Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Three Kinds of Creationists
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 61 of 432 (657432)
03-28-2012 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Percy
03-28-2012 7:14 AM


the deep
For what it's worth, I'm not aware of "the Primordial Ocean" being a non-ambiguous Genesis reference either.
It is less ambiguous in its cultural context. Genesis refers to the 'waters of the deep' over which God roamed. It was an ocean that was there from the beginning and from which is the creation of everything. Quite literally a primordial ocean; as PaulK puts it, there are 'no planets, no stars, no life, except perhaps for some god or gods'.
Indeed Strong's gives 'primeval ocean' as a valid definition of tĕhowm
Enuma Elish has a similar primordial ocean:
quote:
When on high the heaven had not been named,
Firm ground below had not been called by name,
When primordial Apsu, their begetter,
And Mummu-Tiamat, she who bore them all,
Their waters mingled as a single body,
No reed hut had sprung forth, no marshland had appeared,
None of the gods had been brought into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies determined
Absu was sweet water and Tiamat was bitter water.
So given its cultural context, it seems the most reasonable interpretation of Genesis is of a creation that occurred after there was only an ocean and a deity. This would be best described, I think, as a primordial ocean, especially as we consider that in the Genesis account, everything traces its origins to this ocean. PaulK capitalises it to differentiate it from more scientific notion of a primordial ocean - one that is only there as a beginning of life not all other things.

I suppose though, if there is dispute over this it might be best to hash it out in a thread of its own right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 03-28-2012 7:14 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-28-2012 4:56 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
bridgebuilder
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-26-2012


(3)
Message 62 of 432 (657447)
03-28-2012 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by New Cat's Eye
03-27-2012 10:08 AM


CatholicScientist writes:
Have you never heard of a Theistic Evolutionist?Theistic evolution - Wikipedia
Thanks for the link. I will explore this and other links other posters have shared. Perhaps by learning the lingo or the appropriate terms for idea sets others have that shape their beliefs, I will not be as bad about mislabeling and/or erroneously using blanket terms as I did earlier when I used the term 'evolutionists' as a synonym for 'atheists'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-27-2012 10:08 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by subbie, posted 03-28-2012 4:17 PM bridgebuilder has replied
 Message 74 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-28-2012 5:21 PM bridgebuilder has replied

  
bridgebuilder
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-26-2012


Message 63 of 432 (657448)
03-28-2012 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by RAZD
03-27-2012 9:59 AM


Re: 'creationist' vs 'evolutionist' is a false dichotomy
RAZD writes:
As others have pointed out, "evolutionist" is a term used by creationists to try to categorize non-creationists, with the implication that it is some kind of 'ism = a belief system.In fact there are many people who are non-creationists that are also theists of various types, people who accept\trust science as providing testable concepts of reality, and who accept\trust the results of science as providing the best explanation of the evidence.
Yes, from a creationist's perspective, everything is viewed with a somewhat religious lens, so even a lack of religion can be misconstrued as an "ism" or type of belief system that cannot exactly be categorized in the same manner. I will attempt to view things without the distortion of a religious scope in the future unless the context deems it appropriate.Thank you for the links I will read them as soon I have time
RAZD writes:
You will note that evolution does not date the age of the earth, that this information comes through geology, physics, and some other sciences. Using 'evolutionist' is thus misleading. The fact remains that creationism is in conflict with almost all branches of science in some way.
I used evolution in this manner because my op was intended to address the creationist audience that believe in a 'Young Earth' theory of creationism. Also, the name of this message board is "Creation vs. Evolution" so I mistakenly used evolutionist as a blanket term for atheists in my initial responses (for which I have been promptly corrected). I do not dispute there is conflict between creationism and the major branches of science, but there is also much conflict within the creationism-crowd itself (as there are conflicts among scientists in their respective branches). The term evolution is a hot button term for the young earth-ers because of the millions or billions of years it takes a given species to evolve whether its the 'ape to man', 'dinosaurs to birds' or whatever other like scenario. That is an impossibility to a young earth-er if the earth can be no older than 6000 years. While evolution does not provide an exact chronology to yield the age of the earth as perhaps geology, physics, etc., would, the million/billions of years time period of existence of the earth that is inherent in evolution and other branches of science is the major source of the conflict between some creationists (young earth-ers in particular) and science. The young earth-creationists feel that science is attacking Genesis/Bible, something they fervently care about. I was simply saying it is because of their misinterpretation of Genesis that causes them to reject certain aspects of science and feel defensive when presented with scientific knowledge that does not accommodate their young earth vision. To a non-creationist, whether an atheist or an individual that believes in a Higher Intelligence but not the biblical concept of God, the whole argument is irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 03-27-2012 9:59 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 64 of 432 (657449)
03-28-2012 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by bridgebuilder
03-28-2012 4:05 PM


I must commend you. Like many other creos, you came here with a lot of incorrect ideas, but unlike many, you seem willing to learn. I encourage you to do so. You will find that many of the things you thought were so are not. This may or may not change your belief structure, but at least you will know what you are up against. And it will give you a chance to conform your ideas to reality, always a good thing.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-28-2012 4:05 PM bridgebuilder has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-28-2012 6:04 PM subbie has replied

  
bridgebuilder
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-26-2012


Message 65 of 432 (657450)
03-28-2012 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Taq
03-27-2012 3:17 PM


Taq writes:
...You are building a bridge built on untruths. If you build a bridge based on the idea that the theory of evolution is a religion then I don't see why anyone should follow you. In fact, I would hope that they do not. You also seem to be building a bridge that forces people to choose between reality and religion...
I am not looking for 'disciples' or proselytizing to try "save" those who don't believe in God. I am not forcing anyone to do anything. I don't anticipate anyone on this forum who rejects religion/spirituality/faith as a whole to change their hearts and minds simply because I do not interpret the Genesis account of creation in the same manner as a young-earth believer or other adherent to various fundamentalist sects. Those are the main groups who feel threatened by many scientific discoveries. That was the impasse I was referring to in my op. The breach between atheists and those who believe in a Higher Being is too vast for me to attempt to bridge-build. What possible argument could I give or evidence could I present that has not been attempted numerous times by numerous others? Zip. For a believer, their very existence makes God self evident, but this is not so for an atheist. And I know further attempts to convince them to accept that would only cause annoyance. From my personal experience, the only way for an atheist to change their mind about not believing in a Higher Being is for them to have a profound, personal spiritual experience. I cannot cause that to happen for anyone.
Taq writes:
Really? So what happens when people are confronted with the mountains of evidence that support the theory of evolution? You are forcing people to reject reality in order to believe in a Higher Being. That seems like a no win situation. Why would you do that? It is like forcing people to reject the science of meteorology in order to accept that God creates lightning.
People are free to do what they will when confronted with mountains of evidence to support whatever scientific theory. An example of a result of this free will is this forum. The existence of God does not nullify the science of meteorology IMO. I haven't yet met a creationist who thinks that God sits on clouds and produces all the lightening bolts from his fingertips or a magical rod. But perhaps they are out there. Wasn't that Zeus or Thor who supposedly did that, lol?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Taq, posted 03-27-2012 3:17 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Taq, posted 03-28-2012 5:21 PM bridgebuilder has not replied

  
bridgebuilder
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-26-2012


Message 66 of 432 (657451)
03-28-2012 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Granny Magda
03-27-2012 3:51 PM


