Page 11 of 34 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 334

Thread: Creation "science" and a Bible-based morality

  1. Top | #101
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    21,143
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    45,643
    Rep Power
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    ....But it does not make sense to split off 'atheistic evolution' from creationism unless you refer to every science as atheistic.
    I'm saying there is atheistic evolution and theistic evolution -
    I get that.
    And i'm saying you're wrong to do that (save only that you refer to every single science as atheistic). Not only wrong, but betraying significant ignorance.
    There's the scientific theory, there's the "let's credit god" apology, and there's 'nothing-but-god creationism.
    not that evolution is always atheistic - but I rejected Christian theistic evolution and went straight to atheistic evolution.
    No, no you did not. If you referred to it as atheistic evolution, you were still giving credit to creationist attempts to control the debate. Like their idea thsst you could not study evolution without abandoning God completely. This is wrong. This is their false claim.

    All science is neutral on the supernatural, or it isn't science.

    For color theory chart there's the light filter chart and pigment-based chart, right?
    Not atheistic color chart versus stained-glass-windows color chart.

  2. Top | #102
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,455
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,341
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist
    I'm saying there is atheistic evolution and theistic evolution -
    I get that.
    And i'm saying you're wrong to do that (save only that you refer to every single science as atheistic). Not only wrong, but betraying significant ignorance.
    There's the scientific theory, there's the "let's credit god" apology, and there's 'nothing-but-god creationism.
    Well I was a high school student - I didn't know much about valid arguments, etc. At that time I didn't use the term "atheistic evolution" but I was focusing on YEC vs unguided evolution (with no intelligent force). I was aware of (intelligently) guided evolution but I didn't seriously consider it at that time.
    not that evolution is always atheistic - but I rejected Christian theistic evolution and went straight to atheistic evolution.
    No, no you did not. If you referred to it as atheistic evolution, you were still giving credit to creationist attempts to control the debate. Like their idea thsst you could not study evolution without abandoning God completely. This is wrong. This is their false claim.
    Well I didn't claim to not be wrong at the time.
    All science is neutral on the supernatural, or it isn't science.
    Though for some reason I think scientists tend to be less likely to believe in the supernatural....

  3. Top | #103
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    21,143
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    45,643
    Rep Power
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Well I was a high school student - I didn't know much about valid arguments, etc. At that time I didn't use the term "atheistic evolution" but I was focusing on YEC vs unguided evolution (with no intelligent force). I was aware of (intelligently) guided evolution but I didn't seriously consider it at that time.
    not that evolution is always atheistic - but I rejected Christian theistic evolution and went straight to atheistic evolution.
    No, no you did not. If you referred to it as atheistic evolution, you were still giving credit to creationist attempts to control the debate. Like their idea thsst you could not study evolution without abandoning God completely. This is wrong. This is their false claim.
    Well I didn't claim to not be wrong at the time.
    All science is neutral on the supernatural, or it isn't science.
    Though for some reason I think scientists tend to be less likely to believe in the supernatural....
    They believe. They just don't cite them at work.

    And i don't care if you used 'atheistic evolution' then. You're using it now.
    You really should know better.
    Atheists tha t accept evolution based on the science just call it evolution.
    Theists thst accept evolution based on the science just call it evolution.

    Creationists that want their victims too scared to learn the science call it atheistic evolution...

  4. Top | #104
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    21,143
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    45,643
    Rep Power
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Yes, every single scientific throry lacks a belief in anything supernatural.
    But it does not make sense to split off 'atheistic evolution' from creationism unless you refer to every science as atheistic.
    'Recent findings in atheistic geology...'
    'A professor of atheistic biology...'
    'A lot of atheistic computing nerds scrambled for Y2K...
    Reminds me of a guided tour at Mammoth Caves National Park. The ranger began by saying that there are many stories about how these caves were formed. it seemed odd until I realized we were in Kentucky. He then went on to say he was giving the scientific account. He didn't say he was giving the atheistic geological account. No doubt there were plenty of religionists about who believed the caves were formed when a 600 year old man built a magic boat on orders from a magic sky voice.
    Like the Brooklyn alphabet: fuckin' A, fuckin' B, fuckin' C...
    Atheistic geology, atheistic geography, atheistic anthropology, atheistic paleontology, atheistic electricity...

    I mean, no one divides it as Thor-throwing fulminology versus atheistic fulminology. It's just, "[ZAPP! Rrrrrrrumble!] That was a good one!"

  5. Top | #105
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,455
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,341
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    They believe. They just don't cite them at work.

    And i don't care if you used 'atheistic evolution' then. You're using it now.
    You really should know better.
    Atheists tha t accept evolution based on the science just call it evolution.
    Theists thst accept evolution based on the science just call it evolution.

    Creationists that want their victims too scared to learn the science call it atheistic evolution...
    There is theistic evolution
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
    What do you call it if it is evolution that isn't theistic? (non-theistic evolution?)

    "Theists that accept evolution based on the science just call it evolution"

    Then why is there a Wikipedia article called "theistic evolution"?

    In the "external links" there is a (non-working) link for:
    Spectrum of Creation Beliefs From Flat Earthism to Atheistic Evolutionism, including Theistic Evolution

  6. Top | #106
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    21,143
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    45,643
    Rep Power
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    They believe. They just don't cite them at work.

    And i don't care if you used 'atheistic evolution' then. You're using it now.
    You really should know better.
    Atheists tha t accept evolution based on the science just call it evolution.
    Theists thst accept evolution based on the science just call it evolution.

    Creationists that want their victims too scared to learn the science call it atheistic evolution...
    There is theistic evolution
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
    What do you call it if it is evolution that isn't theistic? (non-theistic evolution?)
    Science.
    "Theists that accept evolution based on the science just call it evolution"

    Then why is there a Wikipedia article called "theistic evolution"?
    Theistic evolution is not called that becuse theists believe in it.
    Rather, it is evolutionary theory that depends on divine action, in some or all parts.
    In the "external links" there is a (non-working) link for:
    Spectrum of Creation Beliefs From Flat Earthism to Atheistic Evolutionism, including Theistic Evolution
    Big whoop.
    It's still a stupid term to use, a stupid distinction to make, and a stupid practice for anyone who is not trying to villify science.

  7. Top | #107
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,455
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,341
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Theistic evolution is not called that because theists believe in it.
    Rather, it is evolutionary theory that depends on divine action, in some or all parts.
    So "theistic evolution" is roughly "evolutionary theory that depends on divine action, in some or all parts".... what about evolutionary theory that explicitly involves no divine action?
    ....It's still a stupid term to use, a stupid distinction to make, and a stupid practice for anyone who is not trying to villify science.
    I think it is an important distinction to make between guided evolution and naturalistic evolution... in fact I've created threads on that topic.

  8. Top | #108
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    7,852
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    12,891
    Rep Power
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Theistic evolution is not called that because theists believe in it.
    Rather, it is evolutionary theory that depends on divine action, in some or all parts.
    So "theistic evolution" is roughly "evolutionary theory that depends on divine action, in some or all parts".... what about evolutionary theory that explicitly involves no divine action?
    ....It's still a stupid term to use, a stupid distinction to make, and a stupid practice for anyone who is not trying to villify science.
    I think it is an important distinction to make between guided evolution and naturalistic evolution... in fact I've created threads on that topic.
    Back in the day YECs were all about "special creation." Yours is just "special evolution," evolution by divine fiat. It's dopey stuff, there isn't any such thing.

  9. Top | #109
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,455
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,341
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist
    ....I think it is an important distinction to make between guided evolution and naturalistic evolution... in fact I've created threads on that topic.
    Back in the day YECs were all about "special creation." Yours is just "special evolution," evolution by divine fiat. It's dopey stuff, there isn't any such thing.
    My belief is that an intelligent force started with some life forms (like chameleons and butterflies and flowers) and then generated a plausible evolutionary history for the DNA (and geology, etc). So it appears that evolution was naturalistic and happened over millions of years. Though I think our current simulation server has only been explicitly simulating our world for a relatively short amount of time. The idea may be dopey but perhaps some of the specifics are quite original....


  10. Top | #110
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Port Clinton, Ohio
    Posts
    4,643
    Archived
    591
    Total Posts
    5,234
    Rep Power
    73
    Back in 2009, when this site was called freeratio, a member who went by jonJ posted this, on the topic of needing a god to understand the universe:

    More generally, how can postulating a mysterious unknowable intangible extra-terrestrial being of infinite power actually explain anything? At best you can only go from: "I don't know how it happened" to "God did it, so I don't know how it happened."

    I was going to paraphrase his thought in my own little post, but he said it with such precision that he deserves the attribution.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •