Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Boss]

So yes, you have confirmed that nowhere did you offer science to support your specious claims to supernaturalism. That should be obvious as science has no mechanisms to test that which is unavailable to the natural, rational world.

And yes, your claim that I must first believe in your spirit world in order to accept the existence of your spirit world is beyond ridiculous.

No, I have repeatedly used science to prove that humans do have a spiritual (not supernatural) connection. There is no "specious claim" being made, we have over 70k years of evidence that humans have connected spiritually. Physical science has no current mechanisms to measure spiritual existence, that is true, and I pointed this out in the OP... never have refuted that. However, spiritualism is perfectly natural and rational human behavior, and has been for all of our existence. It's not ridiculous to say, if you don't believe in something, it can never be proven to you. If I reject your scientific explanation for what causes rain to fall, and insist it's 'god crying', you can talk until blue in the face, I am never going to accept your scientific evidence and you can't prove it to me. That doesn't mean you can't prove your case to others who accept scientific evidence. The same principle applies with spiritual nature, you refuse to accept it, don't believe in it, therefore, it can never be proven to you. This is also pointed out in the OP, and you've spent an entire Saturday confirming it. Thanks!

How strange that you keep insisting that you have supplied "scientific evidence" of your spirit worlds yet you refuse to identify where we can find this evidence.

Provide a link to a peer reviewed scientific journal. I'm just tingling with excitement to read of this spirit world you claim exists.

I'm a bit suspicious as you insist I must have a prior committment to believe In your spirit worlds In order to accept the evidence of your spirit worlds. That sounds a bit like someone who's either a fool or a religious zealot.

Therefore, give us a link to a reliable, peer reviewed journal. There's a good fellow.

You are demanding physical proof of a spiritual entity. That is simply illogical. In order to evaluate spiritual existence, you must observe spiritual evidence, but since you reject spiritual evidence, it can't be proven to you. The "science" is animal behavior, species don't adopt attributes which serve no purpose or function. Spirituality exists in humans for a reason. You rationalize that it's to explain the unknown, yet much of the unknown to ancient men has been explained and spirituality remains as prevalent as ever, so that can't be correct. You claim it is to console fears of death, but no other living thing seems to have trouble with this, or at least, not to the extent of making up things. What makes more rational sense, is that our fears of death and need to explain the unknow, stems FROM our spiritual connection, which we've always made as humans.

You see, it's a very powerful piece of scientific evidence. Humans have this curious and unique attribute, which is our most distinct and defining attribute, no other species has this particular attribute. It has been a part of who we are since our existence. We also have accomplished unprecedented things in relation to other life forms, and continued to strongly maintain this unique attribute through it all. You explain it away as mere delusion or imagination, but you can't cite another such example in nature. I maintain that our ability to spiritually connect, is what makes us unique among all living things. You can't refute this, it defies science to do so. You argue that it's coincidental that we have this unique attribute, but the evidence is man's achievements over all other living things that don't spiritually connect. Again, Darwin and science maintain that there must be some connection between this unique attribute and the unique attributes of humanity. It doesn't comport with logic to be anything else, and it's certainly not a figment of imagination, which has lasted 70,000 years.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How is "evolutionist" refuting their own theory?

Were you aware that "evolutionist" employ many different sciences in the study of evolution?

Even the terms you use ("evolutionist", when describing scientists - in the plural sense - from different fields), is a staple from Christian creationist ministries. I suppose you and the charlatans you are in thrall to view that as a not-so-subtle derogatory term. How stereotypical that you do nothing more than parrot the creationist ministry line as creationist form their arguments exclusively with efforts to refute evolutionary / biological science. Creationism should be renamed to "anti-evilutionism". It simply is nothing more than the offering of Biblical Creation as science. All creationism debates and lectures are along the lines of: “New evidence that proves science wrong and proves supernatural intervention!”

Your science-loathing / Christian fundamentalist agenda causes you to promote many goofy conspiracy theories which are comical but hardly worthy of serious consideration.

You were saying nitwit.


ev·o·lu·tion·ist
[ev-uh-loo-shuh-nist or, esp. British, ee-vuh-] Show IPA

noun
1.
a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, especially in biology.

2.
a person who supports a policy of gradual growth or development rather than sudden change or expansion.

adjective Also, ev·o·lu·tion·is·tic.
3.
of or pertaining to evolution or evolutionists.

4.
believing in or supporting a theory of evolution, especially in biology.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1855–60; evolution + -ist

Related forms
ev·o·lu·tion·ism, noun

ev·o·lu·tion·is·ti·cal·ly, adverb

an·ti·ev·o·lu·tion·ist, noun, adjective

an·ti·ev·o·lu·tion·is·tic, adjective

non·ev·o·lu·tion·ist, noun

Evolutionist | Define Evolutionist at Dictionary.com

Not surprisingly, you chose to sidestep any accounting of how evolutionary science employs disciplines from many other sciences. Evolutionary science is really the synthesis of many scientific fields (geology, biology, botany, population genetics, paleontology, microbiology, embryology, and more).


The reason why you devote such hatred toward science and knowledge is simple: Creationists are largely Christian Fundamentalists; literalists, who take every word of the various bibles to be the true and unalterable word of the gods. Many echo the sentiments of the thankfully dead Henry Morris:

"It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the facts of science can contradict the Bible."

-Dr. Henry Morris in very first paragraph of "Scientists Confront Creationism" edited by Laurie R. Godfrey


The fundies view evolutionary science, which flatly contradicts the book of Genesis, as a direct threat to their theology and the foundation of their worldview.

Their refutations to the demonstrated sciences are the most bizarre and contorted versions of conspiracy theories or based on misconceptions, hearsay, sloppy science, outdated information and discredited data, scripture, faulty logic, lies, -- all driven by a need to protect their dogma. Consider how much they have to lose if they insist on sticking to biblical literalism. Evolution being true means there was no historical Adam and Eve. No Adam and Eve means there is no original sin. No original sin means there is no need for salvation. No need for salvation means there is no need for their religion. This is why the fundies fight tooth and nail, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.

Hollie you get called on your ignorance and ignore it. I do not interpret the bible literal word for word because the bible is filled with parables and and metaphors the only way to get the true meaning is to consider the whole bible to get the true meaning in some cases. You can't just read the bible you have to study it and I told you this in the creationists thread.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The fundies view evolutionary science, which flatly contradicts the book of Genesis, as a direct threat to their theology and the foundation of their worldview.

How do you explain Christians who certainly believe in the Bible, yet also believe in Evolution? According to what they have told me, the biblical references of "days" in the creation story are actually misinterpreted literally. In the Hebrew original, the word was "yom" which can mean a variety of periods of time. God doesn't actually create "days and nights" until like the fourth "day" which proves the literal interpretation is incorrect. Not that I want to turn this into a theological debate, spirituality doesn't have to be theological to exist.

I have often said no one knows for sure how long creation took.The Hebrew word for days is an unspecified amount of time that is true. God also say's a day to God is but a 1,000 years. God does create day and night on the very first day. I am not sure what the source of light was because it talks about the sun and moon being created on the fourth day.

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light. And there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light that it was good. And God divided between the light and the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

God did however say that on the fourth day that days and hours will be determined by the sun and moon. So how long the first four days were nobody knows.

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to divide between the day and the night. And let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years.
Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth. And it was so.
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night, and the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 and to rule over the day and over the night; and to divide between the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

 

[itfitzme]

Measurable and repeatable.

 

[Youwerecreated]

and it was wrong...

If you have fossils dated back 500 million years or so and pictures of the same exact organisms today and there is no evolutionary change that refutes the theory how hard is that to understand ?

It's hard to understand how you know so little of the science you hope to denigrate.
Your description above is among the worst examples of someone who understands exactly nothing of what you are arguing against.

You make the truly mindless claim that “no evolutionary change that refutes the theory” which is astonishingly stupid, even for you. Do you think that evolution requires that organisms must “change”? That is not the case. Evolution is driven by species being well-adapted to their environments. Evolution does not predict the requirement of "change".

