Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Oh, my!Good. Admitting your nonsense comes from fevered dreams is a start to a cure.
Fair enough, but why did you bother getting the book if you weren't going to read it and you were already certain it was wrong?I read the Bible that is all I need to read.
subduction zone said:Again, it depends upon which sort of ID you believe in. ID originally was creationism in sheep's clothing. Check on the history of it. Now ID means everything from guided evolution to straight YECism.
subduction zone said:Evolution is a very well defined and understood concept in the scientific world. It is not scientists fault if ignorant people have their own definition of it.
And if atheism is a bad term then so is Christianity. In atheism most are not "fundamentalists". In other words most do not believe in gods simply because there is no evidence for gods. If evidence was found they would probably quickly change their minds. Very few are deniers of god because they hate the idea of god.
In other words when Christians accuse atheists of "hating God" they are usually, but not always, wrong.
well, ID is the core, and the ofshoots of it varies. But YEC contains some ID but ID not YEC.
it's rather simple.
But I see that AV has revealed some discrepancy with the term Big Bang.
thats interesting, are we to kick it out of school now?lol
well the point being that we can agree on is that atheism has changed meanings, and so has evolution. So ID changing and evolving is no new thing.
First of all, what you see today is not what the Intelligent Designer designed.
Second of all, the Intelligent Designer is going to restore what He designed back to its full intelligence and design.
How can anyone in their right minds believe that ID nonsense.Haven't you stated that the Intelligent Designer of ID isn't supposed to be any specific deity? Why are you giving him decidedly Christian attributes?
How so? Atheism has always been a lack of belief in god. It has been associated more or less with the more strident members, but the most strident members do not get to define what anything is. Luckily all Christians don't follow the beliefs of the Westboro Baptist Church.
The changes in evolution have been relatively minor and are more of a fine tuning of the theory than anything else. Darwin is respected in the same way that Newton was. Neither was 100% correct in their science, but considering the state of science at that time their work is quite amazing.
At any rate ID, YEC, OEC, it does not really matter since they are all demonstrably in error.
The so called flaw that AV found in the Big Bang theory is only an error in his understanding combined with his lack of humor.
Yep, they do not get it. All of their evidence for mutations and retrovirus only shows that creation is in a fallen state and in need of redemption. Darwin struggles with this when he lost his daughter because there was nothing in his theory that offered him any comfort.
Until such time as you can offer evidence of a god/s, reason, logic and good conscience dictates I accept the null hypothesis.Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth century were promoting the so-called presumption of atheism. At face value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist. Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists.
So understood, such an alleged presumption is clearly mistaken. For the assertion that There is no God is just as much a claim to knowledge as is the assertion that There is a God. Therefore, the former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. It is the agnostic who makes no knowledge claim at all with respect to Gods existence. He confesses that he doesnt know whether there is a God or whether there is no God.
But when you look more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of atheism used the term atheist, you discover that they were defining the word in a non-standard way, synonymous with non-theist." So understood the term would encompass agnostics and traditional atheists, along with those who think the question meaningless (verificationists). As Antony Flew confesses,
the word atheist has in the present context to be construed in an unusual way. Nowadays it is normally taken to mean someone who explicitly denies the existence . . . of God . . . But here it has to be understood not positively but negatively, with the originally Greek prefix a- being read in this same way in atheist as it customarily is in . . . words as amoral . . . . In this interpretation an atheist becomes not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God, but someone who is simply not a theist. (A Companion to Philosophy of Religion, ed. Philip Quinn and Charles Taliaferro [Oxford: Blackwell, 1997], s.v. The Presumption of Atheism, by Antony Flew)
Such a re-definition of the word atheist trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists! In fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.
Read more: Definition of atheism | Reasonable Faith
"fail to reject the null hypothesis."Until such time as you can offer evidence of a god/s, reason, logic and good conscience dictates I accept the null hypothesis.
"fail to reject the null hypothesis."
My multivariate stats prof would definitely have smacked that down.
Haven't you stated that the Intelligent Designer of ID isn't supposed to be any specific deity? Why are you giving him decidedly Christian attributes?
Until such time as you can offer evidence of a god/s, reason, logic and good conscience dictates I accept the null hypothesis.
well there are a lot of different versions of creationism, not ID. ID is basic and even some athiests and or evolutionists accept ID. But some creationists use ID arguments, and thus some people think they are ID but they are not, nor is ID , BC-creationism (BC, i.e. Biblical creationism).
is that clear as mud for ya?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?