Fascinating!

[Deeje]

What do you mean when you say "from the beginning"? Do you mean from the time the Creator came into existence? Do you mean from the time the Creator created the universe? Do you mean from the time the Creator created Adam & Eve?

Why do you bother? You are not one bit interested in the answer so just go your way remain ignorant. We will all be educated in the important things soon enough.

What better things is He doing? Watching thousands die because of droughts? Watching His Christain Soldiers kill witches?

whatever.....

Ignoring you from here on in....

 

[Polymath257]

My approach to creation is fairly simple Ploymath....."cause and effect" means that whatever you see has a cause. If I see a jar of honey in the supermarket, I don't have to wonder where the honey came from. I already know that bees take nectar from flowers to make this delicious syrup that is stored in a brilliantly designed hexagonal capsule, sealed with another amazingly useful substance...beeswax. They also pollinate flowers in their assignment, which makes them a vital component in a complex ecology.

All via the laws of physics.

So where do bees come from? How did they get to design their extraordinary storage system and to contain this amazing fluid in a vertical position, sealed with something else that they can manufacture?
How did they get to become such a vital part of the continuation of life?

Basic evolution and the laws of physics and chemistry.

You can throw all the scientific jargon at the scenario, but my logic will fight with it at the most basic level.

Well, like I said, the truth need not conform to your sense of what is reasonable.

All that we see on earth and in the wider universe, has a cause that science cannot explain at that most basic level. This is where I believe it fails.

Well, I think it completely unproven that all this has an intelligence behind it. Yes, the laws of physics are a type of cause, but like I said, it doens't make much sense to talk about the causes of fundamental laws.

"Natural" laws don't just pop up out of nowhere. They are purposeful and demonstrate often exquisite design.....my God is the Designer. Nothing science has to offer will ever replace him. The world and life itself makes no sense without him.

And how did that design come into reality? Through the action of *some* type of laws. Once again, the *most fundamental laws* cannot be caused.

Think of it like this: why is the cause of 'God'? More relevantly, what allows God to create natural laws? Even if it is some inherent ability of God, then that fact (that God has such an ability) is, itself, a natural law. And *that* law cannot have a cause.

I don't just believe that God exists........I KNOW he does. It is totally illogical to me that design has no Designer who has a purpose for everything.

Well, again, your sense of logic doens't put a bound on what is possible in reality.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, you are typically mistaken, as usual.

We believe that the mechanisms that create these amazing designs in nature were put in place by the Creator from the beginning. He has better things to do than individually design snowflakes....just as he has better things to do than individually design humans or any other living thing. His designs replicate themselves with no direct intervention from him. Is that rocket science?

And those mechanism are the natural laws. OK. But now, we know these natural laws are applicable. Both of us agree to that. But then, why the additional assumption of a deity? It is an extra hypothesis with no real explanatory power.

 

[Deeje]

All via the laws of physics.

Who wrote the law of physics? You can understand the mechanisms of these things but you deny the existence of the Master Mechanic.

Basic evolution and the laws of physics and chemistry.

Can you prove that to me Polymath? Can you say with certainty that all life evolved into the complex state of the natural world by chance from a living cell that just happened to 'fluke' itself into existence one day for no apparent reason....and it just happened to carry the potential for the DNA coding of all the lifeforms that have ever existed on this planet?

Science puts forward its hypotheses, but at the end of the day, if they can't prove that macro-evolution ever happened, and they can't tell you how life originated, then you have a belief system, just like I do. Its not until you really investigate the "evidence" for yourself that you realize how much of it is based on assumptions and suggestions....not real facts. If that is good enough for you to ditch all notion of an Intelligent Creator...then what more can be said? How can science possibly know? Its just guessing like it does with everything else.

Well, like I said, the truth need not conform to your sense of what is reasonable.

Everything in the Bible makes reasonable sense to me....science's take on the whole subject leaves me with no reasons for anything.....it is most unsatisfying.....and to my mind, highly unlikely. More of a fairytale than believing in a powerful Creator IMO.

Well, I think it completely unproven that all this has an intelligence behind it. Yes, the laws of physics are a type of cause, but like I said, it doens't make much sense to talk about the causes of fundamental laws.

Why not? All laws that have a purpose and that accomplish their intended outcomes, need a lawmaker. If you don't think so, then that is up to you. It is illogical to me that you think that life is just a series of very fortunate accidents governed by an equally fortunate set of laws that nobody made.

And how did that design come into reality? Through the action of *some* type of laws. Once again, the *most fundamental laws* cannot be caused.

