How many creationist here think that atheism and evolution go together?

[AV1611VET]

But I don't take any of these as particular evidences for the existence of a deity or deities.

But you will accept the existence of gravity by observing its effects, won't you?

So at best, that makes you selective in what you believe.

At worst, it makes you a hypocrite.

I prefer to believe you're of the former persuasion.

 

[joshua 1 9]

What you have is a round peg and a square hole, with science and the bible.

Dont get me wrong, it is entertaining observing you trying to make them fit.

I would consider you a literal fundamental dispensationist when it comes to science. Yet your against literal fundamentalist christians. Perhaps because you are so much like them and you have so much in common with their approach and perspective.

 

[joshua 1 9]

But I don't take any of these as particular evidences for the existence of a deity or deities.
Clear evidence for humans believing in (varied) deities, certainly.
But we already know that humans are very good at that, to the point of being able to turn almost anything into a religion.

Do you believe that man created God rather then God creating man? Because I have no doubt that the God you do not believe in is a God that you created and not the True God that created mankind.

 

[joshua 1 9]

let us proceed on to the Genesis account of creation. It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts

Not at all, there is perfect harmony between true science and the Bible. Both Science and the Bible were given to us by God. We know that God can not contradict Himself. If people see a conflict then they lack understanding of Science, the Bible or both.

Another problem with the Genesis account is that it does not make it clear how God creates.

We have Science to tell us how. The Bible was given to tell us why.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

What I said here is a common knowledge of science. Light existed way way before our Sun.

You're suggesting there was some other energy source the earth used besides the sun that would have enabled plants to flourish. Support your claim or retract it.

 

[juvenissun]

You're suggesting there was some other energy source the earth used besides the sun that would have enabled plants to flourish. Support your claim or retract it.

I mean planets, which include our earth.

 

[Chris B]

Do you like to develop a theology of Unicorns? What is your first piece of content on that?

That they are both invisible and pink, of course.
And that it is so important to hold the two parts of this apparent paradoxical dichotomy in "creative tension" to quote a commentary from an entirely different theological tradition.
Rather than deduce that the impossibility of both being simultaneously true undermines the consistency of the whole proposition.

 

[Chris B]

But you will accept the existence of gravity by observing its effects, won't you?

Of course. I said I accepted the effects *of belief*
So the effects of gravity may be observed, the effects of belief also.
That belief (however strong, assured or vehement) is in itself is no sure evidence that the belief is true is not is not difficult to demonstrate.
The actual existence of God in respect of this can't be settled.
How would the world look different given a major belief in God, with God existing, or with God not existing?
(Actually I'd suspect with the former rather less tolerated diversity on the nature, character and wishes and demands of a deity than is actually found.)

I happily admit that I'm selective in what I believe. Any other course seems highly dubious.
The trick, I suggest, is to be aware as far as possible of one's own bias in selection,
and as far as possible to make shift to allow for that.
One's place of birth, for a start, and the particular local culture one most likely unconsciously absorbs as a child.

Hypocrite*? Undoubtedly, somewhere. I've spent 50+ years trying to get consistent clear thinking into my brain, but I'm all too aware of not having got there yet, (not least due to some of the junk that was slipped into my mind unknowing by my parents, teachers and local society, before I got old enough to start vetting these. And had to wrestle additionally with how to determine safe and sound vetting principles.)

Chris

* edit: as in being inconsistent. As to deliberately putting on a false face... I really only have the one. WYSIWYG. It could be part of my autism.
I have been accused of not lying enough: lacking in that "social skill"?

 

[juvenissun]

That they are both invisible and pink, of course.
And that it is so important to hold the two parts of this apparent paradoxical dichotomy in "creative tension" to quote a commentary from an entirely different theological tradition.
Rather than deduce that the impossibility of both being simultaneously true undermines the consistency of the whole proposition.

I do not see any content of the Unicorn theology yet. Have you hit the wall already before the first step?

Creation, Evolution, or Unknown.
Unicorn is not an option yet.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you asked an atheist about the origin of things, they have two choices: 1. Do not know; 2. Evolution.
There is no third option.

There is no need for additional options, when the question was already settled by science.

There is ROOM for additional options, off course, but it will have to trump the already existing option in both testability as well as supportive evidence.

Good luck with that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The so-called evolution theory avoided the origin problem because it can not answer the problem.

No. It doesn't have to "avoid" that which it doesn't even address.

Origin of life is not within the scope of the origins of biological diversity / species.
You know this, because it has been pointed out to you more times then I can count.

If it can, then it WILL include it.

No. The origins of life will never be included in the theory of evolution, because it simply is not a part of it.

Just like gravity will never be included in germ theory.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I do not see any content of the Unicorn theology yet. Have you hit the wall already before the first step?

Creation, Evolution, or Unknown.
Unicorn is not an option yet.

Technically speaking, unicorn is an option. That the universe was created by a giant, nonsentient toe twitching is an option. They haven't been disproven. This is why evidence is so important in science for distinguishing the garbage ideas from the ones that are actually likely to represent reality.

 

[juvenissun]

Technically speaking, unicorn is an option. That the universe was created by a giant, nonsentient toe twitching is an option. They haven't been disproven. This is why evidence is so important in science for distinguishing the garbage ideas from the ones that are actually likely to represent reality.

First it needs a content. Then the content can be examined by other means, for example, evidences.
So far, other options have no content yet.

 

[PsychoSarah]

First it needs a content. Then the content can be examined by other means, for example, evidences.
So far, other options have no content yet.

Yeah, only evolution does. Ancient book doesn't count.

 

[bhsmte]

I would consider you a literal fundamental dispensationist when it comes to science. Yet your against literal fundamentalist christians. Perhaps because you are so much like them and you have so much in common with their approach and perspective.

Judging by the content of your posts, what you consider me to be or not be, rings hollow.

 

[Chris B]

I do not see any content of the Unicorn theology yet. Have you hit the wall already before the first step?.

Ah, you have not yet understood the key modality of IPU's.
This cannot be "worked out" or understood. It is a matter of granted enlightenment.
To those who know (the truth), any further explanation is redundant.

Creation, Evolution, or Unknown.
Unicorn is not an option yet.

Unicorn (IPU) would go under "Creation" in your triage.

 

[DerelictJunction]

In your example, we do need to first understand the function of electrons in atom. The nature of electron Must Be a part of electronics. When we study life, we should understand, for example, the evolution of DNA.

Actually, you are incorrect. Many of the properties of electricity were known before the existence of electrons was known.

 

[juvenissun]

Ah, you have not yet understood the key modality of IPU's.
This cannot be "worked out" or understood. It is a matter of granted enlightenment.
To those who know (the truth), any further explanation is redundant.

Unicorn (IPU) would go under "Creation" in your triage.

That is acceptable. Except it is an extremely poor one. But that is OK.

 

[juvenissun]

Actually, you are incorrect. Many of the properties of electricity were known before the existence of electrons was known.

I am still correct. The current evolution does not deal with abiogenesis. Eventually, it still needs to include it when it can.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I mean planets, which include our earth.

Planets do not have nuclear fusion and do not produce their own light. They reflect light. Care to try again?