Data that confirms creationism

[Josephus]

I'm waiting, Jerry Smith for you to address the evidences I have laid out. Would these not be VALID results of such a theory?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Josephus
I'm waiting, Jerry Smith for you to address the evidences I have laid out. Would these not be VALID results of such a theory?

I'm sorry, I had started a new thread to deal with them. I guess it got bumped down by heavy posting since then. You will find my responses in the Flood Geology thread.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
That's what you SAY you do, and probably what most of you THINK you do. But what you REALLY do is go out into the world and look for evidence that you (can) interpret to confirm your hypothesis.

Ah yes. Here goes Nick again. Telling people he knows better what they think and do than what they themselves say they think and do. Do you realize how arrogant this sounds?

I put "can" in parens because some people unwittingly work that way, but others deliberately do so.

So some are stupid and the others are liars.

Regardless, that makes all your so-called "evidence" nothing but circular reasoning. You see what you want to see because you already believe that's the proper way to interpret the evidence. So you have no choice but to find what you're looking for.

And we're stupid, too.

When you find something that poses a problem, you either throw it out as an anomaly or (as is more often the case) imagine a solution to the problem that allows you to retain your premise that evolution is true.

Now you're calling us liars.

I am not insuating that you are stupid, a liar or both.

Don't you see that is exactly what you just did?

I believe that many of you are so focused on your conclusions that you can't see the forest for the trees, are suffering from spiritual blindness, are self-deceived, in denial, or any combination of the above.

We are stupid and we lie to ourselves.

But don't take my word for it. Many evolutionists have already plainly said the same thing for me, and I've provided quotes from them saying so, and posted some of them on this very board. Others have claimed I'm taking the quotes out of context, but the only added context they provide is that these people still believe in evolution. Well, duh -- I wouldn't list them as evolutionists if I meant to question that.

So the prominent evolutionists must be stupid, or liars, or both if they still believe in evolution.

The quotes are from such noted evolutionists as Richard Dawkins, Niles Eldredge, the late Stephen Jay Gould, and perhaps my favorite of all times, the quote from Richard Lewontin, which is more subtle than those you find from the others, but probably the most poignant...

But Richard Lewontin still believes in evolution, so he must be stupid or a liar.

You want to talk about failure to present evidence? Fine - here's a challenge for you (although I may start a new thread for this one, since it should be fun). Name ONE famous evolutionist who examined evidence that was problematic for evolution and publicly proposed in a paper for peer review the possibility that it was problematic because evolution could be wrong. Show me that there is a single famous evolutionist WHO YOU RESPECT AS EDUCATED AND QUALIFIED who really does examine the evidence from an objective perspective.

Steven Jay Gould

Satisfied?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie

Steven Jay Gould

Satisfied?

Well, I never saw anything objective written by Gould, but I must admit that Stephen J Gould certainly knows the truth now.

 

[chickenman]

he sure does, and he'll be sitting up there in heaven with god. They'll be having a few heavenly beverages and looking down on the creation scientists and shaking their heads in dismay

 

[Ray K]

Originally posted by npetreley


Well, I never saw anything objective written by Gould, but I must admit that Stephen J Gould certainly knows the truth now.

If there is a creator, then all evidence points to him being a rational being who expects us to be rational. So I expect fully that Gould is either: 1) enjoying his eternal rewards for being rational (if there is a creator), or 2) worm food just like every other person (if there is no creator).

That's why I don't understand faith-based belief systems. Look at it this way: if I'm right and there's a rational creator, I get the benefit of the afterlife and you don't. But if I'm wrong, we all share the same fate of non-existence.

Either way, the rational have nothing to lose and everything to gain while the faithful have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

Common sense dictates that you should discard faith.

 

[Greeter]

Greetings All,

I thought this would be a great place for my 1st post as the comment above has a response I remember from Philosophy 101.

I forget who came up with it or if it is even known what philosopher said it but many refer to it as the Las Vegas take on believing in God.

It basically goes like this:
If you don't believe in God and there isn't a God, then you lose nothing.
If you do believe in God and there isn't a God, then you lose nothing.
If you do believe in God and there is a God, then you gain everything.
If you don't believe in God and there is a God, then you lose everything.

This string is very interesting and informative but I see a common pattern where both sides, passionate in their views, are coming close to blows(if not there already).

Keep in mind that you have some very intelligent people on both sides of this ongoing argument.

At any rate, wasn't it Einstein who said something to the effect of "religion without science is blind and science without religion is lame"?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Greeter
Greetings All,

Greetings!

Originally posted by Greeter

I forget who came up with it or if it is even known what philosopher said it but many refer to it as the Las Vegas take on believing in God.

I seem to remember this as being called "Pascal's wager."

It makes perfect sense, but I don't know if it would really change anyone's mind on either side.

 

[Greeter]

That is neat, I will have to remember that name.

I am sure that won't change anyones mind(no one would be more surprised than I if it did). I just put it out there since a similar line was given for the other side.

I am curious though, how can believing in a faith based system hurt us?

I am a fundamentalist. What have I lost in that?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Greeter
That is neat, I will have to remember that name.

I am sure that won't change anyones mind(no one would be more surprised than I if it did). I just put it out there since a similar line was given for the other side.

I am curious though, how can believing in a faith based system hurt us?

I am a fundamentalist. What have I lost in that?

Well, I'll try to answer that but it takes a little background. I was a card-carrying evangelical atheist until I was about 33 years old. I wanted everyone else to be an atheist, too, and worked at it far harder than I work at making others Christians. There's a reason for that, but that's too hard to condense into 25 words or less. Suffice it to say that it's not that I don't want to evangelize or teach the Word now that I belong to Christ. Indeed, I really wish God had made me a missionary, but that doesn't seem to be in His plans. It's probably just as well, because I'm the world's worst missionary.

Anyway, you ask what have you lost? I can only speak for myself, but I had to give up a lot of things in trade for faith. The hardest thing to give up was pride. I wish it was more profound than that, but it really came down to that simple, nasty old thing that brought down the devil, too.

I had to give up even more pride some time later when I realized the Bible says we can't take credit for our own faith. It took even longer for me to see that the Bible teaches we can't even take credit for making the right choice. (I don't believe the Bible teaches free will as it pertains to salvation.) That was a really tough nut to swallow, but IMO it's all right there in black and white, and there's no point in telling God He's got it wrong.

So I can tell you first hand that pride is a REALLY tough hurdle. And it can prevent you from seeing Pascal's wager as the simple, logical equation that it is.

 

[npetreley]

By the way, here is a paper on Pascal's wager. It documents it from the simple viewpoint of a cost/benefit table, and also from a mathematical viewpoint. I like this paper because he's not "selling" it or attempting to discredit it. He's just examining it, mostly from Pascal's perspective.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

Pascal's wager is a favorite target for atheists, so it's not surprising that you'll find tons of links to articles by people attempting to "disprove" it. Here's a list of links like that.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/wager.html

 

[Jerry Smith]

Pascal's wager is a favorite target for atheists,

I wish Pacal's wager, and atheistic deconstructions of it, would go away. I was tickled by RayK's version of it, but that not-withstanding, one does tire of hearing the same old predictable, worn out arguments...

If there is any justice in this world, those who believe in God out of feelings of devotion and faith will be in heaven singing hymns, those who don't believe in God because of strict rational honesty will be worm food, and those who offer Pascal's Wager will be doomed to an eternity of reading the fine print of every Life Insurance policy ever issued.

 

[Oliver]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

If there is any justice in this world, those who believe in God out of feelings of devotion and faith will be in heaven singing hymns, those who don't believe in God because of strict rational honesty will be worm food, and those who offer Pascal's Wager will be doomed to an eternity of reading the fine print of every Life Insurance policy ever issued.

LOL...

 

[elephanticity]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

If there is any justice in this world, those who believe in God out of feelings of devotion and faith will be in heaven singing hymns, those who don't believe in God because of strict rational honesty will be worm food, and those who offer Pascal's Wager will be doomed to an eternity of reading the fine print of every Life Insurance policy ever issued.

LOL, that one i really like. Almost as much as Calvin and Hobbes:

http://www.hexfiles.multiservers.com/pix/pascal.jpg

 

[elephanticity]

Originally posted by npetreley

Pascal's wager is a favorite target for atheists, so it's not surprising that you'll find tons of links to articles by people attempting to "disprove" it.

It's not just atheists that target it, but heresologists have held it to be heresy. To suggest that you should believe in a God that may not exist because it is the best bet? To entertain the idea that millions of christians believe in a non-existant deity? Not a terribly faith-holding view.

But aside from that, most of the arguments i see against it are not necessarily atheist. I don't try to disprove it, the problem is that it is equally valid (or invalid) for an infinite number of religions.

 

[Josephus]

topic closed for length reasons.