quote:I don't not believe in God because of evolution.
Oddly enough, I don't believe in God because of black holes. When I was sixish I spent a summer learning a lot about black holes and the formation of the planets. A few months later I suddenly realized I didn't believe in Santa Clause anymore, and the reason was that a universe with all sorts of logical rules for how black holes and planet formations existed was not a universe in which a magic man with bag of toys made much sense. (This wasn't necessarily strong logic on my part, it's just what was going on in my unconscious mind for whatever reason)
Shortly afterward, I extended the same logic to God. (Another decade later I made a concentrated effort to revisit all my old assumptions and start from scratch. I don't know to what extent I was successful but I think I tried as hard as could reasonably be expected)
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Raymond, just because your conception of God was childish, does not mean belief in God is necessarily childish. You obviously jumped to the wrong conclusion.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
No that kinda makes perfect sense, believing in an all knowing, all present, all powerful person who somehow for some reason requires your specific worship and would depending on the denomination damn you to eternal torment if you choose to opt out in an infinite universe where there's clear evidence we evolved outside of interference is kinda childish and is just like believing in Santa Clause.
The only way for a God to exist is if he or her or it were a sufficiently advanced alien.
IP: Logged |
quote:Raymond, just because your conception of God was childish, does not mean belief in God is necessarily childish. You obviously jumped to the wrong conclusion.
When I was six, I jumped to a conclusion without any particularly good logic, it just happened. I am not defending that, merely stating what happened. Between the years, of 16-20, I underwent an exhaustive examination of the evidence at hand, and I am quite confident that regardless of the hope, comfort and community that belief in God can bring, the actual validity of that belief is completely baseless.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:No that kinda makes perfect sense, believing in an all knowing, all present, all powerful person who somehow for some reason requires your specific worship and would depending on the denomination damn you to eternal torment if you choose to opt out in an infinite universe where there's clear evidence we evolved outside of interference is kinda childish and is just like believing in Santa Clause.
There are some religions that exist that do not damn you to Hell if you don't belong to a specific church. There are some religions that don't even believe in Hell as classically defined in Dante's Inferno.
Some religions don't believe God is a butler (or maid); some don't believe He is all-powerful. Some believe worshipping God is the same as honoring a parent.
You're missing some subtlety, Blayne.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apparently the direct commitment to promoting evolution is not present in the original documents establishing the institution. I may have been mistaken it saying it was part of the Smithsonian's charter. However, anyone visiting or examining the museums presently will see an unmistakable and systematic attempt to present evolution as axiomatic and virtually proven "scientific truth," with no acknowledgement of any alternative way of interpreting the natural data.
Here are some excerpts from a well-informed and insightful critique of the Smithsonian made by Henry Morris, Ph.D.:
quote:"Evolutionary Faith" might well be the title of the elaborate exhibitions in the nation's famed Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. In many beautiful displays, the evolution of the earth and its inhabitants is treated as axiomatic with its histories laid out in impressive diorama and narrative accounts. Yet in all these exhibits, it is impossible to find one single evidence of real evolution! Evolution is apparently a non-theistic religious faith, which a gullible citizenry is expected to believe simply because the "scientists" say so.
The federal government is, both constitutionally and legally, supposed to be neutral in its attitude toward various religions. Yet in its prestigious national museums, especially its Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, it openly seeks to indoctrinate its swarms of visitors (estimated at 17 million annually) in the religion of evolutionary humanism, naturalism, and materialism.
The displays in the Museum of Natural History, under the directorship of Dr. Porter M. Kier, invertebrate paleontologist, depict evolution not only as the preferred philosophy of natural history," but as the only one! No mention at all is made of the Biblical record of origins and earth history, which it flagrantly contradicts, nor even of scientific creationism, which is accepted by thousands of scientists and multitudes of others today. Dr. Kier and his associates, of course, do represent the modern scientific and educational establishments, which apparently are devotedly dedicated to converting everyone to their own materialistic faith, through the nation's schools, museums and other tax-supported educational institutions.
Yet, with all this propaganda, it is remarkable that the host of Smithsonian-related scientists who designed the exhibits were apparently unable to come up with any real evidence of evolution. The recently opened hall entitled "The Dynamics of Evolution" has received considerable publicity and is supposed to tell people exactly how evolution works, but it consists entirely of speculative pretense, as far as vertical evolution is concerned (evolution from one "kind" of organism to a higher, more complex kind). There are numerous excellent exhibits depicting horizontal variation within the kind, but these have nothing to do with real evolution. . . . .
