15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[abu afak]

Cut the crap. An atheist simply lacks belief in supernatural beings. How many times do you need to be schooled on this? Hey, here's an idea! Next time you're confused.. Look it up:

Oxford Languages Dictionary:

I am an atheist, and I suppose an Agnostic in a much lesser sense.
One CAN Be both.

I believe there is No god.
Which is Not to say 1000% "there is no god'".
But logically, there is No Proof or even evidence of Any god, and All gods on which we have a verdict have been proven Bogus.
Tens of Thousands of False Gods (Fire, Lightning, Fertility, etc) which have the Same bogus basis as the current necessarily Whittled Down gods (life, universe). IOW, we don't have an explanation so let's assign a god for it.

Then there's the issue of WHICH "god".
If, by some miracle, one happens to be correct, all the others are wrong.
So at least 3/4 of believers are Necessarily Wrong (99.8% if you're Jewish or Native American) even if the One stepped in it. Macro-viewing Hundreds of cultures, all with their own deities, it's Obvious these are convenient local legends, NOT any universal truth/god.
IOW, which 'god' the vast majorities believe in depends on a geographical/cultural Accident of birth, Not a discernible truth.

So in light of:
ALL the "I dunno it must be god"S on which we have a verdict being Bogus...
The incredible Lack of evidenceS of any gods...
The Many "only" "gods" which Negate each other, and make the vast majority of other contradictory ones false...
I can say, for all Practical purposes (in addition to mere lack of belief), "there is no god", fully realizing Proving that Negative is Impossible.

But if the stars all line up overhead one night and form the word "JESUS", or ANY other Evidence comes to light, I would be glad - even 'thrilled' - to change my mind.
Until and unless, Atheism is the most/only logical position.

'

 

[Seymour Flops]

I am and atheist, and I suppose an Agnostic in a much lesser sense.
One CAN Be both.
'

By the beard of Muhammed!

How can you be both?

You both firmly believe that there is no deity and also firmly believe that no one can know whether there is a deity?

If you believe in Santa, please ask him for a dictionary next year.

 

[abu afak]

By the beard of Muhammed!

How can you be both?

You both firmly believe that there is no deity and also firmly believe that no one can know whether there is a deity?

If you believe in Santa, please ask him for a dictionary next year.

I just explained/elaborated how in detail.

Way over your 47 IQ head.

`

 

[Seymour Flops]

I just explained/elaborated how in detail.

Way over your 47 IQ head.

`

Just check your dictionary so you can stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[james bond]

I am an atheist, and I suppose an Agnostic in a much lesser sense.
One CAN Be both.

I believe there is No god.
Which is Not to say 1000% "there is no god'".
But logically, there is No Proof or even evidence of Any god, and All gods on which we have a verdict have been proven Bogus.
Tens of Thousands of False Gods (Fire, Lightning, Fertility, etc) which have the Same bogus basis as the current necessarily Whittled Down gods (life, universe). IOW, we don't have an explanation so let's assign a god for it.

Then there's the issue of WHICH "god".
If, by some miracle, one happens to be correct, all the others are wrong.
So at least 3/4 of believers are Necessarily Wrong (99.8% if you're Jewish or Native American) even if the One stepped in it. Macro-viewing Hundreds of cultures, all with their own deities, it's Obvious these are convenient local legends, NOT any universal truth/god.
IOW, which 'god' the vast majorities believe in depends on a geographical/cultural Accident of birth, Not a discernible truth.

So in light of:
ALL the "I dunno it must be god"S on which we have a verdict being Bogus...
The incredible Lack of evidenceS of any gods...
The Many "only" "gods" which Negate each other, and make the vast majority of other contradictory ones false...
I can say, for all Practical purposes (in addition to mere lack of belief), "there is no god", fully realizing Proving that Negative is Impossible.

But if the stars all line up overhead one night and form the word "JESUS", or ANY other Evidence comes to light, I would be glad - even 'thrilled' - to change my mind.
Until and unless, Atheism is the most/only logical position.

