Creationists

[Gadawg73]

What about the Biblical claims that are just plain wrong?

You are engaging in the Texas Sharpshooter's fallacy.

It is amazing to hear the creationists' claims that the Bible is more scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books.
The book of Job claims that the heavens control the earth, "fix their rule" on the earth.
I love reading the book of Genesis but it teaches that man was made from dust. Dust is particles and man was made with chemicals.
Elementary science.
Leviticus instructs us "all flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you".
Well, that is an easy Bible command instruction to follow because no such things exist.
And of course the scientific knowledge of God stands out again in Chronicles with "Tremble before him, all the earth. The earth is firmly established, it can not be moved" The earth rotates and does move.
Psalm claims the earth rests on pillars. Isiah claims the moon gives light instead of reflecting light.
Corinthians claims dead seeds will grow.
The Bible, the greatest book on earth was NEVER INTENDED to be a science book.
It is a collection of teachings about God, morality and other things with the intent of saving souls as opposed to demonstrating scientific knowledge.
Those who would argue for the reliability of the Bible on scientific matters, and there is no shortage of those here, are divorcing it from it's historical context, blatantly ignoring and omitting passages that contradict their absurd claims and preconceived bias, thus distorting the very scriptures they CLAIM to admire so much.
Bottom line for those of us that have studied the Bible for almost half a century: The Bible is NOT a scientific book and it does NOT pretend to be. All of the scientific facts supposedly described in scripture were not discovered by devout Bible readers, but by scientists performing experiments. When it comes to scientific predictions it has inspired NO legitimate discoveries. For all of the off the wall, vague, unscientific and misunderstood statements, as indicated here, that may seem to accord with modern science there are far, far too many blatantly contradictory statements of bad and/or unscientific "science".

Where has anyone said the Bible was MORE scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books?

Either provide the proof or retract your accusation.

Georgia Congressman Paul Braun and many others recently.
Everyone and anyone that claims the earth is 9000 years old or younger.

 

[Hollie]

You haven't reacted well yourself.


I'm still waiting for you to explain how can it be that statements in the Bible that are scientifically accurate given the fact it was written over two thousand years ago.

And what in the Bible do you say is a falsehood?

You need to define your terms. You make claims to the bible being "scientifically accurate" when it is not. When you're confronted with scientific principles unknown by the writers of the bible you make excuses for the lack of a science vocabulary.

You're not consistent.

If you want a list of biblical errors, there are many sites on the web that can list those errors and falsehoods.

Define my terms?

You made the statement about falsehoods I'm asking what those falsehoods are.

If you have to google them then so be it. I'm not doing your work for you.

And I said there are statements in the Bible that are consistent with science.

And I have shown that to be true.

Please do not try to put words in my mouth.

Yes. Define your terms. Some of the more blatant falsehoods in the bible would include a global flood, dead men who don't stay dead, seas parting, etc.

What you seem to object to is anyone pointing out that the bible could be infallible or contains errors. I submit that both are true. Since it is you who in insisting that the bible is not contradicted by science, you are the only one who is actually required to prove anything. Apologists understand this and that's why we are constantly confronted with the most profoundly silly examples of "scientific proofs" of the bible. These "proofs" are not proofs at all and require the believer to be ignorant of both the bible and science to believe them.

We can all imagine that if the gods had really given us a book, they would have managed to drop in a real proof now and then, like, say, the chemical structure of a few of the elements or a comprehensive description of the process of nuclear fusion that powers our sun. But we don't, obviously. Instead we get dumb stuff such as global floods and bushes spontaneously bursting in flames. That's just awful. The people who are propagating that nonsense are slandering your religion. Don't be an accomplice.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It is amazing to hear the creationists' claims that the Bible is more scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books.
The book of Job claims that the heavens control the earth, "fix their rule" on the earth.
I love reading the book of Genesis but it teaches that man was made from dust. Dust is particles and man was made with chemicals.
Elementary science.
Leviticus instructs us "all flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you".
Well, that is an easy Bible command instruction to follow because no such things exist.
And of course the scientific knowledge of God stands out again in Chronicles with "Tremble before him, all the earth. The earth is firmly established, it can not be moved" The earth rotates and does move.
Psalm claims the earth rests on pillars. Isiah claims the moon gives light instead of reflecting light.
Corinthians claims dead seeds will grow.
The Bible, the greatest book on earth was NEVER INTENDED to be a science book.
It is a collection of teachings about God, morality and other things with the intent of saving souls as opposed to demonstrating scientific knowledge.
Those who would argue for the reliability of the Bible on scientific matters, and there is no shortage of those here, are divorcing it from it's historical context, blatantly ignoring and omitting passages that contradict their absurd claims and preconceived bias, thus distorting the very scriptures they CLAIM to admire so much.
Bottom line for those of us that have studied the Bible for almost half a century: The Bible is NOT a scientific book and it does NOT pretend to be. All of the scientific facts supposedly described in scripture were not discovered by devout Bible readers, but by scientists performing experiments. When it comes to scientific predictions it has inspired NO legitimate discoveries. For all of the off the wall, vague, unscientific and misunderstood statements, as indicated here, that may seem to accord with modern science there are far, far too many blatantly contradictory statements of bad and/or unscientific "science".

