Does the germ theory of disease mention the Creator as the source of our healing even as a possibility? Does it mention the fall as the source of the germs? Does it mention the demon of sickness as the instigator of sickness through the use of those germs? You seem to have no problem with that theory...or do you?
Not that I'm aware of - as that would be considered "religious". Talk of God does not really belong in secular society, and that carries onto the medical, scientific and psychiatry (for the most part). Whereas evolution, being no less religious, is acceptable - yet ironically takes a greater leap of faith to believe in it.
There are some inexplicable miraculous healings that have been documented and has defied medical explanation (God has indeed been involved). Certainly there are some baffled medical experts out there they have encountered such.
The cause/source of all sickness, suffering/death goes right back to the fall, as does our tendency to sin and rebel.
God did not intend for this to occur. We know this by reading Genesis and trusting His word. This is why He sent His son. By the original fall and sin nature of mankind, Christ became the remedy.
Whether the source of sickness comes by means of the demonic (i.e. oppression) or is simply a part of our fallen world - either way it's the result of the original fall. Many good people suffer also - Christ also suffered and was perfect - so suffering does not always indicate sin/punishment in this life, but can be used as a means of reaching out to God and considering the importance of the soul, rather than the flesh. Joining Christ on the cross, is nothing to be scoffed at, but isn't easy. Most people do not rejoice in their pains - though perhaps the odd one does who has an extremely intimate relationship with Christ!
I imagine germs are part of sickness/suffering
Weeds also and plenty of other things you could bring up that are no doubt a result of a fallen world.
The theory doesn't mention the existence of a Creator because the evidence doesn't indicate that existence within the bounds of the causes of evolutionary change. Mutations and recombination occur following the rules of chemistry and physics, with changes that are statistically random. Natural selection also follows those same rules along with rules discovered about population dynamics. The changes in the environment that change the selection criteria are also following the rules of physics, chemistry, climatology and geology. There is no appearance of control over these events unless you believe that the existence of the rules is a form of control.
The point is that geology, chemistry, physics....etc don't mention the Creator as the source of the rules. Are their evidences and conclusions also invalid?
There is no evidence for evolution - so why would you expect it to be able to prove God when it cannot even prove itself?
The bible tells us that the evidence is all around us within nature/creation - and that we are without excuse. According to God, it's already there - do you deny this is so?
I have no issue with science/biology simply sticking to science and biology. I take issue when dubious theories that are based on mere assumptions are worked into it, as though it were fact. We are yet to see the evidence that evolution has ever taken place, in this day and within history. Adapation, variation etc are observable changes within kinds. Since the fossils show little change, regardless of ancient dating methods up to this day - it appears nothing yet contradicts Genesis.
If you mean that evolutionist have the burden to prove that God doesn't exist, then I have to ask why. Can you name one scientifically accepted theory that mentions the Creator? Are all of the scientists that operate under those theories also required to prove that God doesn't exist? Can you name one scientifically accepted theory that states that God doesn't exist?
lol - do you really think they'll state "God doesn't exist" outright? Do you think you'd ever find such a statement in a textbook? Come on Linear, that would far too obvious! Direct religious or anti-religious statements would never be allowed in a science textbook - even though ironically they promote their own by mixing it in with real science/biology. That's pretty much the bait and hook.
They can't prove He doesn't exist, so the best they can come up with is providing alternative theories instead - no matter what, so long as it doesn't mention creation as a cause for all life. Anything seems preferable BUT the idea of a Creator.
Your form of creationism dictates that life came from non-life
Where is this form of MY creation? I wasn't aware there was a "book of Bex" as replacement theology - I mentioned the biblical word and that is it....Let me know where I've contradicted scipture and attempted to replace it with my own ideas on the origins of life.
Where in my words did I state that life comes from non life? Do you enjoy making false statements Linear? I'm sure you're aware of the commandment that warns against such things. But then you're not worried - you fear not
Since we can create lightening in a lab that must mean that it takes outside intelligence to bring forth lightening.
