Are there any arguments for creation...

[46AND2]

Blind to the truth.

What truth? You haven't even provided a single example.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Not so amazing. I also assume you can't fly.

Hard to recognize the difference between the ability to read posts and defying gravity?

 

[46AND2]

Hard to recognize the difference between the ability to read posts and defying gravity?

I never assumed anything about your literacy. Why the strawman? I do find it ironic, however, your repugnance with my "assumption" when it is directly related to YOUR assumption about the motivation of atheist hostility.

 

[46AND2]

Hard to recognize the difference between the ability to read posts and defying gravity?

FWIW, my "assumption" was that you can't show me an impossible thing. You can't fly. Nor can you show me a person who both doesn't believe in god AND is angry at god. Being angry at a god you don't believe in, is an oxymoron. If one is angry at god, one is not an atheist. If one is an atheist, one is not angry at god. If the atheist is angry, he/she is angry at something OTHER than god. At best, the closest you could come would be that the atheist is angry about the human concept of god.

That was my comparison. Two impossible things. Easy assumption.

 

[Speedwell]

At best, the closest you could come would be that the atheist is angry about the human concept of god.

A particular human concept of God, if you please. Us ex officio atheists who have a different human concept of God are being tarred with that same brush.

 

[Larniavc]

So you’ll accept “most” or “many” are but not “all?”

I’m sure many do: but they are not real atheists.

 

[DamianWarS]

It appears that you believe 1. That there is there a supernatural entity of some kind which is responsible for the existence of the universe, and 2. That science can be relied upon to give us reasonably accurate explanations for material phenomena such as the age of the universe, the origin of species, etc. Is that right?

I appreciate your need for clarification but you might as well just say what you want to say.

 

[Speedwell]

I appreciate your need for clarification but you might as well just say what you want to say.

That there are parties to this discussion who believe as I do that there is a supernatural causal entity and that science is a reliable way to draw conclusions about the natural world. That there are parties to this discussion who do not believe in a supernatural causal entity but who believe that science is a reliable way to draw conclusions about the natural world. Finally, that there are parties to the discussion who believe in a supernatural causal entity but do not believe that science is a reliable way to draw conclusions about the natural world. These last are what are commonly called creationists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is indeed. My observations lead me to that (I am duly corrected) hypothesis. Why people should be angry at a Being they do not believe in makes no sense to me.

There probably are a few atheists, or at least people that claim to be atheists that are "mad at God" but the only ones that I have seen make that claim are Christians that went back to God. In other words a believer in God became an atheist for a poor reason and eventually went back to his old beliefs. There are probably Christians that believe in God for poor reasons as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But really, let's call a spade a spade here....the real reason for your "hypothesis" and Dorothy Mae's agreement with it, is that the Bible says, basically, that there is really no such thing as an atheist. It claims that everyone knows he exists, but some will choose to reject him. So any claims contrary to your hypothesis are just lies (whether actual lies to you, or lies to our (atheists) selves.

So it's not so much your hypothesis...it's what you've been taught as fact.

Technically the Bible says that the "fool says in his hear that there is no God". And that would be an example of an atheist for a poor reason. A fool in his heart believes there is a God or that there is no God. Belief, or lack of it, should come from rational thought.

 

[solid_core]

Technically the Bible says that the "fool says in his hear that there is no God". And that would be an example of an atheist for a poor reason. A fool in his heart believes there is a God or that there is no God. Belief, or lack of it, should come from rational thought.

"Says in his heart" means the internal thought process.

Its not "believes in his heart".

 

[Ophiolite]

I am very sure you believe all
of what you wrote. I find it sad and am not laughing.

Understood. I reciprocate your honesty by declaring your views to be deeply ignorant, severely prejudiced,arrogant, ill-considered and conducive to deepening divisions within society. Good luck with that approach. Ophiolite out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Says in his heart" means the internal thought process.

Its not "believes in his heart".

Then in that case it is just more evidence that the Bible is wrong, again. You really can't have it both ways.

 

[solid_core]

Then in that case it is just more evidence that the Bible is wrong, again. You really can't have it both ways.

Not sure what you mean.

 

[pitabread]

Why does the definition of information change for DNA besides the desire of atheists to use semantics?

First, this has absolutely nothing to do with atheism. I'm not even sure why you're bringing up atheists.

Second, words can have different meanings depending on context. That's just how language works.

Even within the field of information theory, information can be defined, quantified and measured in different ways.

That’s like saying the information in a recipie is counted by the number of words used. Of what use is this? Does it render it “not information?”

As I said, often times the usage is colloquial in nature. It's just a shorter way of writing "a DNA nucleotide sequence within a genome".

Is there a specific threshold in quantification results that render it either information or not information? So it’s all information no matter what?

This entirely depends on how one defines, measures and quantifies information. And as I said, there are multiple ways of doing this.

Except how do mindless processes produce information in the first place? There’s nothing that says mindless water running over a page cannot change the information on a document. Doesn’t explain how the information got there in the first place.

I suggest reading on the concept of emergent properties. It's a fascinating subject that covers exactly this sort of thing: Emergence - Wikipedia

Single cell life forms aren’t modern and that’s the only kind he could have hoped to show.

Modern single celled life forms are modern; every single celled life form currently on Earth is the result of ~4 billion years of evolution, just like all other life.

The original life forms on Earth would not be the same as modern living organisms.

Except we KNOW it cannot have done so by all observed scientific research.

That's not how this works. Scientific conclusions are provisional, not definitive.

There is absolutely nothing in science that strictly prohibits the formation of life from non-life.

 

[46AND2]

Technically the Bible says that the "fool says in his hear that there is no God". And that would be an example of an atheist for a poor reason. A fool in his heart believes there is a God or that there is no God. Belief, or lack of it, should come from rational thought.

That passage starts in verse 18, and Christians are generally taught that it is saying that everyone knows god, but some "suppress" it.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

 

[46AND2]

A particular human concept of God, if you please. Us ex officio atheists who have a different human concept of God are being tarred with that same brush.

No, I mean there are atheists who hate the general concept of god; who I assume these two have run across and are speaking of.

You get lumped into a group from both sides. :shrugs:

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not sure what you mean.

That is the problem. Religious thinking often opposes rational thinking.

 

[Strathos]

First, this has absolutely nothing to do with atheism. I'm not even sure why you're bringing up atheists.

It's the standard line fed to creationists.

They are told that accepting ToE means that they have to believe that life originated on its own and God was not involved, and furthermore doesn't exist.

Oddly enough, they have no trouble believing in gravity or germ theory without attaching similar beliefs to it.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Technically the Bible says that the "fool says in his hear that there is no God". And that would be an example of an atheist for a poor reason. A fool in his heart believes there is a God or that there is no God. Belief, or lack of it, should come from rational thought.

Humanity is anything but rational - hence the ridiculous responses to Corona Virus. Why should belief come from rational thought? When my son was a toddler, he was fascinated by the electric light. I showed him how to flick the switch. My mistake. Pestered me to pick him up so he could turn it on and off. He had no rational reason to turn on the light. He knew nothing about electricity (I am a qualified Radio/Electrical technician) but that did not stop him turning on the light.

There are many things that are irrational. Altruism for one. Unselfishness. Taking drugs or excessive alcohol abuse. Gambling. Buying 8 months supply of toilet paper when the quarantine period is two weeks. There are more, of course. People believe certain things against all rational thought. Usually that has negative consequences. However, there are things in the spiritual realm that transcend logic and reason. No one can talk me out of being a Christian because I know the truth. I do not pretend to understand it all, that is for sure. Infinity is a little out of my reach.

I have learned that nothing will persuade an atheist. I could give you 49 years worth of testimony about a life lived in the spiritual realm and you will dismiss it. Your choice. God says that He has put in place everything that you need to see that He exists. You choose to reject that. Your prerogative, of course. What I don't get is why atheists insist on trying to undermine the faith of others. Please don't be surprised if Christians defend the faith. We are obliged to. I also care about people who are unstable in their faith or who are considering the claims of Christ.