Posted on 02/03/2008 12:58:53 PM PST by KayEyeDoubleDee
...For most of my life, I believed the answers to these questions were fairly straightforward. Everything that exists is created by a Loving God. That includes rocks, trees, animals, people, really everything. All along I had been well aware that other people, very smart people, believe otherwise. Rather than God's handiwork, they see the universe as the product of random particle collisions and chemical reactions. And rather than regard humankind as carrying the spark of the divine, they believe we are nothing more than mud animated by lightning...
Trailer requires Shockwave Flash:
Super TrailerMore trailers here:
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playgroundvideo3.swf
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.phpIMDB page:
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/
(Excerpt) Read more at expelledthemovie.com ...
HuH?
E - Not quite so... [posts Bible verses here]
CP - Only if you are the one who decides who a real Christian is, and who is not. Doctrinal disputes about what the Bible means have been going on between Christians since before there was a Bible.
E - HuH?
If a Person believes they are following the Bible and that they are indeed a Christian, and they also accept evolution, then the only way they would not be a "Christian" is if you are the person who decides who is allowed to claim that label.
None of us are God, and interpretations of who is and who is not a Christian based on the Bible are just that, interpretations. Like all opinions, everyone has one.
If a Person believes they are following the Buddha and that they are indeed a LARGE, GREEN FROG, and they also accept evolution, then the only way they would not be a "LARGE, GREEN FROG" is if you are the person who decides who is allowed to claim that label.
Same logic: different words.
CLAIMING you are a large green frog does not MAKE you one, no matter WHAT someone else tends to think.
Since humans objectively can't be frogs, that's pretty obvious.
But regarding Christians, since God doesn't have an registration office where He personally vouches as to who is a Christian and who is not, then there is no final answer as to who is or who isn't one.
Certain people may claim they are final authority, but others disagree and no objective answer is possible.
So back to my original point that creationism is a particular interpretation of Genesis, that not all Christians hold to. If you disagree with that, then the only way you can logically believe so is if you hold yourself up as the final authority to say who is, and who is not a Christian, because many Christians do accept evolution, and that's just a fact.
Sorry.
you know it’s funny, Evos attack our concepts saying that they are based only on beliefs, and “beliefs are not science” but, the TOE is based primarily on theories which are based on theories, based on fossils that are themselves based in theory, but the fact that they believe these theories without and valid evidence is not viewed as “beliefs” I think it takes more faith to believe in the TOE than it does to believe in an all powerful creator. In short, if you don’t believe what we believe then it’s just not science.
Sorry, that is not correct.
The theory of evolution is based on evidence (data, facts, or observations). The evidence in turn is explained by the theory. And the that theory is tested each time new evidence is found--a new fossil skull, new DNA results, or new dating results, for example. The discovery of DNA was a major test for the theory of evolution, as was radiometric dating. The theory passed those tests as it has passed 150 years of tests.
Because of its basis in evidence, the theory of evolution does not require faith. When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
I studied this field for a number of years in graduate school, and I have seen a lot of the evidence for myself. It is not as it is often portrayed by creationists, a house of cards waiting only for a small push to fall in on itself. Most of the evidence has never reached the popular press--there is just too much of it. It is "hidden away" in the technical journals, taking up floors and floors of our good science libraries and museums.
It doesn't take faith to "believe in" a fossil like Sts 5 (Mrs. Ples) when you have handled a cast of the skull for several hours, and examined a number of other finds from the same site; along with dozens and dozens of other specimens from the same general area. By the time you finish a few years of this kind of study you are working from knowledge, not faith.
Howdy, I was wondering if you ever got a chance to respond to this?
>>To: GourmetDan
>>See my post to metmom where I explain that ‘other philosophies’ were the genesis of the scientific revolution and that the assumption of naturalism has actually slowed scientific progress.<<
When do you think naturalism was widely adopted?
223 posted on 02/04/2008 11:15:05 AM PST by gondramB<<
Howdy, I was wondering if you ever got a chance to respond to this?
>>To: GourmetDan
>>See my post to metmom where I explain that ‘other philosophies’ were the genesis of the scientific revolution and that the assumption of naturalism has actually slowed scientific progress.<<
When do you think naturalism was widely adopted?
223 posted on 02/04/2008 11:15:05 AM PST by gondramB<<
Nope. Never did.
That is probably wise, strategically.
No matter what date you suggest, scientific progress has accelerated since then so its hard to argue that this philosophy has not resulted in progress for mankind.
that was the premise of an old start trek TNG episode. a long extinct race traveled around the galaxy placing the building blocks of life on different planets.
it was a great episode. i love that show. what were we talking about?
You were clearly headed down the track of proposing a red herring argument. I merely had to wait for you to expose it yourself.
"No matter what date you suggest, scientific progress has accelerated since then so its hard to argue that this philosophy has not resulted in progress for mankind."
Conflating technological progress with 'after-the-fact storytelling' is the same thing another poster tried. Apparently this is either the only argument available to naturalists or the only one they can think of given critical-thinking abilities impaired by the 'a priori' assumption of naturalism.
So should all the dates on the material you test.
Why is it when we convey our beliefs, or findings, it is called “Pure Prepaganda”?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Because the critics are so threatened.
Psalm 14:1
The fool says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.
John 3:19-20
19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
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.