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.
And creationism is to many, a bandade that theiests use to as a patch to quilt over the question of our origin. belief systems are just that and no one theory can be beaten into anyone that doesn't already believe.Darwinist evolution isn't well founded. It has a bazillion guesses and suppositions.
And creationism is to many, a bandade that theiests use to as a patch to quilt over the question of our origin. belief systems are just that and no one theory can be beaten into anyone that doesn't already believe.
Don't play word games with me. Your intent is quite clear and has been from the start.I haven't said that one would have to believe in what I believe in. My question was concerning contrary views on one's existence
Again, you set up a strawman and then ask them to defend against it. No on but you has coined the phrase, bag of chemicals.Some believe that, some don't. The question is about the views of those who don't.
One's veiw of one's existance does not have to start with your interpetation of that without god. As I've said.This was a loaded question and one that has been circulating through these forums for many a year. This "I demand that you prove to me you aren't this and that" arguement has never gotten anywhere beyond the ammusment of others and the frustration of the poster, since it places everybody other than you in the role of defensive.Of course one doesn't have to enter into discussion concerning one's view of their existence. Since this is a forum concerning creation and evolution, the source and meaning of one's existence is an integral part of the discussion though.
Yes but one has the overwelming approval of the scientific comunity which is has much more evidence to point to then we.They're both faith-based belief systems.
Nope. The theory of evolution is evidence based. As are studies into abiogenesis. Sadly you do not understand what is and what is not evidence.They're both faith-based belief systems.
Could you please explain this"abiogenesis" please. I'm not trying to set you up for anything. simply trying to understand where you are coming from. Thank you.Nope. The theory of evolution is evidence based. As are studies into abiogenesis. Sadly you do not understand what is and what is not evidence.
Yes but I have heard that people don't only believe it they act on it to the detriment of their children and their communities.
Tolerated???
Biblical creationism is not taken seriously in most circles and especially those involving educated people. People are allowed to have their personal beliefs though, would you agree?
I definitely agree that it's detrimental to the development of critical reasoning skills and scientific literacy, and that Bible literalism can lead to other negative consequences, but I don't know what more can be lawfully done about it than what measures have already taken place. We have to enable free speech. It's banned in public schools not just in the United States but in many other countries. Most accredited private schools, including parochial ones, don't teach it, either. Leading homeschool textbook publishers have begun to make textbooks with factually correct information on evolution. Most Christians have long accepted evolution, and some even view YEC as bordering blasphemy. There will always be people who insist on handicapping their children with ignorance like the Holocaust being a hoax, the Earth being flat, baby dinosaurs being on Noah's Ark, so forth and so on, and that's very unfortunate. All you can really do is to try to persuade parents, and put the correct information and hope that intellectually curious teens will seek it out. I only know two people who were brought up believing in YEC and indoctrinated with the false belief that evolution is this malevolent force they should expend energy and time fighting. One of them promptly sought a proper education for herself the day she turned 18. She paid her own way to community college, took the remedial classes necessary to fill in the deficits from her homeschooling education and then transferred to UCLA. She's now getting her Masters in Nursing, is an even more devout Christian, but of course does not believe in YEC any longer.
I do think creationism is harmful but I don't think it's a widespread problem across the country. It's in certain pockets and demographics. I took an agnotology class about it and learned about how it's very much culturally-induced. Most of the adherents in it are old. I mean, most on here who believe in YEC are over the age of 60 and seem to have a heap of time on their hands so they just post here titling at the windmill about evolution. So I kinda think they're harmless.
Yep. Out of curiosity I made a poll about this on my college's Yik Yak herd and private forum and in neither one did a single person believe in Young Earth Creationism or reject evolution. Several have actually never met anyone who believed in YEC, and some hadn't even known it wasn't an entirely obsolete dogma. It's not even something we have to bother with tolerating anymore than we have to worry about people using leeches to treat medical ailments.
Someone in his 70s here threw out a 1979 quote mine from a respected, long-retired 88-year-old Stanford professor to try to portray him as a scholar who objected to evolution, when in truth he is renowned for having believed in theistic evolution and trying to reconcile faith and science through his popular classes. The cool thing is that I showed the post to one of my profs who was here back in the 70s and 80s and he told us about the Religion & Science class Dr. Bube had taught and how he had specifically deconstructed the faulty reasoning issues of the Creationist stance, amongst other things. It was not a required course, though it was one many chose to take.
Sorry, but your understanding of the "Law of Biogenesis" is flawed. It only states that for the current conditions that is true.*coughs* Back to the topic....is it tolerated now?
Abiogenesis is life coming from non-life. As opposed to the Law of Biogenesis which is observable and provable that kinds produce like kinds.
Could you please explain this"abiogenesis" please. I'm not trying to set you up for anything. simply trying to understand where you are coming from. Thank you.
Don't play word games with me. Your intent is quite clear and has been from the start.
Again, you set up a strawman and then ask them to defend against it. No on but you has coined the phrase, bag of chemicals.
One's veiw of one's existance does not have to start with your interpetation of that without god. As I've said.This was a loaded question and one that has been circulating through these forums for many a year. This "I demand that you prove to me you aren't this and that" arguement has never gotten anywhere beyond the ammusment of others and the frustration of the poster, since it places everybody other than you in the role of defensive.
False, creation was life coming from Life.Abiogenesis is life appearing from nonlife. Even creationists believe in an abiogenesis event, though they tend to deny it.
Question: If, after almost two centuries of digging beneath all the world’s continents, no previous ancestor of this first hard-bodied creature has been found, how then did the ubiquitous trilobite evolve? There should be some previous ancestor if evolution were true.
It’s like finding an exquisite watch on the seashore and yet never finding any previous primitive models of the watch on earth. If you reasoned as an evolutionist, you would deny there was a need for a watchmaker at all, maintaining that time, water, sand, minerals and actions of the elements are sufficient to producing a fully functional watch that runs. This is part of the reason it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in a Creator!
Another reference explains: “If throughout past ages life was actually drifting over in one continual stream from one form to another, it is to be expected that as many samples of the intermediate stages between species should be discovered in fossil condition as of the species themselves … All should be in a state of flux. But these missing links are wanting. There are no fossils of creatures whose scales were changing into feathers or whose feet were changing into wings, no fossils of fish getting legs or of reptiles getting hair. The real task of the geological evolutionist is not to find ‘the’ missing link, as if there were only one. The task is to find those thousands upon thousands of missing links that connect the many fossil species with one another” (Byron Nelson, After Its Kind , 1970, pp. 60-62).
The absence of transitional forms is an insurmountable hurdle for theistic evolutionists as well.
I said intent, not words and ofcourse you will ignore someone who will not allow you to deal falsly with others here. You seem to represent God here and I might represent that same God. I will not sit idly by why you besmirch the name by acting falsely other others.Don't claim that I've said something that I haven't said and then ignore your false claim. Actually face your words, your accusations
You can change the words around all you want,. It's your intent that is in the wrongHow are we more than a bag of chemicals is the question. Use whatever terminology one wishes to describe the human body.
One should not ask for the clarification of one's views?
Are you saying that just by 'believing' you are more than a sack of chemicals you stop being a sack of chemicals?Maybe they believe they're more than a sack of chemicals?
Where did the angels come from then?Even creationists believe in an abiogenesis event, though they tend to deny it.
I don't believe that angels exist. Bring one to the forum and then we can discuss its origins.Where did the angels come from then?
In scientific philosophy, abiogenesis is a chemical process that kick-started life.
Of course not.I don't believe that angels exist.
Even creationists believe in an abiogenesis event, though they tend to deny it.
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?