Otherwise, I think these kinds of discussions are important. They do expose the lack of science in creationism, the dishonest creationist tactics, that creationism is truly nothing more than fundamentalist Christianity and it does demonstrate that real science has been advancing of humanity while the fundies have much to hide.

Hollie I have explained this to you I will do it again so there is no misunderstanding or you twisting my words.

Neo darwinism is change over time through, mutations, this is what is the mechanism for evolutionary change according to the theory ,along with natural selection. But they also throw in lots of time for good measure. We studied flies because their mutation rates plus we could induce mutations through a couple of methods. Hollie this is key pay attention all organisms experience mutations that is why they say evolution never stops get it ?

Do you believe that simpler organisms that exp higher rates of mutations and had shorter life spans oh and let's not forget reproduce much more offspring would not evolve after let's say in 300 million years ? but yet you believe the much more complex human evolved in the last 65 million years how absurd.

The only uneducated in the sciences is yourself. Now run along and find something to copy and paste you mental midget.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hollie, you are the one with "because I say so" as your only argument. I've repeatedly offered science to refute your arguments while requesting you to present some science to back your arguments, and as of yet, you have failed to do so. You can keep on insisting the opposite is the case, but you are not making your point, dear.

I can't recall a single instance where you have offered science to support your claim to supernaturalism.

I understand you take issue with my reliance on science to explain the natural world, but your insistence that a spirit world exists but is not open to investigation is hardly worth serious consideration.

Science truths are open to investigation. Your gods are not, in spite of your continued " because I say so" wailing.

Of course you can't

 

[Youwerecreated]

So yes, you have confirmed that nowhere did you offer science to support your specious claims to supernaturalism. That should be obvious as science has no mechanisms to test that which is unavailable to the natural, rational world.

And yes, your claim that I must first believe in your spirit world in order to accept the existence of your spirit world is beyond ridiculous.

No, I have repeatedly used science to prove that humans do have a spiritual (not supernatural) connection. There is no "specious claim" being made, we have over 70k years of evidence that humans have connected spiritually. Physical science has no current mechanisms to measure spiritual existence, that is true, and I pointed this out in the OP... never have refuted that. However, spiritualism is perfectly natural and rational human behavior, and has been for all of our existence. It's not ridiculous to say, if you don't believe in something, it can never be proven to you. If I reject your scientific explanation for what causes rain to fall, and insist it's 'god crying', you can talk until blue in the face, I am never going to accept your scientific evidence and you can't prove it to me. That doesn't mean you can't prove your case to others who accept scientific evidence. The same principle applies with spiritual nature, you refuse to accept it, don't believe in it, therefore, it can never be proven to you. This is also pointed out in the OP, and you've spent an entire Saturday confirming it. Thanks!

How strange that you keep insisting that you have supplied "scientific evidence" of your spirit worlds yet you refuse to identify where we can find this evidence.

Provide a link to a peer reviewed scientific journal. I'm just tingling with excitement to read of this spirit world you claim exists.

I'm a bit suspicious as you insist I must have a prior committment to believe In your spirit worlds In order to accept the evidence of your spirit worlds. That sounds a bit like someone who's either a fool or a religious zealot.

Therefore, give us a link to a reliable, peer reviewed journal. There's a good fellow.

Oh peer reviews can't be wrong. like I said mental midget.

 

[itfitzme]

No, I have repeatedly used science to prove that humans do have a spiritual (not supernatural) connection. There is no "specious claim" being made, we have over 70k years of evidence that humans have connected spiritually. Physical science has no current mechanisms to measure spiritual existence, that is true, and I pointed this out in the OP... never have refuted that. However, spiritualism is perfectly natural and rational human behavior, and has been for all of our existence. It's not ridiculous to say, if you don't believe in something, it can never be proven to you. If I reject your scientific explanation for what causes rain to fall, and insist it's 'god crying', you can talk until blue in the face, I am never going to accept your scientific evidence and you can't prove it to me. That doesn't mean you can't prove your case to others who accept scientific evidence. The same principle applies with spiritual nature, you refuse to accept it, don't believe in it, therefore, it can never be proven to you. This is also pointed out in the OP, and you've spent an entire Saturday confirming it. Thanks!

