The Great Compromise

???Sin is sick and perverted. Changes in a genome is a fact. Evolution as a possibility for origins is stupid. God is perfect.I am not following your logic. Would you like to take another run at it? and ufo's.

Very well. To summarise. You wrote: However, you do seem to accept that God did make death and suffering.It seems that, in your book, this is not "far worse than sick and perverted", but it would be "far worse than sick and perverted" if it was "a mechanism to bring about life".I am not sure how you came to this conclusion.

When did I accept that? I don't accept that, I accept that man invited in sin, and ran away from God. As it says in the bible. It depends on what you think the purpose of life is. I think it is to mature into a higher spiritual consciousness and enjoy everlasting attainments to the pleasure of our Heavenly Father. You seem to think that life evolved from non-life in from purely material and physical inevitabilities. Sin is sick and perverted, in fact that is its nature. What I am saying is that Theistic Evolution is stupid. No God no where, unless sick and perverted(sinful) would use evolution as a mechanism to bring about life and higher taxa. Stop putting letters in my non-physical forum mouth.

Hi Highestevolvedwhiteguy. I've read the thread and see an area where I may be able to help your PR here at EvC. Item 10 of Forum Guidelines requires all members to "Always treat other members with respect." I see you refer to the ToE as stupid. You need to be aware that in doing so you are implying that the vast majority of members of EvC, most of who are very intelligent people are stupid.. Neither me or thee thinks the ToE is the correct ideology. However I suggest that when you compose your messages you be more careful of the words you use so as to show more respect to members whose ideology is taught in most of the prestigious universities etc.ABE: Some gentler and kinder words could be false, erroneous, incorrect, etc.We Biblical creationists here at EvC are working to improve our behavior in order to have the respect of the membership. This can be done without compromising our position in the issues debated. This is also the best way we can represent our God and Lord Jesus, by showing kindness in our conduct. Thanks. Edited by AdminBuzsaw, : No reason given.

---

For ideological balance on the EvC admin team as a Biblical creationist.

quote:

---

Man imposed his will on creation and it was found wanting. This is the reality.

---

Says who?

quote:

---

God didn't make death.

---

Says who?

Well, don't you accept:(a) God as Creator(b) death and suffering as existing? But you still haven't explained how you came to this conclusion. Why is it OK for God to permit suffering and death, as he evidently does; but wrong for him to permit it if this results in "higher taxa"?It doesn't make more sense to me than saying: "It's OK to let your dog foul your neighbor's lawn --- unless this provides the fertiliser which causes a beautiful flower to grow, in which case it's sick and wrong."Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

**deletedEdited by Highestevolvedwhiteguy, : No reason given.

**deleted, gots to stop doing that. Edited by Highestevolvedwhiteguy, : No reason given.

Yes and yes. This does not mean death and suffering were created. They are a byproduct of sin, rebellion and an ambition to become like God.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/death.asp Why do you keep bringing up evolution? It doesn't matter that allele might have a mutation or two in a population. Death is only necessary for the ToE to work in a population so the mutated organisms can take over the population. Death doesn't result in higher taxa per-se, rather life results in higher taxa, if you want to believe that yarn. So your entire misunderstanding of my position is completely irrelevant and sustained only by your desire to argue with me.

---

The world embarrasses me, and I cannot dream that this watch exists and has no watchmaker.
Voltaire (1694-1778)

Please do not lie to me about my motivations.I asked you questions about evolution and higher taxa because you wrote: I asked you to justify that statement, I'll ask you again, and when you cease to be suspended perhaps you will be good enough to favor me with a freakin' answer. Thanking you kindly.

You wrote:

quote:

---

Why is it OK for God to permit suffering and death, as he evidently does; but wrong for him to permit it if this results in "higher taxa"?

---

Suffering can be alleviated IMO. What is the cause of suffering? I do not suffer. Death seems to be the issue. IMO, it is the result of sin, is this ok? By my standards, it isn't. But how would this bring about life and higher taxa if there was no death? I simply said no god would use evolution to bring about life and higher forms thereof. Does evolution involve death? Yes. It also implies simplicity and naturalistic materialism, of which I do not limit myself to in the universal scope. Can I justify this claim? No. Did you know that I cannot substantiate this claim? Yes. Is the reason you asked: to understand my position? Yes, you love me and care what I have to say. Thank you Dr. Adequate, I love you too.Edited by Ihategod, : No reason given.

Well, I had a fair guess that you couldn't substantiate your claim --- you are, after all, a creationist --- but I wanted you to have an opportunity to try.If you yourself don't believe that you can substatiate it, then I wonder why you introduced a claim that you cannot substantiate into the discussion in the first place. You sounded awfully definite about it at the time.