Re: I suppose p.jm supports this numbskull

On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 17:27:19 -0800 (PST), "tomorrow@xxxxxxxxx"
<tomorrow@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 9, 5:02 pm, "P. Roehling" <nowayj...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Eigenvector" <m44_mas...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote

...Mitt Romney seems like the lesser of many evils -
although his attraction to torture bothers me.

The fact that he claims to believe that the world was created only 6000
years ago bothers -hell, *scares*- me more.

We're close enough to a theocracy right now...

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!!

Now *THAT* was fucking hilarious. Thanks for the laugh, Pete.

The open religious bigotry that goes completely unchallenged here is
incredible to witness at times, isn't it?

It seems some people like to believe, in the case of the Genesis
creation account, they have this big hammer to beat Christians down
with and label them as idiots, but it's not really the powerful tool
they imagine.

When it comes to the subject of evolution, I fail to see what the
great challenge to Christianity is - even to those who hold to the
literal, biblical account. In fact, I would have a much harder time
making sense of the Genesis account if science were revealing anything
other than it currently does.

If that seems surprising to anyone, they only need to start with the
old question: "Did Adam have a belly button?"

But they shouldn't don't stop there. How about the trees at the time
of Adam's creation as well? If you cut one down on the first day of
creation, would you expect the trees to have tree rings? I don't know
about others, but I sure would.

But the tree rings would be evidence of growth over many years,
wouldn't they? Oh, this is terrible!

Let's go further then. How about soil for those trees to grow in?
You know - that stuff that takes millions of years to be made in
quantity through processes like weathering, freeze-thaw cycles and
erosion, with the addition of organic material derived from millions
of years of decaying plant life. Would there have been soil?

Of course there'd have been soil.

Hmmm... But there's a problem here. Contrary to the rules some
people demand apply, it would appear from this that God was not forced
to create man on a bare-rock planet without soil. Dog gone. Wouldn't
he have to do that, to avoid making it look like the earth was much
older than it actually is?

Er, not really.

But really, is it so surprising that a good God would have provided
for the needs of his creation, right from day one? Sure, someone born
a hundred years after Adam, might look at these things and say - based
on the evidence - the earth is at least a billion years old. But
let's be serious here. That doesn't mean God had to maroon his
creation on a bare rock of a planet. To the contrary, we would expect
a good God to have provided initial conditions conducive to the future
survival of his creations.

And this expectation that God would provide for the future needs of
his creation goes much further. From day one, would there be coal
deposits? Would there be oil and gas? How about underground
aquifers? Mountains and undulating landscapes for modulating rainfall
and acting as the source for rivers? Veins of gold and other
minerals? Gravel deposits?

Assuming these things are needed and would be present, how would such
things be distributed? In a random manner? If random, how could we
ever develop techniques in the future to predict where to look for and
obtain these things? Well, if you want a method of finding those
things, you're wise to think about how things would be now, if
current-day processes were to have worked over very long periods of
time - just the evidence of soil leads us to conclude.

In other respects, shouldn't there also be many other ways provided
for man to work with the creation he has been placed in (and commanded
to have dominion over)? There are so many avenues to explore they
can't all be listed, but let's take 2 more: Medical research and
adaptation.

If we were one-of-a-kind in terms of physiology - not able to benefit
from the study and tests made on animals - it would be impossible to
use the techniques of testing and comparison to develop medical
science. That would be similar to the situation of having oil
deposits scattered willy-nilly without an underlying rational. And,
without genetic mutation, how impossible would that make if for
populations to survive plagues and adapt to changing conditions?

As with soil, sure - these things can also be construed to show the
earth was much older, but should anyone seriously expect God to be
constrained on that basis? Is that any more reasonable than demanding
God have placed Adam on a bare-rock earth in the beginning? I submit
that the things many people use to claim God wasn't the creator simply
amount to placing impossible-to-satisfy restrictions on him.

So, in my opinion, if God really did create the heavens and the earth
as described in Genesis, I can't imagine him having done it in any
other way than what modern science reveals to us today - the
alternatives are as ridiculous as Adam being placed on an earth that
had yet to develop soil, coal, oil and so forth.

Further, I can't imagine what yet-undiscovered evidence found in
nature could someday refute this position. Before someone complains
that last statement is unfair - ask the exact same question regarding
the theory of evolution. No one can think of any test or evidence
that would disprove it either.

So - in case anyone reading hasn't picked up on it yet - there is
absolutely nothing to prevent Genesis-creation-account-believing
Christians from being full and effective participants in the study and
advancement of evolutionary science.

True, they may not feel quite as compelled as an atheist to believe
everything uncritically (since, for them, evolution is not the only
possible game in town), but a questioning, open mind is supposed to be
a good thing in science. At least it used to be.

--

Home page: http://xidos.ca
.

Quantcast