Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
77,961 - 77,980 of 115,117 Comments Last updated 25 min ago

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82619 Mar 24, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
But I guess I will ask you the same of the previous idiot. Can you describe a ball without using the word sphere that does not fit the description of a circle. Without the term to delineate between the two, you simply cannot do it with the exception of demonsional which also wasn't a word at the time.
You fail just like the other idiot did. I do like how he called in backup though.
Whoa! Way to break the Ninth Commandment tard.
You never asked me to describe a ball without using the word sphree that does not fit the description of a circle.
You said that I couldn't and I replied that I could. You never directly asked me and I was not going to volunteer anything to a dishonest a-hole like you.
There is only one idiot here and he has just been caught lying.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tenerife

#82620 Mar 24, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>No, not really. You see, if the science is created as part of the creation, then all fits nicely together. 99% of the bible is not in contradiction with any science and the parts you think are- aren't important to every day life.
<quoted text>You don't know what you are talking about.
<quoted text>Obviously you so not understand the bible or the story of Jesus. Perhaps when you learn a bit about it you can come back and play.
By the way, slavery is alive and well today. What on earth makes you think it isn't? Every state arrest and binds people to work programs for violations of their laws.
<quoted text>You really do not understand the Christian religion. IF you did, you wouldn't not have even come close to those statements. The bible is a record of covenants with god, all of what you listed is old covenants and not supported under the new covenant. What you are actually saying is, do you really want to ignore the covenant with Christ and go back to the old covenants that do not apply any more? That is the only way to make your statement sound sane in the reality of Christianity.
<quoted text>Why are you only concerned with the blacks? There was white slaves, Chinese slaves, indian's and many other slaves. slavery exists and thrives to this day in Africa, as well as is implied in the US as almost every state forces it's incarcerated populations to work in some fashion to either help pay for their keep or benefit the society they were plucked out of.
But all of that is moot due to your ignorance anyways. Those were the accepted ways of the past in the bible. They are not justified in the new testament or the new covenant with God. You should really try to understand what you are going to talk about before speaking. Of course there are idiots who claim to be christian who do not understand that too, but I suspect they got their biblical teachings from the same idiot you did.
Hello adif understanding, thanks for your reply.

You write:
“No, not really. You see, if the science is created as part of the creation, then all fits nicely together. 99% of the bible is not in contradiction with any science and the parts you think are- aren't important to everyday life.”

And:
“You don't know what you are talking about.”

Well, I’m going to totally disagree with you here. The science you think is unimportant is going to tear apart the Christian Dogma, as I said earlier.

And I do know what I am talking about.

Your books of Genesis, Exodus, and Joshua are not true. Most everything in them is now disproven.

Does it matter to you that the age of the earth is solidly 4.8 billion +- years old??

Does it matter to you that Adam and Eve as written in the Bible never existed?? It should, because without their ‘Original Sin’ there is no need for Jesus to rid us poor humans of this sin, and he is left with an embarrassing lack of work to do.

So.…Hmm…. no Jesus, or at least a Jesus out of work. Might be important to the Christian Dogma don’t you think?

The Noachian flood has been disproven so many times, and in so many ways, I’m not even going to go there.

The Tower of Babel is so easy to discredit and disprove I won’t even bother except to say; it really isn’t true at all….proven untrue years ago (evidence available if you want).

The Exodus has fairly recently (early 1990’s) been listed as disproven. No evidence AT ALL has been found to support a million plus Hebrews walking the Sinai desert for forty years, despite over a hundred years of archaeologists scouring it. This conclusion has been reached by Israeli archaeologists who have searched both the desert and the scientific literature for years.

