To atheists and agnostics

[apothanein kerdos]

I am not trying to pit anyone against each other...even though this will turn into a huge debate.

Regardless - put yourself in a situation where you're willing to sit down and discuss Christianity with someone. Would you be more apt to listen to a 6 day literalist or someone that believes God used evolution?

[SaturnV]

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking who would be more likely to convert me, or who I'd rather have a literary discussion of the Bible with?

[apothanein kerdos]

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking who would be more likely to convert me, or who I'd rather have a literary discussion of the Bible with?

Convert and discuss. Essentially, who would you take more seriously? Both believe in God, both believe the Bible is infallible, but only one is willing to take into account modern science (the evolutionist Christian). Which one would you trust in a conversation, be willing to talk with, respect in the conversation, etc.

[apothanein kerdos]

your statement is rather vague and certainly misinformed.

These two ideas are mutually exclusive. If it is vague, that means you can't understand it, i.e. you can't draw any conclusions from it (such as it's misinformed). If you understand it to be able to make judgments about it, then it is not vague.

Either way, this is addressed to Atheists and Agnostics. You are neither. Thus, if you'd kindly back out of the thread, it would be greatly appreciated.

[apothanein kerdos]

your statement is rather vague and certainly misinformed.

These two ideas are mutually exclusive. If it is vague, that means you can't understand it, i.e. you can't draw any conclusions from it (such as it's misinformed). If you understand it to be able to make judgments about it, then it is not vague.

Either way, this is addressed to Atheists and Agnostics. You are neither. Thus, if you'd kindly back out of the thread, it would be greatly appreciated.

The parts that are not vague are certainly misinformed. This is an open forum

[apothanein kerdos]

Are you suggesting that all non-evolutionist Christians reject modern science?

Yes

Is Darwinism really all about science?

Evolution does not equal Darwinism. Evolution is the way things happened - Darwinism is the naturalistic explanation (that is, philosophical) of how it occurred.

[apothanein kerdos]

Then it is your learned opinion that all of the 600 plus PhD scientists who signed the

[secondeve]

Regardless - put yourself in a situation where you're willing to sit down and discuss Christianity with someone.

Quite arguably, that's all I ever do on Worthy. :24:

Would you be more apt to listen to a 6 day literalist or someone that believes God used evolution?

I'd take more notice of the evolutionist - not because I think evolution is an infallable theory or even because it aligns with my own beliefs, but because I consider literal six day creationism one of the most implausibly ludicrous theories out there. To me, saying the world was created in six days is about as realistic as saying that magic is real. In general, I'd say that most literal creationists don't understand science intelligently enough to dismiss it as they do, whereas I'd think that most evolutionists can understand creationism, and are therefore able to reject it more intelligently. This is because science, in all its fields and with all its complexities, takes a lot more time and study to understand for any person, whereas the idea of a six-day creation is comparatively simple. So it comes as no surprise to me that people with a greater scientific training seem less often to be literal creationists than anything else. Note: I am not saying that these non-literal creationists are atumoatically believers in evolution - just that they don't think the world was created in six days.

Anyway - I'm more likely to listen to someone who can reason intelligently, accurately and knowledgeably about the theory they've rejected, and I think this more often applies to evolutionists than literal creationists. And as I put value on such reasoning skills, I would therefore value this person's reasons for faith more highly than someone whose reasoning capabilities I mistrusted.

Edited April 17, 2007 by secondeve

[Kabowd]

AK

I am friends with one of them and I'm in regular correspondence with most of them. Don't put words in my mouth.

I am not putting words in anyone

[apothanein kerdos]

You corresponde with most of these 600 scientists? Really?

I said most - about 400. Most of it, admittedly, is with Behe, Wells, and Dembski.

We