Since we can create crude oil in a lab, that must mean that it takes outside intelligence to bring forth oil.
Since we can make fire in a lab, that must mean that it takes outside intelligence bring forth fire.
Doing something in a lab doesn't eliminate the possibility of that same thing occurring in the natural world.
By your own statements you've admitted creation. You've tripped on your own words. All these elements/materials do not take place out of thin air, nor are they "created" by man. It is due to our Creator that these are available to us and part of our environment. For mankind to emulate any of it, they have to get together in the right environment with the right ingredients to produce the same. Anything they use to do so, already exists. Whether emulation or manipulation.
Which again proves it does indeed take outside intelligence. God has provided the means for everything from the very beginning - provided the substance/materials. Man can do nothing more but tamper with what's already available and attempt to emulate it.
Thanks for backing up my position
How does the balance in nature and its awesomeness eliminate evolution? Please be specific in your answer.
My comments on the balance and awesomeness in nature was to attribute this to the evidence of an intelligent mind and awesome creator. Whether He achieved such by a long process of evolution or immediate creation. However, it would appear from the fossils, that He did indeed create life fully formed/complex from the getgo. Again we find no evidence of the evolutionary process from simple to complex.
Provide the proof that shows otherwise - it's been requested of you enough. Why the delay?
Some people believe that the balance and resilience of life to evolve and respond to massive environmental changes really does showcase the intelligence and mighty power of God.
I totally agree. God provided the information from the very beginning for any varation/adaption to be possible. This is not disputed by creationists, is an observed fact. And indeed should cause one to reflect even more on the fact that this awesome creator thought of everything.
But it also does not prove one kind of creature became another. Once again the fossils echoe that they have remained much the same no matter how far back you go. So it would appear that there are indeed limits, if we are to believe the reality of the fossils.
Russ' response to my accusation was that scientists will lie in order to save their jobs. How is that something other than saying that the scientists who support the theory of evolution are liars?
I have no problem with you challenging or disputing the theory of evolution. If it is incorrect then it is incorrect. I have no allegiance to the theory. It would be great if someone could challenge it with something that doesn't mischaracterize it.
You have a big problem with it and part of your defense is simply accusing others of calling such people liars. I have had the unpleasant experience of you accusing me of the same - a number of times. One such example was when you suggested a test had been done and I simply asked for evidence that this test occured - you failed to do so - so your answer was to become defensive and accuse me of calling people liars. The usual method you use when you have no other way out.
There are more methods I'm sure regular readers are familiar with also that are employed by you. Devious or defensive? Not sure which, perhaps a bit of both.
I also provided an interview with a biologist time and time again, which you frequently ignored. An evolutionist biologist candidly admitted exactly what happens to them if they dare to question evolution. Would you like me to re-post it for the umpteenth time, so it can be ignored for the umpteenth time?
So how did it make you feel about the conclusions from the rest of his paper?
Since he provides no reference to the fish story, I am inclined to pass it off as hearsay. However, doctors recommend diets higher in proteins, fats and oils for babies and small children to help in their brain development. Children in famine conditions, even when given a lot of carbs, but little fats and oils, have poor brain development in their younger years.
Would that change a particular individual and cause that individual to evolve a bigger brain? No, because evolution is not about changes within an individual. Rather it is concerned with heritable traits passed on to offspring.
One would hope that he does not employ such thinking to medical/health in the same manner. Some of it maybe sound, but certainly I'd be a bit more concerned after reading that.
Yes, most definitely these proteins, fats and oils are necessary to encourage full potential in a person's brain function and many other functions (hormones etc). But certainly it doesn't make anybody "less" human for the lack of, or a person more human through getting "enough" of.
I'm unsure what the inheritance of information from both parents, has to do with simple life to complex.... Again, creationists do not dispute basic biology/science or inheritance of genetics from both parents. Why are you using an observed fact like this? Do you think using natural observed facts will make evolution seem more believeable/viable - hopefully once you catch people with the truth, you can implant the rest of it much more easily. Simple to complex - that's what it goes back to folks, don't let them fool you with basic biology facts to make it seem more credible (at first).
