Faith vs. Fact (Creation vs. Evolution)

[John T 744]

If you look at the news you will see that people put religion way up there. They Live by it and they will die for it. 9-11 for example.

Why do people have blind faith?? My Nephew who is very intelligent and somewhat religious attends Rutgers University. He went to an organize debate titled EVOLUTION v. CREATION. Evolution is more or less stating that we came from a cell and went from there. Creation is that God put us here(Adam and Eve) and we came from there.

The debate in a nut shell went like this....All the facts that the Evolution side put on the table the Creation side tried to tear it apart but the Creation side really couldn't put up any facts for themselves since there side is built on faith and hearsay(Bible which is past down thru men/women)

So I ask why do people put faith ahead of fact? Is it a character flaw that we as humans have?? Is it the guilt that is bread in us that if we don't believe in God we are terrible people and we will go staight to.......

In the shortest words possible since most of us can write a book about this ---Why do you think Faith does thru-out the Planet beat Fact most of the time when it comes to Religion???

[Celeste 341]

The Bible is no more heresay than reading these posts. The books in the Bible were written by specific authors and none require any more proof than a history book that you pick up off the shelf. I personally don't feel there is any such thing as "blind faith". One has either found their faith and lives by and through it or they are just going through the motions. If you truly live your life as God guides you, there are no questions. Only when you have truly experienced deliverence and wholly given your body, mind and soul to God can you see that faith is not blind. It is a gift.

[John T 744]

The beauty of science is that alot of it can be proven. Example is having that machine on Mars Right now. Religion can not be proven that is factual. This is where the problem will always be and the reason why Religon can always be debated where 2+2 will always equal 4 and thats not debated. Unless of course if someone puts a spin on the 2 grapes + 2 apples etc etc.

People that except religion fully have there reasons and I'm sure there Honorable ones. I'll never debate that but I will always debate the fact issue mainly because if one religion is the RIGHT one then there has to be a ton of them that are flat out wrong yet none of them can prove to anybody that there's is that RIGHT one.

Plain and simple/Cut and dry....These are the Facts

[Dale 16]

Paul,

I agree with shorter posts...I still find this interesting and hope no one is becoming offended.

The quotes you use "I don't believe in science" and "circumstantial evidence was not a valid method to prove things by"...are not contained in my post...THAT takes things out of context.

If God appeared to me. I would have to accept it as true.

Of course I could prove my past posts were written by me without resorting to circumstantial evidence.

" I can't say that religion by itself has proven the existence of it (a creator) because belief is different for everyone".....

You seamlessly changed the focus from one of "proof"..to "belief"..and then, as I suggested in my past post, leave the burden of proof in the hands of someone with a different view..this makes little sense..

" I have offered many things in my previous posts as evidence"

Feelings and personal interpretations of personal experiences don't constitute even circumstantial evidence..they can be "real" to an individual and have profound life changing effects but don't by themselves constitute factual statement...and they don't need to ,to be a positive force in life...to reiterate a previous point.

"if we have a "null start" how can evolution have an edge?" ..you seemed to think that constituted convoluted reasoning... my fault for not being more clear..by a "null start" I meant if there were two opposing views and both started from scratch in making their case and only allowed facts on the table..no feelings..no.. some one say it long ago's... I think that evolution would have an edge.

"when you argue FOR evolution"...

AGAIN..I am not making a case for evolution... in my very last post I stated."I'll agree that science hasn't found all the answers to conclusively prove evolution"...did you miss that part?

Your analogy of Hitler is what I'm talking about...at first there was reluctance for countries to get involved, I believe because it would have meant having to change their actions and what they became comfortable with believeing...i.e. if we ignore the facts we won't have to accept we must do something... it was accepting the facts and the truth that gave the strenght to do what was right....the bad guys were the ones who refused to accept reality and held on to faith in Hilters dream.

Do I have an alternative to evolution/creation? No..like I stated I think there are holes in both..but when someone suggests the the case IS settled..all learning stops.

[Paul B. 523]

Dale,

The quotes you use "I don't believe in science" and "circumstantial evidence was not a valid method to prove things by"...are not contained in my post...THAT takes things out of context.

You are correct and I didn't intend on making it look like a quote from you but to highlight the two statements. I can see they didn't come out that way.

But you did post: "You claim the shortcomings of science .....but use it as proof when it suits you ....i.e. useing the law of thermal dynamics...yet seem to claim that it is me useing circumstantial evidence to state my view...You're not?? fill me in please!"

