Scrub Jay Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Er? What? *confused* I think my answers also apply to children. I think innocent children suffer bc of the free will of humans to let it happen. Why do I think God permits this? Idk. Should God remove all children from the planet to avoid having adults inflict suffering? Should God start up some old time smiting again? Should God make us all barren so we can't ever have children suffering again? Should he have not given free will until age 25? Idk what answer you want but I don't claim to have answers either. Well, I know my questioning of god and children was based on you stating: "And if they don't like how you help them or if you have them learn to do it themselves or want you to help with something you think immoral/wrong? Is it reasonable for them to hate you, to say you didn't really care?" So that only applied to adults but not children? And, if so, what is the age or cognitive milestone for this to be applied? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6packofun Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I think it's my job to take care of my children. If it isn't God's job to take care of me then I guess I'm not his child. What is your idea of "care" then? Because I'm willing to bet that millions and millions of people in this world would look at your life and believe you're being pretty well-taken care of. But then that's probably just your doing and not His, right? And many, many of those people living in crappy conditions still believe the God of the universe cares for them. Why would that be so? On another note, the "problem of evil" is cited by so many people for why they "cannot" believe in God. And yet, for God to swoop in and take care of every instance of evil isn't really necessary to those people, either. What is the standard for when God is being good enough to swoop in and when He's being aloof and uncaring enough to believe He is not real? (In our own minds, of course, differing from person to person, and so not an *absolute* idea of good or truth.) I think the reason I think the problem of evil is not a strong enough argument against God is that I can think of reasons for why God might allow evil, even though I believe it pains Him immensely. It only takes ONE good reason for evil to be allowed for that argument to fall, IMO. One reason is bravery. One is overcoming. One is patience. One is sacrifice. One is compassion. One is humility. One is justice. None of these things can be done WITHOUT adversity or evil of some kind. I think God wants us to live in a world WITH these things, even when it comes at great price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dicentra Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 The expressions upthread about not leaving God in the same way you wouldn't leave a husband are misplaced, I think. The whole point of ritualizing behavior is to create and solidify a habit. I was thinking about this yesterday after someone posted the question about giving up chocolate for a year. :) I started to wonder if faith/religious life was more akin to a craving for chocolate or a craving for nutritious food if one's body is nutritionally deficient. The craving for chocolate is (as much as I hate to admit it ;) ) based on habit and the stimulation of pleasure centers in the brain - chocolate isn't necessary for health and life. The craving for nutritious food is based on a requirement for health and life - it is necessary. If I were to forego a craving based on habit and pleasure center stimulation for a year, then at the end of that year, I probably wouldn't have that craving any more. If I were to forego a craving based on necessity for a year, then I would imagine that at the end of the year my craving would be all the stronger. Don't know - just rambling thoughts. Is faith/religious life more like a craving for chocolate or a craving for nutritious food? Or a combination? Or neither? I'm thinking Ryan Bell found it to be more of the former than the latter but I'm not him - I can't know for sure what he thinks. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fraidycat Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 What is your idea of "care" then? Because I'm willing to bet that millions and millions of people in this world would look at your life and believe you're being pretty well-taken care of. But then that's probably just your doing and not His, right? And many, many of those people living in crappy conditions still believe the God of the universe cares for them. Why would that be so? On another note, the "problem of evil" is cited by so many people for why they "cannot" believe in God. And yet, for God to swoop in and take care of every instance of evil isn't really necessary to those people, either. What is the standard for when God is being good enough to swoop in and when He's being aloof and uncaring enough to believe He is not real? (In our own minds, of course, differing from person to person, and so not an *absolute* idea of good or truth.) I think the reason I think the problem of evil is not a strong enough argument against God is that I can think of reasons for why God might allow evil, even though I believe it pains Him immensely. It only takes ONE good reason for evil to be allowed for that argument to fall, IMO. One reason is bravery. One is overcoming. One is patience. One is sacrifice. One is compassion. One is humility. One is justice. None of these things can be done WITHOUT adversity or evil of some kind. I think God wants us to live in a world WITH these things, even when it comes at great price. There is a HUGE jump from adversity to evil. Huge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fraidycat Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Ok. Back to this bravery and perseverance thing. I see it as an evolutionary advantage to have these traits. We die without them. No need for and gods or goddesses to teach us a lesson there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8circles Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 What is your idea of "care" then? Because I'm willing to bet that millions and millions of people in this world would look at your life and believe you're being pretty well-taken care of. But then that's probably just your doing and not His, right? And many, many of those people living in crappy conditions still believe the God of the