Suppose evolution was refuted, then what?

[~Amin~]

And in a sad attempt at deception, creationists tried to scam the world by removing the word god from creationism, call it "intelligent design," and try to pass it off as science.

This is very strange, i would like anybody to show me, in ANY religious text, where we are called ''creationists'' or ''Intelligent design''? i personally reject this, you should refer to us as what we are referred to in scripture. Wonder who is doing the deceiving?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Well! I depart for a day and we're 11 pages further on!

Good work! If there's anything directed at me I didn't specifically address, please point it out; otherwise essentially many folks here have already given answers I would echo.

Let's see where we are now....

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Camanintx, cam you get to the point, and tell us the problem with the definition of God?

The definition for God is not objective. This causes outlandish claims to be made, without any way to examine them to see if they are actually true.

'Baseless assertions', they are called.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

This is very strange, i would like anybody to show me, in ANY religious text, where we are called ''creationists'' or ''Intelligent design''? i personally reject this, you should refer to us as what we are referred to in scripture. Wonder who is doing the deceiving?

It's absurd to ask that the book used to define the religion would mention by name a modern [post-2000 years later] concept created by members of that religion. The Bible doesn't mention the words 'abortion' or 'gay marriage' or 'Mormon' either, does it?

Don't play coy, we both know ID/creationism is a cover for promoting Biblical concepts instead of real science.

 

[muhammad_isa]

.. we both know ID/creationism is a cover for promoting Biblical concepts instead of real science.

I don't think so..
It's a term coined by atheists to describe 'Bible literalists' ..
Don't tar everybody with the same brush .. it's a misleading term, as there's nothing irrational about belief in The Creator of the universe :rainbow1:

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I don't think so..
It's a term coined by atheists to describe 'Bible literalists' ..
Don't tar everybody with the same brush .. it's a misleading term, as there's nothing irrational about belief in The Creator of the universe :rainbow1:

you've been wrong before
There's no science in creation science. It's essentially a desperate collection of lies. It is irrational if one believes in it in the face of evidence against. That's one definition of irrational.

 

[McBell]

This is very strange,

Not really.
The desperation of creationists is rather staggering.

i would like anybody to show me, in ANY religious text, where we are called ''creationists'' or ''Intelligent design''?

And I would like anybody to show how this has anything at all to do with the actual topic, side topic or thread.

i personally reject this,

No surprise there.
Lots of people reject what they dislike whilst claiming want truth.

you should refer to us as what we are referred to in scripture.

Does not matter in the least what creationists want to be called.
It will not change the fact that creationism is not science and thus will not ever be in a position to replace any scientific theory.

Wonder who is doing the deceiving?

Clearly it is you.
Especially given this sad desperate attempt at diversion.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It is irrational if one believes in it in the face of evidence against.

That, I agree with!

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Then you've taken your first step.

 

[riley2112]

It's absurd to ask that the book used to define the religion would mention by name a modern [post-2000 years later] concept created by members of that religion. The Bible doesn't mention the words 'abortion' or 'gay marriage' or 'Mormon' either, does it?

Don't play coy, we both know ID/creationism is a cover for promoting Biblical concepts instead of real science.

The Bible does mention abortion, gay marriage and Mormon, just not in those words. And I still see real science and Biblical concepts as the same thing. Maybe I am just strange that way.

 

[painted wolf]

I don't think so..
It's a term coined by atheists to describe 'Bible literalists' ..
Don't tar everybody with the same brush .. it's a misleading term, as there's nothing irrational about belief in The Creator of the universe :rainbow1:

Actually both the terms creationism/creationist and Intelligent Design/ID were created by theists to describe themselves and their stance on interpreting Genesis literally... not by atheists.

wa:do

 

[ImmortalFlame]

When i said its fine, i was refering to your approach even though you disagree with me, that this is fine.

You said:

"At least we have an answer, even though you don't accept it, and that is fine as well."

This implies that both positions are "fine". They are not. Asserting an untested answer where there currently isn't an answer is never "fine".

All that exists.

I have no idea.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't think so..
It's a term coined by atheists to describe 'Bible literalists' ..
Don't tar everybody with the same brush .. it's a misleading term, as there's nothing irrational about belief in The Creator of the universe :rainbow1:

You really don't understand words, do you?

Creationism/ID are movements started (and named) by a particular branch of Biblical fundamentalists. Also, if you are a Biblical literalist then you must also consequently accept creationism/ID, so it's not "tarring everybody with the same brush" at all. That's like saying "people who wears hats all the time should not be defined as people who wear hats - that's just tarring everybody with the same brush!"

 

[camanintx]

Every other thing is limited by boundaries, you may refer to this as time and space,
but their movement within this boundary may differ, example, an angel may be in multiple places in one time, but within time and space. God is Unique and doesn't resemble His creation, example, we are living beings, God is also Living, the difference we have a beginning and an end, He doesn't have a beginning and an end. See Unique.

Special pleading is considered a logical fallacy. Can you show why God should be exempt from the limits applied to every other thing?

Camanintx, cam you get to the point, and tell us the problem with the definition of God?

As Heathen Hammer said, they're usually comprised of baseless assertions, special pleading and other logical inconsistencies.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

The Bible does mention abortion, gay marriage and Mormon, just not in those words. And I still see real science and Biblical concepts as the same thing. Maybe I am just strange that way.

lol what??? Impossible. Mormonism wasn;'t invented until the US was discovered, for pete's sake.

where do any of the OT or NT documents mention ANY of these phrases? lol!

And, having modern words inserted corruptly into some decades-recent translation, does not count.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Can you show why God should be exempt from the limits applied to every other thing?

Umm .. ye-e-es .
It's because Almighty God created "the limits"

He is the 'author' of the universe (space-time ), and in this context, God is eternal by definition !

ie. He is the owner of time (as we physically define it)

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Except of course he cannot act or think without Time

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Umm .. ye-e-es .
It's because Almighty God created "the limits"

He is the 'author' of the universe (space-time ), and in this context, God is eternal by definition !

ie. He is the owner of time (as we physically define it)

You can't prove an untested, baseless assertion with more untested, baseless assertions.

How do you know any of these things are true?

 

[muhammad_isa]

How do you know any of these things are true?

That's practically the same thing as asking "How do you know that God exists?"
That answer is very, very long..

Not only am I not prepared to write it, I would suggest that it would be seen as "forum flooding"

There's not much point in giving you a 'snippet', just so as you can scoff at it .. we'll do that later in another thread perhaps

 

[riley2112]

lol what??? Impossible. Mormonism wasn;'t invented until the US was discovered, for pete's sake.

where do any of the OT or NT documents mention ANY of these phrases? lol!

And, having modern words inserted corruptly into some decades-recent translation, does not count.

You are right about Mormon in the US , but I think this should cover it ,
Matthew 24 v 24
24For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. 25See, I have told you ahead of time.