Creationist Error #1: One can not believe Evolution and still remain devout in their faith.

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Have you ever actually encountered someone who said this?
I have had decades of conversations about salvation, justification, sanctification (generally, what does God want?) and I don't think Creation/Evolution has ever come up in one of those discussions.
It usually comes up as just talking and someone asking ... "So what do you think about ...?"

As a Calvinist, you don't get much more hard core Fundamentalist than me, but if pressed for an answer I would say "Hell no, what you think about evolution doesn't enter into your walk with God."
(and for the record, neither does your political affiliation ... says the Ultra Conservative Right Wing Republican )

Kent Hovind, Ted haggard, Ken Ham and Ray Comfort have all made claims of the nature that you "must believe in creationism and renounce evolution" to be a Christian; because if you don't accept Genesis 1 as literal fact, then you don't accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God, and if you don't accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God .... Well, you get the drift ...

But, all that is really beside the point. If you can accept that one may be Christian and have faith in god and still be Christian; then you get my point.

 

[pearl]

Kent Hovind, Ted haggard, Ken Ham and Ray Comfort have all made claims of the nature that you "must believe in creationism and renounce evolution" to be a Christian; because if you don't accept Genesis 1 as literal fact, then you don't accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God, and if you don't accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God .... Well, you get the drift ...

Only if one is a fundamentalist, purely an American phenomenon.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

we agree entirely on this, Lemaitre's primeval atom fell flat with 'educated academics', it was mocked and rejected as ' religious pseudoscience', 'big bang'. - nothing was more abhorrent to the academic elite than an origin for the universe which was consistent with the Bible. educated academics were not too pleased with another skeptic of atheism- Max Planck upending classical physics either.

uneducated masses fed millions farming in Russia, educated academics took over under Stalin and starved those same millions to death.

You have no concept of qualification do you? You feel your opinion matters just as much as someone who has put their life into working on this information. You go with your gut feeling. You reason with fallacies. The evidence falls against you at every corner and when its pointed out you simply appeal to a conspiracy theory.

If your right then bring some evidence. ID doesn't have a leg to stand on. Not in science and not with anyone really. There are people that are deluded to think it does. And that is their problem as far as I am concerned. At least until they attempt to disrupt the education process with lies and fallacies because of their own religious vested interests.

This is called scientism, blind faith in anything sporting the label of institutionalized science, nothing could be further from the method we all know and love.

I grew up believing in state mandated evolution, atheism and socialism as taught in the classroom and enforced in society

There is no state mandated evolution. Evolution is a scientific fact. Its like saying we have state mandated gravity. Its nonsensical and in other contexts would be humorous. Absolutly zero atheism has been taught in school. In fact we have had to fight tooth and nail to remove the Christian teachings. And they are still there to an incredible degree. There is zero atheist influence for the most part. And lastly what is wrong with socialism? We aren't taught socialism or even socialistic ideals but what is wrong with socialism? And are you aware you currently live in a socialistic nation and have for the past hundred years?

I later became skeptical observing life, the universe and people first hand with my own eyes. Which would you say was brain washing and which was free thinking?

I will assume that you were brainwashed by other things in your life. I doubt it was your own critical thinking that caused you to question evolution. I have a strong feeling that it was a passive acceptance of evolution in school and a home life that didn't actually take it seriously. Then as you grew up you probably fell back into more religious thoughts and was trolling through creationist garbage websites and developed (or already had) a form of conspiracy paranoia. Thus you are now convinced that the whole scientific community which is based upon observable evidence and fact is somehow nothing of the sort. And that unanimously all scientists are in on it because if they speak out they will loose their job. Despite there being huge job opprotunites for people who want to be credible experts against evolution. Its just silly.

And you need to work on your definition of scientism.

 

[viole]

where's your money if you had to bet, ID or unintended naturalistic process?

it's about bedtime so I'll catch you later..

What would have been your bet at the time we did not know anything about lighnings:

1) Naturalistic processes
2) Thor

Ciao

- viole

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You have no concept of qualification do you? You feel your opinion matters just as much as someone who has put their life into working on this information. You go with your gut feeling. You reason with fallacies. The evidence falls against you at every corner and when its pointed out you simply appeal to a conspiracy theory.

If your right then bring some evidence. ID doesn't have a leg to stand on. Not in science and not with anyone really. There are people that are deluded to think it does. And that is their problem as far as I am concerned. At least until they attempt to disrupt the education process with lies and fallacies because of their own religious vested interests.

There is no state mandated evolution. Evolution is a scientific fact. Its like saying we have state mandated gravity. Its nonsensical and in other contexts would be humorous. Absolutly zero atheism has been taught in school. In fact we have had to fight tooth and nail to remove the Christian teachings. And they are still there to an incredible degree. There is zero atheist influence for the most part. And lastly what is wrong with socialism? We aren't taught socialism or even socialistic ideals but what is wrong with socialism? And are you aware you currently live in a socialistic nation and have for the past hundred years?

I will assume that you were brainwashed by other things in your life. I doubt it was your own critical thinking that caused you to question evolution. I have a strong feeling that it was a passive acceptance of evolution in school and a home life that didn't actually take it seriously. Then as you grew up you probably fell back into more religious thoughts and was trolling through creationist garbage websites and developed (or already had) a form of conspiracy paranoia. Thus you are now convinced that the whole scientific community which is based upon observable evidence and fact is somehow nothing of the sort. And that unanimously all scientists are in on it because if they speak out they will loose their job. Despite there being huge job opprotunites for people who want to be credible experts against evolution. Its just silly.

And you need to work on your definition of scientism.

As above, the farmers starved under Stalin had no official qualifications to argue against state academics, Lemaitre's work was originally rejected because his catholic school education didn't qualify for serious peer review. Canals on Mars were observed and recorded by those most qualified to do so... And neither of us are qualified to comment on the existence of ghosts because we are not paranormal investigators, right?

These are not conspiracy theories, these people thought they were right, largely because they were qualified to be right- who could argue with them?

a conspiracy theory sounds something more like this:

they attempt to disrupt the education process with lies and fallacies because of their own religious vested interests.

FYI I was raised a staunch atheist, studied computer science, first began to be skeptical of certain aspects of evolution in my late 30s while working on simulations to demonstrate evolutions power to 'silly creationists' .

I don't think you are brainwashed or silly or incapable of critical thought, name calling only betrays that you can never change your mind no matter the evidence, because you would then become everything you called others, exactly why Hoyle could never change his mind after calling the Big Bang 'religious pseudoscience'

 

[Unification]

Bold statements demand bold evidence.
You make a pretty damning statement without any citation to back up what amounts to a personal assertion.
Note that evolution is a theory, not a scientific fact.
I make no claims about the creationist view. I don't need to because YOU made the damning statement without any
citation or statement of scientific facts. So the onus is on you.

Ecclesiastes 3:18-22King James Version (KJV)
18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.

Most of the Old Testament has to do with an unclean animal needing sacrificed and purified. Not a literal animal, the animal is the human. Scripture itself states that we are animals and beasts, our physical bodies that our beingness resides in.

Going any different would be a sick and twisted imagination, and defining "God" in our own image.

 

[Unification]

You have no concept of qualification do you? You feel your opinion matters just as much as someone who has put their life into working on this information. You go with your gut feeling. You reason with fallacies. The evidence falls against you at every corner and when its pointed out you simply appeal to a conspiracy theory.

If your right then bring some evidence. ID doesn't have a leg to stand on. Not in science and not with anyone really. There are people that are deluded to think it does. And that is their problem as far as I am concerned. At least until they attempt to disrupt the education process with lies and fallacies because of their own religious vested interests.

There is no state mandated evolution. Evolution is a scientific fact. Its like saying we have state mandated gravity. Its nonsensical and in other contexts would be humorous. Absolutly zero atheism has been taught in school. In fact we have had to fight tooth and nail to remove the Christian teachings. And they are still there to an incredible degree. There is zero atheist influence for the most part. And lastly what is wrong with socialism? We aren't taught socialism or even socialistic ideals but what is wrong with socialism? And are you aware you currently live in a socialistic nation and have for the past hundred years?

I will assume that you were brainwashed by other things in your life. I doubt it was your own critical thinking that caused you to question evolution. I have a strong feeling that it was a passive acceptance of evolution in school and a home life that didn't actually take it seriously. Then as you grew up you probably fell back into more religious thoughts and was trolling through creationist garbage websites and developed (or already had) a form of conspiracy paranoia. Thus you are now convinced that the whole scientific community which is based upon observable evidence and fact is somehow nothing of the sort. And that unanimously all scientists are in on it because if they speak out they will loose their job. Despite there being huge job opprotunites for people who want to be credible experts against evolution. Its just silly.

And you need to work on your definition of scientism.

ID has many legs to stand on. It's a mistake to dismiss ID because of religions. ID and religion are day and night. Science gets all of its knowledge from ID. Evolution and life has always gotten its fuel from ID. Doesn't make either of them false. Most of religion is false, but religion isn't ID.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Only if one is a fundamentalist, purely an American phenomenon.

a free thinking phenomenon, atheism reached it's peak under Stalin, Mao, Il Sung

 

[LuisDantas]

a free thinking phenomenon, atheism reached it's peak under Stalin, Mao, Il Sung

"Peak"?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"Peak"?

Since free thought has somewhat returned to large areas of the east, Russia and China in particular, so atheism has receded has it not?

 

[LuisDantas]

Since free thought has somewhat returned to large areas of the east, Russia and China in particular, so atheism has receded has it not?

In those areas? I suppose so, at least for the moment. But that is not what you said previously.

 

[psychoslice]

I think the problem is that they get literalism mixed up with metaphor, and then they have to try to wiggle their way out of it, it must be hard to believe like that.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

In those areas? I suppose so, at least for the moment. But that is not what you said previously.

You still have North Korea I suppose, at least for the moment..

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Guy Threepwood

By the way, so far whenever a scientific explanation has been established for any phenomenon it has been a natural explanation. .

The phenomena in question is the universe, creation itself, the best explanation we have is the one atheists rejected as 'religious pseudoscience' for it's supernatural implications.. And so far there is no natural cause established

 

[Bunyip]

The phenomena in question is the universe, creation itself, the best explanation we have is the one atheists rejected as 'religious pseudoscience' for it's supernatural implications.. And so far there is no natural cause established

What explanation? Claiming that an immaterial God did it is not an explanation.

An immaterial God you can not evidence and have established no cause nor explanation for. I think that it is also important at this point to point out to you that you have somehow confused atheism for cosmology, atheism has no position on the origins of the universe.

Your 'explanation' simply attributes the creation of the universe to an unevidenced and frankly implausible entity - it tells us nothing, not the why or the how. It is simply a statement of faith, not an explanation.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What explanation? Claiming that an immaterial God did it is not an explanation.

An immaterial God you can not evidence and have established no cause nor explanation for. I think that it is also important at this point to point out to you that you have somehow confused atheism for cosmology, atheism has no position on the origins of the universe.

neither has a-naturalism, it takes no position, it simply rejects any natural, spontaneous origins. Claiming such without evidence is not an explanation- or does that rule not apply here?

 

[Bunyip]

neither has a-naturalism, it takes no position, it simply rejects any natural, spontaneous origins. Claiming such without evidence is not an explanation- or does that rule not apply here?

What is 'a-naturalism' Guy, you lost me. The way you define it means that you assume that magic was involved.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What is 'a-naturalism' Guy, you lost me. The way you define it means that you assume that magic was involved.

It's the mirror image of a-theism, framing my belief as a disbelief of the alternative one, superficially shifting the burden of proof..

 

[Bunyip]

It's the mirror image of a-theism, framing my belief as a disbelief of the alternative one, superficially shifting the burden of proof..

No worries mate - this is called presuppositional apologetics. We can discuss it if you like, but it is the intellectual equivalent of chewing gum.

Sure, ok - you assume God exists. How is that not a positive claim still? Sure, you are playing about with the wording - but you are still making a positive assumption.

Atheism on the other hand does not have a position on the origins of the universe, and therefore is neither making a claim nor bears a burden of proof. So sure - your position is to arbitrarily assume that God exists, whilst atheism has no position.

The burden of proof could remain yours.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Sure, ok - you assume a natural mechanism exists. How is that not a positive claim still? Sure, you are playing about with the wording - but you are still making a positive assumption.

a-naturalism on the other hand does not have a position on the origins of the universe, and therefore is neither making a claim nor bears a burden of proof. So sure - your position is to arbitrarily assume that this natural mechanism exists, whilst a-naturlaism has no position.

The burden of proof could remain yours


.. doesn't the negative stance work just as well both ways? that is to say, not very well?