Perhaps
is
>that Glenn, as a TE/EC, has been taken "captive through [a] hollow and
>deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic
>principles of this world rather than on Christ" (Col 2:8), namely scientific
>materialism-naturalism.
>
>The result is that TE/ECs like Glenn are trying unsuccessfully "to serve
>two masters" (Mat 6:24), namely Christian theism and scientific
>materialism-naturalism. This generates an inner conflict which can only be
>resolved by one `master' winning (Mt 6:25). In most cases it seems to be
>naturalism:
>
>"I do not think that the mind can serve two masters, and I am confident
>that whenever the attempt is made, naturalism in the end will be the true
>master and theism will have to abide by its dictates." (Johnson P.E.,
>"Darwin on Trial", 1993, p169)
>
>Glenn's ad hominem attacks on creationists, if my analysis above is correct,
>is merely his attempt to resolve his inner conflict, by `shooting the
>messenger'.
>
>As long as Glenn keeps making sub-Christian ad hominems of his
>creationist Christian brothers, then I will take that as further
confirmation
>of my explanation.
>
>>>GM>That is exactly what I think. It has always struck me as odd that casino
>>>>owners use chance to make millions. They design their machines to win more
>>>>than they lose.
>
>>SJ>I presume Glenn means lose more than they win!
>
>GM>As Art already pointed out, the casinos rig their machines to win more
than
>>they lose.
>
>I respectfully disagree with Art. While in some gambling games the casino
staff
>actually play against the gamblers, and so could then be said to "win", in
the
>case of gambling *machines* only the gambler play, so only they actually
"win" or
>"lose". Therefore I presumed that what Glenn really meant was that the
"casino
>owners design their machines" so that the *gambler* "lose more than they
win".
A wonderful doublespeak of which George Orwell would be proud!
I know that in Australian horse-
>racing if a bookmaker sets his odds so he makes a profit that is OK, but if
>he fixes the race so that his horse wins, then he would go to gaol. I would
>assume the same rules apply to casinos here.
>
>But as I admitted, I don't know much about casinos, so if Glenn and Art
>know for sure that in the USA the casino owners do 1. and not 2., then I
>will chalk it up as one of the differences between our two countries!
I will assure you that casino's the world over fix their machines so that
the odds are in their favor. Fixing horse races is not the same thing.
>GM>'Despite the attempts by liberal theology to disguise the point, the fact
>>is that no biblically derived religion can really be compromised with the
>>fundamental assertion of Darwinian theory. Chance and design are
>>antithetical concepts.' Henry M. Morris, "The Compromise Road," Impact,
>>177, March, 1988, p. i,ii
>
>First, Glenn fails to acknowledge that these words in their entirety
>were a quote from Denton:
>
>"Despite the attempts by liberal theology to disguise the point, the fact is
>that no biblically derived religion can really be compromised with the
>fundamental assertion of Darwinian theory. Chance and design are antithetical
>concepts. [3]
>...
>[3] Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, (London: Burnett Books,
>Ltd., 1985), p. 66."
>(http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-177.htm)
>
>Now Denton is not even a Christian, so it is unlikely to bear the
>interpretation that Glenn wants to put on it, namely that "...Christians say
>God can't master chance; they say he can't use chance...".
You are correct that the words are from Denton--Morris quoted them. You are
incorrect that Denton is not a christian. That is apparently something
that was spread about Denton. I quote Denton from an Australian tape.
"I tend to think that perhaps the evidence suggests a transcendant sort of
Hebraic God in the Judeo Christian tradition. An external creator made the
world and gave it its order, its pattern, its ends." Michael Denton, The
Biological Evidence of Creation, Keziah Productions, 1998.
This is not the statement of an atheist.
>As the Christian theologian R.C. Sproul points out, the very *existence* of
>true chance is incompatible with the concept of a sovereign God:
This proves my contention that creationists (and Sproul is a creationist)
say that God cannot master chance. Note what Sproul says--if chance rules,
God cannot. That means that God is not as powerful as chance. Thank you
for proving my point Stephen.
>
>"As long as chance rules," Arthur Koestler has written, "God is an
>anachronism." (Koestler A., "Darkness at Noon", Bantam: New York,
>1941, p149) Koestler's dictum is a sound conclusion...to a point. It is true
>that if chance rules, God cannot. We can go further than Koestler. It is not
>necessary for chance to rule in order to supplant God. Indeed chance
>requires little authority at all if it is to depose God; all it needs to
do the job
>is to exist. The mere existence of chance is enough to rip God from his
>cosmic throne. Chance does not need to rule; it does not need to be
>sovereign. If it exists as a mere impotent, humble servant, it leaves God
not
>only out of date, but out of a job. If chance exists in its frailest
possible
>form, God is finished. Nay, he could not be finished because that would
>assume he once was. To finish something implies that it at best was once
>active or existing. If chance exists in any size, shape, or form, God cannot
>exist. The two are mutually exclusive. If chance existed, it would destroy
>God's sovereignty. If God is not sovereign, he is not God. If he is not God,
>he simply is not. If chance is, God is not. If God is, chance is not. The
two
>cannot coexist by reason of the impossibility of the contrary." (Sproul
R.C.,
>"Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology",
>1994, p3).
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution