Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[Frank Robert]

I once tried to get a Taoist here to tell me why Hurricane Katrina occurred.

Despite all my efforts, he hid behind a scientific explanation of how it happened; rather than answer from his religious perspective.

I'm sure you would do the same, so I won't ask.

The Taoist explanation for hurricanes is natural forces are not in harmony. The Tao is not religion or science it just is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe he did. What about Taoism disallows him to attribute Hurricane Katrina to natural causes?

May I ask where this line of questioning is going?

 

[Speedwell]

May I ask where this line of questioning is going?

I don't know. You were the one who brought Taoism into it.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Taoist explanation for hurricanes is natural forces are not in harmony.

Due to what? more yin than yang? (That's my assumption.)

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know. You were the one who brought Taoism into it.

That's because this remark:

As theists often (feebly) argue against the problem of evil, the negative is necessary for the positive to be appreciated.

... appears to be an appeal to yin/yang.

 

[Speedwell]

That's because this remark:... appears to be an appeal to yin/yang.

I see your point. The concept of the universe as the scene of a cosmic struggle between the forces of good and the forces of evil must be anathema to a Christian. But rest easy--the 'yin" and "yang" of Taoism are not considered to be a "good versus evil" kind of thing.

 

[Frank Robert]

Due to what? more yin than yang? (That's my assumption.)

You have it. Yin and yang is the TAO.

 

[tas8831]

There is a third -- and the most important -- method: the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

That is not the most important way. It is the most error prone way.

That is different from belief, which is a mental exercise.

You mean you do not "believe" that this Holy Spirit guides you?
Odd.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I meant, I'm sure you would too, if you were a Taoist.

You seem to be sure of plenty you know nothing about. Par for the course.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

[duplicate]

 

[chad kincham]

The recapitulation hoax is still found in many school textbooks today.

 

[chad kincham]

Of course it is!

The only two known methods for deciding what's real and what isn't, are:

i) the scientific (objective) method and;
ii) by way of beliefs.

There is no useful purpose in trying to 'bridge' those methods.
In fact, the usefulness comes from realising that they are completely distinct methods.

Ironically, science itself owes its very existence to Christians and believers in God and the Bible - and their description of science was the organized and systematic investigation into how God designed the universe to work.

Today science has been hijacked by atheism, naturalism, and materialism that demands the presupposition of those paradigms be used to interpret all data.

For example Francis Bacon is the father of the modern scientific method.

Mendel, the father of genetics.

The Bible prophecy studying Isaac Newton is the father of physics and calculus.

There is a long list of others i can cite.

 

[disciple Clint]

Post away, but nobody is going to expend any effort to obtain copies of Josephus for you that you are to lazy to get for yourself in order to refute a point that nobody cares whether you make it or not. Some of us already believe in God and Jesus and the truth of the Christian faith and others do not. That's not what the discussion is about. If we all agreed (for purposes of argument, anyway) about the existence of God, Jesus and the truth of the Christian faith, then would you be willing to join the discussion of creationism v. evolution?

No one asked you to provide anything, in fact my post had nothing to do with you, you do not speak for the person that my post was directed to, it is his decision if he wants to defend his post. it is hardly being lazy to follow forum protocol.

 

[Astrid]

No one asked you to provide anything, in fact my post had nothing to do with you, you do not speak for the person that my post was directed to, it is his decision if he wants to defend his post. it is hardly being lazy to follow forum protocol.

He spoke for everyone here

 

[Speedwell]

Ironically, science itself owes its very existence to Christians and believers in God and the Bible - and their description of science was the organized and systematic investigation into how God designed the universe to work.

They did find out. That's why creationism as a scientific proposition has been off the table for 200 years.

Today science has been hijacked by atheism, naturalism, and materialism that demands the presupposition of those paradigms be used to interpret all data.

When did this happen?

For example Francis Bacon is the father of the modern scientific method.

Mendel, the father of genetics.

The Bible prophecy studying Isaac Newton is the father of physics and calculus.

There is a long list of others i can cite.

They were Christians, but how many of them were actually creationists?

 

[Astrid]

They did find out. That's why creationism as a scientific proposition has been off the table for 200 years.

When did this happen?

They were Christians, but how many of them were actually creationists?

So very many religious scientists who need a dropout to tell them
they have been hijacked.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That's because this remark:... appears to be an appeal to yin/yang.

It's a theist defence against the problem of evil, not a Taoist argument - I thought you'd have heard it before...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The recapitulation hoax is still found in many school textbooks today.

Strictly speaking, it was more an exaggeration than a hoax. Haeckel thought he'd discovered something important, but he got a lot of it wrong, and exaggerated it. But there is a significant (although selective) recapitulation of embryological phylogeny during embryonic development.

 

[Astrid]

Strictly speaking, it was more an exaggeration than a hoax. Haeckel thought he'd discovered something important, but he got a lot of it wrong, and exaggerated it. But there is a significant (although selective) recapitulation of embryological phylogeny during embryonic development.

Amusing and revealing that in their ignorant thrashing
about for some way to attack science, they have to go
back decades, even hundreds of years to find an issue-

and then misrepresent it.

"HOAX" actually has a specific meaning, and at the very
best the creos play equivocation games with it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Amusing and revealing that in their ignorant thrashing about for some way to attack science, they have to go back decades, even hundreds of years to find an issue - and then misrepresent it.

Like academia does with the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials?