Posted on 04/24/2009 6:29:55 AM PDT by steve-b
Well, at least he’s honest about the whole point behind the “need” for evolution to be true.
Without an objective, absolute, just and good creator, and without an eternal existance,
we can do whatever the heck we want here on earth as long as we don’t get caught, eh?
Yes, it is. The sheer number and variety of planets in the Universe is already incomprehensible and possibly unquantifiable. Now multiply that almost infinite number by the number of possible life forms and "weird" things are possible.
Something extremely rare and possibly unique made life on this planet possible. We do not know if it's spontaneous or divine intervention. Both are equally as far fetched based on current science.
As all the monotheistic religions that claim one true God must by definition refer to the same being (although they differ greatly in their characterization of same), I think you actually mean which is the true religion.
There are two ways to answer this question. Either one studies theology, and tries to find out, or one gives up and declares it all hooey because it's too hard to find an answer.
And I'd argue that the "scientist" who does the latter is a rather odd duck who really does not have the thirst for knowledge that he thinks he has.
The concepts of “chance” and “randomness” are part of a metaphysical point of view. There is no empirical data that could rule out divine intervention in specific instances or in general. In human beings, the sequence of events, experiences, and decisions which lead to choosing a spouse and having children involve factors that could not possibly be evaluated completely to reach a certain conclusion ruling out providence or divine purpose.
The Christian faith is founded upon a single principle, that man was such a special creation that God himself became a man in order that man might live with God forever.
"They're very ignorant people, like the people who believed the Earth was the center of the universe. They will disappear. It may take a century. We will all be laughing about it.".
He is talking about all Christians and everyone who believes in God, not merely those of us who steadfastly claim that God CREATED everything we see. If you are a Christian and a Darwinian, then he is laughing at you too.
Earth may well be the center of the universe as far as techonological life is concerned.
Indeed. “Chance” may mean a truly random phenomenon, or it more likely means one in which we do not at all understand the cause. And I’m not sure we can ever know the difference between the two states.
Saying science disproves God is like saying cardiac imagery disproves love.
I used to run a Christian political blog, and sometimes took on the topic of evolution vs. creation. Once, I got the attention of Mr. Myers, and I can tell you: he is every bit as arrogant, condescending and pedantic as he appears in this article. It’s not so much that he doesn’t believe in God; I think Mr. Myers HATES Him.
“The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1).
“God is Dead”- Friedrich Nietzsche
“Nietzsche is dead” - God
Atheists are entitled to their beliefs... if they can find any.
A a christian AND a scientist I can’t understand how you can study the wonders of the universe and not see God.
INTREP
They all want to be philosophers - without taking the time to learn the rules.
What mean you by evolution? If all the random, unguided, directionless baggage (which is completely philosophical and not scientific) then I’d agree with you.
If you simply mean speciation over time I’d be careful about wedding yourself too strongly to that theory. There are all these dead animals in the ground that seem to say otherwise.
Myers probably sees the true God as “competition”.
As all the monotheistic religions that claim one true God must by definition refer to the same being (although they differ greatly in their characterization of same), I think you actually mean which is the true religion.
Not quite. The larger question is the many people telling us about their meetings with God. They come back saying different things about the same God. So how does one tell the difference between liars, nuts, and those who really did speak with God. We know from direct experience that liars and nuts walk among us. How do we know they are not the ones we are listening to?
And when you consider the complexity of DNA, or even the complexities of other physical surroundings such as the composition of the earth, the arrangement of the planets, and go out deeper into space- it sure seems that what we do already know about randomness and order would preclude the methodical and orderly progression of life that we have seen just here on earth.
Sure the sample size is pretty large; billions if not trillions of planets, stars, etc. But when you work with exponents and geometric progressions, it doesn't really take that many variables to start talking about billions and trillions.
Well, I do doubt that Mr Myers will be laughing.
Myers choice of words is interesting, not believing in "him," not needing "him."
As the old folks usta say, denial is more than just a river in Egypt.
The million dollar question! :)
Well, how do we screen the honest people from the nuts elsewhere in life? How do we do it in a jury? How do we do it when Johnny comes home with a dent in the car one night?
Seems to me we should apply the same criteria, no?
I think this guy is just as much off his rocker as the young earth creationists. They are flip sides of the same coin.
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.