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 scale assumes an intrinsic correlation between belief and acceptance of evolutionary evidence which are the only two variables on the scale.Those are symptoms, what about whats behind it.
The scale assumes an intrinsic correlation between belief and acceptance of evolutionary evidence which are the only two variables on the scale.
That gets into motivations. It is impossible to know what motivates someone else. I think it's possible to discern motivation from a person's needs but that takes interviewing the person or the person laying out their needs themselves. In my mediation work I have used Maslow's hierarchy of needs. When the parties are able to recognize the basic needs of each other they are more apt to compromise.That part seems obvious, so the thinking that underlies it is what interests me.
I'm not into cog dis or intellectual dishonesty if I can help it.
You are making a different distinction, I think, than the one suggested by the OP, which is as I read it, the difference betweenI was simply pointing out to someone who said he wasn't a creationist that Wikipedia disagrees with him.
I got a rat once with a boot. That boot would have made a functional paperweight.When I see you catch mice with a paperweight with bits missing, I'll take your point a little more seriously.
If God is literally holding creation together with his essence, that has all kinds of implications for what kind of universe we exist in.
I've never seen a machine of any sort build itself. I can't even get a light switch to repair itself... but I'm supposed to believe that DNA, which is infinitely more complex formed itself by random processes?What criteria would you use to identify something as built by a person?
From where I sit, what we see in Nature is God manifested.I suppose. But nature is broken, so it's never perfect. What we see is a pale reflection of Eden.
Whatever those implications are, they are in place and the material universe is what it is--which is what science is trying to find out.If God is literally holding creation together with his essence, that has all kinds of implications for what kind of universe we exist in.
Which is neither hear nor there. The question of existence of God is not directly relevant to the OP.Funny how kids have no problem believing in God, but adults who should know better talk themselves out of it.
It kind of changes things quite a bit. It would be such that everywhere one looks, there God is. That perspective would change how we treat the world and each other because we could see the Divine in them. Sounds pretty good to me.If God is literally holding creation together with his essence, that has all kinds of implications for what kind of universe we exist in.
I'm not anti science. But we are no where near getting there by science, which refuses to consider the possibility of divine intervention, let alone divine design at every step. it's like trying to put a puzzle together while missing the biggest piece.Whatever those implications are, they are in place and the material universe is what it is--which is what science is trying to find out.
Which is to be expected, since science does not deal with unfalsifiable propositions.I'm not anti science. But we are no where near getting there by science, which refuses to consider the possibility of divine intervention, let alone divine design at every step. it's like trying to put a puzzle together while missing the biggest piece.
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?