0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.
If evidence of observable evolution is not enough for those with your belief system, then nothing will be; and I daresay that Creationism should be measured against the same standards, for if direct proof is not enough for evolution, then an absence of any observable evidence should signal the end of belief in supernatural creation.
The understanding of evidence is knowledge, to me.
That living life based on skepticism is irrational: we both agree.
But they are mutual exclusive.It's either god created em, or made naturally by natural evolution.
If we argue creationism in a spiritual context, how does that really link to the material world we are in?
and N. Escalona, there is more evidence for evolution than creationism. yet you believe in the latter, so somehow I don't think it's really a evidence problem.
Note: The material world is the only apparent one. Careful there, ghosty.
Quote from: Mangled* on January 26, 2009, 10:35:35 pmNote: The material world is the only apparent one. Careful there, ghosty.Not necessarily.
Again? Really, again? Until we get an influx of active new members who have yet to share their opinion on the creation of the world, this topic is more stale than a pack of 40 assorted Timbits that have been left out for a week.
Quote from: excruciator on January 26, 2009, 05:42:47 pmIf we argue creationism in a spiritual context, how does that really link to the material world we are in?It depends on what you mean by creationism. But it doesn't need to link to the material world directly. That doesn't necessarily mean its not an important question.
Quote from: excruciator on January 26, 2009, 05:42:47 pmand N. Escalona, there is more evidence for evolution than creationism. yet you believe in the latter, so somehow I don't think it's really a evidence problem.I guess I need to say this again. Scientific evidence is much more important in the context of science than the context of theology. Science is not the universal standard by which to measure all ideas, because science is limited only to the physical world. But you need to define evolution and creationism if you intend to make them mutually exclusive like this. I think its exceedingly misleading to characterize creation as anything besides the idea that God created the world.
Don't chew on words.Material is what we live in. And spiritual could be even more virtual than the one we are living in.You get what he meant, and that's the end of it.
Indeed. What you mean on spiritual could very might just cover the fact that we don't have an organ that reads and broadcasts radio waves, like how our eyes can't perceive a whole lot of the light spectrum (infra and ultra-waves). The evolutionary explanation for that is that we never needed that function, just the same as you can touch, feel and see a rock as solid, when on the smallest scale, there's effectively more space between those molecules than matter (though Geo might come and fix me on this one with a wrench, as my high school trivia knowledge is fading fast).
Nobody will never know wtf is the spiritual world. Therefore use some common sense.
Yeah lets keep asking why.physical is stuff you could touch, feel, or it could influence you or your living world in some degree.Spiritual is the rest.Nobody will never know wtf is the spiritual world. Therefore use some common sense.
You're making some assumptions here. "touch, feel" is certainly a phenomenon of the physical world. However it's closed-minded to say that these are the only ways for things to influence you. You've simply asserted that idea, absurdly redefining "physical" and "spiritual" to be essentially "real stuff subject to common sense" and "imaginary stuff not subject to common sense".