Creationists

[Hollie]

Would you be talking about the public prayer done in Congress before they start their business? So are you saying the House of Representatives is still a church??

Historical Revisionism is obviously working because the shocking ignorance of our government displayed on this website.

Daws, here's a little bad form for you. Ha!!!

Kentucky Pastor Delivers Congressional Prayer - YouTube

Free speech. What don't you understand regarding that topic?

Holly, your reading comprehension skills suck!!! I was responding to Daws comment that public prayer was only appropriate for church. Guess you must have missed that, along with just about every other post you mindlessly respond to.

You poor, dear.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Hollie, do you understand the difference between having a religious faith, and not forcing that religion on any one else? The constitution was penned by men of faith, who wanted to make sure that in this new nation no one could be forced into a government religion as they were in England. That we would be free of that, was the intent.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie, do you understand the difference between having a religious faith, and not forcing that religion on any one else? The constitution was penned by men of faith, who wanted to make sure that in this new nation no one could be forced into a government religion as they were in England. That we would be free of that, was the intent.

False. The constitution was penned by some men of faith and some men of no faith.

And yes, I written repeatedly that the FF's used language in the constitution that provided for freedom from religion.

You're preaching to the choir - confirming what I've already written.

So what's your point?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hollie, do you understand the difference between having a religious faith, and not forcing that religion on any one else? The constitution was penned by men of faith, who wanted to make sure that in this new nation no one could be forced into a government religion as they were in England. That we would be free of that, was the intent.

False. The constitution was penned by some men of faith and some men of no faith.

And yes, I written repeatedly that the FF's used language in the constitution that provided for freedom from religion.

You're preaching to the choir - confirming what I've already written.

So what's your point?

I wonder why the constitution don't proctect Christians from having others people Ideologies forced on us,hmm.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie, do you understand the difference between having a religious faith, and not forcing that religion on any one else? The constitution was penned by men of faith, who wanted to make sure that in this new nation no one could be forced into a government religion as they were in England. That we would be free of that, was the intent.

False. The constitution was penned by some men of faith and some men of no faith.

And yes, I written repeatedly that the FF's used language in the constitution that provided for freedom from religion.

You're preaching to the choir - confirming what I've already written.

So what's your point?

I wonder why the constitution don't proctect Christians from having others people Ideologies forced on us,hmm.

Because you're an insufferable cry baby.

 

[Youwerecreated]

False. The constitution was penned by some men of faith and some men of no faith.

And yes, I written repeatedly that the FF's used language in the constitution that provided for freedom from religion.

You're preaching to the choir - confirming what I've already written.

So what's your point?

I wonder why the constitution don't proctect Christians from having others people Ideologies forced on us,hmm.

Because you're an insufferable cry baby.

Really

 

[The Irish Ram]

We have freedom OF religion, and /or from religion. According to the constitution, I can have the kind of faith I choose without recrimination from our gov..
It does NOT mean that I can no longer wear a cross around my neck for fear of offending someone.< that is "politically correct"/tyranny.
I can wear my cross, Achmed can preach the Koran, Mary can pray with beads, atheists can shout, "God is dead", and the government shall not interfere.
Freedom for OR against=American freedom.

 

[Hollie]

Peace. Hope you continue your search for truth. While you may think the thread was derailed, genetic determinism and lack of free will are tenants of TOE philosophy. The most dehumanizing thing about evolutionary thought is that it boils us down to organisms just reacting to stimulus, powerless to behave any other way that what our genes have determined. This is a hopeless way to live. Just remember, no matter what you are struggling with, you always have a choice. Don't believe the lie that you have to accept the card dealt to you.

I think I am pretty much done too. I really had hope folks were actually visiting here to engage in a healthy exchange of ideas. What it has really turned out to be is avenue for atheist to spew hate at Christians, to put down our beliefs, and poke fun at our traditions, all the while pretending to be interested in science. No one here is open to real truth and no one is going to change their worldview from discussions here. It is really just a huge waste of time.

Oh you poor dear. On the one hand you want an exchange of ideas yet that is precisely what you don’t want. You’re incensed that others don’t simply roll over and accept your cutting and pasting of falsified “quotes” from creationist ministries. Your revulsion for science and is palpable as is your revulsion for anyone who doesn’t accept your claims to the supernatural.

Notice the fundie language: "No one here is open to real truth and no one is going to change their worldview from discussions here".

Of course, it's only possible for the creationist ministries to hold the "real truth". This, in spite of fundie "truth" being acceptance of false claims, manufactured data and acceptance of unsupported and unsupportable claims to supermagical, supernatural "gods".

These forums, my dear, are not your personal vehicle for proselytizing.


It’s just a shame that you need dogma and creationist ministry lies to support your specious claims to gods, a 6,000 year old earth and hatred for the biological sciences that disprove your claims to the supernatural.

It is in the supernatural “design” arguments that the fundie creationist worldview shows its inherent and fatal flaws in the grandest sense. If one can think critically and is observant, one can see within every argument of the creationist ministries the formula stated below:
A. Claim that everything falls under your assertion

B. Posit the gods as the explanation of your assertion

C. Exempt the gods from "A"

In discussing the argument of god and design with creationists, the formula above plays a key element and is the most blatant in it’s falsehood.

The creationist looks around his reality and sees order. To him, order is the same as design, and if something is designed, it must have a designer. Since chance cannot account for the implied design of existence, it therefore follows that there must be a being who actively created the entire thing.

The first error the theist makes is fairly simple: If nature exhibits design and requires a designer, then doesn't it also follow that the designer exhibits design as well? Since this corollary must follow given the parameters of the teleological argument, the next question must be: "Who designed the designer?" To not ask this pertinent question is to abandon the argument's premise in the first place, and the model crumbles.

Usually the creationist will reply that the gods, being the designer, falls outside of the laws he himself creates, else how can he create the laws in the first place? The answer to that is that this is a fully arbitrary claim. Where in nature do we see corroboration that a law of physics can (or must) be circumvented by that which created it? For example, imagine a law created by men. The true spirit of that law, i.e., theft is to be punished, covers those who create the law as well. They may well violate their own laws, but they also reap the same consequences as anyone else who breaks the law. Of course, it may be argued, since human justice is imperfect there are plenty of examples of people violating the law and getting away with it -- but this is an imperfection given our imperfect nature. Such caveats do not apply to the laws of physics. One must obey the laws of physics-- there is no choice in the matter.

We know, for instance, that the moon affects the tides. We can see in our local solar system how large bodies affect smaller bodies, as in the series of asteroids that impacted on Jupiter in 1997 (Shoemaker-Levy). Even as far off as we can see, that is, through the Hubble telescope, we can see that gravity remains constant, blindly and relentlessly obeying its own law. Since we know the distant stars are billions of light years away, we can state with assurance that the laws of gravity are equal in their self-adherence from the distant past (before the Earth had even been formed from dust and matter) right on through the present.

Now compare that to the gods model. Where lies the mountain of evidence, and where lies the specious assertion?

In answer to the claim that god is outside of the laws he creates, one could just as easily postulate that god may very well have created the laws initially, but is now long since dead, his purpose over with, or that there is the aforementioned "pyramid" of gods. Since the creationist simply asserts and cannot match the sheer weight of evidence contrary to his claims, he falls immediately into irrationality wherein any claim asserted can carry equal weight as the one he proposes.

Always with the condescending comments you poor dear. Your argument is has been addressed here before but since you just ignore anything that interferes with your HATE, I will present the rebuttal again for the nth time.

God is not part of the creation anymore than you would be part of an Ant Farm in a glass case in your bedroom so your argument about men being subject to the laws they created is flawed and not applicable to this discussion. God is not subject to time or gravity so move on.

God is not designed because he has always existed. He exists outside of space, matter, time and energy. The worldview you are referring to is pantheism, not theism. Please Holly, educate yourself a bit before you come on here spewing 3rd grader arguments. Worldviews can be separated into four camps. Deism, Theism, Materialism, and Pantheism. Go look it up and stop posting up stupid fundie atheistic arguments that have long since been refuted.

Before you scream how can something be eternal in the past and eternal in the future, please note this was a concept science and Einstein were all too familiar with before the Big Bang evidence blew the "always existing universe" theory out of the water.

God has always been and will always be. No one created him because the big point your flawed argument is missing is that God did not have a beginning!!! The causal argument you have fallaciously proposed is only applicable to things that have a beginning.

Now here is where you go off about cutting and pasting and creationist websites and never really address the points I have presented to your fundie cut and paste argument above. You have shown time and again you can't think for yourself and can only regurgitate atheist HATE and Christian discrimination.

You’re a stereotypical fundie. You exclude your gods from the very definitions you insist all of nature must comply with. It’s silly and childish but in the frantic, sweaty worldview of the fundie creationist, you just make up the rules as you go along.

It’s convenient to exclude your gods from any reasonable or rational explanation. It’s also the only way to defend those gods – simply retreat to childish claims that “my gods dunt’ need no steenkin rules”.

What a joke!

Since the fundie creationist is trying to prove or explain the existence of one god, eternal and infinite, the typical teleological argument actually prohibits his success since to accept his parameters requires an endless and infinite pyramid of gods, each being the super-designer of the one below it, or the product of the one above it.

The natural explanation, that matter simply is, and given enough time will become cohesive and structured, not only makes more sense, but follows with observerable evidence. Existence evolves. It's evolving right now. We can see the pattern time and time again.

The fundie creationist ministries, having failed with the earlier morphing of creationism to “design”, have been forced to re-invent a newer, modified god models.

This newer argument is a modernization of the Analogical argument, albeit with falsely labeled “scientific” overtones. It is based on the theories of the law of statistical averages and cites as its foundation the utter improbability of life having formed without a Consciousness dictating that it would.

As with all the arguments from design, this one also crumbles under the earlier stated falsehoods that nowhere does this imply a presently existing deity, nor does it explain how this deity-- if in any sense alive (which it would need to be in order to fulfill the definition of "existing") is not equally as improbable, thereby requiring a super-deity above it to allow for its existence.

However, there are deeper issues with this argument, stemming from its fallacious use of the concept of "probability". Creationists maintain that there is no difference between design and chance. The assertion is that something complex could not have simply "fallen together", regardless of the amount of time allowed (read: chance). A complex system has to be designed because one cannot arrive at complexity from nothingness (note that once more they will exempt the god from this claim).

The fallacy here is that the creationist applies complexity to an element without regard to synthesis. To the creationist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously, and does not go through varying levels before attaining the degree of complexity currently extant. This may be the way creationists view things, but it has nothing to do with the facts.

Imagine instead that atoms come together and if the combination is successful, the new bonded element continues to exist. If not, it simply falls apart and is out of the running. Given enough time, atoms that successfully bond will continue to evolve, while those that don't will never get beyond the first stage. There is no conscious "matchmaker" of atomic elements; it is pre-ordained by proton/electron compatibility or incompatibility.

Thus we can see that complex structures are likely given an infinite amount of space and an effectively infinite amount of time.

Life falls under this same natural paradigm. All the creationist can prove is that life is extraordinary, and that means something extraordinary has occured. This is not to say that something supernatural has occured.

The creationist will further state that given the vast improbability of life occuring at all, let alone intelligent life, gives one pause. Perhaps, but that in no way connotates the existence of a Supreme Being. Does the creationist include in his or her paradigm the concept that if life is improbable, then so is anything and everything else? Does the creationist then postulate that the deity directs the creation of each drop of mud, every drop of rainwater, every mote of dust?

Of course some do just that (pantheists), but if one examines the evolution of theology, where once it was claimed that gods were required for every occurrence, now those same gods are relegated to a vastly less direct intercourse with natural events. Where once Yahweh caused great earthquakes in his wrath, we now know that plate tectonics does the job for him.

As we can see, each of the three arguments from design suffer from the same innate flaws, and each one, individually, collapses from intrinsic flaws specific to itself. Existence not only needs no explanation, but the god paradigm does not supply it (in fact, it obscures any hope of attaining any explanation, because of the acknowledged "mysterious and unknowable" aspects of god which the good creationist slathers with human attributes.

 

[UltimateReality]

Free speech. What don't you understand regarding that topic?

Holly, your reading comprehension skills suck!!! I was responding to Daws comment that public prayer was only appropriate for church. Guess you must have missed that, along with just about every other post you mindlessly respond to.

You poor, dear.

Mindless.

 

[UltimateReality]

False. The constitution was penned by some men of faith and some men of no faith.

And yes, I written repeatedly that the FF's used language in the constitution that provided for freedom from religion.

You're preaching to the choir - confirming what I've already written.

So what's your point?

I wonder why the constitution don't proctect Christians from having others people Ideologies forced on us,hmm.

Because you're an insufferable cry baby.

That's mature.

 

[The Irish Ram]

I wouldn't put Einstein too high up on that pedestal, because even he knew that e doesn't = mc2. In order to make it work he told his colleges that his math wasn't that "rigorous".
He doesn't even mention the equation in his auto bio.
But say hello to neutrinos and all kinds of wondrous stuff God created, that we are just now discovering, post Einstein.
God knew there was something faster than the speed of light when he created something faster than....
Just like there are more than 3 / 4 dimensions. Jesus proved that when He appeared out of no where. It only took us twenty centuries to figure it out.
The more knowledgeable we become, the closer to Him we get.
There is a God particle, because there is a Living God.
Ultimately, Science will prove God exists.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Hollie, your statement, "To the creationist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"
Couldn't it also be said that, "To the evolutionist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"?
The difference is with the Big Bang you cannot explain how 0 banging into 0 = something.

 

[UltimateReality]

Since the fundie creationist is trying to prove or explain the existence of one god, eternal and infinite, the typical teleological argument actually prohibits his success since to accept his parameters requires an endless and infinite pyramid of gods.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Hit the crack pipe this morning? If teleological argument states that God has always existed, please outline how you deduce that this requires an endless pyramid. Please explain to me what was before "the beginning" of an infinite past?

The natural explanation, that matter simply is, and given enough time will become cohesive and structured, not only makes more sense, but follows with observerable evidence. Existence evolves. It's evolving right now. We can see the pattern time and time again.

I was waiting for you to bring up Darwin's god of enough time. Real sorry that the big bang threw a monkey in the eternal universe model and ruined this argument. Although, that doesn't stop fundie evo's from continuing to quote it.

As with all the arguments from design, this one also crumbles under the earlier stated falsehoods that nowhere does this imply a presently existing deity, nor does it explain how this deity-- if in any sense alive (which it would need to be in order to fulfill the definition of "existing") is not equally as improbable, thereby requiring a super-deity above it to allow for its existence.

Again you confuse Theism with Pantheism. The bolded sentence above is assumptive and becomes the false premise of your argument. You have spent all your time negating the existence of supernatural forces or beings, yet your false premise makes an assumption about said supernatural being. As I stated before, you mistakenly pretend the rules of our universe necessarily abide to a Being that pre-existed our universe. Try again spanky!!!

However, there are deeper issues with this argument, stemming from its fallacious use of the concept of "probability". Creationists maintain that there is no difference between design and chance. [UR Edit: Strawman: need citation] The assertion is that something complex could not have simply "fallen together", regardless of the amount of time allowed (read: chance). A complex system has to be designed because one cannot arrive at complexity from nothingness (note that once more they will exempt the god from this claim).

The fallacy here is that the creationist applies complexity to an element without regard to synthesis. To the creationist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously, and does not go through varying levels before attaining the degree of complexity currently extant. This may be the way creationists view things, but it has nothing to do with the facts. [Whose facts? If you would have watched the origins video YWC posted up, you would never have written this because of how ignorant it sounds]

Imagine instead that atoms come together and if the combination is successful, the new bonded element continues to exist. If not, it simply falls apart and is out of the running. Given enough time, atoms that successfully bond will continue to evolve, while those that don't will never get beyond the first stage. There is no conscious "matchmaker" of atomic elements; it is pre-ordained by proton/electron compatibility or incompatibility.

Ah yes!!! Now we have arrived at the multiple universe theory!! How was this incompatibility pre-ordained? By chance prior to the beginning of the universe!?!?!? By the always existing Being of course!! Why are the nuclear forces in our universe finely tuned to allow successful combinations???!!! I really love your use of the words pre-ordained. This Freudian slip reveals even you believe something or someone decided this prior to the beginning.

Thus we can see that complex structures are likely given an infinite amount of space and an effectively infinite amount of time.

Which we don't have!! Thanks Big Bang guys!!! In fact, our tiny little earth is sub atomic compared to the size of space. But 13 Billion years ago, space was much smaller. It is expanding, and the expansion is accelerating!!!

Life falls under this same natural paradigm. All the creationist can prove is that life is extraordinary, and that means something extraordinary has occured. This is not to say that something supernatural has occured.

The creationist will further state that given the vast improbability of life occuring at all, let alone intelligent life, gives one pause. Perhaps, but that in no way connotates the existence of a Supreme Being. Does the creationist include in his or her paradigm the concept that if life is improbable, then so is anything and everything else? Does the creationist then postulate that the deity directs the creation of each drop of mud, every drop of rainwater, every mote of dust?

Of course some do just that (pantheists) [So now you pretend you even know what a pantheists is, but your argument a few posts back seemed to be clueless of the differentiation] , but if one examines the evolution of theology, where once it was claimed that gods were required for every occurrence, now those same gods are relegated to a vastly less direct intercourse with natural events. Where once Yahweh caused great earthquakes in his wrath, we now know that plate tectonics does the job for him.

As we can see, each of the three arguments from design suffer from the same innate flaws, and each one, individually, collapses from intrinsic flaws specific to itself. Existence not only needs no explanation, but the god paradigm does not supply it (in fact, it obscures any hope of attaining any explanation, because of the acknowledged "mysterious and unknowable" aspects of god which the good creationist slathers with human attributes.

How else would we perceive Him but with human understanding????

 

[newpolitics]

When you can predict the future with accuracy, the way SkyGod has, then I'll accept your opinion.
Until then, SkyGod rules.

when has skygod ever predicted the future, that doesn't involve very ambiguous claims that can be interpreted any number of ways?

 

[newpolitics]

Hollie, your statement, "To the creationist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"
Couldn't it also be said that, "To the evolutionist, complexity emerges somehow instantaneously"?
The difference is with the Big Bang you cannot explain how 0 banging into 0 = something.

No, it couldn't at all be the case that to the evolutionist, complexity emerged instantaneously. It was extremely gradual and took billions of years of very slow progress. God doesn't solve anything in terms of the big cosmological question. If god is the cause of the big bang, What caused God? What caused that being? What caused that being? You get into an infinite regress of causes that doesn't solve the initial problem. You can't simply say god is timeless or doesn't need a cause, because you have no empirical basis on which to make that claim. that is simply making a definition to get you out of the problem of infinite regress.

Secondly, the idea that there needs to be a cause is unfounded, and although intuitive, does not mean there needs to be one. Causality is necessarily a temporal condition (it needs time to take place). Before the big bang, time did not exist, therefore, neither could causality.

 

[The Irish Ram]

What data supports that it was gradual? What started it in slow motion? If it took billions of years then regress to day one. What happened? What was the cause? What caused it into motion?
God created the cosmos. He wasn't trying to solve anything. He was creating.

You can simply say that God is timeless. Science can say that now. They know that there are dimensions that are not bound by the our 3 dimensions to which Einstein added the 4th, time.
As for infinite regression, Neutrinos are so much faster than the speed of light that they can be back before they leave. We've only just begun to unlock the wonders of the cosmos.

 

[newpolitics]

What data supports that it was gradual? What started it in slow motion? If it took billions of years then regress to day one. What happened? What was the cause? What caused it into motion?
God created the cosmos. He wasn't trying to solve anything. He was creating.

You can simply say that God is timeless. Science can say that now. They know that there are dimensions that are not bound by the our 3 dimensions to which Einstein added the 4th, time.
As for infinite regression, Neutrinos are so much faster than the speed of light that they can be back before they leave. We've only just begun to unlock the wonders of the cosmos.

Um, all data supports that it was gradual. Just look at the facts. Unicellular organisms remained so for over two billion years until finally evolving into multi-cellular organisms. The first major step took half of the earths age to accomplish. If that isn't gradual, I don't know what is.

What are you saying when you say it "took billions of years to regress to day one?" That billions of years ago something happened? What does the billions have to do with anything? I'm even sure what you are getting at.

Then you say "he wasn't trying to solve anything" which presupposes that god exists, So, you are begging the question, (which is a logical fallacy).

Do you even know what infinite regression means, because you use a complete non-sequitur when you referred to to it and followed with the example of neutrinos. I have no idea what one has to do with the idea in the context of this discussion. Even if the claim that they traveled faster than light was true, which it isn't, that has nothing at all to do with infinite regression. But, just for the record, the claim that neutrinos move faster than light has been proved false.

Once Again, Physicists Debunk Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos - ScienceInsider

 

[The Irish Ram]

When you can predict the future with accuracy, the way SkyGod has, then I'll accept your opinion.
Until then, SkyGod rules.

when has skygod ever predicted the future, that doesn't involve very ambiguous claims that can be interpreted any number of ways?

SkyGod did though.
27% of the Bible is prediction. The truth is no matter how many times He hits it specifically, non believers never say, "ok, I'll give you that one". They continue to recite that prophesy is ambiguous, or interpreted to the slant of the believer. I have quoted prophesy here that is specific to the day, no interpretation necessary.
God said that Israel would be captive in Babylon for seventy years. Seventy years to the day, they were freed.
25 centuries before it occurred, Ezekiel foretold the rebirth of Israel. To be specific, every time Israel was out of the Promised land, God revealed beforehand the duration of their exile. Add them up and you get the date May 15, 1948. The date of the rebirth of Israel. I could go on and on. Prophesy proves that God inspired the Scriptures.
Forsee me somethin 2,000 years into the future......

 

[newpolitics]

When you can predict the future with accuracy, the way SkyGod has, then I'll accept your opinion.
Until then, SkyGod rules.

when has skygod ever predicted the future, that doesn't involve very ambiguous claims that can be interpreted any number of ways?

SkyGod did though.
27% of the Bible is prediction. The truth is no matter how many times He hits it specifically, non believers never say, "ok, I'll give you that one". They continue to recite that prophesy is ambiguous, or interpreted to the slant of the believer. I have quoted prophesy here that is specific to the day, no interpretation necessary.
God said that Israel would be captive in Babylon for seventy years. Seventy years to the day, they were freed.
25 centuries before it occurred, Ezekiel foretold the rebirth of Israel. To be specific, every time Israel was out of the Promised land, God revealed beforehand the duration of their exile. Add them up and you get the date May 15, 1948. The date of the rebirth of Israel. I could go on and on. Prophesy proves that God inspired the Scriptures.
Forsee me somethin 2,000 years into the future......

Show me in the bible where it says Israel would be captive in Babylon for seventy years, and what does captive mean? Israel has been captive many times under many different peoples and religions (the crusades). How are you interpreting this and more important, what are you interpreting from?

 

[The Irish Ram]

When you can predict the future with accuracy, the way SkyGod has, then I'll accept your opinion.
Until then, SkyGod rules.

when has skygod ever predicted the future, that doesn't involve very ambiguous claims that can be interpreted any number of ways?

27% of the Bible is SkyGod predictions. No necessity to interpret and certainly not ambiguous. eg:
When Israel was captive in Babylon, they pack up and were freed in the seventieth year to the day. Every time Israel was out of the Promised Land, God predicted the duration of their exile, and nailed it. Add them up and you get May 15, 1948. Israel's rebirth. Ezekiel prophesied it 25 centuries before it happened.
Foresee me somethin 2000 yrs. from now.....