thomas t

Good day, Is it a myth that the Theory of Evolution pretty much kicks God out of the process? Or is it rather bare fact? I think it is the latter. according to this site, Bronowski writes What are values without God? Welcome to Worthy wishes Thomas

Doubting my questions??? Of course I am outraged that someone has doubts on what I say (just kidding). Isn't it that the ToS say "(1) never disagree with Thomas T, and if you do, go back to (1)"... ? Or did I miss anything? But luckily I still can contain my strong feelings Have a nice day, Thomas

Thank you Joe, Turning the criticism of atheists against what they say is, in my opinion, a good means of defending ourselves. Other people try to use the opposite strategy. Dr. Francis Collins, for instance, ended up telling Richard Dawkins in a personal discussion: Dawkins having a rant against faith and answered by a short answer like "everything you said concerning nature is compatible with faith". I personally don't believe Collins. BTW, this discussion, besides the fact that Collins was calm and Dawkins was not, had some points that Collins didn't tackle, at all. So I would rather discourage people from reading that source, I just added it for the sake of completeness. Enjoy your day, Thomas T

Fez, I don't ask myself this sort of questions, so I don't have an answer for this. When I think that the Bible isn't clear about one question, I don't ask myself any follow-up questions. I think that the Bible does not give answers to all questions that could possibly be asked. The Bible, as I see it, just provides enough answers for us. And I also think, that if the Bible isn't clear about a (theological) subject, this subject is not important for us to know. If it was, God would have written a clear answer into the Bible. Enjoy your day, Thomas Thomas

Paul, (letters in red color added to your posting to avoid too much work) a) thanks for giving an example. However, I see a difference between believing the one thing and writing it down when asked to explain the other. I'm not going to discuss the peppered moth thing nor your point about animals in phyla, however. The mods in this forum don't want expanded science discussions among believers, and I'm glad that it is so. If you can disprove it, please jump to question 2) I asked you in the post to you I wrote, yesterday. Thanks. b) please jump to my question 3) I asked you concerning the alledged brainwashing. c) the movie "Expelled.." has been discussed d) please give us just one example of this in the thread "do creationists circumvent science", if you have any. e) you seem to think that lack of evidence proves the contrary. I don't agree with that. I think in case of lack of evidence you can't prove neither the one thing nor the other. Thomas

Paul, just as a matter of clarification: I do not support the ToE. I'm against it. (I've now given letters to your post) a) you wrote "evolution as taught in schools [...] has always had a political agenda". You're saying now, as I understand it, that *teaching it* (in the letter, you wrote "imposing") always has a political agenda. OK. (Didn't Darwin teach it? BTW. This sidestep being made,) I ask myself: could it be that it's taught just for being more scientific than what creationists have to offer? b) Eugenics, we've just had somebody advocating it here in Germany, a former politician called Sarazin, is a problem, I agree. It was so during the third Reich, and it is still today in the minds of many. I think it's a fallecy here to infer from some people like Hitler having applied it or wanting it to have applied that all people who teach evolution as science use this for a political hate agenda, as well. So I think, you didn't prove your point. Your list might be of use to us, though. Your post to me comes across like saying: (let me make this comparison, I'm aware of the fact that you in reality didn't tell this) (1) there are people who kill with bones. And just because bones are used by some for this reason, (2) all people having bones are murderers. Wrong. .. see, what I'm trying to convey? Have a good day, Thomas

Fez, let me first say that I was thinking of God's sons mentioned in Job, when I wrote "his sons" in my last post. Now to your answer. It is written that God created (Col. 1:16 KJV): For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: By this we know that, besides physical things, God also created thrones, dominions, principalities, powers. But is Satan included in one of these items? I don't have the answer. As to your question: God is all powerful, the rest I can't answer and I don't bother to do. However I do think that not having created Satan is not the same as not being all powelful. (three times a "not", I hope I still write in a comprehensible manner). omniscience. That's the second thing that people, in my opinion, have difficulty in showing by scripture. Does scripture say that God was omniscient at all moments of time? I don't think so. I don't see this passage nor the combination of several that shows it. Even if so many Chrsitians say he was. God certainly is able to know everything, but I don't see why not knowing everything at all points of time, in my opinion, should preclude God from being able to know everything. Thomas

So Thomas by your reckoning, God is not creator of all? Hello Fez, God wrote that he is the creator of all things. I wonder if persons like his sons are included in "things" and I don't have an answer to it. But I do think that nobody provided scripture so far that shows it. If Satan were an angel, however, he would be created as God created all angels, if I remember well. But I don't find scripture stating that he is an angel. Thomas

Good day Brother Paul, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. (I added numbers to your post avoiding too much copying work) Let me turn to points no. 1-5. 5) you didn't show that Darwin hade a political agenda. I must admit to come across the "agenda"-reproach quite often here at Worthy lately and I rarely believe it. Would you agree that the word agenda can also be overused? Can you prove yours against (all) evolutionists? 4) can you show how not believing evolution deteriorates success at public institutions? 3) can you explain in what the brainwashing exists? I mean, perhaps it's true, I thought by myself. 2) you claim to have proof that Darwinism is incorrect. Why didn't you (or did you) write your ideas down, hand it in to a scientific journal and win - either a reward for having made good science or a fake rejection latter that you could publish on internet or something to have learned? 1) couldn't it be the case that you are just describing science making headway? Have a good day, Thomas

I agree. The rise of man, for instance, cannot be tested or run through an experiment to the best of my knowledge, either. Thomas

Good morning gw but science and theology do overlap, it's just a matter of fact. Read Genesis' first chapters and it's all about science. Keeping minds open is always good, though... My approach is that biblical texts are true whatsoever. Nevertheless it sets only a very wide frame in which evidence fits in nicely, in my opinion. Hence, evidence and data should play a role, I think. nice halleluja. Thomas

I'd rather agree with Joe. Non Overlapping Magesteria, as I see it, aims to either limit the Bible to faith or limit science to any field in which the Bible has nothing to offer. I think, it is meant to be the first.. Welcome to Worthy

Good afternoon Ninhao, I agree: God makes himself evident through creation. How nice! And one could draw the conclusion that the analysis of it should relate something about God. However... ... do you tell science teachers this, as well? They constantly enter into it and partially contradict biblical teaching. But the Bible is true. Have a good day

I believe that UCA, the theory that all animals including man have one ancestor only, is wrong. Genesis, I believe is right, as it is the Word of God. So I think that science classes in which the ToE is taught do harm to the faith of the pupils. It is at least in this way that there is a "science vs. faith". The loss of faith in schools is a problem, as I see it. Let's pray and have it solved. Thomas

Hello you all, There are many complaints that the ToE is taught in schools. But I think it is more scientific than creationism today. Even if UCA (the theory that all animals including man have one ancestor only) is wrong, it still is scientific in a sense that it is falsifiable. Part of life on earth, at least theoretically, could have been imported from Mars, even if the odds of this to have happened expressed in mubers would be ridiculous. However, creationist ideas seem even more stationary, as they are not falsifiable at all imo. Would the creationist explanation model ever change in lights of new facts found in the field? The ToE as an explanation of the rise of the species keeps being modified. It is a well established principle that ideas are discussed among scientists first and permitted to schools last. This principle would be discarded if creationism was taught today. For the creationist movement doesn't seem to hand in their papers to the scientific community when it comes to explanation models concerning the development of the species, as no rejection letters can be found on internet, as I see it. So let me conclude, since God does not impose himself on anybody, his church shouldn't impose itself on science classes. Thomas

Thank you Alpha for sharing your thoughts on this, it's interesting I think. If I understood you well, you have the following equation in mind (tell me, if I'm wrong): reality = physical reality + supernatural interventions. Your approach, as I understand it, is to leave out possible divine interventions as the inclusion of it could eventually backfire when proven wrong. I deeply share your worry about this. However, when I read your post, I understood it as if you were telling us that everything made perfect sense without God. That's fine, when facts are observable, I think. Take plate tectonics for example: you can observe the movement of the top layer of earth. You could if you like put supernatural interventions on top in your private calculations. But what happens when our physical reality wouldn't make sense without a specific divine intervention? What if we as humans never existed without? If you leave out (possible) divine interventions in the remote past, then you possibly talk about reality as it never could have happend - the wrong reality. Have a good day, Thomas

