I'm an Anglican and lapsed atheist. The closest of the Protestant faiths to Catholicism.
Yeah, if I wasn't Catholic I'd prolly go Anglican.
I used to believe in evolution.
This is a nitpick, but I don't say that I "believe in" evolution. It's not a belief, it is the acceptance of a theory. There's a difference. I reserve belief for things that I don't have knowledge of. I know that species evolve - the ToE is just the best explanation that we have for how it happens. And I can accept that.
Is it 100% correct and complete? No, of course not. But it works well and it makes sense explaining the facts.
I stated reading Young Earth Creationist literature out of curiosity and after a while I began to realise they had valid arguments. While old earth evolutionists do have some good arguments I also think there are a lot of weaknesses in their position and overall the YEC position holds up well.
YEC is literally impossible unless god is a prankster.
The Earth appears old, very old. If it is young, then god is magically making it appear to be something that it isn't, and that would be a dirty trick.
If the evolutionists here hope to convince me they will need to lift their game.
Convincing the person you are replying to is only a small part of the game. You gotta keep the lurkers in mind, and this activity is a therapeutic honing of communication skills.
I stated reading Young Earth Creationist literature out of curiosity and after a while I began to realise they had valid arguments.
They have no arguments; they have beliefs. In order to sustain those beliefs against the mountain of multi-disciplinary evidence showing them to be wrong they have a small collection of misleading quote mines and mostly antique and always discredited pieces 'evidence' that they think of as proof of a case against all the science that contradicts them.
The YEC position is just absurd - demonstrably wrong by simple observation. There's multiple sources of cross-correlated evidence that puts YEC beyond all reasonble doubt and none of it needs to include evolution.
YEC is a form of madness.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
I used to believe in evolution. I stated reading Young Earth Creationist literature out of curiosity and after a while I began to realise they had valid arguments. While old earth evolutionists do have some good arguments I also think there are a lot of weaknesses in their position and overall the YEC position holds up well.
The Young Earth delusion is based wholly on belief, not evidence. The biggest weakness, imho, of the YEC position is the age of the earth ... it is just not compatible with reality. Mountains of reality.
Or, if you want a more updated version (includes new data since the one above) go to The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1) -- it is only partially complete yet, but it gets to an age for the earth of over 12,477 years (2017), well past the normal YEC delusional age. We can ask admin to promote it ...
Or, if you want to do this one on one, we can make it a new thread on The Great Debate forum.
The challenge for the age deniers is not just to describe how a single method can be wrong, but how they can all be wrong at the same time and in the same way to produce virtually identical results (within the margins of error) - when random results or systematic errors in different methods should produce notably different results:
The challenge for old age deniers (especially young earth proponents) is to explain why the same basic results occur from different measurement systems if they are not measuring actual age?
Those other measurement systems come into fuller play in later posts.
No creationist has been able to meet the challenge yet, so you can be the first on your block.
My prediction is that you won't take up the challenge, or you won't last long in a one on one (there have been others that have tried and failed), because your cognitive dissonance in maintaining cherished beliefs will not permit contrary information into your worldview bubble.
Agreed, but certain parties and certain people get frustrated when they cant win a debate or have no information or facts or science, and they cant explain themselves.
Creationism is the study of creation, not just in living things as with luck and chance evolution, but with all things, all distances, speeds, and all times. Creationism is logical and mathematical and rational, evolution is not, as it is only a con and a lie and semantics.
Linquists love definitions, and definition changes and word twisting and species classifications as then they can con readers into thinking their artist conceptions must be true...
Its a con.
Being told to "Fuck you I can fucking write whatever I want" by CatsEye to me I thought would be against the rules Here( at http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=page&t=17167&mpp=1... ...message 145 )but this board says there are no rules concerning languageits HERE, so allow me to repost Cats eyes comments.
A creator practically flies in the face of evidence.
Evidence is not the sole standard. Rational belief counts also.
The expression, "God of the Gaps," contains a real truth. It is erroneous if it is taken to mean that God is not immanent in natural law but is only to be observed in mysteries unexplained by law. No significant Christian group has believed this view. It is true, however, if it is taken to emphasize that God is not only immanent in natural law but also is active in the numerous phenomena associated with the supernatural and the spiritual. There are gaps in a physical-chemical explanation of this world, and there always will be. Because science has learned many marvelous secrets of nature, it cannot be concluded that it can explain all phenomena. Meaning, soul, spirits, and life subjects incapable of physical-chemical explanation or formation.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler