Creationists

[UltimateReality]

I'm still waiting for some concrete, scientific evidence on finch beaks. [Jeopardy Music playing in background]

 

[Hollie]

The cambrian explosion is definitely evidence against the theory of evolution. No Organism can survive that many mutations or DNA information change in that short in that short span.

It better supports a creation event where the diversity of life appeared suddenly. Low change over time did not happen with the cambrian explosion.

bullshit :I have heard creationists claim on multiple occasions that the Cambrian explosion disproves evolution. For example, Lee Strobel in this video claims that the all the phyla appeared at once, independently, and therefore they were created.

First we have to understand what the Cambrian explosion is. The Cambrian explosion occurred about 530 million years ago and lasted around 80 million years. (EDIT: Quasar brought to my attention that the exact length of time of the Cambrian explosion is under dispute. However, the lowest estimate is still around 5 million years.) During this time, many of the phyla or general body types first appeared for animals. Before the Cambrian explosion, very few fossils exist of multicellular creatures, and life appears to be mainly composed of single cell organisms.

However, not all phyla made their appearance during the Cambrian explosion. Land-based life such as flowers, ferns, etc... developed much later.

While fossils from the Cambrian explosion and Precambrian are rare, evidence exists that all these body types did not evolve completely independently. All animal phyla, for example, share many common characteristics. They are all triploblastic (the embryo forms in 3 layers), bilatteral (have left and right halves) coelomates (have internal body organs). Therefore, evidence of common ancestry is suggested in the formation of these early phyla groups.

More importantly, geologists found fossils predating the Cambrian explosion of burrows which require a digging mechanism and multicellular creatures. So the idea that creatures found in the Cambrian explosion arose without precedent is simply untrue. Life had been developing into more complex, multicellular forms in the Precambrian.

The easiest way to explain the Cambrian explosion is through the theory of punctuated equilibrium. According to the theory, the evolution of most sexually-reproducing creatures occurs in short bursts followed by long stretches of few changes.

While the theory of punctuated equilibrium may have been over-sold, the idea that changes to the environment spur evolutionary development is well understood by biologists. After all, the information for evolution comes from the environment - change the environment, change the creature.

It just so happens that the amount of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere dramatically rose during the time of the Cambrian explosion, giving animals more oxygen to work with. This extra oxygen could have enabled creatures to grow larger than ever before without suffocating their body parts due to a lack of oxygen.

So while much remains to be learned about the Cambrian explosion, the idea that it somehow proves that omnipotent deity magically created life on Earth is a very much unwarranted.
Debunked by Debunkey Monkey at 8:02 PM

The Debunkey Monkey: Debunking Cambrian Explosion Myths

btw my post was about the lies told in the film expelled, but as always you missed the point completely...and proved wrong.

The fairytale and myth is saying that rapid diversification of multicellular animal life appeared rapidly over millions of years through a natural process, No way Jose.

The problem you're having is that a geologic timeline conflicts with a 6,000 year old earth which is simply ludicrous.

That leaves you with no option but to wall yourself off from reality and retreat into the fantasy world of supernaturalism, fear and superstition.

 

[UltimateReality]

What Hollie fails to grasp is that cosmologists, including Stephen Hawkins, struggle with the cause and effect arguments regarding the BB. Hollie failed in her attempt to propose a paradox regarding God having a cause. We can use the same argument for God that Einstein mistakenly used for the Universe. He desperately wanted to believe in an infinite universe, because an infinite universe would not necessitate a cause. If we believe the counter argument Big Bang theory, we must necessarily believe in a cause for the bang. The cause, of course, would have to be supernatural. So while we can't prove it exists, we can logically deduce the necessity of a cause. Theists just happen to believe that cause is a Being that transcends time, space, matter and energy and a Being who has always existed [I AM] and who always will exist.

"The Big Bang

The idea that the universe had a specific time of origin has been philosophically resisted by some very distinguished scientists. We could begin with Arthur Eddington, who experimentally confirmed Einstein's general theory of relativity in 1919. He stated a dozen years later: "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning to the present order is repugnant to me and I should like to find a genuine loophole." He later said, "We must allow evolution an infinite amount of time to get started."

Stephen Hawking, The Big Bang, and God

 

[UltimateReality]

Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, has written very persuasively on this topic. He again brings us into the philosophical implications. Ross says that, by definition,

Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe.

Stephen Hawking has said, in his writings, "the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics," and a less well-known but very distinguished cosmologist, Professor Alan Guth from MIT, says the "instant of creation remains unexplained."

 

[Hollie]

The cambrian explosion is definitely evidence against the theory of evolution. No Organism can survive that many mutations or DNA information change in that short in that short span.

It better supports a creation event where the diversity of life appeared suddenly. Low change over time did not happen with the cambrian explosion.

bullshit :I have heard creationists claim on multiple occasions that the Cambrian explosion disproves evolution. For example, Lee Strobel in this video claims that the all the phyla appeared at once, independently, and therefore they were created.

First we have to understand what the Cambrian explosion is. The Cambrian explosion occurred about 530 million years ago and lasted around 80 million years. (EDIT: Quasar brought to my attention that the exact length of time of the Cambrian explosion is under dispute. However, the lowest estimate is still around 5 million years.) During this time, many of the phyla or general body types first appeared for animals. Before the Cambrian explosion, very few fossils exist of multicellular creatures, and life appears to be mainly composed of single cell organisms.

However, not all phyla made their appearance during the Cambrian explosion. Land-based life such as flowers, ferns, etc... developed much later.

While fossils from the Cambrian explosion and Precambrian are rare, evidence exists that all these body types did not evolve completely independently. All animal phyla, for example, share many common characteristics. They are all triploblastic (the embryo forms in 3 layers), bilatteral (have left and right halves) coelomates (have internal body organs). Therefore, evidence of common ancestry is suggested in the formation of these early phyla groups.

More importantly, geologists found fossils predating the Cambrian explosion of burrows which require a digging mechanism and multicellular creatures. So the idea that creatures found in the Cambrian explosion arose without precedent is simply untrue. Life had been developing into more complex, multicellular forms in the Precambrian.

The easiest way to explain the Cambrian explosion is through the theory of punctuated equilibrium. According to the theory, the evolution of most sexually-reproducing creatures occurs in short bursts followed by long stretches of few changes.

While the theory of punctuated equilibrium may have been over-sold, the idea that changes to the environment spur evolutionary development is well understood by biologists. After all, the information for evolution comes from the environment - change the environment, change the creature.

It just so happens that the amount of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere dramatically rose during the time of the Cambrian explosion, giving animals more oxygen to work with. This extra oxygen could have enabled creatures to grow larger than ever before without suffocating their body parts due to a lack of oxygen.

So while much remains to be learned about the Cambrian explosion, the idea that it somehow proves that omnipotent deity magically created life on Earth is a very much unwarranted.
Debunked by Debunkey Monkey at 8:02 PM

The Debunkey Monkey: Debunking Cambrian Explosion Myths

btw my post was about the lies told in the film expelled, but as always you missed the point completely...and proved wrong.

The fairytale and myth is saying that rapid diversification of multicellular animal life appeared rapidly over millions of years through a natural process, No way Jose.

Unfortunately for you, accepting Harun Yahya as your source of science information puts you at a disadvantage.

You need to disparage science because knowledge and information are dangerous to your Christian creation claims. You hope to vilify knowledge and information when it’s precisely those two attributes which define how we perceive and interpret information and how we react to events.

It's obvious that you won't dare touch the science and supporting evidence because the nonsense refutations at the Harun Yahya website have been totally debunked.

