“Hahaha, very funny Orn... but you have a fair point. :P …” – Ian
So Ian, my first question is are you being ironic about ‘a fair
point’? It doesn’t seem possible given the context of my post. Yet, to
be sure you emoticon meant what I have always thought it did, I
checked a few sources. One is:
“:-p or :p or :P or :-Þ Smile with tongue out - used to denote either
a "raspberry" or being 'tongue in cheek' in English”
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Emoticons So, is it a raspberry or tongue in cheek as in irony?
Based on the current thread that includes the notion of ‘bullying’, I
can not tell until further evidence is provided.
This aside, I will use a similar form of ‘communication’ by comparing
your post with yet another possible use of the same ‘reasoning’,
backing up a point, and references to other citations.
To be clear, this IS meant to be irony and light mockery.
Line by line, your post first, a similar use of your thinking used by
a different topic.
Okay, I think Darwin's idea, whilst amazing in its own right, is even
more
Okay, I think Gautama’s idea, whilst amazing in its own right, is even
more
amazing when you also consider some of the other things it has helped
us
amazing when you also consider some of the other things it has helped
us
understand. Darwin's focus on evolution was at the level of the
organism and
understand. Guatama’s focus on enlightenment was at the level of
emptiness and
the phenotypical traits demonstrated. However, Darwinian evolution at
the
the introspective traits demonstrated. However, Gautamaian
enlightenment at the
level of the gene is perhaps even more amazing. It helps us understand
not
level of the Mind is perhaps even more amazing. It helps us understand
not
just why species are the way they are (which is amazing), but also
gives
just why consciousness is the way it is (which is amazing), but also
gives
incredible insights for medicine. Truly, he opened the door.
incredible insights for meditation. Truly, he opened the door.
More than that even, Darwin's idea has helped us understand social
behaviour
More than that even, Gautama’s idea has helped us understand social
behavior
too. To this we look to Dawkin's concept of the meme, which even helps
to
too. To this we look to Gautama’s concept of the Mind, which even
helps to
explain why organisms sometimes behave in ways that seem to not
benefit the
explain why organisms sometimes behave in ways that seem to not
benefit the
individual at all.
individual at all.
If you're not clued up on memes, here's a 15 min lecture from Dan
Dennett
If you’re not clued up on Mind, here’s a 20 min lecture from Gerald P
which explains it beautifully:
which explains it beautifully:
> Hahaha, very funny Orn... but you have a fair point. :P
> Okay, I think Darwin's idea, whilst amazing in its own right, is even more
> amazing when you also consider some of the other things it has helped us
> understand. Darwin's focus on evolution was at the level of the organism and
> the phenotypical traits demonstrated. However, Darwinian evolution at the
> level of the gene is perhaps even more amazing. It helps us understand not
> just why species are the way they are (which is amazing), but also gives
> incredible insights for medicine. Truly, he opened the door.
> More than that even, Darwin's idea has helped us understand social behaviour
> too. To this we look to Dawkin's concept of the meme, which even helps to
> explain why organisms sometimes behave in ways that seem to not benefit the
> individual at all.
> If you're not clued up on memes, here's a 15 min lecture from Dan Dennett
> which explains it beautifully:
> > "Avoid simple "you are wrong" statements; if you have a point to make,
> > back it up. Please also see the section labelled "Quoting/Citations"
> > for specific information on how you should cite your sources." - Ian- Hide quoted text -
On Jul 21, 12:25 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "... If atheism is all about mocking others, it's nothing more than a
> platform for bullying. And I don't think that's the 'spirit' they
> want to project, is it?..." - Pat
> In many cases, said spirit of bullying whether overt or covert IS not
> only what is projected but very often is the entire message itself.
> "Might Makes Right."
A very sad state of affairs. Atheism shouldn't be about elitism
based on supposed superior reasoning but simply about an opinion about
deity.
> > > > Firstly......I understand Dawkins' point perfectly........he believes that
> > > > there is such a thing as Secular spirituality.
> > > LOL! Yes, but why?! What does he mean?! You're not only missing the point,
> > > you're actively evading it!
> > > > And Secondly.......even though language changes no amount of calling a
> > > > Shrimp Jumbo will make a Giant Shrimp appear off the Louisiana Coast.
> > > That is a universe away from analogous. Or maybe not. If you're playing a
> > > word game too, then perhaps you do get Dawkins' point.
> > > > Secular Spirituality doesn't exist and never will exist.
> > > Prove it, basically.
> > > If atheists want to requisition the word "spiritual" for the own purpose,
> > > twist its meaning, and, at the same time, make a bit of a mockery of
> > > theists, then we will! You can't say that it, as a concept, doesn't exist,
> > > because evidently it does. We've decided it does. Let me put it another way.
> > Whoa. Let's reverse the roles, here. You say it exists, so the
> > burden of proof is on you. Demonstrate a secular spirit. Now, I'm
> > not putting this on you personally, but on atheists in general. If
> > all they want to do is use the term to mock, then it belies that, if
> > there IS a spirit of atheism, it's antithetical to spirtualism and
> > antithetical to decent ethics. If atheism is all about mocking
> > others, it's nothing more than a platform for bullying. And I don't
> > think that's the 'spirit' they want to project, is it?
> > > I happen to think that Christians who believe in evolution aren't
> > > Darwinists, even though they would claim they are. I think the two things
> > > are mutually exclusive. However, you don't see me saying Christian
> > > evolutionists don't exist. They do.
> > The Bible says nothing of HOW God created, only that He did.
> > Evolution could easily be the means to that end.
> > > > Just like there will never be a cold that is hot.........not even warm.
> > > Well, depends on what you're comparing it to, eh? :)
> > > > I truly believe that you don't know what I'm saying. No offense, but I
> > > > believe this is one time you've closed your mind and won't admit to the
> > > > truth.
> > > No offence taken, since you've not offered any. :)
> > > > I know that Dawkins believes that the awe and wonder that he felt during
> > > > the episode with his daughter had nothing to do with Spiritual
> > > > Spirituality. (See how stupid that term sounds?)
> > > Yes, which proves he's succeeded. The notion is of spirituality is silly
> > > enough to start with, now he's making the word sound dumb too. :)
> > And that's it in a nutshell. Dawkins is just using the term to
> > mock in a 'spirit' of anti-humanism. Mocking for mocking's sake.
> > It's just bitterness. I expect the result of this will be the
> > inevitable antidissecularspiritualism.
> > > > And because of his bias, he has to come up with a new term to define IN HIS
> > > > MIND what is occuring. He just can't bring himself to say that he had a
> > > > "Spiritual Experience". My God, what would happen to his standing in the
> > > > atheistic community.
> > > He did have a spiritual experience. A secular one. Get onside with the new
> > > lexicon, Pots.
> > It's just awe based on a personal understanding of his profound
> > ignorance of the world around him. Nothing spiritual about that.
> > > > But the fact is is that is what he had.
> > > What he saw was a natural event, which absolutely awed him. He could have
> > > called it something else, but that wouldn't have been funny, and it wouldn't
> > > have riled up the knuckle-draggers. :P
> > But the spirit of mocking makes him a knuckle-dragger of the worst
> > kind. If he's worth anything, he should attempt to be a paragon of
> > secular values rather than the first in line to religiously stone the
> > believers.
> > > Spirit stands alone. Material Stands alone. In the same manner as Up/Down,
> > > > In/Out, Big/Small, Concave/Convex. They are opposite ends of a Spectrum,
> > > > and to combine them into one in order to not embarrass oneself is the height
> > > > of egoism and arrogance.
> > > I follow your ontology to a point, Pottsie, but, as you know, but my cut off
> > > is the more speculative stuff. I don't see a need or place for "spirit" as
> > > you would define it. Nature sufficeth unto itself, as my beloved de Sade
> > > would say.
> You theists aren't very good at thinking outside the box. :)
> "Secular spirituality" reflects a paradigm that has long existed, but hasn't been commonly named. I would suggest, by your flapping, that it's the perfect name. Whilst I don't think there's any worthwhile evidence for the existence of "spirit" as you might like, secular spirituality is a handy collective term for some perfectly secular notions about human behaviour, emotions, and creativity.
> (Pottsie)
> Yeah, it's a handy term. One that needs to be "invented" simply because it doesn't the IDEA doesn't fly. In this case it is an Oxymoron.......and even though Jumbo Shrimp are named such. They AREN'T big. The same thing holds true here. Just because one calls Spirituality "secular" doesn't mean it is.
> (Ian)
> As for quoting the dictionary, Pottsie, well that's rather disappointing. Dawkins is, after all, a Fellow of the Royal Society for Literature. He's also one of the most noted authors for his use of concise and accurate language. In other words, I think he has the edge on you (no offence).
> (Pottsie)
> ...
> Personally, I think they ought to revoke his "license to practice". In this instance he would get "nailed to the cross" ;) If he got into a debate with anyone who had no ax to grind. The term is simply laughable.
> (Ian)
> Language evolves, and "secular spiritiuality", in our increasingly non-religious world, is absolutely appropriate for the current mood.
> (Pottsie)
> 1. Language evolves......but Ducks don't turn into cows.
> 2. Our world may or may not be increasingly non-religious. My bet is that it is about the same as it has always been. And.....if you really think about it, if it were increasingly non-religious, Dawkins et al wouldn't be fighting it......they'd be ignoring it. (Aside from that we have the matter that "secular spirituality" is not talking about religion.....it addresses Spirituality, something that the atheists conveniently ignore, attacking instead the beliefs of the extreme right. I wonder why I never hear any criticism from them regarding Borg, Spong, Tillich, Niebuhr etc.
> (Ian)
> It also, as a funny coincidence, highlights the increasing irrelevance of religious thought to people's lives. Be it for guidance, understanding where we came from, support, or marking the events of our lives, our notions of spirituality are forever changed.
> (Pottsie)
> IMHO, it highlights nothing but ignorance of the definition of the two words.
> (Ian)
> Dawkins is right on the pulse of this, your ideas on spirituality are increasingly out-moded. Whilst dictionaries can easily be updated to reflect the zeitgeist, are you too closed-minded?
> (Pottsie)
> 1. The definitions given for Secular and Spirituality have nothing to do with the content of the thought. They have to do with the relationship that OTHER words have to the two sides of the Universe. The Spirit and The Material.
> 2. I don't believe that seeing the two sides of Reality Spirit and Matter will ever become outdated. I assume that you mean that people will come to see that the Spirit does not exist. If that is the case, they won't see that things like "imagination", "beauty", "truth", or "knowledge" exist........because these are "things of the Spirit"
> You simply can't see that Dawkins et al. are fighting "Big Daddy in the Sky"........an idea that probably WILL die out. I'd get off my soap box on this if atheists would simply OPEN THEIR MINDS and realize that every Effect has a Cause. They can fight all they want about a particular idea of the Cause........but to say that It doesn't exist is simply ludicrous.........whether they are a Fellow at the Royal Society for Literature or the Janitor a Royal Albert Hall.
> Namaste
> Pottsie
> "You can't smell the roses while holding your nose!" - Pottsie
> "... If atheism is all about mocking others, it's nothing more than a > platform for bullying. And I don't think that's the 'spirit' they > want to project, is it?..." - Pat
> In many cases, said spirit of bullying whether overt or covert IS not > only what is projected but very often is the entire message itself. > "Might Makes Right."
> On Jul 20, 11:31 am, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On 20 Jul, 18:58, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Firstly......I understand Dawkins' point perfectly........he believes > that > > > > there is such a thing as Secular spirituality.
> > > LOL! Yes, but why?! What does he mean?! You're not only missing the > point, > > > you're actively evading it!
> > > > And Secondly.......even though language changes no amount of calling > a > > > > Shrimp Jumbo will make a Giant Shrimp appear off the Louisiana Coast.
> > > That is a universe away from analogous. Or maybe not. If you're playing > a > > > word game too, then perhaps you do get Dawkins' point.
> > > > Secular Spirituality doesn't exist and never will exist.
> > > Prove it, basically.
> > > If atheists want to requisition the word "spiritual" for the own > purpose, > > > twist its meaning, and, at the same time, make a bit of a mockery of > > > theists, then we will! You can't say that it, as a concept, doesn't > exist, > > > because evidently it does. We've decided it does. Let me put it another > way.
> > Whoa. Let's reverse the roles, here. You say it exists, so the > > burden of proof is on you. Demonstrate a secular spirit. Now, I'm > > not putting this on you personally, but on atheists in general. If > > all they want to do is use the term to mock, then it belies that, if > > there IS a spirit of atheism, it's antithetical to spirtualism and > > antithetical to decent ethics. If atheism is all about mocking > > others, it's nothing more than a platform for bullying. And I don't > > think that's the 'spirit' they want to project, is it?
> > > I happen to think that Christians who believe in evolution aren't > > > Darwinists, even though they would claim they are. I think the two > things > > > are mutually exclusive. However, you don't see me saying Christian > > > evolutionists don't exist. They do.
> > The Bible says nothing of HOW God created, only that He did. > > Evolution could easily be the means to that end.
> > > > Just like there will never be a cold that is hot.........not even > warm.
> > > Well, depends on what you're comparing it to, eh? :)
> > > > I truly believe that you don't know what I'm saying. No offense, but > I > > > > believe this is one time you've closed your mind and won't admit to > the > > > > truth.
> > > No offence taken, since you've not offered any. :)
> > > > I know that Dawkins believes that the awe and wonder that he felt > during > > > > the episode with his daughter had nothing to do with Spiritual > > > > Spirituality. (See how stupid that term sounds?)
> > > Yes, which proves he's succeeded. The notion is of spirituality is > silly > > > enough to start with, now he's making the word sound dumb too. :)
> > And that's it in a nutshell. Dawkins is just using the term to > > mock in a 'spirit' of anti-humanism. Mocking for mocking's sake. > > It's just bitterness. I expect the result of this will be the > > inevitable antidissecularspiritualism.
> > > > And because of his bias, he has to come up with a new term to define > IN HIS > > > > MIND what is occuring. He just can't bring himself to say that he > had a > > > > "Spiritual Experience". My God, what would happen to his standing in > the > > > > atheistic community.
> > > He did have a spiritual experience. A secular one. Get onside with the > new > > > lexicon, Pots.
> > It's just awe based on a personal understanding of his profound > > ignorance of the world around him. Nothing spiritual about that.
> > > > But the fact is is that is what he had.
> > > What he saw was a natural event, which absolutely awed him. He could > have > > > called it something else, but that wouldn't have been funny, and it > wouldn't > > > have riled up the knuckle-draggers. :P
> > But the spirit of mocking makes him a knuckle-dragger of the worst > > kind. If he's worth anything, he should attempt to be a paragon of > > secular values rather than the first in line to religiously stone the > > believers.
> > > Spirit stands alone. Material Stands alone. In the same manner as > Up/Down,
> > > > In/Out, Big/Small, Concave/Convex. They are opposite ends of a > Spectrum, > > > > and to combine them into one in order to not embarrass oneself is the > height > > > > of egoism and arrogance.
> > > I follow your ontology to a point, Pottsie, but, as you know, but my > cut off > > > is the more speculative stuff. I don't see a need or place for "spirit" > as > > > you would define it. Nature sufficeth unto itself, as my beloved de > Sade > > > would say.
Pottsie, it's a bit rich to call atheists, even Dawkins, arrogant when you think you have an answer to the Ultimate Cause. In fact, Dawkins is pretty clear in his position on First Cause. He says he has no idea, I don't even think he cares a great deal. I know I don't care very much. Sure, it's worth some idle speculation, but since no-one will ever actually know what First Cause was, most atheists prefer to focus on what is knowable.
To bring this back to Bertrand Russell, if God, whatever that might be, was First Cause, what caused God? It seems you aren't solving any problems, only creating new ones.
> OK......we agree. There is a Cause for every Effect.
> I am not talking of final cause or efficient cause.
> I am talking of Ultimate Cause.
> The Universe is an Effect. It is also the Ultimate......The Universe is > EVERYTHING that exists. The Ultimate.
> When one speaks of the Cause of the Universe which is Ultimate, he is, or > should be, speaking of Ultimate Cause, not 'efficient' or 'final' cause.
> This Ultimate Cause goes by a number of different names.
> If you are a scientist.......you speak in terms of Principle, and look for > the Ultimate Cause when you seek to find the answer to the question "What > caused the Big Bang?" You are looking for a Law.....a Principle
> If you are a philosopher .......you call It Reality or Truth or Being or > Existence
> If you are religious......You call it God.
> It is the same thing. "That which is the Cause of what Is, yet is > Causeless Itself" "The Uncreated" 'Brahman'
> Effect = Matter = Form = That which is created = Creation
> Cause = Spirit = Law/Principle = That which creates = Creator
> You can't have one without the other.
> Now, I don't give a whit about what what other people BELIEVE about the > Cause.......whether It is an anthropomorphic being, a life force, or energy.
> What is important to me is
> 1. There is a 1st Cause.
> 2. My relationship to it.
> Now, Dawkins et al would have you believe that the Universe has no cause. > I don't believe they believe that for one minute.
> That is what I meant when I said:
> "I'd get off my soap box on this if atheists would > simply OPEN THEIR MINDS and realize that every Effect has a Cause. > They can fight all they want about a particular idea of the > Cause........but to say that It doesn't exist is simply ludicrous."
> What they REALLY mean is that they don't believe in other people's idea of > Ultimate Cause. Well, I don't either.
> I don't believe that God is a very large man sitting up in the clouds > getting ready to send me to hell for disobeying his commandments.
> That DOESN'T mean that God
> 1. Doesn't exist. > 2. Doesn't respond to me > 3. Doesn't have requirements (ie Laws/Commandments etc)
> Dawkins et al would have you believe that they are fighting the good fight > against God. Well, they are not. They are fighting the fight against > Religious Fundamentalism........and I would join them, if they would simply > get honest and say:
> " There is an Ultimate Cause which some choose to call God. Some terrible > things are done because of the human misunderstandings of the Nature of this > Cause, and we will fight them whereever we find them. Misunderstandings > such as
> 1. The Bible, Koran, or any other Wisdom Book is the inerrant word of God. > 2. A particular individual is the sole incarnation of this deity. > 3. This deity wills that a particular group is to enforce his laws > 4. Man cannot understand God (another way of saying that is that Science > is invalid) > 5. One person(s) is the spokesperson for Truth"
> Things like that. But they don't.........instead Dawkins et al rail > against God and say that He/She/It doesn't exist, and laugh in their smug > arrogance that they have a Lock on Truth. NO ONE has a lock on truth. When > they believe that, they have violated #5.
> The current bruhaha between the Militant Atheists and the fundamentalists > has been brought about because of the idiotic idea that the Creation Story > in the Bible is literally true. And Dawkins et al are right to oppose such > lunacy.
> HOWEVER........it pisses me off to no end that they lump all Theists in > with the Creationists.
> And because they are soooooooo militant, they refuse to acknowledge that > there is an intelligence to the Cause of the intelligent Effect.
> They come up with all sorts of tricks, like inventing impossibilities like > "Secular Spirituality", to "prove" that they are right.
> Arrogance........pure arrogance.
> Rather than saying existence doesnt' exist.......they should be > concentrating on the NATURE of that Existence.
> (If you have a problem with that last sentence, and are tempted to > retort...."Atheists don't say that".........ask yourself if the problem > doesn't lie in thinking of God as an Anthropomorphic Being.)
> Pottsie asks:"Well, rather than what Bertrand Russell thinks, tell me, > do you believe that every effect has a cause. Can you have one > without the other?" > Pottsie, I typed out that long article because it says whatever I > believe, in a clearer language which I cannot hope to match. Since you > asked, yes; I believe every effect has a cause but whereas every > effect has an 'efficient' cause, not all effects have a 'final' cause. > Namaste > Viswanathan.India.
> *"You can't smell the roses while holding your nose!" - Pottsie > *
> > If atheists want to requisition the word "spiritual" for the own purpose, > > twist its meaning, and, at the same time, make a bit of a mockery of > > theists, then we will! You can't say that it, as a concept, doesn't > exist, > > because evidently it does. We've decided it does. Let me put it another > way.
> Whoa. Let's reverse the roles, here. You say it exists, so the > burden of proof is on you. Demonstrate a secular spirit. Now, I'm > not putting this on you personally, but on atheists in general.
Dawkins already did. He described an experience and named it. Move on already!
> If > all they want to do is use the term to mock, then it belies that, if > there IS a spirit of atheism, it's antithetical to spirtualism and > antithetical to decent ethics. If atheism is all about mocking > others, it's nothing more than a platform for bullying. And I don't > think that's the 'spirit' they want to project, is it?
Mockery is not the entire point, is it? Stop with the "nothing more than" nonsense, you're ignoring 50% of the idea. Dawkins wanted a collective term to described what others might call a religious experience, or a moment of awe before God's creation, the kind of edifying moment that theists enjoy so much. I think his choice of term was a fantastic idea. Yes, it's tongue-in-cheek (it's not stronger than that), but it's absolutely perfect. You don't agree, I get that, but at least stop building that strawman.
> > He did have a spiritual experience. A secular one. Get onside with the > new > > lexicon, Pots.
> It's just awe based on a personal understanding of his profound > ignorance of the world around him. Nothing spiritual about that.
It was spiritual. You're stuck in an intellectual rut, Pat. :) Embrace the new paradigm!
He was looking at Halley's Comet by the way, I'm not sure ignorance came into it.
> > What he saw was a natural event, which absolutely awed him. He could have > > called it something else, but that wouldn't have been funny, and it > wouldn't > > have riled up the knuckle-draggers. :P
> But the spirit of mocking makes him a knuckle-dragger of the worst > kind. If he's worth anything, he should attempt to be a paragon of > secular values rather than the first in line to religiously stone the > believers.
We need people like Dawkins; we have been far too polite about religion for far too long. I happen to value cultural rabble-rousers and think they play a very important intellectual role. No idea should be too precious to mock and you're in bloody scary territory if you disagree.
> > > If atheists want to requisition the word "spiritual" for the own purpose,
> > > twist its meaning, and, at the same time, make a bit of a mockery of
> > > theists, then we will! You can't say that it, as a concept, doesn't
> > exist,
> > > because evidently it does. We've decided it does. Let me put it another
> > way.
> > Whoa. Let's reverse the roles, here. You say it exists, so the
> > burden of proof is on you. Demonstrate a secular spirit. Now, I'm
> > not putting this on you personally, but on atheists in general.
> Dawkins already did. He described an experience and named it. Move on
> already!
> > If
> > all they want to do is use the term to mock, then it belies that, if
> > there IS a spirit of atheism, it's antithetical to spirtualism and
> > antithetical to decent ethics. If atheism is all about mocking
> > others, it's nothing more than a platform for bullying. And I don't
> > think that's the 'spirit' they want to project, is it?
> Mockery is not the entire point, is it? Stop with the "nothing more than"
> nonsense, you're ignoring 50% of the idea. Dawkins wanted a collective term
> to described what others might call a religious experience, or a moment of
> awe before God's creation, the kind of edifying moment that theists enjoy so
> much. I think his choice of term was a fantastic idea. Yes, it's
> tongue-in-cheek (it's not stronger than that), but it's absolutely perfect.
> You don't agree, I get that, but at least stop building that strawman.
We already have a word. You used it; it's called 'awe'.
> > > He did have a spiritual experience. A secular one. Get onside with the
> > new
> > > lexicon, Pots.
> > It's just awe based on a personal understanding of his profound
> > ignorance of the world around him. Nothing spiritual about that.
> It was spiritual. You're stuck in an intellectual rut, Pat. :) Embrace the
> new paradigm!
It was simple awe.
> He was looking at Halley's Comet by the way, I'm not sure ignorance came
> into it.
> > > What he saw was a natural event, which absolutely awed him. He could have
> > > called it something else, but that wouldn't have been funny, and it
> > wouldn't
> > > have riled up the knuckle-draggers. :P
> > But the spirit of mocking makes him a knuckle-dragger of the worst
> > kind. If he's worth anything, he should attempt to be a paragon of
> > secular values rather than the first in line to religiously stone the
> > believers.
> We need people like Dawkins; we have been far too polite about religion for
> far too long. I happen to value cultural rabble-rousers and think they play
> a very important intellectual role. No idea should be too precious to mock
> and you're in bloody scary territory if you disagree.
> Ian
LOL!! You need people like Dawkins. He makes my stomach turn.
I agree that everything is fair game for comedy but not for
intellectual elitism based on a supposed superior opinion. There's a
difference and Dawkins is the name that atheists turn to as a paragon
of atheism, it seems. His mockery for mockery's sake I only hold
against him, though. I see the comedy, for sure, but, ultimately, the
joke's on him. I'll let it go now. ;-)
> > I happen to think that Christians who believe in evolution aren't > > Darwinists, even though they would claim they are. I think the two things > > are mutually exclusive. However, you don't see me saying Christian > > evolutionists don't exist. They do.
> The Bible says nothing of HOW God created, only that He did. > Evolution could easily be the means to that end.
But you're still stuck with a problem aren't you? By saying that God created evolution, you solve absolutely nothing. Darwinism demonstrates how complexity arises from simplicity over millions of years. You think God created evolution, he was the so-called blind watchmaker, so surely such a thing must be hugely complex? More complex than even we are. So what created God?
You have accepted the science for Darwinism, but then absolutely ignored the overriding principles of it to support your notion of the God myth.