Where has anyone said the Bible was MORE scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books?

Either provide the proof or retract your accusation.

Georgia Congressman Paul Braun and many others recently.
Everyone and anyone that claims the earth is 9000 years old or younger.

Link

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You need to define your terms. You make claims to the bible being "scientifically accurate" when it is not. When you're confronted with scientific principles unknown by the writers of the bible you make excuses for the lack of a science vocabulary.

You're not consistent.

If you want a list of biblical errors, there are many sites on the web that can list those errors and falsehoods.

Define my terms?

You made the statement about falsehoods I'm asking what those falsehoods are.

If you have to google them then so be it. I'm not doing your work for you.

And I said there are statements in the Bible that are consistent with science.

And I have shown that to be true.

Please do not try to put words in my mouth.

Yes. Define your terms. Some of the more blatant falsehoods in the bible would include a global flood, dead men who don't stay dead, seas parting, etc.

What you seem to object to is anyone pointing out that the bible could be infallible or contains errors. I submit that both are true. Since it is you who in insisting that the bible is not contradicted by science, you are the only one who is actually required to prove anything. Apologists understand this and that's why we are constantly confronted with the most profoundly silly examples of "scientific proofs" of the bible. These "proofs" are not proofs at all and require the believer to be ignorant of both the bible and science to believe them.

We can all imagine that if the gods had really given us a book, they would have managed to drop in a real proof now and then, like, say, the chemical structure of a few of the elements or a comprehensive description of the process of nuclear fusion that powers our sun. But we don't, obviously. Instead we get dumb stuff such as global floods and bushes spontaneously bursting in flames. That's just awful. The people who are propagating that nonsense are slandering your religion. Don't be an accomplice.

My terms need no defining.

What evidence do you have that there was no great flood or no one ever rose from the dead and the sea never parted?

Marine Team Finds Surprising Evidence Supporting A Great Biblical Flood


As researchers prove the Red Sea really could have parted... How science backs the Bible's best stories

Once again you're putting words in my mouth.

I never made the claim that the Bible was not contradicted by science. I simply stated that statements in the Bible are consistent with science.

Why do you insist on distorting what I've said?

God could have done the things you mentioned but it would have fell on deaf ears because man was not equipped at the time to understand scientific principles.

God gave us the ability to seek out and discover the information ourselves at our pace.

 

[Hollie]

What about the Biblical claims that are just plain wrong?

You are engaging in the Texas Sharpshooter's fallacy.

It is amazing to hear the creationists' claims that the Bible is more scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books.
The book of Job claims that the heavens control the earth, "fix their rule" on the earth.
I love reading the book of Genesis but it teaches that man was made from dust. Dust is particles and man was made with chemicals.
Elementary science.
Leviticus instructs us "all flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you".
Well, that is an easy Bible command instruction to follow because no such things exist.
And of course the scientific knowledge of God stands out again in Chronicles with "Tremble before him, all the earth. The earth is firmly established, it can not be moved" The earth rotates and does move.
Psalm claims the earth rests on pillars. Isiah claims the moon gives light instead of reflecting light.
Corinthians claims dead seeds will grow.
The Bible, the greatest book on earth was NEVER INTENDED to be a science book.
It is a collection of teachings about God, morality and other things with the intent of saving souls as opposed to demonstrating scientific knowledge.
Those who would argue for the reliability of the Bible on scientific matters, and there is no shortage of those here, are divorcing it from it's historical context, blatantly ignoring and omitting passages that contradict their absurd claims and preconceived bias, thus distorting the very scriptures they CLAIM to admire so much.
Bottom line for those of us that have studied the Bible for almost half a century: The Bible is NOT a scientific book and it does NOT pretend to be. All of the scientific facts supposedly described in scripture were not discovered by devout Bible readers, but by scientists performing experiments. When it comes to scientific predictions it has inspired NO legitimate discoveries. For all of the off the wall, vague, unscientific and misunderstood statements, as indicated here, that may seem to accord with modern science there are far, far too many blatantly contradictory statements of bad and/or unscientific "science".

Where has anyone said the Bible was MORE scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books?

Either provide the proof or retract your accusation.

That's a rather naive claim. It's abundantly clear that bible literalists believe the bible to be more scientifically accurate than science texts. There is nothing in modern science that confirms global floods, a 6000 year old earth or men rising from the dead. Yet, fundies believe that in spite of the scientific evidence refuting those beliefs.

 

[Hollie]

Define my terms?

You made the statement about falsehoods I'm asking what those falsehoods are.

If you have to google them then so be it. I'm not doing your work for you.

And I said there are statements in the Bible that are consistent with science.

And I have shown that to be true.

Please do not try to put words in my mouth.

Yes. Define your terms. Some of the more blatant falsehoods in the bible would include a global flood, dead men who don't stay dead, seas parting, etc.

What you seem to object to is anyone pointing out that the bible could be infallible or contains errors. I submit that both are true. Since it is you who in insisting that the bible is not contradicted by science, you are the only one who is actually required to prove anything. Apologists understand this and that's why we are constantly confronted with the most profoundly silly examples of "scientific proofs" of the bible. These "proofs" are not proofs at all and require the believer to be ignorant of both the bible and science to believe them.

We can all imagine that if the gods had really given us a book, they would have managed to drop in a real proof now and then, like, say, the chemical structure of a few of the elements or a comprehensive description of the process of nuclear fusion that powers our sun. But we don't, obviously. Instead we get dumb stuff such as global floods and bushes spontaneously bursting in flames. That's just awful. The people who are propagating that nonsense are slandering your religion. Don't be an accomplice.

My terms need no defining.

What evidence do you have that there was no great flood or no one ever rose from the dead and the sea never parted?

Marine Team Finds Surprising Evidence Supporting A Great Biblical Flood


As researchers prove the Red Sea really could have parted... How science backs the Bible's best stories

Once again you're putting words in my mouth.

I never made the claim that the Bible was not contradicted by science. I simply stated that statements in the Bible are consistent with science.

Why do you insist on distorting what I've said?

God could have done the things you mentioned but it would have fell on deaf ears because man was not equipped at the time to understand scientific principles.

God gave us the ability to seek out and discover the information ourselves at our pace.

Ah, yes. With your first sentence you have employed the "you can't disprove it", tactic.

It really is a standard ploy for those whose arguments are intellectually bankrupt and bereft support or substantiation.

So yes, I have proof that there was no great flood, that no one ever rose from the dead and the sea never parted.

Prove I don't.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It is amazing to hear the creationists' claims that the Bible is more scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books.
The book of Job claims that the heavens control the earth, "fix their rule" on the earth.
I love reading the book of Genesis but it teaches that man was made from dust. Dust is particles and man was made with chemicals.
Elementary science.
Leviticus instructs us "all flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you".
Well, that is an easy Bible command instruction to follow because no such things exist.
And of course the scientific knowledge of God stands out again in Chronicles with "Tremble before him, all the earth. The earth is firmly established, it can not be moved" The earth rotates and does move.
Psalm claims the earth rests on pillars. Isiah claims the moon gives light instead of reflecting light.
Corinthians claims dead seeds will grow.
The Bible, the greatest book on earth was NEVER INTENDED to be a science book.
It is a collection of teachings about God, morality and other things with the intent of saving souls as opposed to demonstrating scientific knowledge.
Those who would argue for the reliability of the Bible on scientific matters, and there is no shortage of those here, are divorcing it from it's historical context, blatantly ignoring and omitting passages that contradict their absurd claims and preconceived bias, thus distorting the very scriptures they CLAIM to admire so much.
Bottom line for those of us that have studied the Bible for almost half a century: The Bible is NOT a scientific book and it does NOT pretend to be. All of the scientific facts supposedly described in scripture were not discovered by devout Bible readers, but by scientists performing experiments. When it comes to scientific predictions it has inspired NO legitimate discoveries. For all of the off the wall, vague, unscientific and misunderstood statements, as indicated here, that may seem to accord with modern science there are far, far too many blatantly contradictory statements of bad and/or unscientific "science".

Where has anyone said the Bible was MORE scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books?

Either provide the proof or retract your accusation.

That's a rather naive claim. It's abundantly clear that bible literalists believe the bible to be more scientifically accurate than science texts. There is nothing in modern science that confirms global floods, a 6000 year old earth or men rising from the dead. Yet, fundies believe that in spite of the scientific evidence refuting those beliefs.

How can it be abundantly clear when no one has made that claim?

I take it you didn't read the links I posted where they believe they did find evidence of the flood and how the parting of the red sea was possible.

 

[LOki]

I didn't say anything about "miracles".

The hydrological cycle is a fact and is described perfectly in the Bible which was written around 64 AD.

And what about the rest of the statements consistent with science that's in the Bible?

BTW your link totally ignores Job 36:27-28, I assume it's because it doesn't fit into the agenda.

What about the Biblical claims that are just plain wrong?

You are engaging in the Texas Sharpshooter's fallacy.

What claims are those?

• The Bible says a body of water that's identical to the sea sitting above the heavens. See Genesis
• The Bible says the world is flat. See Proverbs, Isaiah.
• The Bible says that hares are ruminants. See Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
• The Bible says that the planet is stationary. See Psalms, Job, Samuel, Joshua, Corinthians.

Just for starters. There's plenty more.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Yes. Define your terms. Some of the more blatant falsehoods in the bible would include a global flood, dead men who don't stay dead, seas parting, etc.

What you seem to object to is anyone pointing out that the bible could be infallible or contains errors. I submit that both are true. Since it is you who in insisting that the bible is not contradicted by science, you are the only one who is actually required to prove anything. Apologists understand this and that's why we are constantly confronted with the most profoundly silly examples of "scientific proofs" of the bible. These "proofs" are not proofs at all and require the believer to be ignorant of both the bible and science to believe them.

We can all imagine that if the gods had really given us a book, they would have managed to drop in a real proof now and then, like, say, the chemical structure of a few of the elements or a comprehensive description of the process of nuclear fusion that powers our sun. But we don't, obviously. Instead we get dumb stuff such as global floods and bushes spontaneously bursting in flames. That's just awful. The people who are propagating that nonsense are slandering your religion. Don't be an accomplice.

My terms need no defining.

What evidence do you have that there was no great flood or no one ever rose from the dead and the sea never parted?

Marine Team Finds Surprising Evidence Supporting A Great Biblical Flood


As researchers prove the Red Sea really could have parted... How science backs the Bible's best stories

Once again you're putting words in my mouth.

I never made the claim that the Bible was not contradicted by science. I simply stated that statements in the Bible are consistent with science.

Why do you insist on distorting what I've said?

God could have done the things you mentioned but it would have fell on deaf ears because man was not equipped at the time to understand scientific principles.

God gave us the ability to seek out and discover the information ourselves at our pace.

Ah, yes. With your first sentence you have employed the "you can't disprove it", tactic.

It really is a standard ploy for those whose arguments are intellectually bankrupt and bereft support or substantiation.

So yes, I have proof that there was no great flood, that no one ever rose from the dead and the sea never parted.

Prove I don't.

Well there is evidence that shows some of those things did happen or were at least possible.

Yet you dismiss those outright.

It's easy to say nothing happened cause you weren't there to see it.

That's probably why we call believing in Christ as having faith.

You have absolutely nothing to support your argument other than "it didn't happen".

You are a joke and I'm finding out more and more that you're a mere troll.

 

[Hollie]

Where has anyone said the Bible was MORE scientifically accurate than modern day academic science books?

Either provide the proof or retract your accusation.

That's a rather naive claim. It's abundantly clear that bible literalists believe the bible to be more scientifically accurate than science texts. There is nothing in modern science that confirms global floods, a 6000 year old earth or men rising from the dead. Yet, fundies believe that in spite of the scientific evidence refuting those beliefs.

How can it be abundantly clear when no one has made that claim?

I take it you didn't read the links I posted where they believe they did find evidence of the flood and how the parting of the red sea was possible.

People believe many things. People believe they have seen Bigfoot and people believe they have been abducted by aliens.

Why not post the results of the data from the scientists who peer reviewed the data collected by those people in your links.