Another important evolutionary scenario is developed in the hall entitled "Ice Age Mammals and the Emergence of Man." This hall has obviously been updated in recent years, making no mention of such now-discredited specimens as Piltdown Man and Java Man. Furthermore, a diorama of a supposed Neanderthal funeral service points out that Neanderthal Man was truly human, with an artistic and religious nature, and with a cranial capacity higher even than that of modern man.
However, it is still assumed that man is a product of evolution from some form of animal ancestry, though the exhibits admit that the lineage is unknown. It is frankly acknowledged that modern man did not evolve from the Australopithecines, since Homo (possibly Homo habilis, more probably Homo erectus) is said to have existed contemporaneously with Australopithecus.
It is suggested in one diorama that Louis Leakey's famous Zinjanthropus might be an ancestor of man, the same as Homo habilis. A rather detailed discussion of how the artist reconstructed the facial appearance of Zinjanthropus, making him appear as definitely an ape-human intermediate, neglects to mention that other reconstructions from the fragmentary fossils, made by equally competent artists, gave him many different faces, all the way from truly ape to truly human. "Put not your faith in reconstructions" was the admonition of a prominent evolutionary anthropologist of fifty years ago, and it is just as appropriate today. . . . .
It is also significant that no attempt is made to depict "inferred intermediates" in the fossils, and it is clearly obvious from the exhibits that transitional forms have never been found. If any had been found, it is certain they would have been emphasized in the Smithsonian's transparent attempt at evolutionary propaganda. The amphibian Seymouria is portrayed, for example, as having reptilian characteristics, but without actually claiming it as the amphibian-reptilian link (no mention was made of the fact, of course, that true reptiles pre-date Seymouria). Similarly the question of a transition between fishes and amphibians was left hanging. The "lungfishes" (which still survive, of course) were said to be an evolutionary dead end, though possibly some such fish may once have flipped itself up on land to become the first amphibian. The coelacanth fish, once thought to have been ancestral to the amphibians, is not mentioned in such a connection, apparently since it is now known to be still living in the Indian Ocean. . . . .
These are not the only exhibits in the Museum which promote evolution--only the most obvious. The various halls of ethnology depict cultural evolution, the dioramas of existing animals place them all in the context of their assumed evolutionary backgrounds, and the halls dealing with physical systems and processes feature the evolution of the earth and solar system.
Nor is this all. The other Smithsonian museums frequently also display an evolutionistic, anti-Biblical bias. For example, the beautiful new National Air and Space Museum repeatedly alludes to the evolution of the moon and planets, the probability of life on other worlds (though, of course, giving no evidence for this) and the great age of the universe. The long-legged, dish-footed lunar lander is exhibited, but with no mention of the fact that the anticipated thick dust layers were not encountered (the reason being, of course, that the expected dust and the costly plans developed on that assumption had been based on the supposed five-billion-year age of the moon). . . . .
It does seem a shame that the great Smithsonian Institution, supported by the taxes of all Americans and enjoyed by multitudes of visitors from all over the world, should be used to undermine the very principles of Biblical creationism and divine purpose on which the nation was established. In view of the fact that a significant minority (probably a majority) of the nation's citizens still believe in scientific Biblical creationism even after generations of humanistic persuasion in the schools and that a large majority at least favors the objective teaching of both models of origins in public institutions, supported by the further fact that there are now thousands of qualified scientists who have become convinced that creation is a better scientific model, it does seem high time for Smithsonian officials (as well as school officials and the legislative bodies who provide generous appropriations for all of them from our taxes) to restructure their programs to provide a fair and objective exposure of all comers to both creationism and evolutionism. Systematic forced indoctrination in the one universal religious philosophy of evolutionary humanism is contrary to all principles of freedom and justice.
posted
No Matt, the problem is an unproven scientific philosophy being falsely characterized as "actual science."
So Scott, as usual the first resort of evolutionists challenged by creationist arguments is ad hominen attack. That changes nothing, and answers nothing.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it was a substantive challenge I'd be less dismissive. For now I'm just noting that I question the objectiveness of an individual with no credentials or apparent expertise in any relevant fields and an obvious ideological commitment to biblical literalism that supercedes scientific integrity.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Morris wrote in The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth (1972) that the craters of the moon were caused by a cosmic battle between the forces of Satan and the armies of the archangel Michael.
O_o
quote:"The only way we can determine the true age of the earth is for God to tell us what it is. And since he has told us, very plainly, in the Holy Scriptures that it is several thousand years of age, and no more, that ought to settle all basic questions of terrestrial chronology."
O_o
quote:Morris wrote that the descendants of Ham "possibly" include "all of the earth's 'colored' races". Morris wrote that they have been "[p]ossessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters" compared to the "Japhethites" who have a comparatively "intellectual and philosophical acumen".
O_o
Man, how do you even find these characters?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, you put the PhD at the end of his name because you clearly thought it was relevant. Why do you think a PhD in hydraulic engineering might be relevant to Professor Morris' opinions of the Smithsonian's attitude toward evolution?
My offer remains open, by the way: I am willing to not only escort you through the Chicago Natural History Museum but can practically guarantee you the cooperation and personal guidance of an informed expert. This is important, you see, because you quote stuff like this:
quote:The amphibian Seymouria is portrayed, for example, as having reptilian characteristics, but without actually claiming it as the amphibian-reptilian link...
...and think that this is an argument against the Smithsonian's intellectual honesty. What you do not seem to understand -- but which anyone who understands the mechanisms of natural selection should understand -- is that there is no one "amphibian-reptilian link." To say that this one fossil represents some kind of single-event "link" between different "types" is to completely misunderstand, well, pretty much all of the last 200 years of biological science.
That's why you find hydraulic engineers making this kind of criticism, and actual biologists not taking them seriously.
I am willing to get you an audience with some actual biologists, if you are willing to put in the time. I promise you that it will help you understand things that you clearly do not have the scientific knowledge to currently comprehend.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, it is still assumed that man is a product of evolution from some form of animal ancestry, though the exhibits admit that the lineage is unknown. It is frankly acknowledged that modern man did not evolve from the Australopithecines, since Homo (possibly Homo habilis, more probably Homo erectus) is said to have existed contemporaneously with Australopithecus.
Isn't this assuming a discrete sequence events instead of a continuum?
Ron, please explain to me why you don't see the sequence australopithecus, homo habilus, homo erectus, archaic homo sapiens, and modern homo sapiens as evidence for evolution.
And Ron, if you don't like Scott's attack, ignore it and deal with the others who are not ad hominening your argument.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:No that kinda makes perfect sense, believing in an all knowing, all present, all powerful person who somehow for some reason requires your specific worship and would depending on the denomination damn you to eternal torment if you choose to opt out in an infinite universe where there's clear evidence we evolved outside of interference is kinda childish and is just like believing in Santa Clause.
There are some religions that exist that do not damn you to Hell if you don't belong to a specific church. There are some religions that don't even believe in Hell as classically defined in Dante's Inferno.
Some religions don't believe God is a butler (or maid); some don't believe He is all-powerful. Some believe worshipping God is the same as honoring a parent.
You're missing some subtlety, Blayne.
What's more, with how long he has been on hatrack, unless he has made it a point to avoid every religion thread, he should know that already.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:No that kinda makes perfect sense, believing in an all knowing, all present, all powerful person who somehow for some reason requires your specific worship and would depending on the denomination damn you to eternal torment if you choose to opt out in an infinite universe where there's clear evidence we evolved outside of interference is kinda childish and is just like believing in Santa Clause.
There are some religions that exist that do not damn you to Hell if you don't belong to a specific church. There are some religions that don't even believe in Hell as classically defined in Dante's Inferno.
Some religions don't believe God is a butler (or maid); some don't believe He is all-powerful. Some believe worshipping God is the same as honoring a parent.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: So Scott, as usual the first resort of evolutionists challenged by creationist arguments is ad hominen attack. That changes nothing, and answers nothing.
Imagine that I claimed to know a PhD Historian who said that airplanes are lifted by magic, because they're made of metal and metal is heavier than air, so they can't fly except my magic.
You might try to convince me that metal isn't an Earth Element, with a natural Down Attraction, and that there is no magic in air travel. You might also point out that an aerospace engineer would be a better expert to consult than a historian, who seems to have zero understanding of how planes work.
That is what we're trying to tell you about your, "expert." He doesn't know what he's talking about. You might want to consult some actual experts, not just people who happen to agree with your ideas, and have nonsense explanations like magical airplanes.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not even a "real" evolutionist. If the rank-and-file (such as I am) can gun down your experts with a link to wikipedia, for crying out loud...
Well. It looks grim for your side.
Ron, dude: you put your Morris up with the alphabet soup after his name; I don't know why you specified, but sometimes people do that to honor the gods of Credentialism.
If you're holding forth a man's book-learning as a indication that he knows what he's talking about, it would be a good idea to make sure that book learning is applicable to the subject at hand.
Further, the section that I linked points out that Morris has been criticized for shoddy scientific work-- misquoting, ignoring data that doesn't fit with his worldview, etc. Morris' character is, in fact, emblematic of the problem evolutionists have with creationists.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:No that kinda makes perfect sense, believing in an all knowing, all present, all powerful person who somehow for some reason requires your specific worship and would depending on the denomination damn you to eternal torment if you choose to opt out in an infinite universe where there's clear evidence we evolved outside of interference is kinda childish and is just like believing in Santa Clause.
There are some religions that exist that do not damn you to Hell if you don't belong to a specific church. There are some religions that don't even believe in Hell as classically defined in Dante's Inferno.
Some religions don't believe God is a butler (or maid); some don't believe He is all-powerful. Some believe worshipping God is the same as honoring a parent.
quote:Morris wrote in The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth (1972) that the craters of the moon were caused by a cosmic battle between the forces of Satan and the armies of the archangel Michael.
O_o
quote:"The only way we can determine the true age of the earth is for God to tell us what it is. And since he has told us, very plainly, in the Holy Scriptures that it is several thousand years of age, and no more, that ought to settle all basic questions of terrestrial chronology."
O_o
quote:Morris wrote that the descendants of Ham "possibly" include "all of the earth's 'colored' races". Morris wrote that they have been "[p]ossessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters" compared to the "Japhethites" who have a comparatively "intellectual and philosophical acumen".
quote:Ron, dude: you put your Morris up with the alphabet soup after his name; I don't know why you specified, but sometimes people do that to honor the gods of Credentialism.
If you're holding forth a man's book-learning as a indication that he knows what he's talking about, it would be a good idea to make sure that book learning is applicable to the subject at hand.
It seems like the PhD is relevant in pointing out that he is trained as a scholar. Ron didn't list the guy as an expert on evolution, and the critique posted is not an argument-by-expertise.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ron, dude: you put your Morris up with the alphabet soup after his name; I don't know why you specified, but sometimes people do that to honor the gods of Credentialism.
If you're holding forth a man's book-learning as a indication that he knows what he's talking about, it would be a good idea to make sure that book learning is applicable to the subject at hand.
It seems like the PhD is relevant in pointing out that he is trained as a scholar. Ron didn't list the guy as an expert on evolution, and the critique posted is not an argument-by-expertise.
I have to disagree with the last sentence, Tres. Here's Ron's intro to Dr. Morris:
quote:Here are some excerpts from a well-informed and insightful critique of the Smithsonian made by Henry Morris, Ph.D.:
Expertise is implied by the terms "well-informed" and "insightful."
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, many of your posts are well-informed and insightful..... I don't think that means you are a professional expert in the field of everything you talk about. Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure how you justify your opinion about Ron's posting of Morris.
Can you clarify? It seems to me that when someone brings a third party's quote into a discussion, they are implying that the brought individual has some sort of pertinence.
Generally, people don't quote a knitting expert in a discussion about the rules of water polo, even if that knitting expert happens to have seen a game.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish." - Einstein
By bringing this quote into discussion, I am not implying that Einstein is a priest or an expert on God. I'm only implying that I think it is a good point.
Similarly, if someone were to post an essay by OSC about the No Child Left Behind law and say "here is a well-informed and insightful essay about eduation by OSC", I would not presume that person is implying OSC is an expert educator. Instead, I would assume that person simply thinks OSC is making a good case for his position - meaning I should read the article as an argument towards a position, rather than as a piece of expert testimony. It's not that OSC has some pertinence to the discussion - its that his reasons do.