Moses, as the author of the Pentateuch, has been seriously doubted by probably the majority of Biblical scholars for most, or all, of a hundred years.
Dude

Tiffin, OH

#82621 Mar 24, 2013
Does any of this matters? We are here, if we understood how, what change would occur?
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#82622 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a student of ancient Hebrew. The existence of a ball and other spherical objects means that they did not need a name for the geometric name for a sphere to describe one.
Remember this was all in response to YOUR idiotic statement that the Hebrews did not have a word for sphere.
You are right about one thing, you know nothing of ancient Hebrew. However, the existence of a toy does not mean they could only explain the shape the toy took with the word for the toy. This is a big failure for you as it is easily understood by other descriptions. I have repeatedly asked you to either find a word for sphere which you have not, I have repeatedly asked you to describe a sphere without using the word sphere which you have not. This entire discussion would be over if you did either. You won't though, because there isn't a word for sphere and if you described the sphere without using the word sphere, you would also be largely describing a circle.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they could have. I am not telling them what they had to do. The problem for you deniers of the fact is that not only do they use the word for flat, in context they imply a flat Earth.
So let me get this straight. Since we now know that the Earth is spherical, and even though the Hebrews used the word for a flat Earth and described a flat Earth we are supposed to believe that they really meant that the Earth was round simply because they did not have a word for sphere.
Does that sound reasonable to anyone?
Listen, the only way you get a flat earth is if you read the text wanting it to mean flat. It is all you reading into it. The verses do not say flat anywhere, the definition for the words do not say flat anywhere. It is all you implying what it says by inserting your own bias. The only reason you think this seems out of the ordinary is because you are insisting a word that does not appear applies.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Oversimplified and incorrect. I know you love Wiki so:http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Galileo_affair
You are taking your script directly from a Catholic apologist site.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-co...
This time I think I will go with Wiki.
{QUOTE]Actually, I took my information from a biography about Galileo. But it is good to know that your fact checking has shown that others agree with the book too. However, I'm still puzzled about why you insist on David Wootton's version as being the only correct one. OF course Wootton was an outspoken atheist and his work on this matter has largely been discredited as overly zealous in the meaning of fact along with his desire to present Galileo as an Atheist (which he was not).

[QUOTE who="Subduction Zone"]<quoted text>
No, your own arrogant idiocy is what makes you dishonest.
You made an exceptionally stupid statement. You probably don't know how idiotic it was. That was what started all of this.
In a pathetic attempt to defend your statement your other prejudices are becoming apparent.
No, my statement is true and honest. It is you who is so set in blind faith and confirmation bias that you cannot see reality anymore.
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#82623 Mar 24, 2013
Gillette wrote:
No mention there that Galileo was tried because he insulted the Pope, etc.
No mention there that Galileo was ever punished either.

Actually, Galileo wasn't punished for that. The church simply declared the science didn't support his claim and ordered him not to teach it as fact. It wasn't until Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World - Ptolemaic and Copernican was published circa 1630 that he received a sentence of house arrest (1633). In that, he completes his work on his Copernican theory and presents it as an argument between two fictitious authorities- one resembling leaders of the church in which he portrayed as a bumbling idiot and the other, a sophisticated and well educated man of wealth. It was no secrete what he was doing and it caused him to be trialed on violating the orders given to him in 1916- except the Copernican theory was never an issue because it was already declared as false in the 1916 ordeal.
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#82624 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Hogwash is putting what your church did rather lightly.
What your church did was much worse than hogwash. And when did they finally admit that they were wrong?
MY church?

Boy, you assume too much. I have nothing to do with the church. I simply am not stupid on the subject like you are.

That really ticks you off too doesn't it? That I stand up for what is right when I have no vested interest in it and all you can do is flounder while failing to convince anyone of your worldviews. Face it, you are wrong, move on to something else. I'm sure if you look hard enough, you might find something you can actually be correct at.
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#82625 Mar 24, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
You pedophile priest motherfvcker, your Catholic Church tortured and killed people for their ideas!
Oh, I see you have lost anything constructive to say and now are trying to win the argument by insulting the other person.
How crass you think you are. Your momma must be extremely proud of you. But wait, if I'm a motherfvcker, how do you know I'm not your dad and I didn't with your mom? You are about a smart mouthed asshat like my other kids are. Should I say who's your daddy now?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82626 Mar 24, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>You are right about one thing, you know nothing of ancient Hebrew. However, the existence of a toy does not mean they could only explain the shape the toy took with the word for the toy. This is a big failure for you as it is easily understood by other descriptions. I have repeatedly asked you to either find a word for sphere which you have not, I have repeatedly asked you to describe a sphere without using the word sphere which you have not. This entire discussion would be over if you did either. You won't though, because there isn't a word for sphere and if you described the sphere without using the word sphere, you would also be largely describing a circle.
What a tard! The object was not to describe the toy, the toy could be used to describe the shape of the Earth. So could a melon, so could an orange (though I oranges probably did not exist in the middle east at the time). There are countless object of known shape that could have been used to describe the shape of the Earth. And yet they didn't.

And no, you have not made those requests. You might have thought you did, but you haven't.
<quoted text>Listen, the only way you get a flat earth is if you read the text wanting it to mean flat. It is all you reading into it. The verses do not say flat anywhere, the definition for the words do not say flat anywhere. It is all you implying what it says by inserting your own bias. The only reason you think this seems out of the ordinary is because you are insisting a word that does not appear applies.
No, you have that ass backwards. The only way you can get a spherical Earth is if you read the text wanting a spherical Earth.

Let's look at this one more time. The language used describes a flat Earth, the word for an engraved circle was used. The context is that of a flat Earth. You cannot be "above" a spherical Earth. Try it sometime. Somebody above New York is below Australia, or wherever is on the other side of the world. The beliefs of the people of that times was of a flat Earth.

So now because we know the Earth is spherical we are supposed to translate the Bible that way.

You should know that is wrong.
<quoted text>No, my statement is true and honest. It is you who is so set in blind faith and confirmation bias that you cannot see reality anymore.
Right, keep telling yourself that. I am sure Jesus will smack you on the back when you get to heaven and he will thank you for covering for him.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82627 Mar 24, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>MY church?
Boy, you assume too much. I have nothing to do with the church. I simply am not stupid on the subject like you are.
That really ticks you off too doesn't it? That I stand up for what is right when I have no vested interest in it and all you can do is flounder while failing to convince anyone of your worldviews. Face it, you are wrong, move on to something else. I'm sure if you look hard enough, you might find something you can actually be correct at.
Your excuses for the Catholic church come straight from the second link I provided. They are obviously pathetic self serving lies.

What ticks me off are dishonest people. Almost all creationists ar dishonest people. They lie, and like you when shown to be wrong they ignore that and keep spreading the same lies.
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#82628 Mar 24, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello adif understanding, thanks for your reply.
You write:
“No, not really. You see, if the science is created as part of the creation, then all fits nicely together. 99% of the bible is not in contradiction with any science and the parts you think are- aren't important to everyday life.”
And:
“You don't know what you are talking about.”
Well, I’m going to totally disagree with you here. The science you think is unimportant is going to tear apart the Christian Dogma, as I said earlier.
And I do know what I am talking about.
Your books of Genesis, Exodus, and Joshua are not true. Most everything in them is now disproven.
Does it matter to you that the age of the earth is solidly 4.8 billion +- years old??
Does it matter to you that Adam and Eve as written in the Bible never existed?? It should, because without their ‘Original Sin’ there is no need for Jesus to rid us poor humans of this sin, and he is left with an embarrassing lack of work to do.
So.…Hmm…. no Jesus, or at least a Jesus out of work. Might be important to the Christian Dogma don’t you think?
The Noachian flood has been disproven so many times, and in so many ways, I’m not even going to go there.
The Tower of Babel is so easy to discredit and disprove I won’t even bother except to say; it really isn’t true at all….proven untrue years ago (evidence available if you want).
The Exodus has fairly recently (early 1990’s) been listed as disproven. No evidence AT ALL has been found to support a million plus Hebrews walking the Sinai desert for forty years, despite over a hundred years of archaeologists scouring it. This conclusion has been reached by Israeli archaeologists who have searched both the desert and the scientific literature for years.
Moses, as the author of the Pentateuch, has been seriously doubted by probably the majority of Biblical scholars for most, or all, of a hundred years.
Wow.. how full of it can a person be. First, you have no scientific evidence that those books are not true. You also have no scientific evidence that they are which does not scientifically mean they are not true. Second, you have absolutely not scientific evidence that Adam and Even are not true.

In fact, you have no scientific evidence that anything you mentioned outside of the age of the earth is not true in the bible. But then again, the bible doesn't give the age, that was dogma created by the church. And BTW, no, it matters not to me how old the earth is, I don't use the age of the earth in anything I do from a day to day basis.

Now here is a scientific fact for you, the global flood, the lack of evidence does not mean something did not happen, it just means there is no support for it happening. That is not disproved.

I don't think you actually know what science is or how science works. Science cannot make statements about supernatural events even if they contain elements of nature and in science, the lack of evidence does not mean something is false- ever. SO what you are really saying is that your loosely based blind faith of science is going to attempt to argue the bible and religion from a seemingly scientific perspective in order to reinforce your notions of your own religious beliefs. And yes, they are not scientific, they are the same thought processes that religious people use and they are your beliefs, not scientific fact.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tenerife

#82629 Mar 24, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>No, not really. You see, if the science is created as part of the creation, then all fits nicely together. 99% of the bible is not in contradiction with any science and the parts you think are- aren't important to every day life.
<quoted text>You don't know what you are talking about.
<quoted text>Obviously you so not understand the bible or the story of Jesus. Perhaps when you learn a bit about it you can come back and play.
By the way, slavery is alive and well today. What on earth makes you think it isn't? Every state arrest and binds people to work programs for violations of their laws.
<quoted text>You really do not understand the Christian religion. IF you did, you wouldn't not have even come close to those statements. The bible is a record of covenants with god, all of what you listed is old covenants and not supported under the new covenant. What you are actually saying is, do you really want to ignore the covenant with Christ and go back to the old covenants that do not apply any more? That is the only way to make your statement sound sane in the reality of Christianity.
<quoted text>Why are you only concerned with the blacks? There was white slaves, Chinese slaves, indian's and many other slaves. slavery exists and thrives to this day in Africa, as well as is implied in the US as almost every state forces it's incarcerated populations to work in some fashion to either help pay for their keep or benefit the society they were plucked out of.
But all of that is moot due to your ignorance anyways. Those were the accepted ways of the past in the bible. They are not justified in the new testament or the new covenant with God. You should really try to understand what you are going to talk about before speaking. Of course there are idiots who claim to be christian who do not understand that too, but I suspect they got their biblical teachings from the same idiot you did.
Hello adif understanding,

Continuation of last post:
The writing of the Pentateuch has been placed at around the time of, or shortly after, the Hebrew exile in Babylon around the 6th or 5th century BC, instead of at the lifetime of a supposed Moses around the early1400’s BC. There is more than one writer of this work. This is not as strong an assertion, because all we have is circumstantial evidence….but it is really extensive and substantial.

You write:
“Obviously you so not understand the bible or the story of Jesus. Perhaps when you learn a bit about it you can come back and play.”
I understand the book and Jesus well my friend.

You write:
“By the way, slavery is alive and well today. What on earth makes you think it isn't? Every state arrest and binds people to work programs for violations of their laws.”

Yeah, we have evil bastards all over the world making sexual slaves of women and little girls. Is it right?

So that makes slavery OK?? Arrest and incarceration is Law and Order….not slavery. Do you want the inmates lying around enjoying the good-life, or would you rather they payed for their keep??

Jesus in the New Testament actively supported slavery because he spoke to a slave and recommended that he work hard and honor his owner. Of course in the Old Testament God and the Hebrew’s make excuses for the slavery and tell how to keep them and just how much they can be smitten (beaten).

Since the Bible was actually written by men, without any Godly input, and men had been keeping slaves for centuries already, I believe that slavery was included because it was commonplace. The writer’s dads and granddads and their dads knew slavery….they thought nothing of it.

Think about it….should a man OWN another man or woman. Should he have the right to beat the slave to within an inch of their life?? Should the owner of a female slave be able to sexually assault that slave women with no consequences?? All of this is OK in the Bible.

Continued

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tenerife

#82630 Mar 24, 2013
Dude wrote:
Does any of this matters? We are here, if we understood how, what change would occur?
Well at least we would be rid of those pesky creatards..:-)

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tenerife

#82631 Mar 24, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Wow.. how full of it can a person be. First, you have no scientific evidence that those books are not true. You also have no scientific evidence that they are which does not scientifically mean they are not true. Second, you have absolutely not scientific evidence that Adam and Even are not true.
In fact, you have no scientific evidence that anything you mentioned outside of the age of the earth is not true in the bible. But then again, the bible doesn't give the age, that was dogma created by the church. And BTW, no, it matters not to me how old the earth is, I don't use the age of the earth in anything I do from a day to day basis.
Now here is a scientific fact for you, the global flood, the lack of evidence does not mean something did not happen, it just means there is no support for it happening. That is not disproved.
I don't think you actually know what science is or how science works. Science cannot make statements about supernatural events even if they contain elements of nature and in science, the lack of evidence does not mean something is false- ever. SO what you are really saying is that your loosely based blind faith of science is going to attempt to argue the bible and religion from a seemingly scientific perspective in order to reinforce your notions of your own religious beliefs. And yes, they are not scientific, they are the same thought processes that religious people use and they are your beliefs, not scientific fact.
Piece by piece buddy....

You write:
"Wow.. how full of it can a person be. First, you have no scientific evidence that those books are not true. You also have no scientific evidence that they are which does not scientifically mean they are not true. Second, you have absolutely not scientific evidence that Adam and Even are not true."

Au contraire my friend, we have tremendous evidence to back up what I am saying.

Adam and Eve is easily proven wrong.

We know for a fact that Homo-sapiens made his/her appearance around 200,000 years ago. Archaeology, paleoanthropology, and DNA all agree on this and it is now accepted by the majority of scientists world-wide.

DNA also says that the human race has never been down to just 1 mating pair, or 4 pairs if you believe the flood myth.

Go ahead and do your homework...this stuff is testable truth...not that Bible you swear by.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tenerife

#82632 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Your excuses for the Catholic church come straight from the second link I provided. They are obviously pathetic self serving lies.
What ticks me off are dishonest people. Almost all creationists ar dishonest people. They lie, and like you when shown to be wrong they ignore that and keep spreading the same lies.
How about some more?

You write:
"In fact, you have no scientific evidence that anything you mentioned outside of the age of the earth is not true in the bible. But then again, the bible doesn't give the age, that was dogma created by the church. And BTW, no, it matters not to me how old the earth is, I don't use the age of the earth in anything I do from a day to day basis."

No problem about the age of the earth, I was just asking.

Like I said earlier there is tremendous scientifically testable evidence to back up what I said. I'll lay it out for you in following posts.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82633 Mar 24, 2013
Don't you just love the "you have no scientific evidence" claim?
HOG_Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#82634 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Fool, you are assuming the existence of god. You cannot do that.
Garbage!
The logic of ANY argument is based on the ASSUMPTION that the premise(s) are true.
One of us here is a fool alright. Well lets see...
Subduction Zone wrote:
Since I do not believe your nonsense in the first place it is ridiculous to expect me to look for your evidence. Talk about being hypocritical.
As your expression implies, assumption (which is synonymous with belief) is necessary to encourage and/or guide the search for evidence.
Therefore are not only logical and possible but are necessary for discovery and expansion of knowledge.
Subduction Zone wrote:
We can show that there is no need for god in the universe. All observed phenomena can be explained without referring to mythical beings.
Ladies and gentlemen, is that so?
Does the fact that I dont need to know you to study a house that you built, mean you dont exist?

The stance taken by ones such as "Subduction Zone" is more a reflection of a personal philosophy than a scientific fact/concept/idea.
Subduction Zone wrote:
What happened to the person that pretended to be rational?
Yeah, I thought you were rational... What happened to your senses. I here singin "Which-way-did-it-go-part ner-which-way-did-it-go?" like Elmer Thud in one a dem f@kin Bugs Bunny cartoons.

The idea that "there is no need for God", IS NOT A CONCLUSIVE STATEMENT REGARDING THE REALITY, EXISTENCE NOR NATURE OF GOD.

ITS NOT ONLY A GOD THING, ITS A GENERAL IDEA IN SCIENCE:"Knowledge of ANY agent is superfluous to the study of the thing it created".

I know you are not trying to telling me that the fact that you can explain phenomena without God, even remotely implies that He/It doesnt exist?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tenerife

#82635 Mar 24, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Wow.. how full of it can a person be. First, you have no scientific evidence that those books are not true. You also have no scientific evidence that they are which does not scientifically mean they are not true. Second, you have absolutely not scientific evidence that Adam and Even are not true.
In fact, you have no scientific evidence that anything you mentioned outside of the age of the earth is not true in the bible. But then again, the bible doesn't give the age, that was dogma created by the church. And BTW, no, it matters not to me how old the earth is, I don't use the age of the earth in anything I do from a day to day basis.
Now here is a scientific fact for you, the global flood, the lack of evidence does not mean something did not happen, it just means there is no support for it happening. That is not disproved.
I don't think you actually know what science is or how science works. Science cannot make statements about supernatural events even if they contain elements of nature and in science, the lack of evidence does not mean something is false- ever. SO what you are really saying is that your loosely based blind faith of science is going to attempt to argue the bible and religion from a seemingly scientific perspective in order to reinforce your notions of your own religious beliefs. And yes, they are not scientific, they are the same thought processes that religious people use and they are your beliefs, not scientific fact.
You write:
"Now here is a scientific fact for you, the global flood, the lack of evidence does not mean something did not happen, it just means there is no support for it happening. That is not disproved."

Lack of any evidence for 4500+- years means to me there is no evidence...especially with thousands of evangelical Christian looking for some the last 500+ years.

Christians in the 1700's started doubting the flood and looked diligently for any evidence at all.

There is NO scientific organization on the face of the earth that supports a global flood....it didn't happen.
HOG_Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#82636 Mar 24, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Man came to speculate many things after experiencing reality. Hence all concepts are just as valid.
Even atheism.
"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities" [Wikipedia.com]

However:

"...reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible." [Wikipedia.com]

Atheism is an irrational stance as it is fundamentally unrealistic; in that it neglects that fact that reality includes the incomprehensible, which is one of the assumed characteristics of "God".

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82637 Mar 24, 2013
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Garbage!
The logic of ANY argument is based on the ASSUMPTION that the premise(s) are true.
One of us here is a fool alright. Well lets see...
<quoted text>
As your expression implies, assumption (which is synonymous with belief) is necessary to encourage and/or guide the search for evidence.
Therefore are not only logical and possible but are necessary for discovery and expansion of knowledge.
<quoted text>
Ladies and gentlemen, is that so?
Does the fact that I dont need to know you to study a house that you built, mean you dont exist?
The stance taken by ones such as "Subduction Zone" is more a reflection of a personal philosophy than a scientific fact/concept/idea.
<quoted text>
Yeah, I thought you were rational... What happened to your senses. I here singin "Which-way-did-it-go-part ner-which-way-did-it-go?" like Elmer Thud in one a dem f@kin Bugs Bunny cartoons.
The idea that "there is no need for God", IS NOT A CONCLUSIVE STATEMENT REGARDING THE REALITY, EXISTENCE NOR NATURE OF GOD.
ITS NOT ONLY A GOD THING, ITS A GENERAL IDEA IN SCIENCE:"Knowledge of ANY agent is superfluous to the study of the thing it created".
I know you are not trying to telling me that the fact that you can explain phenomena without God, even remotely implies that He/It doesnt exist?
I hate this sites quoting system at times.

That first quote is clearly a quote out of context, but I don't feel like going back and diffing up the post to see how HOG mangled it.

And poor HOG's ability to communicate totally breaks down by the end of his post.

So HOG, can you make yourself clear?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82638 Mar 24, 2013
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities" [Wikipedia.com]
However:
"...reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible." [Wikipedia.com]
Atheism is an irrational stance as it is fundamentally unrealistic; in that it neglects that fact that reality includes the incomprehensible, which is one of the assumed characteristics of "God".
That article looks like it was written by a non-Atheist or perhaps you have edited it to suit your purpose. Would you accept an article written by a non-Christian that describes what Christianity is?

A better way to put it is that Atheists reject belief in matters that there is no evidence for. There is no real evidence for the existence of any gods. Not yours, not the Islam god, nor Hindu nor even, may his Noodly Appendages have mercy upon me, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

In that sense atheists have the most rational of beliefs.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution Theory Facing Crisis 3 hr Gillette 172
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 3 hr One way or another 172,497
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr TurkanaBoy 136,241
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered - live science (Sep '13) 4 hr TurkanaBoy 296
Science News (Sep '13) 14 hr positronium 2,848
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism Wed Zog Has-fallen 343
Natural Selection Not The Only Process That Dri... (Jan '14) Aug 25 reMAAT 20
When Will Evolutionists Confess Their Atheistic... (Feb '14) Aug 14 The Dude 1,831
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••