Creationists suffer another legal defeat

[JakeStarkey]

One does not need negative exclusionary proof to deny a positive. In other words, he doesn't need to prove god doesn't exist to believe it, so much as have no supporting evidence that god does exist. Similarly, I don't need to prove pigs don't fly to believe it. I can just base that conclusion on the fact that there is no supporting evidence that they don't fly.

Since you cannot empirically prove that God does not exist, then you must exercise faith that God does not exist.

You are entitled to your own opinions, atheists, but not your own reality and your own definitions.

You are bound by the rules of logic like all of us.

 

[JakeStarkey]

science has trotted out some pretty good theories about what happened AFTER the big bang but it can't explain how things started. likewise evolution is pretty good at explaining some things about how life forms change but is totally insufficient to account for the first spark of life.

there is lots of room for the mystic, and there always will be.

Evolution never claims to account for the start of anything.
You know, EVOLVED.

But the fact that life cannot come from nothing deals a big punch to the stomach of the concept of everything evolving from a single cell that grew on the back side of a rock. If you cannot get life to start then there is only one alternative which explains the origin of life and that is the Bible. I'm not saying that this is the reason that the Biblical account is true. I am just stating that it is a serious difficulty with macro-evolution and the reason they so desperately try to ignore the beginning of life and belittle the Bible. Because they have no answer.

Nonsense. Many theories deal with the creation of living organisms. The Bible is one of them, but it is based on faith not scientific evidence. You are entitled to your belief, The Light, but not to your own reality and your own definitions. Please think this through.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yet JB and others have the problem you can't disprove the existence of God.

It's factual that it takes as much or more faith to be an atheist as a true believer.

Once again I have to post against this ignorant drivel as you attempt to label atheists with your world view. IT TAKES NO FAITH TO BE AN ATHEIST. As an atheist, I do NOT assert that god is impossible or cannot exist the same way a theist exerts that god MUST exist. I believe that god does not exists based simply on the fact that there is no evidence that shows me god exists or is even remotely necessary. Should that evidence or event occur then I will gladly accept that god exists. There are atheists that will come out and affirm that god is not possible and you can correctly claim they are taking a position of faith but that does not make all atheists people of faith. There are fundamental differences between atheists and those of the various theisms out there.

Of course it does. You can't prove that God does not exist; ergo, . . . can you hear me now? Good.

Absolutely inaccurate. The light actually posted why this is a logical fallacy. The burden of proof for existence is on the one that purposes said existence. To take it the other way would mean that everything exists. The flying spaghetti monster that requires you to perform a rain dance around a bonfire each night to prevent you from going to hell would also be true yet you dismiss this fallacy completely. The fact is there is no evidence for this supposed creature so you recognize that it likely does not exist and therefore will not structure your life around it. I am sure that you have reason for god in your own life and that is where you draw your faith from but I have no such need or purpose for god in mine and will continue to not believe until I have seen some evidence. My atheism is not a faith, your theism is. I do not make any assertions at all, just state that the lack of evidence is reason to not believe in the existence of god. There may well be a god but at this point there is no reason for me to have any faith that there is. You on the other hand do have faith as you make an assertion that god does exist without any proof. That is the basis of faith.

 

[FA_Q2]

science has trotted out some pretty good theories about what happened AFTER the big bang but it can't explain how things started. likewise evolution is pretty good at explaining some things about how life forms change but is totally insufficient to account for the first spark of life.

there is lots of room for the mystic, and there always will be.

Evolution never claims to account for the start of anything.
You know, EVOLVED.

But the fact that life cannot come from nothing deals a big punch to the stomach of the concept of everything evolving from a single cell that grew on the back side of a rock. If you cannot get life to start then there is only one alternative which explains the origin of life and that is the Bible. I'm not saying that this is the reason that the Biblical account is true. I am just stating that it is a serious difficulty with macro-evolution and the reason they so desperately try to ignore the beginning of life and belittle the Bible. Because they have no answer.

