What to believe, crisis of faith

quote:

---

second of all, I do try to read all the posts and reply to the ones that are directed at me, and i try to respond to the ones that make good points, but i did not realize there would be so many replies, I am a slow typist and a slow reader, but i do give great consideration to who and how i respond and think through the responses i give. Having said that, there are only so many hours in a day and i DO have a day job. So gimme a break.

---

Well then, I do appologize for sounding as though you were expected to reply immediately. Sometimes I find it hard to just suspend my comments for a few days, but as you said, I also have a day job.Take your time, read carefully, respond carefully, the thread will still be here.BTW: My spelling is so bad, I compose my posts outside of the forum and run spell checker before I paste it into my reply. Then I preview and correct about a half dozen times before I post. And now, I must retire and prepare for the comming week. Good Night.

Isn't exhistance enough?!?

thankyou, i would spell check too , but i would have to switch hard drives to do it, long story. I just let people think i'm an illiterate.

I'll have to think on a response, i'm too tired now and i'm afraid my argument would be lost in a ramble.

No, of course not. It wouldn't be enough for your kids, would it?

Man wasn't made to die. How exactly that would have worked in practice I've no idea (other design, divine providence?), but sharp ridges on the skull wouln't have mattered. Someone capable of instigating life is not going to have their plan thwarted by a sharp ridge.When man fell, death came in. Man was subject to death and ways to die were necessary too. Did the ridge come in then I don't know. Did divine providence get stayed which would prevent injury, I don't know.It's not a big deal....

---

"Jesus wept" John 11:35. It's the shortest verse in the Bible. What caused him to weep? Anothers death....

Never 'eard of it mate Does it do anything other than support mechanisms and assumptions of ToE - which couldn't been seen as a "practical benefit" of ToE?

---

"Jesus wept" John 11:35. It's the shortest verse in the Bible. What caused him to weep? Anothers death....

Mmm. I dunno about that. I haven't the first clue about ID but if it gets people considering (not on this site of course) that God may well have done it then it will have achieved something...er....very practical indeed.Practical is a relative term. It depends on your world view I suppose....

---

"Jesus wept" John 11:35. It's the shortest verse in the Bible. What caused him to weep? Anothers death....

What happens when a piece of evidence is found which conflicts with the ToE paradigm. Does it result in the paradigm being thrown out? Does that mean Evolutiondidit has indeed brought an end to scientific pursuit. Most definitly not In the case of true science your are of course correct. There are many who deny the existance of God on the basis of the presumption that materialistic explaination for a materialistic world means there is no God. This is what I mean by atheistic science (see EvCforum.net for example). Consider it as science hijacked for philosopical purposes... I'm here to learn. Truly. Got a link to any article which explains (in reasonably layman/emgineering terms) how the application derives from ToE and not by an operational science The Hoover survey was separate from the Nature one which seemed to indicate a general cross section of scientists. I just wanted to make the point that the statement "Goddidit" is not the sole preserve of the less-educated as you said.(But what you appear to imply by this extension is that only scientists who are well-up to speed in evolution areas are in a position to comment for or against the validity of the science. Which would imply that the only people who are in a position to believe in Evolution are people who are in a position to believe in Evolution.)Oh dear....

---

"Jesus wept" John 11:35. It's the shortest verse in the Bible. What caused him to weep? Anothers death....

Yeah, it models how the genetics of populations are influenced by their environments.Now, exactly which of those things are the assumptions of evolution? Genetics is an assumption? Populations don't exist? Environments are a figment of the evolutionist imagination?Yeah, lots of luck with that, chief. You keep telling yourself that evolution has no practical benefit; the rest of us over here will be using it to grow food; track, predict, and interdict the spread of disease; save endangered populations in the world's biological hotspots; plumb the mysteries of the human body and brain; and about a hundred other things that wouldn't be possible without what has been described as the unifying theory of biology.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-26-2005 06:11 PM

If it's possible, the theory is refined, extended, redacted. When has the book of Genesis ever been refined, extended, or redacted? Sure. Where's the problem, there? Shouldn't you understand a theory before you attempt to comment on or assess its validity?

iano, In which case, showing evolution is responsible is, "very practical indeed". You can't have it both ways.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

If the remains of a hominid are found in a Jurassic layer, and the find withstands thorough investigation by independent groups, then the theory of evolution is in grave danger. So, depending on how damaging it is for the paradigm, yes, it might indeed overthrow it. It has happened before. What would jeopardize Gods word in the same way for you? Of course not. It just means that science continues to operate under a different paradigm. Here's an article I googled up. The Hoover fellows are an example of what I meant about "area of expertise". They may be scientists, but they are laymen with regard to evolution. I only picked them as an example because the survey mentioned them explicitly.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 27-Sep-2005 02:03 PM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

You mean, exhistence as opposed non-exhistence, isn't enough. to be responsible for the universe and all it's marvels isn't enough. I mean, I Love being able to view the marvels of a beatiful summer morning while driving down a country road, looking through my telescope and view the rings of saturn, kiss my daughters goodnight and listen to them say 'Ni Ni Daddy, i Love you!"; i mean c'mon, even if you don't believe in God, can't you at least marvel at nature. if you don't believe in God then my point is mute, But i'm sure you can at least understand my point. It is a marvelous invention this universe.

It might be hard to understand my point of view, but the laws of the universe are there for OUR benefit, and I believe that God puts them there and leaves them alone, kind of like an operating system of reality, some things are possible, some things aren't (forgive me if it sounds like the Matrix). I also believe that God Follows His own rules, He sets something up to work a certain way, it works that way for everyone, providing us with a stable observable universe that changes very little from our perspective on a large scale, but is diverse enough to be interesting up close.