No reason to believe X is true, other then my interpetation of Y must be true.

[AV1611VET]

That's rich! It's only YOUR unique claims that there are phenomena that don't leave any evidence, because that's your ultimate cop-out — your impenetrable smoke-screen — to supposedly hide the workings of God (or more likely the limitations of your inventiveness).

Then by all means, if you feel there is evidence for the Creation Event -- or should be -- let's see it.

Let's see you answer this challenge, while you're at it: 1.

The only reason I say there's no evidence for the Creation Event is because you guys say it, and I agree with you.

 

[Cabal]

This view still holds true after many challenges I have posted. Yes, if evolution is wrong, then creation must be true.

Because, there is no third option.

Don't like it? Try to name a process which is neither evolution nor creation.

Allahdidit.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, religion, in all its forms, ought to be kept out of schools.

This is what communists did 50 years ago.
Now, they (informally) invite religion back to school.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not a Freudian slip at all.

Your "basic doctrine" can take a long hike in the opposite direction if that kind of revisionism is what it produces. I know the Galileo/RCC incident is often described incorrectly, but don't try and spin house arrest over someone merely disagreeing with a church into something positive.

From Wikipedia:

After a period with the friendly Ascanio Piccolomini (the Archbishop of Siena), Galileo was allowed to return to his villa at Arcetri near Florence in 1634, where he spent the remainder of his life under house arrest, his movements restricted by the Pope. Galileo was ordered to read the seven penitential psalms once a week for the next three years. However his daughter Maria Celeste relieved him of the burden after securing ecclesiastical permission to take it upon herself. It was while Galileo was under house arrest that he dedicated his time to one of his finest works, Two New Sciences. Here he summarized work he had done some forty years earlier, on the two sciences now called kinematics and strength of materials. This book has received high praise from Albert Einstein. As a result of this work, Galileo is often called the "father of modern physics."

 

[juvenissun]

Allahdidit.

Ha, what is that? Creation version 2?
Poor Muslims, they just cover their eyes to this issue, because they do not want to use Genesis.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ha, what is that? Creation version 2?

See point #2 here: 6.

 

[Cabal]

From Wikipedia:

That's nice - still house arrest. But leave it to a fundie to try and justify atrocity.

 

[Cabal]

Ha, what is that? Creation version 2?
Poor Muslims, they just cover their eyes to this issue, because they do not want to use Genesis.

Just highlighting your false dichotomy

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

This is what communists did 50 years ago.
Now, they (informally) invite religion back to school.

I did not mention, nor do I think, that religion should be made illegal, only that religious points of view should not be taught in the classroom, but at home, where it belongs.

 

[Cabal]

See point #2 here: 6.

And see rebuttal - Christian creationism is just that clueless as to think it's the only other option.

Don't like it? Can always give up such an intellectually bankrupt belief system.

 

[Mike Elphick]

Then by all means, if you feel there is evidence for the Creation Event -- or should be -- let's see it.

Let's see you answer this challenge, while you're at it: 1.

I already did.

The only reason I say there's no evidence for the Creation Event is because you guys say it, and I agree with you.

Well, I can't tell who said it first, I thought it was you:-

Creatio ex nihilo leaves no evidence behind.

Is this another cop-out?

 

[MoonLancer]

This is what communists did 50 years ago.
Now, they (informally) invite religion back to school.

Communists also breath air. are you a communist too?

 

[AV1611VET]

I did not mention, nor do I think, that religion should be made illegal, only that religious points of view should not be taught in the classroom, but at home, where it belongs.

Ditto for evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is this another cop-out?

No, it's a fact -- and a scientific one @ that.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Ditto for evolution.

I suppose we should leave out calculus, physics, chemistry, literature and history too?

 

[Cabal]

I suppose we should leave out calculus, physics, chemistry, literature and history too?

nono - we "teach the controversy"

Numerology, Alchemy etc.

 

[Split Rock]

[*]You guys are good at asking the same questions over and over.

How many times have you asked your apple challenge question?

[*]You either laugh, ridicule or insult the answer, which comes back on you in the form of a mental block you can't get around.

How many times have creationists posted here and called us foolish, stupid, lazy, corrupt devil's servants?

[*]You change the vocabulary of very specific phenomena; blurring it so it is indistinguishable with everyday occurrences, then wonder why it's not unique.

LOL! What is your definition of faith again? According to you creationists, faith is a dime a dozen.

[*]You demand evidence where, not only is there not any, but the phenomenon itself is of the type that it wouldn't generate any.

You claim it wouldn't generate any, only because you cannot provide any evidence. Not because by its nature it couldn't produce any evidence.

[*]Your default position against us is that we are automatically wrong in what we say, even when we agree with you.

Agree with what? Biology? NO. Physical chemistry? NO. Geology? NO. Paleontology? NO. Astronomy? NO. Cosmology? NO. Archeology? NO. Linguistcs? NO.

[*]You are good at putting things into a Catch-22 situation, where the answer is doomed if it is and doomed if it isn't.

All because you can only produce an ad hoc answer doesn't make it a "Catch 22."

[*]You relabel us as something that is the opposite of what is in our profile, then assume we're arguing from that perspective, not the perspective we claim -- further confusing yourselves.

Is that why you guys call evolutionists/ scientists atheists?"

[*]You thumb your noses at basic theology, then wonder why you can't understand deep theology.

Your basic theology is another man's bad theology.

[*]You attribute mindsets of the past to the church, rather than to science (e.g. geocentrism).

You disavow everything Christians ever did in the past while blaming science for every past mistake of any scientists, doctor, administrator and engineer.

[*]You assume the past operated like it does today.
[/LIST]

You assume it didn't when it suits your purpose.

 

[Split Rock]

Oh, and another thing, Mr Gar.

For someone who just joined here to make a statement like this is sad.

There are people like Split Rock, Frumious Bandersnatch, Cabal and Life to the Fullest who have put up with me, dad, Agonaces and others for years -- and in my opinion, they deserve a prize.*

By comparison, you either post/have posted here under another name, or you came here sick.

* A genuine leather-bound, gold leaf, center-column, Scofield Reference Bible -- 1611 King James.

Hey, I'll take one!

 

[matthewgar]

To be fair, one doesn't have to wait long to see you pull a "keep looking" - and you don't need a massive posting history here to see how obtuse it is. This isn't a typical accusation of you having never said X - Mr. Gar is just a fast learner.....



I think you'll be wanting it back once you read the post I just made *ducks*



yay

(that or our heads examining)

To be fair I've seen alot of the simular things on youtube, and in books on evolution/creationism and such. And my issue is criticize evolution and science and such, just have something more substantial, then like I said, you believe X because Y has to be true, no evidence or reason to accept X over the official explanation other then Y has to be true.

This is what I mean, There is no reason to assume or any evidence for embeded age other then one interpetation of the bible, maybe it's true, maybe it's not, but if you want to convince the scientific comunity and those that don't agree you need better then something that doesn't fit the facts beyond, you don't feel it's right so it's wrong and must be a explanation.

Does making up stuff for Jesus really show him honour? Even if your correct on your interpetations of the bible your still making up explanations and calling them truth, you have no truth in this beyond what is in the bible if your correct.

PS other then the first part , the rest was to AV...responded to Cabal for the first part...heh.

 

[juvenissun]

I did not mention, nor do I think, that religion should be made illegal, only that religious points of view should not be taught in the classroom, but at home, where it belongs.

Why is religion less valuable than other human wisdoms? It takes a lot of brain power.