English,


I am thankful that I can 'see' where you are coming from...


http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/griffith/Eye_Refutes_Evolution.html


http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/SBS777/vital/evolutio.html


TS

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 


Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 


Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. 

Quote:



If someone were to....say....go out and commit a heinous crime and tell everyone that you gave him your blessing....told you to do it....even helped you plan it:


Would you be a little upset? How much patience would you exhibit before exacting retribution, if any? Would just you let is slide?


Please consider that, just as He says He is.....He is a patient God.


One whose patience is being tested to the full....and is beyond our measure of justice.


He has promised several times over in His word, that vengeance is His to exact upon Her....and all who feign connection with the Prince of Peace in order to destroy.

TS

I have heard it said that the definition of an 'Atheist' is:


"One who tries to hurt God by telling themselves He doesn't exist".


There is kernel of truth to this, I think....


And relatively soon, we may get to see if it is of the 'Redenbacher' variety.


For many truths are 'popping' out at this time all over the world.



TS

Quote:
  He who? Why not She?

If you are going to be pedantic in that sense, then allow the "it" you use to be qualified thus: It, Which Exists, But At The Same Time Does Not Exist, Outside The Normal Framework Of Time/Space And Is Seemingly Omnipotent But Without The Ability To Act In Time/Space, Passive Creator Of Everything.  Yeah, I think that just about covers it.  Of course, words could not describe such a non-thing.
 If God exists, but at the same does not exist, but is at the same time absent, who can comprehend it?  I can understand absence of being, but who can understand absence of non-being?  If, after all this, non-being is, who can comprehend it?  (A slightly adapted form of a part of the Zhuang Zi, entitled by Thomas Merton, "Starlight and Non-Being").

I suppose.  Still, it's no good, just letting religion go unchallenged.  However, I find Catholics are more easy going; it's the hardcore, and not so hardcore, Anglicans/Evangelicals, etc, who are infuriatingly evolution-bashing.  Why?  It's a good theory.  Tells you a lot.  Why not use actual knowledge, science, experience, and everything else, to inform your worldview, rather than just assuming that some drug addicted, scared, weak, unhappy desert nomads knew all the answers?

I'm not trying to fuel this debate any further but I want to put this little thought in before I shut up. first of all, I am a hardline evolutionist. I mean, the thought of creationism and evangelical types trying to shove religion down our throats under the guise of science frankly makes me want to gag and start beating certain people with a copy of "the Origin of Species" until they find certain levels of pain they never knew existed in a physical realm. That's no exxageration. As well, I am religious, but my science and my religion are compartmentalised. Never in my explanation of evolution do I ever even consider saying that something must be "Because Odin wished it so." All things in the natural world can be explained by natural means. That's what science is. The second you start trying to interpose a deistic or supernatural causation into the equation, you just crossed the line into religion. I don't seriously believe as a scientists that mankind was formed from a giant cow licking lifeforms out of a block of salty snow. The truth of our legends and your bible, or koran or talmud is not in the stories itself, but the lessons it teaches. Don't look for veracity in the words, but look to the message of the story. And as for the debate about the eye...well, think for a second. If you consider that a lifeforms typically go through a 1% genetic change from the parental organisms once every generation or so, if you stretch that to say, 1% every 10,000 years (and I don't know of anything with a 10,000 year generational span) than you could go from an eyeless organism to one with eyes in 1 000 000 years only changing 1% of the genome at a time.  Considering that life has been on this earth for 3.5 billion years, give or take a little, the eye could have easily developed many times over. And think about it, before you claim that a great and noble structure as the eye could only have developed by divine construction, try thinking for a moment outside of your God box and try to actually figure out how evolution and random mutations really work and think about design flaws in the eye (i.e underwater vision very poor in humans, bad night vision, only sees three colours, differential in numbers of rods and cones etc...) I've said my piece, and that is it. Anyone wishing to discuss evolution with me can PM me or email me. I will gladly continue the discuss there, because this is not the time or place.