If evolution is true...

[klutedavid]

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?

 

[Speedwell]

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?

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).

 

[pitabread]

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.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Nah, we've previously established your belief thereof is based on emotion.

But I'm not an emotional person.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Staff Edit

That's one of the jobs of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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.

I don't accept your misquote on faith:

"When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school
It's a wonder I can think at all"
Paul Simon, Kodachrome

Perhaps you should use your brain for correct attribution?

 

[pitabread]

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?

Once again Kenny reveals why trying to discuss anything with him is a colossal waste of time.

 

[pitabread]

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.

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?

 

[Speedwell]

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?

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.

 

[sesquiterpene]

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.

 

[JackRT]

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.

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.

 

[pitabread]

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.

Well some creationists (including ones on this forum) don't consider non-creationists to be Christians.

Could that at least play a role? If the doctrine they are taught is that one must accept a literal Genesis or one cannot be a Christian, then I could see that as a driving force behind those beliefs.

 

[inquiring mind]

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.

Just be very careful of what you're sure of... there's always the next question:

If one can be a Christian without all the science-denial baggage that comes with creationism, why even be a creationist?

And, the next...

 

[pitabread]

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.

This is where I wonder if other psychological reasons are at play. I know that creationists do test higher when it comes to Need for Closure, which in turn means they have more difficulty with uncertainty. Certainly interpreting the Bible as strictly as literally as possible might resolve a lot of that uncertainty.

 

[pitabread]

Just be very careful of what you're sure of... there's always the next question:

And, the next...

Is this an attempt at a slippery slope argument?

 

[inquiring mind]

Is this an attempt at a slippery slope argument?

It's just my 'two cents.'

 

[pitabread]

It's just my 'two cents.'

Here, have a refund.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

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.

 

[inquiring mind]

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.

What other means of learning did Jesus put above God's Word?

 

[Speedwell]

What other means of learning did Jesus put above God's Word?

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.