Granny Magda writes:
I don't think you're making a valid comparison here. The primordial ocean of Genesis is not merely the beginning of the Earth, it's the beginning of everything. As PaulK notes, Genesis does not contain the concept of a planet. The authors seem to have imagined their world to be pretty much all there is. They did not have enough information to realise their place within a wider universe. As far a Genesis is concerned, the primordial ocean and the spirit of God moving over the waters is all that there is at the very beginning.
It is also worth noting that in Genesis, the land comes after the waters. In reality, the Earth had no oceans during its earliest history, they only formed later on. So the Bible has water then land, the evidence says land, then water. It's not as good a match as you're making it out to be.
A more valid comparison would be to compare the early universe to the beginning of Genesis. The early universe in Genesis is a primordial ocean. The evidence however tells us that, in reality, water could not even have existed in the early universe. Again, it's not a good match.
If you want to build bridges, you need them to have good foundations. I think that any reasonable foundation has to accept that whatever truths the Book of Genesis might contain, none of them are found in its take on cosmology or biology.
I am aware that the Book of Genesis does not break down the mechanics of the beginning of creation of the universe/earth as science attempts to do. Yes, there is a VAST amount of obscurity in Genesis. I cannot cherry pick chapters and verses that I could try to fit the big bang theory into, or the particular phrase that denotes the formation of a galaxy or planet. I am fairly certain when God said "let there be light," that the process was much more complex than light magically appearing. But maybe not. Perhaps the resonance of his voice combined with the tone of the symbols of whatever language God uses, made the right vibrations to tie the knots of the super string (if the quantum theorists are on the right track), then energy was released, matter left its chaotic state and formed into atoms, and a mass expansion formed the fabric of space, dimensions formed within them and beyond, along with laws physics to govern them, and Voil! Light. I don't know.
A Rabbi would be a better candidate to pick apart Genesis and make a detailed commentary/exegesis that could possibly compare it to scientific theories. If I had more expertise in it could go into the Judaic tradition of understanding the Genesis account, but I am not Jewish. I do know that reading Genesis in English makes it over simplified while the interpretation in Hebrew adds much more complexity. In Hebrew every letter has a symbolic meaning because of its numeric value (which also has another underlying symbolic meaning), its shape, its combination with other letters, and the sounds produced when uttered. For example the first letter in Genesis is Bet which has a closed shape to the left, which means, according to their tradition, that the information that happened before Genesis was deliberately left out by God. Nevertheless, they have an eternal outlook on the nature of God. Science is also perplexed about what happened before the big bang. The problem I have with young-earth believers is that they claim to believe in an eternal God, but simultaneously claim he didn't create anything until 5000-6000 years ago. The writers of Genesis (Moses et al.) did not believe this.The existence of water and land in the Genesis account should demonstrate that somethings already existed before God say "let there be______ (whatever), and it was so." whether it was a primordial ocean, or Primordial Ocean. Bible believers do not look at the original source for a deeper understanding because of their differences of who the Messiah is/will be. However, as I said in an earlier post to someone else, if one is an atheist, all this is irrelevant
Edited by bridgebuilder, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Granny Magda, posted 03-27-2012 3:51 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Granny Magda, posted 03-29-2012 8:16 AM bridgebuilder has not replied

  
bridgebuilder
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-26-2012


Message 67 of 432 (657452)
03-28-2012 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by PaulK
03-27-2012 5:49 PM


Re: To PaulK
PaulK writes:
I don't see how the conclusion can be avoided. Genesis 1 starts with the ocean and God as the only things existing. Everything else - not just life - comes later. Genesis 1 doesn't say that the ocean is necessary to precede life (it doesn't even imply it) but it does have the ocean existing before creation.
According to some nothing but God and an ocean existed. I personally don't believe that, but I believe we were placed in a dimension that has a linear timeline, which necessitates a starting point. Perhaps God decided that was a good place to start when explaining the origins of self aware beings, who would no doubt wonder where they came from and what was/is the meaning of their existence.
PaulK writes:
Really ? How many great scientists have had their work rejected by the scientific community only to be vindicated after their death ? Or better, how many can you name ?
There are reasons why science is conservative - to block bad ideas. And there are many which deserve to be blocked, and I think that they are rather more numerous.
If I delve into this, would I open myself up to accusations of being a conspiracy-believing kook? Probably so. Most of the people here think I'm kooky already for believing in a Higher Being. As far as your second point goes, I agree that bad ideas need to be blocked. However science can be guilty of the suppression of good ideas if they don't have proper checks and balances on the elites and think tanks of the science community.
PaulK writes:
Why care about the source of inspiration at all ? I don't think that science does. The source of inspiration isn't the point - it's the work developing that inspiration from a mere idea to a strongly supported conclusion that counts...And I think you will find that it is the entirely conventional work that Kekul did following up that inspiration was the important thing. And that is how it should be.
I agree to certain extent. It has been repeated to me numerous times that science should always ignore the supernatural. If so, they will never develop an understanding of supernatural phenomenon. An example I stated in a previous post was the example of levitating monks. If that was phenomenon was studied extensively instead of being debunked by mainstream science, perhaps a new breakthrough will be discovered on the way law of gravity works which may solve the mystery of what is inside a black hole. Maybe changing the vibration/brainwaves of an organism changes the magnetic fields surrounding it and allows it to defy gravity. If that was the case, a machine could be made to mimic those conditions to advance anti-gravity technology. Even if they prove it was an illusion, how the illusion was created may prove useful for some other purpose. I don't know and neither does science. So therefore it will remain esoteric and only for the few initiated.
But nevertheless the source of inspiration, you are right. It will not amount to anything of value without work to obtain valid results. I've had this debate in a religious context on religious forums with those who think that having faith (or the inspiration) in God is all they need to be "saved." I point out the faith without works is dead. It is a universal principal to me whether in a religious or scientific context.
PaulK writes:
If you want to claim that faith can be a valid way of attaining knowledge then I think that you are going to have to do more than just claim that it should be accepted. It looks to me as if faith is more a way of obscuring knowledge than attaining it.
Faith can enlighten or obscure knowledge, so I don't totally disagree with your point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 03-27-2012 5:49 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2012 6:00 PM bridgebuilder has not replied
 Message 105 by Percy, posted 03-29-2012 8:36 AM bridgebuilder has not replied

