04 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou should retract that indictment against ALL Creationists, or at least back it up with some case studies. Peer-reviewed, of course.
Then you think wrong.
Creationists have been trying to change the meaning because they know its true.
And don't like it.
This is called lying.
They do it a lot.
All Creationists lie a lot?
Bold.....
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
04 Oct 11
Originally posted by RJHindsTomtom's right, you are sidestepping the question.
What is this big proof that convinces you? It may convince me too, even
though i doubt it. If it doesn't, then, I will tell you what is wrong with it.
There are many reasons why I hold evolution to be true.
Way to many to list, and I have shown you/other creationists a bunch of them and you say not good enough, or say I am trying to redefine evolution or something else.
So I am asking, what would convince you that it is true.
If your asking for something that evolution doesn't do, then I can say that's not evolution and why.
If you ask for something that exists, I can then show it to you.
If you ask for something that is impossible then I can see that you're being unreasonable.
If you say nothing would convince you, then you are admitting that you don't care about the evidence
and that you don't care about truth, just your particular brand of faith.
Either way, it gives us a point we can move on from, rather than a continuous cycle of repetitive argument.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
04 Oct 11
Originally posted by sumydidHmmm, ok creationist preachers lie a lot.
You should retract that indictment against ALL Creationists, or at least back it up with some case studies.
All Creationists lie a lot?
Bold.....
regular believers are just duped a lot. (lying to themselves a lot)
I would highly recommend watching AronRa's you tube video series
the 15 foundational falsehoods of creationism.
Video 1 here.
Whether you agree with him or not it will give you a good idea where I am coming from.
04 Oct 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeI have already looked at some of these and all they do is mix lies with some
Hmmm, ok creationist preachers lie a lot.
regular believers are just duped a lot. (lying to themselves a lot)
I would highly recommend watching AronRa's you tube video series
the 15 foundational falsehoods of creationism.
Video 1 here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY
Whether you agree with him or not it will give you a good idea where I am coming from.
truth and results in a more believeable lie.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
04 Oct 11
Originally posted by RJHindsAccording to you.
I have already looked at some of these and all they do is mix lies with some
truth and results in a more believeable lie.
All the ones I have watched so far have been right on the money.
I would be fascinated to see what specific things he says you think are untrue.
05 Oct 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeIn the first video he says creation is a lie that relies on ignorance,
According to you.
All the ones I have watched so far have been right on the money.
I would be fascinated to see what specific things he says you think are untrue.
superstition, and magic. He also says creation prohibits critical
thinking. To support the first statement he uses distorted examples
and misrepresentations and speaks very quickly in hopes the listener
will not be able to think fast enough to caught it. The second
statement is just a complete lie. He doesn't even try to support this
lie, but quickly moves on without anymore comment on it.
05 Oct 11
Creationism, heaven, hell, the Garden, talking donkeys, parting seas, the walking dead... all these things are utterly and completely illogical and seemingly mythical and fanciful. That is, if God doesn't exist.
If God does exist, they all make perfect sense and represent just the tip of the iceberg on what can be done.
People critique Creationism and critique the bible, using science, empirical evidence; they judge based on what is known and can be proven and demonstrated beyond doubt. The invisible God simply doesn't fit into that box. Ergo, belief in God requires faith and also in my opinion, personal first hand experience.
Every argument against the "impossible" events of the bible boils down to whether or not you can swallow the idea that a Creator exists. It's just that simple.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Oct 11
Originally posted by sumydidYes, but what he was objecting to is claiming your beliefs as fact.
Creationism, heaven, hell, the Garden, talking donkeys, parting seas, the walking dead... all these things are utterly and completely illogical and seemingly mythical and fanciful. That is, if God doesn't exist.
If God does exist, they all make perfect sense and represent just the tip of the iceberg on what can be done.
People critique Creation ...[text shortened]... n to whether or not you can swallow the idea that a Creator exists. It's just that simple.
Which many preachers do every day.
If you want to believe whatever, he doesn't care.
But if you claim it as truth, or fact, or even probable.
Then you need evidence.
Which doesn't exist.
And personal first hand experience as he says, doesn't count as evidence.
05 Oct 11
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgewhat a creationist does is observe the natural world and draws inferences from it.
Yes, but what he was objecting to is claiming your beliefs as fact.
Which many preachers do every day.
If you want to believe whatever, he doesn't care.
But if you claim it as truth, or fact, or even probable.
Then you need evidence.
Which doesn't exist.
And personal first hand experience as he says, doesn't count as evidence.
This of course is not proof, merely inferences. Can you deny that there is harmony
within living things, functions and processes which are harmonious. This cannot be
denied. Is the creationist therefore justified in ascribing this harmony to a deity?
Absolutely for to him it is evidence of intelligence. The materialist cannot state that
it is not harmonious or that it does not demonstrate design or intelligence, all he
can state with any certainty is that to him, there is another agency responsible, a
materialistic one, which, if he is honest, is not empirical science, for it too relies
upon certain unobserved phenomena. What it essentially comes down to, is what is
more plausible to us personally, therefore neither the creationist nor the materialist,
should be chastised for their respective belief, but then again, if that was the case,
there would be nothing to argue about and it would be dull.
05 Oct 11
Originally posted by sumydidActually it boils down to whether or not a creator exists that goes to great lengths to hide his activity from non-believers - even to the extent of hiding from scientific instruments wielded by believers as this could lead to non-believers getting hold of the data.
Every argument against the "impossible" events of the bible boils down to whether or not you can swallow the idea that a Creator exists. It's just that simple.
The only record this creator ever leaves, is in non-scientific sources such as the Bible.
If he was open and honest about his activity, you wouldn't be using the label 'impossible'. By using that label you are in fact acknowledging that no scientific instrument or theory has ever found evidence for such activity.
So you know and admit that the universe follows certain well defined rules whenever non-believers are looking.
05 Oct 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadHow about the evidence of the empty tomb of Christ, the burial cloth and
Actually it boils down to whether or not a creator exists that goes to great lengths to hide his activity from non-believers - even to the extent of hiding from scientific instruments wielded by believers as this could lead to non-believers getting hold of the data.
The only record this creator ever leaves, is in non-scientific sources such as the Bible. ...[text shortened]... dmit that the universe follows certain well defined rules whenever non-believers are looking.
the face-cloth of Christ, and Noah's Arc?
http://www.israeljerusalem.com/empty-tomb-jesus.htm
http://www.shroudstory.com/
http://www.frtommylane.com/homilies/pilgrimage/sudarium.htm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100428-noahs-ark-found-in-turkey-science-religion-culture/
05 Oct 11
Originally posted by RJHindshave you even read the links you gave?
How about the evidence of the empty tomb of Christ, the burial cloth and
the face-cloth of Christ, and Noah's Arc?
http://www.israeljerusalem.com/empty-tomb-jesus.htm
http://www.shroudstory.com/
http://www.frtommylane.com/homilies/pilgrimage/sudarium.htm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100428-noahs-ark-found-in-turkey-science-religion-culture/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100428-noahs-ark-found-in-turkey-science-religion-culture/
certainly DOES NOT prove existance of the Ark - in fact it is rather scornful of the notion.
05 Oct 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou wrote, "The only record this creator ever leaves, is in non-scientific
What about them? How do they not all fit perfectly with what I said?
sources such as the Bible." I was just pointing out that there is sources
that the scientist can examine that the Creator God has left. Archeologist
have discovered many things talked about in the Holy Bible that they can
examine, like the location of Sodom and Gomorrah, the ruins of Babylon
in Irag, and Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia where God gave Moses the ten
commandments
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/mt__sinai_found.htm
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Oct 11
Originally posted by RJHindsThe existence of the mountain, doesn't prove that on the mountain Moses was spoken to
You wrote, "The only record this creator ever leaves, is in non-scientific
sources such as the Bible." I was just pointing out that there is sources
that the scientist can examine that the Creator God has left. Archeologist
have discovered many things talked about in the Holy Bible that they can
examine, like the location of Sodom and Gomorrah, the rui ...[text shortened]... where God gave Moses the ten
commandments
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/mt__sinai_found.htm
by a burning bush or was given commandments by an omnipotent god.
In the same way that an ancient boat (and no they haven't found the ark) even one up a
mountain doesn't prove an impossible worldwide flood.
The Shroud of Turin is a medieval forgery, but even if it weren't, the fact that it was once wrapped around a
corpse tells you nothing about whether that corps was later resurrected.
And likewise the empty tomb.
None of these prove that miracles happened 2000 years ago.
The bible doesn't prove any of them either.
The fact that 'some' vague prophecies were fulfilled is recorded in the new testament.
Which was written by people who had full knowledge of what was written in the old testament.
You know this because you have been told this many times.
Yet you still claim what you know fails to meet the standard of evidence let alone proof, as proof.
This is either self delusional, or dishonest, behaviour.
Either way you know such evidence is always going to be rejected,
and with sound rational grounds for doing so.