How strange that you keep insisting that you have supplied "scientific evidence" of your spirit worlds yet you refuse to identify where we can find this evidence.

Provide a link to a peer reviewed scientific journal. I'm just tingling with excitement to read of this spirit world you claim exists.

I'm a bit suspicious as you insist I must have a prior committment to believe In your spirit worlds In order to accept the evidence of your spirit worlds. That sounds a bit like someone who's either a fool or a religious zealot.

Therefore, give us a link to a reliable, peer reviewed journal. There's a good fellow.

Oh peer reviews can't be wrong. like I said mental midget.

The Bible was peer reviewed

 

[Youwerecreated]

How strange that you keep insisting that you have supplied "scientific evidence" of your spirit worlds yet you refuse to identify where we can find this evidence.

Provide a link to a peer reviewed scientific journal. I'm just tingling with excitement to read of this spirit world you claim exists.

I'm a bit suspicious as you insist I must have a prior committment to believe In your spirit worlds In order to accept the evidence of your spirit worlds. That sounds a bit like someone who's either a fool or a religious zealot.

Therefore, give us a link to a reliable, peer reviewed journal. There's a good fellow.

Oh peer reviews can't be wrong. like I said mental midget.

The Bible was peer reviewed

I didn't say they were all wrong.

Hollie this I did not know

 

[JimBowie1958]

How strange that you keep insisting that you have supplied "scientific evidence" of your spirit worlds yet you refuse to identify where we can find this evidence.

Provide a link to a peer reviewed scientific journal. I'm just tingling with excitement to read of this spirit world you claim exists.

I'm a bit suspicious as you insist I must have a prior committment to believe In your spirit worlds In order to accept the evidence of your spirit worlds. That sounds a bit like someone who's either a fool or a religious zealot.

Therefore, give us a link to a reliable, peer reviewed journal. There's a good fellow.

Oh peer reviews can't be wrong. like I said mental midget.

The Bible was peer reviewed

No it wasn't.

Is that a joke? I cannot be surprised at anything people say about the Bible these days as most are so ignorant about it.

 

[newpolitics]

If you have fossils dated back 500 million years or so and pictures of the same exact organisms today and there is no evolutionary change that refutes the theory how hard is that to understand ?

you don't believe that the earth is 500million years old.
that in and of it's self refutes your bullshit.

No what it shows evolutionist refuting their own theory by applying such dates and theory. You're correct I don't believe the earth is as old as claimed by your side.

Dendrochronology (tree-ring counting) refutes a young earth, the old measurement being 11,000, which is higher than the 6,000 to 10,000 years posited by young earthers. How do you deal with this?

 

[Derideo_Te]

I did prove spiritual connection exists. There is at least 70,000 years of evidence, and billions of testimonials. I have not mentioned a deity, I don't know why you continue to insist this is part of my argument, other than your inability to be honest. I've corrected you numerous times, and you just continue to lie about this.

I even pointed out that you won't acknowledge spiritual evidence, therefore, the question can not be answered for you. All you keep doing, is proving my point, and demanding illogical evidence that is never going to exist. I've admitted that as well, I can't prove god exists to you, it's not possible to give you the evidence you need. That doesn't mean my argument is invalid, or that god doesn't really exist.

Once again you are forced to resort to name calling because you cannot prove any of your blathering nonsense. Even the term "spiritual connection" exposes your drivel. What is on the other end of this magical "connection" of yours since you are denying the existence of a deity? (The one you pretended to "prove existed" in your OP.) There can't be a "connection" if there is NOTHING to connect to on the other end. So by denying that there is a deity you are essentially invalidating your entire premise. Great job of shooting yourself in the foot again! Your inconsistent illogical babbling is ludicrous.

LOL... where did I call you a name, Dorito?

You just did it again. You have called me a liar (when you are the one doing all of the lying) and you have used other foul names that no genuine "spiritualist" would ever use.

There is nothing I have said that is "blathering nonsense" at all. We have 70k years of history that can't be disputed, humans spiritually connect to something. You are making the false assumption that any such connection would necessarily involve a "deity" and that isn't an argument I have made. There is nothing "magical" about the connection, humans of all walks from all kinds of cultures are able to spiritually connect, and have done so as long as humans have existed.

Since you haven't proven any of your blather it is de facto nonsense. Your feeble attempts to distort human history does not equate to evidence of what you are pretending "exists".

As for "god" mentioned in the OP, that has also been explained to you numerous times. I am using "god" as a metaphoric representation for whatever spiritual force humans are connecting with. I personally believe this is a form of energy that we can't measure with physical science at this time, and probably won't ever be able to. It is a reality outside the material world, that we have the ability to connect to, while no other living things can. This is why we are special among all living things. This is why our unique attributes are unmatched in nature and evolution can't explain them. You can call this nonsense or babbling, but even Plato and Aristotle argued there was a spiritual nature.

Once again your appalling ignorance is on display. Animals also display similar trance states to those of humans. Your overweening ARROGANCE assumes that this does not exist in the animal kingdom.

What you believe, is not supported by science or Darwin. I've demonstrated this, because you can't give me examples of spiritual behavior in any other living thing.

Read and learn.

Trance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Animal Hypnosis And Trance | The Emotion Machine

Apparent death - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

The "reasons" you claim spirituality exists, are not supportable by science, and contradict Darwin.

Utter nonsense! Of course you cannot prove and have not proved that ludicrous allegation because you can't. You just keep on repeating it like a mindless mantra in the vain belief that if you repeat your lies often enough eventually some fool might believe them to be true.

You cling to the fact that spiritual nature doesn't provide physical evidence, which is totally illogical.

More lies from you. You were provided with links in prior posts establishing the physical scientific evidence of the "spiritual" trance state of mind.

You refuse to accept spiritual evidence which is overwhelming, and has been around as long as humans have.

What you are PRETENDING is "evidence" doesn't stand up on it's own merits.

I can't change your mind, I admitted that in the OP, it's not debatable. You have closed your mind and rejected your own spiritual nature, and you will reject science and everything else, to avoid acknowledging it.

Please refrain from projecting your own egregious shortcomings onto others.

We can continue this discussion for another month.. a year... a decade... you are still going to reject spiritual nature, and I get that. It's why I made the point in the OP, first two paragraphs.

What's interesting, is that you spend so much time here in this thread

Ironic!

, hurling one insult after another, ridiculing me, throwing out sarcastic ad homs and denigrations, like you get something out of that... cathartic almost. Is that what this is about to you? A need you have to reinforce your disbeliefs that is so strong, you can't help but continue with this? It's what is seems like to me. If that's the case, I think you need to really ask yourself, are you certain? Or are you just trying to convince yourself of this?

Strange you don't ask yourself the same questions. Obviously YOU are trying to prove something and making an EPIC FAILURE of doing so. If YOU were a true "spiritualist" you would be much more open to what is being posted that is critical of your drivel. Instead you are illogical, combative, insulting, rude, belligerent, dishonest, unreasonable and bellicose. Not once have you provided any substantiation for your bizarre claims about both Darwin and scientific evidence to bolster your hyperbolic assertions.

FYI this is a message board and anyone who joins is free to comment on whatever they deem appropriate. They have quite correctly and accurately exposed your inane babbling but that is YOUR problem, not theirs.

As for YOUR motivation for this thread, that is suspect because of your incessant lying and flipflopping in the face of being presented with hard facts and reputable scientific evidence. Ask any police officer and they will tell you that a positive sign of a liar is someone whose story keeps changing. Yours has changed so often that it might even be a record for this forum.

 

[JimBowie1958]

you don't believe that the earth is 500million years old.
that in and of it's self refutes your bullshit.

No what it shows evolutionist refuting their own theory by applying such dates and theory. You're correct I don't believe the earth is as old as claimed by your side.

Dendrochronology (tree-ring counting) refutes a young earth, the old measurement being 11,000, which is higher than the 6,000 to 10,000 years posited by young earthers. How do you deal with this?

Not if God made the trees with rings. You don't know the Creationist theory well enough to anticipate such a simple response? Then you don't really know much about Creationism.

How about asking why God placed animals geographically close to other animals of similar structure and behavior? One of the early observations that led to the theory of evolution was that species that naturally arose near each other were similar to each other in surprising ways.

