Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Exactly. Dinsaurs are in there!!! Was it John, who said unto Jesus, "Oh Lord; for that art one big mutherfucking lizard!!"? Or was that one of the other apostles? I keep forgetting.

And boy oh boy, that Noah dude damn near got zapped with lightning, when he queried unto God, "Hey big guy; you do know that a single breeding pair is the fucking definition of extinction; yeah God?"

You are correct dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible. It was called a behemoth who lives in the marshland with a tail like a cedar. That is not describling a hippo or an elephant or any other creature alive today. So tell what was if not a dinosaur and remember the only dinosaur fossil was found long after the writing about this creature.

bullshit !
dinosaur fossils were being found in biblical times! AND MISINTERPERTED .

The term dinosaur was first coined by Sir Richard Owen back in 1841/1842. The name, literally translated, means "Terrible Lizard." This probably seems like redundant information right now, but it does get better.
Due to the name "terrible lizards" and the fact that they were looked at as huge reptiles, dinosaurs were seen as these huge, lumbering, slow and sluggish beasts. The fact that they no longer existed stood as proof that their "cold-blooded" and inferior bodies couldn't adapt and therefore were evolutionary throwbacks. Loose ends that made good examples of what not to be.
Well actually there is more to this. Owen, Huxley and other early dinosaur workers originally saw them as being highly active animals, equivalent to today's birds and mammals, yet they didn't consider them to be warm-blooded. More on this intriguing view of dinosaurs later; for now though, back to the story.
It got lost in the translation.
When Sir Richard orginally named them, he was already convinced from the scant remains that these were no ordinary lizards. Work done by Thomas Henry Huxley and others seemed to confirm that dinosaurs were very different from the typical lizard. Yet lizard was the poster child for reptiles, so since he was convinced that they were reptilian he went ahead and used a Greek name for reptile which was sauros; meaning lizard (the real Greek name is herpeton, but I guess he didn't like the ring of deinoherps and so didn't use it.). So what Sir Richard meant was not "terrible lizards" but "terrible reptiles."
The Reptipage: Dinosaurs










LEVIATHAN AND BEHEMOTH:

Names of gigantic beasts or monsters described in Job xl. The former is from a root denoting "coil," "twist"; the latter is the plural form of "behemah"="beast."
—Biblical Data:
Ever since Bochart ("Hierozoicon," iii. 705), "behemoth" has been taken to denote the hippopotamus; and Jablonski, to make it correspond exactly with that animal, compared an Egyptian form, "p-ehe-mu" (= "water-ox"), which, however, does not exist. The Biblical description contains mythical elements, and the conclusion is justified that these monsters were not real, though the hippopotamus may have furnished in the main the data for the description. Only of a unique being, and not of a common hippopotamus, could the words of Job xl. 19 have been used: "He is the first [A. V. "chief"] of the ways of God [comp. Prov. viii. 22]; he that made him maketh sport with him" (as the Septuagint reads, πεποιημένον ἐγκαταπαιζέσΘαι; A. V. "He that made him can make his sword to approach unto him"; comp. Ps. civ. 26); or "The mountains bring him forth food; where all the beasts of the field do play" (Job xl. 20). Obviously behemoth is represented as the primeval beast, the king of all the animals of the dry land, while leviathan is the king of all those of the water, both alike unconquerable by man (ib. xl. 14, xli. 17-26). Gunkel ("Schöpfung und Chaos," p. 62) suggests that behemoth and leviathan were the two primeval monsters corresponding to Tiamat (= "the abyss"; comp. Hebr. "tehom") and Kingu (= Aramaic "'akna" = serpent") of Babylonian mythology. Some commentators find also in Isa. xxx. 6 ("bahamot negeb" = "beasts of the south") a reference to the hippopotamus; others again, in Ps. lxxiii. 22 ("I am as behemoth [="beasts"; A. V. "a beast"] before thee"); but neither interpretation has a substantial foundation. It is likely that the leviathan and the behemoth were originally referred to in Hab. ii. 15: "the destruction of the behemoth [A. V. "beasts"] shall make them afraid" (comp

AS ALWAYS YWC LIKE ALL WILFULLY IGNORANT SLAPDICKS INTENTIONALLY OR BY SHEER STUPIDTY MISINTERPRET SCRIPTURES.

when was the first dinosaur fossil first found ? Long after the creature behemoth was written about in the bible.

 

[Hollie]

Wrong again dipshit.

ok, show me any test results from creation science experiments that have been peer reviewed by independent (non creationist )labs that prove god alleged word is actual scientific fact.

Do you need to see the references from the bible that science has confirmed again ?

Do you mean the same silly list you have cut and pasted multiple times before... the silly list which had been refuted times? That list?

