Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "Charles C." <charles_casey@opt_online.net>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: Hello T.O.
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:05:40 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Optimum Online
Lines: 120
Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <nd44uvoial858vdba1e4jlvr42a4kjvql2@4ax.com>
References: <ecUCb.6254$qq.560@bignews1.bellsouth.net><DFUCb.16309$HL2.2582@twister.socal.rr.com>
Reply-To: charles_casey@opt_online.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1071781540 78494 128.100.83.246 (18 Dec 2003 21:05:40 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:05:40 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:1109
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:59:41 +0000 (UTC), "Piorokrat"
<piorokrat@autograf.pl> wrote:
>
>> In talk.origins I read this message from "Piorokrat"
>> <piorokrat@autograf.pl>:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >My view of God is that he can simply call things into existence in an
>> >already completed and mature state.
>>
>> I thought this was what you meant, but I could not believe it.
>> You actually believe in a God who deceives people. That is what
>> you have said. God makes things look like they have a past, a
>> history. They look like they had gone through events that had not
>> taken place. So, for instance, God could have created the world
>> Last Thursday and just made it look old. How could you tell if
>> you have a God willing to deceive people like that?
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>
>There is so much deceit in this world that if we are going to start blaming
>God for deceit we'll get nowhere regardless of what we think about evolution
>and creation.
>
>The point is he TOLD us that it was made perfect, ie. mature.
>
>If you chosse to believe otherwise, up to you.
>
It appears that you are trying to believe otherwise:
Gen 1:4
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light
from the darkness.
Good, not perfect.
Gen 1:10
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the
waters called he seas: and God saw that it was good.
Good, not perfect.
Gen 1:12
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his
kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his
kind: and God saw that it was good.
Good, not perfect.
Gen 1:18
And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light
from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Good, not perfect.
Gen 1:21
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth,
which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every
winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Good, not perfect.
Gen 1:25
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after
their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his
kind: and God saw that it was good.
Good, not perfect.
Gen 1:31
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very
good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Very good, not perfect.
God said that what he had made was good, and the word perfect doesn't
appear until Noah, well after original sin.
Where does God say that everything was mature and perfect, or perfect
and mature, or that the word good means perfect and the word perfect
means mature so by saying good or very good he really meant mature? I
thought that the word was to be taken literally?
It appears that he made man mature, but he made the earth produce
plants and trees which doesn't give the impression that they were
mature. "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass. . . " sounds
like God made the process of abiogenesis possible, doesn't it? If that
process still exists today then the scientific theories of abiogenesis
sound like they are on the right track; doesn't it? "And the earth
brought forth grass . . ." isn't that what scientists are basically
saying today?
Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the
moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth
in the open firmament of heaven.
Sounds like abiogenesis, doesn't it? Sounds like God made it possible
for the earth and water to produce living things, doesn't it? Sounds
like scientists are trying to build a theory that would ironically
make this correct, right?
So what this boils down to is that you feel that your religious views
are the only ones that count and that everyone else is wrong and you
came here to tell us this little nugget of insight, right? Well if
that is the case I have to refer you to Lenny's posts and the 2
questions he has been asking that no one seems to want to answer.
<SNIP>
Charles
Remove the underscores to contact me.
Creationism: Sci-Fi for the soul
|
Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |
90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 |
120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 |
150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 |
180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 |
210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 | 221 | 222 | 223 | 224 |
|