Intelligence Inquiry

[The Righterzpen]

We say everything God has, Satan has a cheap imitation, since he said he would be like the Most High.

God issued the Great Commission for Christians to go out into the highways and byways to witness.

Satan has his "great commission" also: for his students to do the same for him.

True. We battle not against flesh and blood.

For those who say though that they "only do this for the sake of science" - it lacks intellectual honesty. Because really who cares what some religious groups take on origin of the universe is? Are they arguing with Native Americans on their beliefs about origins? Probably not! LOL.

Yet you do well to remind me to rejoice when men say all matter of evil against you; for they did the same to Christ.

 

[pitabread]

Because really who cares what some religious groups take on origin of the universe is?

When that religious group has a history of actively trying to impede public science education, then we care.

If creationists never picked a fight over evolution, then a forum like this wouldn't need to exist in the first place.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Why not? Are religious people incapable of discussing science? Do you think so lowly of religious people that you think they don't know science?

I should have clarified my statement there a little better. Most scientists are at the very least deists; so of course people of multiple religious backgrounds can discuss science intelligently. Matter of fact, I believe one of the respondents on here was listed as "Jewish" - (now granted, that could be an ethnic, religious or "both" designation) and that person had some very well informed and intelligent responses to the evolutionists. So yes, I do believe "religious people" can be very knowledgeable about "science" - (depending on how you define science: i.e. examining data or calling theory "science" - there is a difference).

For those who say though that they are "only doing this for the sake of science" because they "could care less one way or the other about your religion"; it is... ironic / interesting / what ever you may label it as??? for them to come to a religious forum to argue against the "religiosity" of a particular interpretation of scientific data. That really isn't about "science" it's about belief systems. That is why I said the TOE vs. ID isn't really a science debate; it's a philosophical one.

Personally, I do look at "secular research" (mostly on historical stuff though); for the sake of "fact" that (is said at least) to "not have an agenda".

In all honesty though; EVERYTHING has some sort of "spin" on it. That's just a reality of the world that we live in.

 

[AV1611VET]

Classy. Real classy.

Well ... don't get me wrong ... some are here to learn, and some are here because God has drawn them here.

It's the hardliners I was referring to.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why not? Are religious people incapable of discussing science? Do you think so lowly of religious people that you think they don't know science?

I'll let you be the judge of that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I should have clarified my statement there a little better. Most scientists are at the very least deists; so of course people of multiple religious backgrounds and discuss science intelligently. Matter of fact, I believe one of the respondents on here was listed as "Jewish" - (not granted, that could be an ethnic, religious or "both" designation) and that person had some very well informed and intelligent responses to the evolutionists. So yes, I do believe "religious people" can be very knowledgeable about "science" - (depending on how you define science: i.e. examining data or calling theory "science" - there is a difference).

For those who say though that they are "only doing this for the sake of science" because they "could care less one way or the other about your religion"; it is... ironic / interesting / what ever you may label it as??? for them to come to a religious forum to argue against the "religiosity" of a particular interpretation of scientific data. That really isn't about "science" it's about belief systems. That is why I said the TOE vs. ID isn't really a science debate; it's a philosophical one.

Personally, I do look at "secular research" (mostly on historical stuff though); for the sake of "fact" that (is said at least) to "not have an agenda".

In all honesty though; EVERYTHING has some sort of "spin" on it. That's just a reality of the world that we live in.

And that is the perfect example of a non-answer.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well ... don't get me wrong ... some are here to learn, and some are here because God has drawn them here.

It's the hardliners I was referring to.

Matthew 12:37

 

[AV1611VET]

Really? Science is satantic now?

Yeesh. That's just a sad worldview.

Transitional Fossils would not prove we evolved from other species

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Transitional Fossils would not prove we evolved from other species

Not really digging yourself out of that hole there.

 

[The Righterzpen]

When that religious group has a history of actively trying to impede public science education, then we care.

If creationists never picked a fight over evolution, then a forum like this wouldn't need to exist in the first place.

Actually it wasn't the creationists who "picked the fight". Prior to 1925; creationism was the the only theory of origin of the universe taught in schools in America. The first case to challenge that was the Scopes trial in 1925.

Darwin didn't write "Origin of the Species" until 1859; and ideas of origin outside of a religious context didn't exist until the 1830's. In all the thousands of years of history prior to this; all questions of origin of life were always couched in a religious belief system.

 

[AV1611VET]

Matthew 12:37

Romans 1:22

 

[HitchSlap]

Actually it wasn't the creationists who "picked the fight". Prior to 1925; creationism was the the only theory of origin of the universe taught in schools in America. The first case to challenge that was the Scopes trial in 1925.

Darwin didn't write "Origin of the Species" until 1859; and ideas of origin outside of a religious context didn't exist until the 1830's. In all the thousands of years of history prior to this; all questions of origin of life were always couched in a religious belief system.

Yeah, and it's all over bar the shouting.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Romans 1:22

You do know that verse can very easily be turned back against yourself, right? That verse is not a single-edged sabre.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not really digging yourself out of that hole there.

String Theory, Voodoo and Economics

 

[The Righterzpen]

And that is the perfect example of a non-answer.

???? a "non answer" as to whether "religious people" can intelligently discuss science? Why was what I said a "non answer"? Explain what you mean.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

String Theory, Voodoo and Economics

It just linked to the thread as a whole. Intentional?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

???? a "non answer" as to whether "religious people" can intelligently discuss science? Why was what I said a "non answer"? Explain what you mean.

Because it didn't really answer my question. All you did was use it as a vehicle to attack non-Christians coming to a religious forum, in a part of that forum THAT IS OPEN TO NON-BELIEVERS TOO, and start saying they have an agenda.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually it wasn't the creationists who "picked the fight". Prior to 1925; creationism was the the only theory of origin of the universe taught in schools in America. The first case to challenge that was the Scopes trial in 1925.

Darwin didn't write "Origin of the Species" until 1859; and ideas of origin outside of a religious context didn't exist until the 1830's. In all the thousands of years of history prior to this; all questions of origin of life were always couched in a religious belief system.

In my opinion, the two writings: The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life and My Struggles are a two-volume set, written by you-know-who.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Because it didn't really answer my question. All you did was use it as a vehicle to attack non-Christians coming to a religious forum, in a part of that forum THAT IS OPEN TO NON-BELIEVERS TOO, and start saying they have an agenda.

Well, do you deny that some of them do have an agenda?

Your own answer to your question didn't answer your question.

 

[HitchSlap]

You do know that verse can very easily be turned back against yourself, right? That verse is not a single-edged sabre.

It's AV's harikari go to verse.