No, it deals no such punch anywhere because evolution does not suppose where that cell comes from in the first place. Only those literalists like you that cannot understand that god may not have laid out the world in 6000 years, that six days may not actually refer to six twenty four hour periods and that god may have used a more complicated process that he did not feel the need to completely explain rather than blowing on dust and making us. The real issue here is that evolution does not refute ID. It cannot as ID is a faith based belief and evolution is a science based one. No one is 'desperately trying to ignore' anything. Science makes no qualms whatsoever with using the term 'I don't know.' It is quite common in science to say so and is actually a good thing. Only faith based solutions claim to have an end all answer. Science never has a complete answer, there is ALWAYS more to explore and there is always the possibility that tomorrow will bring more information to light that may refute the commonly held beliefs to replace them with a better more complete answer. That is the beauty in science, it is a path of discovery, not an end.

 

[THE LIGHT]

You continually state I am ignoring questions in your usual fashion, and as usual you don't actually point out what those questions are. Vague references might work in your world of blind stupidity, but here in the real world you need to specify things a bit more.

How much more would you like me to specify it than restating the question as I have done multiple times? Is it that you don't understand sentences with a question mark at the end? Are those part of the mystic too?

You continue to compare my knowledge of the sun to a neanderthal explanation.

Again, I know you are trying to use the term "Neanderthal" to differentiate between you and what you consider to be a less intelligent life form, however, I hope you don't actually believe that there ever was such a thing as a Neanderthal or we have bigger problems to deal with.

You are trying to draw a parallel between me and a sun worshiper, yet nothing could be further from the truth. The Bible is full of situations in which G-d fearing people spoke out against sun worshipers. So Sun worshiping is 180 degrees opposite to the concept of the G-d of the Bible. The Bible even goes as far as to say that those who reject G-d go forth to worship the creation more than the creator (Rom 1). You are no different than that man worshiping the sun. You are both sitting around thinking that the things that you can see are what made you.

I am not seeking a conclusion that shows "anything but god", I am seeking a conclusion based on evidence, REGARDLESS of where that evidence leads.

Evidence doesn't tell you the answer. You find a bone in the ground and say wow!... 42 biiiiillion years old. I look at the same bone in the ground and say wow, the flood really happened as the Bible said it did. I look at the Grand Canyon and say look a flood. You look at it and say look 500 biiiillion years of a trickling stream. I say look that cow is giving birth to a calf. You say wow!... I wonder how fast that calf was running when it hit the rear end of that cow.

You approach all of these things with a world view of "anything but G-d" while I approach them from "look what G-d did."

But you see my explanation turns out to be not-magic, whereas yours continually leaves you in ignorance assuming it's divine because you don't understand it. Yes, this is the basis of creationism. See "irreducible complexity" as strong supporting evidence.

No, actually, my answer has nothing to do with magic or ignorance. I observe the same facts that you do, but just come up with a different conclusion. A world wide flood has nothing to do with magic. Water is a physical substance, is it not? On the other hand your conjectures of a big bang theory are no different than Dorothy clicking her heels together.

Evidence. That word again. Once again I point out that you only rely on "testimony" as the ultimate proof, as if people don't readily lie every single day.

Yet if we took your idea that people lie every day so therefore testimony is useless then we wouldn't have a court system.

I on the other hand need no such testimony. It can be helpful at times, but the ultimate truth is reproducible, regardless of who is testifying to it.

Which the big bang is not reproducible. Which man evolving from apes is not. Which life forming out of nothing is not. etc.

You can't say the same about your knowledge. Because at the end of the day, if you walk outside your house to see your car has a huge dent in it, I don't need testimony to understand something physically hit it.

But you do. Because you are relying on your own testimony (of knowing from experience of how dents are made) to come to your conclusion. So YES you do rely on testimony. Were you there when the earth was created?

...I didn't think so.

That's called evidence. Similarly, I don't need testimony of what the sun is to study it.

Wow, so you have never read a book in your life. You have come to all of these conclusions on your own. You are a genius. I mean, most logical people will pick up a book and read what others have researched. After all, that is what school is all about. But you, NO, wow. I am simply impressed.