universe cares for them. Why would that be so? On another note, the "problem of evil" is cited by so many people for why they "cannot" believe in God. And yet, for God to swoop in and take care of every instance of evil isn't really necessary to those people, either. What is the standard for when God is being good enough to swoop in and when He's being aloof and uncaring enough to believe He is not real? (In our own minds, of course, differing from person to person, and so not an *absolute* idea of good or truth.) I think the reason I think the problem of evil is not a strong enough argument against God is that I can think of reasons for why God might allow evil, even though I believe it pains Him immensely. It only takes ONE good reason for evil to be allowed for that argument to fall, IMO. One reason is bravery. One is overcoming. One is patience. One is sacrifice. One is compassion. One is humility. One is justice. None of these things can be done WITHOUT adversity or evil of some kind. I think God wants us to live in a world WITH these things, even when it comes at great price. Hmmm. Well, I think you're getting a little too focused on me specifically, because although I am suffering, I'm also really aware of my having won the lottery compared to the rest of the world, which I've already acknowledged in this thread. But it doesn't make my suffering less significant. It sounds a lot like the "well, at least he doesn't beat me" argument which I'm not on board with. I also don't appreciate your assumption that I take credit for the good things in my life. It's rude. I'm not going to even discuss it because this isn't about me - it's bigger than that. What is my idea of care? Not starving to start with. Again, I'm not an athiest. I don't believe evil is necessary for bravery, overcoming, patience, sacrifice, compassion, humility or justice to exist. If I assume that it is, though, and I haven't achieved those characteristics, I guess that's just too bad for me, I failed the test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Florida. Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 What would convince you there is a God? Evidence. Real evidence. Observable. Verifiable. Testable. Repeatable. Falsifiable. Evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fraidycat Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Evidence. Real evidence. Observable. Verifiable. Testable. Repeatable. Falsifiable. Evidence. Yup. This. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joker Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I find it interesting. I went almost three years without attending church or being around those who attend. I still believed. I didn't read the Bible during that time but I did pray a few times. I still believed. I still believe today even though my prayers haven't always been answered. I think they rarely are answered the way I wish and I often don't understand why but I still believe. I've prayed over my dad's dying body and begged God to save him but it didn't happen, yet I still believe (actually the times that were the hardest are when I grew the most). God is just very real to me and I feel His presence. There is honestly nothing that could make me not believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Florida. Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 see, for me it's simpler. It's just that there is no evidence that there is one or two or three or many .... This. Just as there is no evidence for a loving god, there's also no evidence for an evil god who created rapists, murderers, disease, famine, etc. It's not that these horrible things prove there's no god. It's that there's no evidence of any kind of god - good or evil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umsami Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I can't speak for the other poster, but ime it wasn't went to seminary/bible college, became atheist, and then pastor. It was went to seminary/bible college, became pastor, and then atheist. I think it happens far more often than you think. I went to Moody and there are a number of my classmates who are atheists or who have left church behind altogether. Dh went to bible college and seminary and was a pastor for several years. Was he an atheist for at least some of that last year? I can't say for sure as it wasn't really a label he used at the time. Questioning or even agnostic? That's probably more likely. He hadn't been a pastor for decades, but it was still a tough career switch. In spite of his BA and MA, he had to translate/sell his experience to even be considered. In the meantime, we had one child and another on the way while he was the sole breadwinner. What would you have had us to do? Switching careers immediately is kinda impossible and in the mean time a body's gotta eat (and have a home). I think that's doubly true for those who become atheists after being in ministry for quite a long time. It's not responsible to leave one's family without a way to feed and clothe themselves. I'm willing to bet a case of diet coke that there are very few churches out there offering sufficient severance packages to pastors who can no longer believe and have to find a way out. Hence organizations like The Clergy Project. And yes, it was all that studying that I did that led to me becoming an atheist, though I can understand how that seems counter-intuitive. I can relate to this. I went to a different seminary with a good, strong faith...but some questions. I left seminary no longer a Christian and went to Islam because it was the easiest compromise for me (Jesus a Prophet/man vs. God, etc.) It wasn't a perfect fit, but it still allowed me a formal relationship with God/formal religion which I enjoy. I think this guy was very brave to do this so publicly. I'll also add that I went through an agnostic period in my life, but a very definitive/wow answer to prayer and a very palpable feeling of God's presence changed that. It's a journey.....for me at least, with ups and downs. One of the things I do not like about Islam is that there really are very few safe spaces for atheists/agnostic ex-Muslims. In some cultures, even questioning can land you in jail. For me, God is big enough to handle our questions, our anger, our doubts. I think in some ways it was easier when most people were polytheistic. Gods/Goddesses were not all good, kind. They got angry. Plane crash? Oops, must have pissed off the Goddess of Wind or of Aviation. Better give a better offering next time. Multiple Miscarriage? Need to honor Hathor more. One didn't have to assume either that God was not loving or not paying attention or what not. The Gods were very much paying attention and if something bad happened, well, you probably pissed them off or it was just part of their personality. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 What is your idea of "care" then? Because I'm willing to bet that millions and millions of people in this world would look at your life and believe you're being pretty well-taken care of. But then that's probably just your doing and not His, right? And many, many of those people living in crappy conditions still believe the God of the universe cares for them. Why would that be so? In order to survive in this global competition for resources, the human animal has evolved to dedicate much of its energy to the development and support of the brain. Weighing something like 2% of the human body, the brain takes up 25% of its oxygen resources. 70% of the body’s glucose burned up by the brain, and 25% of the body’s nutrients consumed by the brain. The human body has sacrificed speed, fur, a tough skin, sharp teeth, rapid climbing, camouflage and all kinds of other things to dedicate development and support to the brain. We have the favorable ability to not only see patterns, but anticipate them, make hypotheses, test those hypotheses, modify our behaviors based on those experiences, identify desirable outcomes, make long term goals, execute multi-process goals, and communicate with others. We've evolved these very skills over many tens of thousands of years. They come naturally to us. Indeed, it is what makes us human. Thought patterns that included false assumptions, superstitious thinking, or any number of cognitive bias is part of the human thought process, and has been instrumental in the success of our species. Brains that have to stop and think about every detail, weigh the pros and cons against potential consequences, are housed in bodies that get eaten by saber tooth tigers, kwim? Brains that react immediately, infer agency or intent, react according to emotions, are the ones housed in bodies that sprint when the grass starts to rustle, and live to have babies. In other words, it pays to have false positives. On another note, the "problem of evil" is cited by so many people for why they "cannot" believe in God. And yet, for God to swoop in and take care of every instance of evil isn't really necessary to those people, either. What is the standard for when God is being good enough to swoop in and when He's being aloof and uncaring enough to believe He is not real? (In our own minds, of course, differing from person to person, and so not an *absolute* idea of good or truth.) I think it's a distraction to assume the problem of evil is why people don't believe. I think rather, it's an example of the lack of overall reason belief isn't warranted. To make sense of this, if I were to ask you why you don't believe in Quetzalcoatl, despite the predictions made and come true, despite the genuine faith of those who believed, despite the references to him throughout nature, despite the many coincidences that could not have been mere coincidences, you'd have so many reasons not to believe, but ultimately it would boil down to, you don't have reasons to believe. The problem of evil is not reconcilable by believers in the Abrahamic religions. This thread alone reveals the utter lack of unity among members. History shows the even bigger problem of trying to identify, much less explain, the nature and character of your gods. The problem of evil just exposes this unreasonableness of the faith, but it's not like if this were somehow objectively and reasonably addressed, it would solve the problem of unbelief. I know you're not suggesting that, I just thought it worth mentioning. I think the reason I think the problem of evil is not a strong enough argument against God is that I can think of reasons for why God might allow evil, even though I believe it pains Him immensely. It only takes ONE good reason for evil to be allowed for that argument to fall, IMO. One reason is bravery. One is overcoming. One is patience. One is sacrifice. One is compassion. One is humility. One is justice. None of these things can be done WITHOUT adversity or evil of some kind. I think God wants us to live in a world WITH these things, even when it comes at great price. I'm with momoflaw here, the earth is a barbaric petri-dish for a cruel and sadistic god if he creates evil for the sake of some people to feel good by overcoming it. I imagine most Christians don't know the god of the bible admits to creating evil. There's no explanation for it, it's up to people to make sense of why. A few thousand years ago, it would have made sense to the culture the texts were written for, but according to our moral code, it fails spectacularly. The only way around it is to claim we're not worthy of knowing, and we'd do best to stop asking. Can you imagine any other circumstance in which your questions regarding why someone behaved in a way you identified as harmful, dangerous, and capricious was to be answered with, "don't ask any more, just trust me"? I can't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 What would convince you there is a God? Quantifiable evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 God is just very real to me and I feel His presence. There is honestly nothing that could make me not believe. I've taken to thinking of it like a soul mate connection. If it is there, it is there, whether it is convenient or not. If you haven't experienced such a connection, you won't understand the difference between that and another kind of bond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I enjoy reading this thread immensely. And I really do enjoy hearing the reasoning of the other side. So, here is something I don't get though, about the reasoning that an omnipotent and loving God could not possibly be there WITHOUT intervening right now to stop all the badness happening....why is free will not enough of an answer? Or why does it not seem to be a logical answer to some of you? My reasoning is that God gave man free will. If he did not give man free will, we would just all be robots, and that is not what he wanted. If he gave man free will but then stepped in and fixed