Why were nearly ALL early evolutionists Christians if it is antithetical to Christianity?

 

[newpolitics]

No what it shows evolutionist refuting their own theory by applying such dates and theory. You're correct I don't believe the earth is as old as claimed by your side.

Dendrochronology (tree-ring counting) refutes a young earth, the old measurement being 11,000, which is higher than the 6,000 to 10,000 years posited by young earthers. How do you deal with this?

Not if God made the trees with rings. You don't know the Creationist theory well enough to anticipate such a simple response? Then you don't really know much about Creationism.

How about asking why God placed animals geographically close to other animals of similar structure and behavior? One of the early observations that led to the theory of evolution was that species that naturally arose near each other were similar to each other in surprising ways.

Why were nearly ALL early evolutionists Christians if it is antithetical to Christianity?

Oh, so "god did it." FAIL. There is nothing more to creationist theory other than "God dun it," so there is nothing to understand. It is a mental atavism.

All early SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVED IN EVOLUTION were christians because almost everybody in those earlier european societies were... wait for it... CHRISTIAN. It was punishable by death to be an atheist in most european societies until relatively recently. Btw, Darwin, was likely an atheist.

 

[Hollie]

No, I have repeatedly used science to prove that humans do have a spiritual (not supernatural) connection. There is no "specious claim" being made, we have over 70k years of evidence that humans have connected spiritually. Physical science has no current mechanisms to measure spiritual existence, that is true, and I pointed this out in the OP... never have refuted that. However, spiritualism is perfectly natural and rational human behavior, and has been for all of our existence. It's not ridiculous to say, if you don't believe in something, it can never be proven to you. If I reject your scientific explanation for what causes rain to fall, and insist it's 'god crying', you can talk until blue in the face, I am never going to accept your scientific evidence and you can't prove it to me. That doesn't mean you can't prove your case to others who accept scientific evidence. The same principle applies with spiritual nature, you refuse to accept it, don't believe in it, therefore, it can never be proven to you. This is also pointed out in the OP, and you've spent an entire Saturday confirming it. Thanks!

How strange that you keep insisting that you have supplied "scientific evidence" of your spirit worlds yet you refuse to identify where we can find this evidence.

Provide a link to a peer reviewed scientific journal. I'm just tingling with excitement to read of this spirit world you claim exists.

I'm a bit suspicious as you insist I must have a prior committment to believe In your spirit worlds In order to accept the evidence of your spirit worlds. That sounds a bit like someone who's either a fool or a religious zealot.

Therefore, give us a link to a reliable, peer reviewed journal. There's a good fellow.

Oh peer reviews can't be wrong. like I said mental midget.

So, obviously you can't provide a link to a reliable, peer reviewed journal. That was expected as was your angry, juvenile response. Don't get angry when you're expected to support your claims. If you're not emotionally or intellectually prepared to have your opinions (and religious convictions), challenged in a public forum, don't post them.

I understand that science was not a subject stressed at your madrassah so I’m happy to lend an assist.

In the legitimate science world, scientists publish their work in peer reviewed journals where other scientists have an opportunity to study the data, perform their own tests and compare data to arrive at conclusions.

That’s not the case in the world of creation ministry. They’re not just biased, they’re biased in extremis and th ir every effort is couched in terms of pressing a religious agenda, just as you do. It’s phony, contrived and dishonest. Your heroes at the various Christian creationist ministries don’t see it as important whether they present facts or not. If they choose to further opinions and press a religious agenda, that’s their choosing. However, don’t make the mistake that the opinions of religious fundamentalists are not fostered under the umbrella of a bias and a bigotry firmly in place. The prejudices and preconceptions have earned “creation science” only ridicule and condemnation from the relevant science community. That is probably the greatest indictment against your creation ministries and the foul odor they has cast upon the science craft.


"There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model."
- Henry Morris
President, Institute for Creation Research

 

[JimBowie1958]

Dendrochronology (tree-ring counting) refutes a young earth, the old measurement being 11,000, which is higher than the 6,000 to 10,000 years posited by young earthers. How do you deal with this?

Not if God made the trees with rings. You don't know the Creationist theory well enough to anticipate such a simple response? Then you don't really know much about Creationism.

How about asking why God placed animals geographically close to other animals of similar structure and behavior? One of the early observations that led to the theory of evolution was that species that naturally arose near each other were similar to each other in surprising ways.

Why were nearly ALL early evolutionists Christians if it is antithetical to Christianity?

Oh, so "god did it." FAIL. There is nothing more to creationist theory other than "God dun it," so there is nothing to understand. It is a mental atavism.

No, it isn't, its only your comprehension of it that makes it so. But that is because yo don't grasp it for what it is, but what you want to think it is so you can rip it up like the typical straw man.

All early evolutionists were christians almost everybody in those early european societies were... wait for it... CHRISTIAN. It was punishable by death to be an atheist in most european societies until relatively recently. Btw, Darwin, was likely an atheist.

We KNOW Darwin was a Christian during his life, but there is no direct evidence of him ever being an atheist.

There is nothing incompatible between Christianity or Creationism as properly understood as a philosophical concept as opposed to evolution as a concept of biology.

The contention is either based on one side not understanding the other side or deliberate misrepresentation and lies.

 

[newpolitics]

Not if God made the trees with rings. You don't know the Creationist theory well enough to anticipate such a simple response? Then you don't really know much about Creationism.

How about asking why God placed animals geographically close to other animals of similar structure and behavior? One of the early observations that led to the theory of evolution was that species that naturally arose near each other were similar to each other in surprising ways.

Why were nearly ALL early evolutionists Christians if it is antithetical to Christianity?

Oh, so "god did it." FAIL. There is nothing more to creationist theory other than "God dun it," so there is nothing to understand. It is a mental atavism.

No, it isn't, its only your comprehension of it that makes it so. But that is because yo don't grasp it for what it is, but what you want to think it is so you can rip it up like the typical straw man.

All early evolutionists were christians almost everybody in those early european societies were... wait for it... CHRISTIAN. It was punishable by death to be an atheist in most european societies until relatively recently. Btw, Darwin, was likely an atheist.

We KNOW Darwin was a Christian during his life, but there is no direct evidence of him ever being an atheist.

There is nothing incompatible between Christianity or Creationism as properly understood as a philosophical concept as opposed to evolution as a concept of biology.

The contention is either based on one side not understanding the other side or deliberate misrepresentation and lies.

Again, being an atheist back then was highly controversial, so you shouldn't expect outright admission of atheism, as this was grounds ex-communication and thus, becoming a social outcast, which was too high of a price for most people. However, we have sufficient data to conclude that was at the very least, Darwin was NOT a christian.

wikipedia:

"an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."[7] He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."[15]

Sounds to me like he was an atheist. Back then, one couldn't admit to being an atheist, so they invented the term "agnostic" to be a softer form of atheism, as a way around receiving the social backlash of calling yourself an atheist, but the two terms are not mutually exclusive. I am an agnostic atheist. He called himself an agnostic, and denies revelation, therefore, was NOT a christian, at the very least. He also said there was no way of determining which religious belief system was true over any other. No christian would say this.

Anyway, your argument is irrelevant, and constitutes a genetic fallacy. The theological dispositions of those who discovered scientific truths has nothing to do with these things being true. It seems like you just want a point for your "team," while utterly ignoring the demographics of the time. It is again, the arrogance of the christian creationist.

As for my "misunderstanding" of creationism: you said it yourself. "It is possible that god did it." How is this different than "god dun it?" It isn't. You admitted it yourself. You confirm your own position as being a one-dimensional appeal to the supernatural to handle all theodicies which you can't otherwise explain. This is especially weak apologetics.

 

[newpolitics]

Darwin (wiki):

"During these two years I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, & I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, (i.e. 1836 to 1839) to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, rainbow as a sign, &c., &c., & from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian."


Another quote:

"This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker. But then arises the doubt–can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.

I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."

 

[Hollie]

Not if God made the trees with rings. You don't know the Creationist theory well enough to anticipate such a simple response? Then you don't really know much about Creationism.

