To atheists and agnostics

[apothanein kerdos]

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.

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.

Thank you for your honest reply. That's all I've been looking for.

This is why I'd rather deal with atheists much more than Christians...

[apothanein kerdos]

Lol

[secondeve]

Thank you for your honest reply. That's all I've been looking for.

My pleasure.

[apothanein kerdos]

Lol

[secondeve]

A parting sidenote: from the manner in which the above disagreement between Horizoneast and AK has been carried out, were I asked which of them I'd be more likely to listen to, AK wins hands down. Horizoneast, here's a tip: especially when you're trying to claim intellectual highground in a debate, the way to do it is not personal insults. It just screams 'playground mentality.'

[apothanein kerdos]

A parting sidenote: from the manner in which the above disagreement between Horizoneast and AK has been carried out, were I asked which of them I'd be more likely to listen to, AK wins hands down. Horizoneast, here's a tip: especially when you're trying to claim intellectual highground in a debate, the way to do it is not personal insults. It just screams 'playground mentality.'

In fairness to Horizon, my response wasn't much better. I could have handled the insults with more integrity...but it's late, I'm working on an essay that I think is quite pointless, I'm trying to think of a response to Ken Miller's latest e-mail, and I"m hungry - these all leave me with my guard down and in quite a horrible mood.

[systemstrike_7]

A parting sidenote: from the manner in which the above disagreement between Horizoneast and AK has been carried out, were I asked which of them I'd be more likely to listen to, AK wins hands down. Horizoneast, here's a tip: especially when you're trying to claim intellectual highground in a debate, the way to do it is not personal insults. It just screams 'playground mentality.'

In fairness to Horizon, my response wasn't much better. I could have handled the insults with more integrity...but it's late, I'm working on an essay that I think is quite pointless, I'm trying to think of a response to Ken Miller's latest e-mail, and I"m hungry - these all leave me with my guard down and in quite a horrible mood.

Danget, now I'm hungry. But anyway, I enjoyed the debate, it was pretty interesting...

[SaturnV]

Well, moseying back over to the original topic of this thread...

I definitely have more time for an "Old Earth" Christian than a 6-day Creationist, mainly because the former actually understands the Theory of Evolution. Even if they don't agree with some of evolutionary theory, they at least have examined and can discuss the evidence. Literalists already have their minds made up, and no amount of evidence is going to change that. As one poster here said, scientific theories change all the time, but the Bible (or rather, their interpretation of it), never does.

As for discussing faith, it comes down to the person and how they can argue their case. From my experience, though, literalists tend to be all sound and fury.

[apothanein kerdos]

Very fair.

My next question is, how would you handle someone like Marcus Ross? He's a 6 day creationist, but understand the evolutionary theory so well that he can make arguments for it and operate within it?

[Kansasdad]

Very fair.

My next question is, how would you handle someone like Marcus Ross? He's a 6 day creationist, but understand the evolutionary theory so well that he can make arguments for it and operate within it?

I don't fit into your original qualities of who you were looking to respond, but I am interested in the topic. I apologize that I don't know the players, like Marcus Ross. Please give us some of his thoughts, on How evolution, the science, can fit into a 6 day creation? I think the creation story itself shows us that creation was a process, I believe guided by God. A process that took time. How do we fit that into a literal six days. Personally I think most "time" references in the Bible are to convey a concept. What is a day to God. The phrase that a day to God is a 1000 years, in my opinion, is not a literal 1000 years either. It is a concept, a message. So I don't think we have to fit it into 6000 years either. But I could be wrong.