Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
That works fine as well. Anything you like, as long as the Lord is not in red undies.
I'd just as soon not see anyone in long red undies, tbh.
If my scenario was right, though, we have Jesus' followers attributing to him a magical ability, and Jesus letting them think they're right. Unless you think he also believed it himself. Which brings up possibilities I'm not permitted to discuss on CF.
While statistics demonstrate that believers are less intelligent than non-believers, there is every reason to conclude that creationists are a still less intelligent subset of believers. However, we need not make that conclusion to recognize that, creationists being a subset of believers and not of non-believers, the original results will still apply to them.
So no, it's not simply my opinion.
Is still your opinion since you are yet to present evidence to quantify it.
__________________ If two friends ask you to judge a dispute, don't accept, because you will lose one friend; on the other hand, if two strangers come with the same request, accept because you will gain one friend. Augustine
If it is tightly woven, please tell us how does the supernatural interact with/affect engineering?
It doesn't. Engineering is largely mathematical.
__________________ If two friends ask you to judge a dispute, don't accept, because you will lose one friend; on the other hand, if two strangers come with the same request, accept because you will gain one friend. Augustine
They leave Southampton, travel across the Atlantic and land at Plymouth.
What are the chances of that?
It reminds me of William the Bastard fighting King Harold at a place called, would you believe, Battle.
Not to mention the Duke of Wellington fighting Napolean at a village in the middle of nowhere, which just happened to be named after his favourite railway station.
My daughter just reminded me of another one. Tobias Furneaux sailed right round the world, only to land at the Furneaux Islands.
I think my definition is exactly right on with regard to those areas that you dont apply any intellectual standards. Belief in the supernatural, and emotion as a basis for faith being good examples. How do you apply intellectual standards to the study of something that cant be cetected or in any way shown to exist? (not meaning faith, whatever that is exactly, it does seem to exist)
And again, its not 'immediate" or "automatic" rejection of the supernatural!!!!! It is a what, was it you said, judicial weighing of evidence? Zero evidence means I dont believe it till I see evidence!
That would basically mean that you do not believe in any singular event that has ever happened. Curious.
__________________ If two friends ask you to judge a dispute, don't accept, because you will lose one friend; on the other hand, if two strangers come with the same request, accept because you will gain one friend. Augustine
I suppose you will only cite the effects of 'The Fall', but nature provides some pretty horrific examples of creation in the form of parasites, prey animals eaten alive by predators, natural poisons which cause the eater to die in agony, and so on.
I've always thought it far easier to consider the possibility of a benevolent God if you admit to evolution being the method of creation. Lets the deity off the hook for a lot of dismal realities.
Actually it doesn't let God off the hook at all, because if he is there, he chose the evolution route, and he allows whatever it entails to happen.
The examples you cite are certainly a problem when considering a benevolent God. But there are also indicators of that benevolence to be found. When an animal suffers a sudden trauma, the effect of the release of adrenaline means that they do not feel the pain we would expect them to feel. If they survive, the pain comes perhaps an hour or so later.
Similarly, even without trauma, a dying person very commonly experiences a release of endorphins to make the process of dying one of relative ease. To me these are evidence of a benevolence within nature which is not explained by evolution. Evolution might care about how we are born, and how we live, but why should it decide that a painless death is preferable to a painful one? (Sorry for the personalisation; you can tell I am no scientist.)
But there are still many questions, of course. Spiders, for one. Nasty things, if you happen to be smaller than they are.
__________________
A bruised reed shall He not break, and the smoking flax shall He not quench.
Isaiah 42:3
Last edited by Catherineanne; 2nd July 2009 at 04:15 PM.
Personally, I find 'barking mad' and 'sane' much more meaningful as categories.
As categories for what?
__________________ If two friends ask you to judge a dispute, don't accept, because you will lose one friend; on the other hand, if two strangers come with the same request, accept because you will gain one friend. Augustine
An intellectual would recognize that if two people have a different idea about the age of the Earth, one being ~10,000 years, and one being ~4.5 billion years, they cannot both be right.
I disagree with this --- in fact --- I hold both views simultaneously.
And, no offense, guys, but if you want to talk about some kind of cause-and-effect relationship between YEC and IQ, I can, speaking from over 3 years of experience here, honestly say that I've talked to some pretty smart cookies here that still cannot grasp the concepts of Creationism; either intellectually, or spiritually --- let alone such doctrines as Dispensation Theology.
Many times (and again, I mean no offense), I have /thread thinking to myself, "Where do these guys get their brains?"
If I wanted to make someone feel smarter, I'd recommend they spend a day here with some of you "scientists".
As I'm fond of saying: If you can't get past Genesis 1, you're in for a doosey of a ride, as it only gets harder from there.
Linear Mode
