Summations Only

EvC Forum: Quick Questions, Short Answers - No Debate

Have you never heard of a Theistic Evolutionist?Theistic evolution - Wikipedia

It also doesn't say that Eve had two boobs, but its fair to infer that. The Cosmic Ocean is common theme in middle eastern creation myths, we don't need the Bible to contain those exact words to get the picture. Look at it this way: Science is trying to figure out all the things that happen inside this box. "but what about this thing outside of the box", you might ask. Well, get it into the box and it'll be looked at, until then, it ain't in the box of things we're looking at. The source of inspiration doesn't even come into play. From wiki:

quote:

---

Here Kekul spoke of the creation of the theory. He said that he had discovered the ring shape of the benzene molecule after having a reverie or day-dream of a snake seizing its own tail (this is a common symbol in many ancient cultures known as the Ouroboros). This vision, he said, came to him after years of studying the nature of carbon-carbon bonds.

---

emphasis added I know what you mean, and sometimes it seems like science-ists are against these ideas (and sometimes they are), but for the science, its not really an outright rejection like you're making it out to be. Like I said, get 'em into the box and they'll be treated like any other.

---

I just cut that from the subtitle. That info is in the top-right of each message and is redundant. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed "top-left" to "top-right" in the last sentence.

No problem. You'll find people here are very willing to help you if you are willing to learn. If not, then you're just going to open the flood gates of snark and ridicule.You're introducing a lot of your ideas here in this thread, that have their own errors, but since we like to keep things on-topic, I'm not going to go through them all individually with corrections. You should pick a particular, fairly succinct, topic and propose a new opening post in the New Topic Forum. Then we can focus and learn you proper.For example, we could talk about Genesis: "pick apart Genesis and make a detailed commentary/exegesis that could possibly compare it to scientific theories"Or something on science and the supernatural. Or whatever.Too, you don't have to reply to every single reply to you, especially if you're getting into things that don't have anything at all to do with the topic of the thread - this one being about the kinds of creationists and having nothing to do with Genesis vs. Science nor Science vs. Supernature.Oh, and one more thing: Time dilation - Wikipedia

I think your disagreement has to do with what y'all mean by "study". If you drop your famous pen, and it falls upwards away from your desk, then you could "study" it in the sense that you could observe the direction its falling, but you wouldn't have a scientific explanation for its behavior. When you did come up with one, it have to be a natural explanation.But none of this has anything to do with the 3 kinds of creationists...

It seems to me that jar is using the term "study" more closely to 'explain' than just 'observe'.

If god knows everything then what's the point of praying for stuff?"Hey God, how's it going?... yeah, I'm good - oh yeah, you already knew that... anyways, I was wonder if you could -oh yeah, you already knew about that too... Well, about my grandma, she has this - shit, that's right, you must be aware of that 'cause you already know everthing... well... ... uhhhh... ... yeah, I guess that's about that then. Cheers."

Perhaps. Isn't that kinda childish, though? Is like when I make my dog sit while I'm dangling the treat in front of her...And if god knows everything, then he already knew that I wasn't going to ask for it before I didn't

We could just be a brain in a jar, but without any reason to think that we are, it doesn't become problematic.I don't doubt that this is real every second of the day, even though it could all be a dream because I don't have any reason to think that it actually is. But it could be.

No. God could, but that doesn't mean he did. Without a reason to think he did, then no problem, but he still could have. If I had reason to think I was dreaming, then I'd try flying around like I always do...But I don't have any reason to think I'm dreaming. Still, I could be dreaming.There's a difference in accepting that you could be dreaming and believing that you are dreaming and you seem to be conflating the two.

I haven't really thought about it, but yeah, your angel friend could work. Me? Why? How? He said he believes that god could...Belief in a potential is not belief in an actual. Why would the potential affect his actions without the actual? And if it was something you couldn't test?

Holy shit, cross-thread Gotcha! You've really got it in for me I have good reason to think I'm not dreaming right now. But regarding whether or not everything is a dream, no, I have no way of knowing that.

No. No But it was belief in a possibility... You don't rule it out. But without sufficient reason to believe in the acutality, you're left believing in the possibility. I'm just not see the "problem". Its not believing in something, its believing in the possibility of something. I think that's the difference you're not including.

No, and I guess that's a source of our disagreement. You can maintain the belief in the possibility, but withold consideration until you have sufficient reason of the actuality. The belief in the posibility wasn't brought forward as a serious proposal waiting to be ruled out, it was just an acknowledgement. Because that's the one you have evidence for. Again, it was a belief in the possibility, not a belief in the actuality.

I don't think we mean the same things be "belief". I looked up "believe" in the dictionary and on one end it has "to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something" and on the other it has "to suppose or assume".