Carson on "creationism"

[Luddly Neddite]

Ben Carson argues that creationism makes more sense because non-believers 'can't tell me where anything came from'

• Ben Carson doubled down on creationism while giving a sermon in Nashville, according to a video that was accidentally released
• The candidate suggested that some scientific theories require 'a lot more faith than it takes to believe in God'
• Carson said God encouraged him to run for president and 'put together an incredible national team'

Read more: Ben Carson argues that creationism makes more sense
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



A "scientist" who doesn't believe in evolution?

That's like a welder who doesn't believe in electricity.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Creationists and Big Bang Theorists have something in common:

They're both "Beliefs".

 

[Hutch Starskey]

 

[Mad Scientist]

By the way, Creationism DOES make more sense. You should prolly make a call out thread in the bull ring just for me OP.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

By the way, Creationism DOES make more sense. You should prolly make a call out thread in the bull ring just for me OP.

No, it makes no sense at all. It relies entirely on faith. Not one ounce of logic in any of it.
Pure fantasy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Atheism is based on faith because it can't prove God does not exist.

 

[guno]

By the way, Creationism DOES make more sense. You should prolly make a call out thread in the bull ring just for me OP.

 

[Mad Scientist]

"Life came from Life."
"Life came from Nothing."

Which makes more sense?

 

[guno]

Atheism is based on faith because it can't prove God does not exist.

Still paying stupid , you cannot prove a negative

Arguments similar to, "Belief in proposition X is justified because you can't prove it's not true," are based on the premise that belief in something is justified until sufficient evidence refutes its existence (i.e. argument from ignorance). In this case, the theist is asserting that belief in God is justified even without evidence. While this view may seem reasonable to those who already accept the existence of God, this approach to belief merely represents a form of compartmentalization. If we were to broadly accept the general premise (i.e., "belief is warranted because you can't prove a negative"), we would be unable to develop any useful picture of reality because every claim would be necessarily accepted as true until it was disproved. This is a burden that is impossible to meet when dealing with supernatural claims. The theist is compartmentalizing his or her supernatural beliefs and applying standards different from those applied to other beliefs. To put it more bluntly, a rational person does not seriously claim that leprechauns or unicorns must be assumed to exist because we have not disprovedtheir existence.

Tellingly, apologists typically apply this premise only to questions pertaining to their particular religion — and not to questions pertaining to other religions. The Christian who argues, "You can't prove God doesn't exist," would almost certainly reject such an argument from a Hindu who says, "You can't prove Vishnu doesn't exist!" This compartmentalization, in which one's cherished beliefs are subjected to a special set of standards, is a form of special pleading.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Guno, we have been through this before. You fail every time. You cannot prove that God does not exist. Now go to.

 

[Mac1958]

They just hate him because he's black.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Atheism is based on faith because it can't prove God does not exist.

I don't need to prove it to be satisfied. I have faith in my understanding that it's not reasonable for a magic guy in the sky to have created us out of dirt. ( and did such a crappy job).
Our understanding of life and how it works as well as the idea that it's probably everywhere in the universe trumps the bedtime story. God needs to update his story, we are evolving beyond it.

 

[guno]

"Life came from Life."
"Life came from Nothing."

Which makes more sense?

When you educate yourself in the scientific method come back, instead of your insane christian logik and stawmen

 

[jillian]

Ben Carson argues that creationism makes more sense because non-believers 'can't tell me where anything came from'

• Ben Carson doubled down on creationism while giving a sermon in Nashville, according to a video that was accidentally released
• The candidate suggested that some scientific theories require 'a lot more faith than it takes to believe in God'
• Carson said God encouraged him to run for president and 'put together an incredible national team'

Read more: Ben Carson argues that creationism makes more sense
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



A "scientist" who doesn't believe in evolution?

That's like a welder who doesn't believe in electricity.

i think they should nominate the nutter.

it will be hysterically funny.

the thing is, i'm not certain why they haven't noticed yet that he sounds medicated.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Atheism is based on faith because it can't prove God does not exist.

I don't need to prove it to be satisfied. I have faith in my understanding that it's not reasonable for a magic guy in the sky to have created us out of dirt. ( and did such a crappy job).
Our understanding of life and how it works as well as the idea that it's probably everywhere in the universe trumps the bedtime story. God needs to update his story, we are evolving beyond it.

That is your belief, your faith, and you are welcome to it. I disagree, but I recognize that you are not going to twist yourself into conniption fits to fail in trying to prove it. Guno would do far better to follow your model then fret.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Life came from Life."
"Life came from Nothing."Which makes more sense?

When you educate yourself in the scientific method come back, instead of your insane christian logik and stawmen

The strawman is your because the scientific method cannot disprove that God exists. Stop fretting.

 

[BlackFlag]

Just as we cannot disprove the God of creation, no one can disprove that the universe isn't inside the belly of a gigantic galactic pig, or that we aren't all hooked up to the matrix, or that God isn't a flying spaghetti monster. There is equal evidence for all of those.

 

[pinqy]

"Life came from Life."
"Life came from Nothing."

Which makes more sense?

A. Life gradually came about over millions of years as different chemical combinations came about and changed.
B. A hypothetical eternal being that cannot be tested for created light without a light source and then "breathed" life, despite being incorporeal, into a pile of dust. Then removed a rib and made a genetically different counterpart.

I'll go with A.

 

[pinqy]

Just as we cannot disprove the God of creation, no one can disprove that the universe isn't inside the belly of a gigantic galactic pig, or that we aren't all hooked up to the matrix, or that God isn't a flying spaghetti monster. There is equal evidence for all of those.

It's turtles all the way down.

 

[rightwinger]

Creationists and Big Bang Theorists have something in common:

They're both "Beliefs".

How profound

One a belief based on scientific evidence, the other a belief based on faith