. It's extremely difficult, if not impossible to get a teaching position in a biology department anywhere unless you tow the pro-evolution line. Your pre-ingrained education and desire to be the master of your own destiny prohibits you from even considering the existence of God.

You're trying to compare two completely different things.
The education system that relies on science has tons of evidence behind it.
From Newtonian physics, to chemistry, to quantum mechanics, to biology, to engineering, etc, etc. They all paint a coherent picture. One that requires no god. One where no god is apparent.
Why should a god be inserted where none has shown to be?

Citation?

enjoy:
https://scholar.google.pt/scholar?q=self+assembly+amino-acids&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7q5Pe8-_LAhWL2xoKHWj1BjkQgQMIGjAA

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22421/

Maybe you prefer a simple video? (haha.. can't get to the end... need to register... too bad)
http://study.com/academy/lesson/how-amin...otein.html

I read several of the articles but don't see how amino acid peptides self assemble into usable proteins that we see in the human body. These require complex systems to organize and self check the AA sequences in order to be usable. It is speculation to assume that these self assembling AAs observed in labs are responsible for life as we know it.

[AJW333]

But putting that aside, why is it the case the one's notion of God is at odds with evolution? Mine isn't. The Catholic Church's isn't. You must have some bible-thumping, fundamentalist caricature in mind...

I don't know why it is put at odds.... it seems AAA and AJ think it it does and are here trying their darnest to discredit evolution, so they can shoehorn their pet imaginary friend as the cause of it all, in a clear god-of-the-gaps fashion.

Evolution is at odds with Scripture which clearly states that God created Adam from the dust (earth/clay), not from the apes or any other living creature. It also states that all the other animals were created to "reproduce after their own kind," which prohibits one species becoming a different species, therefore making evolution impossible.

[robvalue]

Poe alert!

Seriously, this has to be a windup. The game's up AJW, if that is indeed your real name, or should I say Doctor X!

Remove that mask!

[robvalue]

I just found an even, bigger, better book written by the uber God! It says the bible is written by some pissant cretin God on work experience and nothing in it should be taken seriously.

QED