Russ did call them liars. Regardless of their motivation to maintain the evolution lie (Russ' categorization, not mine), it still makes them liars.
Russ has read alot, studied alot and through such studies, may have reached this conclusion based upon the fact there seemed to be no other explanation for the propogation of such a theory. Are all dentists to blame because of the introduction of mercury to amalgam in dentistry? Or have they been indoctrinated in dental school to believe it is safe? I can't be certain of all that, but I do know the ones at the top have a lot of say so about how things are taught.
We must be careful not to label everybody a liar - but certainly it is not easy to ignore the idea that deception is most definitely involved with some, if not many.
Says you. However, most all biologists agree that most of biology makes no sense without the theory of evolution. According to them, there is no framework for how things operate within the sphere of life, without evolution.
What do you think...liars or really hard working smart people that don't understand the real way biology works?
Are you saying that creationist scientists/biologists before the theory of evolution became popular/widely accepted did nothing for the science/medical field?
Biology and science does not depend upon the theory of evolution and never did. Further learning in these fields is always happening - as our knowledge increases, but believing that our origins lie in simplicity furthers a person's knowledge contradicts the evidence - so how does this help science/biology? If anything, it's a useless theory contributing little but dumb down indoctrination - even the fossils must be nodding!
What you may call evolution, may well be what creationists already accept in regards to certain changes that can indeed take place under certain environments and in certain conditions - and that's what you're attempting to attribute to the theory, rather than basic biology?
Does this have nothing to do with any kind of creature becoming anything else or again simple life becoming complex.
I would say that many scientists/biologists are very hard working and very smart people Linear. Without these people, I hate to imagine. Please don't equate evolution with hard work and intellect - I'm talking about real science/biology that both creationists/evolutionists are a part of.
Do you believe that the statements are incorrect in Genesis, yet you profess them to be correct? I don't think so. Lying requires intent to deceive. Most people who support a literal Genesis creation actually believe in a literal Genesis creation so they are not liars. They may be incorrect but they are not trying to deceive.
Is God's intent by providing a simple story regarding creation to be considered an attempt to deceive? The story provides a demonstration of His power over the universe and His accessibility to each person. That is no more an intent to deceive than Jesus' use of stories to provide insight into ultimate truths. So, I guess I am not calling God a liar either, unless you consider the use of stories by Jesus as a form of lying.
You're not making sense Linear...read your first statement again..
Do you believe that the statements are incorrect in Genesis, yet you profess them to be correct? I don't think so.
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
I believe them to be correct full stop. There is no reason whatsoever to doubt since the Holy Spirit is the author and the world displays the glory of creation, the fossils show full formation - no indication yet of simplicity becoming complexity. Why do you force me to repeat myself continually? Is this just your way of wasting a person's time on here?
I support a literal Genesis - the bible clearly supports a literal Genesis, the world supports Genesis. Christ came to confirm - the word made flesh.
God will be the judge whether a person's intent is to lie/deceive and save face....I have my suspicions.
The majority wins because the experiments and predictions regarding evolution have been repeated. This isn't a beauty contest. The theory of evolution went through the same trials that Special Relativity did and both are still going through.
What are those experiments and predictions in regards to the evolution theory and how have they been tested and repeated/observed and can you provide us with the information and testing that was done and the outcome?
Where did they discover new information can be added - rather than already available information being tampered with?
I hope you remember that when someone asks you for your cloak. Make sure you give them your shirt too.
I don't have a cloak
However, I've been accused of being over-generous a number of times. Not because I'm any better than anybody else, but because I simply enjoy giving. Perhaps this is a fault too in its own way - since we should not become overly attached or concerned what others think, but rather what God thinks.
Giving is wonderful, but we were also warned not to cast our pearls before swine. Consider that the bible expects us to also use our discretion/brain also and common sense applies.
How about yourself?
Could be insulting God, himself? Strangely, your assessment of the situation doesn't really scare me.
Maybe it is your lack of faith in God, shown by going to doctors and buying healing drugs and cures, that keeps you from being completely healed. Maybe it is your lack of belief in Christ as the healer that makes your walk fraught with struggles to curb your anger.
What parts of the Bible do you consider as parable, symbolism, or metaphor? What evidence do you have that supports your assessment that those portions are not literal history or completely factual? God made the universe. If there is something in that universe that seems to contradict our interpretation of His Word, then our interpretation is wrong.
The biblical quotes I gave should be a wake up call to all of us - particularly those who practice heresy but so often the very people in serious states of sin who show lack of fear, reverence for God and the fact we will indeed be punished for our misdeeds.
As for your personal comments regarding my sufferings/sickness - one wonders how low you're willing to go? Are personal sufferings and attempts at natural remedies now a means for you to use against a person - are you really this desperate?
I would hope that God would expect us to use means to help ourselve also, rather than sit around crying/moaning/praying and expecting Him to perform a miracle (which at one point was a lengthy learning process i had to go through), when He maybe waiting for us to learn a few things and in that learning, help others. Using good food and supplements does not indicate a lack of faith. Though I don't deny my faith was tested and still is. I just try to look after the body God gave me, I see no sin or lack of faith involved with that at all.
It also has little to do with my point on altering/down-grading the words of scripture...not sure how this fits in with heresy?
Anyway, let's outline some of this:
is it lack of faith to consume foods that are natural and healthful? Is it lack of faith to use the herbs that God provided for us? Is it lack of faith to use ones intellect and also find means to help ourselves, as God has also provided? Is it a lack of faith when I use my experience to try and help others? Is it a lack of faith to take advice from others in regards to natural medicine?Isn't it also a part of God's plan to have us improve our knowledge, even in disease, some of which we may have deserved by lifestyle? Isn't part of experiencing sickness and suffering the walk also of a Christian? It is how we respond that is the key. Not simply gaining a cure from God, because we expect it. That is up to Him, both the ifs and the whens. He knows what is best for us and the right timing. For all I know, physical healing at this point may not be good for me for reasons only God understands, but again I don't know. In the meantime, I pray, I hope, and I treat the body he gave to me as best as I can.
Isn't it also a reminder of the cross we as Christians are expected to carry? So perhaps, even with our efforts, we may not be able to get rid of certain crosses in our lives. God knows best. But does that mean we should quit bothering?
Part of suffering for sinful creatures is a great reminder to us that this world is temporary. God performs miracles when He wishes, to whom He wishes and how He wishes, which may or may not comply with what we think is best. I have been witness to a supernatural miracle overseas amongst thousands of people. Should I assume because others haven't seen this that it means "lack of faith"? And that if they had faith, they'd see what I saw? Why did I see it, when I was even LESS faithful then than I am now?
If it is due to lack of faith that I am not healed, only God can be the ultimate judge of that - I am not certain. I have prayed and have certainly hoped, but perhaps being human and flawed, it's highly possible that it may have been that. I don't know. I help myself as much as I can under the circumstances, and I'm sure God would expect to do so.
Without my faith in God, I may have ended my life. Because of my faith in God, somehow I hung in there and the state of some of the suffings were enough to have driven me almost insane many times. So there must have been faith there for sure! Without Him, I'd not be here, that I am quite certain of.
No matter what state my faith is in, what state my health is in, His words abideth forever and do not alter. Regardless of my human flaws and struggles - I'm well aware His words are truth. I accept them as stated, even if my faith at times is tested. So were the disciples faith! Did you forget that one?
As for your comments on parables and the literal, this has already been brought up by you sometime ago. It was explained and addressed.
As for curbing my anger? Since that is what you apparently detect, perhaps part of this might be the tendency to project onto others of something you yourself maybe struggling with?
