Questions for creationists who ‘understand evolution’?

[Jose Fly]

I understand and interpret evolution to mean God created everything in six ordinary days 6,000 years ago.

LOL! If we had a Wall of Shame for crazy-***** stuff posted to this forum, that would have to go there!

 

[camanintx]

LOL! If we had a Wall of Shame for crazy-***** stuff posted to this forum, that would have to go there!

There's always FSTDT!

 

[McBell]

I understand and interpret evolution to mean God created everything in six ordinary days 6,000 years ago.

Is this the same technique you use to understand and interpret the Bible?

 

[Thief]

The spaghetti monster did not create anything! He just actively holds you to the earth.
Also, who created god, you say everything must have a cause (supposedly), so what caused god?
Who created god? If you say he is eternal, then the need for god is non existent, as anything can be said to be 'eternal', in the sense of energy.

You do understand that believing is a matter of choice?...not science.
Faith needs no proving.

If you lack a personal need for God...fine.
Hence your style of discussion.

That will change in your last hour.

The choice is actually quite simple.
If you say...spirit first...then you might well continue....after your last breath.

If you say chemistry first....then chemistry begets spirit....
and when your chemistry fails so do you.

 

[McBell]

You do understand that believing is a matter of choice?...not science.
Faith needs no proving.

If you lack a personal need for God...fine.
Hence your style of discussion.

That will change in your last hour.

The choice is actually quite simple.
If you say...spirit first...then you might well continue....after your last breath.

If you say chemistry first....then chemistry begets spirit....
and when your chemistry fails so do you.

Why do you feel the need to threaten people with god?

 

[Jose Fly]

When you can't win the debate on merits, logic, or data, you either concede defeat or fall back on empty threats.

 

[McBell]

When you can't win the debate on merits, logic, or data, you either concede defeat or fall back on empty threats.

Oh.
Well, yeah, that would explain it.
Thanks.

 

[darkendless]

I understand and interpret evolution to mean God created everything in six ordinary days 6,000 years ago.

My 12 year old cousin knows better than to assume the earth is 6000 years old. What a very strange belief you have which is completely unsupported.

You know that if the earth was 6000 years old that we would not be able to construct skyscrapers because all we'd have is rock and no sediments to provide skin friction to keep piles in the ground. The rock would also be so strong that we'd never be able to pile through it.

Food for thought.

 

[Thief]

Why do you feel the need to threaten people with god?

Not a threat.

It will be one way or the other.

 

[McBell]

Not a threat.

Ignorance or dishonesty?

It will be one way or the other.

False Dichotomy.
It could be neither way.
It could be both ways.

Nice try though.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not a threat.

It will be one way or the other.

A threat is a threat whether the intention is to carry it out or not. If somebody puts a gun to your head and tells you to hand over your money or they'll shoot you, that is still a threat regardless of whether or not he will actually pull the trigger. And when you say things like:


"If you say...spirit first...then you might well continue....after your last breath.

If you say chemistry first....then chemistry begets spirit....
and when your chemistry fails so do you."


... it is exactly the same.

Granted, it's not quite as threatening. After all, we know guns exist, whereas trying to threaten a non-believer with the afterlife is no different to trying to threaten us with an imaginary baseball bat.

 

[Thief]

Ignorance or dishonesty?


False Dichotomy.
It could be neither way.
It could be both ways.

Nice try though.

You've been rather boring here of late.
Nothing but retort.
No actual substance.

No soul.

 

[Thief]

A threat is a threat whether the intention is to carry it out or not. If somebody puts a gun to your head and tells you to hand over your money or they'll shoot you, that is still a threat regardless of whether or not he will actually pull the trigger. And when you say things like:


"If you say...spirit first...then you might well continue....after your last breath.

If you say chemistry first....then chemistry begets spirit....
and when your chemistry fails so do you."


... it is exactly the same.

Granted, it's not quite as threatening. After all, we know guns exist, whereas trying to threaten a non-believer with the afterlife is no different to trying to threaten us with an imaginary baseball bat.

Nay.....death is coming.
How you enter into it is your choice.

That's not a threat.

 

[McBell]

You've been rather boring here of late.
Nothing but retort.
No actual substance.

No soul.

And here I thought you actually wanted to have a discussion.
It is not my fault you are unable or unwilling to actually put your threats and sermons away and engage in discussion.

Why do you feel your god is so weak and insignificant that you have to threaten people with it?

Or are you going to keep hiding behind your threats and sermons?


And you did not answer my question.

 

[Thief]

And here I thought you actually wanted to have a discussion.
It is not my fault you are unable or unwilling to actually put your threats and sermons away and engage in discussion.

Why do you feel your god is so weak and insignificant that you have to threaten people with it?

Or are you going to keep hiding behind your threats and sermons?

That you go on as you do clearly indicates .....you do not understand.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Nay.....death is coming.
How you enter into it is your choice.

That's not a threat.

That isn't, but saying "believe this and you may have an afterlife, don't believe it and you won't" is.

 

[Thief]

That isn't, but saying "believe this and you may have an afterlife, don't believe it and you won't" is.

Can't change it.

Without believing...without your thought and feeling in place.....
standing up from your flesh when it fails.... is very unlikely.

And would you not be at the mercy of anyone having gone before you?

 

[McBell]

That you go on as you do clearly indicates .....you do not understand.

Ah, more hiding.
You are good at that.

Perhaps if you were to spend less time preaching and threatening and more time actually explaining...

I am not going to be holding my breath...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Can't change it.

Without believing...without your thought and feeling in place.....
standing up from your flesh when it fails.... is very unlikely.

You know what? I'm going to disagree with you. I'm going to say that not believing actually makes me more likely to have an afterlife.

Can you demonstrate that this is now how it actually works?

 

[McBell]

That isn't, but saying "believe this and you may have an afterlife, don't believe it and you won't" is.

Seems to me that Pascal's Wager is nothing more than a desperate attempt at recruiting.