The creationists are BACK

[JakeStarkey]

Thanks, Vanquish. I disagree with your analysis, but that is the first competent statement, in my opinion, about the issue of atheism and faith or lack of it.

 

[FA_Q2]

The two of you aren't being precise enough.

The difference in language boils down to the difference between "not believing" (an affirmative believe of something NOT being true)...and "being comfortable with not knowing".

It takes no faith to say "you havent proven there's a god" (i.e."being comfortable with not knowing").
It does take faith to say "I don't believe there is a god"

Notice the difference...accept it...and move on. This is college-level Apologetics people.

I would add:
It takes no faith to say "you haven't proven there's a god and therefore I do not believe one exists at this point"


I can say that I do not believe in God because there is no evidence for God though I am completely open to the possibility if at some point there is proof or an overwhelming set of circumstances that lead to that conclusion. I do not have 'faith' that there is no god. That is the basis of atheism.

On the other hand, there are those that ASSERT god cannot exist and never will. THAT is a point of faith and I would call those anti-theists though most people throw them in with atheists. A distinction is needed because many do not identify with the crazies that devote their live to writing books and going on talk shows to trumpet their non belief in god. It is one thing to be an atheist, it is another to structure your life around that point.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The two of you aren't being precise enough.

The difference in language boils down to the difference between "not believing" (an affirmative believe of something NOT being true)...and "being comfortable with not knowing".

It takes no faith to say "you havent proven there's a god" (i.e."being comfortable with not knowing").
It does take faith to say "I don't believe there is a god"

Notice the difference...accept it...and move on. This is college-level Apologetics people.

I would add:
It takes no faith to say "you haven't proven there's a god and therefore I do not believe one exists at this point"


I can say that I do not believe in God because there is no evidence for God though I am completely open to the possibility if at some point there is proof or an overwhelming set of circumstances that lead to that conclusion. I do not have 'faith' that there is no god. That is the basis of atheism.

On the other hand, there are those that ASSERT god cannot exist and never will. THAT is a point of faith and I would call those anti-theists though most people throw them in with atheists. A distinction is needed because many do not identify with the crazies that devote their live to writing books and going on talk shows to trumpet their non belief in god. It is one thing to be an atheist, it is another to structure your life around that point.

You ASSERT there is no God. End of your argument.

 

[Vanquish]

What we're now discussing is the "default" or "resting state" of knowing. Epistemology is fun, kids!!

Do you have to believe in order to not believe? Most academic Philosophy teachers would say no. Another way of saying this would be to state "something isn't proven until it's proven." Very Yogi Berra, I know, but it sheds light on the discussion.

Without being relativistic, I'll also add that this entire discussion begins with the person asking the question. Where does that get us?

Well, if someone argues there's a god, no belief is needed to say "you havent met the burden of proof."
On the other hand, if someone says "There is no God" - that's a statement of belief that requires proof as well.

We can answer this whole debate with one question...who stated there was/was not a God first (in this thread)? They lose.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Vanquish, an assertion means nothing in and of itself. It is merely one's opinion. But to make an avowal of belief, such as "there is no God" or "there is a God", is a step further and requires more than an opinion. Such requires faith.

 

[Vanquish]

Vanquish, an assertion means nothing in and of itself. It is merely one's opinion. But to make an avowal of belief, such as "there is no God" or "there is a God", is a step further and requires more than an opinion. Such requires faith.

An assertion must either be proven or ignored, in terms of how it can be dealt with on a forum like USMB.

That is to say, you're splitting hairs too much between an assertion and a belief. For all intents and purposes, an assertion IS a belief. If it's not, then why post it at all?

If you say something is A...you're effectively saying you believe that something is A. To take things to the absurd, what's the point of posting "Dogs are dumb" if you don't believe dogs are dumb. (I'm not saying that people actually believe everything they post. I'm saying that to advance an argument based on a premise, you must at least advance the premise.)

 

[logical4u]

So one wonders, always, why the retards insist on bringing evolution into the discussion of creation.

The exact opposite is true, read the thread.

No one says, "since evolution is happening, it proves no god exists."

However others are saying, "since God created everything, evolution doesn't happen."

Did they say that "adaption" happened?

Because some of us do not believe that a species changed into two or more species (that would be "common ancestor" for those of you that believe in "evolution religion"). We do believe that changes can happen within a species over time or by "selective breeding".

Because people don't believe in your religion, doesn't mean you should try to humiliate their beliefs. After all when they ask logical questions of your beliefs, you should have a logical answer. If you just "believe", tell them so. If you want to go on and on about scientific evidence, then produce the common ancestor or acknowledge that it is a "belief".