  
bridgebuilder
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-26-2012


Message 68 of 432 (657453)
03-28-2012 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Dr Adequate
03-27-2012 10:20 PM


Re: Science
Dr Adequate writes:
Certainly you can get your ideas wherever you like. You can draw them out of a hat, though I wouldn't recommend it. But then there's the business of finding out if they're true or not. If Kekul had stopped at dreaming of snakes, his name wouldn't be in the chemistry textbooks. After inspiration, the scientific method...
...Well, this is how it's meant to work. If there was no opposition to new ideas, we'd believe all sorts of things, most of them wrong and many of them mutually contradictory. A rigorous program of skepticism is required as a filter on our ideas, if we want to end up believing true things rather than false ones.
I do not disagree with your points.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-27-2012 10:20 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
bridgebuilder
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-26-2012


Message 69 of 432 (657454)
03-28-2012 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Nuggin
03-27-2012 11:23 PM


Re: Agnostic
Nuggin writes:
In what way could science be MORE agnostic than it already is.
Science currently makes absolutely no statements or predictions about religion or the supernatural beings that religions present.
Science, in fact, completely ignores the supernatural because... it's supernatural.
The only time there is a conflict is when someone's religion tells them something which is factually incorrect.
Science doesn't care WHICH religion is wrong, it doesn't care about the implications of the incorrect statement.
Science just backs reality. Every time, all the time.
Perhaps science backs reality, but perhaps not. What if science is stuck in a scenario similar to Plato's cave because it deliberately ignores the supernatural? Science will remain blissfully unaware I suppose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Nuggin, posted 03-27-2012 11:23 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Perdition, posted 03-28-2012 4:44 PM bridgebuilder has replied
 Message 73 by Nuggin, posted 03-28-2012 5:20 PM bridgebuilder has replied
 Message 76 by Taq, posted 03-28-2012 5:28 PM bridgebuilder has replied
 Message 106 by Percy, posted 03-29-2012 8:46 AM bridgebuilder has replied

  
bridgebuilder
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-26-2012


(1)
Message 70 of 432 (657455)
03-28-2012 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Pressie
03-28-2012 2:28 AM


Re: To Pressie
Pressie writes:
This is where you make a huge mistake. Darwin is not taken as gospel by scientists. In fact, his ideas have been and still are thoroughly tested by thousands of scientists all over the world. Some of his ideas have actually been found wrong. Furthermore, his theory has been altered as new evidence came along. This certainly doesn’t sound as if it is taken as gospel.
Poor analogy on my part.
Pressie writes:
Thanks for this and please stay on this forum.
Some people want to learn new things. From my experience here, it seems as if the majority of people are here to learn. I’ve learned a lot since coming to this forum. My knowledge on biology and physics, for example, started from basically non-existent to knowing a little bit. The teachers were experts on that subject and shared their knowledge for free on this forum. Taking courses on those subjects would have cost me a lot of money.
The way to learn and also to teach your knowledge to other people is to avoid false statements, ad hominims, straw-man arguments, red herrings, etc. People who deliberately do those things loose respect very quickly.
I have learned a lot already by visiting here for just a few days, and still have much reading to do from the links members have shared with me. Thanks for the welcome
And those types should lose respect. They are trolls that quickly ruin a discussion forum by their presence if allowed to run a muck.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Pressie, posted 03-28-2012 2:28 AM Pressie has seen this message but not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(2)
Message 71 of 432 (657456)
03-28-2012 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by bridgebuilder
03-28-2012 4:37 PM