'

This thread should be moved to the Rubber Room. What science are you bringing to the table here, but your worthless atheist religion opinion that isn't backed up by science. Evolution and atheism does not belong to the science forum.. I can accept it in the atheist religion forum.

All I can add here is what do you do when a beautiful song like this comes on? Do you have no soul and feeling? Or do you just STFU and leave the room? I can accept the latter always.

 

[abu afak]

Just check your dictionary so you can stop embarrassing yourself.

Again:
I firmly believe there is no god but leave open the tiny chance there is
ergo (and in light of the facts I elaborated in the post at the top) ""I Can say for all Practical purposes there is no god.""

And I'm hardly alone
Perhaps the country's foremost Christianity/NT Scholar declares himself the same: BOTH.

A talk at FFRF/Freedom From Religion Foundation by one thee most renowned professor's of Religion/Christianity/NT, Bart Ehrman.
99% of the time he is invited to speak to religious groups.
But, as it turns out, he's an "Agnostic and an Atheist."
A good bit on his 'new' book, 'How Jesus became God' [2014]

​

Wiki: "Bart D. Ehrman (1955) is an American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. According to the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, he is one of North America's Leading scholars in his field, having written and edited 27 books, including Three College Textbooks.​

He has also achieved acclaim at the popular level, authoring five New York Times bestsellers. Ehrman's work focuses on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the development of early Christianity.".."​

`

 

[themirrorthief]

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up

www.scientificamerican.com

[.....]

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."

`

.


`.

yeah a million years ago a fish decided to grow some feet and take a walk on dry land i totally get it it all makes sense now just let me hit that joint again and i am sold

 

[abu afak]

yeah a million years ago a fish decided to grow some feet and take a walk on dry land i totally get it it all makes sense now just let me hit that joint again and i am sold

Hate to break this to you but There are still fish that, can move around on land with their pectoral fins and other means. (and many other dual land/water creatures)

`

 

[themirrorthief]

Again:
I firmly believe there is no god but leave open the tiny chance there is
ergo (and in light of the facts I elaborated in the post at the top) ""I Can say for all Practical purposes there is no god.""

And I'm hardly alone
Perhaps the country's foremost Christianity/NT Scholar declares himself the same: BOTH.

A talk at FFRF/Freedom From Religion Foundation by one thee most renowned professor's of Religion/Christianity/NT, Bart Ehrman.
99% of the time he is invited to speak to religious groups.
But, as it turns out, he's an "Agnostic and an Atheist."
A good bit on his 'new' book, 'How Jesus became God' [2014][/B]

​

Wiki: "Bart D. Ehrman (1955) is an American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. According to the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, he is one of North America's Leading scholars in his field, having written and edited 27 books, including Three College Textbooks.​

He has also achieved acclaim at the popular level, authoring five New York Times bestsellers. Ehrman's work focuses on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the development of early Christianity.".."​

`

what has religion got to do with God the fact you live proves God is real religion is man made if you want to see god look in the mirror you do gods work you are made in his image your body is a holy temple meaning god lives inside you now get out there and prove it by doing good and creating love

 

[themirrorthief]

Hate to break this to you but There are still fish that, can move around on land with their pectoral fins and other means. (and many other dual land/water creatures)

`

how many can fly jet planes and give women fake tits

 

[abu afak]

what has religion got to do with God the fact you live proves God is real religion is man made if you want to see god look in the mirror you do gods work you are made in his image your body is a holy temple meaning god lives inside you now get out there and prove it by doing good and creating love

"" the fact you live proves God is real"'

Maybe that empty platitude works for you but it is otherwise/of course Baseless.
got any links besides genesis?

And since you've got it down pat, please tell us which/witch god that is.

th-th-thx

`

 

[james bond]

If not the Rubber Room, can we move this thread to Religion and Ethics? What science is in there? There is no observations nor experiments. Evolution are papers to promote atheism. I'll accept banning abu afak again, too, for ruining the S&T forum.

 

[abu afak]

If not the Rubber Room, can we move this thread to Religion and Ethics? What science is in there? There is no observations nor experiments. Evolution are papers to promote atheism. I'll accept banning abu afak again, too, for ruining the S&T forum.

The OP is an article from SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN!
Every one of the 15 points IS Science.
What's the matter. Your positions outed by the Article?
And It IS the main issue in the section.
Its certainly a more valid topic than the religious 'design'/ID, or YOUR ELEVEN Thousand god posts. .. your only source.
YOU shouldn't be here! Citing scripture, sending people to hell, etc.
You'd rather Creation. con. AnswersInGenesis.
What a kwazy censorial loser.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Again:
I firmly believe there is no god but leave open the tiny chance there is
ergo (and in light of the facts I elaborated in the post at the top) ""I Can say for all Practical purposes there is no god.""

And I'm hardly alone
Perhaps the country's foremost Christianity/NT Scholar declares himself the same: BOTH.

A talk at FFRF/Freedom From Religion Foundation by one thee most renowned professor's of Religion/Christianity/NT, Bart Ehrman.
99% of the time he is invited to speak to religious groups.
But, as it turns out, he's an "Agnostic and an Atheist."
A good bit on his 'new' book, 'How Jesus became God' [2014]

​

Wiki: "Bart D. Ehrman (1955) is an American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. According to the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, he is one of North America's Leading scholars in his field, having written and edited 27 books, including Three College Textbooks.​

He has also achieved acclaim at the popular level, authoring five New York Times bestsellers. Ehrman's work focuses on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the development of early Christianity.".."​

`

That's an entertaining video. Ehrman identifies himself as an agnostic, but claims to be an atheist as well. He explains each a bit and obviously finds the two not mutually exclusive. He even mentions that lots of atheists (like half?) agree with me, i.e. that agnostics are just atheists who lack the balls to simply admit they're atheists. Attempting to apply deductive reasoning to what always seems an intractable semantic argument:

A semantic dispute is a disagreement that arises if the parties involved disagree about the definition of a word or phrase, not because they disagree on material facts, but rather because they disagree on the definitions of a word essential to formulating the claim at issue. Wikipedia

Akin to FFRF in general, Ehrman appears to simply avoid further analysis as much as possible and chooses to be an agnostic rather than an atheist for no clear reason. I see atheism as the larger set, engulfing agnosticism entirely, rendering it logically redundant. Ehrman may see them the other way around or as simply distinct but not exclusive. I've never really cared that much to quibble, the gulf being so much wider between us and those explicitly identifying as religious. Seems petty by comparison. But I'd still find it interesting to explore further. For instance, agnostics might be logically accused of professing belief and (therefore?) being somewhat self-contradictory. Perhaps guilty of pushing god-of-the-gaps reasoning as well?..

 

[zaangalewa]

Cut the crap. An atheist simply lacks belief in supernatural beings.

An atheist denies [the possibility of the existence of] god and denies normally also all forms of spiritual beliefs - except the own belief not to believe.

How many times do you need to be schooled on this?

I'm not totally immune against brainwash so you have a chance to convince me from something what's wrong - but this not explains why you like to convince me from wrongness.

Hey, here's an idea!

An ideal? That's also an English word? Astonishing. What is your ideal? To be noble, helpful and good as Goethe liked to be?

Next time you're confuual sed.. Look it up:

Oxford Languages Dictionary:

Next time you still will be an idiot and I still will be an idiot from the ignorant, intrigant, arrogant and agressive species "homo sapiens sapiens" who destroys the own spiritual and real basis of the existence of all known life.

 

[zaangalewa]

Whatever it showed, that was 100 years ago. That you neglect ALL the science since then is telling. You should stop living in the past,

He said he decided 9 years ago to be a Christian.

we've recently found all the building blocks of life

What's nearly a total nonsense. The dynamic structures within a body are for example nearly totally unknown. We kill normally what we like to see.

out in space ready to go...

We are what? Earth and moon are a double planet system - we never left this system. And the cosm is some billion times bigger.

 

[zaangalewa]

As usual, you could not answer a simple question of sin

You are an ignorant fool, James Bond. I know why it is a sin to call someone a fool - but I do it here on reason to find a way to communicate with you. The Christian religion is not an ideology as you seem to think. Learn first what you like to teach others.

and how the Bible explained agnosticism.

The bible explains what?

Thus, I'll claim victory once more as I posted that you will have committed sin in the Bible by being an agnostic; It's just a nicer way to say it than you will lose everything.

You have absolutelly not any light idea what you try to speak about when you use the word "agnosticism" - but that's normal in the English speaking world.

As for your question, I did understand when you stated you are agnostic. You can believe that you are not right nor wrong being it.

This has nothing to do with belief. I know that I don't know whether god exists or not exists. And I never discuss this with anyone else who has not the intellectual capacity to understand why I am a Christian.

However, I'm not stupid

tralalala - I say nothing ... very loud ... isn't it?

when the Bible and science backs me up. This

...

is the science section and creationists have creation science

Creation science is a nonsense expression. Use "natural science" - or "physics" - or "biology " and so on if you speak about natural science. Natural science knows only one scientific truth - and not many truthes.

(which I've posted a youtube on already). What do you have when YOU tell a baker it's impossible to bake bread and to be an agnostic at the same time?

Good grief.

I wouldn't ask such a dumb question nor make such a dumb point that your dumbass just did.

I "love" such arguments.

Your last point is saying exactly what you said I was doing.

The point I would make is there is no relationship with agnosticism and evolution according to you. To the OP, it has a relationship to atheism, but you state you do not agree.

Why for heavens sake do you say something at all?

 

[zaangalewa]

What is preventing Churches from teaching Creationism?

What do you understand under "teaching creationism"?

¿This?:

 

[james bond]

No shkidding, Sherlock.

Since you chose to truncate my answer instead of replying to it like an adult, here it is again (link is provided):

I'll take this opportunity to add, "the conditions that existed on Earth during his lifetime" include relatively recently discovering the microscope, for example, without which Pasteur would have effectively been blind. Since Pasteur, our equipment and scientific understanding has again improved tremendously. Instead of embracing that, you choose to regress back to the time when people had no choice but to fear gods and spiritual nonsense. Enjoy. I prefer experiencing current reality, no matter how harsh, and helping to improve upon it.. instead of doing whatever you imagine you're doing.

I missed your personal opinion as it discusses the microscope which creation scientists invented -- Antony van Leeuwenhoek: Magnificent Microscopes. No sh*t, Sherlock.

 

[james bond]

You are an ignorant fool, James Bond. I know why it is a sin to call someone a fool - but I do it here on reason to find a way to communicate with you. The Christian religion is not an ideology as you seem to think. Learn first what you like to teach others.



The bible explains what?



You have absolutelly not any light idea what you try to speak about when you use the word "agnosticism" - but that's normal in the English speaking world.



This has nothing to do with belief. I know that I don't know whether god exists or not exists. And I never discuss this with anyone else who has not the intellectual capacity to understand why I am a Christian.



tralalala - I say nothing ... very loud ... isn't it?



...



Creation science is a nonsense expression. Use "natural science" - or "physics" - or "biology " and so on if you speak about natural science. Natural science knows only one scientific truth - and not many truthes.



Good grief.



I "love" such arguments.






Why for heavens sake do you say something at all?

I'm not the ignorant fool. You are and I posted why and the truth. It's because of that you are angry that you respond the way you do, but it's not my fault. It's yours. And I'm here to teach you the truth and I think I have, but it's not my fault that you didn't get nor understand the message. I think it's because you don't understand or get the message (which most others do) that makes you an agnostic or not sure.

The rest of your babble proves that you are the ignorant one.