 

[JakeStarkey]

Vanquish, an assertion means nothing in and of itself. It is merely one's opinion. But to make an avowal of belief, such as "there is no God" or "there is a God", is a step further and requires more than an opinion. Such requires faith.

An assertion must either be proven or ignored, in terms of how it can be dealt with on a forum like USMB.

That is to say, you're splitting hairs too much between an assertion and a belief. For all intents and purposes, an assertion IS a belief. If it's not, then why post it at all?

If you say something is A...you're effectively saying you believe that something is A. To take things to the absurd, what's the point of posting "Dogs are dumb" if you don't believe dogs are dumb. (I'm not saying that people actually believe everything they post. I'm saying that to advance an argument based on a premise, you must at least advance the premise.)

If you believe that thought and reference frame language and behavior, no such thing exists as splitting hairs too much.

 

[logical4u]

You keep saying that but it's still the anti-creation crowd who insists on inserting evolution into every discussion about creation.

So why do you do that?

You still haven't answered the question.

When you want to force feed creation as science instead of as a religous belief you open the door to evolution entering the discussion.
Not us.
Creationism is not science. That is the point of this entire thread. You are the one straying off into Lah Lah land.

How is saying that over seventy percent of the population believe in the Lord of the Bible and the Lord in the Bible stated that He created the world and its lifeforms shoving it down peoples' throats? Obama is out there saying that eighty percent of people want taxes raised (he doesn't mention that they want "others" taxes raised), and no one is accusing him of trying to shove "his beliefs" down peoples' throats.

The more they find out (scientists) about this world, the more the "Creation" order is proven. The order that science "claims" (because they have no proof, just pieced evidence)happened in the formation of the earth, is very similar to the description the Lord gave of creation. The "evolution religion" gets hung up on the "days" thing, but the Lord told us, His time is not our time. It is different for Him. If you look at the science, it backs "creation", it does not disprove it.

 

[logical4u]

You keep saying that but it's still the anti-creation crowd who insists on inserting evolution into every discussion about creation.

So why do you do that?

You still haven't answered the question.

Of course I haven't answered it, and never will.

I don't do that, I don't insert evolution into every creation discussion, again that's a story that's going on in your head and your head alone.

You need to ask this particular group of your fellow believers, why their faith is so weak that they have to stoop to desperately denying low levels of basic proven science.

"Basic proven science" would provide the "common ancestor".

 

[logical4u]

The children of Georgia should be taught that Sunni Man's beliefs are not facts.

If children are to be taught that "beliefs" are not facts, then children should not be taught "theories" (according to your standards), because theories are beliefs that can not be proven.

 

[logical4u]

yea we should stop teaching theories in school...

lets stop teaching cellular theory, the theory of electricity, the theory of gravity, atomic theory, lets stop teaching it all. Maybe electricity is the movement of tiny little gnomes.

And maybe its just a coincidence that genetics, geology, anatomy, geography, and biology all agree on the exact same progression through species. maybe is a coincidence that the circulatory system, nervous system, and skeletal system all have a predictable evolution through the animal kingdom that matches time lines based on several different methods of radiological dating, as well as genetics. Maybe its all just a coincidence that we have a progression of skeletons from chimp to human, from austrolipithicus, to homo hablius, to homo erectus, to hamo sapiens.

I guess those arent real things though....at least if your a creationist.

I was not aware there was a complete skeleton from a neanderthal man. Have they just discovered one? Pieces found all over the world from different animals put together to fullfill some scientist vision does not count as "fact".

 

[logical4u]

Jesus christ your fucking stupid. Learn what a theory is and then come back here

I hate that people seem to think the progression goes hypothesis > theory> law. no, it does not. Theories will remain theories until the end of time. They are totally distinct from laws. Laws are simply observations, theories explain those observations. For example: Newtonian gravity was a law, only a simple observation. Einstiens gravity was a theory that explained where gravity came from and provided a more precise measurement.

One is an observation, one is an explanation. Therefore theories will only be theories, never anything more. They simply become theories that have stood the test of time and stood continual examination. The idea that the basic unit of life is a cell is just a theory. As is the idea that elements are created by specific atoms. They cant ever be proved 100% true, only less likely to be false, only more valid.

To say evolution is just a theory is a pointless statement, used by the ignorant, that makes absolutely no sense.

So kindly explain why it's called the theory of evolution?

Who's stupid here? You're the one who keeps arguing to points that have never been made.

Its called the theory of evolution because its an explanation of an observation not because its an untested thought experiment. Anyone whose point hinges on "evolution is just a theory" is a fucking idiot.

How about you tell my why its called "the theory of electricity". Just because its called a theory doesnt mean we dont know what electricity is.

Explain electricity, since "we" know what it is?

 

[logical4u]

yea we should stop teaching theories in school...

lets stop teaching cellular theory, the theory of electricity, the theory of gravity, atomic theory, lets stop teaching it all. Maybe electricity is the movement of tiny little gnomes.

And maybe its just a coincidence that genetics, geology, anatomy, geography, and biology all agree on the exact same progression through species. maybe is a coincidence that the circulatory system, nervous system, and skeletal system all have a predictable evolution through the animal kingdom that matches time lines based on several different methods of radiological dating, as well as genetics. Maybe its all just a coincidence that we have a progression of skeletons from chimp to human, from austrolipithicus, to homo hablius, to homo erectus, to hamo sapiens.

I guess those arent real things though....at least if your a creationist.

You had me until the last sentence.


Most creationists don't deny evolution, just a very loud minority.

I guess my definition of creationist is a term used to define people that think god poofed people into existence as is out of no where. People that find a special link between life and a higher power are just religious, i dont hold them to be crazy or anything. Just the "creationists" as i described before are crazy.

So ... poof this species just changed into two or more species (common ancestor) is way more "believeable".

 

[logical4u]

God created biology, and evolution...to the extent that it exists, within each species.

So of course they are perfection, silly.

And how do the dinosaurs fit into your cool little fantasy....?

That topic is for those that have the strength to deal with evil, not to be casually discussed with people that deny evil exists.

 

[logical4u]

Some of the creationists believe they can disbelieve facts based on their faith. Works at their church but not in the real world.

Have you listened to the democrats speak? It is all about their beliefs and based on their faith. It has nothing to do with "facts".

 

[logical4u]

Hey JS..there's a Mexican wolf, too!

This is more likely to put in an appearance in Texas than the Maned Wolf...

Mexican Gray Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi)

"Mexican wolves are native to western Texas, southern New Mexico, southeastern Arizona and Mexico. However, there are no known Mexican wolves in the wild today."

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Genus: Canis
Species: lupus
Subspecies: baileyi

Height: 26 - 32 inches
Length: 54 - 65 inches
Weight: 50 - 90 lbs
Gestation: 63 days
Offspring: 4 - 6

Whats your point? Congrats on providing the stats for a subspecies of the lupus species. What does that prove? That example is variation within species, no one is arguing that. Of course variation within species exists thats a simple concept. Im trying to prove to you that animals that are not within the same species, are none the less undeniably related.

Are those three Jackal species i posted last page related at all? What about those three hominid skulls i linked to? What do you make of those?

There is not enough evidence with your "skulls". They have not found complete skeletons for most of these sites. The evidence is "filled in" with the scientists "beliefs of what the thing looked like". Could there be any other explanations (disease, famine, poison/disfigurement)? These are not considered or even mentioned. Because scientists have found a few skulls that are different, they are telling us that the species was different species long ago. Theoretically, if that was so, there would be many more skeletons (especially, since men tend to honor/bury their dead).

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some of the creationists believe they can disbelieve facts based on their faith. Works at their church but not in the real world.

Have you listened to the democrats speak? It is all about their beliefs and based on their faith. It has nothing to do with "facts".

Not all Pubs and not all Dems act stupidly like that, logical4u. That is who we should reaching out to, not the wack jobs.

 

[logical4u]

I have never held the bible up as a scientific document. It's complex, ancient, and has all the missed nuances and context that are to be expected from an ancient document in which many of the words may or may not be what we read them as...

Uhhhh, then how can you have so much faith in the accuracy of the stories the Bible tells if you're not confident in how the book has been translated and edited?

You don't try to comprehend the Bible by trying to decipher each word and the many possibilities of the word. You pray for understanding and try to understand the meaning behind the story/lesson. The Bible is not a science book, but there are many facts that are in the Bible. It is a book of spiritual growth and answers for those that are searching. It is a beginning to finding the truth. The Lord is the truth. The Bible does not claim that two and two make four. It tells you where we originated, and of our spiritual and moral struggle. If you want direction, it is there.
If you want two and two, there are math books, but it will not tell you that it is possible to get "rational numbers" from "imaginary numbers".

Creationists and evolutionists are arguing over "imaginary". One believes there was a Creator that gave us the ability to reason. The other believes there was an unintelligent ancestor that had babies that gave us the technology of today. There is no way to "rationally prove" either. Both are based, soley, on belief.

 

[logical4u]

And so you would argue that not all members of the Family Canidae are related, only the small groups of animals that are the same species are related? Animals that are within the same genus, but not within the same species, arent related?

Are you serious?

Are you saying that people are different species?