International creationism

[Boris Godunov]

[SIZE=1]
I got something that disproves evolution: The giraffe, how the heck did that get through natural selection?

I hope hope hope this was a joke...

[Japher]

Yes, Boris

but?

To Vegetarians... If we stopped eating beef do you think the cow might become endangered? How about chicken?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
No. It doesn't matter what the definition is. If one has an omnipotent diety who can manipulate the universe any way he likes (otherwise he wouldn't be omnipotent), then none of the evidence for evolution as the origin of species is 100% trustworthy.

But it makes no sense to believe in the Bible (or the Koran or whatever) over science when they conflict at one point, and then believe in science when they conflict at another point -- it's completely inconsistent. F'rinstance, if somebody believes that the Bible is infallible and as a result they believe in creationism, geocentrism, flat earth, pi == 3, etc., then I'll disagree with their beliefs (why the Bible and not the Sutras or the Vedas or the Koran? Why one translation and not another? How do you explain this Biblical inconsistency or contradiction [insert passages here]? etc.), but I'll admit that their beliefs are consistent -- they consistently reject science in favor of the Bible. However, if somebody says "Well, I don't believe in evolution because it doesn't mesh with the Bible, but I still believe in heliocentrism and an oblate earth," then they're being blatantly inconsistent with their beliefs. When they say "I'm a fallible human being just like everybody else, but I don't believe in evolution just because," then they're again being inconsistent. It's perfectly consistent, however, to say "I believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and there is no opposing theory that better fits the current evidence (follow with reasonable justification as to why this is so)," or "I don't believe in evolution because [X] theory better fits the available evidence (follow with reasonable justification as to why this is so)," or even "The experts in the field of biology are almost unanimously in favor of evolution as the most viable theory that explains the origin of the species currently on our planet."

If there is an omnipotent God, then He could certainly have made a flat earth, geocentric, pi == 3, creationist world. However, the evidence before us suggests otherwise, so we need to either reject all evidence as meaningless or accept all evidence as viable.

[CyberGnu]

Lincoln:

Well if you read my previous posts you will find that I agree with you.

Hos does that fit with this quote from the previous page:

I am not saying that there is not truth in evolution but science must exclude the possibility of God or their observations prove nothing but what God let's us prove.

I say that this is patently false.

One can be stupid and an evolutionist.

Oh, certainly. The big difference is that to be creationist, one MUST be stupid.

[CyberGnu]

Ramo,

Seeing as how the sheep created the oceans and seas, it's crazy not to be sheep worshiper. The Atlanteans didn't worship sheep, and look what happened to them.

So why aren't the Welsh ruling the world right now?

[Ramo]

Ah, but they are! You just don't notice their subtle machinations due to the intervention of Bob and the almighty hamburger (note we eat beef instead of mutton ).

[Japher]

Science cannot hold divine/immaculate creation or spontaneous generation responsible for anything and therefore cannot hold the existance of supreme being to be truth.

Most laws of science revolve around the law of conservation. Whether that be matter, energy, momentum, etc... Saying that this "thing" that is conserved can now be created and destroyed would turn the world of science head over heels. This would also be true if a Religion accepts that their god(s) does not exist.

Thus, Lincoln is correct in saying that science must remove themselves from religion when acting as a scientist, since religion and "omnipotence" seem to go hand in hand.

[Japher]

Same is true for Religion needing to remove itself from science in order to be justifiable... Belief? What is so scientific about that?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
No. It doesn't matter what the definition is. If one has an omnipotent diety who can manipulate the universe any way he likes (otherwise he wouldn't be omnipotent), then none of the evidence for evolution as the origin of species is 100% trustworthy. In other words, God could have put the fossils in the ground for us to find. He could have set up the DNA structures of living beings to make it look like they evolved from common ancestors. He could have made up every peice of evidence for evolution as a test of faith for us.

Several moons ago I have proved that an omnipotent diety is a logical impossibility in a thread here because it ends up in contradictions. So, at this point, you can:

1. Throw logic out the window
2. Say logic doesn't apply to the Judeo-Christianity god
3. Concede that your god isn't omnipotent
4. Decide that there is no god

You can see choices all choices are problematic for you. [1] clearly is not acceptable. [2] is arbitrary, and ends up with even more questions that you can't answer. [3] runs contradictory to mainstream Christian tenents, but is probably the least painful choice. [4] is the most logical given that there is no evidence for said god.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I don't actually believe this - I am playing the role of 'Devil's Advocate'. I am not even saying that this is a reasonable thing to believe on a scientific level (since it is non-predicitive), but it could be true. Furthermore, since one can never prove whether it is true or not, it is a religious belief.

If you put it in the "religious belief" category, will you oppose efforts to try to get "Scientifc Creationism" to be taught as if it is some sort of science, alongside with evolution?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Several moons ago I have proved that an omnipotent diety is a logical impossibility in a thread here because it ends up in contradictions.

Did I and everyone else somehow miss this?

Jon Miller

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Did I and everyone else somehow miss this?

Jon Miller

So it is true that everybody else, including myself, is your DL?

[Jon Miller]

well as fez needs to learn

just because you say something does not make it logical

just because you say what you say is logical does not make what you say logical

a fair majority of western civilization does not find your proof logical

now I agree that it might be logical, but I don't see it as such, and the fact that most agree with me should make you suspicious of your own logic

Jon Miller

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Several moons ago I have proved that an omnipotent diety is a logical impossibility in a thread here because it ends up in contradictions.

Really?

Was along the lines of:

A ham sandwich is better than nothing...
Nothing is better than eternal happiness...
Therefore...
A ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by loinburger


But it makes no sense to believe in the Bible (or the Koran or whatever) over science when they conflict at one point, and then believe in science when they conflict at another point -- it's completely inconsistent. F'rinstance, if somebody believes that the Bible is infallible and as a result they believe in creationism, geocentrism, flat earth, pi == 3, etc., then I'll disagree with their beliefs (why the Bible and not the Sutras or the Vedas or the Koran? Why one translation and not another? How do you explain this Biblical inconsistency or contradiction [insert passages here]? etc.), but I'll admit that their beliefs are consistent -- they consistently reject science in favor of the Bible. However, if somebody says "Well, I don't believe in evolution because it doesn't mesh with the Bible, but I still believe in heliocentrism and an oblate earth," then they're being blatantly inconsistent with their beliefs. When they say "I'm a fallible human being just like everybody else, but I don't believe in evolution just because," then they're again being inconsistent. It's perfectly consistent, however, to say "I believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and there is no opposing theory that better fits the current evidence (follow with reasonable justification as to why this is so)," or "I don't believe in evolution because [X] theory better fits the available evidence (follow with reasonable justification as to why this is so)," or even "The experts in the field of biology are almost unanimously in favor of evolution as the most viable theory that explains the origin of the species currently on our planet."

If there is an omnipotent God, then He could certainly have made a flat earth, geocentric, pi == 3, creationist world. However, the evidence before us suggests otherwise, so we need to either reject all evidence as meaningless or accept all evidence as viable.

nowhere in the Bible does it claim what you say it claims

the Bible is a written, as such it uses language

I agree that language in general is not always clear and that the Bible in particular has many passages that could be taken different ways (as anything that is written or communicated in any fashion)

if you don't understand this from your years of life, than you are an idiot

the best way to read the Bible is to use it as it's own interpreter, such that everything is internally consisten

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

I always find it funny how modern athiests use proofs that are as bad as medieval theologians

a funny proof of medeival theologians is this

0 mulitplied by infinitiy is one

so therefore there is a god

since god would make something from nothing

Jon Miller