The hole in the non-materialist's head

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by randman
You derision of other Christians for their belief that evolutionary theory is wrong is quite clear, and of such an extreme nature as to certainly warrant the comment about how you consider holding to such a belief is improper.

Is quite claer of what? I do belive that creationism is possible, but not as suported by the evidence as evolution is. I think in the overall picture it is a non-issue.

You have determined my beliefs on the subject by the fact that I tend not ot agree with you. So do I have to agree with you to be a christian?
As I have stated other places the bigest problemI have with creationism is the evidence.

 

[randman]

Lewis, let's look at some of your more milder commnets, shall we, and you tell me how one should take them.

"From a Christian creationist stand point of course not, have you never payed any attention in science classes. Christians simply say God did it, making their theory untestable anyway"

Never paid attention in science class, eh? Guess all those scientist like Mr Chien who is an IDer and is chair of a biology dept. never paid attention cuz he disagreed with Lewis.

"I don't blame the non-christians in here for looking at all Christians like they are stupid if all they had to base their opinions on were Randman and Nick. I'm here to try and prove that atleast some of us try to think outside the Gen 1 and 2 box."

In other words, no thinking individual, no proper Christian or otherwise, could disagree, and heck, anyone that even consideres Genesis is just a wacko and deserved utter contempt.

I rest my case. Try not to throw rocks in glass houses next time.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by randman
Never paid attention in science class, eh? Guess all those scientist like Mr Chien who is an IDer and is chair of a biology dept. never paid attention cuz he disagreed with Lewis.

References please. Would Dr. Chien be a Denton-type IDer or a Wells-type IDer? It makes a big difference.

~~RvFvS~~

 

[randman]

Explain how it makes any difference at all.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Well, Jonathan Wells rejects evolution and Denton accepts it.

The ID movement is very diverse. It runs the gambit from YECs to theistic evolutionists. You can't just assume that every one associated with the ID movement has problems with the science of evolution.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by randman
Lewis, let's look at some of your more milder commnets, shall we, and you tell me how one should take them.

"From a Christian creationist stand point of course not, have you never payed any attention in science classes. Christians simply say God did it, making their theory untestable anyway"

Never paid attention in science class, eh? Guess all those scientist like Mr Chien who is an IDer and is chair of a biology dept. never paid attention cuz he disagreed with Lewis.

In context it ment that your denial of any sience that seems to contradict the bible on religious grounds alone does not disprove the science since science can never handle a theory with "goddidit" as a component.

"I don't blame the non-christians in here for looking at all Christians like they are stupid if all they had to base their opinions on were Randman and Nick. I'm here to try and prove that atleast some of us try to think outside the Gen 1 and 2 box."

In other words, no thinking individual, no proper Christian or otherwise, could disagree, and heck, anyone that even consideres Genesis is just a wacko and deserved utter contempt. [/B]

No just your and nick's arguments that have been shot down time after time in here. There are some creationists that do pose scientificaly valid cases and arguments, just not you two. My insult was very specific to you two, take it that way.

 

[randman]

Lewis, whatever. I suggest you do some soul-searching before commenting further.

 

[randman]

Also, were you lying here?

"I do belive that creationism is possible"

Since you consider creationism itself to be flawed from its basic premise, I have a hard time accepting you are being honest with yourself here.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by randman
Also, were you lying here?

"I do belive that creationism is possible"

Since you consider creationism itself to be flawed from its basic premise, I have a hard time accepting you are being honest with yourself here.

Why can I not concider it possible? I see the current evidence pointing toward evolution at the moment but that could change. If human remains, heck even a halfway modrn horse or rat, were found at the time of the dinosasurs it would cause me to reconsider in a heart beat. That is the difference between a religious view and a scientific view.

No matter the evidence I will still believe in God, since there is always room in the universe for a being that does not have to obey the laws of physics, but in the end my belief in a God is religious and does not need or rest on evidence.
I believe evolution is the way things happened because that is what the evidence sudgests to me. I would drop that belief if enough evidence was found that contradicted that theory, a scientific belief rests soley on the evidence.

So is it possible that creator did His work through evolution? Yes

Is it posible that He did it through a six day event about 6000 years ago? Yes

Which one does the evidence seem to point to so far? Evolution.

Does this make the six day plan impossible? No, just improbable.

Is it possible that a giant supernatural pink unicorn pooped us into existance? Yes. Do I believe that? No, but that is a religious choice, not a scientific one since science can not rule out any supernatural being.

Are you begining to understand?

 

[randman]

I am beginning to see how you spin your comments, if that's what you mean.
Hey, I don't beleive the data supports evolution. You act hostile to anyone that states that, and you actually did say it was wrong to even associated the idea of God as the originator of things. You stated far more than the data in your view supports evolution. You stated it was wrong for science to even consider creation.
Get real.
I can't help you if you won't be honest with yourself.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Science can find evidence that supports YEC but if you want to put God in that theory it can no longer be suported by science.

If tommorow it was proven that the earth is only six thousand years old and every thing just seems to have sprung up all at once science still cannot say god did it, just that an unkown and possibly unknowable process did it.

Science has proven that the sun produces light internaly but the moons light is reflected and not produced internaly. Does this disprove Gen where the sun and moon are both called lights? No, it gust helps us defing that God didn't nessasaraly mean that the sun and the moon were both producing light.

If evolution is true does it mean that God didn't make everything? No, it just helps us defing what he ment when he said he created everything.
Science is about getting to know the knowable, since God by definition (and Biblicaly) is unknowable then by definition science can never deal with God.