This should make my statement more accurate:

I never said I don't believe in science and I never said that circumstantial evidence was not a valid method to prove things by. On the contrary, you have somehow twisted things out of context. I believe in science, but science has failed and in many cases can be circumstantially proven to be in error, especially when it comes to evolution. And when I say evolution, I don't mean minute changes or man's growth from an embrio to an old man but the evolving of a single cell to a thinking, capable of talking human being.

[Paul B. 523]

" I can't say that religion by itself has proven the existence of it (a creator) because belief is different for everyone".....

You seamlessly changed the focus from one of "proof"..to "belief"..and then, as I suggested in my past post, leave the burden of proof in the hands of someone with a different view..this makes little sense..

Let me see if I can explain what I meant:

Proof is only proof if someone is willing to believe it.

The fact that it's true or not has nothing to do with a person believing it.

Can I prove that man has landed on the moon?

No, personally I can't. But I can argue it.

Are there people that believe that man has not stepped on the moon?

Yes there a lot of them. Check around ... there are probably a few on this BB.

Is there proof?

I believe there are moon rocks, but the people that choose not to believe, will have their own explanation.

How can I argue for it's truth? Thru circumstantial evidence.

[Dale 16]

Hi Paul,

I guess I left my point about useing science when it suits your needs kinda muddy..but people who believe in creationism sometimes use the second law of thermodynamics to imply evolution can't be true.. Ilya Prigogine won the noble prize in 1977 for his work in thermodynamics of nonequilibrium systems. He wrote how nonequilibrium thermodynimics solves the puzzle of how life can originate and increase its state of order in spite of entropy and the Second Law of thermodynamics. The Second Law states that in a closed system, "useful" energy that can do work gradually becomes converted over time into energy that is unavailable for use..entropy, or an increase in disorder. You could interpret this to mean that complex living systems could not have evolved from simpler forms because overall, things run down rather than build up. But living things are open systems and are far from a state of equilibrium. They aquire energy from the sun and decrease entropy and even increase their order and complexity without violating the Second Law. (Prigogine, 1972 "Thermodynamics of Evolution")

.."The fact that its true or not has nothing to do a person believing it."...thats my point.

The.."I don't believe in science"..and " circumstantial evidence was not a valid method to prove things by" must simply be a misunderstanding of who posted what..I just pointed them out because you put quotes around them and I thought you meant that I posted them.. ..if I didn't say them and you didn't say them, who did?

As stated, I don't place myself in the "evolution only" group.

I agree with you about science being at a loss so far in explaining what consciousness is..I mentioned this before.

[Paul B. 523]

Dale,

Before I argue Prigogene and his theory as it relates to evolution, can you respond to my earlier statement below, as I will now admit as evidence. For the sake of avoiding a side argument/discussion, I will change the labeling from Fact #3 to Evidence #000.001

Evidence #000.001 Against Evolution:

"Lets address the unlikely probability that a living cell would by random process be formed. ...(All life consists of only left-handed protein molecule chains.) The smallest living thing that could duplicates itself would require 239 of these protein molecules. What are the chances that the first protein molecule would form all their amino acids into left handed chains? (The minimum number of amino acids in a protein is 410.) But then, even if this occurred in one protein, it would have to be repeated again 238 times in the other protein molecules.

Chances of this occurring are 1:10 to the 29,345 th power.

That's a 1 followed by 29,345 zeroes. Flip a coin that many times and see if it will come up as tail that many times in a row."

[Dale 16]

Paul,

I sense this discussion is about to launch into space...please take a picture of the Rover as you pass Mars..lol....Just a joke..

Again the premise is being made that the facts being presented are not only true .but relevant....sweeping statements like "ALL life consists of"....and then no doubt a barrage of M.E.G.O. (.My Eyes Glaze Over) information. Paul, Who's your source..hopefully not Gish.

There's nothing to respond to Paul...the statement doesn't ask a question!..for me to respond would start the process I mentioned before of having a person of a conflicting view fruitlessly fuel the other persons case..why would anyone do that?...to me that seems like a defensive approach....

Maybe because I try to agree with people I'm seeing the similarity in our view...you want your position supported by facts and will go to the molecular level to find them...but why stop there? actually there is no "left" or "right"..there are positive and negatively charged particles and at a quantum level whether they're positive or negative is determined by observation.

This may be a condition that actually supports a view showing the limits of logic....but my position has aways been its not "either"..."or"...

