By the way, welcome to the science board npc and Magnetic Poles. It's nice to have some new faces (figuratively speaking) in here.
Originally posted by OldRegular:
Simple, if chance were under God's control it would not be chance.
I think you've forgotten your original claim. You said that one needed to make a choice between believing God or believing chance. Once you accept that God can create and work through processes that seem random to us, the problem disappears. God is responsible for the weather and for evolution even if he allows these processes to function without overriding their every detail. But, he is certainly able to guide both the weather and evolution at any point he wants to. Randomness in no way limits what God can do.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />No, he's not correct. He seems to have forgotten that we need a Saviour not just because of what Adam did, but because of what I do and what you do. If a person thinks that removing Adam removes our need for a Saviour, then they don't understand salvation, what Jesus did for them, and how they personally are the guilty one (not just their distant ancestor).
Scripture teaches that sin entered the world through Adam, believe it or not.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, and that remains true whether Adam is a single person or representative of a larger population.
I can understand why a non-Christian like Mattill would not understand that sin is a tangible present reality and not just some inherited glitch in our makeup, but I don't understand why Christians would fall for such an idea. We don't need to know how humanity first became sinful in order to know that we are sinful and in need of a Saviour. If one sees no evidence of their sinfulness aside from their relation to Adam, they need to more closely examine their actions and God's standard. If the only repentance a person makes is apologizing to God for what their distant ancestor did, then I don't think that is true repentance.
Since I have been posting on this thread I have elicited response from a "web site designer", a "cardiology nurse", a "coal researcher", an "advertising manager", a "college student"and a "?".
Isn't it amazing how people from these varied backgrounds all have fairly similar answers to your questions? Our differences mainly come from areas where we're forced to speculate due to a lack of evidence.
Yet I am supposed to believe that you are all experts in so-called evolutionary biology, that all your posts are the exact truth, that evolutionary biology is written on tablets of stone by the finger of God, and that you have access and full understanding of those tablets.
Who has asked you to believe such a thing? Both npc and I preceded our answers with a statement saying we were only giving our opinion. Ute encouraged you to verify what he's said.
Why do you need to make such outrageous claims in order to defend your beliefs? If your position is solid, the truth will be good enough.