I know it's not a god, and so do you. The point is NOT "but who made it?". The point is that the sun itself is not god. We have completely debunked that idea, and so generally people don't worship the sun any more.

Yes, the point IS "where did the sun come from."

The idea of sun worship was completely debunked back in the times of the Bible but people were worshiping it regardless. People are still worshiping the sun today in just a slightly different way.

So, what points am I dodging now?

Whichever ones you so choose.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Evolution never claims to account for the start of anything.
You know, EVOLVED.

But the fact that life cannot come from nothing deals a big punch to the stomach of the concept of everything evolving from a single cell that grew on the back side of a rock. If you cannot get life to start then there is only one alternative which explains the origin of life and that is the Bible. I'm not saying that this is the reason that the Biblical account is true. I am just stating that it is a serious difficulty with macro-evolution and the reason they so desperately try to ignore the beginning of life and belittle the Bible. Because they have no answer.

Nonsense. Many theories deal with the creation of living organisms. The Bible is one of them, but it is based on faith not scientific evidence. You are entitled to your belief, The Light, but not to your own reality and your own definitions. Please think this through.

Please show me these many theories.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Evolution never claims to account for the start of anything.
You know, EVOLVED.

But the fact that life cannot come from nothing deals a big punch to the stomach of the concept of everything evolving from a single cell that grew on the back side of a rock. If you cannot get life to start then there is only one alternative which explains the origin of life and that is the Bible. I'm not saying that this is the reason that the Biblical account is true. I am just stating that it is a serious difficulty with macro-evolution and the reason they so desperately try to ignore the beginning of life and belittle the Bible. Because they have no answer.

No, it deals no such punch anywhere because evolution does not suppose where that cell comes from in the first place. Only those literalists like you that cannot understand that god may not have laid out the world in 6000 years, that six days may not actually refer to six twenty four hour periods and that god may have used a more complicated process that he did not feel the need to completely explain rather than blowing on dust and making us. The real issue here is that evolution does not refute ID. It cannot as ID is a faith based belief and evolution is a science based one. No one is 'desperately trying to ignore' anything. Science makes no qualms whatsoever with using the term 'I don't know.' It is quite common in science to say so and is actually a good thing. Only faith based solutions claim to have an end all answer. Science never has a complete answer, there is ALWAYS more to explore and there is always the possibility that tomorrow will bring more information to light that may refute the commonly held beliefs to replace them with a better more complete answer. That is the beauty in science, it is a path of discovery, not an end.

Yes, your idea of science has no problem with using the term "I don't know." It goes as follows every time. I know how life came about but I KNOW it wasn't G-d. Why do you KNOW it isn't G-d? because the idea of G-d punches a hole in your theory.

 

[FA_Q2]

But the fact that life cannot come from nothing deals a big punch to the stomach of the concept of everything evolving from a single cell that grew on the back side of a rock. If you cannot get life to start then there is only one alternative which explains the origin of life and that is the Bible. I'm not saying that this is the reason that the Biblical account is true. I am just stating that it is a serious difficulty with macro-evolution and the reason they so desperately try to ignore the beginning of life and belittle the Bible. Because they have no answer.

No, it deals no such punch anywhere because evolution does not suppose where that cell comes from in the first place. Only those literalists like you that cannot understand that god may not have laid out the world in 6000 years, that six days may not actually refer to six twenty four hour periods and that god may have used a more complicated process that he did not feel the need to completely explain rather than blowing on dust and making us. The real issue here is that evolution does not refute ID. It cannot as ID is a faith based belief and evolution is a science based one. No one is 'desperately trying to ignore' anything. Science makes no qualms whatsoever with using the term 'I don't know.' It is quite common in science to say so and is actually a good thing. Only faith based solutions claim to have an end all answer. Science never has a complete answer, there is ALWAYS more to explore and there is always the possibility that tomorrow will bring more information to light that may refute the commonly held beliefs to replace them with a better more complete answer. That is the beauty in science, it is a path of discovery, not an end.

Yes, your idea of science has no problem with using the term "I don't know." It goes as follows every time. I know how life came about but I KNOW it wasn't G-d. Why do you KNOW it isn't G-d? because the idea of G-d punches a hole in your theory.

Where does science ever say that? It NEVER makes that conclusion. That is your own bias. Science, instead, attempts to explain the processes that are used. If you want to believe that god had a hand in it then so be it. Science just lets you know the process that has occurred. YOU paint the picture that science claims there cannot be a god. Science will never disprove or prove god, that is for the realm of faith.

 

[FA_Q2]

The Light
Evidence doesn't tell you the answer. You find a bone in the ground and say wow!... 42 biiiiillion years old. I look at the same bone in the ground and say wow, the flood really happened as the Bible said it did. I look at the Grand Canyon and say look a flood. You look at it and say look 500 biiiillion years of a trickling stream. I say look that cow is giving birth to a calf. You say wow!... I wonder how fast that calf was running when it hit the rear end of that cow.

You approach all of these things with a world view of "anything but G-d" while I approach them from "look what G-d did."

Again, you completely miss characterize science. You approach evidence with preconceived notions and draw conclusions based on what you claim to already know without a modicum of evidence while true science approaches a subject without those preconceived notions. Scientists see a bone in the ground and wonder from whence it came because there are no longer any of its kind. Using OBSERVED constants and known physical occurrences the bone is dated to a far earlier time. You see a bone in the ground and simply force it into your preconceived notions because, after all, the bible already told you the answer. The problem is that you have failed to correctly understand the bible in the first place. God is quite a bit smarter than you are and had to jam quite a bit of information into that book with a very limited technological writer. I would give him far more credit than you seem to be able too. Here is a song that I believe describes this quite eloquently originally posted by Old Rocks:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-vDhYTlCNw&feature=related]YouTube - The Words of God[/ame]
You can approach things and say look what god did all you want. What you are failing to understand is that science is looking at HOW they happened. God can still be the creator and determining force but to push aside the fact that if god did create the universe he created rules that it must follow and created it with a system and course. The universe did not simply pop into existence as it is today as all evidence shows the opposite happened. What is the problem with god creating the universe they way god wanted to create it. Why must you continually put god in that small box.

 

[Hister]

The bible has to be right otherwise the support of conservative christians/creationists for Israel is all for nothing because that means that the end of times will not be coming and they're not going to be plucked from earth by god to go live in man-heaven. The bible as a historical road map is the mother of all epic fails.
And btw, scientists are working on recreating primordial life in a lab. What do you say when they make it happen?

 

[AllieBaba]

The bible has to be right otherwise the support of conservative christians/creationists for Israel is all for nothing because that means that the end of times will not be coming and they're not going to be plucked from earth by god to go live in man-heaven. The bible as a historical road map is the mother of all epic fails.
And btw, scientists are working on recreating primordial life in a lab. What do you say when they make it happen?

They won't.
What do you say when Christ returns and levels the world?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Come on Allie.

 

[FA_Q2]

The bible has to be right otherwise the support of conservative christians/creationists for Israel is all for nothing because that means that the end of times will not be coming and they're not going to be plucked from earth by god to go live in man-heaven. The bible as a historical road map is the mother of all epic fails.
And btw, scientists are working on recreating primordial life in a lab. What do you say when they make it happen?

So, we only support Israel due to religious reasons? There is no other value in that relationship? I rather have Israel over there getting blown up than have Israel finished off so the terrorism can switch to our homeland as the new target.

 

[FA_Q2]

The bible has to be right otherwise the support of conservative christians/creationists for Israel is all for nothing because that means that the end of times will not be coming and they're not going to be plucked from earth by god to go live in man-heaven. The bible as a historical road map is the mother of all epic fails.
And btw, scientists are working on recreating primordial life in a lab. What do you say when they make it happen?

They won't.
What do you say when Christ returns and levels the world?

They will allie, it is going to happen. Have you no responce for when it does? Is your faith on that weak of a footing?

If Jesus comes again and levels the world? Well, I will immediately begin worshiping the Christian god since my need for evidence will be satisfied. I rather doubt it will happen but if it does I will be one of the first converts. Until then, here we sit.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Which you can say for pigs because they dwell in the same dimensionality as you but the same cannot be said for G-d.