 

[UltimateReality]

"the following is an argument I think will help us to focus on a fundamental issue that lies behind ever so many of the debates here at Uncommon Descent, and elsewhere. That is, is the sort of implicit or even explicit atheism that is so often built in on the ground floor of a “scientific” mindset truly rationally justifiable? Such cannot be assumed, it needs to be shown.

I’ll begin by defining some terms for the sake of this argument:

Definition of God (for the purpose of this thread): First cause, prime mover, root of being, objective source of human purpose (final cause) and resulting morality, source of free will, mind, consciousness; omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent inasmuch as principles of logic allow; an interventionist as necessary to facilitate movement towards final cause and also inasmuch as logical principles are not violated; source of logic — “reason itself.” (I am not talking in particular about any specifically defined religious interpretation of god, such as the Chrstian or Islamic God.)

Definition: Weak, or negative atheism is the lack of any belief that a god exists, and the position that a god probably doesn’t exist, and is not the positive belief that gods do not exist (strong atheism), and is not agnosticism (the lack of belief that god either does or does not exist and the further view that there is a lack of sufficient probability either way). Strong atheism is the belief that no god or gods exist at all.

Definition: A worldview or mindset is rationally justified when it answers adequately to the facts of the real world as we experience or observe it, makes good sense and fits together logically, is simple but not simplistic, and honestly faces the issues and difficulties that all worldviews face.

Definition: Intellectual dishonesty occurs when (1) one deliberately mischaracterizes their position or view in order to avoid having to logically defend their actual views; and/or (2) when someone is arguing, or making statements against a position while remaining willfully ignorant about that position, and/or (3) when someone categorically and/or pejoratively dismisses all existent and/or potential evidence in favor of a conclusion they claim to be neutral about, whether they are familiar with that evidence or not.

These will be important as we consider:

Evidence in favor of God: The following is a brief summary of the evidence that typically leads many people to make a general finding that a god (as described above) exists, even if variantly interpreted or culturally contextualized:

(1) Anecdotal evidence for the apparently intelligently ordered anomalous, miraculous (defying expected natural processes and probabilities) events attributed to god, such as signs, supernatural events (e.g. Fatima, Guadeloupe, Paul’s Damascus Road Experience), or answers to prayers to god;

(2) Testimonial evidence (first-hand accounts) of experience of such phenomena, including interactions with a god-like being or accounts of god-like interventions; Also, the testimony of religious adherents of various specific gods can be counted as evidence of the god premised in this argument in the manner that various cultures can vary widely in their description of certain phenomena or experiences, and come up with widely variant “explanations”; what is interesting as evidence here, though, is the widespread crediting of similar kinds of phenomena and experience to a “god” of some sort (which might be the case of blind or ignorant people touching different parts of an elephant and thus describing “what the elephant is” in various ways). Such testimonial evidence can be counted in favor of the premise here, but cannot be held against it where it varies, because it is not testimony that such a god doesn’t exist.

(3) The various Cosmological and Ontological Arguments for the existence of god;

(4) The Strong Anthropic (or Fine Tuning) argument and other evidences for design of our world and of life in it;

(5) The empirical, scientific evidence assembled in support of the design arguments in #4 (such as recently persuaded Antony Flew — formerly the world’s leading philosophical atheist — that there is a god);

(6) The Moral arguments for the existence of god.

(7) Empirical and testimonial evidence of phenomena closely correlated to the existence of a god as described above, such as the survival of consciousness after death, and the existence of an afterlife realm; the evidence for interactions with correlated entities such as angels and demons (which seem to act to influence our free will towards or away from our human purpose), etc., gathered by various serious and scientific investigations into what is often referred to as the “paranormal”, including mediumship studies dating back to William Crooke and ongoing through the work at Pear Labs and the Scole Experiment, including consciousness-survival research published in the Lancet. While indirect, this evidence tends to support the proposition that god exists.

While the various arguments listed above have been subjected to counter-arguments and rebuttals of varying strengths and weaknesses across the ages, one must not lose sight that while there is much evidence of all sorts (as listed above) in favor of the existence of god; there is zero empirical evidence (to my knowledge) or and little in the way of rational argument that no such god exists. In other words, decreasing the value of the arguments and evidence for god does not increase the value of the position that there is no god; it can only increase the reasonableness of the “weak atheist” (there isn’t enough evidence) or an agnostic position.

The commonly seen rebuttals to these argument are simply attempting to show weaknesses in or alternatives to the arguments themselves so that such arguments cannot be taken as demonstratively convincing (that god exists); such counter-arguments as a rule do not actually make the case that god (as described above) in fact does not exist.

