Hi there,
So of course the natural reaction is "you have faith: good for you". But I think it goes more deeply than that. I think having a God, at the very least, means that I have something for Evolutionists could believe, if only I knew what. I know the theory: call that which was not, as if it were - but does this mean call the Evolution of God (which was not), as though it - the Evolution of God - were? It seems that they are juxtaposed against each other: God does not send an updated Jesus, every time Evolution reboots with a different species! The one sacrifice was needed, that was all.
I mean if you really tried to be different, if you really looked up to Evolutionists, you still could never do it. You would always have the one sacrifice of Jesus, for all the species. It just doesn't make sense. I can't make it make sense. And for that I am told "go read 'Evolution for dummies'". As if somehow you can't explain it simple terms, if you wanted to. I have tried all the angles: is it a law? is it contingent? is it comparable? I just seem to get nowhere. You wouldn't think they expected to learn anything from it, themselves - the way they treat you as if you are the last person on earth to question what 'Evolution' means?
I will tell you something funny; just as I was typing this, a fly crept on to my screen. Rather than shoo the fly away, I circled it with my mouse cursor. At first the fly ignored it, then it started to move a little (and I kept circling it), then it discovered I was trapping it with the mouse cursor and it moved quickly to the text on the screen, where it thought it would be safe,, and I just waited, going left and right with the mouse cursor, when all of a sudden, the fly was put out, that it couldn't escape the mouse cursor - and why? because it was a fly! I was treating the fly as something that was foreign to the computer screen (using the mouse cursor) - so the fly flew! Could that have happened without design? A fly can't understand a computer, there's just no way - but a fly can react to a computer, because a computer's design is not superior, to that of a fly.
And that basically is the point, no part of Creation is subject to any other part. A supercomputer is never going to be smarter than a man, in as much as a man is simply smarter than other men. The man will always react to the computer, no matter how smart the computer gets. The same is true of Evolution. I am never going to be able to understand Evolution, as long as it keeps being a question of greater and greater connectivity; but I am always going to be able to react to it. In reacting, is humility; in humility, is justice. Whatever you want to say about Evolution, it should start from there?
Trying to think, not react.
Thanks.
So of course the natural reaction is "you have faith: good for you". But I think it goes more deeply than that. I think having a God, at the very least, means that I have something for Evolutionists could believe, if only I knew what. I know the theory: call that which was not, as if it were - but does this mean call the Evolution of God (which was not), as though it - the Evolution of God - were? It seems that they are juxtaposed against each other: God does not send an updated Jesus, every time Evolution reboots with a different species! The one sacrifice was needed, that was all.
I mean if you really tried to be different, if you really looked up to Evolutionists, you still could never do it. You would always have the one sacrifice of Jesus, for all the species. It just doesn't make sense. I can't make it make sense. And for that I am told "go read 'Evolution for dummies'". As if somehow you can't explain it simple terms, if you wanted to. I have tried all the angles: is it a law? is it contingent? is it comparable? I just seem to get nowhere. You wouldn't think they expected to learn anything from it, themselves - the way they treat you as if you are the last person on earth to question what 'Evolution' means?
I will tell you something funny; just as I was typing this, a fly crept on to my screen. Rather than shoo the fly away, I circled it with my mouse cursor. At first the fly ignored it, then it started to move a little (and I kept circling it), then it discovered I was trapping it with the mouse cursor and it moved quickly to the text on the screen, where it thought it would be safe,, and I just waited, going left and right with the mouse cursor, when all of a sudden, the fly was put out, that it couldn't escape the mouse cursor - and why? because it was a fly! I was treating the fly as something that was foreign to the computer screen (using the mouse cursor) - so the fly flew! Could that have happened without design? A fly can't understand a computer, there's just no way - but a fly can react to a computer, because a computer's design is not superior, to that of a fly.
And that basically is the point, no part of Creation is subject to any other part. A supercomputer is never going to be smarter than a man, in as much as a man is simply smarter than other men. The man will always react to the computer, no matter how smart the computer gets. The same is true of Evolution. I am never going to be able to understand Evolution, as long as it keeps being a question of greater and greater connectivity; but I am always going to be able to react to it. In reacting, is humility; in humility, is justice. Whatever you want to say about Evolution, it should start from there?
Trying to think, not react.
Thanks.