Author
|
Topic: Hello
|
Practical Prodigy
Junior Member (Idle past 5013 days) Posts: 30 From: IN, USA Joined: 06-30-2010
|
|
Message 1 of 21 (567303)
06-30-2010 2:53 PM
|
|
|
Im new to C vs E. Hope to add useful debate ;P
Replies to this message: | | Message 2 by AZPaul3, posted 06-30-2010 2:56 PM | | Practical Prodigy has not replied | | Message 3 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-30-2010 3:06 PM | | Practical Prodigy has replied | | Message 4 by Huntard, posted 06-30-2010 3:08 PM | | Practical Prodigy has not replied |
|
Practical Prodigy
Junior Member (Idle past 5013 days) Posts: 30 From: IN, USA Joined: 06-30-2010
|
About Me
I'm a theist, I believe in Theistic evolution. I am most knowledgable about physics, followed by biology, then chemistry. I have an Associates Degree in Applied Science (CIT) and a Bachelors Degree in Applied Science (Forensics). Does that sum it up
|
Practical Prodigy
Junior Member (Idle past 5013 days) Posts: 30 From: IN, USA Joined: 06-30-2010
|
Re: About Me
know more physics and chemistry than biology. I've got a good grasp of the Theory of Evolution. I like the cosmology stuff too, Big Bang, Inflation, etc. I've been through Genesis a lot. The Flood. The Synoptic Gospels. Some of Leviticus. I'm lacking on the history. How's your Bible knowledge? Where do you lack knowledge the most, in general |
I also like atronomy and cosmology. I am pretty well versed in the Bible, my history knowledge is fairly vast I have done alot of research on most of the Books. I have also researched Pseudepigrapha, Apocrypha, and Sacred Writings such as; Book of Enoch, Book of Adam, etc. Pretty much. Thanks! Are you Christian? Which denomination? Where are you lacking? |
I am a nondenominational Christian. I'd say I'm lacking most in organized religion, I grew up in Roman Catholic schooling but dont hold much stock in the "Hollywood" style religion types. In my opinion it takes you from the personal relationship with God and destroys free-thinking and encourages dogma.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 6 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-30-2010 4:33 PM | | New Cat's Eye has not replied |
|
Practical Prodigy
Junior Member (Idle past 5013 days) Posts: 30 From: IN, USA Joined: 06-30-2010
|
Re: Theist and evolutionist or theistic evolutionist?
As I understand such, theistic evolutionist means a belief that God guided evolution to some degree, be it small or in detail. On the other hand, there are theists who believe in a creator God and an unguided by God evolution. As such, there is a distinction between being a theist evolutionist and a theistic evolutionist. So, are you actually a theistic evolutionist? |
Well as I understand it there is three different camps, creationism (which believes in creation and Young Earth and literal interpretation of Genesis), theistic evolutionists (which believes in an allegory version of Genesis and creation), and naturalist evolutionists (no belief in God, just abiogenesis and evolution). My position in theistic evolution, due to the fact that I believe in the process of adaptation, mutation, etc (ie micro-evolution). I do not believe that one species will become another through macro-evolution. I also believe that Evolutional Theory, which is based on philosophical naturalism (a religious worldview), is used to explain processes in the hypothetical distant past and even the extreme distances of the Universe. Methodological naturalism is thus going far beyond science's proper boundaries of the observable human experience. Proper science uses inductive reasoning from facts or general principles and causality, without excluding possibilities (supernatural or natural). Using undirected nature and unnatural intelligent causes to explain everything in the human experience leaves various phenomena unexplained (a basis for most of the content on this site). If something is not repeatable and leaves little trace or no trace of its occurance, mainstream science has a hard time dealing with it. Evolutional theory does not nearly have all the answers it is limited in its application at best, and misleading at worst.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 8 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-30-2010 7:04 PM | | Minnemooseus has replied |
|
Practical Prodigy
Junior Member (Idle past 5013 days) Posts: 30 From: IN, USA Joined: 06-30-2010
|
|
Message 12 of 21 (567376)
06-30-2010 9:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 9 by RAZD 06-30-2010 7:25 PM
|
|
Re: welcome
Yes I love mysteries and researching things and figuring out things with little to no evidence ;P Forensics when applied to this debate produces interesting results...
This message is a reply to: | | Message 9 by RAZD, posted 06-30-2010 7:25 PM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
Practical Prodigy
Junior Member (Idle past 5013 days) Posts: 30 From: IN, USA Joined: 06-30-2010
|
Re: Theist and evolutionist or theistic evolutionist?
Then you're not a theistic evolutionist. |
What is your definition of a theistic view then? I believe God has guided a limited form of evolution/adaptation/variation that means I am not a Creationist and not an Evolutionists. The misnomer Old World Creationist is an catch-all term for; creationism, including Gap creationism and Progressive creationism. I also only reject macro-evolution not the consensus on observable micro-evolution. I believe that biological micro-evolution is merely another process within creation. It is what God employed to develop diversity and adaptation. If that was true, then there wouldn't be any actual theistic evolutionists. |
Naturalism is a religious worldview, theistic evolutionists and accept the supernatural aspect of creation. Fundamental evolutionists believe in abiogenesis and hold a naturalists world view in most instances as does a majority of empirical science. The are based on the human experince and observable processes. This stance is concerned with knowledge: what are methods for gaining trustworthy knowledge of the natural world? It is an epistemological view that is specifically concerned with practical methods for acquiring knowledge, irrespective of one's metaphysical or religious views. It requires that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events. Explanations of observable effects are considered to be practical and useful only when they hypothesize natural causes (i.e., specific mechanisms, not indeterminate miracles). Methodological naturalism is the principle underlying all of modern science. Naturalism - Wikipedia(philosophy) |
If that isnt a religious worldview I dont know what is. Edited by Practical Prodigy, : spelling
This message is a reply to: | | Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-30-2010 10:31 PM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Practical Prodigy
Junior Member (Idle past 5013 days) Posts: 30 From: IN, USA Joined: 06-30-2010
|
Re: Specfic topic debate does not belong in a Coffee House "Hello" topic
You can close and move to new thread as you see fit, I respect that...
|