A Dummies Discussion on God, the Universe and Everything. (page 3)

Deputy Dog

kid-A

The rules:

[1] No cut & paste. Post your own thoughts or don't post.[2] Keep it short. If you can't make your point in 300 words or less you probably just can't make your point.
[3] Stay on topic.

Qcmbr

Maybe there is another angle? If we are children God are we not therefore eternal? Part of Christianity implies spiritual and physical evolution:

1/ Spiritually we progress from human child through to eternal heavenly being making choices along the way (discarding less effective choices and favouring others).

2/ Physically we progress from embryo to child to adult to resurrected being - all distinct but radically different stages of development - evolutionary stages - simple to complex progression.

Can we conceive of ourselves as lasting forever? If we can when did we start? Was it at birth or before in heaven? If it was before birth then when did we start? Did we have a start? If we had a start then why not a being we call God also having a beginning? Do we require a space to start in - must we have a universe before we can begin - if so then can God create the universe since He would need a space in which to act and be? If God didn't create the universe then is He God? Presumably we need God to create the universe (according to scripture?) and we are then left with a paradox - discussion on time and beginnings is null and void since these are constructs only of this resultant universe.

Will the last one out turn out the lights.

Cellist

Kid-A, I'm well aware that the basic building blocks of life are simple. Perhaps I used the wrong word. I was speaking about the multi-layering business. As well, in keeping with the tone of this thread, I was giving my personal impressions on the subject. I don't think this is meant to be a biological discourse. If I can find my biology books (yes, 20 years old) and if this thread is still alive, I will put in some references to my thoughts. You've misread a few of my thoughts, but I'll deal with that when I can find my books.

What I would like to know, is why do evolutionists always resort to ridicule, name calling and the like when their beliefs are challenged? A simple rebutal would've sufficed. And, by the way, I never said that I believed in God. ;)

Cellist

LittleToe

Cellist:

What I would like to know, is why do evolutionists always resort to ridicule, name calling and the like when their beliefs are challenged?

They don't like admitting that they've become scientific fundamentaists

The more articulate and reasonable don't need to resort to such tactics

gordon d

Hey Cellist, I think that you are an exceptional person and a great thinker. Please don't let criticism dampen your passion. Please also remember that all people have different defense mechanisms. It is completely understandable that they resort to statements that will hopefully quiet the opinions of those that bring up perspectives on God that they associate with the ignorance and pain displayed by so many religious people. Although many evolutionist consider themselves "realist", they are (by their very statements) claiming that they WANT to live in world that has protective boundries that are considered scientific facts. There has always been a fear of the unknown in certain persons... especially if past experiences with the unknown have been painful ones. To a certain degree, we are all just wounded children trying to make sense out of an enigma... it's utterly futile to think that we could even grasp the most basic qualities of a Grand Creator... or the entire history of an evolutionary approach... but it's is even more futile to ignore what has given each us some level of peace. Perhaps we are all just trying to share our recovery with one another and could use some lessons in tact... I KNOW I could! Thou he slay me, Yet I will trust in Him!

Mr. Kim

The bottom line is: GOD does not call everyone. The high and mighty, the "educated", the proud and the ego chasers need only to humble themselves but most are too complacent, happy and content with the way things are........what a shame!!!

gordon d

The bottom line is: GOD does not call everyone. The high and mighty, the "educated", the proud and the ego chasers need only to humble themselves but most are too complacent, happy and content with the way things are........what a shame!!!

He may not answer everyone either.....

I'm stealing your line though!!!!!

Cellist

Little Toe, I think you have a valid point there. In fact it's always been my biggest beef with the "hard-core" evolutionists, they're too much like fundamentalists. There are even the same "buzz" words as the WTS uses. From "Understanding Physical Anthropology and Archaeology", pg.147 'Primates, which like other mammals, MOST LIKELY originated as a shrewlike animal in the Paleocene (or possibly the late Cretaceous)'. And again on pg.225, 'Some, resembling modern lorises and lemurs, MAY HAVE given rise to direct ancestors of these modern tarsiers, and still others MAY HAVE been the ancestral stock for all anthropoids.' And on pg. 226, 'NO DOUBT, diverse species of anthropoids were adapting to varied ecological niches...'(I've capitalized the key words to my point because I don't have the ability to highlight or bold the letters). And this is what I meant by "glossing over".

Kid-A, sorry I can't find that quote about the life form appearing suddenly, fully formed. I'm afraid it's in a book I borrowed. I only remember it because it sounded so much like the WTS. lol It didn't really prove my point anyway, it was referring to a transitional form of ancient man. I did find this though, same book, pg.318 'Apparently, A.boisei does not appear anywhere in East Africa until about 2 m.y.a., and until about 1 m.y.a. lived basically unchanged. ..... Where did boisei come from?'

I'll admit right now that I was trying to get the evolutionist camp going. From here on I promise to be good.

Sorry Nic if I got this thread off track. I only commented the first time because your thread seemed in danger of being buried, and just got a little carried away. I must've been bored. Interesting discussion, everyone.

Cellist

nicolaou

Hi Ross, how's things.

Just because a lack of an answer doesn't mean we must default to "God" as a solution, contrawise doesn't mean that we mustn't default to "God" as a solution, either.

Actually I suppose that is exactly what it means! Again, I do not say definatively 'god does not exist', but if he does that is a very big deal. Again Ross, where did god come from?

Imagine a meter rule. If the 50cm mark represents equal probabilities as to gods existence or non existence why default to the 'divine' 100cm mark in a case of doubt? Incidentally, I myself do not default to the 0cm mark of 'no god' but I guess I'm nearer to that than the 50cm mark.

On a personal note, I hope I don't come across as a ridiculer. I try not to.

PrimateDave

"God. Either he exists or he doesn't."

A Dummies Discussion on God, the Universe and Everything.

Share this