Posted on 04/08/2010 9:32:18 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
Every major religion believes "the universe was created by the Judeo-Christian God in 7 days"? I think not.
Creationism, in the American context, is, as organizations like ICR, BSA, AoG will explain in excruciating detail, the belief that "the universe was created by the Judeo-Christian God in 7 days" (well 6 days)
He was banned for 2 years account of personal attacks. He will get on one of these threads about every two weeks and then fill his post history with a bunch of fluff in the meantime so its more difficult to see the pattern, but its the same every time.
He likes to channel Carl Sagan talk about ‘we have billions of data points’ yada yada yada but he cant back up a single one of them. Then he backs into a position of that he is way more intelligent that you are, and he never backs that up either. He’ll try to shut you down with insult and he can get real nasty.
The guy is fairly unhinged IMO. He actually said once that Hitler, Charles Manson, and Christ were all ‘equally correct’
However, if Christ is not God, then you talk about Him being silent on the matter. But you open another can of worms...
earthly == earthly ministry
>>What is it with these kinds of people?<<
As I said, the jokes write themselves. You are doing a great job, please do continue.
I see the quoteminers have arrived.
Might as well get the rest of your gang onboard and break every FR rule while you are at it.
Your usual Christlike statements I leave for the viewing public to evaluate.
>>Every major religion believes “the universe was created by the Judeo-Christian God in 7 days”? I think not.<<
My point is that Creationism is NOT the Judeo-Christian perspective. Creationism is the belief that the Universe (or at least the Earth) was literally created by some deity in a supernatural fashion.
That is why I say the statement is wrong on its face.
And I was banned for replying to my detractors in the same way they addressed me (this thread a great example).
As I said, I leave your posts to be evaluated by the observers.
Res ipsa loquater.
There is no quote mining required. If you cant own your statements then maybe you should think about it before you make them. They had to clean up after you several times over at Darwin Central.
Your detractors, you think you rate detractors? LOL, that is a howl. The martyr act does not sell well either, so get a clue.
Keep digging.
We shall all enjoy it.
And DC has never removed a single post of mine.
But feel free to continue to share your Christianity for all to see and admire.
Yeah they did, remember your rants against Alamo Girl? If you were capable of a little more honesty you might gain some credibility.
Ah, Seinfeld Science. A theory about nothing.
"However, it remains unclear how the underlying genetic network specifies the set of possible alternative fates and how the relative frequencies of these fates evolve."
Great. More people who don't know what the hell they're doing. Sounds like they're just manipulating DNA. That's like saying a Toyota evolves into a Rolls Royce because every day you replace one part with another.
And in parting, math is NOT metaphysical anything. It is a tool to describe things.
Oh no it is not. Now that is what stupid people who don't understand what math is think it is. Mathematics is proof. Period. Proof is metaphysical certainty. Period. We actually know what the hell we're doing. Mathematics is the pathway to knowledge. Everything else is just stamp collecting.
If Geology is valid so is TToE.
I wasn't allowed to go into geology. Well, without a full-frontal lobotomy. Something about making the rest of them look bad. But anthropological geology isn't all that useful inasmuch as there are theories getting credence that oil is not actually a fossil fuel.
I don't know. I figure I'll wait until they can figure out what they're doing first.
One reason I’m not Catholic.
This is not a lawsuit. He is attempting to have the school board remove the book in question from the classroom (an Honors Biology class).
The axiom is only in the statement that, a “myth” is unknown, unseen, unknowable. I belong in no camp, per se. I believe in God, just not the God that many Christian’s, Jews (Of which I am born), and Islam. My belief is that it is not unreasonable to presuppose that with enough luck, and over time, humans can know all there is to know about the universe. If it is logical to accept this premise, then, and only then, one can accept that, if it is possible for humans to become God-like, then it is also possible to assume that something has come before us.
In this sense, I believe in God-like, entities. My God may, or may not care one iota about that which it has created, only that it had created it. In many ways this is tantamount to keeping an ant colony, caring for it, watching over it, and fully understanding that you hold the entire fate of this colony in your hands. You may not even care after a while, what happens to the ants, you did not create the ants, but the ants, in this scenario are merely for illustration. The ants, are synonymous to the elements available to you in the macro, as opposed to the micro.
It’s also possible I’m completely wrong about it all. It is however, reasonable to presuppose that I might be right. It is incumbent on those that believe in God, to question their beliefs, reconcile them, and come to their own personal conclusions, and I NEVER admonish anyone for their well reasoned, and thought out philosophies on God, or anything for that matter. We have been adorned with the gift of thought, and intelligence. We should use it, and we are. Science and religion are not so far apart, in fact, many times they arrive at exactly the same cross-road.
Tim-
From where do you derive this presupposition?
If it is logical to accept this premise, then, and only then, one can accept that, if it is possible for humans to become God-like, then it is also possible to assume that something has come before us.
This is a logical fallacy. For example, just because man cannot become God-like does not eliminate the option of another creature may become God-like.
We have been adorned with the gift of thought, and intelligence.
Agreed, but from where did this intelligence come from? From blind, random luck?
I have posited earlier on this thread (post 43) that since we are here, we are here either by accident or design.
If we are here by accident, there is no God, just a universe that will expand to heat death, or collapse back on itself, and there is nothing ultimately to be learned with this intelligence we have been given.
However, if we are here by design, it would make sense that we were given this intelligence to explore the universe to see the designer's intent.
To deny the truth on grounds of faith alone debases both science and religion. The point was made by Galileo himself. Summoned to explain his views and their conflict with scripture, he argued that the church had no choice but to agree with the discoveries of science. It would, he said, be a “terrible detriment for the souls if people found themselves convinced by proof of something that was made a sin to believe." Creationists have not yet faced that fact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.