Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
”I don't understand that question...or questions, perhaps?”
I believe they’re self explanatory What started the whole process of existence, whether it be inanimate or animate? ”You mean, "why is there something and not just nothing?" Not even religion can answer that one.
Christianity does answer that, God.
” The only thing to do is take "Existence exists" as an axiom.
Why “take Existence” was created by God as an axiom?
Is your hatred of God so fierce that you’ll not even admit the possibility that he does exist?
”I don't understand that question...or questions, perhaps?”
I believe they’re self explanatory What started the whole process of existence, whether it be inanimate or animate? ”You mean, "why is there something and not just nothing?" Not even religion can answer that one.
Christianity does answer that, God.
” The only thing to do is take "Existence exists" as an axiom.
Why “take Existence” was created by God as an axiom?
Is your hatred of God so fierce that you’ll not even admit the possibility that he does exist?
Am I on TV or something? You equate "conclusion" with "proof" and then lecture me about theory?
You said the designer theory is logical. What is that logic? What leads to you say that of all the possible explanations, an unknown, unidentified designer is the most reasonable? Or is it merely another one of your unsubstantiated conjectures?
One could just as well ask: "How has the automobile been used concerning the issue of bank robbery?" It's a tool, as is science. But the automobile didn't cause bank robbery, nor did science cause slavery.
If you'd care to read the article upon which this thread is based, you'll see it. Here you go:
The disclaimer under consideration says the theory of evolution "still leaves many unanswered questions about the origin of life.
"Study hard and keep an open mind," it says. "Someday you may contribute to the theories of how living things appeared on earth."
But I would not expect origins to fit within the scope of your adopted definition of evolution. That's why I call it "evolution lite." Funny thing is, even proponents of "evoltuion lite" cannot bear to keep an open mind. If they did, they would not so quickly discount other theories.
Be sure that you don't shut off the first superscript until you're done with all numbers at that level or higher.
I was nesting before you were hatched, Son! ;)
You must be fully conversant with it to dismiss it with such vigor. Would you care to state the theory?
For example, I posted a definition of evolution and a statement of the theory in post 1644. Would you agree that what I posted accurately reflects the theory? If not, which part of that post is wrong?
And the commands in the Old Testiment concerning slavery were meant to alleviate the suffering of the slaves rather than to establish slavery. And that those that follow Christianity as a faith have had to grow much less in matters of compassion than those who followed or follow science as a faith as js implied earlier.
It follows that you're both using browsers which behave differently than does mine.
Not at all. I encourage you to share the evidence you have for any other theories you would like me to consider.
Both science and religion are routinely used to justify unspeakable crimes. The sad fact is that the more a religion resembles the lamb, the more often it will be used to clothe the wolf.
From admitting the existence of God, it does not follow that any particular definition of God is true, or that the words in any particular book are necessarily the words of God.
Asserting that God created existence simply pushes the problem of existence bach one verbal layer, while adding exactly nothing to understanding.
That's not a fact. Consider the pre-Christian history of any particular ethnic group. It was blood, violence, clan warfare, human sacrifice, child sacrifice, pedophilia (think Rome,) and lots and lots and lots of slavery .
To paraphrase a great revolutionary, "Give me Netscape, or give me death."
That has the be the most sanctimonious piece of BS ever posted. Worse than any spin invented by the Clinton administration. Let's be just a tiny bit reasonable here. A God capable of creating the universe, capable of communicating the Ten Commandments is capapable of adding another one -- Thou shalt not treat another person as property. The fact that this commandment is not in the Bible is proof that the words were written by men bound by their time and culture.
No. You're not on TV, and I did not equate the two. I asked what you meant by "conclusion" if you do not mean "proof" and I'm still asking. Why so evasive?
". . . lecture [you] about theory . . .
Hmmm. How do you define "lecture?"
For the time being, I will say the simple existence of gravity, because of its consitency and function of maintaining general order in our solar system, gives far greater evidence of design that it does of pure, material accident.
Practically everything I see with my eyes testifies to design, order, building, creation, etc. How utterly preposterous to believe, as some do, that inanimate matter was somehow able to raise itself up into self-conscious beings. Perhaps you still live in the pond?
Someone long ago wrote, "for since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but becaume futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened."
I believe this writing to be true because you and your ilk are prime evidence of the same.
Here endeth the lecture.
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.