Atheists, Theists, and Evolution

[Uphill Battle]

sigh, life is hard. I'd rather like to be though a fool, and lacking credibility, because I am YEC'ist, instead of disliked, because other YEC are froth-at-the-mouth hostile.

 

[Lord_Marx]

sigh, life is hard. I'd rather like to be though a fool, and lacking credibility, because I am YEC'ist, instead of disliked, because other YEC are froth-at-the-mouth hostile.

Unfortunately, The loud mouths will always end up setting up the sterotypes for any given group.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Unfortunately, The loud mouths will always end up setting up the sterotypes for any given group.

oh, I'm a loud mouth, don't get me wrong. I'm opinionated, and I speak my mind. I just like to believe I'm halfway affable about it.

 

[TooCurious]

sigh, life is hard. I'd rather like to be though a fool, and lacking credibility, because I am YEC'ist, instead of disliked, because other YEC are froth-at-the-mouth hostile.

Well said. Thank you for providing us with a reminder (which, I'll admit, I sometimes need) that YECists can be civil and respectful people.

As for the rest of the thread, I'll try and come back tomorrow after I've gotten some sleep and am no longer too over-tired to string words together into coherent sentences.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Irrefutable logic: Atheists would not support Darwinism if was anything about supporting the Genesis Creator - they are not naieve.

Pretty obvious.

All atheists support Darwinism.

Not evidenced.

This means TEism is subjective and sourceless, or even worse; wolves in sheeps clothing.

It doesn't mean anything of the kind. How long are you going to keep up this idiotic line? It's been repeatedly shown to you that just because atheists support something it does NOT mean that Christians cannot support it - or Christians wouldn't be able to subscribe to germ theory, or relativity.

Meanwhile, poor science, which is helpless to measure or perceive the supernatural, given that it relies on observable and repeatable data, can make no comment on whether or not any gods have a role in the proceedings--why do you not find this a coherent possibility?

Atheist philosophy.

Nope. Philosophy of science - which is not an atheistic enterprise. In fact, the majority of scientific contributors throughout history have been theists.

IF you are not an atheist then why are you using their philosophy as your starting presuppositions ?

It's not 'their' philosophy. It's the philosophy of science, and ALL scientists accept it as the methodology of science.

I know you're trying to invent this big atheism==science vs Christianity war, but it won't work. The vast majority of Christians and other theists are quite happy to accept science, the way it works, and the results it yields. Your terror of it won't stop that.

You could be confused and/or genuinely ignorant. Real theists support God - they do not side with atheist starting assumptions which feign "neutrality" about God then proceed to concomitantly offer all of these biases as "evidence" against God.

Real theists side with atheists on any number of things, including science, which is neutral about god. That's why scientists the world over, regardless of religious belief or lack of it, accept things like germ theory, relativity, and evolutionary theory - none of which say anything at all about god. If you're going to claim that Christians can't support evolutionary theory because of science's neutrality regarding god, then to be consistent you have to claim that Christians can't support germ theory, or relativity, or anything else science has yielded - so turn off your computer right now.

Of course, you don't do this. You have no problem with science, and with Christians supporting science, unless and until science discovers something you don't like. Then it's all atheistic and evil. How ridiculous. Are you aware of how silly you are making Christians look?

 

[Ed Vidence]

It doesn't mean anything of the kind. How long are you going to keep up this idiotic line? It's been repeatedly shown to you that just because atheists support something it does NOT mean that Christians cannot support it - or Christians wouldn't be able to subscribe to germ theory, or relativity.

Nothing has been shown as you know. By acting like refutation has happened is caused by your inability to refute and conduct honest dialogue.

The issue is not some generic un-named subject. The issue is ORIGINS. When theists wholly support what atheists support concerning origins then the theists are not real theists. No matter how much you attempt to evade and confuse and lie about the issue it all supports the irrefutable logic and dishonesty that all Darwinists must rely on.

Nope. Philosophy of science - which is not an atheistic enterprise. In fact, the majority of scientific contributors throughout history have been theists.

Assuming God is not scientifically verifiable = atheist philosophy.

Speaking for theists ? = delusional atheism.

Any theist who agrees with atheist starting assumptions = not a real theist because theists believe and know the exact opposite.

It's not 'their' philosophy. It's the philosophy of science, and ALL scientists accept it as the methodology of science.

An atheist defining science ?

A moron could predict the definition.

Science assumes God is a fact because the evidence says so. Don't agree ? Could one expect an atheist to agree ?

I know you're trying to invent this big atheism==science vs Christianity war, but it won't work. The vast majority of Christians and other theists are quite happy to accept science, the way it works, and the results it yields. Your terror of it won't stop that.

The agreement between these atheists and theists means the theists are not genuine theists. This axiomatic truth is confirmed by your inability to refute

EV

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Nothing has been shown as you know.

What nonsense. As has been repeatedly pointed out, your position means that Christians cannot agree with atheists on anything in relation to science - which is patently absurd. You have consistently ignored the point that by your 'logic', Christians cannot accept germ theory, or relativity, or any other finding of science, because atheists support those findings. No doubt you'll once again ignore it here.

By acting like refutation has happened is caused by your inability to refute and conduct honest dialogue.

Your ad hominem is noted and ignored.

The issue is not some generic un-named subject. The issue is ORIGINS.

The issue is NOT origins, since evolutionary theory says absolutely nothing about, and is not concerned with, the origin of life. Unless you mean the origins of species, which I doubet

When theists wholly support what atheists support concerning origins then the theists are not real theists.

Why is it that theists who support what atheists support concerning origins are not real theists, but theists who support what atheists support concerning any other area of science are real theists? Slight double standard, here.

No matter how much you attempt to evade and confuse and lie about the issue it all supports the irrefutable logic and dishonesty that all Darwinists must rely on.

There is no evasion, confusing or lieing - except on your part. You have not pointed out any 'dishonesty' on which all 'Darwinists' (read 'scientists') must rely.

Assuming God is not scientifically verifiable = atheist philosophy.

Rubbish. Assuming God is not scientifically veriable is basic science, agreed upon and accepted by atheists and theists of all types. Your claim that it is some sort of atheist philosophy demonstrates nothing but your ignorance of science.

Speaking for theists ? = delusional atheism.

Umm...that's nice. I've nowhere attempted to speak for theists.

Any theist who agrees with atheist starting assumptions = not a real theist because theists believe and know the exact opposite.

Gee, I guess you're not a theist, then, because one of my starting assumptions - which you agree with - is that humans need oxygen. That makes you not a theist, right (by your twisted reasoning)?

An atheist defining science ?

A moron could predict the definition.

Sorry, but it's not my definition. It's the definition of science. Consult any reference work - most of them no doubt written by theists. Your desire to magically transform science into something it's not doesn't help your case.

Science assumes God is a fact because the evidence says so.

Science does not assume anything about God, including his existence.

Don't agree ? Could one expect an atheist to agree ?

One could not expect anyone who knows anything about science to agree.

The agreement between these atheists and theists means the theists are not genuine theists.

Which, as shown above, means that you're not a genuine theist - because you agree with atheists on a vast number of issues.

This axiomatic truth is confirmed by your inability to refute

It has been refuted, many times, by myself and others. Your position is absurd. You want to pick out certain scientific positions and say 'no theist can support those because atheists support them', yet you are happy to have theists support other positions despite the fact that atheists support them. Your hypocrisy is appalling, and your repeated claims that nobody has been able to refute their position when they clearly have amount to a child putting his fingers in his ears and repeating "Isnotisnotisnot!"

 

[Ed Vidence]

Science does not assume anything about God, including his existence.

I just obtained controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn (looks like a cash cow) - email me if you want in.


Atheists like yourself do not define or speak for science. Since you think that you do this confirms your delusional state.

Onlookers: What happens when atheists define and speak for science ?

Answer: You end up believing apes morphed into men miracles - miracles that have no source except the delusional minds and needs of atheists.

Science is beliefs based upon facts that correspond with reality. The atheist MUST believe apes morphed into men because God is not an option, therefore, his beliefs are predetermined. Since these beliefs have no possible alternatives they are unfalsifiable and religion with no objective text = cult = usually a tiny percentage of the population = atheists.

EV

 

[Lord_Marx]

This is really leaving me speechless...

 

[Lilandra]

an ape is typing that he is not an ape but a miracle.

Answer: You end up believing apes morphed into men miracles - miracles that have no source except the delusional minds and needs of atheists.
EV

 

[KerrMetric]

an ape is typing that he is not an ape but a miracle.

But its not an irony to them if they are a special "miracle ape".

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Atheists like yourself do not define or speak for science. Since you think that you do this confirms your delusional state.

Scientists define science. You seem quite happy to ignore the definition. Consult any reference source. Your claim that I, as an atheist or atheists in general are attempting to define science is simply a lie.

Honestly, this is ridiculous. Until comparatively recent times, virtually ALL scientists were theists. It is THEY who defined science. The idea that athiests have defined or are attempting to do so is pure fantasy.

Onlookers: What happens when atheists define and speak for science ?

Nobody knows, since atheists don't define science, nor have they attempted to do so.

Science is beliefs based upon facts that correspond with reality.

This sentence alone shows that you are pitifully ignorant as to what science is. And yet you presume to discuss it. Do you realise how foolish you are making theists look?

The atheist MUST believe apes morphed into men because God is not an option, therefore, his beliefs are predetermined.

It is simply false to claim that an athiest MUST believe anything.

Since these beliefs have no possible alternatives they are unfalsifiable and religion with no objective text = cult = usually a tiny percentage of the population = atheists.

This is just incoherent rambling.

And, of course, you ignore the refutation of your main point - that's just dishonest. No doubt in a few more posts you'll be telling the same lie and claiming it hasn't been refuted again.

 

[Mocca]

THE IGNORANCE! IT BURNS! AHH!

Explain theistic evolutionists, El Vidence. Are they being fooled by Satan? Are they not "true" Chistians? Are they being fooled by the "evil" atheists? How do they accept evolution, which you claim predicts the non-existance of God, while being Christian, believing the existance of God?

Good luck answering the question and not breaking forum rules.

 

[Ed Vidence]

All atheists vigorously and fanatically support Darwinism. If the same was anything about supporting the Genesis Creator THEN atheists would have nothing to do with Darwinism.

The above facts mean TEists are not real theists by any objective definition. How do we then explain their beliefs about themselves ?

Spectacular evidence of the effects of the invisible existence of Satan just like the Bible claims.

deceived: you THINK you are alright with God - BUT YOU ARE NOT.

What could possibly MAKE a theist THINK God approves of them supporting atheist creation myths ?

Existence of Satan.

The ONLY source we have for God that is respected worldwide says He created by special creation and not atheist evolution.

Conclusion: TEists prove the Biblical claim of Satan's existence and powers. IF this claim is true (and I just supplied massive evidence that it is) THEN Genesis 2:6,7 is true.

EV

 

[Lord_Marx]

This is one of the funniest YEC topics yet.

 

[Ed Vidence]

This is one of the funniest YEC topics yet.

I am an OEC.

Funny ?

Insult = inability to refute.

EV

 

[Lord_Marx]

I am an OEC.

Funny ?

Insult = inability to refute.

EV

Sorry, my mistake. One of the funniest anti-evolution topic yet.

I have no desire to refute anything. I already told you that I was done arguing after you started insulting me, I'm just watching the show now.

 

[Ed Vidence]

Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into A LIE, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. DAll Darwinists are the liars for special pleading the appearance of design (what more can God do ?) to not correspond with Designer but a blind and mindless process of their own imagination and need.
arwinists are the liars for special pleading the appearance of design (what more can God do ?) to not correspond with Designer but a blind and mindless pruhgughuyuyu9y9iuyuuuyuyuyuyuyuhuhuhuhuocess of the













hhyguyt8yutyir own imagination and need.

 

[Mocca]

All atheists vigorously and fanatically support Darwinism.

False. In fact, not all atheists even believe in the Theory of Evolution.

If the same was anything about supporting the Genesis Creator THEN atheists would have nothing to do with Darwinism.

The above facts mean TEists are not real theists by any objective definition. How do we then explain their beliefs about themselves?

Your argument goes: "Because all atheists vigorously and fanatically support evolution, Christians cannot believe in evolution." How 'bout lets try this with gravity? "Because all atheists vigorously and fanatically support gravity, Christians cannot believe in gravity." You can obviously see that your argument is simply absurd. (Or not, depending on how many hallucinogens you've taken today.)

Spectacular evidence of the effects of the invisible existence of Satan just like the Bible claims.

deceived: you THINK you are alright with God - BUT YOU ARE NOT.

What could possibly MAKE a theist THINK God approves of them supporting atheist creation myths?

Existence of Satan.

The ONLY source we have for God that is respected worldwide says He created by special creation and not atheist evolution.

Conclusion: TEists prove the Biblical claim of Satan's existence and powers. IF this claim is true (and I just supplied massive evidence that it is) THEN Genesis 2:6,7 is true.

EV

You didn't actually explaion how existance of TEs provide evidence for the existance of Satan. Presumably, your argument goes:
Premise 1: Christians cannot be accepted by God if they accept evolution
Premise 2: Theistic evolutionists accept evolution and believe they're accepted by God.
Conclusion: Satan must be deceiving TEs.

Your conclusion is a non-sequitur based on a false premise (hint: look at premise 1). There could be other explanations for Premise 1 and Premise 2, including simply being ignorant, being brainwashed by an evil atheist conspiracy, etc. There are many other possibilites that fit the premises. However, we do not need to make a conclusion, as the premises are false.

In fact, let us examine the following premise in greater depth:

The ONLY source we have for God that is respected worldwide says He created by special creation and not atheist evolution.

Actually, this is completely false. The Pope, the Vatican, most of the European Chruches, and over 50% of believers worldwide, accept evolution.

Conclusion: your argument is based on logical fallacies, unsupported assertions, and lies, and therefore does provide support for the claim that theistic evolutionists are being deceived by Satan.

 

[Ed Vidence]

Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into A LIE, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

All Darwinists are the liars for special pleading the appearance of design (what more can God do ?) to not correspond with Designer but a blind and mindless process of their own imagination and need.

Darwinism is a penalty from God for denying Him Creator credit.

TEists are explained by Judas = Bible perfectly corresponds with reality.

EV

DAll Darwinists are the liars for special pleading the appearance of design (what more can God do ?) to not correspond with Designer but a blind and mindless process of their own imagination and need.
arwinists are the liars for special pleading the appearance of design (whasigner but a blind and mindless pruhgughuyuyu9y9iuyuuuyuyuyuyuyuhuhuhuhuocess of the