Follow up Alright, All You Dashing, Swaggering Bush Pilots

Corrie wrote:



Let me repeat myself Mr. Zealot

just how prey tell was YOUR GOD refining HIS people
when those other teenage boys and girls were shot dead.

One more Time wrote:

Corrie wrote:


Let me repeat myself Mr. Zealot

just how prey tell was YOUR GOD refining HIS people
when those other teenage boys and girls were shot dead.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

May I predict....

No way will you ever receive an acceptable explanation.


Barnyard BOb --

Barnyard BOb -- wrote in message . ..
One more Time wrote:

Corrie wrote:


Let me repeat myself Mr. Zealot

just how prey tell was YOUR GOD refining HIS people
when those other teenage boys and girls were shot dead.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

May I predict....

No way will you ever receive an acceptable explanation.


Barnyard BOb --

Pac sez:

Well Bob, let me try to give them both an acceptable explanation.
O.K. Rah here it is: Loosing a few people from things like this just
isn't very important in the big scheme of things.

Corrie, your missionary supporters started it so I'll finish it. Your
ancient faith and the science worlds' methodical faith remind me of
the tale of "four blind men and an elephant." Each constantly argues
about the discoveries he's made over at "his tree" or "his snake"
without considering the possibility that the two are connected.

Just what makes a God anyway? A God, IMHO, is nothing more than a
relative comparison between greatly disparate phenomenon. You are a
God relative to the ants you smash everyday on the sidewalk. Relative
to the local tribal natives they frequently encountered, the great
Conquistadors were, by relative terms Gods. In fact, they were often
mistaken for such; ie Cortez at the Aztec shores in the 1500's.
Walking on water with their magnificent ships and then striding into
the village, unafraid of anything, mounted on their previously unseen
horses, and sitting in their marvelous suits of armor (some of those
things resembled the craftsmanship of finely fitted Mercedes Benz
autos; like the suits on display at the Tower of London.)

....Why they couldn't possibly be anything else but Gods. In the
1500's this effect was used to convert peoples all over the Spanish
empire under the sanction of the Pope (your missionary friends do the
same thing in the third world. They wow the locals with their beads
and trinkets, while taking credit for the short-field feats of the
Cessna 206.)

The Hubble telescope combined with other ground instruments and
spacecraft has made it apparent that "outer space" is anything but
empty. We keep on discovering more and more structure. It's clear to
me that relative to you dweebs this structure is part of a greater
grand design (although we'll never know in our lifetimes what it is.)
But tunneling-electron microscope images can give us a clue.

You zealots continue to try to convert the whole world into your
recent religion not realizing that evolution and science are the other
side of the God coin that you myopically stare at. Blank and White,
Who's right, who's wrong translations from more than 2000 years ago
don't cut it. As usual the truth lies in middle.

This bit of wisdom will cost you a mandatory/voluntary contribution to
the "Church in the Air." which I'm founding in about five minutes.

pacplyer
Reverand and High Captain of the holy Airwaves

(pac plyer) wrote in message . com...
Pac,

You might be interested in Don Stoner's book, "A New Look at an Old
Earth." It speaks to the elephant analogy. If he hadn't written it,
I would have had to eventually. Recommended.

You're partly right, in terms of us being pretty small in the grand
scheme of things. Also right in that science only gives us part of
the picture. (Funny how some folks put their faith in science to
deliver all the answers, when the track record of science is that for
every question it answers, it raises three more. The more we learn,
the more we realize how little we know. At the very limits of our
perception, we also run smack-dab into the limits of our capability to
wrap our minds around what we observe. Quantum mechanics and
astrophysics both serve up large does of brain-bending paradox. The
hypothesis that are some things that humans simply *cannot* comprehend
has not been disproved.)

Your examples of ants and conquistadores was summed up by Arthur C.
Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable
from magic." But that's where your argument goes wrong. Faith isn't
magic, and it certainly isn't high tech. The God of Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob isn't the "Q" of Star Trek. Jesus isn't The Borg. Prayer
isn't a flick of Harry Potter's wand and a muttered, "Lumos!"

Your concept of God as a "relative comparison between greatly
disparate phenomenon" is also known as "God-of-the-gaps." That's a
straw man often trotted out by skeptics, but it doesn't really
describe the Judeo-Christian concept of a trancendent Creator.

Yes, people often attribute not-understood phenomena to supernatural
workings. But just because a phenomenon previously attributed to the
supernatural (say, the Bermuda Triangle) turns out to have a plausible
naturalistic explanation (the decomposition of sea-floor carbonate
formations) does NOT therefore mean that NO supernatural phenomena can
exist.

I've read that the plagues and miracles described in Exodus (and also
the legends of Atlantis, if you're so inclined) can be
naturalistically attributed to a massive volcanic eruption in the
Mediterranean. Fine by me. But would't you agree that the timing of
events - especially the sea-floor receding and then rushing back - was
just a little too convenient to be accidental? Coincidence is God's
way of maintaining anonymity, you know. :-D


Corrie

Pac sez:

Well Bob, let me try to give them both an acceptable explanation.
O.K. Rah here it is: Loosing a few people from things like this just
isn't very important in the big scheme of things.

Corrie, your missionary supporters started it so I'll finish it. Your
ancient faith and the science worlds' methodical faith remind me of
the tale of "four blind men and an elephant." Each constantly argues
about the discoveries he's made over at "his tree" or "his snake"
without considering the possibility that the two are connected.