Who said? Science? You can trust them if you like.....I can't.

Think of it like this: why is the cause of 'God'? More relevantly, what allows God to create natural laws? Even if it is some inherent ability of God, then that fact (that God has such an ability) is, itself, a natural law. And *that* law cannot have a cause.

That is gobbledygook to me. Laws govern things for an intended purpose. The intention itself demonstrates design...how can it not? Flukes don't happen with positive outcomes that many times....the law of averages would not permit it....otherwise we should all be buying lottery tickets.

Well, again, your sense of logic doens't put a bound on what is possible in reality.

And your belief in science as the natural explanation for everything doesn't mean diddly to God or me....He knows how things are put together because he created them. He designed the mechanisms and used them to perpetuate life on this planet without a great deal of intervention from himself. He put us humans in charge to make sure that it all worked well.....and look what we did. How clever are we really? How much has science contributed to what is choking this world to death? How long do you think it will take before man becomes responsible for his own extinction?

There is a certain kind of blindness that only occurs in the godless.....(2 Corinthians 4:3-4) Its sad really.

 

[Deeje]

And those mechanism are the natural laws. OK. But now, we know these natural laws are applicable. Both of us agree to that. But then, why the additional assumption of a deity? It is an extra hypothesis with no real explanatory power.

If you had a relationship with that deity, then you would not need to ask that question....he is as real to me as you are. Does that explain it?

 

[Polymath257]

Who wrote the law of physics? You can understand the mechanisms of these things but you deny the existence of the Master Mechanic.

And from what I can see, you see faces in clouds. YOu see intelligence where there is none and causality when it can't be.

You insist on causality, but then claim your deity is uncaused. And you can't see the contradiction there?

Can you prove that to me Polymath? Can you say with certainty that all life evolved into the complex state of the natural world by chance from a living cell that just happened to 'fluke' itself into existence one day for no apparent reason....and it just happened to carry the potential for the DNA coding of all the lifeforms that have ever existed on this planet?

Nope. Because that isn't how it happened.First of all, the first cell almost certainly did not have DNA. Second, you use 'chance' where I would say 'through natural laws'. And the cell didn't 'fluke' itself into existence. It developed from less complicated chemical systems that couldn't reproduce.

You ask for a cartoon version to be proved while ignoring the proof of the actual version.

Science puts forward its hypotheses, but at the end of the day, if they can't prove that macro-evolution ever happened, and they can't tell you how life originated, then you have a belief system, just like I do. Its not until you really investigate the "evidence" for yourself that you realize how much of it is based on assumptions and suggestions....not real facts. If that is good enough for you to ditch all notion of an Intelligent Creator...then what more can be said? How can science possibly know? Its just guessing like it does with everything else.

We always base our understanding on the available evidence. That understanding gets refined as new evidence becomes available. So, the view is altered in details even while the overall picture stays the same.

Science doens't adress the question of the existence of a deity because such a question cannot be tested in any way. Mostly because the notion of 'deity' is way too vague to make testable predictions with.

But whether or not there is a deity is irrelevant to the science and the validity of its conclusions. Even if it was proved tomorrow that some deity exists, the Big Bang and evolution would still be solid science.

Everything in the Bible makes reasonable sense to me....science's take on the whole subject leaves me with no reasons for anything.....it is most unsatisfying.....and to my mind, highly unlikely. More of a fairytale than believing in a powerful Creator IMO.

And it is certainly your prerogative to disbelieve. You can ignore the evidence if you wish. But don't claim that science, which is evidence based, gets it wrong.

Why not? All laws that have a purpose and that accomplish their intended outcomes, need a lawmaker. If you don't think so, then that is up to you. It is illogical to me that you think that life is just a series of very fortunate accidents governed by an equally fortunate set of laws that nobody made.

All *human* laws have a purpose. But that is because they give guidelines for action, can be broken, and require punishment when broken.

On the other hand, natural laws are *descriptions*. They cannot be broken unless wrong. They describe how things move and interact. That's it.

And once again you use the word 'accident' where it just doesn't apply. What does it mean to be an 'accident'? Typically, it means there was an intention that things go one way and they actually went another. That isn't the case in the action of natural laws.

In fact, I'll go further. All 'intention' is the result of natural laws. All creative acts are done through natural laws. All processes are described by natural laws.

Who said? Science? You can trust them if you like.....I can't.

Nope. It's simple logic. Again, natural laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. Do you understand the difference?