Dear fellow posters, This quote is from a spokesperson of the National Academy of Science (this quote can be found ). Can we discuss the question if creationist ideas are subject to change instead of the question in title? I mean change according to possible new data from data collection in the field? Would this suit the title, in your opinion? I think it would. My opinion is, it should be. The Bible only gives a wide frame. For instance, that God made everything and humans were made via special creation. This frame isn't falsifiable, in my opinion. However, the reverse – for instance: God did not create humans in special creation - isn’t falsifiable either, I think (as discussed ). Edit: ... isn't faIsifiable either, on the premise of the above quoteation imo, I would like to add. I think that it contains a generic rejection against any divine intervention testable by science: "creationism, with its account of the origin of life by supernatural means, is not science.". On this premise, there can't be any possible falsification of any claim that excludes a divine intervention. Everything inside the biblcal frame is disputable, I think. For instance: did plants evolve via evolution or did God made them via special invention? Both options lie inside the scope of personal interpretation of the book of Genesis, I think. Thomas

Good morning Sheba and other fellow-posters, I think that this topic is worth being brought up again. My opinion is, as was in the other thread, that it can't be shown in scripture that Satan is a creation from God. The above mentioned passage of Ezekiel speaks of Tyre and calls this town a cherub, whereas Satan isn't explicitely mentioned. There is no scripture saying that Satan is a cherub, at least I don't find any. Some argue that they see similarities between the Ezekiel passage and Luke 10:18 He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. [...]" Tyre fell, so did Satan. But it isn't said that there can be only one entity that is able to fall. Even if some think of a strong allusion concerning the Ezekiel passage, the impression of an allusion doesn't prove anything. I am not saying that I can show where Satan came from, btw.. Have a good day Thomas

Good morning Ninhao, I concern myself with both order and God having created. You offer two explanantions for two different days. They are possible explanations, I think. Concerning sun and moon, it isn't written, that God literally made them at that day. Concerning the plants, we can take into account that God, in my opinion, regards life as existent at an early stage already, in general. If these two were to be true, I still stay with my opinion that order is important even when it comes down to a narrative account. Thomas Good morning Ninhao again, I need to apologize, I was wrong: It is written that God made sun and moon at that day, it is just two verses later: Gen 1:16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. Let me change my opinion: your first interpretation was wrong, God made them at that day. Only your second one stays possible, I think, I mean so long as we don't find any verse that is against it, of course . Have a good day, Thomas T

Good morning Ninhao, I concern myself with both order and God having created. You offer two explanantions for two different days. They are possible explanations, I think. Concerning sun and moon, it isn't written, that God literally made them at that day. Concerning the plants, we can take into account that God, in my opinion, regards life as existent at an early stage already, in general. If these two were to be true, I still stay with my opinion that order is important even when it comes down to a narrative account. Thomas

Good morning Ninhao, I believe that every single word of what He sais is important. Even such a tiny detail as an order of things. Every single word from our heavenly father counts. Overlapping - if you can show that the amount of work of each Creation day overlapped with something, ok, please go ahead... However, God's word is even for uneducated children to read. "let the little children come". Why not keep our interpretation easy, I'm asking myself. Later on in the Bible, Paul gives importance to a precise order of creational proceeding (1. Cor. 11:9). Thomas

Lady, actually Q started with me a disussion about me purportedly not understanding your posts, ok? Accusing me of falsely accusing someone to have supported a bill that would send gays into prison when in fact he did not, this would be quite a strong accusation from your part. So, at the end of the story, I'd like to ask you not to reiterate your false accusation, thank you (hopefully this being a final point of our debate, looking forward to the next). Thomas

Nope. Lady C talked about the bill as it is right now, as it can be seen in her original post (or see my quote, also). However, the passage she quoted also contained some thoughts about some hypothetic changes that this person discussed, as well.... [bolded and underlined mine].

hmm, I don't think so... but please be specific in what I have misread what she is saying, if you still think I did. I think, this time I understood her well. Thomas

Your formulation was that I was the one misconstructing things. That was getting personal, in my opinion. I'm not going to restate my opinion, however.... if you ever want to be taken seriously with this opinion, please back it up from an independant site saying that that bill would abolish existing prison sentences for homosexuality, instead of further aggravating it. Tsukino and I backed our opinions up citing from two independant sites, btw, you didn't comment on our sources... Thomas