15 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettin england we voted a woman she split the country putting over 4,000,000 on dole then blamed them for lazyness, even tho she sold out the pits, shipyards water etc to europe she promoted the buy british flag, Tho the fat cats got fatter the rest got
Does she suppose that Queen Elizabeth I, or Queen Victoria never cried? I don't think that their being of the supposedly "weaker" sex was much of a detriment.
15 Jan 08
Originally posted by stokerNone of which had anything to do with her being a woman...
in england we voted a woman she split the country putting over 4,000,000 on dole then blamed them for lazyness, even tho she sold out the pits, shipyards water etc to europe she promoted the buy british flag, Tho the fat cats got fatter the rest got
15 Jan 08
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI am a Creationist and I do not have a problem with science. What I have a problem with are Creationists who think that God zapped things out of thin air to create them. If one looks at the Genesis account it is painfully obvious that God created using the material already created before life was born into the world. For example, man was formed from the dust of the ground. Also if one looks at how God spoke to the waters to bring forth life one is left with the quesiton as to why if he zapped things into existence. Really the only differnece between my position and your position is that your position is that evolution is 100% devoid of intelligent thought as where I say it was spun into motion by a Creator.
YE Creationists are the Creationists I was specifically referring to.
15 Jan 08
Originally posted by whodeyHave you looked into Deism? You sound like you have some similarities with that religion or philosophy or whatever it is.
I am a Creationist and I do not have a problem with science. What I have a problem with are Creationists who think that God zapped things out of thin air to create them. If one looks at the Genesis account it is painfully obvious that God created using the material already created before life was born into the world. For example, man was formed from the du ...[text shortened]... ution is 100% devoid of intelligent thought as where I say it was spun into motion by a Creator.
15 Jan 08
Originally posted by whodeySo do you believe evolution happened, but was guided by God?
I am a Creationist and I do not have a problem with science. What I have a problem with are Creationists who think that God zapped things out of thin air to create them. If one looks at the Genesis account it is painfully obvious that God created using the material already created before life was born into the world. For example, man was formed from the du ...[text shortened]... ution is 100% devoid of intelligent thought as where I say it was spun into motion by a Creator.
15 Jan 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungGood point, even where science is wrong we use it, it doesn't make
Depends what you mean by "wrong". Newton was "wrong"; that doesn't mean we didn't use his equations to get to the moon successfully!
what we come up with flowless in science only useful.
Kelly
15 Jan 08
Yes, I'd vote for an atheist candidate. Yes, I'd vote for a Christian candidate. I'd have a hard time with a Young Earth Creationist candidate (because of what it would imply about that person's regard for science). I'd vote for a Muslim candidate or a Mormon candidate or a Hindu candidate. You get the picture. What matters to me is how that candidate feels about the issues that are important to me.
15 Jan 08
Originally posted by KellyJayIn what cases do we use science that has been proven wrong? There are cases where we are less sure than others, but I can't think of a case where science has been absolutely proven wrong, yet we still use it.
Good point, even where science is wrong we use it, it doesn't make
what we come up with flowless in science only useful.
Kelly
15 Jan 08
Originally posted by whodeyI think I would be uncomfortable with any candidate who proclaimed his religion too loudly...whether he were christian, a mormon, a muslim, an atheist, or a jew.
The question should be asked, would you vote for an atheist president? What would concern you about such a President? Would you be worried that his morals might be askew with the notion that there is not a higher authority to answer to so long as no one ever discovers what his vices are? Would you worry that they would have blatant disregard for those of v ...[text shortened]... he majority believes in God then should they not elect someone who identifies with such beliefs?
16 Jan 08
Originally posted by LiraelAnd what does that say about all the people who voted for him in the last election? Are they also not very intelligent? Or do they not see intelligence as important for presidency? Or is it a flaw in the US political system (eg the other candidate was worse.)
and could anyone be worse than Bush - he definitely proves Darwin wrong as apes are more intelligent
16 Jan 08
Originally posted by whodeyI do not have a problem with people who make that claim. I do have a problem with anyone who goes a step further and claims that evolution would be impossible without the 'motion of a Creator' and then tell all sorts of lies to try and support such a claim.
Really the only differnece between my position and your position is that your position is that evolution is 100% devoid of intelligent thought as where I say it was spun into motion by a Creator.
A surprising number of Christians find it hard to believe that anything can happen without Gods express will and have difficulties with the possibility that God created a world which actually works without his constant guiding hand.Would you be comfortable with the possibility that God created a universe in which he knew that without further intervention, 4 billion years later life would evolve into humanity?