shernren
you are not reading this.
- Feb 17, 2005
- 8,463
- 515
- 38
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Indeed, we are always thankful that creationists are Christians; however, we cannot allow creationists to represent Christians. If all who said Allelujah were indeed folks who are happy to see man tracks and dino tracks in the same rocks in Paluxy (the example that you have chosen, not me), who would want to say Allelujah any more?
We don't give thanks to God merely for long odds - as if God should somehow be thanked any less if the odds are shorter. God be praised at all times in all ways for all things, whether we understand or we don't understand, whether the chances are one in a million or really one in one. The creationist chorus would tell us evolutionists that if what we believe is true then there should be no Allelujahs at all. They would have us sing only on their terms; why should we acquiesce?
"Imagine" being the keyword ...
When have our theist hats ever been off? Again, God is to be praised at all times for all things whether we are mystified by them or not. Praise God if self-organization (which is simply dissipative systems far from equilibrium - but of course what they really are doesn't matter to you as long as you think you can cut evolutionists with them) is never explained by science; and praise God if tomorrow we unravel all the secrets of life in every corner of planet Earth. How could things ever be otherwise?
The last time I supplied a technical explanation of what randomness and self-organization are you showed no hint of any comprehension of their actual nature whatsoever. Why should I assume anything different this time? For those who are actually interested in what randomness and self-organization are (instead of those who are interested only in how much leverage they can get out of bombastic terms against evolutionists) see here: http://christianforums.com/t6985420-an-unfortunate-relapse-more-dissent-from-darwin.html&page=3 (post 22).
And only because the physical evidence forces you to.
Most creationists would think we differ on more than timing.
Self-organization has a mathematical definition as a physical property of certain natural systems; ID is philosophically confused hodge-podge that by the admission of its own adherents ranks as high on the intellectual tree as astrology.
AiG tears into ID as much as TEs do (doesn't cost them any credibility in creationists' eyes);
Michael Behe supports the entire macroevolutionary process including the biological evolution of man, something mark kennedy is blissfully unaware of every time he quotes him;
TEs give God all credit where evolution occurs, while IDists would give none;
evolution is a scientifically useful and successful theory while ID has never generated even a single research finding.
Michael Behe and the ID camp in general think He can't. Are you still on their side?
Upvote
0