Exegesisme Posted September 6, 2015 Report Posted September 6, 2015 Ben Carson vs Donald Trump By exegesisme There are about 20 candidates in running for two nominations of two major parties in USA now. In the republican side, the running is more interesting than the democratic side. Now the first runner in Republican side is Donald Trump, and the emerging second runner is Ben Carson. These two are political outsiders, and Ben Carson is even more outside than Donald Trump (Career in medicine is farther away from politics than career in large business). I have a feeling about them, Ben Carson who is with internal passion will very likely surpass Donald Trump who is with external passion. The voters in USA will gradually absorbed by the inner passion of Ben Carson, who is in making another American dream more brilliant. Quote
G Huxley Posted September 6, 2015 Report Posted September 6, 2015 Ben Carson is the best candidate the Rs have by far, a person with a lot of dedication, discipline, skill and brilliance, but he's nutty too."Carson stated: "I don't believe in evolution...I simply don't have enough faith to believe that something as complex as our ability to rationalize, think, and plan, and have a moral sense of what's right and wrong, just appeared."[65] In 2012, nearly 500 professors, students, and alumni of Emory University wrote a letter expressing concern about his views in advance of his commencement speech. They cited a quote in an interview with the Adventist Review: "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate morality and the basis of ethical behavior." Quote
Exegesisme Posted September 6, 2015 Author Report Posted September 6, 2015 Ben Carson is the best candidate the Rs have by far, a person with a lot of dedication, discipline, skill and brilliance, but he's nutty too. "Carson stated: "I don't believe in evolution...I simply don't have enough faith to believe that something as complex as our ability to rationalize, think, and plan, and have a moral sense of what's right and wrong, just appeared."[65] In 2012, nearly 500 professors, students, and alumni of Emory University wrote a letter expressing concern about his views in advance of his commencement speech. They cited a quote in an interview with the Adventist Review: "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate morality and the basis of ethical behavior." Do you see any idea which unifies creation and evolution? Quote
Exegesisme Posted September 6, 2015 Author Report Posted September 6, 2015 No. I have been paying attention to it and thinking in this way for many years. A very concise summary is on the following webpage. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24906-the-reunion-of-faith-and-science-creation-and-evolution/ Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 6, 2015 Report Posted September 6, 2015 Creationism and evolution were unified by the crew of Apollo 8. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Exegesisme Posted September 6, 2015 Author Report Posted September 6, 2015 Creationism and evolution were unified by the crew of Apollo 8. I agree. The human cooperation with the creation of God has been making the progress of human civilization. Quote
G Huxley Posted September 6, 2015 Report Posted September 6, 2015 (edited) I fundamentally disagree that faith and science are reconcilable. Scientific method is based on lack of faith. It sounds neat and politically correct to say that they can be reconciled, but they are two completely opposite philosophies. That isn't to say that religious people can't provide much to science. Quite the opposite, it just means that they don't apply science in all areas. This requires a certain degree of compartmentalization. I have a client who is like Ben Carson in that they are a creationist, religious fundamentalist neurosurgeon who denies evolution. The amount of compartmentalization that must take place is amazing. The amount of evidence showing the development of the human brain from a shared ancestor to the other primates is overwhelming. Simply one chooses to ignore a vast vast vast amount of information so that it doesn't cause a crisis of faith. Edited September 6, 2015 by G Huxley Quote
Exegesisme Posted September 6, 2015 Author Report Posted September 6, 2015 I fundamentally disagree that faith and science are reconcilable. Scientific method is based on lack of faith. It sounds neat and politically correct to say that they can be reconciled, but they are two completely opposite philosophies. That isn't to say that religious people can't provide much to science. Quite the opposite, it just means that they don't apply science in all areas. This requires a certain degree of compartmentalization. I have a client who is like Ben Carson in that they are a creationist, religious fundamentalist neurosurgeon who denies evolution. The amount of compartmentalization that must take place is amazing. The amount of evidence showing the development of the human brain from a shared ancestor to the other primates is overwhelming. Simply one chooses to ignore a vast vast vast amount of information so that it doesn't cause a crisis of faith. I see what you mean. But to Carson, Both science and faith are crucial for him, and both are source of his inner passion. Quote
G Huxley Posted September 6, 2015 Report Posted September 6, 2015 If science is crucial for Carson why does he deny it? Quote
Exegesisme Posted September 6, 2015 Author Report Posted September 6, 2015 (edited) If science is crucial for Carson why does he deny it? Science is his career, and he made great achievement in science. Is it right? Edited September 6, 2015 by Exegesisme Quote
G Huxley Posted September 6, 2015 Report Posted September 6, 2015 Yes it is, but the paradox is that he also denies science at the same time. So he applies science and accepts it's merits but then denies it at the same time. Quote
Exegesisme Posted September 6, 2015 Author Report Posted September 6, 2015 (edited) Yes it is, but the paradox is that he also denies science at the same time. So he applies science and accepts it's merits but then denies it at the same time. I believe that he does not know the real relation between creation and evolution. Once he knows, he will admit evolution. Edited September 7, 2015 by Exegesisme Quote
G Huxley Posted September 7, 2015 Report Posted September 7, 2015 (edited) What do you consider to be the "real relation between creation and evolution"? Edited September 7, 2015 by G Huxley Quote
Exegesisme Posted September 7, 2015 Author Report Posted September 7, 2015 What do you consider to be the "real relation between creation and evolution"? Let's say with human affair. I do not believe you can make progress by only random. If you want to make progress, you more likely to get it by creating it, or at least by creating its conditions, and then let the its conditions help you achieve it. Quote
G Huxley Posted September 7, 2015 Report Posted September 7, 2015 Your post is too vague for my understanding. Quote
Exegesisme Posted September 7, 2015 Author Report Posted September 7, 2015 Your post is too vague for my understanding. Ok, let's change a way to explain. Do you agree that there is a possibility that there are intelligent beings beyond our universe? Quote
Exegesisme Posted September 7, 2015 Author Report Posted September 7, 2015 (edited) Sure. Ok. Now, let's imagine these beings may be very intelligent, and even have been existing since the time before the beginning of our universe. Do you agree this possibility? Edited September 7, 2015 by Exegesisme Quote
Exegesisme Posted September 7, 2015 Author Report Posted September 7, 2015 Sure. And now, there might be a possibility, that they made our universe happen as similarly as the Big Bang described in our science and evolve thereafter as similarly as the science described until today. Do you agree this possibility? Quote
Exegesisme Posted September 7, 2015 Author Report Posted September 7, 2015 Yes So, now, the theory of Darwin might be possible about only a very small part of the whole possibility, and the whole possibility is really about the creation of everything of our universe. Do you agree with this possibility or not? Quote
G Huxley Posted September 7, 2015 Report Posted September 7, 2015 Darwin just made a theory about evolution, not about the possible existence of intelligent space aliens from another universe. Quote
Exegesisme Posted September 7, 2015 Author Report Posted September 7, 2015 (edited) Darwin just made a theory about evolution, not about the possible existence of intelligent space aliens from another universe. You are partially right, and something else you do not see. Darwin made a theory of evolution on some facts, and these facts were recorded the creative process of the aliens in another universe. Darwin was inspired by these facts, the evolutional ideas of ancient Greece, and the inspirations he did not know where their exact sources are, and all together made him believe there should be a progress along these facts which he named as evolution, and his explanation of evolution on these facts was named by him as the theory of evolution. Is this expression clear enough for you as a possibility? Edited September 7, 2015 by Exegesisme Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.