So, you know with certainty that one or more gods made trees with rings?

Super!

Which god(s) made the trees with rings and give us the data you used to make that conclusion.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Oh, so "god did it." FAIL. There is nothing more to creationist theory other than "God dun it," so there is nothing to understand. It is a mental atavism.

No, it isn't, its only your comprehension of it that makes it so. But that is because yo don't grasp it for what it is, but what you want to think it is so you can rip it up like the typical straw man.

All early evolutionists were christians almost everybody in those early european societies were... wait for it... CHRISTIAN. It was punishable by death to be an atheist in most european societies until relatively recently. Btw, Darwin, was likely an atheist.

We KNOW Darwin was a Christian during his life, but there is no direct evidence of him ever being an atheist.

There is nothing incompatible between Christianity or Creationism as properly understood as a philosophical concept as opposed to evolution as a concept of biology.

The contention is either based on one side not understanding the other side or deliberate misrepresentation and lies.

Again, being an atheist back then was highly controversial, so you shouldn't expect outright admission of atheism, as this was grounds ex-communication and thus, becoming a social outcast, which was too high of a price for most people.

People left churches to join others or simply refrain from any church activity. If such cause Darwin to pose as a borderline agnostic then he was a coward, and I do not believe that plausible given the criticism he willing accepted when he advanced the theory of evolution.

For some reason it is simply the fad among atheists and other 'victim' groups to go through history and claim some notable person as a member of the victims group. Its almost like feeling normal or something.

However, we have sufficient data to conclude that was at the very least, Darwin was NOT a christian.

wikipedia:

"an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."[7]

So you leap from a 'more correct' label of agnostic, to out right atheism? And you wonder why some here think you are not being objective?

He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."[15]

Sounds to me like he was an atheist.

Sounds to me like he was a good scientist who had the unfortunate condition of being born Anglican and it being the most vivid representation of Christianity in his life. Hell, I would plausibly have become an agnostic with him in such a communion of snakes and fakes.

Back then, one couldn't admit to being an atheist, so they invented the term "agnostic" to be a softer form of atheism, as a way around receiving the social backlash of calling yourself an atheist, but the two terms are not mutually exclusive.

No, plenty of people back then were openly atheist, so there was no need to pose.

I am an agnostic atheist. He called himself an agnostic, and denies revelation, therefore, was NOT a christian, at the very least.

He denied specific parts of what was generally perceived as revelation similar to Thomas Jefferson. That is not a complete rejection of all revelation.

He also said there was no way of determining which religious belief system was true over any other. No christian would say this.

In regard to origin myths.

Anyway, your argument is irrelevant, and constitutes a genetic fallacy. The theological dispositions of those who discovered scientific truths has nothing to do with these things being true.

It does however have direct relation to my contention that there is no contention between Christianity and evolution if Christians themselves came up with the concept to begin with.

It seems like you just want a point for your "team," while utterly ignoring the demographics of the time. It is again, the arrogance of the christian creationist.

And you demonstrate again your inability to try to grasp the intent and meaning of the person you are responding to. You desperately want to cast science and Christianity as being mutually incompatible, why I don't know. But there is no basis for it among those on both sides who understand the limits and scope of both areas of knowledge.

As for my "misunderstanding" of creationism: you said it yourself. "It is possible that god did it." How is this different than "god dun it?" It isn't.

Lol, one is an assertion, while the other is simply an observation of possible alternatives.

You don't get that because you don't want to get it.

You admitted it yourself. You confirm your own position as being a one-dimensional appeal to the supernatural to handle all theodicies which you can't otherwise explain. This is especially weak apologetics.

And your straw man horde you presented in your response demonstrates my actual contention; that the only people who assert that science and religion are incompatible are either ignorant of some part of one or both, or these people are deliberately dishonest.

You do not understand Creationism. As a person raised in such beliefs and who studied it far more than most when I converted to Catholicism, I assure you that what you think it is has nothing to do with the vast majority of Christians of all denominations on this planet.

So why don't you stop the slander and try to gain a true grasp of what Creationism is according to the actual majority Christians and leave the fundamentalists to speak only for themselves?