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.
Why do you think all creationists are the same?to their credit, the creationists do have this state-of-the-art research facility:
Van Andel Creation Research Center
It has a nice front porch.
I don't believe in magic.Quite true (and thank you for admitting that), because it mostly depends on "and then magic happened".
It demonstrates a conflation of the problem at best. It appears to be a meaningless statement.Really? Honesty is a sign of irrational thought? I would have thought you liked honesty.
Here is my first paragraph:
If I proposed anything, it wouldn't be to suggest testing God or any claims of what God has done. That is why I've been asking: what do you really want?
What about that indicates I'm not being rational? Telling you any alternative to evolution I propose would not involve an attempt to test God, but would rather focus on the biological phenomena we can observe is an unreasonable thing to do? Please explain to me why that is. Once educated by you, I imagine I'll be living a much more enlightened life.
No, you are abusing the term Intelligent Design. ID is an acceptance of common descent. Most creationists do no realize that and only accept it because it tries to stuff God back into the works.Why do you think all creationists are the same?
Could there be another title for those that believe God created everything since CREATIONIST has become a bad word?
I like INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
Some TYPE of intelligent design seems to have DESIGNED everything....
All the universe is made out of the same star stuff.
Everything is made up of either a circle, a curve or a straight line. Lots of things have a male and female part. Energy is required for live to continue. Energy does not seem to die but only to change.
So much mystery....
Do you think creationist and intelligent design is the same? Just a change in name to confuse those that might think it does not mean God? Could there be another intelligence other than God?I don't, but they have the word "Creation" right in their name, so ...
Hmmmm.No, you are abusing the term Intelligent Design. ID is an acceptance of common descent. Most creationists do no realize that and only accept it because it tries to stuff God back into the works.
And "seems" is only your opinion. It is worthless without evidence. The sciences are evidence based and the evidence shows no need of a designer, "intelligent" or otherwise. In fact with your sort of ID you are not in fact claiming an intelligent designer, you are claiming an incompetent one since there are all sorts of built in flaws in life that no intelligent designer would put there. Evolution on the other hand works on "good enough". It often results in extinctions because life's adaptions are no longer "good enough".
That's not true. I don't know about atheists, but as an agnostic, I am perfectly comfortable with there being ghosts, spirits, undiscovered ancient civilizations, undocumented megafauna, aliens, etc.. But as an agnostic, my acceptance of them is "I don't know, I haven't seen enough evidence, if any, to make a determination".I find that agnostics and atheists do not believe in any kind of metaphysical happenings.
God is perfect, but creation cannot be perfect. It would be God, if it would be perfect.Hmmmm.
If God is perfect....
how did the flaws get there?
So much mystery....
What is Wiccan?That's not true. I don't know about atheists, but as an agnostic, I am perfectly comfortable with there being ghosts, spirits, undiscovered ancient civilizations, undocumented megafauna, aliens, etc.. But as an agnostic, my acceptance of them is "I don't know, I haven't seen enough evidence, if any, to make a determination".
My mother believed in ghosts (she some amazing stories), my son believes he had interactions with a ghost, I had a Wiccan girlfriend who could make unexplainable things happen. I don't discount anything they believe (heck, I was party to some of my Wiccan girlfriends events), but I can't explain them and therefore have no basis on which to accept them as "scientific".
Not really. Evolution explains what we see and why. Creationists do not have a rational explanation. A rational explanation is one that does not contradict itself or observations. And due to creationists inability to reason rationally they have no reliable evidence for their beliefs. All they have is a personal interpretation of the Bible. That people can have an incorrect interpretation of the Bible is easily demonstrated by the thousands of sects of Christianity. They have beliefs that are different at all different levels. That means most of the interpretations have to be wrong (and they could all be wrong) at best there is only one correct interpretation.Hmmmm.
If God is perfect....
how did the flaws get there?
So much mystery....
ID is merely a failed attempt by creationists to sound "sciency". But since they cannot seem to find a proper way to test it (aside from the versions that have already been refuted) it is not science. It is only pseudoscience.Do you think creationist and intelligent design is the same? Just a change in name to confuse those that might think it does not mean God? Could there be another intelligence other than God?
And there's a reason why God needs a spaceship.
No, your personal experiences that cannot be explained are likely unexplainable since they were not properly observed or recorded. Not being able to explain something is not evidence for God. A Muslim will make the same claims, is that evidence for Allah? A Buddhist will make the same claims, is that evidence for Buddha? If you do not say "yes" then you cannot say "yes" in your personal examples.What is Wiccan?
How could you have such an experience and then demand that science explain it?
I've had several experiences that science will NEVER explain.
So I have to accept that there is something beyond science. If it is something called GOD,,,so be it. I'm not fighting it.
I think you think in a funny way.No, your personal experiences that cannot be explained are likely unexplainable since they were not properly observed or recorded. Not being able to explain something is not evidence for God. A Muslim will make the same claims, is that evidence for Allah? A Buddhist will make the same claims, is that evidence for Buddha? If you do not say "yes" then you cannot say "yes" in your personal examples.
Unanswered questions are just unanswered questions. They are not evidence for or against an idea. If someone said "you can't answer this therefore God does not exist" you would be correct in rejecting that claim. The reverse is nonsensical as well.
The question remains how would you test your beliefs?
What you would be testing are interpretations of what God said or interpretations of what one thinks God did.
Abusing the funny ratings is against the site rules. And one should not trust personal experiences blindly. That is what you are doing. If one's experiences are not repeatable they are probably not reliable. And being an "intelligent scientist" I understand how one tests one's ideas to see if they are valid or not.I think you think in a funny way.
What you're saying is that you don't TRUST your own experiences as real.
Being an intelligent scientist,,,I think must know what this means....
That is not the question I was addressing. Is that the question you're interested in? If so, maybe start a new thread.
No, that is not what I would do. Maybe you should let me say what I would do, rather than putting words in my mouth. But I'm not going to keep following this pointless conversation. If someone else is interested in what I actually said, I'm happy to continue.
As far as the "meaningless" statement, I don't know if you followed the "25 words" portion of the thread. Someone was asking for an explanation of evolution in laymen's terms with no more than 25 words. Several non-Christians were emphatically stating such is impossible - at least to provide an explanation with much depth of meaning. Yet what I proceeded to do was give definitions of "football" and "diffeq" in less than 25 words. People had fun. It was amusing. In showed the pros and cons of 25 word explanations. For the most part, people who knew football and knew diffeq understood what my 25 words meant. Those who didn't know football and didn't know diffeq didn't get it.
So, it wasn't that my 25 word statements about football and diffeq were meaningless. Rather, they required proper context in order to be comprehensible. I knew that as soon as I posted an alternative proposal I would get all kinds of shade about how I was being vague, I was conflating, I was invoking "Goddidit", etc. ... Thank you for so eloquently making my point that: the statement wasn't meaningless. You just don't have the context to understand it. You're trying to turn over rocks and find the subversive arguments for the Bible hiding in my words when they aren't there.
I gave my less than 25 words in my post. I put them in bold type. If you actually wanted to see if what I said is plausible, testable, verifiable, you would have asked very different questions.
So, again, if anyone else is interested, ask me a question pertaining to what I said, not what you think I believe.
What funny rating?Abusing the funny ratings is against the site rules. And one should not trust personal experiences blindly. That is what you are doing. If one's experiences are not repeatable they are probably not reliable. And being an "intelligent scientist" I understand how one tests one's ideas to see if they are valid or not.
Creationists typically only want to believe. They do not want to know. The problem is that mere beliefs are wrong quite often. When one knows something, which means one can support one's beliefs with reliable evidence, one is wrong much less often and wrong to a smaller degree. If you look at the sciences you will see that scientists are often "wrong", but the nature of their errors get smaller and smaller as we learn more and more.
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?