so, as far as you are concerned, your childrens children are predestined by god?Originally Posted by chip anderson
so, as far as you are concerned, your childrens children are predestined by god?
No god determines my or my children's future. God determines my existance and my children's. God does not (or at least not usually) direct what happens to me or them in an immeadiate sense. As to what happens as a result of the choices I make in this life, yes, God determines this. If God has something that he wishes me to accomplish in this life, yes he can both determine and enable this.
Look If you choose not to believe, I hope you are right. I personally do not care what your fate is, but for your sake, I hope you are right. For my sake I hope I am right. I don't care if there ain't no heaven, but I pray there ain't no hell for both our sakes.
Chip
Intelligent Design is just that. Design. Nothing hoakey like spiritual planning or ultimate destiny. ID is a scientific theory. Imagine for example, life on Earth is a direct result of Aliens creating us and planting us here. The Aliens were so Intelligent they DESIGNED our DNA, genes, blood, bone structure, brains and everything else. They designed us to have 2 eyes for depth perception and 2 ears for stereo sound. They DESIGNED the process of life as we know it. They DESIGNED our minds to "think" in the way we might design artificial intelligence in a robot, only much better. They DESIGNED our ability to decide things, learn things and invent things. That is ID in a nutshell.
thanks for that, earlier in the thread there was the implication that it was actally more than that
My suggestion to Intelligent Design proponents would be to let only the non-God-believing portion promote the theory to eliminate the complicated morass of misunderstanding as to what I.D. is.
I really think Christians should wash their hands of this debate.
Leave I.D. to the alien-believers.
just as an footnote...
Aliens are not that uncommon. Neil Armstrong was technically an Alien on the Moon. Although some dispute he ever got there.
is that because the god-believing version is so proposterous, and miss-guided, it doesnt stand up to inspection? or because the god believing portion are so delinquent, they cant explain their corner?
Sorry, there is NO science in religious theory. You wanna teach ID, do it in theology class.
Sorry, there is NO religion in science theory. The belief in intelligent aliens is a scientific theory, not a religious one.
No, it's because those who are anti-ID don't believe a word that comes out of any Christian's mouth.
that is a little unfair.. try saying something that stands up to inspection, and we will start believing you
By the way, I never said I was anti ID, it just seems a proposterous proposition (as stated)
Although it seems utterly unproven, on balance, the alien version of ID makes more sense than the religious, because in a sense we have evidence of Aliens - our probes have left the earth and gone throughout the solar system, and we have stepped on the moon. (we are the aliens in this sense)
The proposition of life on other planets seems pretty realistic, after the analaysis of meteors, shows the basic building blocks of life
It was just a blunt way of saying that evolutionists don't think Christian ID theorists can be objective. At least that's how I interpreted drk's answer.
As for aliens, it's irrelevant who actually designed us. But the meteor thing doesn't qualify as ID. Unless the meteor was designed to plant us here.
i think there is a point here... if we are talking as adults we can all make our choices, and have a mature debate... If what we are talking about here is to do with is what is taught in schools, then religious ID is for the relegious lessons, and it has a rightfull case to be there, allong with athiesim, and non-christian religions. lets keep the science lessons strictly on what is generally accepted to be science. the religious lessons have a purpose (someone might explain that to me one day) and the science lessons teach science theory and good practice, which assumes a skeptisisim and a knowlege that sciene is something that in the overall sense has evolved
Aww, poor Rimmy. Eaten all your crayons, have you? Now it's back to clowning statements of "fact". ID is precisely as scientific, as I keep trying to tell you, as astrology. You'd best get off this particular bus while you still look slightly farsighted in doing so--even someone as dumb as Rick Santorum figured it out. Ah well. Blind squirrel, nut.
Now, as far as the FSM and your noting of possible logical fallacies concerning Its Noodly Ways, this is easy to explain. From the initial letter to the Kansas Board of Education:
The FSM has remained undetected until recently because He has wished it. Only a fool would think otherwise.For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.
I really like the FSM, makes me feel bad about italian food though, chuckle chuckle
That makes Behe more of a muppet than I originally thought... did you know that they had the length of the year wrong when astrology was first devised, so nowadays we are a whole month out from where we are supposed to be... what does that make me - a leo? a virgo or sagitarious? i suppose a chouce of 3 out of 12 isnt so bad...
My thinking is this, and I must admit, I'm learning a lot on these threads:
Intelligent design, while I obviously believe in a form of it, is a bad move by Christians, not unlike the gay marriage thing. Why should Christians sweat whether the public schools teach "the truth" or not? Even if I.D. were accepted as a valid scientific viewpoint (which I still think it is, but I won't argue it), there is plenty else wrong in the public school system that Christians would be obligated to attack as well: sex education, multiculturalism, ad nauseum.
As a Christian, we have to accept that we cannot expect to use the civil, political, and legal systems to spread what we think is truth. We have to take a more "separate but equal" type of approach in schooling, cultural customs such as marriage, separate moral systems, etc. Christians will become more and more unique and strange over time.
While there are many that want to usher in God's kingdom on earth, it will happen just fine without our help. It only seems to stir up great misunderstanding and animosity.
This is an admission of defeat, in a way, but a defeat in a battle we were destined to lose, anyway. Wise Christians will understand that.
Leave intelligent design to the scientists that believe it, and leave the debate to the scientists. When/if, in due course, it becomes accepted to the secular world, it will automatically be included in school curricula.
IN RE classes (religious education) they ought to teach about the world religioins, and ideas like ID and NCET - New Creation Evoloution Theory (that is the theory that says that modern genetics leads back to the ark). They ought to teach in RE that Islam and christianity share the same roots, and also cover such debates as the meaning (or not) of the trinity etc. They ought to go in depth about athiesm, agnostisisim and other major religions such as the church od scientology, mormom, cults and paganisim - that would be a fairly comprehensive religious education
In Geography children ought to be taught about who, where, why, and mans imact onthe environment, and introduced to plate tectonice, global warming, and the formation of rock and the fundaments of archeology
In cookery classes they ought to teach inter continental cuisine and about things like nutrition and malnutrition
In English children should be taught to talk without moving thier arms like a delinquent baboon
In history, besides the normal stuff, they ought to cover the history of science, religion, and indigenous peoples
In Science they ought to teach the fundaments of science, but also the principles of scientific review, the changing view of science, and the principles and reasons for research.
in this way everyone gets a rounded education, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY IS TAUGHT TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES
We live in a global world, and our children will be more global than we ever will be, its about time we stopped being so hard nosed about our local provincial ideas, and embraced the fact that others in the world can manage to live well too. that applies as much to cuisine as it does to religion and science
Multiculturalism = bad?
thats food for a thread all of its own... perhaps we should go there tenderly
The plot thickens. Well, no. Actually, I think it's thinning.
Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design
Vatican City, Nov. 18 - The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.
The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.
"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be," the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."
...
"If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best of modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly."
the intelegent design thing seems to me a non starter... it does not describe events in evouloutanary history..dinasaurs for example, which were wiped out by a meteorite - if the meteor was in the design, then the design wasnt very good. If the meteor wasnt in the plan, then it is more than unlikley that we would be here now
They're working on the dinosaur problem.
Biblical creation museum to rise in Kentucky in 2007
Facility, nation's largest, holds that world is 6,000 years old, baby dinosaurs rode in Noah's ark.
By Michael Powell / Washington Post
PETERSBURG, Ky. -- The guide, a soft-spoken fellow with a scholarly aspect, walks through the halls of this handsome, half-finished museum and points to the sculpture of a young velociraptor.
"We're placing this one in the hall that explains the post-Flood world," explains the guide. "When dinosaurs lived with man."
A reporter has a question or two about this dinosaur-man business, but Mark Looy -- the guide and a vice president at the museum -- has walked over to the lifelike head of a T. rex, with its three-inch teeth and carnivore's grin.
"We call him our 'missionary lizard,' " Looy says. "When people realize the T. rex lived in Eden, it will lead us to a discussion of the gospel. The T. rex once was a vegetarian, too."
I think they might just possibly realise something else"We call him our 'missionary lizard,' " Looy says. "When people realize the T. rex lived in Eden, it will lead us to a discussion of the gospel. The T. rex once was a vegetarian, too."
So while we are at it... how does the story of noah's ark, and the flood fit in to this ID theory?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks