evolution or creation? lets talk...

by Sam87 537 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AlanF

  TopHat said:

  : I do feel though that the Evolutionist are fearful of a living God.

  LOL! This is just so typical of fundamentalists. They are afraid of their God, so they assume that everyone else ought to be, too.

  I am not the least bit afraid of this God, for two reasons. First, he simply doesn't exist, any more than the tooth fairy. Second, even if he did exist, I would very much like to meet him in person and talk to him for a long, long time about many things. If he is the God of love that Christians claim, then he'd be cool with this. If he is the God of hate that the Old Testament indicates, then I might be toast, but I want nothing to do with him.

  TopHat, your comments about the "ameba" are so grossly ignorant that it's hard to know where to begin to educate you. It's like someone saying, "When Columbia crossed the Indian Ocean in 1492 and discovered California, how could he have found oil to fuel his ship? He couldn't, so the myth that Columbia discovered California is wrong!"

  AlanF
• 

  TopHat

  But AlanF you have to admit....God is a wonderful designer of living things. That is what I wanted Dansk and others to realize. Hence the question. Not out of ignorance. But you love to use that word don't you? Makes you feel superior doesn't it? You need to let go of your ego and then you can feel the force of Holy Spirit working.

  Anyway....a board thread loses it usefulness when the opposing sides start to bash each other.
• 

  Satanus

  Tophat

  Ok, if god is the designer, who designed god?

  S
• 

  Beardo

  Ok, if god is the designer, who designed god?

  Aristotle referred to an "unmoved, mover" as the origin of all things set in motion.

  http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/PhilRel/Aristotle.htm - I haven't read the whole link yet myself, but this phrase sprang to mind and is mentioned in one of my 'Cliff Notes' books on the philosophy of religion.
• 

  Satanus

  Beardo

  Aristotle referred to an "unmoved, mover" as the origin of all things set in motion.

  I haven't read much aristotle. However, a couple of phrases in the article may pertain to my question to tophat...

  the thing does not move itself, but it contains within itself the source of motion—not of moving something or of causing motion, but of suffering it."

  'Suffering it' meaning allowing it. Thus, the unmoved mover does not cause, as an action, but passively allows. This type of process is compatable w evolution on the cosmic level. Cosmic evolution being a progression from void/potential to chaos, progressing towards organisation. The article mentions movement coming from potential. I have also described the void as potential. It seems to me that aristotle's unmoved mover, potential and the void may be descriptions of the same thing.

  However, it is of a totally different principle than the omniscient, supreme bible god designer, who is portrayed as the superlative pinnacle of all things good. How to attain to that infinite hieght of perfection and completeness without another preexisting designer? That question to tophat remains.

  S
• 

  Qcmbr

  Isn't evolution creation? I always find that the argument isn't really about 'how' (i.e. the processes of evolution have much evidence)but more to do with 'why'. God supplies a why while science supplies the how. When you apply the rigid criteria of science and proof to the question of why then we get the arguments. Let's take AlanF's comments - I have to put on my AF filter when I read them (remove all personal attacks and usage of emotion laden words:) but in essence he's neatly described the heart of the discussion - if we could meet 'God' we would have some serious 'why' questions. I suspect 'God' would have some why questions for us as well such as why argue with the facts (its fairly obvious that if God exists then He must exist along with the facts)? and why drag His existence into question when digging for fossils? Let God reveal the 'why' (and if He doesn't you're perfectly fine to accept that there is no why) and let the 'how' unfold as we apply our marvelous intellects to discovery.
• 

  TopHat

  It is simple Satanus: God is OUTSIDE the realm of time as we know it.

  God created time. The statement of Genesis, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” is making reference to the creation of time.
• 

  Satanus

  Tophat

  It is simple Satanus: God is OUTSIDE the realm of time as we know it.

  That doesn't answer my question.

  S
• 

  AlanF

  As usual, TopHat completely misses the implications of a question.

  TopHat, you're rapidly becoming my favorite creationist, for the same reason that the poster "scholar" is my favorite JW defender. Neither of you has any idea what you're talking about, and this ignorance produces arrogance in combination with religious belief, so that you're unable to learn anything or make intelligent responses.

  AlanF
• 

  zagor

  Ian ,

  How about you at least go here and read it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
  You'll notice that there's a wide spectrum of opinion among scholars about details of his life (so I don't expect every one of them to agree) BUT majority accept that he did exist. I'm not claiming he came from heavens, which is, I sense, your concern. I mean we don't refute a man called Buddah ever existed, why are we so concern that a man called Jesus of Nasareth might have existed? It is unlikely that anyone has tampered with Tacitus' text because of his VERY negative opinion about Christians.
  Like if someone on this board expreses always negatively about WTBS, it is a fair bet he/she is an "apostate" - do I have any reason to doubt that person's sencerity? Of course not, unless I'm a paranoid idiot. Even if they use sometimes words like "truth" "field service" etc. Would that be a proof that they are wtbs spies in disguise? Absolutely not, people have been emersed in that environment a good portion of their lives so I don't expect them to change vocabulary over night. Equally, some scholars' argument that Tacitus used phrase "Christ" rather than Jesus of Nasareth is a proof of text being tempered with is, to put it mildly, insane. That was vocabulary of the time and Tacitus simply referred to him in a way that was widely known. If he (Jesus) never existed, I would expect a number of Roman written works debunking that because that would be the easiest thing to do, but apparently they've never tried.