all the consequences of that (both big and small) or prevented that free will from being exercised in the first place if it was being exercised to harm, then how could that be free will? And how could I trust God at that point? Either we have free will or we don't. If God gave humans free will, then God is also bound to honor that by NOT stepping in and fixing or preventing everything. I believe that God's plan of salvation by Jesus Christ is his way of honoring that gift of free will and yet still ensuring that his purpose for humankind (a purpose of good) can be achieved. So why (for some of you) is the argument of free will not a valid argument for why a loving and omnipotent God does not intervene right here and now? Between the concepts of free will and predestination (interestingly both supported in the bible even though they are diametrically opposing to each other), I always found free will to be the more understandable explanation as well. What we're finding out, however, is that "free will" is a misnomer at best. Researchers can reliably predict a behavior before the test subject makes the decision him or herself. Researchers can manipulate opinions by manipulating the environment (I think I linked references for these at the beginning of the thread). So we know that our "free will" isn't 100% free after all. Anyone who has tried to stop smoking, go on a diet, or wake up early and exercise knows that the will alone isn't always in our control. It's not free, it's tethered to all kinds of habits, some conditioned since childhood, many of which we are simply unaware we have. That's problematic for this theology. If God exists, then we would have the opportunity to figure out how people are meant to know and relate to him. The only way we can know is by gathering information. The information we have doesn't conform to the conventional belief of free will. The idea of Jesus sacrificing himself by dying temporarily for the sake of eternal salvation is even worse. According to the bible, Jesus and God are one. God-as-the-son sacrificed himself to himself as God-as-the-father to pay a debt he himself demanded. That just doesn't make sense to sacrifice yourself to yourself to forgive an offensive act by someone infinitely more innocent and naive than you. Nor does it make sense to require death to forgive sin. The logic doesn't follow in any other respect in life. I can't stub my toe for your mortgage, kwim? And besides, what kind of sacrifice is it to be in pain for three hours? Don't get me wrong - I wouldn't want to hang from a tree with nails in my hands either (but people do it in the Philippines every Easter, so we know it's tolerable), but let's face it, people suffer much more for much longer. Jesus was dead for a couple days. He got better, and being God, that would have come as no surprise. So it's a logical brain-scratcher. I don't mean to make light of this, but to lay it out in such a way to expose the problems of logic here. When you get past the emotions of gratitude and comfort and nurturing, and whatever else this faith provides one, the logical arguments come down to these kinds of things. The arguments sound silly because they're immature in comparison to our collective, social maturity of the 21st century. We've come a long way in the last handful of millennia. This mythology is outdated, and that's why I think ideas like free will are no longer relevant, no longer persuasive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Three - everything many are claiming here is required of a god to be a god, or at least a good one, seem to me to mean that they think that God must serve our needs and wants as we need and want it and that we hold no reciprocity or responsiblity towards that God for doing so. I think it's more accurate to say that many here are claiming that what is required for a god to be a good god is good behavior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I can relate to this. I went to a different seminary with a good, strong faith...but some questions. I left seminary no longer a Christian and went to Islam because it was the easiest compromise for me (Jesus a Prophet/man vs. God, etc.) It wasn't a perfect fit, but it still allowed me a formal relationship with God/formal religion which I enjoy. A bit off topic, but every once in a while I come across conversion stories to Islam from Christianity, and the reasons seem to be similar to this. Do you notice this, or am I just picking wild flowers in my mind again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 And my mom is one of those good folks who believe God changes red lights green for her benefit. I'm so sorry. I can't imagine how much that all would hurt. It must be really hard to hear that kind of stuff from your mom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Ok, I have known those bizarre people too. I knew a woman that would literally say things like, "I woke up today and asked the Lord what I should wear. The Lord said wear the Blue dress, not the red dress. Then I asked the Lord what I should have for breakfast. The Lord said no Cheerios but that I should have waffles. Then the Lord told me to drive the Toyota and not the Honda. (and on and on)." No, He didn't. That's just you, I wanted to say. He expects you to be able to handle that! I'm not talking about stuff like that. Maybe God told someone along the way to do something for that woman who died - or not do something. And that person didn't listen. Maybe a doctor screwed up, big time, but all you hear is "the patient didn't tolerate the procedure" (they always blame the patient!). Maybe God told someone to go somewhere or not go, and the person didn't listen. You don't know what happened, really, in the scheme of things. Maybe some horrible company is poisoning neighborhoods with toxic waste and people are getting sick and dying. It has the power to stop and won't. You just don't know and neither do I. It matters to me too. . Oh, I've come across those nut jobs too! Boy, do I cringe at the rubbish they spin. At a crowded store, in a really loud voice-' Praise the Lord', I found a pot plant on special. ... And...thank you Jesus for this MacDonald's burger, please make the calories disappear. Seriously! Yeah, they give Christianity a bad name. Just remember there are nutty people everywhere. ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muttichen Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Evidence. Real evidence. Observable. Verifiable. Testable. Repeatable. Falsifiable. Evidence. Like this? http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Like this? http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568 That's not evidence, its a conclusion drawn from argument from incredulity. Moreover, the conclusion drawn is sloppy, as the information cited isn't well enough understood by the author to use properly. You can find scientific, reasoned rebuttals to this creationism online. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Florida. Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Like this? http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568 No. That's not evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6packofun Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Hmmm. Well, I think you're getting a little too focused on me specifically I'm sorry, the part where I said, "On another note..." wasn't aimed at you specifically! I should have clarified that a bit more; it was just in response to several comments in the overall thread. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6packofun Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Everything is an evolutionary trait :) Works for me! LOL This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes by someone who, apparently, has written a book called Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil (maybe we should check it out!? lol): Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought. —Cornelius Hunter (For the record, I don't think all of evolutionary theory is bunk. lol) Sorry to get off track for a second here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Oh, I've come across those nut jobs too! Boy, do I cringe at the rubbish they spin. At a crowded store, in a really loud voice-' Praise the Lord', I found a pot plant on special. ... And...thank you Jesus for this MacDonald's burger, please make the calories disappear. Seriously! Yeah, they give Christianity a bad name. Just remember there are nutty people everywhere. ;-) . Yes. This! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. Well, that much is true. News is simply news. Good or bad is in the eye of the beholder. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. It means that a random mutation happened to be well adapted for a particular niche in the environment. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. It means random mutations were neither beneficial nor detrimental to the species, and the evolution of that species occurred in these visible parameters. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. "Evolution" is a theory (explanation of observed phenomena, in this case, biodiversity) that is no smarter or dumber than gravity (another theory that explains an observed phenomena, namely, why my toe hurts after my coffee cup falls out of my hand when directly over said toe). If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. It means random mutations happened to be well adapted for a similar niche in the environment. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. What are "allied species"? If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. Evolution is not mysterious. It's one of the most well understood scientific theories we have. It's easily testable, verifiable, and falsifiable. The evidence that supports the details that go into the process are well known. More information is discovered every day that further strengthens the credibility of the theory. That there are details yet to be explained isn't a testament to the mystery of evolution, but a testament to the unfamiliarity of a particular detail. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. It means certain mutations were successful or benign. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought. What major prediction of evolution has been found to be false? Why wouldn't it mean the prediction exposes a hypotheses that lacks pertinent knowledge and requires modification according to the information available, or patience until information does become available? —Cornelius Hunter Who IS this guy? Why is he talking about evolution when he doesn't understand it in the most basic way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornblower Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Who IS this guy? Why is he talking about evolution when he doesn't understand it in the most basic way? he's an ID guy. Because if you start with the premise that god exists and is keenly interested in everything & we're 'special' and not just another hominid species, then you need to make everything fit into that framework. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 he's an ID guy. Because if you start with the premise that god exists and is keenly interested in everything & we're 'special' and not just another hominid species, then you need to make everything fit into that framework. The idea that evolution was a cognizant agent with desire really threw me off. It's like saying "Gravity is such a jerk for throwing that coffee cup on my toe," and then arguing why the theory of gravity isn't accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Lulu* Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 The idea that evolution was a cognizant agent with desire really threw me off. It's like saying "Gravity is such a jerk for throwing that coffee cup on my toe," and then arguing why the theory of gravity isn't accurate. I don't know..... Punk has been known to exclaim, "Gravity, why doest thou hate me" me when he drops things. Of course he also asks me of people can go to jail for breaking the laws of physics. Yes, I am well entertained! :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornblower Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (Sheldon Cooper) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fraidycat Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 The idea that evolution was a cognizant agent with desire really threw me off. It's like saying "Gravity is such a jerk for throwing that coffee cup on my toe," and then arguing why the theory of gravity isn't accurate.This has tickled my funny bone. I keep giggling and giggling. And I'm totally calling Gravity a jerk next time we have an altercation. :P Or, after watching the clip, perhaps a heartless bitch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.