But my position has also been equal evaluation criteria...if the parameter of the dicussion is going to be logic as implied by "Lets address the unlikely probablity that a living cell would be by random process be formed"....it seems that the asker of the question should be able to answer the same question posed by someone questioning THEIR position....sooo...Let me ask a question and you decide if your answer would satisfy your own standards of acceptability if coming from someone of an opposing view...What is the likely probability that everything was created by a supernatural being?

[Paul B. 523]

Dale,

OK, so your position is that I made up the information on the protein molecule chain, or at least that I used a very unreliable source.

I encourage you to search the latest scientific data available on this subject.

If I may respond to your quoted statement:

"Again the premise is being made that the facts being presented are not only true .but relevant....sweeping statements like "ALL life consists of"....and then no doubt a barrage of M.E.G.O. (.My Eyes Glaze Over) information. Paul, Who's your source..hopefully not Gish.

- Once again, I'll say that I presented this as circumstantial evidence, which I thought you were in acceptance of.

- Without knowing and hearing all my arguments, you are willing to dismiss all of it as irrelevant.

...and you still want to state that you do not have a predetermined disposition? ...that you are willing to listen with an open mind?

- Have you already dismissed all scientific evidence that points toward creation (by labelling it M.E.G.O)?

- Sounds like the only FACT that I could provide you with would be to present you GOD or his phone number or would the proof of devil be a fact to the existance of GOD?

I'm assuming this statement refers to Creation and Evolution:

"This may be a condition that actually supports a view showing the limits of logic....but my position has aways been its not "either"..."or"..."

So what are you saying?

You believe in creation and evolution?

You doubt creation and evolution?

When I had asked you previously if you offered another option, you said: "Do I have an alternative to evolution/creation? No..like I stated I think there are holes in both..but when someone suggests the the case IS settled..all learning stops."

I don't understand why learning would have to stop if the issue of creation and evolution is settled?

Would that then leave me to be the only person in the world willing to learn?

I do not think that "Believers" in general seek knowledge because there are non-believers but rather because there is desire to know the unknown (and of course vice versa). GOD encourages discovery and learning. All He asks for is faith and to follow his guidelenes. GOD also offers us choices.

What does evolution offer?

We were accidentally created and then we die for ever. There is no hope.

Evidence #000.002

Actually, although he believes that he is on the right track, Prigogine does not claim he has solved the problem of the origin of life or the origin of complex biological organizations. In a book he co-authored in 1977, the year he won the Nobel Prize, Prigogine says:

`There seems to be no doubt that dissipative structures play an

essential role in the function of living systems as we see them today. What was the role of dissipative structures in evolution? It is very tempting to speculate that prebiotic evolution corresponds essentially to a succession of instabilities leading to an increasing level of complexity.' (Nicolis G. & Prigogine I., "Self-Organization in Non-equilibrium Systems", 1977, p12).

Gish does have memorable quotes, one of which refers to Prigogine.

"What is the answer that Nicolis and Prigogine give to their question, `What was the role of dissipative structures in evolution?'-It is very tempting to speculate! No doubt it was tempting for Nicolis and Prigogine to speculate about such matters, but since when have tempting speculations become scientific solutions to an extremely vexing and complex problem?" (Gish D.T., "Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics", 1993, p187)

I suppose you also (with an open mind) dismiss everything from Berlinski. If I may also quote Berlinski:

"When Ilya Prigogine won a Nobel Prize for his work in

thermodynamics, the reaction among mathematicians was

thankfulness that no one in a position to disburse funds, or anyone else for that matter, had any idea of what he was talking about." (Berlinski D., "From Bad to Worse", "Black Mischief: Language, Life, Logic, Luck", 1988, p59)

So you are not willing to accept or discuss "specified complexity" as it relates to human and animal life? So in essence are you saying that you have dismissed all scientific evidence that pertains to creation??

Evidence #000.003

The argument being that in living organisms and manufactured products both exhibit the property of ORGANIZATION/SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY (vs. random by chance occurance supported by evolution). Organized / specified complexity would therefore indicate a "blueprint" for life.