Let me guess - there is no peer reviewed data, right?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What about the Biblical claims that are just plain wrong?

You are engaging in the Texas Sharpshooter's fallacy.

What claims are those?

• The Bible says a body of water that's identical to the sea sitting above the heavens. See Genesis
• The Bible says the world is flat. See Proverbs, Isaiah.
• The Bible says that hares are ruminants. See Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
• The Bible says that the planet is stationary. See Psalms, Job, Samuel, Joshua, Corinthians.

Just for starters. There's plenty more.

Chapter and verse please.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

That's a rather naive claim. It's abundantly clear that bible literalists believe the bible to be more scientifically accurate than science texts. There is nothing in modern science that confirms global floods, a 6000 year old earth or men rising from the dead. Yet, fundies believe that in spite of the scientific evidence refuting those beliefs.

How can it be abundantly clear when no one has made that claim?

I take it you didn't read the links I posted where they believe they did find evidence of the flood and how the parting of the red sea was possible.

People believe many things. People believe they have seen Bigfoot and people believe they have been abducted by aliens.

Why not post the results of the data from the scientists who peer reviewed the data collected by those people in your links.

Let me guess - there is no peer reviewed data, right?

So now you want to change the subject?

 

[Hollie]

My terms need no defining.

What evidence do you have that there was no great flood or no one ever rose from the dead and the sea never parted?

Marine Team Finds Surprising Evidence Supporting A Great Biblical Flood


As researchers prove the Red Sea really could have parted... How science backs the Bible's best stories

Once again you're putting words in my mouth.

I never made the claim that the Bible was not contradicted by science. I simply stated that statements in the Bible are consistent with science.

Why do you insist on distorting what I've said?

God could have done the things you mentioned but it would have fell on deaf ears because man was not equipped at the time to understand scientific principles.

God gave us the ability to seek out and discover the information ourselves at our pace.

Ah, yes. With your first sentence you have employed the "you can't disprove it", tactic.

It really is a standard ploy for those whose arguments are intellectually bankrupt and bereft support or substantiation.

So yes, I have proof that there was no great flood, that no one ever rose from the dead and the sea never parted.

Prove I don't.

Well there is evidence that shows some of those things did happen or were at least possible.

Yet you dismiss those outright.

It's easy to say nothing happened cause you weren't there to see it.

That's probably why we call believing in Christ as having faith.

You have absolutely nothing to support your argument other than "it didn't happen".

You are a joke and I'm finding out more and more that you're a mere troll.

That's quite a backstroke. You should try out for the Olympic swim team.

An event such as a global flood would have left unmistakable evidence. Where is that evidence?

Oh, BTW, when Noah finished his "cruise to nowhere", what did all the carnivorous animals eat?

I guess my requiring you to present a defendable argument makes me a troll?

What does that make you?

 

[LOki]

My terms need no defining.

What evidence do you have that there was no great flood or no one ever rose from the dead and the sea never parted?

Marine Team Finds Surprising Evidence Supporting A Great Biblical Flood


As researchers prove the Red Sea really could have parted... How science backs the Bible's best stories

Once again you're putting words in my mouth.

I never made the claim that the Bible was not contradicted by science. I simply stated that statements in the Bible are consistent with science.

Why do you insist on distorting what I've said?

God could have done the things you mentioned but it would have fell on deaf ears because man was not equipped at the time to understand scientific principles.

God gave us the ability to seek out and discover the information ourselves at our pace.

Ah, yes. With your first sentence you have employed the "you can't disprove it", tactic.

It really is a standard ploy for those whose arguments are intellectually bankrupt and bereft support or substantiation.

So yes, I have proof that there was no great flood, that no one ever rose from the dead and the sea never parted.

Prove I don't.

Well there is evidence that shows some of those things did happen or were at least possible.

Not really. Not consistent with the Bible story. Sorry.

Yet you dismiss those outright.

For good reason.

It's easy to say nothing happened cause you weren't there to see it.

You weren't there either. Explain yourself.

That's probably why we call believing in Christ as having faith.

Right. You need neither verifiable evidence nor valid logic to hold your belief, but you insist upon absolute conclusive proof to change your mind.

We are well aware of the intellectual dishonesty practiced by the faithful.

You have absolutely nothing to support your argument other than "it didn't happen".

Nonsense.

 

[LOki]

What claims are those?