That is gobbledygook to me. Laws govern things for an intended purpose. The intention itself demonstrates design...how can it not? Flukes don't happen with positive outcomes that many times....the law of averages would not permit it....otherwise we should all be buying lottery tickets.

So you think the law of averages is a more fundamental law? What intention does it reveal?

And once again, there cannot even be intention unless there are natural laws allowing the intention. There must be laws that describe how that intention operates: and those are the natural laws about that intention. So the intention cannot produce the laws that describe that intent, right?

And your belief in science as the natural explanation for everything doesn't mean diddly to God or me....He knows how things are put together because he created them. He designed the mechanisms and used them to perpetuate life on this planet without a great deal of intervention from himself. He put us humans in charge to make sure that it all worked well.....and look what we did. How clever are we really? How much has science contributed to what is choking this world to death? How long do you think it will take before man becomes responsible for his own extinction?

There is a certain kind of blindness that only occurs in the godless.....(2 Corinthians 4:3-4) Its sad really.

And I see a different sort of blindness in the godish. Human have only been 'in charge' for a few thousand years. And then, only in an incredibly small part of the universe. To think we are important in the grand scheme of things seems to be the height of hubris.

 

[Polymath257]

If you had a relationship with that deity, then you would not need to ask that question....he is as real to me as you are. Does that explain it?

I don't see why you would think it does. It's a personal opinion, nothing more.

 

[ecco]

Why do you bother? You are not one bit interested in the answer so just go your way remain ignorant. We will all be educated in the important things soon enough.

Aw. Can't handle questions that might make you think about your beliefs?

Ignoring you from here on in....

Aw. Can't handle questions that might make you think about your beliefs?

 

[tas8831]

Who wrote the law of physics?

Nobody.

Scientific laws are NOT 'laws' like speed limits or something. I thought you claimed to understand science?

 

[tas8831]

Order never happens without intelligent direction according to my observations.

Observations of human activity.

Weird how creationists can ONLY ever proffer analogies...

Who created the laws governing what you call " natural" ?

Nobody.

The "laws" of physics are not laws like the law against robbing banks. Laws of physics or nature are simply observations of effects that do not vary.

I thought you pretended to know all about this stuff? Like how you claimed bacteria have immunity to things?

What happened to the law of cause and effect?

What 'law' is that? The one creationists invoke when they've realized that they have no actual evidence?

 

[tas8831]

The whole universe is based on mathematics.

No, the entire universe is based on English. Because I can describe it using English words.

Even on earth the Fibonacci sequence never ceases to fascinate mathematicians.

Really? All mathematicians? Or just the ones that write essays for JW websites?

To my way of thinking, who can discover something that is not first created by some-one or some-thing?

Glad so few think your way. We would be stuck in the dark ages..

Intelligence is demonstrated everywhere in nature.

Yes - the hyena pseudopenis is a great example.

....does DNA just occur for no reason?

Sure.

It is a code that is used in the construction of all biological species.

No, DNA is a molecule.

How do the cells in the body, programmed by the DNA, know how to become a specific body part and to perform a specific function in that body?

Concentration gradients and cascades of events influence the expression of genes during development.

Does that sound like a fluke to you?

No. In context, it sounds like a lot of 'trial and error' evolution.

DNA is an information code....can such a code exist by chance? Don't all codes need an intelligent writer?

No - we call it a code because that is what we decided to call it. DNA is a polynucleotide that interacts with proteins and other molecules.

Your argument from awe is a rather naive one, pretty common in folks that never bothered to try to actually understand the chemistry and biology of it all.

 

[cladking]

There's rarely much left to inspect after Boo-Boo and I get done with a basket.

Ranger Smith is about the only guy around whom is less smart than I.

 

[Deeje]

YOu see intelligence where there is none and causality when it can't be.

You insist on causality, but then claim your deity is uncaused. And you can't see the contradiction there?

Does the first cause of everything need a cause? The Being that produced matter is not a material being. Science hasn't invented a test for the invisible realm. Intelligent and powerful beings exist there and have interacted with humans for the thousands of years that they have been in existence. Where is there a contradiction....? I see only lack of knowledge. I see science reaching conclusions because they can't 'see' what is in the supernatural realm. If they can't test it, it must not exist...right?
Who says that it can't exist? Has science discovered all dimensions? How far does scientific knowledge stretch today compared to what might be discovered in the future? How much is there to know? What if science is nothing more than a baby?

