klutedavid
Well-Known Member
If you knew the wind and current patterns, from second to second, across the Pacific ocean. Then are the paths traveled by each bottle unpredictable?Yes.
Upvote
0
If you knew the wind and current patterns, from second to second, across the Pacific ocean. Then are the paths traveled by each bottle unpredictable?Yes.
Very likely, as the reactions of the bottles themselves to the wind and current are highly contingent. But you are raising a metaphysical question where only a practical question is implied. Remember, the scientific definition of "random" was "predictable by no known algorithm," not necessarily inherently unpredictable. In any case, I am not a determinist, nor do I believe that determinism is necessary as a vehicle of divine providence (In case that's where you are going with this).If you knew the wind and current patterns, from second to second, across the Pacific ocean. Then are the paths traveled by each bottle unpredictable?
My deductive reasoning and critical thinking conclude that creation, as described in Genesis, is true.
Nah, we've previously established your belief thereof is based on emotion.
I don't accept your misquote on faith:If you accept some things on faith you can use your brain for other things.
"After thinking about all the crap I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can even think at all." -Neil Simon.
Speciation is an event. Are you satisfied now? Is that clear enough for you or shall I repeat it again? Maybe a bigger type face will help?
It makes me sad as well, that you show so little interest in understanding what other Christians (the vast majority if you use acceptance of the Nicene Creed as a standard) believe about the Bible and why, but only wish to condemn them for it.
That is the big question I have never been able to get a straight answer to, not in decades of arguing with creationists. No essential point of Christian doctrine seems to depend on it and I have no idea at all why creationists seem to need to believe it so desperately. Clearly it is something that happened consequent to the Reformation, since virtually all YECs are Protestant. There are some Traditional Christians who are literalists, but none of them regard it as a hill to die on like our YECs do.This has always made me wonder: do creationists see other non-creationist Christians as an active threat to their own beliefs?
If one can be a Christian without all the science-denial baggage that comes with creationism, why even be a creationist?
Yes.If you knew the wind and current patterns, from second to second, across the Pacific ocean. Then are the paths traveled by each bottle unpredictable?
That is the big question I have never been able to get a straight answer to, not in decades of arguing with creationists. No essential point of Christian doctrine seems to depend on it and I have no idea at all why creationists seem to need to believe it so desperately. Clearly it is something that happened consequent to the Reformation, since virtually all YECs are Protestant. There are some Traditional Christians who are literalists, but none of them regard it as a hill to die on like our YECs do.
That is the big question I have never been able to get a straight answer to, not in decades of arguing with creationists. No essential point of Christian doctrine seems to depend on it and I have no idea at all why creationists seem to need to believe it so desperately. Clearly it is something that happened consequent to the Reformation, since virtually all YECs are Protestant. There are some Traditional Christians who are literalists, but none of them regard it as a hill to die on like our YECs do.
Just be very careful of what you're sure of... there's always the next question:thats what I rely on the experts for, there is no way to be sure if one interpetation of the bible is correct one way or another, but we can with science and reality.
And, the next...If one can be a Christian without all the science-denial baggage that comes with creationism, why even be a creationist?
While no direct point of doctrine is threatened by evolution, the problem is that evolution is the thin edge of the wedge. If a literal six day creation is not literal then maybe the Adam and Eve story is not literal either. That in turn threatens the doctrine of the Fall and Original Sin. It is like a house of cards --- pull out a key card and the house collapses . The Bible can still be interpreted allegorically but they are unwilling to go there.
Just be very careful of what you're sure of... there's always the next question:
And, the next...
It's just my 'two cents.'Is this an attempt at a slippery slope argument?
It's just my 'two cents.'
There is something to that. Because Fundamentalist Protestants cut themselves off from Christian Tradition they have no other means of learning about the essentials of Christian doctrine than the Bible.While no direct point of doctrine is threatened by evolution, the problem is that evolution is the thin edge of the wedge. If a literal six day creation is not literal then maybe the Adam and Eve story is not literal either. That in turn threatens the doctrine of the Fall and Original Sin. It is like a house of cards --- pull out a key card and the house collapses . The Bible can still be interpreted allegorically but they are unwilling to go there.
What other means of learning did Jesus put above God's Word?There is something to that. Because Fundamentalist Protestants cut themselves off from Christian Tradition they have no other means of learning about the essentials of Christian doctrine than the Bible.
Apostolic Witness. Remember He said "preach the Gospel" not "Hand them out a magic book what my daddy wrote." St. Paul tells us that the Scriptures are "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" but he never suggests that they are to be the sole basis of our faith.What other means of learning did Jesus put above God's Word?