Re: Agnostic
Perhaps science backs reality, but perhaps not. What if science is stuck in a scenario similar to Plato's cave because it deliberately ignores the supernatural? Science will remain blissfully unaware I suppose.
Science is built upon a foundation of naturalism, because otherwise, it can't investigate anything. It has nothing to say about supernatural events or beings, because they cannot be tested. They might exist, and if they did, science would be perfectly happy with that.
Science and spirituality can exist peacefully. The issues come in when spiritual or theistic people can't accept the things science says because of their interpretation of their religion. Or when they try to use science to "priove" their religion. Or when they try to force their religion into science classes.
If the religious would sit back, have their religion and either embrace the scientific discoveries or not, no one would care one whit. Science isn't out to destroy religion, but it seems some religious people are out to destroy science, and that's where the conflict comes in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-28-2012 4:37 PM bridgebuilder has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-28-2012 5:53 PM Perdition has replied

  
bridgebuilder
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-26-2012


Message 72 of 432 (657457)
03-28-2012 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Modulous
03-28-2012 1:18 PM


Re: the deep
That is very interesting I will research this further

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Modulous, posted 03-28-2012 1:18 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Panda, posted 03-28-2012 6:29 PM bridgebuilder has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 73 of 432 (657458)
03-28-2012 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by bridgebuilder
03-28-2012 4:37 PM


Re: Agnostic
Perhaps science backs reality, but perhaps not. What if science is stuck in a scenario similar to Plato's cave because it deliberately ignores the supernatural? Science will remain blissfully unaware I suppose.
In Plato's cave, the subject can only see the shadows on the wall. They can not evaluate what they are seeing. They can't "turn around" or "cast their own shadow" or "look at their own body".
In other words, they do not experiment. They do not try and disprove what they are seeing.
Science ignores the supernatural because the supernatural does not exist. If it existed, it wouldn't be "super"natural, it would just be "natural".
When you try and include the supernatural into explanations about what is happening or how it is happening, you quickly realize that the supernatural is worthless.
Examples: The wind blows because...
A) Different air pressures in different areas are trying to equalize.
B) Zeus wants it to
C) Ghosts want it to
D) Baby Jesus wants it to
E) Thor wants it to
F) An invisible dragon wants it to
G) Bigfoot wants it to
....
ZZ) An UNKNOWN magical creature or being wants it to
That list is LITERALLY endless and only A offers us anything we can test and later use to explain other things.
If you allow for A supernatural explanation, then you must allow for ALL supernatural explanations which means that no question can be answered ever.
Worthless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-28-2012 4:37 PM bridgebuilder has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-29-2012 3:24 PM Nuggin has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 432 (657459)
03-28-2012 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by bridgebuilder
03-28-2012 4:05 PM


Thanks for the link.
No problem. You'll find people here are very willing to help you if you are willing to learn. If not, then you're just going to open the flood gates of snark and ridicule.
You're introducing a lot of your ideas here in this thread, that have their own errors, but since we like to keep things on-topic, I'm not going to go through them all individually with corrections. You should pick a particular, fairly succinct, topic and propose a new opening post in the New Topic Forum. Then we can focus and learn you proper.
For example, we could talk about Genesis: "pick apart Genesis and make a detailed commentary/exegesis that could possibly compare it to scientific theories"
Or something on science and the supernatural. Or whatever.
Too, you don't have to reply to every single reply to you, especially if you're getting into things that don't have anything at all to do with the topic of the thread - this one being about the kinds of creationists and having nothing to do with Genesis vs. Science nor Science vs. Supernature.
Oh, and one more thing:
I believe we were placed in a dimension that has a linear timeline
Time dilation - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-28-2012 4:05 PM bridgebuilder has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-29-2012 1:22 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 75 of 432 (657460)
03-28-2012 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by bridgebuilder
03-28-2012 4:19 PM


For a believer, their very existence makes God self evident, but this is not so for an atheist.
Self evident is just another way of saying I have no evidence. We have seen this many times around here.
Atheists can be convinced, but we require evidence. It is that simple. Surely if there were mountains of evidence for the existence of Thor you would believe in Thor. The same for atheists. However, this evidence doesn't exist, and it doesn't exist for your beliefs, either.
The existence of God does not nullify the science of meteorology IMO.
So why does it nullify evolution? How are the two any different? Both are theories backed by mountains of evidence. Why do you pit your belief in God against reality? What do you hope to get out of that?
Even more, why do you feel the need to call science and the theory of evolution a religion when they are clearly not? What do you hope to get out of that?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-28-2012 4:19 PM bridgebuilder has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024