Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Use of Science to Support Creationism
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 35 of 122 (106808)
05-09-2004 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by almeyda
05-09-2004 10:58 AM


Re: ...
You might like to read this regarding a Christian perspective of Radiometric dating methods:
http://EvC Forum: Radioisotope dating links and information -->EvC Forum: Radioisotope dating links and information

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by almeyda, posted 05-09-2004 10:58 AM almeyda has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 107 of 122 (153844)
10-28-2004 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by crashfrog
10-28-2004 6:33 PM


quote:
The possibility of invisible ninjas, or the possibility of God?
Either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 10-28-2004 6:33 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 10-30-2004 5:16 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 112 of 122 (154817)
11-01-2004 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by crashfrog
10-30-2004 5:16 PM


...but I don't discount the possibility of either.
The probability of either is very small, of course, but anything is possible because we are not all-knowing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 10-30-2004 5:16 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2004 11:03 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 116 of 122 (155280)
11-02-2004 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by crashfrog
11-01-2004 11:03 AM


quote:
I'm satisified that you're an atheist if you believe the existence of God is as unlikely as any of the other imaginary things we invent around here.
Well, OK, you can call me an Athiest if you want to, but I'll call myself an Agnostic.
Absence of evidence isn't the same as evidence of absence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2004 11:03 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by crashfrog, posted 11-02-2004 6:51 PM nator has replied
 Message 118 by Lindum, posted 11-02-2004 6:59 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 119 of 122 (155286)
11-02-2004 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by crashfrog
11-02-2004 6:51 PM


No, I think that is the definition of Agnosticism.
Athieism, from everything I have read, says that there is no supernatural and could never be, not that we have no evidence for it so we don't know if it exists or not.
However, I guess I could be considered a "Strong Agnostic/Weak Athiest" by the second definition below.
Page not found - American Atheists
Atheism is based upon a materialist philosophy, which holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural
forces or entities, nor can there be any.
NOT AVAILABLE - FreeServers
An agnostic is a person who does not know if a god or gods exist. An agnostic who also believes that it is impossible to know whether or not gods exist is a strong agnostic, otherwise he or she is a weak agnostic.
An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods. An atheist who actively believes that gods do not exist is a strong atheist, while an atheist that merely lacks belief in gods is a weak atheist. Many people who identify themselves as agnostics are also weak atheists. Note that since it is perfectly consistent to hold the position that the evidence for the existence or nonexistence of gods is not entirely conclusive (so knowledge is not possible) but points heavily towards the nonexistence of any gods (so a tentative belief in the nonexistence of gods is justified), it is possible to simultaneously be a strong agnostic and a strong atheist.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-02-2004 07:07 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by crashfrog, posted 11-02-2004 6:51 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by crashfrog, posted 11-02-2004 7:13 PM nator has not replied
 Message 121 by Lindum, posted 11-02-2004 7:52 PM nator 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