Quote:
Originally Posted by Action Jackson
It's the old "who are we to understand someone like god" cliche that you've tarted up in a slightly classier outfit.
|
No, it isn't. Perhaps you would prefer it if the discussion was a series of easily-digestible cliches, but it's not, and that's not what I'm suggesting. My point was about sensory capacity, not moral worthiness. I could say something on that subject, but I did not do so in my post above and I'm not planning to do so now either.
Quote:
|
You know this how? Because you have met God in this realm? Did it say this in the bible even? or was it because someone decided that this is the case because it best suited their vision of who God was and then through time it simply became fact(much like the estimate of the Earth being 15,000 years old)?
|
I'd be troubled if you genuinely believe that I, or anyone else, could answer this in one post. Theologians and philosophers, among them some of the keenest minds ever to think thoughts on Earth, have been discussing this for as long as anyone can say. If you have a genuine interest in the answers to these questions - above and beyond the obtaining of another soundbite - then you have access to Google anf Wikipedia. Go and read up. It should keep you busy for years.
Quote:
The evolution of the eye has been explained actually. In fact, I watched a documentary, The Blind Watchmaker, just last week that covered this.
Evolution is not about spontaneous happening. It's about small changes over millions of years.
|
Just because you can tell a story explaining how something might have happened, does not mean that it happened that way. Richard Dawkins, incidentally, who wrote The Blind Watchmaker (which was a book many years before it was a TV documentary by the way), is what you might call an evangelical atheist. He has an agenda that many perfectly respectable evolutionary scientists are uncomfortable about. So pardon me if I don't take it as gospel just because you saw it on the telly, especially not if Dawkins was behind it in any way.
As I said above, the concept of Irreducable Complexity is that when you dismantle the long, gradual process of evolution you find that there are so many could haves and statistical long shots that it renders the chances of it having happened as absurdly small. So small as to be effectively impossible.
Quote:
|
Next up: If God is so perfect and he created our Earth by his own hand, why did he booby trap it with volcanoes, earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunamis etc.
|
Next up? Sorry, this isn't Grill a Christian. It's a discussion forum thread. The imperfect Earth is not due to original design but by a major cock-up on the part of human beings called 'The Fall'. That is a subject for another thread so I'm saying no more about it here. Feel free to go and start it if you're interested though.
---------- Post added at 18:42 ---------- Previous post was at 18:40 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod
But thats simply not the case. It is entirely possible to demonstrate how the eye could have been formed through evolution....in any event, evolution doesn't claim that the eye arose fully formed, spontaneously....
|
Hopefully answered above, with reference to the hypothesis of Irreducible Complexity. Just because you can describe a process, it does not follow that that process occurred, or is even statistically likely to have occurred.