Just what makes a God anyway? A God, IMHO, is nothing more than a
relative comparison between greatly disparate phenomenon. You are a
God relative to the ants you smash everyday on the sidewalk. Relative
to the local tribal natives they frequently encountered, the great
Conquistadors were, by relative terms Gods. In fact, they were often
mistaken for such; ie Cortez at the Aztec shores in the 1500's.
Walking on water with their magnificent ships and then striding into
the village, unafraid of anything, mounted on their previously unseen
horses, and sitting in their marvelous suits of armor (some of those
things resembled the craftsmanship of finely fitted Mercedes Benz
autos; like the suits on display at the Tower of London.)

...Why they couldn't possibly be anything else but Gods. In the
1500's this effect was used to convert peoples all over the Spanish
empire under the sanction of the Pope (your missionary friends do the
same thing in the third world. They wow the locals with their beads
and trinkets, while taking credit for the short-field feats of the
Cessna 206.)

The Hubble telescope combined with other ground instruments and
spacecraft has made it apparent that "outer space" is anything but
empty. We keep on discovering more and more structure. It's clear to
me that relative to you dweebs this structure is part of a greater
grand design (although we'll never know in our lifetimes what it is.)
But tunneling-electron microscope images can give us a clue.

You zealots continue to try to convert the whole world into your
recent religion not realizing that evolution and science are the other
side of the God coin that you myopically stare at. Blank and White,
Who's right, who's wrong translations from more than 2000 years ago
don't cut it. As usual the truth lies in middle.

This bit of wisdom will cost you a mandatory/voluntary contribution to
the "Church in the Air." which I'm founding in about five minutes.

pacplyer
Reverand and High Captain of the holy Airwaves

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, pac plyer wrote:

You zealots continue to try to convert the whole world into your recent
religion not realizing that evolution and science are the other side of
the God coin that you myopically stare at. Blank and White, Who's
right, who's wrong translations from more than 2000 years ago don't cut
it. As usual the truth lies in middle.

Apparently there's a good sized chunk of the scientific picture with which
you're unfamiliar. Read this book, then come back and we can discuss it
from a more educated perspective.

Title: The Fingerprint of God
Author: Hugh Ross
ISBN: 0883686279

Should be available at any bookstore.

-Dan
(My apologies for the off topic post.)

gringomasloco thundered from the pulpit:

Read this book, then come back and we can discuss it
from a more educated perspective.

Title: The Fingerprint of God
Author: Hugh Ross
ISBN: 0883686279

I've already read all that "Late great planet earth, biblethumping
drivel by psedo-scientists and I haven't got time to waste on that.
I've got objective books by Steven Hawkins, A brief moment in time,
Robert Jastrow etc to read.

But why don't you educate yourself on this one:

Title: On the Origin of Species
Author: Charles Darwin

It's available at *all* bookstores everywhere.

Evolutionarily, Your distant relative,

pacplyer

(pac plyer) wrote in message . com...
gringomasloco thundered from the pulpit:

Read this book, then come back and we can discuss it
from a more educated perspective.

Title: The Fingerprint of God
Author: Hugh Ross
ISBN: 0883686279

I've already read all that "Late great planet earth, biblethumping
drivel by psedo-scientists and I haven't got time to waste on that.
I've got objective books by Steven Hawkins, A brief moment in time,
Robert Jastrow etc to read.


IOW, don't confuse you with facts; your mind is made up.
Whassamatter, are you scared of a scientific worldview that allows for
the possibility that the universe didn't just happen by accident? Or
is your entire self-worth bound up in believing that you are merely
the product of random molecular collisons? But that's ok, go ahead
and keep your Foggles on. Just keep a watch out for a vacuum failure.

But why don't you educate yourself on this one:
Title: On the Origin of Species
Author: Charles Darwin

You're a little behind the times. Most evolutionary scientists have
moved beyond Darwin's simplistic "survival of the fittest" model,
seeing as it fails to adequately explain the evidence. Stephen Jay
Gould had to invent the concept of "punctuated equilibria," but
recently that's come under fire, too.

But evolution is beside the point. Whether or not species
spontaneously transform into other species (and there's precious
little hard evidence to support the notion) has nothing whatsoever to
do with the existence or non-existence of a trancendent Supreme Being.
A lot of folks - believers and non-believers alike - don't get that.
But it's true.

And before someone starts ragging on me that this isn't
alt.talk.origins, please note that *I didn't bring up the subject!*

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, pac plyer wrote:

Title: The Fingerprint of God
Author: Hugh Ross
ISBN: 0883686279

I've already read all that "Late great planet earth, biblethumping
drivel by psedo-scientists and I haven't got time to waste on that.

Wow. So much for your concerned-about-scientific-truth facade. I've seen
some real misguided religious zeal in my time, but you're right up there
with the best of them. Betcha don't think of yourself as a religious
zealot, do you? Well, I don't know any other term for hanging
dogmatically to a viewpoint while knee-jerk ridiculing anything you think
might be opposed to it, without even bothering to make sure you understand
what it is you're ridiculing.

I haven't got time to waste on the things you mention either, they have
absolutely nothing to do with me or Hugh Ross, and I have no interest in
discussing them. Sorry.

I've got objective books by Steven Hawkins, A brief moment in time,

(I assume you mean Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time?) Isn't he an
atheist? As such, how is he going to write anything objective about God's
existence or lack thereof? Or do you think he's objective _because_ he's
an atheist? What an objective, scientific paradigm _that_ would be.

-Dan

P.S. I am now out of this discussion. I only got into it in the first
place because I thought I saw some interest in the scientific aspect of
the question at hand. Clearly I was mistaken.