 

[Hollie]

What Hollie fails to grasp is that cosmologists, including Stephen Hawkins, struggle with the cause and effect arguments regarding the BB. Hollie failed in her attempt to propose a paradox regarding God having a cause. We can use the same argument for God that Einstein mistakenly used for the Universe. He desperately wanted to believe in an infinite universe, because an infinite universe would not necessitate a cause. If we believe the counter argument Big Bang theory, we must necessarily believe in a cause for the bang. The cause, of course, would have to be supernatural. So while we can't prove it exists, we can logically deduce the necessity of a cause. Theists just happen to believe that cause is a Being that transcends time, space, matter and energy and a Being who has always existed [I AM] and who always will exist.

"The Big Bang

The idea that the universe had a specific time of origin has been philosophically resisted by some very distinguished scientists. We could begin with Arthur Eddington, who experimentally confirmed Einstein's general theory of relativity in 1919. He stated a dozen years later: "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning to the present order is repugnant to me and I should like to find a genuine loophole." He later said, "We must allow evolution an infinite amount of time to get started."

Stephen Hawking, The Big Bang, and God

What you fail to understand is that appeals to authority cause your arguments to fail. What you also fail to understand is that denigrating science because it confounds your belief in gods removes your credibility.

Bible thumping fundies are consistent in their revulsion for science. It truly scares them as it limits their gods to doing nothing more than performing administrative duties as their usefullness is stripped away.

 

[UltimateReality]

What Hollie fails to grasp is that cosmologists, including Stephen Hawkins, struggle with the cause and effect arguments regarding the BB. Hollie failed in her attempt to propose a paradox regarding God having a cause. We can use the same argument for God that Einstein mistakenly used for the Universe. He desperately wanted to believe in an infinite universe, because an infinite universe would not necessitate a cause. If we believe the counter argument Big Bang theory, we must necessarily believe in a cause for the bang. The cause, of course, would have to be supernatural. So while we can't prove it exists, we can logically deduce the necessity of a cause. Theists just happen to believe that cause is a Being that transcends time, space, matter and energy and a Being who has always existed [I AM] and who always will exist.

"The Big Bang

The idea that the universe had a specific time of origin has been philosophically resisted by some very distinguished scientists. We could begin with Arthur Eddington, who experimentally confirmed Einstein's general theory of relativity in 1919. He stated a dozen years later: "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning to the present order is repugnant to me and I should like to find a genuine loophole." He later said, "We must allow evolution an infinite amount of time to get started."

Stephen Hawking, The Big Bang, and God

What you fail to understand is that appeals to authority cause your arguments to fail. What you also fail to understand is that denigrating science because it confounds your belief in gods removes your credibility.

Bible thumping fundies are consistent in their revulsion for science. It truly scares them as it limits their gods to doing nothing more than performing administrative duties as their usefullness is stripped away.

Over 50 posts and still not really saying anything.

 

[UltimateReality]

Great description of my beliefs...

My position as a Christian is not that I can prove every statement in the Bible, or even most of them, to be true. Such a claim would actually be inconsistent with the view that the Bible is the final authority. By definition, your foundational presuppositions or (those things directly deducible from them) are not subject to further verification – or they would not in fact be foundational presuppositions. Rather, my position is that only taking the Bible as foundational can consistently make sense of everything else. C S Lewis asked why we believe that our night-time dreams are not the true world, rather than the one we spend the day in. How do we know that day-time is not the dream? How do we decide for sure which is the real world? He answered, because the real world makes sense of our dreams; whereas our dreams make sense of nothing. One gives a coherent account of the other. That’s as far as you go in such questions, and normally it satisfies us. Christians believe in the triune God and in the Bible, not because we have a scientific proof of them; but because they make sense of the world, science and everything else whereas the alternative choices fall far short. Science makes sense within a Biblical world-view. There are coherent reasons for doing science and expecting sound results. But when I make myself the center of my existence and epistemology, I end up being able to make sense of nothing. How do I know that the world is not just an illusion? Why expect the future to be in accordance with the past? There are reasons why science flourished within the soil of a Christian culture, when it had failed to do so amongst other those of world-views.

“The Bible says it, therefore I believe it” | Uncommon Descent

 

[Hollie]

Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, has written very persuasively on this topic. He again brings us into the philosophical implications. Ross says that, by definition,

Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe.

Stephen Hawking has said, in his writings, "the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics," and a less well-known but very distinguished cosmologist, Professor Alan Guth from MIT, says the "instant of creation remains unexplained."

Simphoni Forums > The Creation of the Universe

QUOTE (Stephen Hawking @ The Big Bang, and God)
Stephen Hawking has said, in his writings, "the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics," and a less well-known but very distinguished cosmologist, Professor Alan Guth from MIT, says the "instant of creation remains unexplained."




I’ve found that when Christian creationists are “quoting” authors, it’s always prudent to do one’s homework and find out what part(s) of the relevant “quote” has been purposely edited or removed.

The Inflationary Universe

The simplest possibility for the very early universe is that it actually began with a big bang, expanded rather uniformly until it cooled to the critical temperature of the phase transition and then proceeded according to the inflationary scenario. Extrapolating the big-bang model back to zero time brings the universe to a cosmological singularity, a condition of infinite temperature and density in which the known laws of physics do not apply. The instant of creation remains unexplained. A second possibility is that the universe began (again without explanation) in a random, chaotic state. The matter and temperature distributions would be nonuniform, with some parts expanding and other parts contracting. In this scenario certain small regions that were hot and expanding would undergo inflation, evolving into huge regions easily capable of encompassing the observable universe. Outside these regions there would remain chaos, gradually creeping into the regions that had inflated.

In context, Alan Guth wasn’t referring to supernatural “creation” of the universe.

Alan Guth (also) wrote:
“The universe could have evolved from absolutely nothing in a manner consistent with all known conservation laws.”

“The question of the origin of the matter in the universe is no longer thought to be beyond the range of science … everything can be created from nothing … it is fair to say that the universe is the ultimate free lunch.”

 

[Hollie]

What Hollie fails to grasp is that cosmologists, including Stephen Hawkins, struggle with the cause and effect arguments regarding the BB. Hollie failed in her attempt to propose a paradox regarding God having a cause. We can use the same argument for God that Einstein mistakenly used for the Universe. He desperately wanted to believe in an infinite universe, because an infinite universe would not necessitate a cause. If we believe the counter argument Big Bang theory, we must necessarily believe in a cause for the bang. The cause, of course, would have to be supernatural. So while we can't prove it exists, we can logically deduce the necessity of a cause. Theists just happen to believe that cause is a Being that transcends time, space, matter and energy and a Being who has always existed [I AM] and who always will exist.

"The Big Bang

The idea that the universe had a specific time of origin has been philosophically resisted by some very distinguished scientists. We could begin with Arthur Eddington, who experimentally confirmed Einstein's general theory of relativity in 1919. He stated a dozen years later: "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning to the present order is repugnant to me and I should like to find a genuine loophole." He later said, "We must allow evolution an infinite amount of time to get started."

Stephen Hawking, The Big Bang, and God

What you fail to understand is that appeals to authority cause your arguments to fail. What you also fail to understand is that denigrating science because it confounds your belief in gods removes your credibility.

Bible thumping fundies are consistent in their revulsion for science. It truly scares them as it limits their gods to doing nothing more than performing administrative duties as their usefullness is stripped away.

Over 50 posts and still not really saying anything.

Over 50 posts and I've refuted your false claims, exposed your dishonestly edited "quotes" and corrected your falsely attributed references.

It's all in a days work when reviewing the lies and falsehoods that the fundie christian creationists will post.

 

[Hollie]

Great description of my beliefs...

My position as a Christian is not that I can prove every statement in the Bible, or even most of them, to be true. Such a claim would actually be inconsistent with the view that the Bible is the final authority. By definition, your foundational presuppositions or (those things directly deducible from them) are not subject to further verification – or they would not in fact be foundational presuppositions. Rather, my position is that only taking the Bible as foundational can consistently make sense of everything else. C S Lewis asked why we believe that our night-time dreams are not the true world, rather than the one we spend the day in. How do we know that day-time is not the dream? How do we decide for sure which is the real world? He answered, because the real world makes sense of our dreams; whereas our dreams make sense of nothing. One gives a coherent account of the other. That’s as far as you go in such questions, and normally it satisfies us. Christians believe in the triune God and in the Bible, not because we have a scientific proof of them; but because they make sense of the world, science and everything else whereas the alternative choices fall far short. Science makes sense within a Biblical world-view. There are coherent reasons for doing science and expecting sound results. But when I make myself the center of my existence and epistemology, I end up being able to make sense of nothing. How do I know that the world is not just an illusion? Why expect the future to be in accordance with the past? There are reasons why science flourished within the soil of a Christian culture, when it had failed to do so amongst other those of world-views.

“The Bible says it, therefore I believe it” | Uncommon Descent

"I end up being able to make sense of nothing"

This seems to explain the sum total of your posts.

 

[UltimateReality]

Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, has written very persuasively on this topic. He again brings us into the philosophical implications. Ross says that, by definition,

Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe.

Stephen Hawking has said, in his writings, "the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics," and a less well-known but very distinguished cosmologist, Professor Alan Guth from MIT, says the "instant of creation remains unexplained."

Simphoni Forums > The Creation of the Universe

QUOTE (Stephen Hawking @ The Big Bang, and God)
Stephen Hawking has said, in his writings, "the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics," and a less well-known but very distinguished cosmologist, Professor Alan Guth from MIT, says the "instant of creation remains unexplained."




I’ve found that when Christian creationists are “quoting” authors, it’s always prudent to do one’s homework and find out what part(s) of the relevant “quote” has been purposely edited or removed.

The Inflationary Universe

The simplest possibility for the very early universe is that it actually began with a big bang, expanded rather uniformly until it cooled to the critical temperature of the phase transition and then proceeded according to the inflationary scenario. Extrapolating the big-bang model back to zero time brings the universe to a cosmological singularity, a condition of infinite temperature and density in which the known laws of physics do not apply. The instant of creation remains unexplained. A second possibility is that the universe began (again without explanation) in a random, chaotic state. The matter and temperature distributions would be nonuniform, with some parts expanding and other parts contracting. In this scenario certain small regions that were hot and expanding would undergo inflation, evolving into huge regions easily capable of encompassing the observable universe. Outside these regions there would remain chaos, gradually creeping into the regions that had inflated.

In context, Alan Guth wasn’t referring to supernatural “creation” of the universe.

Hollie, I think you were probably the only one that missed that. The rest of us know that when we refer to Christian Creation, it gets a capital 'C'. Your paranoia that we are somehow trying to trick you with quotes is getting the best of you. No one inferred that Hawkins was talking about Creation. Your own bias is causing you to read into things that aren't even being inferred. What other aspects of your judgement are being clouded by your intense hatred?

 

[UltimateReality]

What you fail to understand is that appeals to authority cause your arguments to fail. What you also fail to understand is that denigrating science because it confounds your belief in gods removes your credibility.

Bible thumping fundies are consistent in their revulsion for science. It truly scares them as it limits their gods to doing nothing more than performing administrative duties as their usefullness is stripped away.

Over 50 posts and still not really saying anything.

Over 50 posts and I've refuted your false claims, exposed your dishonestly edited "quotes" and corrected your falsely attributed references.

It's all in a days work when reviewing the lies and falsehoods that the fundie christian creationists will post.

Of course you have.

 

[UltimateReality]

Great description of my beliefs...

My position as a Christian is not that I can prove every statement in the Bible, or even most of them, to be true. Such a claim would actually be inconsistent with the view that the Bible is the final authority. By definition, your foundational presuppositions or (those things directly deducible from them) are not subject to further verification – or they would not in fact be foundational presuppositions. Rather, my position is that only taking the Bible as foundational can consistently make sense of everything else. C S Lewis asked why we believe that our night-time dreams are not the true world, rather than the one we spend the day in. How do we know that day-time is not the dream? How do we decide for sure which is the real world? He answered, because the real world makes sense of our dreams; whereas our dreams make sense of nothing. One gives a coherent account of the other. That’s as far as you go in such questions, and normally it satisfies us. Christians believe in the triune God and in the Bible, not because we have a scientific proof of them; but because they make sense of the world, science and everything else whereas the alternative choices fall far short. Science makes sense within a Biblical world-view. There are coherent reasons for doing science and expecting sound results. But when I make myself the center of my existence and epistemology, I end up being able to make sense of nothing. How do I know that the world is not just an illusion? Why expect the future to be in accordance with the past? There are reasons why science flourished within the soil of a Christian culture, when it had failed to do so amongst other those of world-views.

“The Bible says it, therefore I believe it” | Uncommon Descent

"I end up being able to make sense of nothing"

This seems to explain the sum total of your posts.

Rugged Hollie, methinks you quoted out of context. Are you a man or a woman? The sad truth is that he is talking about you. You have made yourself the center of your own existence.

 

[Hollie]

Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, has written very persuasively on this topic. He again brings us into the philosophical implications. Ross says that, by definition,

Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe.

Stephen Hawking has said, in his writings, "the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics," and a less well-known but very distinguished cosmologist, Professor Alan Guth from MIT, says the "instant of creation remains unexplained."

Simphoni Forums > The Creation of the Universe

QUOTE (Stephen Hawking @ The Big Bang, and God)
Stephen Hawking has said, in his writings, "the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics," and a less well-known but very distinguished cosmologist, Professor Alan Guth from MIT, says the "instant of creation remains unexplained."




I’ve found that when Christian creationists are “quoting” authors, it’s always prudent to do one’s homework and find out what part(s) of the relevant “quote” has been purposely edited or removed.

The Inflationary Universe

The simplest possibility for the very early universe is that it actually began with a big bang, expanded rather uniformly until it cooled to the critical temperature of the phase transition and then proceeded according to the inflationary scenario. Extrapolating the big-bang model back to zero time brings the universe to a cosmological singularity, a condition of infinite temperature and density in which the known laws of physics do not apply. The instant of creation remains unexplained. A second possibility is that the universe began (again without explanation) in a random, chaotic state. The matter and temperature distributions would be nonuniform, with some parts expanding and other parts contracting. In this scenario certain small regions that were hot and expanding would undergo inflation, evolving into huge regions easily capable of encompassing the observable universe. Outside these regions there would remain chaos, gradually creeping into the regions that had inflated.

In context, Alan Guth wasn’t referring to supernatural “creation” of the universe.

Hollie, I think you were probably the only one that missed that. The rest of us know that when we refer to Christian Creation, it gets a capital 'C'. Your paranoia that we are somehow trying to trick you with quotes is getting the best of you. No one inferred that Hawkins was talking about Creation. Your own bias is causing you to read into things that aren't even being inferred. What other aspects of your judgement are being clouded by your intense hatred?

Your embarrassment was caused by being exposed for once again altering “quotes” in an attempt to bolster your position. Common sense would suggest that if your position relies on falsification and dishonest tactics of altering “quotes” to support your claims that your claims are bankrupt.

As science expands out boundaries of knowledge, empirical data and our powers of reason are the tools to help us understand the natural world. We use our reason to perceive existence, and so far no other method is known to be able to adequately replace it. So I don't look as knowledge and reason as goals-- knowledge is all we can attain, and reason is the only means. Anything Mankind attains can be classified as "knowledge" (although there are degrees of certainty, probability, and possibility) and reason fundamentally is the only method we have of attaining it.

I think that the problem fundie Christian creationists have with rationality is that they perceive that it doesn't address human intangible issues such as emotions, hence they feel reason is somehow inadequate. I take a very different view. Stripped of reason, one cannot even perceive the concept of love or hate or compassion, so therefore, the keystone of our perception of existence *must* be reason.

The creationist ministries will claim that existence is fundamentally incomprehensible and that only through the gods is perception possible. I take serious issue with. I assert that while there certainly are things unknown about the Universe, this does not mean they are intrinsically unknowable. In fact, it is irrational beliefs in things such as the supernatural that (should those beliefs be true) would make the Universe incomprehensible, which is why I feel that religious belief systems do Man a great disservice (as does intransigent scientific methodology).

 

[Hollie]

Great description of my beliefs...

My position as a Christian is not that I can prove every statement in the Bible, or even most of them, to be true. Such a claim would actually be inconsistent with the view that the Bible is the final authority. By definition, your foundational presuppositions or (those things directly deducible from them) are not subject to further verification – or they would not in fact be foundational presuppositions. Rather, my position is that only taking the Bible as foundational can consistently make sense of everything else. C S Lewis asked why we believe that our night-time dreams are not the true world, rather than the one we spend the day in. How do we know that day-time is not the dream? How do we decide for sure which is the real world? He answered, because the real world makes sense of our dreams; whereas our dreams make sense of nothing. One gives a coherent account of the other. That’s as far as you go in such questions, and normally it satisfies us. Christians believe in the triune God and in the Bible, not because we have a scientific proof of them; but because they make sense of the world, science and everything else whereas the alternative choices fall far short. Science makes sense within a Biblical world-view. There are coherent reasons for doing science and expecting sound results. But when I make myself the center of my existence and epistemology, I end up being able to make sense of nothing. How do I know that the world is not just an illusion? Why expect the future to be in accordance with the past? There are reasons why science flourished within the soil of a Christian culture, when it had failed to do so amongst other those of world-views.

“The Bible says it, therefore I believe it” | Uncommon Descent

"I end up being able to make sense of nothing"

This seems to explain the sum total of your posts.

Rugged Hollie, methinks you quoted out of context. Are you a man or a woman? The sad truth is that he is talking about you. You have made yourself the center of your own existence.

Goofy name-caller,

Thinking is difficult for you. We understand that.

I don’t see that accepting reason as the criteria for perception is making oneself the center of one’s own existence. That is one of the many goofy canards typically appearing on fundie religious websites.

We are part of nature, as is our reason, as are our perceptions. If we can count on nature to be relatively consistent, then we can also count on our reason and perceptions to be relatively consistent, and as we learn more and accumulate more data, we will narrow the definition of the word “relatively”. This doesn’t mean that people generally behave as though their reason can be counted on as relatively consistent; in fact, they behave in just the reverse. But that too is knowledge, and it is not impossible to fix. Two ways I can think of is to stop inculcating in children (who lack any proper frame of reference) mystical mumbo-jumbo which is invariably backed up with the fundie christian precepts of self-deception, self-righteousness and implied threat. The second is to prioritize schooling of logical and critical thinking.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"I end up being able to make sense of nothing"

This seems to explain the sum total of your posts.

Rugged Hollie, methinks you quoted out of context. Are you a man or a woman? The sad truth is that he is talking about you. You have made yourself the center of your own existence.

Goofy name-caller,

Thinking is difficult for you. We understand that.

I don’t see that accepting reason as the criteria for perception is making oneself the center of one’s own existence. That is one of the many goofy canards typically appearing on fundie religious websites.

We are part of nature, as is our reason, as are our perceptions. If we can count on nature to be relatively consistent, then we can also count on our reason and perceptions to be relatively consistent, and as we learn more and accumulate more data, we will narrow the definition of the word “relatively”. This doesn’t mean that people generally behave as though their reason can be counted on as relatively consistent; in fact, they behave in just the reverse. But that too is knowledge, and it is not impossible to fix. Two ways I can think of is to stop inculcating in children (who lack any proper frame of reference) mystical mumbo-jumbo which is invariably backed up with the fundie christian precepts of self-deception, self-righteousness and implied threat. The second is to prioritize schooling of logical and critical thinking.

Do you and Daws copy and paste from pro evolutionist and atheist sites ? What is your point ? Most the time my posts are my own words,sometimes I don't feel like repeating myself and will copy and paste from sites on my side of the argument. I also quote people from your side as well. There are honest evolutionist out there and admit to the truths that many on your side are ignorant of.

 

[Hollie]

Rugged Hollie, methinks you quoted out of context. Are you a man or a woman? The sad truth is that he is talking about you. You have made yourself the center of your own existence.

Goofy name-caller,

Thinking is difficult for you. We understand that.

I don’t see that accepting reason as the criteria for perception is making oneself the center of one’s own existence. That is one of the many goofy canards typically appearing on fundie religious websites.

We are part of nature, as is our reason, as are our perceptions. If we can count on nature to be relatively consistent, then we can also count on our reason and perceptions to be relatively consistent, and as we learn more and accumulate more data, we will narrow the definition of the word “relatively”. This doesn’t mean that people generally behave as though their reason can be counted on as relatively consistent; in fact, they behave in just the reverse. But that too is knowledge, and it is not impossible to fix. Two ways I can think of is to stop inculcating in children (who lack any proper frame of reference) mystical mumbo-jumbo which is invariably backed up with the fundie christian precepts of self-deception, self-righteousness and implied threat. The second is to prioritize schooling of logical and critical thinking.

Do you and Daws copy and paste from pro evolutionist and atheist sites ? What is your point ? Most the time my posts are my own words,sometimes I don't feel like repeating myself and will copy and paste from sites on my side of the argument. I also quote people from your side as well. There are honest evolutionist out there and admit to the truths that many on your side are ignorant of.

When you're too befuddled to counter an argument, you should avoid babbling with spam.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Goofy name-caller,

Thinking is difficult for you. We understand that.

I don’t see that accepting reason as the criteria for perception is making oneself the center of one’s own existence. That is one of the many goofy canards typically appearing on fundie religious websites.

We are part of nature, as is our reason, as are our perceptions. If we can count on nature to be relatively consistent, then we can also count on our reason and perceptions to be relatively consistent, and as we learn more and accumulate more data, we will narrow the definition of the word “relatively”. This doesn’t mean that people generally behave as though their reason can be counted on as relatively consistent; in fact, they behave in just the reverse. But that too is knowledge, and it is not impossible to fix. Two ways I can think of is to stop inculcating in children (who lack any proper frame of reference) mystical mumbo-jumbo which is invariably backed up with the fundie christian precepts of self-deception, self-righteousness and implied threat. The second is to prioritize schooling of logical and critical thinking.

Do you and Daws copy and paste from pro evolutionist and atheist sites ? What is your point ? Most the time my posts are my own words,sometimes I don't feel like repeating myself and will copy and paste from sites on my side of the argument. I also quote people from your side as well. There are honest evolutionist out there and admit to the truths that many on your side are ignorant of.

When you're too befuddled to counter an argument, you should avoid babbling with spam.

Befuddled me ? Not by the arguments you present. You should take your own advice.

 

[Hollie]

Do you and Daws copy and paste from pro evolutionist and atheist sites ? What is your point ? Most the time my posts are my own words,sometimes I don't feel like repeating myself and will copy and paste from sites on my side of the argument. I also quote people from your side as well. There are honest evolutionist out there and admit to the truths that many on your side are ignorant of.

When you're too befuddled to counter an argument, you should avoid babbling with spam.

Befuddled me ? Not by the arguments you present. You should take your own advice.

I've noticed a consistent pattern of behavior with Christian creationist fundies. When their arguments are collapsing in front of them, they get frustrated, angry and lash out.