• The Bible says a body of water that's identical to the sea sitting above the heavens. See Genesis
• The Bible says the world is flat. See Proverbs, Isaiah.
• The Bible says that hares are ruminants. See Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
• The Bible says that the planet is stationary. See Psalms, Job, Samuel, Joshua, Corinthians.

Just for starters. There's plenty more.

Chapter and verse please.

No. Do your own homework. I already gave you the chapters.

 

[UltimateReality]

What cut and pasting from Panda's Thumb can you provide to counter the assertion that Evolutionary theory cannot be falsified because it offers no real explanation. What it does rely on is circular reasoning: "the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."

This is a deliberate reductionist mischaracterization. Not surprising at all that it should come from you.

"The kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce, are the kinds of organisms with traits best suited for survival and reproduction in their environment."

Yeah, exactly what I said.

 

[UltimateReality]

I don't appreciate being mocked in the way that you did.

I have a hard time reading your super long posts, because along the way, you say so many non-sensical and untrue things, and apparently copy and paste from creation "scientists." They are not scientists. They are idiots.

Plenty of Christians believe in evolution, so apparently they don't have a problem with it. Why do you?

The point is, you can not prove gods existence. So, how can you posit one as an agent involved in observable phenomena? You can't. Simply attacking evolution doesn't make creationism any more true.

You can question evolution all you like, but you still have no provided one shred of evidence for god. It is often a mistake of creationists thinking that if evolution is false, creationism is then, by default true. This is a logical fallacy because it rests on a false dichotomy. You have to provide actual evidence for your hypothesis that isn't an argument from ignorance, which you can't. The bible doesn't prove itself, so you can't use that. Using science alone, nothing points to god, despite your rampant, obnoxious attempts at discrediting evolution, which you haven't done AT ALL.

Okay, I actually read through the article you posted, and its all complete nothing. I don't understand why you even posted it. I don't care why this persons opinions are of evolution. They can't demonstrate anything of their own ID theory, at all, because it's not science. They continually bash evolution in an immature attempt to oust the competitor, like this a competition for a mate. That's not how this game works, and that is logic 101. A claim is either supported or refuted on its own grounds, not built on the failure of another competing claim. Keep in mind, I am talking hypotheticals here, because in no way am I saying that evolution has failed. It is the bedrock of many of today's sciences.

Mocked??? I think you are being a little sensitive and in response, you have resorted to borrowing material from Hollie.

My point in rephrasing your post was not to mock, but to show you that most of your arguments against ID theory could easily be applied to Darwinism by merely substituting evolution for ID in your argument. Then I provided you with further info from "The New Atlantis", which was totally relative to the argument and the fact that Darwinism pretends to be "real" science but totally breaks down when viewed critically with the scientific method in mind.

Again you miss the point. By discounting evolution as the joke that it is, I am not stating that somehow adds credibility to the ID arguments. I am merely posing the question, why do you view evolution as fact, and discount ID as superstition, when I have proven numerous times it requires as much faith to believe the preposterous argument natural selection and random mutations are responsible for all the complex life we see? Why is the darwinian myth more credible than the Christian religion, when both suffer from the same lack of scientific proof?

Alright, my bad. I thought you were mocking me. Yes, you can do what you did, but its not the same. You are positing a theory that requires a supernatural being. We have, scientifically, never seen this being or its effect on the world, ever. It is therefore your burden to provide proof for this being if you wish to make your theory valid. Using inductive reasoning, it is more valid to assume a natural cause for everything in the universe, as we do not regularly see supernatural causation for phenomena. If we did, that would be different. Then it would be plausible. By the way, personal testimony of god's "miracles" in someone's life do not count as evidence of supernatural causation, because there is another plausible explanation: neurological functioning. The mind has fascinating abilities to make us think we are experiencing something when we are not. This is more than likely the case for when people "feel god."

Evolution has an insane amount of evidence for it. If it didn't , it simply would not have survived this long. How you are able to deny something so logical, intuitive, and obvious is beside me.

On the other hand, I can see and admit that sometimes it does seem implausible that we came from a bacteria, and that all of this we see in fact, did. But, upon further study, evolution makes sense of EVERYTHING we see in the animal kingdom. It makes sense of gradually transitioning fossils, of which there are many. It makes sense of virology, embryology, biology, and many other fields, which actively use evolution as part of their study. I find the rejection of evolution to be of the utmost arrogance present in todays society. I simply find it sad that a preference for a certain reality which includes god because it "feels better," is chosen over a reality supported by logic, reason, and evidence. That is tragic, as far as I am concerned. But, to each their own.