"The blueprint for an organism's organization and metabolism are

contained within the genes, the hereditary factors that are passed on when an organism reproduces. In all organisms, the genes are composed of the complex chemical DNA, which can be copied so that all the cells of a multicellular organism, including sperm and eggs, receive a copy." (Mader S.S., "Biology", 1990, p5)

"Nucleic acids are enormous molecules that store the hereditary

blueprints for the synthesis of proteins." (Wilson E.O., et al., "Life on Earth", 1973, p47)

"The nucleic acids are, of course, the hereditary material. They

contain the blueprint for the organism which is passed from parent to daughter cells. DNA duplicates during replication, to provide a blueprint copy for each daughter. The design of DNA, with its two complementary chains, makes this event possible." (Shapiro R., "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Origin of Life", 1986, pp133-134)"

Evidence #000.004

There is no evidence that a "protein" can "arise" "through random variations". Yockey has calculated the minimum number of amino acids that could arise by chance in a billion years as only 49 amino acids long, which is much too short to code for a living system: "Taking into account only the effect of the racemic mixture the longest genome which could be expected with 95% confidence in 10^9 years corresponds to only 49 amino acid residues. This is much too short to code a living system so evolution to higher forms could not get started." (Yockey H.P., "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory," Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67, 1977, p377)

Evidence #000.005

"Cairns-Smith also describes the `messages' contained in the genetic information stored in the "library" of each cell's DNA, which are transcribed and translated to direct the synthesis of proteins. His language is entirely typical of others who write about this subject:

practically all stress the appearance of design and purpose, the

immense complexity of the simplest cell, and the apparent need for many complex components to work together to sustain life. Everyone uses the vocabulary of intelligent communication to describe protein synthesis: messages, programmed instructions, languages, information, coding and decoding, libraries. Why not consider the possibility that life is what it so evidently seems to be, the product of creative intelligence?" (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993,

p112).

Evidence #000.006

DNA has specified complexity (as acknowledged by evolutionists Dawkins, Orgel and Crick)

In my opinion:

"Specified complexity", namely a human language message, is the product of intelligent design;

Therefore the probability that DNA is the product of "Intelligent

Design" is very, very high.

"Intelligent Design" points toward a creator and away from evolution.

I have other types of circumstantial evidence to submit if there is an interest.

[Scott Stone 604]

I would jump in here, but I just got a headache. :o

One of my big questions, before I answer anything else, is what is considered acceptable substantiation?

Scott Stone

[Dale 16]

Paul,

Goodness Gracious...I thought shorter post were the idea.lol. Calm down!!..this is just an interesting discussion.. I appreciate your passion but there seems to be a bit of ad hominem flavor to some of it.

The same process is happening again..state as fact a position that wasn't made ..and run with it." OK, so your position is that I made up the information....or at least used a very unreliable source."...I never said you made it up.

"Without knowing and hearing all my arguements, you are willing to dismiss all of it as irrelevant"...never said it..

My reference to facts being relevant was the assumption that left handed proteins or whatever show "creator"..thats all.

I don't have a predetermined conclusion.

I am listening with an open mind as far as I can tell.

I do think that circumstantial evidence bears weight in making conclusions.

I haven't dismissed any scientific evidence pointing to creation..

You gotta admit your post had a definite M.E.G.O. volume to it.

So what am I saying?..the same thing I've said all along..I don't think either side has all the answers, and I think more information is needed to arrive at a explaination.

"I don't understand why learning would have to stop if the issue of creation and evolution is settled"....misses the point I was trying to make.....the reference was not that learning stops if the question IS settled, but that learning stops for the person who THINKS its already settled.

"I do not believe that "Believers" seek knowledge in general because there are non-believers but rather because of a desire to know the unknown..

I agree.

Knowing that unknown requires accepting what is found even if it is undesirable or difficult to accept...chooseing the "better deal" should have no bearing. why would that equal no hope?

Prigogine's own comment on his own work shows humility...what would you have said..I HAVE FOUND THE MISSING PIECE!!..

Gish's response seems neither here nor there..pointing to speculation as proof of a false reasoning would have killed creationism or evolution long ago....speculating on how things probably work is how we learned to fly...and all the other stuff too.

" I suppose you (with an open mind)."..etc. .. kinda ad hominem..

....Mathamaticians.......didn't know what he was talking about....which ones?? appearantly someone did...he won the Nobel Prize.... haven't read Berlinski..

I think that the rest is basically speculation...actually, the length of the post makes it difficult to respond to...I have a lap-top and a touch pad.. no roller mouse ..so I have to constantly leave the text window, click, drag down, hopefully remember the quote or point move back up, find my place and start typing...too much trouble. If the posts were a couple of paragraphs, they can be seen from the reply box....shorter posts PLEASE.

Scott, you make a good point about understanding what constitues acceptable substantiation...that has to be clear in order for people to be on the same page..

What constitutes acceptable substantiation to you?

[Paul B. 523]

Scott,

As far as I'm concerned, your opinion counts for as much as anyone else's in this discussion.

Dale may not necessarily agree, but if you don't present your thoughts, how do we know we didn't exclude something of importance.

Besides, you're not as mean as you look, ...I'm sure you can take criticism.

Take a couple of aspirins and jump in - the water is nice!

[Paul B. 523]

Dale,

No insult intended in my post. I was offering circumstantial evidence (NOT FACTS) - you seem to keep saying I'm offering ideas as facts when I keep saying I'm offering evidence that can lead people to a conclusion. I have already come to my conclusions, I don't need convincing in case of evolution or creation. (I'll say once again that I agree there is also evolution going on but not anywhere near as drastic as single cell to man.)

"My reference to facts being relevant was the assumption that left handed proteins or whatever show "creator"..thats all."

I was not offering a conclusion, but rather one piece of evidence in a series of many that may or may not help somene draw a conclusion.

As for the length of posts: I'll keep it short if you will. If we are both defending points or offering evidence, it's hard to respond to one when there are 6 or 7 other items to discuss.

"So what am I saying?..the same thing I've said all along..I don't think either side has all the answers, and I think more information is needed to arrive at a explaination."

I guess my next question here is: Do you think we can offer any information, evidence or any comment you have not already heard that will help YOU arrive at an explaination?

I'm afraid if I waited for science to prove either case or offer another option 100% or to fully explain everything, I could never make a decision not just on this, but anything else.

You need some feeling, and faith!

- Look into the eyes of a baby and repeat: You are a product of evolution from a single cell.

- Look at animals and repeat: You are a product of evolution from a single cell.

- Think out how bees polinate trees and plants and repeat: You are a product of evolution from a single cell.

- Ask yourself why the birth cycle has not evolved (or shortened if you ask a woman) and repeat: You are a product of evolution from a single cell.

- Why is the desire for *** different between humans and animals and repeat: You are a product of evolution from a single cell.

- Why can humans talk, but no animals can and repeat: You are a product of evolution from a single cell.

I'm not offering any of this as evidence (YET)!

[Dale 16]

Paul,

Thank you for the reply and clarification ...it helped me understand the fact/circumstantial evidence perspective..maybe we were juggleing apples and oranges back and forth..

"Do you think we can offer any information, evidence or any comment you have not already heard that will help You arrive at an explaination?"...yes, the view point expressed in this thread have been and still are interesting and thought provoking..its alway good to question how and why we think what we do...but I don't think I'll arrive at a conclusion one way or another until the information is available. Whatever the answer is ,its just not really important to me. I stated in one of my earliest post that I thought that where this all came from may be in some process or phenomenon we may not discover for 1000 yrs. and if and when we do..so what??.. life is what life is.... I'm pretty sure I'll be long dead before that happens.

As for the rest.. from the eyes of a baby to the reality of my own life...I can't honestly say to myself "you're the product of a single cell " or creation...I suspect that there's an unknown factor yet to be understood.

Paul, I feel that we've been dominating the thread and it would be interesting to have more feedback from others....wouldn't it be a hoot if we were the only ones who found this interesting.....Maybe everyone else has been pulling their hair out and screaming...SHUT UP..SHUT UP...SHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUP!!!! at their computers. LOL.

[squirtgun 122]

Okay I'll do it,would ya'll please SHUT UP!!!!

This has been a great debate,but it can and will drag on forever.I stated before"look inside yourself for the answer you seek"some will not believe in a God until he reaches down and thumps them in the head.

I can also say that Dale and Paul B. are 2 of the most intellegent guys I have ever seen debate this topic.You both have handled yourselves in a professional manner that is greatly appreciated.It's a pleasure to know that things like this can be discussed in such a calm manner,or at least it reads as such.

[John T 744]

Ditto to what Squirtgun said above and if GOD ever thumps me on the head I will definitely change my thought process but untill then.........................

Dale and Paul are just to intellectual for me. Maybe next time I'll bring up a controversial sports subject to give those two a run for the money;)

[Paul B. 523]

Folks,

I always thought that anyone could jump in at any time with any thoughts as this format allows that better than if you were trying to talk sitting around a table.

I also thought that anyone not interested would just simply avoid this thread rather then tell us to shut up. ;) The last person standing or talking will hopefully realize that there is no one around listening to him/her before too long (same as on any other thread). :down

Sounded to me like Scott wanted to get in on the fun.

I'm willing to stick around... :D

[Paul B. 523]

John T.,

Thanks for starting this thread.

Consider it hokey-pokey, but I think there was destiny involved.

I thought you had some good insight from perspectives of religion(s) but don't let that cloud the issue of faith.

As long as you are clear on faith, what religion, if any is not significant. I can understand how some religions can muddy up the water and I could discuss in length specifics of a couple of religions that exemplify their distorted behavior. If you study your bible, I think the distortions become very clear, however, that does not change the words or if you prefer, the intent of GOD. There are some religions within the Christian faith that are truer to the words of GOD, but I don't know if there is a thing as a perfect interpretation unless you keep searching - GOD's words even tell you that.

Keep the faith and Godspeed!

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

Scott (squirtgun)...

You cracked me up. Made me smile. THANK YOU!!!

Reminded me of "sister Mary Elephant"

Class.....class.....CLASS SHUT UP!

Remember that?

Oooops I'm off topic. I'll go back to reading. :zip2:

Beth

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

I have some questions.... have any of you ever experienced.....

Holding a new born baby in your arms and seeing the beautiful perfect creation, a life so delicate, and in that moment you felt blessed and found yourself saying thank you?

Have you ever been worried or worse terrified for that same child as he/she grew older and was out in the world, and when you got him/her back in your arms and held him/her close you felt thankful?

Have you ever felt like you had a lucky day, either everything went extremely well, almost perfect, or perhaps you felt very lucky to avoid an accident? Maybe you said thank goodness?

Or...that was close....felt that someone/thing was watching over you? Do you ever say ...Thank God.

Have you ever felt good about just believing?

Very often we tell our children to have faith. We feel faith. We feel faithful. We can feel faithless at times in our lives.

If you tell a friend or family that you have confidence in them, and you say you have faith, what do you mean? Why do you have faith? Because you believe in them? Is it easier to believe in things we see than things we can not see?

Why do children believe in Santa Clause? (don't give me that santa in the mall thing either - you never really see him come down a chimney)

Children have faith. They believe in us. We are big, and we love them and we are their world. They are in awe of us. I think, God is alot like that. He's BIG. He loves. If you look at all he has given us, as you hold an infant, you are in awe of it aren't you?

Faith doesn't have to be about church. It doesn't have to be secular. Those are personal choices that are made based upon what is comfortable to us...where to worship, in public, private what denomination if any. Believing and having faith are boundless. God is bigger (I think anyway) than we can ever possibly define or discover until we pass from here.

No offense intended. Just thinking out loud...

Beth

[Mike Williamson 198]

JohnT:

God's been thumping all your life, as He does with everyone...Some choose to listen, others not. Good luck in your search.

[John T 744]

I dealt with an Horrific Jet Crash almost 14 yrs to this date(Exact date January 25,1990) I was pretty much there before just about everyone.

When I went into that JET(I was young and fearless) it felt very surreal. I almost felt a presence there kind of like what you guys/gals expressed but when I saw all the dead and broken up bodies that presence evaporated. Seeing those people like that and also seeing the lucky ones with minimal injuries nothing really made sense. Even when the Jet was about to explode but never did it still made no sense because of all the suffering.

So maybe the thumping was there for me but not for the others. Still doesn't make sense but maybe one day it may. Either way I don't loose any sleep over it and I still live the life that I like with no guilt...OK almost no guilt.......

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

John,

In my opinion, you have felt His presence. He's there when people pass.

Death can seem very senseless. It's easy to ask why a loving God would let bad things happen to us. I'm not sure we get that answer... at least not here, or yet.

What kept the plane from exploding as you and any other rescuers helped? If it should have exploded in your professional opinion, then isn't it possible that God kept you safe so that you could help others who might have been alive and also to respectfully care for the remains of the loved ones of many others?

Just a thought....

Beth

[Mike Williamson 198]

Beth:

Excellent answer!

As for why God allows suffering, that's a pretty complicated subject. We can ask why God allowed those people to suffer and/or die in that plane crash, but if we ask that, we must also ask why God allows anyone to suffer at all. It would be nice (from our perspective) to live happy and carefree lives free from anything bad. That isn't how the world we live in works. It isn't as simple as to just say "Well, if God loved us He'd take away all the bad things".

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

Thanks Mike,

To me, we are supposed to work, and to find our way here. He gave us earth and the means to do what is necessary. The rest is up to us. If we creat a plane that flies and has the ability to crash, whose fault is it really? God didn't build it. He gave us the room to make a decision to fly. We did.

I try not to think about things like why God doesn't end all suffering now. I keep coming back to we are supposed to learn and better ourselves and help others.

Beth