Creationists have provided theselves an escape from evolution.
Men don't have to answer to evolution, they have to answer to God.
Analyzing evolution through Laws of Probability
by pomegranate 145 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
IronGland
Ok. Which one?
-
CoolBreeze
Pom,
Thanks for helping me make my point.
God creates the magnificent wonders of the universe around us while man is responsible for for such evil creations as weapons, religions, the Torah, the Bible, the Koran, and the concept of Satan, which tend to do way more harm than good.
Anton
Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.
-
pomegranate
man is responsible for for such evil creations as weapons, religions, the Torah, the Bible, the Koran, and the concept of Satan, which tend to do way more harm than good.
We'll have to wait and see as to which ones above are defined as "fences."
Edited by - pomegranate on 17 October 2002 21:54:10
-
CoolBreeze
In my opinion all of the above are "fences" that keep people from knowing the love of God. This brings me back to my original post on this thread. Many evolutionists, and creationists have built such sturdy fences around themselves that they cannot see the validity of each others point of view. It alway boils down to "I'm right, and your wrong."
My personal belief that the primary goal of science is to help us undersatnd the beauty of creation that surrounds us. This should not be limited to the world that we experience with our senses, but should be extended to the realm of the spiritual. The scientist who says "There is no God" , in my opinion has a very limited point of view. I believe God evolved our minds, and gave us the gift of curiosity so we could develop a methodology to help us undestand the nature of Him.
I wonder what the world would have been like if Saul of Tarsus had not hyjacked a charismatic Jewish sect, and delivered it into the hands of Rome as a means of conquest of the western world. I think even if you disagree with every other point in this post, I hope we can agree that the Holy Roman Empire was one of man's vilest creations.
Anton
Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.
Edited because my spelling becomes worse as the evening wears on.
Edited by - coolbreeze on 18 October 2002 2:23:32
-
CoolBreeze
Does anyone rember the old Recess Peanut Butter Cup comercials?
I hope in the not too distant future a creationist and an evolutionist will bump into each other, and their stacks of papers proving each of their points scatters all over the floor. They start to gather them up and the following conversation goes like this :
Creationist "Hey, you got your evolutionism all mixed in with my creationism!"
Evolutionist "Hey, you got your creationism all mixed in with my evolutionism!"
They shuffle through the papers they've gathered up, look at each other in astonishment, and in unison say:
"Hey this makes sense!!!" and walk of together arm in arm.
Anton
-
ChuckD
Georgia School Board Bans 'Theory Of Math'
COGDELL, GAThe Cogdell School Board banned the teaching of the controversial "Theory Of Math" in its schools Monday. "We are simply not confident of this mysterious process by which numbers turn, as if by magic, into other numbers," board member Gus Reese said. "Those mathematicians are free to believe 3 times 4 equals 12, but that dun [sic] give them the right to force it on our children." Under the new ruling, all math textbooks will carry a disclaimer noting that math is only one of many valid theories of number-manipulation.
-
julien
Pomegranet you missed the point. I was saying that your definition of Evolution is wrong. You are lumping abiogenesis in with evolution. It should be considered separately. I wasn't asking for a list of authorities to appeal to.
-
pomegranate
In my opinion all of the above are "fences" that keep people from knowing the love of God. This brings me back to my original post on this thread. Many evolutionists, and creationists have built such sturdy fences around themselves that they cannot see the validity of each others point of view. It alway boils down to "I'm right, and your wrong."
We do differ here. Science is science. The atom behaves only by the LAWS it is bound by, and things (let's say medicines as an example) have been created by the scientists who were"right" in their understanding. There has never been any proof, example, experiment or mathematical equation that brings order out of chaos. Chaos remains chaotic until intelligence causes order and complexity, and that has never been a fence. It is a long standing fact. Though albeit, intelligence can also create some of the darkest chaos, but that is taking what is preordered and dismantling it. Regardless, true science is not and should never be a "I'm right and your wrong" fence, but a this is what the FACTS show presently, how does that line up with the evidence we see now.
My personal belief that the primary goal of science is to help us undersatnd the beauty of creation that surrounds us. This should not be limited to the world that we experience with our senses, but should be extended to the realm of the spiritual. The scientist who says "There is no God" , in my opinion has a very limited point of view. I believe God evolved our minds, and gave us the gift of curiosity so we could develop a methodology to help us undestand the nature of Him.
I have no problem with the above statement, except I would have used the phrase "God created our minds." The rest is very agreeable.
I wonder what the world would have been like if Saul of Tarsus had not hyjacked a charismatic Jewish sect, and delivered it into the hands of Rome as a means of conquest of the western world. I think even if you disagree with every other point in this post, I hope we can agree that the Holy Roman Empire was one of man's vilest creations.
I bet you if we sat down with a cup of coffee and shot the breeze for a spell, we'd find we probably agree on more than we disagree. I like your posts.
Edited by - pomegranate on 18 October 2002 7:29:26
-
pomegranate
Pomegranet you missed the point. I was saying that your definition of Evolution is wrong. You are lumping abiogenesis in with evolution. It should be considered separately. I wasn't asking for a list of authorities to appeal to.
I know what your point is.
Abiogenesis is part and parcel of the evolutionary lump. It is the first STEP, the beginning, the HEAD of evolution. It is the leg upon which the whole hypothesis stands.
So IT cannot be seperated from the lump. If you think seperating abiogenesis from the evolutionary hypothesis is good science, then so is a man without his head.
Without abiogenesis, evolution doesn't have a leg to stand on. Abiogenesis IS evolution's legs.
"Abiogenesis" (read evolution) is as close to impossible as probability math will take the numbers...of which I believe it is the next best thing to impossible. (I woud never put my money on those odds, let alone my life.)