1,161
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 23:
Line 23: + + + + + + +
→I think not
:::Why is it shocking? I haven't said at all that the science is wrong, I'm just pointing out some philosophical things. Is that insulting? As far as the God argument, there is a difference between ''denying'' God, and being ''convinced'' that He doesn't exist. All I'm saying is that it is impossible to be ''convinced''. Convinced means you can prove that God does not exist, denying means that you don't believe He exists, whether He does or not. You have got the burden of proof my friend. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Why is it shocking? I haven't said at all that the science is wrong, I'm just pointing out some philosophical things. Is that insulting? As far as the God argument, there is a difference between ''denying'' God, and being ''convinced'' that He doesn't exist. All I'm saying is that it is impossible to be ''convinced''. Convinced means you can prove that God does not exist, denying means that you don't believe He exists, whether He does or not. You have got the burden of proof my friend. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::The entire thing is based on an extremely flawed perception of science and nitpicking on semantics. You'd apparently treat the phrase "I believe I'm right" as an expression of religious faith, but it's not. This is not about belief or faith. And implying religious statements from the scientific position is beyond insulting - it's ridiculous. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::The entire thing is based on an extremely flawed perception of science and nitpicking on semantics. You'd apparently treat the phrase "I believe I'm right" as an expression of religious faith, but it's not. This is not about belief or faith. And implying religious statements from the scientific position is beyond insulting - it's ridiculous. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::"''I believe I'm right''": No, you're putting words in my mouth. I honestly believe there is plenty of sound evidence for creation. I don't have to have to base my beliefs in non-reality.<br />"''And implying religious statements from the scientific position is beyond insulting''": Rather than just say it's insulting, why don't you tell me why? Counter my arguments, and not just with "insulting", or "wrong", etc.<br />"Semantics": We need semantics. If you think my semantics are illogical, counter them with logic rather than just saying you don't like them. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I guess to put it in other terms, although there are arguments against it, ''Theistic Evolutionism'' is the bare minimum option. I'm not the only one that thinks these things. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:13, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I guess to put it in other terms, although there are arguments against it, ''Theistic Evolutionism'' is the bare minimum option. I'm not the only one that thinks these things. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:13, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Sorry, but no. Theistic Evolution is based on believing that Genesis is correct. There are TONS of Christians who believe in God and still think that Genesis is nothing but a nice story. "Being Christian" does not equal "taking the Bible literally". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Sorry, but no. Theistic Evolution is based on believing that Genesis is correct. There are TONS of Christians who believe in God and still think that Genesis is nothing but a nice story. "Being Christian" does not equal "taking the Bible literally". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::There are definitely evolutionists that do not believe the bible at all, and still hold to their being a god of some sort. When I say Theistic Evolutionism, I mean any form of evolution that includes a god. About being a Christian, that's a totally different discussion. But to put it simply, if you don't take the Bible literally, than that opens up the possibility to throw out anything you don't like that it says. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::This article appears to be a rubuttal over my saying that evolution is not an -ism from the [[Talk:Theory of evolution]] page. I say here as I said there, recognizing that the evidence supports evolutionary theory in now way affects my world view. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::This article appears to be a rubuttal over my saying that evolution is not an -ism from the [[Talk:Theory of evolution]] page. I say here as I said there, recognizing that the evidence supports evolutionary theory in now way affects my world view. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm simply trying to include all the viewpoints. If it can be worded, let me know how. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)