(August 24, 2010 at 9:42 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: [This post is addressed to Godschild]

I'm beating a dead horse here but I can't resist trying to reason.

OK, so you do believe in an absolute standard of morality. Absolute means absolute, that it applies to everyone. You then say that it can't be used to evaluate the morality of your god. So which is it? You can't proclaim an absolute standard of morality and then say it doesn't apply to certain beings or even one being. That's two standards of morality that Yahweh establishes "one for me and different for thee".

Yahweh, by Christian definition, is good. Therefore ANYTHING that he does is always good, even things that in any other circumstances, would ordinarily be regarded as wrong. Or so I've been told. Yahweh works in mysterious ways donchaknow?

(August 24, 2010 at 11:06 am)Entropist Wrote: Yahweh, by Christian definition, is good. Therefore ANYTHING that he does is always good, even things that in any other circumstances, would ordinarily be regarded as wrong. Or so I've been told. Yahweh works in mysterious ways donchaknow?

Yes, I'm familiar. This is where their special pleading is justified by circular logic.

And what's scary is that this is as close to reason as Christianity comes.

(August 23, 2010 at 11:28 pm)Godschild Wrote: Darwin had no idea of the complexity of eyesight. Ta Da.

Since 1802, the evolution of a structure as complex as the projecting eye by natural selection has been said to be difficult to explain.[4] Charles Darwin himself wrote, in his Origin of Species, that the evolution of the eye by natural selection at first glance seemed "absurd in the highest possible degree". However, he went on to explain that despite the difficulty in imagining it, it was perfectly feasible:

...if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.[5]

He suggested a gradation from "an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism" to "a moderately high stage of perfection", giving examples of extant intermediate grades of evolution.[5]

Darwin's suggestions were soon shown to be correct, and current research is investigating the genetic mechanisms responsible for eye development and evolution


Darwin was an accomplished biologist who absolutley knew of the complexity of the eye.

TA DA.

full article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye