Posted on 04/11/2005 10:25:55 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
I said irrational OR irrelevant. By example, a capricious god would be rationally consistent with the observed universe, but would be irrelevant from a practical standpoint because he would be impulsive and unpredictable.
Yet another creationism thread. No science content. No deployment of the ping list.
What is not rationally consistent is an omnipotent, omniscient god who creates anything that he considers evil.
There are alot of physicists out there who explain the terms in seperate terms. Just because they didn't fix the equation in the right way, doesn't nullify his argument.
I've seen many scientists say one billion billion. Or one thousand thousand. They just use certain terms in order to make the case more clearly away from the scientific mathematical world.
> Now that's an interesting statement.
Please note that "interesting" does not equate to "factually accurate."
They you are saying that a rational omnipotent Omniscient God would never create anything with free will.
I've always wondered what mathematical odds were of EVERYTHING in nature happening *just so* to create all the different kinds of life on the Earth.
And the statistics given from the article are for ONE part of a single organism!
PS. Unless the omnipotent, omniscient god creates a self-modifying universe to which he's then indifferent, which would make him an indifferent god, who would be irrelevant to us from a practical standpoint. The same would hold true if the god were not indifferent but ceased to exist (died) for whatever reason. Would be rational, and quite interesting, but irrelevant.
The bible teaches 'reality', not some fantasy. I couldn't imagine a world without a negative. God created emotion in order for us to recognize the fact. Could you imagine if there was no death? We'd immediately tack onto another negative. Wondering why we feel 'pain'.
It says that bad things happen to good people, and vice versa. That's life. It happens.
Oh well.
Come on, surely you can come up with a more reasoned argument than that. You aren't helping your side.
Here is an article you will enjoy:
It contains the information you seek.
G Schroeder
1)Among the structures that appeared in the Cambrian were limbs, claws, eyes with optically perfect lenses, intestines. These exploded into being with no underlying hint in the fossil record that they were coming. Below them in the rock strata (i.e., older than them) are fossils of one-celled bacteria, algae, protozoans, and clumps known as the essentially structureless Ediacaran fossils of uncertain identity. How such complexities could form suddenly by random processes is an unanswered question. It is no wonder that Darwin himself, at seven locations in The Origin of Species, urged the reader to ignore the fossil record if he or she wanted to believe his theory. Abrupt morphological changes are contrary to Darwin's oft repeated statement that nature does not make jumps. Darwin based his theory on animal husbandry rather than fossils. If in a few generations of selective breeding a farmer could produce a robust sheep from a skinny one, then, Darwin reasoned, in a few million or billion generations a sponge might evolve into an ape. The fossil record did not then nor does it now support this theory.
2)The abrupt appearance in the fossil record of new species is so common that the journal Science, the bastion of pure scientific thinking, featured the title, "Did Darwin get it all right?" And answered the question: no. The appearance of wings is a classic example. There is no hint in the fossil record that wings are about to come into existence. And they do, fully formed. We may have to change our concept of evolution to accommodate a reality that the development of life has within it something exotic at work, some process totally unexpected that produces these sudden developments. The change in paradigm would be similar to the era in physics when classical logical Newtonian physics was modified by the totally illogical (illogical by human standards of logic) phenomena observed in quantum physics, including the quantized, stepwise changes in the emission of radiation by a body even as the temperature of the body increases smoothly.
3)The British Natural History Museum in London has an entire wing devoted to the evolution of species. And what evolution do they demonstrate? Pink daisies evolving into blue daisies; small dogs evolving into big dogs; a few species of cichlid fish evolving in a mere few thousand years into a dozen species of cichlid fish. Very impressive. Until you realize that the daisies remained daisies, the dogs remained dogs and the cichlid fish remained cichlid. It is called micro-evolution. This magnificent museum, with all its resources, could not produce a single example of one phylum evolving into another. It is the mechanisms of macro-evolution, the change of one phylum or class of animal into another that has been called into question by these data.
4)The eye gene has 130 sites. That means there are 20 to the power of 130 possible combinations of amino acids along those 130 sites. Somehow nature has selected the same combination of amino acids for all visual systems in all animals. That fidelity could not have happened by chance. It must have been pre-programmed in lower forms of life. But those lower forms of life, one-celled, did not have eyes. These data have confounded the classic theory of random, independent evolution producing these convergent structures. So totally unsuspected by classical theories of evolution is this similarity that the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the Untied States, Science, reported: "The hypothesis that the eye of the cephalopod [mollusk] has evolved by convergence with vertebrate [human] eye is challenged by our recent findings of the Pax-6 [gene] ... The concept that the eyes of invertebrates have evolved completely independently from the vertebrate eye has to be reexamined."
I didn't say that. An omnipotent, omniscient god could very well create free will - although that would require that he limit himself, which would then make him a limited god. However, what I said was that an omnipotent, omniscient god would not rationally create anything that he considers evil, in which case nothing evil would exist to be chosen by free will. If nothing evil exists in the judgment of a god, then there can be no transgression in judgment of such a god, in which case the god is irrelevant from a practical standpoint, because anything that would upset the god doesn't exist to be done.
If a god creates anything that he considers evil then he is a dualist god. Creating the option of engaging in evil is creating evil.
It must be really convenient to rely on derogatory stereotypes to present your argument so as to misdirect the discussion. That technique has been perfected by the DNC. You have provided no evidence, just labels used by the ignorant to avoid intellectual discussion. If evolution is your religion just say so - this isn't the third grade.
Has anybody heard if Kent Hovind has been indicted for tax fraud? Haven't seen a post on him for awhile.
ALL such arguments are spurious. They are arguments against the possibility that the bacterial flagellum "just fell together one day by accident". But since nobody has ever proposed that that's how the flagellum came to be, the argument is completely null and void. Furthermore, if the flagellum demonstrably did come into being that way, it would constitute a counterexample to evolution, and throw the whole theory into question.
It must really suck not to have a sense of humor.
And what do you have against snakehandlers, anyway?
Why do you ask?
PS. And a dualist god is irrelevant to us from a rational standpoint because there is no way to know whether the good or evil dimension is 'speaking' to us - an evil god lies, even if evil only in part. From a rational standpoint, a god who is altogether evil is no different from a god who is altogether not - then it's just semantics - and he is irrelevant for the same reason.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.