For Creationists.....

[TheOutsider]

OK, but I get tired of repeating myself, especially when I know you won't bother to read it, and you'd just automatically dismiss everything I say anyway. So I'm just going to give a link to where I said most of this before. [/color]

That was a very impressive link. Looks like you know more about the Bible than almost every single Creationist here.

 

[FoeHammer]

OK, but I get tired of repeating myself, especially when I know you won't bother to read it, and you'd just automatically dismiss everything I say anyway. So I'm just going to give a link to where I said most of this before.

I doubt you get tired of repeating yourself you value your opinion too highly.
But you're right I won't bother to read it, just show me from scripture that I was wrong with regards to the universe existing before man.

FoeHammer.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I doubt you get tired of repeating yourself you value your opinion too highly.
But you're right I won't bother to read it, just show me from scripture that I was wrong with regards to the universe existing before man.

Of course the universe existed before man, but not by only a few days. In the earliest versions of that story, it was six divine generations, not days. I don't understand how you can make this fable so central to your life but without ever studying its history.

 

[FishFace]

OK, but I get tired of repeating myself, especially when I know you won't bother to read it, and you'd just automatically dismiss everything I say anyway. So I'm just going to give a link to where I said most of this before. [/color]

Thanks, I'd not read that before. It's very interesting!

 

[FishFace]

Of course the universe existed before man, but not by only a few days. In the earliest versions of that story, it was six divine generations, not days. I don't understand how you can make this fable so central to your life but without ever studying its history.

Because to do so would be to realise that the fable is just that - a fable. To do so would, therefore, be to challenge his beliefs that he holds so strongly, something which he is incapable of doing.

 

[Aron-Ra]

This creationist and with regards to origins. Observation, hypotheses, repeatable experiment, conclusion.
I do not reject the method of science.

Yes you do, by your own admission.

I accept its limits in certain areas (including some human experience.) I also reject any conclusion that is obtained when it cannot be verified via that method.

Then why are you a creationist? Because in science, there is what is supported, and what is not. Evolution is supported by everything everywhere. Creationism is supported by nothing anywhere. We could also add a third category for those things which have been disproved. Creationism in general cannot be disproved. But evangelical Biblical creationism has been disproved on several points. The real reason for your contention is the idolatry of worshipping a book written by men which you have mistaken for the word of a god.

I think it is you and your ilk that reject the scientific method leaving you free to wildly speculate anything and everything in an attempt to justify your atheism.

That's just stupid. But I suppose you have make empty accusations like that to convince yourself because your theism needs justification -and a hefty amount of rationalization. So rather than justify my atheism, why don't you cough up some compelling rationale for why I shouldn't be atheist anymore? I'm only an atheist because no one can give me one good reason to believe in a god, but everyone can show lots of good reasons not to, yourself included.

As you said yourself if you can’t show it you don’t know it. Beyond the observed, tested and demonstrated, that is, variation within a kind you have nothing, zip, zilch, nada to support the view that we ultimately evolved from a simple(?) life form.

No, I have volumes more than that.

You can’t show it, you don’t know it.

I can, and I'd like to. The problem is your complete lack of accountability. When I show a complete concensus of definitions from every authorative source, for example, you just dismiss them all as "opinion" just because they don't agree with your misconception. If you can't be any more honest or accountable than that, then I can't show you anything. And I think that's your strategy.

Again you've revealed a failure to grasp even the fundamentals of science. I just explained this to RichardT. But I'll repeat it here…..

No need I stand by what I said with regards to the philosophical tenet of methodological naturalism where origins are concerned.

You snipped a simple and straightforward question which was directed to you, and not dependant on anything you had already said. You snipped it to ignore it because you knew you couldn't answer it. This is because creationism is inherently dishonest.

You're contradicting yourself.

How?

First you explained why you reject methodological naturalism -especially where that deals with origins. Then you turned around and said you do not reject it.

So you're saying that it requires faith to believe that, without any indication to the contrary, that the laws of matter and physics worked in the past the way they do today?

Yes.

How does that qualify as faith?

Because you cannot know that they did.

But with no indication that the laws of physics were ever a different set of laws than such an assumption would be completely baseless. And to assume your conclusion with your degree of conviction despite the lack of evidence, that would count as faith. But to realize that such a conclusion is not supported and not warranted does not count as fath.

''The present is the key to the past.''
This is an unproved and unprovable assumption.

Wrong. In many cases, this is proved.

If you want to accept it anyway and base everything you consequently ‘’know’’ on that assumption go right ahead (that would be an act of faith) but you have to be willing to accept that you might be wrong….. Am I being unreasonable?

Of course. It can't be an act of faith, because there is nothing to indicate any other alternative -including your worship of magic fables that still can't be true even if you could allow for all the laws of physics to be changed for you.

God exists.

Evidently not.

The evidence of Gods existence is all around and within you, there’s a whole universe full of it.

The whole universe indicates that God does not exist. What single fact can you point to which you think indicates otherwise?

Genesis 1
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Should I assume that this is the truth or a lie?

That depends. Is there any way we can test that claim? How can we substantiate it? How could we potentially falsify it? Is there any way to know who the author was, and whether he believed this to be a parable or a literal account? Because it sounds to me to be no different than the Native American legends of Coyote creating the great mountains and rivers of the American northwest. They knew their stories weren't literally true, and I think the original authors of this tale did too.

Where is my "well duh" emoticon?

You probably lost it while mining for quotes.

I don't quote mine. That's what creationists do. I gave legitimate citations, and I did so on your command.

you won't even admit there are flaws to correct. So you're effectly saying that you personally already know everything about everything and you know it all perfectly. But you haven't been right about anything yet.

I will not admit to flaws in my current perspective when there are none in this particular conversation with you. I stand by everything I have said.

But you've already been proven to be dead wrong on every single assertion or accusation you've made thus far. Evolution is not a religion or a fairy tale, and no avenue of science involves faith. Faith is a stoic perspective that is not based on evidence.

I repeat; you're going to have to correct your definition because the one you're using excludes several universally-accepted religions. And your allegation has still failed because this definition doesn't apply to evolution either -since evolution, (being strictly limited to biology only) doesn't even relate to the "cause of the universe" nor its "purpose", and it allows actual religions to determine that for themselves. Repeating the same lie unchanged will not make it any truer. You're going to have to correct it.

Ok! I’ll rephrase it; evolution is a tenet of the religion of atheism… Happy now?

Of course not. There are religions which are atheist, in that some religions do not include gods. But the mere lack of belief in gods is a religion unless it includes all the other criteria required to be a religion.

Evolution, on the other hand, is objectively demonstrable myriad different ways…

No it is not.

Yes it is. Name something specific that you would need to see. And if its something evolutionary science actually requires, then we'll have it, and I can show it to you.

including by direct observation in real time.
Variation within kinds, that’s all the scientific evidence you’ve got.

...or will ever need -since, as I said, everything that ever evolved was just a modified version of whatever its ancestors were.

That's why faith is auto-deceptive; its a mind-set wherein you assume what you do for no reason and will not allow yourself to reconsider that for any reason. So it offers no way to seek the real truth about anything. But its a great way to stay wrong forever and never know it.

Again clearly demonstrated by you and your faith in mega-evolution.

Again, "mega-evolution" is meaningless, and I don't have faith in anything.

You know exactly what I mean by mega-evolution (simple(?) life-form to human evolution) The reason I decided to use the term mega-evolution was because I am having to repeat myself so often plus anything that helps to ease the pressure on the tips of my two typing fingers is a plus.

Then drop the meaningless and erroneous "mega" part.

I don’t expect I’ll be hearing from you again in this thread then.

While it is true that I literally do not have time to waste on you, because I'm falling behind in my homework, which is much more important. I do have some fleeting moments while still at work where I can point out some of the myriad flaws in everything you say.

And I must say that I wish I could present our discussions to the whole nation. But I can't get reasonable Christians to come to this forum specifically because they don't want to aknowledge that there even are people like you and dad and LittleNipper, or they want to dismiss you all as a lunatic fringe who do not represent "true" Christians. It seems to me that most creationists believe what they do because they're innocently deceived by deliberately dishonest propaganda designed to exploit them for their ignorance. And there are people like you -who lack and all credibility or sincerity or accountability, and are only even here to taunt and jeer, spilling hateful bigotry in every other sentence, and being wrong about everything every time without caring about that. I think you see this as an immature game. And I'd like to keep exposing you to the lurkers, because most normal creationists couldn't continue to be if they ever saw you in action. But sadly, I have to get back to my studies by tonight, and will have no more time for this forum.

 

[TheOutsider]

FoeHammer seems to like saying "No, you're wrong..." (followed by no explanation) a lot. That is not the proper way to debate.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

FoeHammer seems to like saying "No, you're wrong..." (followed by no explanation) a lot. That is not the proper way to debate.

No no, you're wrong.
Put up, or shut up.

 

[RichardT]

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane." - Richard Dawkins

Which one am I? Stupid, ignorant or insane?

 

[Aron-Ra]

[/font]

Which one am I? Stupid, ignorant or insane?

Willfully dishonest. You weren't always that way. But I told you everyone who enters into this debate has to choose whether to remain honest, or remain creationist. You made the wrong choice. Since then, you've dodged many many direct questions, and skipped over points you couldn't begin to address. Rather than be systematic, you went fully the other way, and put on your reality blinders deliberately keeping yourself from learning anything true. You were an enormous disappointment to me personally.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

[/font]

Which one am I? Stupid, ignorant or insane?

I cannot answer without breaking forum rules.
But sod the rules, you're #2.