It makes sense because you want it to make sense. Darwinism has survived due to man's sinful nature and the convenience for the purpose of denying God. Do you find it odd that so many youths in religious homes who struggle with same sex attraction seize upon the atheism that the Darwinian myth provides and wind up denying the religion of their youth? Darwinism is merely a tool to rationalize God away. If I can convince myself that God doesn't exist, then maybe I can get rid of all this guilt and shame that comes from giving into my sinful human nature.

If it turns out that someone comes up with indisputable evidence proving there is no God, I can guarantee you that evolution will not be the reason we eventually find for everything that exists. One day not too long from now people will look back and wonder how so many intelligent people could have bought into such a foolish proposition as the Darwinian Myth. Even if I were to admit God didn't do it, it still doesn't change the fact that natural selection and random mutation didn't either.

 

[UltimateReality]

Hollie, what is your purpose in life?

Loki, what is your purpose in life?

NP, what is your purpose in life?

Oftentimes we hear Darwinists stating that Christians don't live full lives because they fall back on the afterlife as an excuse. This couldn't be farther from the truth and it rests on the false assumption that Darwinists can actually control what happens to them. So then, what is the Darwinist left with when he finds out his 6-year-old daughter has a brain tumor, or his new wife falls from her harness and dies while parasailing on their honeymoon. How does the Darwinist reconcile these instances of no option to live a full life? Do Darwinists deny their religion and actually pretend they have SOME control so they can function? Ah, what a cruel evolutionary joke consciousness is. And even more so, that cruel evolutionary by product called "love".

This is how Christians deal with pain. I'm just curious how materialistic Darwinists make sense of the same types of situations.

Jodie Spradlin HD 720p - YouTube

First of all, please stop calling us Darwinists. It's really condescending, and implies that we worship Darwin. We don't worship Darwin anymore than we worship Newton when observing gravity's effect on our stay here on this planet.

Dealing with hardships requires the support of others. From your perspective, church can provide that, but so can family and friends in a fully secular realm, without church. We are an intensely social species, because that is how we survived through evolution. It is this evolutionary advantage that gave us the communication skills and brains we have today. As such, we rely on each other immensely, especially in tough times, just as any theist might. We are no different, we simply lack a belief in god. Incidentally, it is these close bonds and relationships that also give our life meaning, because they provide validation for our being here. Love is a powerful thing, even in a secular sense. You don't need god to feel love and connection to other human beings, because as I said, this is a function of our evolutionary upbringing as humans as social animals. It is "built into us" to desire being connected with eachother, assuming we are socialized correctly during early stages of life and know how to appropriately communicate with people. Humans possess a psychological need for companionship, for belonging, every bit as real as hunger or thirst, and when it is not met, its effects can be seen. Humans left in isolation for long periods of time start to exhibit very bizarre and often anti-social behavior, if it is against their will, such as in solitary confinement. There is a documentary on it on Netflix. It's pretty fascinating. The point is, we need each other. God or no god. We give each other meaning. We are a vulnerable species as a whole, and as individuals, because we are so dependent, though we don't always know it or want to admit it. That's it. That's the meaning. Without eachother, we lose all meaning. That's my theory anyway, and can attest to these having suffered from severe social anxiety, borderline personality disorder, and obsessive compulsive disorder. Isolation and feeling cut off from the world really does produce a very grey, dark reality. Feeling connected in any way, is something we all need. Well, most of us, anyway.

By the way, this is the basis of why I think people are religious. It connects them to others in a very powerful way. I think this uber connection based on sharing belief in a deep cosmic being that is responsible of all our being, makes people feel truly connected to each other, while completely vulnerable, and this is like no other feeling. I think this is "god." People attribute it to an outside force, but I don't think it is. i think it comes back to us being social creatures and wanting to feel connected to eachother.

There is still incredible beauty in love, without god, because love allows us to be vulnerable and accepted by others, usually family and best friends, if we are lucky enough to have these kinds of relationships in our life.

I realize this is a gushy post, but this is how I feel. I don't think god has anything to do with feeling good, of feeling alive, or having meaning. We not only give each other meaning, we give our selves meaning in who we choose to become, and how we grow to interact with the world.

By your logic, so does a Creationist worship Creation?

"The meaning of "Darwinism" has changed over time, and varies depending on context.[4] In the United States, the term "Darwinism" is often used by creationists as a pejorative term in reference to beliefs such as atheistic naturalism, but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a short hand for the body of theory dealing with evolution, and in particular, evolution by natural selection.[5]" Athe-Wiki

 

[UltimateReality]

Hollie, what is your purpose in life?

Loki, what is your purpose in life?

NP, what is your purpose in life?

Oftentimes we hear Darwinists stating that Christians don't live full lives because they fall back on the afterlife as an excuse. This couldn't be farther from the truth and it rests on the false assumption that Darwinists can actually control what happens to them. So then, what is the Darwinist left with when he finds out his 6-year-old daughter has a brain tumor, or his new wife falls from her harness and dies while parasailing on their honeymoon. How does the Darwinist reconcile these instances of no option to live a full life? Do Darwinists deny their religion and actually pretend they have SOME control so they can function? Ah, what a cruel evolutionary joke consciousness is. And even more so, that cruel evolutionary by product called "love".

This is how Christians deal with pain. I'm just curious how materialistic Darwinists make sense of the same types of situations.

Jodie Spradlin HD 720p - YouTube

First of all, please stop calling us Darwinists. It's really condescending, and implies that we worship Darwin. We don't worship Darwin anymore than we worship Newton when observing gravity's effect on our stay here on this planet.

Dealing with hardships requires the support of others. From your perspective, church can provide that, but so can family and friends in a fully secular realm, without church. We are an intensely social species, because that is how we survived through evolution. It is this evolutionary advantage that gave us the communication skills and brains we have today. As such, we rely on each other immensely, especially in tough times, just as any theist might. We are no different, we simply lack a belief in god. Incidentally, it is these close bonds and relationships that also give our life meaning, because they provide validation for our being here. Love is a powerful thing, even in a secular sense. You don't need god to feel love and connection to other human beings, because as I said, this is a function of our evolutionary upbringing as humans as social animals. It is "built into us" to desire being connected with eachother, assuming we are socialized correctly during early stages of life and know how to appropriately communicate with people. Humans possess a psychological need for companionship, for belonging, every bit as real as hunger or thirst, and when it is not met, its effects can be seen. Humans left in isolation for long periods of time start to exhibit very bizarre and often anti-social behavior, if it is against their will, such as in solitary confinement. There is a documentary on it on Netflix. It's pretty fascinating. The point is, we need each other. God or no god. We give each other meaning. We are a vulnerable species as a whole, and as individuals, because we are so dependent, though we don't always know it or want to admit it. That's it. That's the meaning. Without eachother, we lose all meaning. That's my theory anyway, and can attest to these having suffered from severe social anxiety, borderline personality disorder, and obsessive compulsive disorder. Isolation and feeling cut off from the world really does produce a very grey, dark reality. Feeling connected in any way, is something we all need. Well, most of us, anyway.

By the way, this is the basis of why I think people are religious. It connects them to others in a very powerful way. I think this uber connection based on sharing belief in a deep cosmic being that is responsible of all our being, makes people feel truly connected to each other, while completely vulnerable, and this is like no other feeling. I think this is "god." People attribute it to an outside force, but I don't think it is. i think it comes back to us being social creatures and wanting to feel connected to eachother.

There is still incredible beauty in love, without god, because love allows us to be vulnerable and accepted by others, usually family and best friends, if we are lucky enough to have these kinds of relationships in our life.

I realize this is a gushy post, but this is how I feel. I don't think god has anything to do with feeling good, of feeling alive, or having meaning. We not only give each other meaning, we give our selves meaning in who we choose to become, and how we grow to interact with the world.

So do you believe you have a purpose in life? Do you lay awake at night and ask why you are here?

So you believe God is a product of Random Mutations and Natural Selection. I am sure HE just laughs at the thought.

 

[LOki]

What cut and pasting from Panda's Thumb can you provide to counter the assertion that Evolutionary theory cannot be falsified because it offers no real explanation. What it does rely on is circular reasoning: "the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."

This is a deliberate reductionist mischaracterization. Not surprising at all that it should come from you.

"The kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce, are the kinds of organisms with traits best suited for survival and reproduction in their environment."

Yeah, exactly what I said.

No, not exactly the same. Your complaint about your strawman expression of natural selection was that it is circular and not falsifiable; what I have provided for you in it's place, is falsifiable and not circular.