Joined: Sep. 2009
|...God too has characteristics that you might not expect. Among them is the quality, surprising to find in the transcendent source of all existence, of being rather shy...|
Why should this quality (assuming your god exists and actually does have it) be surprising? Why would any characteristic in a god be surprising?
|This may explain a lot of things. For example, why so much of the Bible gives a superficial impression of simplicity, even primitiveness or dry legalism. |
Why, because all shy people are primitive and superficial? Are they all passive females too? Any other erroneous generalizations you'd like to imply?
|Impatient readers assume that's all there is to it, never realizing what lies beneath the surface but that can only be uncovered by subtle probing of hints and nuances, hidden and delicate pointers that give way suddenly, unexpectedly on limitless vistas of wisdom from another world.|
You mean like this?
|It may explain too why the historical redemption that Jews and Christians wait for is so long in coming. A situation where all of mankind turns its eyes to you, fully revealed, is not a prospect that a shy deity would necessarily want to see rushed to fruition.|
Wait...what? I thought Christians had received their redemption. Isn't that the whole point of Christianity vs Judaism?
|It may, finally, explain why the evidence of nature's design is elusive to lots of people. |
Why, because shy people design things that don't look designed? Or is it that shy people's designs are more subtle - and thus creative - which then begs the question of what you implied earlier about shy people being primitive and superficial. Can you make up your mind?
|Often we wonder why Darwinists can never seem to get it. |
Clearly because we don't carry the baggage of your presupposed generalizations about shy and in-your-face people, to say nothing of lacking any expectations about the characteristics that gods and nature must have.
|They champ and cry and try to shout us down with taunts that we are "creationists." They can never tire of boisterously waving Judge Jones in our face.|
Oh please...blame that fiasco on yourselves. It's not our fault you all imploded and looked inane. Further it isn't our fault that none of your representatives brought any actual evidence for this "obvious" design you keep yammering about. We keeping waving Judge Jones in your face to remind you of those facts.
|The signature in the cell, in the genetic code, in protein synthesis, in what Behe calls irreducibly complex features of biology, in the Cambrian explosion and the rest of the fossil record, in cosmology, in individual types of creatures -- from butterfly metamorphosis to the history of whale evolution -- whatever piece of the argument for intelligent design that you want to think of, it is all very lightly imprinted. The "signature" is in a sense misnamed because you can't make out the name of the signer. It takes patience and study to see any of this...|
Uh huh...see Kitzmiller vs Dover (see what I did there). You can make this claim all you want, but when push comes to shove, you guys have no way to substantiate the claim.
|By no means does nature hit you over the head and shout "I am designed! There is a designer! And the designer's name is the LORD!"|
There in lies your problem then, huh?
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo
The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis