Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Creationism is a tool that has been used to erase Afrikan history by denying evolution and therefore erasing the Afrikan origins of all people. What is so brilliant about christianity for a racist eurocentric society is that by denying evolution and claiming adam and eve as ancestors, they can completely remove themselves from afrikan history and afrikan origins. They can feel no guilt over afrikan erasure and oppression because they claim to be european, not afrikan. This illusion is why any religion that denies evolution is potent, racist and oppressive. All races must learn to acknowledge that afrika is everyones mother land. Afrika is where reading, writing and mathematics were invented. Afrika is where the first libraries were formed. Afrika is the continent that the human race spoke the first phonetic vowel on. It is the commonality we all have, it encompasses the entire human race. That is why it is such a crime to teach history and reading and all of education from a european perspective. For when it boils down to it, our common origin is not european. We did not come from europe. We came from afrika, and that is what creationists wish to avoid via their ideology.
What a bunch of nonsense,may I point your attention to Acts 17: 26-28 does it matter which race was first maybe to s racist it matters. God said all man are created equal I dare you to show one has superior genes over another. Are you suggesting races that came after the blacks are further evolved ? That is what evolutionist are saying but don't want to admit to it. So who really have a racial agenda ?
"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.
Ill 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 doesnt 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, Pauls 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 doesnt 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 worlds 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 isnt 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 isnt 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 isnt 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...
Can you prove that there is no God?Can you prove that the world was made in 6 days?
No; nor can I prove fairies, sasquach or unicorns do not exist. But here's the rub: we prove shit exists, since it's definitive. I.E, theorize there's a top quark, then send atoms flying around particle separators at near the speed of light until you find it and PROVE ITS EXISTENCE!!!
Good luck doing that with God. But have a ball anyway. Who knows, maybe you'll run across Him on Oprah or whatever.
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.
I heard if you keep repeating something it might become true. ...
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.
I heard if you keep repeating something it might become true. If humans and dinosaurs coexisted, why do we not find human fossils in the same layers as dinosaur fossils.
as always attempting and failing to be funny.another irrelevant quote!
once again proving that you slapdicks can't read!
translation: one accord = together.
also it's not a literal statement it's figurative : of the nature of or involving a figure of speech, especially a metaphor; metaphorical and not literal: The word head has several figurative senses, as in She's the head of the company. Synonyms: metaphorical, not literal, symbolic.
This is a prime example of your limited understanding. I will infer from you Captain Obvious attempt to splain to me what accord means that the joke went right over your cantankerous crotchety head.
Creationism is a tool that has been used to erase Afrikan history by denying evolution and therefore erasing the Afrikan origins of all people. What is so brilliant about christianity for a racist eurocentric society is that by denying evolution and claiming adam and eve as ancestors, they can completely remove themselves from afrikan history and afrikan origins. They can feel no guilt over afrikan erasure and oppression because they claim to be european, not afrikan. This illusion is why any religion that denies evolution is potent, racist and oppressive. All races must learn to acknowledge that afrika is everyones mother land. Afrika is where reading, writing and mathematics were invented. Afrika is where the first libraries were formed. Afrika is the continent that the human race spoke the first phonetic vowel on. It is the commonality we all have, it encompasses the entire human race. That is why it is such a crime to teach history and reading and all of education from a european perspective. For when it boils down to it, our common origin is not european. We did not come from europe. We came from afrika, and that is what creationists wish to avoid via their ideology.
Except that it wasn't Afica.
This rates up there with one of the most ignorant posts to date. When Moses wrote down the Genesis story, he knew Africa as Egypt, a country of which he was adopted royalty. You are aware that Egypt is in Africa, right?
Genesis 2 (NIV):
10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
Euphrates River - History
Except that it wasn't Afica.
This rates up there with one of the most ignorant posts to date. When Moses wrote down the Genesis story, he knew Africa as Egypt, a country of which he was adopted royalty. You are aware that Egypt is in Africa, right?
Genesis 2 (NIV):
10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
Euphrates River - History
Typical eurocentric brainwashing
"We' (at least those of us in the relevant first world), have many examples of transitional fossils.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.
I heard if you keep repeating something it might become true. If humans and dinosaurs coexisted, why do we not find human fossils in the same layers as dinosaur fossils.
Same reason we don't find transitional fossils ANYWHERE? But yet you blindly claim the exist with your "just so" stories and armies of "might haves" and "could haves".
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.
I heard if you keep repeating something it might become true. If humans and dinosaurs coexisted, why do we not find human fossils in the same layers as dinosaur fossils.
Same reason we don't find transitional fossils ANYWHERE? But yet you blindly claim the exist with your "just so" stories and armies of "might haves" and "could haves".
There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.
Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.
Devonian tetrapods (limbed vertebrates), known from an increasingly large number of localities, have been shown to be mainly aquatic with many primitive features. In contrast, the post-Devonian record is marked by an Early Mississippian temporal gap ranging from the earliest Carboniferous (Tournaisian and early Viséan) to the mid-Viséan. By the mid-Viséan, tetrapods had become effectively terrestrial as attested by the presence of stem amniotes, developed an essentially modern aspect, and given rise to the crown group. Up to now, only two localities have yielded tetrapod specimens from the Tournaisian stage: one in Scotland with a single articulated skeleton and one in Nova Scotia with isolated bones, many of uncertain identity. We announce a series of discoveries of Tournaisian-age localities in Scotland that have yielded a wealth of new tetrapod and arthropod fossils. These include both terrestrial and aquatic forms and new taxa. We conclude that the gap in the fossil record has been an artifact of collection failure.
Atheism is the MOST dangerous thing known to man.
How many times have you heard the Nazi Hawly say something like this
So if god exists, why can't evolution be part of its plan?What evolutionists fail to demonstrate is where and how life originated and what it looked like. They skip over the fact that time is not on their side. Dinosaurs were very highly developed creatures. What did they evolve from? How long did that take? Evolutionists have far too many gaps and they fill them with atheistic opinion. But the fact of the matter is, that their process of evolution could not have started at the point of their Big Bang nor when planet earth became it's own sphere. And how many millions of years does it take for bacteria to assume even the form of a worm (which are highly specialized). The real problem is that there is no atheistic logic for why life exists or why it does what it does? And there is also the problem that everything depends on everything else in some way for its survival! Even man is needed so that certain forms of life can cope. So the reality is that the very first form of life needed other forms of life to develope. Even the creation sequence is accomplish in stages. Funny, that even "dumb" uneducated nonscientific nomads would come to such a conclusion and then say God did it --- don't you think? Why didn't the "man who made up Genesis" start with man and then have a god make animals as they were asked for by man? Isn't that how most pagan religions work? I feel atheists will have a lot to answer for one day. They have more than enough to answer for at the present...
So if god exists, why can't evolution be part of its plan?What evolutionists fail to demonstrate is where and how life originated and what it looked like. They skip over the fact that time is not on their side. Dinosaurs were very highly developed creatures. What did they evolve from? How long did that take? Evolutionists have far too many gaps and they fill them with atheistic opinion. But the fact of the matter is, that their process of evolution could not have started at the point of their Big Bang nor when planet earth became it's own sphere. And how many millions of years does it take for bacteria to assume even the form of a worm (which are highly specialized). The real problem is that there is no atheistic logic for why life exists or why it does what it does? And there is also the problem that everything depends on everything else in some way for its survival! Even man is needed so that certain forms of life can cope. So the reality is that the very first form of life needed other forms of life to develope. Even the creation sequence is accomplish in stages. Funny, that even "dumb" uneducated nonscientific nomads would come to such a conclusion and then say God did it --- don't you think? Why didn't the "man who made up Genesis" start with man and then have a god make animals as they were asked for by man? Isn't that how most pagan religions work? I feel atheists will have a lot to answer for one day. They have more than enough to answer for at the present...
