Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Why don't more creationists think like Todd Wood?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Kaon" data-source="post: 73192315" data-attributes="member: 407930"><p>Those "creationists" are ignored, or are <em>given </em>some other name. There are many "creationists" that I know who have no problem reconciling the valid parts of any scientific paradigm, and their faith. I do it all the time, but I also do not believe I am a creationist in the colloquial sense. </p><p></p><p>The problem lies with people's minds, a lack of imagination (ability to entertain simultaneity), and general prejudices and social pressures. It goes both ways; academics should not be automatically lauded because of their intellectual or authoritative position. It is due to intellectual fault; many people do not realize they are socially and intellectually programmed to think a certain way, and attack a paradigm that challenges theirs. It has become innate in the newer generation of academics. This Todd Wood is not an anomaly; I have seen similar arguments on these forums, but those people usually just say their peace and do <strong>not </strong>engage in the minutia of the aforementioned intellectual faults. </p><p></p><p>I know at least once that I said that the theory of evolution <strong>is a scientific model that works, and works especially well for people who do <em>not</em> subscribe to a religion or relationship with a deity. </strong>But, I have significant <em>mathematical</em> problems with evolution; this usually erases the former part of my position on evolution, and there isn't enough time to count before I am called a science denier, or a religious nut (despite being a mathematician, and approaching the issue mathematically.) It happens on here, and it happens in academia. The problem isn't with the paradigm; the problem is the mentality (intellectual and social) of humans. </p><p></p><p></p><p>These camps are arguing two sides of the same coin, and it will never get to a juxtaposition of <em>creationism and evolution</em> until people attain grander/more appropriate imaginations.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Kaon, post: 73192315, member: 407930"] Those "creationists" are ignored, or are [I]given [/I]some other name. There are many "creationists" that I know who have no problem reconciling the valid parts of any scientific paradigm, and their faith. I do it all the time, but I also do not believe I am a creationist in the colloquial sense. The problem lies with people's minds, a lack of imagination (ability to entertain simultaneity), and general prejudices and social pressures. It goes both ways; academics should not be automatically lauded because of their intellectual or authoritative position. It is due to intellectual fault; many people do not realize they are socially and intellectually programmed to think a certain way, and attack a paradigm that challenges theirs. It has become innate in the newer generation of academics. This Todd Wood is not an anomaly; I have seen similar arguments on these forums, but those people usually just say their peace and do [B]not [/B]engage in the minutia of the aforementioned intellectual faults. I know at least once that I said that the theory of evolution [B]is a scientific model that works, and works especially well for people who do [I]not[/I] subscribe to a religion or relationship with a deity. [/B]But, I have significant [I]mathematical[/I] problems with evolution; this usually erases the former part of my position on evolution, and there isn't enough time to count before I am called a science denier, or a religious nut (despite being a mathematician, and approaching the issue mathematically.) It happens on here, and it happens in academia. The problem isn't with the paradigm; the problem is the mentality (intellectual and social) of humans. These camps are arguing two sides of the same coin, and it will never get to a juxtaposition of [I]creationism and evolution[/I] until people attain grander/more appropriate imaginations. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Why don't more creationists think like Todd Wood?
Top
Bottom