[See full article for additional content removed for brevity]

Conclusion: atheism is an untenable position for any intellectually honest, rational, and informed person. The belief that god (as described above, which is supported by the listed evidence) does not exist, or that it isn’t more likely that god exists than not, can only be a position based on ignorance of the available evidence and argument for god, or a hyper-skeptical, intellectually dishonest, ideologically biased, a priori dismissal of all of the evidence for the existence of god."

http://www.uncommondescent.com/philosophy/is-atheism-rationally-justifiable/

 

[Hollie]

Curious that the hyper-religious cut and paste tedious nonsense from fundie Christian websites denigrating non-belief in myth and legend.

 

[Hollie]

You are correct dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible. It was called a behemoth who lives in the marshland with a tail like a cedar. That is not describling a hippo or an elephant or any other creature alive today. So tell what was if not a dinosaur and remember the only dinosaur fossil was found long after the writing about this creature.

bullshit !
dinosaur fossils were being found in biblical times! AND MISINTERPERTED .

The term dinosaur was first coined by Sir Richard Owen back in 1841/1842. The name, literally translated, means "Terrible Lizard." This probably seems like redundant information right now, but it does get better.
Due to the name "terrible lizards" and the fact that they were looked at as huge reptiles, dinosaurs were seen as these huge, lumbering, slow and sluggish beasts. The fact that they no longer existed stood as proof that their "cold-blooded" and inferior bodies couldn't adapt and therefore were evolutionary throwbacks. Loose ends that made good examples of what not to be.
Well actually there is more to this. Owen, Huxley and other early dinosaur workers originally saw them as being highly active animals, equivalent to today's birds and mammals, yet they didn't consider them to be warm-blooded. More on this intriguing view of dinosaurs later; for now though, back to the story.
It got lost in the translation.
When Sir Richard orginally named them, he was already convinced from the scant remains that these were no ordinary lizards. Work done by Thomas Henry Huxley and others seemed to confirm that dinosaurs were very different from the typical lizard. Yet lizard was the poster child for reptiles, so since he was convinced that they were reptilian he went ahead and used a Greek name for reptile which was sauros; meaning lizard (the real Greek name is herpeton, but I guess he didn't like the ring of deinoherps and so didn't use it.). So what Sir Richard meant was not "terrible lizards" but "terrible reptiles."
The Reptipage: Dinosaurs










LEVIATHAN AND BEHEMOTH:

Names of gigantic beasts or monsters described in Job xl. The former is from a root denoting "coil," "twist"; the latter is the plural form of "behemah"="beast."
—Biblical Data:
Ever since Bochart ("Hierozoicon," iii. 705), "behemoth" has been taken to denote the hippopotamus; and Jablonski, to make it correspond exactly with that animal, compared an Egyptian form, "p-ehe-mu" (= "water-ox"), which, however, does not exist. The Biblical description contains mythical elements, and the conclusion is justified that these monsters were not real, though the hippopotamus may have furnished in the main the data for the description. Only of a unique being, and not of a common hippopotamus, could the words of Job xl. 19 have been used: "He is the first [A. V. "chief"] of the ways of God [comp. Prov. viii. 22]; he that made him maketh sport with him" (as the Septuagint reads, πεποιημένον ἐγκαταπαιζέσΘαι; A. V. "He that made him can make his sword to approach unto him"; comp. Ps. civ. 26); or "The mountains bring him forth food; where all the beasts of the field do play" (Job xl. 20). Obviously behemoth is represented as the primeval beast, the king of all the animals of the dry land, while leviathan is the king of all those of the water, both alike unconquerable by man (ib. xl. 14, xli. 17-26). Gunkel ("Schöpfung und Chaos," p. 62) suggests that behemoth and leviathan were the two primeval monsters corresponding to Tiamat (= "the abyss"; comp. Hebr. "tehom") and Kingu (= Aramaic "'akna" = serpent") of Babylonian mythology. Some commentators find also in Isa. xxx. 6 ("bahamot negeb" = "beasts of the south") a reference to the hippopotamus; others again, in Ps. lxxiii. 22 ("I am as behemoth [="beasts"; A. V. "a beast"] before thee"); but neither interpretation has a substantial foundation. It is likely that the leviathan and the behemoth were originally referred to in Hab. ii. 15: "the destruction of the behemoth [A. V. "beasts"] shall make them afraid" (comp

AS ALWAYS YWC LIKE ALL WILFULLY IGNORANT SLAPDICKS INTENTIONALLY OR BY SHEER STUPIDTY MISINTERPRET SCRIPTURES.

when was the first dinosaur fossil first found ? Long after the creature behemoth was written about in the bible.

Fossil bones have been discovered long before biblical tales and fables.

 

[CrackedSkull]

"the following is an argument I think will help us to focus on a fundamental issue that lies behind ever so many of the debates here at Uncommon Descent, and elsewhere. That is, is the sort of implicit or even explicit atheism that is so often built in on the ground floor of a “scientific” mindset truly rationally justifiable? Such cannot be assumed, it needs to be shown.

I’ll begin by defining some terms for the sake of this argument:

Definition of God (for the purpose of this thread): First cause, prime mover, root of being, objective source of human purpose (final cause) and resulting morality, source of free will, mind, consciousness; omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent inasmuch as principles of logic allow; an interventionist as necessary to facilitate movement towards final cause and also inasmuch as logical principles are not violated; source of logic — “reason itself.” (I am not talking in particular about any specifically defined religious interpretation of god, such as the Chrstian or Islamic God.)

Definition: Weak, or negative atheism is the lack of any belief that a god exists, and the position that a god probably doesn’t exist, and is not the positive belief that gods do not exist (strong atheism), and is not agnosticism (the lack of belief that god either does or does not exist and the further view that there is a lack of sufficient probability either way). Strong atheism is the belief that no god or gods exist at all.

Definition: A worldview or mindset is rationally justified when it answers adequately to the facts of the real world as we experience or observe it, makes good sense and fits together logically, is simple but not simplistic, and honestly faces the issues and difficulties that all worldviews face.

Definition: Intellectual dishonesty occurs when (1) one deliberately mischaracterizes their position or view in order to avoid having to logically defend their actual views; and/or (2) when someone is arguing, or making statements against a position while remaining willfully ignorant about that position, and/or (3) when someone categorically and/or pejoratively dismisses all existent and/or potential evidence in favor of a conclusion they claim to be neutral about, whether they are familiar with that evidence or not.

These will be important as we consider:

Evidence in favor of God: The following is a brief summary of the evidence that typically leads many people to make a general finding that a god (as described above) exists, even if variantly interpreted or culturally contextualized:

(1) Anecdotal evidence for the apparently intelligently ordered anomalous, miraculous (defying expected natural processes and probabilities) events attributed to god, such as signs, supernatural events (e.g. Fatima, Guadeloupe, Paul’s Damascus Road Experience), or answers to prayers to god;

(2) Testimonial evidence (first-hand accounts) of experience of such phenomena, including interactions with a god-like being or accounts of god-like interventions; Also, the testimony of religious adherents of various specific gods can be counted as evidence of the god premised in this argument in the manner that various cultures can vary widely in their description of certain phenomena or experiences, and come up with widely variant “explanations”; what is interesting as evidence here, though, is the widespread crediting of similar kinds of phenomena and experience to a “god” of some sort (which might be the case of blind or ignorant people touching different parts of an elephant and thus describing “what the elephant is” in various ways). Such testimonial evidence can be counted in favor of the premise here, but cannot be held against it where it varies, because it is not testimony that such a god doesn’t exist.

(3) The various Cosmological and Ontological Arguments for the existence of god;

(4) The Strong Anthropic (or Fine Tuning) argument and other evidences for design of our world and of life in it;

(5) The empirical, scientific evidence assembled in support of the design arguments in #4 (such as recently persuaded Antony Flew — formerly the world’s leading philosophical atheist — that there is a god);

(6) The Moral arguments for the existence of god.

(7) Empirical and testimonial evidence of phenomena closely correlated to the existence of a god as described above, such as the survival of consciousness after death, and the existence of an afterlife realm; the evidence for interactions with correlated entities such as angels and demons (which seem to act to influence our free will towards or away from our human purpose), etc., gathered by various serious and scientific investigations into what is often referred to as the “paranormal”, including mediumship studies dating back to William Crooke and ongoing through the work at Pear Labs and the Scole Experiment, including consciousness-survival research published in the Lancet. While indirect, this evidence tends to support the proposition that god exists.

While the various arguments listed above have been subjected to counter-arguments and rebuttals of varying strengths and weaknesses across the ages, one must not lose sight that while there is much evidence of all sorts (as listed above) in favor of the existence of god; there is zero empirical evidence (to my knowledge) or and little in the way of rational argument that no such god exists. In other words, decreasing the value of the arguments and evidence for god does not increase the value of the position that there is no god; it can only increase the reasonableness of the “weak atheist” (there isn’t enough evidence) or an agnostic position.

The commonly seen rebuttals to these argument are simply attempting to show weaknesses in or alternatives to the arguments themselves so that such arguments cannot be taken as demonstratively convincing (that god exists); such counter-arguments as a rule do not actually make the case that god (as described above) in fact does not exist.

[See full article for additional content removed for brevity]

Conclusion: atheism is an untenable position for any intellectually honest, rational, and informed person. The belief that god (as described above, which is supported by the listed evidence) does not exist, or that it isn’t more likely that god exists than not, can only be a position based on ignorance of the available evidence and argument for god, or a hyper-skeptical, intellectually dishonest, ideologically biased, a priori dismissal of all of the evidence for the existence of god."

Is Atheism Rationally Justifiable? | Uncommon Descent

So your unable to define a god without the Bible. The Bible is not evidence of anything. Its fables and myth written by men who were out in the sun to long.

And what first hand accounts do you have? What testimonial evidence do you have that can be proven by an eyewitness? Premises are not eyewitness accounts they are assumptions.

Conclusion: atheism is an untenable position for any intellectually honest, rational, and informed person. The belief that god (as described above, which is supported by the listed evidence) does not exist, or that it isn’t more likely that god exists than not, can only be a position based on ignorance of the available evidence and argument for god, or a hyper-skeptical, intellectually dishonest, ideologically biased, a priori dismissal of all of the evidence for the existence of god."

atheism is an untenable position for any intellectually honest, rational, and informed person.

If some one tells you that Unicorns are Pink sooner or later your going to believe it. God is belief + faith. Belief is fine, faith is one of the most dangerous things known to man...

 

[Youwerecreated]

Curious that the hyper-religious cut and paste tedious nonsense from fundie Christian websites denigrating non-belief in myth and legend.

Rhetoric,you are reduced to the mad ramblings of a lunatic.

 

[ima]

I am not sure if creation was mans days or Gods days, Some suggest both.

So is a god day like a dog year?

But what facts do you have that in happened in 6 days? Anything at all? And Noah being 600, anything?

The scriptures say a 1,000 years is a day to God.

So do you have any proof that the world and everything in it were made in 6000 years? Anything? What about Noah, got any proof he was 600? Anything at all?

 

[Hollie]

Curious that the hyper-religious cut and paste tedious nonsense from fundie Christian websites denigrating non-belief in myth and legend.

Rhetoric,you are reduced to the mad ramblings of a lunatic.

Yours is the paranoia of the hyper-religious. My comment should have been simple enough even for you to understand. That tedious cut and paste was nothing more than promotion of blind, unquestioning faith in a collection of tales and fables derived from hearsay accounts of superstitious men.

You can choose to promote hate, fear and superstition in furtherance of your religious belief but don't expect others to accept your paranoia as reasonable or rational.

 

[Youwerecreated]

bullshit !
dinosaur fossils were being found in biblical times! AND MISINTERPERTED .

The term dinosaur was first coined by Sir Richard Owen back in 1841/1842. The name, literally translated, means "Terrible Lizard." This probably seems like redundant information right now, but it does get better.
Due to the name "terrible lizards" and the fact that they were looked at as huge reptiles, dinosaurs were seen as these huge, lumbering, slow and sluggish beasts. The fact that they no longer existed stood as proof that their "cold-blooded" and inferior bodies couldn't adapt and therefore were evolutionary throwbacks. Loose ends that made good examples of what not to be.
Well actually there is more to this. Owen, Huxley and other early dinosaur workers originally saw them as being highly active animals, equivalent to today's birds and mammals, yet they didn't consider them to be warm-blooded. More on this intriguing vijew of dinosaurs later; for now though, back to the story.
It got lost in the translation.
When Sir Richard orginally named them, he was already convinced from the scant remains that these were no ordinary lizards. Work done by Thomas Henry Huxley and others seemed to confirm that dinosaurs were very different from the typical lizard. Yet lizard was the poster child for reptiles, so since he was convinced that they were reptilian he went ahead and used a Greek name for reptile which was sauros; meaning lizard (the real Greek name is herpeton, but I guess he didn't like the ring of deinoherps and so didn't use it.). So what Sir Richard meant was not "terrible lizards" but "terrible reptiles."
The Reptipage: Dinosaurs










LEVIATHAN AND BEHEMOTH:

Names of gigantic beasts or monsters described in Job xl. The former is from a root denoting "coil," "twist"; the latter is the plural form of "behemah"="beast."
—Biblical Data:
Ever since Bochart ("Hierozoicon," iii. 705), "behemoth" has been taken to denote the hippopotamus; and Jablonski, to make it correspond exactly with that animal, compared an Egyptian form, "p-ehe-mu" (= "water-ox"), which, however, does not exist. The Biblical description contains mythical elements, and the conclusion is justified that these monsters were not real, though the hippopotamus may have furnished in the main the data for the description. Only of a unique being, and not of a common hippopotamus, could the words of Job xl. 19 have been used: "He is the first [A. V. "chief"] of the ways of God [comp. Prov. viii. 22]; he that made him maketh sport with him" (as the Septuagint reads, πεποιημένον ἐγκαταπαιζέσΘαι; A. V. "He that made him can make his sword to approach unto him"; comp. Ps. civ. 26); or "The mountains bring him forth food; where all the beasts of the field do play" (Job xl. 20). Obviously behemoth is represented as the primeval beast, the king of all the animals of the dry land, while leviathan is the king of all those of the water, both alike unconquerable by man (ib. xl. 14, xli. 17-26). Gunkel ("Schöpfung und Chaos," p. 62) suggests that behemoth and leviathan were the two primeval monsters corresponding to Tiamat (= "the abyss"; comp. Hebr. "tehom") and Kingu (= Aramaic "'akna" = serpent") of Babylonian mythology. Some commentators find also in Isa. xxx. 6 ("bahamot negeb" = "beasts of the south") a reference to the hippopotamus; others again, in Ps. lxxiii. 22 ("I am as behemoth [="beasts"; A. V. "a beast"] before thee"); but neither interpretation has a substantial foundation. It is likely that the leviathan and the behemoth were originally referred to in Hab. ii. 15: "the destruction of the behemoth [A. V. "beasts"] shall make them afraid" (comp
E
AS ALWAYS YWC LIKE ALL WILFULLY IGNORANT SLAPDICKS INTENTIONALLY OR BY SHEER STUPIDTY MISINTERPRET SCRIPTURES.

when was the first dinosaur fossil first found ? Long after the creature behemoth was written about in the bible.

Fossil bones have been discovered long before biblical tales and fables.

Now that is funny,I have been debating atheistic evolutionist and evutionist for many years now. The argument your side use to use was dragons were mythical creatures and the earliest known dinosaur fossil was discovered in the 1,600's. So they finally realized the historical evidence was overwhelming about the drawings of these creatures and what historians and famous people wrote about these creatures. Sp since your side could not explain away all the petroglyphs and historians you evolved your argument. Where you say fossils were found as early as Greek times.

well of course they were found bell these creatures were seen of I've there is plenty of evidence of this. Your side evolved the argument to try and discredit what creationist say. Your side can no longer ignore the overwhelming evidence that they existed so your side moves the goalposts and accepts the views by saying dinosaur fossils were discovered hundreds of years ago maybe thousands of years ago they use the historical evidence by the Greeks. Funny but they continue to dodge the evidence of these creatures being seen alive by many different cultures. They use to say the term in the bible dragon and serpent was probably just a term for giant snakes or reptiles . You people are funny when cornered with the facts and have no choice you adjust your argument but only so you can try and discredit what creationists have been saying for many years. So now how do you explain the drawing of creatures that man never saw but are confirmed by the fossil record ? The atheists arguments keep getting reduced to nonsense. May I suggest you people read all the historical records and and drawings of these creatures that roamed the earth with man. Don't be a fool like the the atheist that has hardened his heart against God and allow it to block you from the truth.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"the following is an argument I think will help us to focus on a fundamental issue that lies behind ever so many of the debates here at Uncommon Descent, and elsewhere. That is, is the sort of implicit or even explicit atheism that is so often built in on the ground floor of a “scientific” mindset truly rationally justifiable? Such cannot be assumed, it needs to be shown.

I’ll begin by defining some terms for the sake of this argument:

Definition of God (for the purpose of this thread): First cause, prime mover, root of being, objective source of human purpose (final cause) and resulting morality, source of free will, mind, consciousness; omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent inasmuch as principles of logic allow; an interventionist as necessary to facilitate movement towards final cause and also inasmuch as logical principles are not violated; source of logic — “reason itself.” (I am not talking in particular about any specifically defined religious interpretation of god, such as the Chrstian or Islamic God.)

Definition: Weak, or negative atheism is the lack of any belief that a god exists, and the position that a god probably doesn’t exist, and is not the positive belief that gods do not exist (strong atheism), and is not agnosticism (the lack of belief that god either does or does not exist and the further view that there is a lack of sufficient probability either way). Strong atheism is the belief that no god or gods exist at all.

Definition: A worldview or mindset is rationally justified when it answers adequately to the facts of the real world as we experience or observe it, makes good sense and fits together logically, is simple but not simplistic, and honestly faces the issues and difficulties that all worldviews face.

Definition: Intellectual dishonesty occurs when (1) one deliberately mischaracterizes their position or view in order to avoid having to logically defend their actual views; and/or (2) when someone is arguing, or making statements against a position while remaining willfully ignorant about that position, and/or (3) when someone categorically and/or pejoratively dismisses all existent and/or potential evidence in favor of a conclusion they claim to be neutral about, whether they are familiar with that evidence or not.

These will be important as we consider:

Evidence in favor of God: The following is a brief summary of the evidence that typically leads many people to make a general finding that a god (as described above) exists, even if variantly interpreted or culturally contextualized:

(1) Anecdotal evidence for the apparently intelligently ordered anomalous, miraculous (defying expected natural processes and probabilities) events attributed to god, such as signs, supernatural events (e.g. Fatima, Guadeloupe, Paul’s Damascus Road Experience), or answers to prayers to god;

(2) Testimonial evidence (first-hand accounts) of experience of such phenomena, including interactions with a god-like being or accounts of god-like interventions; Also, the testimony of religious adherents of various specific gods can be counted as evidence of the god premised in this argument in the manner that various cultures can vary widely in their description of certain phenomena or experiences, and come up with widely variant “explanations”; what is interesting as evidence here, though, is the widespread crediting of similar kinds of phenomena and experience to a “god” of some sort (which might be the case of blind or ignorant people touching different parts of an elephant and thus describing “what the elephant is” in various ways). Such testimonial evidence can be counted in favor of the premise here, but cannot be held against it where it varies, because it is not testimony that such a god doesn’t exist.

(3) The various Cosmological and Ontological Arguments for the existence of god;

(4) The Strong Anthropic (or Fine Tuning) argument and other evidences for design of our world and of life in it;

(5) The empirical, scientific evidence assembled in support of the design arguments in #4 (such as recently persuaded Antony Flew — formerly the world’s leading philosophical atheist — that there is a god);

(6) The Moral arguments for the existence of god.

(7) Empirical and testimonial evidence of phenomena closely correlated to the existence of a god as described above, such as the survival of consciousness after death, and the existence of an afterlife realm; the evidence for interactions with correlated entities such as angels and demons (which seem to act to influence our free will towards or away from our human purpose), etc., gathered by various serious and scientific investigations into what is often referred to as the “paranormal”, including mediumship studies dating back to William Crooke and ongoing through the work at Pear Labs and the Scole Experiment, including consciousness-survival research published in the Lancet. While indirect, this evidence tends to support the proposition that god exists.

While the various arguments listed above have been subjected to counter-arguments and rebuttals of varying strengths and weaknesses across the ages, one must not lose sight that while there is much evidence of all sorts (as listed above) in favor of the existence of god; there is zero empirical evidence (to my knowledge) or and little in the way of rational argument that no such god exists. In other words, decreasing the value of the arguments and evidence for god does not increase the value of the position that there is no god; it can only increase the reasonableness of the “weak atheist” (there isn’t enough evidence) or an agnostic position.

The commonly seen rebuttals to these argument are simply attempting to show weaknesses in or alternatives to the arguments themselves so that such arguments cannot be taken as demonstratively convincing (that god exists); such counter-arguments as a rule do not actually make the case that god (as described above) in fact does not exist.

[See full article for additional content removed for brevity]

Conclusion: atheism is an untenable position for any intellectually honest, rational, and informed person. The belief that god (as described above, which is supported by the listed evidence) does not exist, or that it isn’t more likely that god exists than not, can only be a position based on ignorance of the available evidence and argument for god, or a hyper-skeptical, intellectually dishonest, ideologically biased, a priori dismissal of all of the evidence for the existence of god."

Is Atheism Rationally Justifiable? | Uncommon Descent

So your unable to define a god without the Bible. The Bible is not evidence of anything. Its fables and myth written by men who were out in the sun to long.

And what first hand accounts do you have? What testimonial evidence do you have that can be proven by an eyewitness? Premises are not eyewitness accounts they are assumptions.

Conclusion: atheism is an untenable position for any intellectually honest, rational, and informed person. The belief that god (as described above, which is supported by the listed evidence) does not exist, or that it isn’t more likely that god exists than not, can only be a position based on ignorance of the available evidence and argument for god, or a hyper-skeptical, intellectually dishonest, ideologically biased, a priori dismissal of all of the evidence for the existence of god."

atheism is an untenable position for any intellectually honest, rational, and informed person.

If some one tells you that Unicorns are Pink sooner or later your going to believe it. God is belief + faith. Belief is fine, faith is one of the most dangerous things known to man...

May I suggest you do historical research before resorting to the typical uneducated analogies that are typically used by the uneducated on your side.

 

[Hollie]

when was the first dinosaur fossil first found ? Long after the creature behemoth was written about in the bible.

Fossil bones have been discovered long before biblical tales and fables.

Now that is funny,I have been debating atheistic evolutionist and evutionist for many years now. The argument your side use to use was dragons were mythical creatures and the earliest known dinosaur fossil was discovered in the 1,600's. So they finally realized the historical evidence was overwhelming about the drawings of these creatures and what historians and famous people wrote about these creatures. Sp since your side could not explain away all the petroglyphs and historians you evolved your argument. Where you say fossils were found as early as Greek times.

well of course they were found bell these creatures were seen of I've there is plenty of evidence of this. Your side evolved the argument to try and discredit what creationist say. Your side can no longer ignore the overwhelming evidence that they existed so your side moves the goalposts and accepts the views by saying dinosaur fossils were discovered hundreds of years ago maybe thousands of years ago they use the historical evidence by the Greeks. Funny but they continue to dodge the evidence of these creatures being seen alive by many different cultures. They use to say the term in the bible dragon and serpent was probably just a term for giant snakes or reptiles . You people are funny when cornered with the facts and have no choice you adjust your argument but only so you can try and discredit what creationists have been saying for many years. So now how do you explain the drawing of creatures that man never saw but are confirmed by the fossil record ? The atheists arguments keep getting reduced to nonsense. May I suggest you people read all the historical records and and drawings of these creatures that roamed the earth with man. Don't be a fool like the the atheist that has hardened his heart against God and allow it to block you from the truth.

You appear to be suffering from the Ken Ham syndrome wherein you believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. This kind of foolishness is typical for the hyper-religious and those in denial of a reality based worldview.

 

[Hollie]

Ken Ham's Creation "museum

The revelation that Ken Ham's anti science museum is built on the very evidence that YECs deny (watch the videos below) is not only a further blow to the museum's and Ham's credibility but a blow to the scientific integrity of the scientists who have prostituted their learning to work for Ham and AiG. It's perhaps not surprising that those "scientists" lacked the inquisitiveness one would see from scientists active in the field. Ham's "scientists" weren't the least bit curious about the very rocks upon which the "museum" was constructed. The fact is these rocks abound with marine fossils from the Ordovician period (which began approximately 510 million years ago with the end of the Cambrian and ended around 445 million years ago with the beginning of the Silurian).

 

[Hollie]

Dbl. Post

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ken Ham's Creation "museum

The revelation that Ken Ham's anti science museum is built on the very evidence that YECs deny (watch the videos below) is not only a further blow to the museum's and Ham's credibility but a blow to the scientific integrity of the scientists who have prostituted their learning to work for Ham and AiG. It's perhaps not surprising that those "scientists" lacked the inquisitiveness one would see from scientists active in the field. Ham's "scientists" weren't the least bit curious about the very rocks upon which the "museum" was constructed. The fact is these rocks abound with marine fossils from the Ordovician period (which began approximately 510 million years ago with the end of the Cambrian and ended around 445 million years ago with the beginning of the Silurian).

Before you dismiss the idea dinosaurs were seen by man check the evidence is drawings and the records of historians. Funny some petroglyphs showed dinosaurs with stripes like a zebra ,what do they find several years but a dinosaur with the skin preserved yes and it had stripes like a zebra. There is plenty evidence supporting what creationists have said not the evolutionist fairytale.

 

[Bill Angel]

Dinosaur at the Maryland Science Center
If man and dinosaurs had coexisted, he most likely would have bitten my head off.

 

[LittleNipper]

Dinosaur at the Maryland Science Center
If man and dinosaurs had coexisted, he most likely would have bitten my head off.

He wouldn't have lived in your "neck" of the woods.

 

[LittleNipper]

Ken Ham's Creation "museum

The revelation that Ken Ham's anti science museum is built on the very evidence that YECs deny (watch the videos below) is not only a further blow to the museum's and Ham's credibility but a blow to the scientific integrity of the scientists who have prostituted their learning to work for Ham and AiG. It's perhaps not surprising that those "scientists" lacked the inquisitiveness one would see from scientists active in the field. Ham's "scientists" weren't the least bit curious about the very rocks upon which the "museum" was constructed. The fact is these rocks abound with marine fossils from the Ordovician period (which began approximately 510 million years ago with the end of the Cambrian and ended around 445 million years ago with the beginning of the Silurian).

How does one really know how old the rocks are, unless one assumes that if God does exist, He fabricated everything like we see things happening today. This is a big assumption. I believe God spoke the Universe into being --- according to the Bible. He would have created a perfectly finished ecological system for animals and man to thrive in.

 

[LittleNipper]

Can you prove that the world was made in 6 days?

Can you prove that there is no God?

 

[LittleNipper]

The mythical beast mentioned in Job was indeed, a myth. Little debate on that.

Sorry.

Sorry, but the discription doesn't sound like a myth. Have you read the book of Job?

Take it up with biblical scholars, since it's widely agreed that the beast is indeed mythical, since many actions are attributed to it that would go far beyond coming across some bones, not to mention, nothing in the fosil record is anything like the MYTHICAL beast imagined, in old testiment scripture.

So I'd ask you the same thing: you ever read it?

Biblical scholars who evidently do not think much of an almight God. Their problem, not mine!