Nope. Because that isn't how it happened.First of all, the first cell almost certainly did not have DNA. Second, you use 'chance' where I would say 'through natural laws'. And the cell didn't 'fluke' itself into existence. It developed from less complicated chemical systems that couldn't reproduce.

You ask for a cartoon version to be proved while ignoring the proof of the actual version.

Cartoons? You mean like all those computer generated creatures we see as figments of science's imagination?
How easily does a CGI portray macro-evolution? Looks real, doesn't it compared to the artist's impressions of the past.

Did these people even exist? Who was there to document their lives?

Does a similarity in structure prove evolution? Or simply provide evidence for the same architect?

Who said that these creatures are even related in some kind of evolutionary chain? Similarity does not prove relationship. Science assumes it.

 

[Deeje]

We always base our understanding on the available evidence. That understanding gets refined as new evidence becomes available. So, the view is altered in details even while the overall picture stays the same.

Science bases its understanding on fitting the evidence into the pre-conceived evolutionary box. If it doesn't fit they will fudge it till it sounds plausible. You can't call evolution a fact if there is no proof.....calling what you have "evidence" is just an excuse to cover up the fact that you have no facts.

Science doens't adress the question of the existence of a deity because such a question cannot be tested in any way. Mostly because the notion of 'deity' is way too vague to make testable predictions with.

Says who? The Deity is 'tested' every time you see the miracles in nature that science takes for granted or simply ignores.

But whether or not there is a deity is irrelevant to the science and the validity of its conclusions. Even if it was proved tomorrow that some deity exists, the Big Bang and evolution would still be solid science.

LOL....if it was proven that a deity exists tomorrow, how do you think he would feel about those who attributed his creation to chance mutations and macro-evolution? And you notice the nastiness of many atheists when you disagree with them. Not a positive thing to add...just pathetic put downs and insults as if that substitutes for intelligent discussion. I won't bother responding to them.

You can ignore the evidence if you wish. But don't claim that science, which is evidence based, gets it wrong.

Science itself must proclaim that it gets things wrong and has, many times....what are you talking about? There is nothing concrete in a theory until it is proven. A hypothesis is what science 'thinks' may have happened, but it doesn't really know. Nothing to stake your life on really.

All *human* laws have a purpose. But that is because they give guidelines for action, can be broken, and require punishment when broken.

On the other hand, natural laws are *descriptions*. They cannot be broken unless wrong. They describe how things move and interact. That's it.

Well, the law of gravity will remind you painfully and immediately that you dare not defy that law. You will most likely break more than the law.

And once again you use the word 'accident' where it just doesn't apply. What does it mean to be an 'accident'? Typically, it means there was an intention that things go one way and they actually went another. That isn't the case in the action of natural laws.

An "accident" is defined as..."an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause."
According to science, life is an accident. The universe is an accident......how does it not apply?

In fact, I'll go further. All 'intention' is the result of natural laws. All creative acts are done through natural laws. All processes are described by natural laws.

I'll agree with you here...."All 'intention' is the result of natural laws. All creative acts are done through natural laws. All processes are described by natural laws". The Creator uses natural laws, brought into existence by himself. Those natural laws enhance his creativity. I am always bemused by the tenacity with which atheists must eliminate all mention of a Creator.....do you find him threatening or something? Is there something in the deep recesses of the mind that is just a little afraid that he just might exist and may not think too kindly of them? What other reason could there be?

It's simple logic. Again, natural laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. Do you understand the difference?

Natural laws govern many things.....but if the universe did not exist, would those laws still be ....'somewhere' lurking, waiting for matter to materialize in order for them to go into action?

So you think the law of averages is a more fundamental law? What intention does it reveal?

The law of averages tells us that there can't possibly be that many beneficial mutations responsible for producing all the different lifeforms on this planet. Google beneficial mutations and tell me how many there are and how life altering they are....?

So the intention cannot produce the laws that describe that intent, right?

Natural selection ensures that the gene pool remains strong in the animal kingdom...nature makes sure of that. There is no emotion to get in the way of a good choice...it is all programmed by instinct. Who was the programmer? But we see that in humans the gene pool is becoming somewhat of a cess pool. Genetic disorders and predispositions to various inheritable diseases are rampant among our species, along with poor food choices that can ensure an early death......what does that mean for the future? In the evolutionary scenario....where will that lead? Are animals smarter than we are?....or is that the one who programmed the animals knew what he was doing, whilst humans thought they were the best judge of their own choices?

And I see a different sort of blindness in the godish. Human have only been 'in charge' for a few thousand years. And then, only in an incredibly small part of the universe. To think we are important in the grand scheme of things seems to be the height of hubris.

Ah, the grand scheme of things......its a big universe and I am sure that the Creator has amazing plans for it, and forever to accomplish whatever is his purpose in bringing it into existence. I believe that we are just the beginning....he is using us as blueprint for the future.....all the bugs will be ironed out here among humankind and when he has life on earth functioning as he purposed, I am sure that life will spread out in our vast universe, becoming a credit to its Creator who will be loved and appreciated for all that he has done to make life the wonderful journey of discovery and accomplishment that it was meant to be. Its the finished product that any creator is most satisfied with. He is not finished.....
We ain't seen nothin' yet....

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why does everything in space spin and rotate? Can there not be a single stationary object anywhere in space?

That's another thing thats utterly fascinating in science.

 

[Polymath257]

Does the first cause of everything need a cause?

I don't know. Does everything need a cause? If not, what makes you think there is only *one* thing that doesn't? And what makes you think that an uncaused cause must be an intelligence?

The Being that produced matter is not a material being.

So do only material things need causes? If so, then natural laws need not.

Science hasn't invented a test for the invisible realm.

Actually, science has invented many tests of 'invisible realms'. We can, for example, detect and work with radio waves, which are invisible. We can detect and work with ultrasound, which we cannot hear. We can detect and work with neutrinos, which are invisible.

One reason such can't work with deities is that no two people seem to be able to agree about what properties a deity has that would make it detectable.

Intelligent and powerful beings exist there and have interacted with humans for the thousands of years that they have been in existence. Where is there a contradiction....?

Where's the evidence?

I see only lack of knowledge. I see science reaching conclusions because they can't 'see' what is in the supernatural realm. If they can't test it, it must not exist...right?

if there is no way to detect it, no way to verify its existence, no way to test between one hypothesis and another, what reason is there to think it exists at all?

Who says that it can't exist? Has science discovered all dimensions? How far does scientific knowledge stretch today compared to what might be discovered in the future? How much is there to know? What if science is nothing more than a baby?

Denying what we do know because we don't know everything is a common tact for those who want to claim science doesn't know anything. But this is why *testing* is required: the ideas have to be challenged by opposing ideas and tests have to be done to see which, if either, works. Those tests were don't concerning 'spontaneous creation' and evolution and evolution won over 150 years ago.

Cartoons? You mean like all those computer generated creatures we see as figments of science's imagination?

Yes, like those. Popularizations are not the science. These are 'best guesses' based on the evidence we have for what these *groups* of people looked like.

How easily does a CGI portray macro-evolution? Looks real, doesn't it compared to the artist's impressions of the past.

Did these people even exist? Who was there to document their lives?

Yes, these are *artists impressions* based on the fossil data we have. That isn't the same as the *science* that is based on that data.

Does a similarity in structure prove evolution? Or simply provide evidence for the same architect?

That depends on the natural of the similarities, the history of the changes in those similarities, the likelihood of there being an architect at all, and many other aspects. One picture is not the full amount of evidence.

Who said that these creatures are even related in some kind of evolutionary chain? Similarity does not prove relationship. Science assumes it.

Nope, similarity alone does not prove a relationship. We also need to include the data on the times when these various creatures lived, the specifics of the similarities, the specifics of the differences, and the relation between these and many other species around at the times involved.

Science does NOT assume it. It *deduces* it from the evidence. Not just one or two pictures either.

 

[Polymath257]

Science bases its understanding on fitting the evidence into the pre-conceived evolutionary box. If it doesn't fit they will fudge it till it sounds plausible. You can't call evolution a fact if there is no proof.....calling what you have "evidence" is just an excuse to cover up the fact that you have no facts.

At this point, it is 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'. You won't get mathematical levels of proof outside of math. But the evidence fits the theory, the theory makes predictions that can be tested, alternatives have tried to do this and have failed.

Says who? The Deity is 'tested' every time you see the miracles in nature that science takes for granted or simply ignores.

And this shows you really don't know what it means to 'test' in a scientific sense. First, you have to make a prediction *before* the observation concerning what will be found. There also have to be potential observations that would show your theory wrong if it were.

So, what potential observation, or collection of observations, would be sifficient to cause you to doubt your theory?

For evolution, there are many such tests: the proverbial rabbit fossil in Pre-Cambrian rocks is a good one. The failure of nested hierarchies in species would be another powerful one. If computer models ailed to show that mutation and selection lead to close to optimal solutions of problems, there would be another falsifier.

Now, your turn: what evidence would bring your beliefs into question?

LOL....if it was proven that a deity exists tomorrow, how do you think he would feel about those who attributed his creation to chance mutations and macro-evolution?

If a deity was conclusively proven to exist tomorrow, the theory of evolution wouldn't change, except perhaps in a few very minor details. Neither would the Big Bang description. That is because the evidence would still be there and be the same, leading to the same conclusions.

This is what you seem to miss. Even those who believe a deity is at work still accept the evidence and understand that evolution occurred and that the Big Bang describes our universe. Deities are just an add-on to this.

And you notice the nastiness of many atheists when you disagree with them. Not a positive thing to add...just pathetic put downs and insults as if that substitutes for intelligent discussion. I won't bother responding to them.

And history is full of the nastiness of theists when people merely question their views. It wasn't that long ago that being an atheist carried the death penalty (it still does in many places). It wasn't that long ago that even in the US, an atheist couldn't give testimony in court.

Science itself must proclaim that it gets things wrong and has, many times....what are you talking about? There is nothing concrete in a theory until it is proven. A hypothesis is what science 'thinks' may have happened, but it doesn't really know. Nothing to stake your life on really.

Those ideas that have been thoroughly tested can be relied upon.

Well, the law of gravity will remind you painfully and immediately that you dare not defy that law. You will most likely break more than the law.

Nope. The point is that you *cannot* break the law of gravity. It isn't like a human law. It is descriptive of how things work and not a ban on doing things wrong.

An "accident" is defined as..."an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause."
According to science, life is an accident. The universe is an accident......how does it not apply?

The actions of natural laws are not chance. They are not random. I agree that htere is no 'deliberation', but there most certainly *is* causality in the formation of life: the properties of the chemicals involved.

I'll agree with you here...."All 'intention' is the result of natural laws. All creative acts are done through natural laws. All processes are described by natural laws". The Creator uses natural laws, brought into existence by himself. Those natural laws enhance his creativity.

And exactly how are natural laws brought into existence? What process allows it? And what laws govern that process?

I am always bemused by the tenacity with which atheists must eliminate all mention of a Creator.....do you find him threatening or something? Is there something in the deep recesses of the mind that is just a little afraid that he just might exist and may not think too kindly of them? What other reason could there be?

I find a deity no more frightening than I do any other fairy tale. I don't find Zeus or Thor to be threatening. I have no fear they exist. And any mention of them should be eliminated from a scientific account. The exact same goes for your deity.

Natural laws govern many things.....but if the universe did not exist, would those laws still be ....'somewhere' lurking, waiting for matter to materialize in order for them to go into action?

If there is nothing, do things still have properties? That's a strange question better discussed over dinner and drinks.

The law of averages tells us that there can't possibly be that many beneficial mutations responsible for producing all the different lifeforms on this planet. Google beneficial mutations and tell me how many there are and how life altering they are....?

Again, not the point. Did the law of averages need to be dictated by your deity to be true? You claim that other 'natural laws' needed to be. So why not this one? How about the law of cause and effect? is your deity subject to that law?

 

[ecco]

What if science is nothing more than a baby?

If one really takes the Bible literally, one really has to question the level of maturity of the God who created this universe.

It's almost as if GOD gave his 7-year-old son (God) the ability to begin learning how to build and manage universes. Our universe being his first attempt. That would explain a lot of the "oopses".

• Oops - they believed the snake.
• Oops - didn't make enough people - gotta tell Cain it's OK to have sex with mommy.
• Oops - things aren't working out too well- "Daddy, can I start over?" "No son, just try to make it work" - Call everyone bad - Make a big flood - Brutally kill (almost) everyone - See if that works out better.
• Oops - Everyone got bad again - "Daddy, can I flood them all again?" - "Nope - comon THINK!" - "Daddy, can I just go down there myself and straighten people out?" - "No. At least, not all of you. Have Ghostie impregnate one of the local ladies and a part of you can get all the people on board.
• Oops - "Daddy, they want to crucify one-third of me...
• Oops...
• Oops...
• Oops...

 

[ecco]

LOL....if it was proven that a deity exists tomorrow, how do you think he would feel about those who attributed his creation to chance mutations and macro-evolution?

LOL, indeed. Bhaal is awaiting your arrival. He wants to ask you why don't believe in HIM!

 

[Revoltingest]

There's rarely much left to inspect after Boo-Boo and I get done with a basket.

Ranger Smith is about the only guy around whom is less smart than I.

Fixed it.