Now, if Ron intends us to conclude "Henry Morris, Ph.D., says it is true, so it must be true!" then that's one thing. But it seems to me that Ron was simply saying "Henry Morris, Ph.D., makes good points in this article. If you read it I think you'll be convinced."
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would not presume that person is implying OSC is an expert educator.
Yet he is. Maybe you didn't realize OSC is a professor at SVU? Or that he teaches writing classes?
quote:"Henry Morris, Ph.D., says it is true, so it must be true!" then that's one thing. But it seems to me that Ron was simply saying "Henry Morris, Ph.D., makes good points in this article. If you read it I think you'll be convinced."
I'm not sure that there's a substantive difference between these.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: [QB] [QUOTE]I would not presume that person is implying OSC is an expert educator.
Yet he is. Maybe you didn't realize OSC is a professor at SVU? Or that he teaches writing classes?
EDIT:
Tresopax, I suppose I'll wait for Ron to clarify his intent.
I'm skeptical of your interpretation, though.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:No that kinda makes perfect sense, believing in an all knowing, all present, all powerful person who somehow for some reason requires your specific worship and would depending on the denomination damn you to eternal torment if you choose to opt out in an infinite universe where there's clear evidence we evolved outside of interference is kinda childish and is just like believing in Santa Clause.
There are some religions that exist that do not damn you to Hell if you don't belong to a specific church. There are some religions that don't even believe in Hell as classically defined in Dante's Inferno.
Some religions don't believe God is a butler (or maid); some don't believe He is all-powerful. Some believe worshipping God is the same as honoring a parent.
You're missing some subtlety, Blayne.
Which is even sillier.
Which part?
You essentially removed the only incentive, Gods worth in being worshiped primarily comes from Pascal's Wager, once you do that, once all power is stripped from you God it loses whatever relevance it may have had.
IP: Logged |
posted
Pascal'a Wager has nothing to do with why I worship God.
And, as BlackBlade pointed out, if you had been paying attention to these threads at all - really reading what other people write - you would know this.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm afraid that post was a bit difficult for me to understand, Blayne.
Can you start to clarify by explaining how Pascal's Wager figures into "God's worth in being worshipped?"
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yet he is. Maybe you didn't realize OSC is a professor at SVU? Or that he teaches writing classes?
Ha, true, I guess I chose a poor example. How about an article on Olympic figureskating rules? I'm pretty sure he doesn't do that, although I guess I could be wrong... Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: You essentially removed the only incentive, Gods worth in being worshiped primarily comes from Pascal's Wager, once you do that, once all power is stripped from you God it loses whatever relevance it may have had.
While I agree that many theists make that argument, I don't believe anyone here has done so. Indeed, the last big thread on religion revealed a totally different reason: people worship God because they intend to to believe and hold as true whatever they wish were true, and they wish to believe in God. Why one would wish to believe in an all-knowing God who never has and never will help fallible, limited mortals save the lives of their children with vaccines, for example, is beyond me.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: You essentially removed the only incentive, Gods worth in being worshiped primarily comes from Pascal's Wager, once you do that, once all power is stripped from you God it loses whatever relevance it may have had.
Wait, this isn't true at all. A deity that a person believes in can have worth outside of pascal's wager, which is really only one INDIVIDUAL DISTINCTION of justification for belief. It's not the sole hitch for faith.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: A deity that a person believes in can have worth outside of pascal's wager, which is really only one INDIVIDUAL DISTINCTION of justification for belief. It's not the sole hitch for faith.
There is no belief so outlandish or childish or obviously stupid that a large number of people won't argue it in sincerity as the foundation of their religious beliefs.
The problem is that the more mature theists can't demonstrate that their beliefs are any better evidenced or reasoned than the ones that everyone is so quick to dismiss as obviously stupid.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: While I agree that many theists make that argument, I don't believe anyone here has done so. Indeed, the last big thread on religion revealed a totally different reason: people worship God because they intend to to believe and hold as true whatever they wish were true, and they wish to believe in God. Why one would wish to believe in an all-knowing God who never has and never will help fallible, limited mortals save the lives of their children with vaccines, for example, is beyond me.