Dimensionality. Do me a favor and look that up in a dictionary and tell me what you find.

Mr. and Mrs. flat don't see you so you don't exist?

And this essentially always comes back to the best logic you can provide: everything based on what you see. I'll come back to this later in my next post. But the fact remains that it is all effects that an object has on the world that determines its existence, not just visibility.

Besides, we are talking about existence and not flying here. Existence must be proven in either direction.

False. Existence can NEVER be disproven. Ever. The idea that you think otherwise is foolish. The conclusion "absolutely no proof has been shown that something exists" can be accurate, and still not "prove" the object doesn't exist. It just states that there is no proof to the contrary.

But the fact that life cannot come from nothing deals a big punch to the stomach of the concept of everything evolving from a single cell

Well no. Not at all. Regardless of whether life came from god, space aliens, magic, or magical ghost vomit does not in any way affect evolution. The purpose of evolution is not to answer where life began. Evolution simply explains the journey since the start. Let me dumb this down for you: your insurance company doesn't care where you bought your car, they just care how it got to be a broken crumpled mess. It's the process, not the start, that evolution explains.

But once again you bring things back to the normal creationist stupidity of "I don't understand something so therefore it's all magic".

Since you cannot empirically prove that God does not exist, then you must exercise faith that God does not exist.

False. Since no one can show any proof that god exists, the ONLY conclusion that can be drawn is "god has not been shown to exist". Now here's the kicker: what's the difference between something that doesn't exist, and something that has absolutely no effect on its environment in any way? Answer: NOTHING.

Try this little thought experiment. Right now, there's a magic fairy sitting on your shoulder. "You cannot empirically prove that the fairy does not exist". Are you exercising FAITH that the fairy isn't on your shoulder? You tell me.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You continually state I am ignoring questions in your usual fashion, and as usual you don't actually point out what those questions are. Vague references might work in your world of blind stupidity, but here in the real world you need to specify things a bit more.

How much more would you like me to specify it than restating the question as I have done multiple times? Is it that you don't understand sentences with a question mark at the end? Are those part of the mystic too?

You don't even need to restate the question. You can copy it verbatim if you like. But this is the lame cop out you use anytime I logically pound you: claim I'm ignoring some invisible question you never actually asked, and then make vague references to it. If you have a question you'd like me to answer that I overlooked, just point it out again instead of spending 3 posts whining about it. But let's face it: such things aren't the case, and you're just using this as misdirection. It's like you fail while trying to get out of failing.

Again, I know you are trying to use the term "Neanderthal" to differentiate between you and what you consider to be a less intelligent life form, however, I hope you don't actually believe that there ever was such a thing as a Neanderthal or we have bigger problems to deal with.

Actual curiosity: do you believe the bones we discovered which I call "neanderthal" was a weird human creature, or some other animal?

You are trying to draw a parallel between me and a sun worshiper

Yes. You're catching on now! So what's the difference? The sun worshipers saw something they didn't understand, and claimed it was a sign of the divine, or a god. You similarly see things you don't understand, and claim it is a sign of the divine. Now it's true that your religion got smart enough to stop attributing physical objects as god, but what is the difference if you still assign anything you don't understand as divine? Nature is beautiful and so that's proof of the divine? The universe is large and that's proof of the divine? Anything you don't understand is "proof" to you.

So older cultures used the sun, or fire, or lightening as their object of ignorance in which to see the divine, and you use concepts like a large universe and "irreducible complexity". So again I ask, as if I expect an actual answer: what is the difference?

Evidence doesn't tell you the answer. You find a bone in the ground and say wow!... 42 biiiiillion years old. I look at the same bone in the ground and say wow, the flood really happened as the Bible said it did.

No, actually, my answer has nothing to do with magic or ignorance. I observe the same facts that you do, but just come up with a different conclusion.

And once again you exhibit a prime ignorant example of how you compare the two conclusions as a matter of simply differing opinions. FALSE! You look at a bone and say a flood happened. What proof does the bone show you a flood happened? Because it was buried deep? Anything else? Are there no other explanations for why a bone would be buried deep? Well of course, but you pick on that particular explanation regardless of all other evidence.

Now let's look at how I would view the same situation. The bone is found, radiometric analysis is performed based on how we know atoms decay to produce a standardized, reproducible manner of dating the bone. That is then compared to three other methods of dating, all of which come to the same conclusion based on independent calibrations. We then scrape a bit of the preserved marrow from the bone and begin genetic analysis, to trace the similarities to humans today. We count the differences and compare them to our closest genetic relatives. All evidence points to the same conclusion.

So let's put the evidence on the scales.
You: bone is found, and because it's deep, it proves the bible
Me: bone is found, all radiometric and genetic analysis points to the same conclusion
These are not equal but different conclusions. One is superior based on tremendous evidence, while the other is ignorant whim based on unsupported belief.

On the other hand your conjectures of a big bang theory are no different than Dorothy clicking her heels together.

Do you understand why the big bang theory is the best explanation we have? I'd love to hear your knowledge on the topic. What do you know of the theory?

Yet if we took your idea that people lie every day so therefore testimony is useless then we wouldn't have a court system.

THE REASON WE HAVE A COURT SYSTEM IS BECAUSE PEOPLE LIE YOU DUMB HICK.

If everyone told the truth in their testimony, there would be no reason for a court system. Think about that one again.

Which the big bang is not reproducible. Which man evolving from apes is not. Which life forming out of nothing is not. etc.

These things are not reproducible. You are correct there. The fact that you point to them as needing to be reproducible once again shows your stupidity when it comes to common basic science terms. Reproducibility refers to the experiments examining an object or event, which itself need not be reproducible.

Let me dumb things down for you. Again. You come home to find a large broken tree branch on top of your car, which has a large dent on top of it. The car is parked under a large tree, and a branch stump is visible directly above the car. Conclusion: the branch broke and fell onto your car, damaging it. Do we need to REPRODUCE the event to come to that conclusion? Or can we simply observe the facts at hand to come to the most likely answer? So you call up your insurance company, and they don't believe your "testimony", so they send someone out to see it. The person records the same facts as described above, thus reproducing the facts of the case, and independently coming to the same conclusion.

Could someone trying to cheat the insurance company have set up this scene to screw the reproducibility? Of course. But that seems to be the only explanation for why all things pointing to evolution aren't real: because it is "as if" god purposely is trying to deceive everyone. Now you don't even believe the logical conclusion based on the evidence you don't understand to begin with, so I doubt you would entertain the idea that it is a valid conclusion but just placed there by god to deceive people.

You can't say the same about your knowledge. Because at the end of the day, if you walk outside your house to see your car has a huge dent in it, I don't need testimony to understand something physically hit it.

But you do. Because you are relying on your own testimony (of knowing from experience of how dents are made) to come to your conclusion. Were you there when the earth was created?

...I didn't think so.

Knowing from experience how dents are made? How did you gain this knowledge? You mean by observing reproducible evidence and drawing logical conclusions? Careful now: that sounds like scientific evidence based exploration to me. But I am not relying on my own testimony for the car to have been hit by something. I can rely on the evidence based reasoning of anyone else as well. If you disagree, please state what other conclusions can be drawn aside from "something hit the car". I'd love to hear your theories.

Were you there when the car was hit? I didn't think so. And yet you still know something hit it. You don't need to be there, and you don't need testimony. You just need reproducible evidence to come to a logical conclusion.

That's called evidence. Similarly, I don't need testimony of what the sun is to study it.

Wow, so you have never read a book in your life. You have come to all of these conclusions on your own. You are a genius. I mean, most logical people will pick up a book and read what others have researched. After all, that is what school is all about. But you, NO, wow. I am simply impressed.

Apparently you have never read ENGLISH in your life. I recommend you read my above quote again. Notice how it states I don't need TESTIMONY to STUDY something. Put another way: if all books across the world disappeared, along with all current knowledge, then Christianity would completely disappear off the face of the earth, and science will still be retained. Gaining knowledge from studying evidence could be recovered. If all knowledge of the sun was wiped from the planet, we could just repeat the original experiments and regain the knowledge again. Testimony is NOT needed to STUDY something.

Once again you show a complete ignorance on the idea of gaining new knowledge. Your idea of "new knowledge" is "something I haven't learned before, but is already out there in the world that someone else can tell me".

I know it's not a god, and so do you. The point is NOT "but who made it?". The point is that the sun itself is not god. We have completely debunked that idea, and so generally people don't worship the sun any more.

Yes, the point IS "where did the sun come from."

Why is that the point? Does the origin tell us how it works? Does it enhance our understanding of how the sun affects us in any way? If the sun was made by aliens or god, does it change ANYTHING about what it is right now?

But does knowledge of how it works change anything?

So, what points am I dodging now?

Whichever ones you so choose.

[/quote]
So, once again there are no dodged points, and you make vague references to things that don't exist. And you wonder why the intelligent people in this country look at people like you as useless?

Yes, your idea of science has no problem with using the term "I don't know." It goes as follows every time. I know how life came about but I KNOW it wasn't G-d. Why do you KNOW it isn't G-d? because the idea of G-d punches a hole in your theory.

False. Science in no way has stated that. Once again you show your complete lack of knowledge of what science actually is, or the ideas behind it. Science draws its conclusions based on evidence, and those conclusions are not limited by ANYTHING, including the possibility of divine existence. Faith on the other hand is ignoring all evidence so that belief can be preserved. So once again: science changes to any conclusion based on the evidence, without restriction, and faith cannot ever change its conclusion based on pre-concieved restrictions.

You essentially just stated the shortcomings of YOUR side of the story, not mine. Why do you believe evolution is false? Because it punches a whole in your idea. You have absolutely no other reason. Why do I believe it's not God? Because all evidence points to a different and more comprehensive conclusion and explanation.

 

[Hister]

The bible has to be right otherwise the support of conservative christians/creationists for Israel is all for nothing because that means that the end of times will not be coming and they're not going to be plucked from earth by god to go live in man-heaven. The bible as a historical road map is the mother of all epic fails.
And btw, scientists are working on recreating primordial life in a lab. What do you say when they make it happen?

So, we only support Israel due to religious reasons? There is no other value in that relationship? I rather have Israel over there getting blown up than have Israel finished off so the terrorism can switch to our homeland as the new target.

The reason you had 9/11 was because of your support for Israel, it's amazing how many people don't make the obvious connection. Otherwise, why'd they do it?
Want to stop muslim terrorists attack on the US and its embassies...? Stop supporting Israel and get your armies out of the middles east. Quite simple really. But it won't happen because of 2 things: a very powerful American Jewish lobby and the end of times christian conservative wish.

Allie obviously will be gob-smacked when they recreate life in a test tube.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Dimensionality. Do me a favor and look that up in a dictionary and tell me what you find.

Did that page fall out of your dictionary?

And this essentially always comes back to the best logic you can provide: everything based on what you see. I'll come back to this later in my next post. But the fact remains that it is all effects that an object has on the world that determines its existence, not just visibility.

Yeah, that was the logic I though you atheists fell head over heals for and now you are belittleing me for using your logic. Make up you mind. You goin' mystic on me?

False. Existence can NEVER be disproven. Ever. The idea that you think otherwise is foolish. The conclusion "absolutely no proof has been shown that something exists" can be accurate, and still not "prove" the object doesn't exist. It just states that there is no proof to the contrary.

False. Existence CAN be disproven. I can easily disprove that I have a billion dollars in my bank account. I can easily disprove that there are any pigs in a barn as I already gave you the example of and you so conveniently ignored.

Well no. Not at all. Regardless of whether life came from god, space aliens, magic, or magical ghost vomit does not in any way affect evolution. The purpose of evolution is not to answer where life began. Evolution simply explains the journey since the start. Let me dumb this down for you: your insurance company doesn't care where you bought your car, they just care how it got to be a broken crumpled mess. It's the process, not the start, that evolution explains.

False. Evolution may defined as change over time but ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS gets used to state that everything evolved from a single cell. Of course the ignore the fact that life cannot come from nothing. So there is a HUGE problem there to start with so they chuck it out the door so that their theory doesn't look so silly.

But once again you bring things back to the normal creationist stupidity of "I don't understand something so therefore it's all magic".

NO, that is your repeated mantra but has nothing to do with the way creationists work. I attribute the facts to creation because that is what I OBSERVE. Machines don't evolve from nothing nor does a car turn into an airplane with a bunch of sun added to it. You have never OBSERVED life coming from nothing nor apes turn into humans, yet because of your ignorance in the matter you choose to believe that humans came from apes just because they look the same. That reminds me of something.

Sun worship. Because the sun looks terrible and frightful and mightier than I it must be god.

Try this little thought experiment. Right now, there's a magic fairy sitting on your shoulder. "You cannot empirically prove that the fairy does not exist". Are you exercising FAITH that the fairy isn't on your shoulder? You tell me.

Yes. By "believing" in the Bible I "believe" that there are no such things as Santa or magic fairies in the sense I think you are intending the term to mean.

Try this little experiment. Stick a frog in the blender and blend it up real good. Now what you have in front of you is all the necessary components of life sitting in that blender. All you need to do now is add some energy. Pulse it a couple of times maybe.. Now you have life right?

 

[rikules]

The bible has to be right otherwise the support of conservative christians/creationists for Israel is all for nothing because that means that the end of times will not be coming and they're not going to be plucked from earth by god to go live in man-heaven. The bible as a historical road map is the mother of all epic fails.
And btw, scientists are working on recreating primordial life in a lab. What do you say when they make it happen?

They won't.
What do you say when Christ returns and levels the world?

levels the world for....what?

petty offenses?

living free?

thinking for ourselves?

for these "crimes" we should all burn in hell?


if your jesus shows up and levels the world for such petty offenses I know what I would do

I would join the resistance of freedom fighters

I would call your jesus just exactly what he is; a deranged murderous facist

and I would denounce YOU as a collaborator

 

[HUGGY]

Dimensionality. Do me a favor and look that up in a dictionary and tell me what you find.

Did that page fall out of your dictionary?

And this essentially always comes back to the best logic you can provide: everything based on what you see. I'll come back to this later in my next post. But the fact remains that it is all effects that an object has on the world that determines its existence, not just visibility.

Yeah, that was the logic I though you atheists fell head over heals for and now you are belittleing me for using your logic. Make up you mind. You goin' mystic on me?




False. Existence CAN be disproven. I can easily disprove that I have a billion dollars in my bank account. I can easily disprove that there are any pigs in a barn as I already gave you the example of and you so conveniently ignored.



False. Evolution may defined as change over time but ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS gets used to state that everything evolved from a single cell. Of course the ignore the fact that life cannot come from nothing. So there is a HUGE problem there to start with so they chuck it out the door so that their theory doesn't look so silly.

But once again you bring things back to the normal creationist stupidity of "I don't understand something so therefore it's all magic".

NO, that is your repeated mantra but has nothing to do with the way creationists work. I attribute the facts to creation because that is what I OBSERVE. Machines don't evolve from nothing nor does a car turn into an airplane with a bunch of sun added to it. You have never OBSERVED life coming from nothing nor apes turn into humans, yet because of your ignorance in the matter you choose to believe that humans came from apes just because they look the same. That reminds me of something.

Sun worship. Because the sun looks terrible and frightful and mightier than I it must be god.

Try this little thought experiment. Right now, there's a magic fairy sitting on your shoulder. "You cannot empirically prove that the fairy does not exist". Are you exercising FAITH that the fairy isn't on your shoulder? You tell me.

Yes. By "believing" in the Bible I "believe" that there are no such things as Santa or magic fairies in the sense I think you are intending the term to mean.

Try this little experiment. Stick a frog in the blender and blend it up real good. Now what you have in front of you is all the necessary components of life sitting in that blender. All you need to do now is add some energy. Pulse it a couple of times maybe.. Now you have life right?

That explains more than you think....