nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 174:
Line 174: + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing (view source)
Revision as of 15:10, May 15, 2007
, 15:10, May 15, 2007→Discussion regarding religion, evil, etc.: Well done!
:[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:26, 15 May 2007
:[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:26, 15 May 2007
::Thanks for taking the time to learn. Not that this would make you sufficiently knowledgeable to dismiss creationism, but it's a very good start.
:: Regarding the requirement for "evolution" of the animals on the ark, Chapter 18 of that book touches on it, but a better explanation is [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831/106/ here]. It is also covered very briefly in [[definitions of evolution]], but you would be better off reading that external link.
:: Regarding human population, the real question is why there aren't many more people if humans have been around for 100,000 years, or whatever is the current figure. Doing the population growth calculations, it is quite easy to get today's population from eight people 4,500 years ago, but very difficult to get it with an evolutionary timescale without proposing "growth" rates that are virtually static (i.e. no growth) for most of that time.
:: I don't follow your question about species going extinct. Lots of species ''have'' died out.
:: It might seem counter-intuitive (it surprised me when I heard it), but God is not a complex being. Complexity means being composed of many parts, and God is not that; He is simply, ''God''.
:: Your objection regarding omniscience and omnipotence is based on a caricature of those terms. Being omnipotent does not mean being able to do things that are nonsense. For example, not even an omnipotent being can create a green drop, or a (thermally-)hot accent. Such are simply nonsense word constructions, not meaningful things. Similarly, an omnipotent being contradicting Himself is a nonsense thing. But perhaps more to the point of your specific objection, God has no "future", because "future" is a time-based term, and ''time'' is part of God's creation, along with space and matter, and God is outside of His creation, not part of it. What this means is that God does not exist ''in'' time. God is timeless. He has no past and no future, He just is. (This also explains why the question, "who created God" is nonsense. He had no beginning, because that is a time-base term, so there was no need for Him to be created.)
:: As I said, ''secular'' scientists have now proposed that the speed of light might have changed. I won't argue that it's falsifiable, but the reason it's perhaps not falsifiable is because it is something that only occurred (assuming it did) in the distant past, which we don't have to observe and test. But exactly the same criticism applies to the Big Bang, evolutionary history, etc. etc.
:: I disagree of course with your expectation regarding God featuring in our future understanding, but the main point I want to note is that this is a ''faith position'' of yours.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:10, 15 May 2007 (EDT)