If you look at God as a father and not just an All Knowing Being (He would be that as well) then it may make more sense to you. If your father had all knowledge and power and provided everything you ever wanted whenever you wanted it, what would you learn? What would you learn about hard work, kindness, sharing, etc if your father just gave you everything the instant you wanted it?
I invoke the awesomeness of the original Willy Wonka film. Veronica was a nasty, spoiled girl, because daddy gave her everything she ever wanted. Then there is Charlie, who didn't have practically anything, yet because of his experiences was a good, loving kid that ended up being the owner of the chocolate factory.
Life is about experiences, and God won't give you anything that he hasn't experienced or that you can't handle. Some people lose children, so did He. Life isn't awesome all of the time, we have times in our lives when the world seems against us. But it is those experiences that help us learn and become better people. Someone else may lose a child and you would be able to relate to them and comfort them.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If your father had all knowledge and power and provided everything you ever wanted whenever you wanted it, what would you learn?
Why, given an omnipotent father, is it necessary that we learn from experience? Why are we not created knowing everything, so that our children do not have to die?
quote:Life is about experiences, and God won't give you anything that he hasn't experienced or that you can't handle.
I think this is demonstrably false.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Funny how it's always well-to-do 1st world people who love to toss out, "God won't give you anything you can't handle."
You rarely hear starving aids babies saying, "It's cool, I can totally handle this. Thanks God!"
I think you probably mostly hear this from well-to-do 1st world people because you live in a well-to-do 1st world country. But statistically, poorer 3rd world countries report higher levels of religion.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The idea that God gives us every single thing, specifically, that happens in our lives on an individual-and-God basis is pretty simplistic, to me. That's part of the reason I reject it, that and its incredible inhumanity. Personally, I tend to think God capable of bigger understandings than that-and working on bigger scales than that, too.
And as for the notion that, "Well, God lost a child too, so people who have lost children can't feel too wronged..." well c'mon man. That's just silly. Jesus's sacrifice was voluntary. It was specifically part of God's plan. Your Son dying voluntarily as a hero as part of your plan is quite different from someone's 8 year old getting run down in front of their house by a drunken driver who is never found, just as an example.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is wrong with noting that Henry Morris had a Ph.D.? Is it not proper to note if a person has submitted to the discipline and learning necessary to obtain a doctorate? Isn't this the normal way to refer to anyone? Why is that "putting an alphabet soup" after his name? Acknowledging that a person has a doctorate is a proper way of showing due respect. Perhaps the real issue here is that prejudiced people do not want to accord respect to any Creationist like Henry Morris. So some complain that I mention he had a doctorate. Others try to hold up to ridicule the area inwhich he had the Ph.D. Is the implication that hydraulic engineers are stupid fools, so their academic distinction should be disregarded?
These objections some have made are just plain silly, and lead me to question the maturity of the people who indulge in this typical pattern of sniping.
Most Creationists take Henry Morris to be a fairly responsible and cogent expositor of Creationist thinking, someone that evolutionists do not seem able to answer reasonably--because his criticisms of evolutionist thinking are so obviously valid.
As I already pointed out, the typical response of evolution defenders is to attack the people making the criticisms of evolution, not face up to the substance of the criticisms. That and assume that somehow they must be ignorant of science, which is another ad hominen attack. Thus Tom Davidson wants to conduct me on a tour of a natural history museum. Such arrogance!
[ March 16, 2010, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:God won't give you anything that he hasn't experienced or that you can't handle.
Jesus Christ, through the miracle of the atonement and the power of the Holy Ghost has experienced every sorrow and affliction that any human can experience, including permanent separation from God because of sin.
That's what Geraine might mean in terms of God's experience.
We have been promised that we won't be tempted above our capability to resist; that's a slight distinction from what Geraine said. Even along the lines of her post, I'd need to understand what is meant by "handle" before I discount it completely.
Unlike some other posters, I *do* believe that God puts trials in our path. I'm not concerned with the idea of God being nice; it's important to me that He is Good. That is not to say He is responsible for all our trials; but I don't discount the idea that He is directly responsible for some of our earthly heartache. The source of the trial is less important to me than my response to it.
quote:Why, given an omnipotent father, is it necessary that we learn from experience?
God's not omnipotent. He can't give us experience; it's something we have to earn.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron: numerous responses to your statements about evolution have been posted in this thread. Where are your responses to them?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
