- Mar 27, 2007
- 35,936
- 4,581
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The "opinion" part would be quantifying "almost none". Let me put it otherwise:
The very large majority of scientists with relevant degrees in fields related to evolution, do not find there is a scientific controversy surrounding the theory of evolution.
I'll let you google "project steve" if you think that's opinion.
No, that would be opinion.
You said:
A couple of points:
1. To question is not a sin.
2. Doubt is not weakness. I doubt every day and I'll wager that so do you.
3. Changing our mind about a point of origins does not necessarily means death to the immortal soul. This is evidenced by the different orthodox views of origins. For example, YEC vs OEC.
4. It is our belief that the devil generates information that separates God from man, therefore, information should be carefully studied.
5. Knowledge does not come straight from the supernatural. God gave us two revelations, special revelation (scripture) and general revelation (nature). We simply don't automatically discount the supernatural like non believers do.
One might think. Fortunately, the evidence is stable across a very, very broad range of different interpretations of that attribute, from scholastic test scores of numerous varieties, participation in various scholastic fields, admission to prominent universities, eminence of a variety of scientists, mentions in catalogs of noted intellectuals, membership in august organizations and, of course, the traditional IQ test.
There have been dozens of tests on this subject, utilizing a wide variety of metrics and all with the same result.
And how many of those test explicit differences of intellectual capacity between creationists and non creationists?
I do not accept both. Again, you are defining intellectualism by whatever floats your boat. After all, is not like there is only one theory of origins in the scientific community.
There isn't any scientific theory of "origins"; abiogenesis is a field of investigation in its infancy, and doesn't rise to the standard of being a scientific theory by any means. , right back at ya...
Again with the broad brush. I am a creationist. I hold to the OEC view.
So, then... do you find that YEC is factually wrong?
I've noticed this trend in many fundie creationists both where I live and on this board. Is the creationist tactic to dumb down our generation with scientific illiteracy?
It is hard to know what fundamentalists / creationists believe because there is so much variety; as you noted, yec /oec for example.
Actually, the differences do not include discounting that God is the creator. The differences only apply to the mode.
So have I.So if question isnt a sin to you, i've heard others say it is.
I am yet to fully understand human pride.If doubt isnt a weakness to you, to others it is.
Many have."Changing mind" I had in mind something important like, ok,there is no god after all.
I don't agree with you here since origins is yet to be proven by either camp. Both merely have theories.The knowledge from supernatural, i condensed a bit. Fundamentaissts think "knowledtge" can be passed straight down from god. An intellectual approach calls for hard work and reason, just like I said.
You can prove that there is not an alien base in the hollow moon.As for "automatically discounting" the supernatural, I do discount anything for which there is no evidence. Same as i discount any story of an alien base in the hollow moon.
All theories eventually amount to an interpretation of data which amounts to a leap. Some use the judicial model of reasonable doubt. There is no difference of quantifiable intellect.Believing in something that is undetectable and cannot be shown in any way to exist is not being very intellectual. Its just a leap of faith, and anyone can do that, no thought no reason no intelligence needed.
And how many of those test explicit differences of intellectual capacity between creationists and non creationists?
I don't think any of them explicitly measured creationism. However, I suspect that few atheists are creationists, and many of them did measure atheism. Also, while belief in God is extraordinarily low amongst eminent scientists, I strongly suspect that creationism is utterly absent. Creationism being a particularly despised subset of belief, I don't think one could reasonably conclude that measuring creationism vs. evolution as a component of these tests would result in anything other than a greater chasm between the relative intelligence of non-believers vs. that of creationists, specifically.
You "suspect" seems to permeate your post. That makes it your opinion. I'll give you my opinion. Those that automatically reject the supernatural are less intellectual that those that do. Back at ya.....
Evolution does not posit origins.Indeed, creationism does not itself qualify as a scientific theory. Relegating creationism to pure hypothesis, there is no alternative theory to evolution, so far as I am aware.
Actually, the differences do not include discounting that God is the creator. The differences only apply to the mode.
So have I.
I am yet to fully understand human pride.
Many have.
I don't agree with you here since origins is yet to be proven by either camp. Both merely have theories.
You can prove that there is not an alien base in the hollow moon.
All theories eventually amount to an interpretation of data which amounts to a leap. Some use the judicial model of reasonable doubt. There is no difference of quantifiable intellect.
Ok then prove there is no bigfoot. You know what I meant.
As for what you said about theories....
Theories are based on data, and subject to falsification.
The problem for creationism to even qualify as a theory is that it
a) has not data
b) is magic-based and as such not subject to falsification.
If you want to use the reasonable doubt model, i have reasonable doubts about creationism since it has no data to confirm it. Evolution has a real edge there!
I also doubt the existence of other things for which there is no evidence and no way to detect their existence.
You "suspect" seems to permeate your post. That makes it your opinion. I'll give you my opinion. Those that automatically reject the supernatural are less intellectual that those that do. Back at ya.....
Evolution does not posit origins.
And back at you.... I'd say that those who do accept the supernatural, automatically or otherwise, on the basis of no evidence whatever are not being detectably intellectual to any degree at all.
This is not about "intellectual capacity" if by that you mean intelligence.
This is what "intellectual" means...
Definitions of intellectual on the Web:
- of or associated with or requiring the use of the mind; "intellectual problems"; "the triumph of the rational over the animal side of man"
- a person who uses the mind creatively
- cerebral: involving intelligence rather than emotions or instinct; "a cerebral approach to the problem"; "cerebral drama"
- An intellectual (from the adjective meaning "involving thought and reason") is a person who uses his or her intelligence and analytical thinking, either in a profession capacity, or for personal reasons.
There is nothing "rational" about faith, or OEC for that matter.
It isnt necessary to be lack intellectual capacity to believe in such things, its just necessary to avoid thinking too hard. The appeal is to the emotions, not to intellect.
Why does it seem that so many fundamentalist Christians are against intellectualism? My father really looks down on universities and anyone who has a bachelor's degree or above. Of course my mom who is about to get her Doctorate in December is pretty upset.
I've noticed this trend in many fundie creationists both where I live and on this board. Is the creationist tactic to dumb down our generation with scientific illiteracy?
You "suspect" seems to permeate your post. That makes it your opinion. I'll give you my opinion. Those that automatically reject the supernatural are less intellectual that those that do.
Please provide the reasoning behind your opinion...
Actually, the differences do not include discounting that God is the creator. The differences only apply to the mode.
I used it twice, the first time sarcastically, and the second time as the barest of admissions that it's not technically impossible for an eminent scientist to be a creationist, though I sincerely doubt that one could maintain a position of eminence after making such a claim. Having never heard of one, despite a familiarity with scientists in general, I can concluded that the incidence is exceedingly rare if it exists at all, and would not disturb the results of these studies, which in any case extend far beyond simply cataloging scientists.You "suspect" seems to permeate your post. That makes it your opinion.
Than those that do what?I'll give you my opinion. Those that automatically reject the supernatural are less intellectual that those that do. Back at ya.....
No, indeed it doesn't, but 'creationism' commonly presents itself as an alternative to evolution, and not simply to abiogenesis.Evolution does not posit origins.
I'd say that those who do accept the supernatural, automatically or otherwise, on the basis of no evidence whatever are not being detectably intellectual to any degree at all.
I will disagree with your interpretation of the definition of intellectual as you are applying it.
I am an engineer. My professional life relies on solving intellectual problems. I don't solely rely on emotion as the basis of my faith. I have spend countless hours studying many aspects of it. In my opinion, the supernatural is tightly woven with the natural so I don't immediately discount it which account for my OEC belief.
I am not sure where this word supernatural comes from. Christianity is not about the supernatural, but about the natural.
Christ did not fly around the world in red underpants, he changed water into wine. Nature/God changes water into wine every day.
God's miracles are not about the supernatural. They are about what God does every day. They are about nature, and about life.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?