suzy in her 8th post on this forum writes:
The topic is, The Foundation of the Debate.
No, that it the title of the thread, the topic is defined in the first post as:
I've heard many evolutionists say that there is no reason for arguing about creation and evolution because the theory of evolution does not deny the existence of God. Is this claim valid?
And, btw, this is
absolutely true, and it
is a valid claim. The evidence is all the people that believe in god and that have no trouble with evolution. Let me set out the logic for you:
Premise 1: If evolution denies god then no person that believes in god can support evolution.
Premise 2: People that believe in god do support evolution.
Conclusion: Therefore evolution does not deny the existence of god.
Now if the premises are true (and I submit they are) and if the construction of the argument is logically valid (and I submit that it is) then the conclusion must be true. In order to debate this issue you need to show that either premise is false or that the construction is invalid, and failure to do that will render any argument irrelevant. It's like being in check in a chess game -- you must deal with the problem before you can move on.
Don't scientist argue enough among themselves?
They debate the relative merits of different theories and their ability to explain the evidence. They also
argue about politics and sports games.
The fact that they argue is irrelevant to the topic, and irrelevant to the validity of science in general and evolution in specific. It is another
non-sequitur - a logical fallacy - in your arguments.
It's interesting to, that where ever you go to debate religious issues, christians are brutally attacked for every .
It’s interesting,
too, that
whenever you debate religious issues, christian's play the "I'm a poor persecuted martyr" card whenever you challenge their silly, false or misleading assertions. What gets attacked is the silly, false or misleading things in your posts - not because you are christian, but because your
post has silly, false or misleading things.
It's also interesting that whenever you debate religious issues that some biblical literalist fundamentalist christians will claim to be part of the large family of christians when they are being "persecuted" but will turn around and say that others are not "true" christians when it suits their argument. They equivocate between two definitions.
Here you do both "we" are prosecuted because of "their" lies -- amusing.
... so you post a link to another of Rome's many bastard children, the flat earth society?
LOL. Every evil is due to rome eh? It seems you still have some issues with your personal past. One could claim that every flavor and blend of christianity is a "bastard child" of the catholic church -- they were the ones that constructed the bible eh?
But I see no mentioned connection
from the catholic church to the Flat Earth Society in the wikipedia article about the modern society:
Modern flat Earth beliefs - Wikipedia
There were and are people who believe the world is flat and that a literal reading of the bible says so. They are ridiculed, not because they are christian, but because they believe something that is patently false and has been invalidated by the evidence available even to common people. This belief is ridiculed because it is delusional - it requires the denial of evidence of the real world to maintain the belief.
It also doesn't matter whether the medieval churches (
all catholic IIRC) considered the earth to be flat or not, for they were guilty of geo-centrism which is equally false, and for which they are historically on record as persecuting poor scientists for claiming otherwise. This too is ridiculed today because it is patently false and has been invalidated by the evidence available even to common people. This belief is ridiculed because it is delusional - it requires the denial of evidence of the real world to maintain the belief.
Which brings us back to The Foundation of the Debate; The Lie that man can/will evolve into a 'higher being', ...
No, that is not the topic. It is not in the title and it is not in the first post on this thread (see tan box above). It has nothing to do with whether evolution denies god, or even anything to do with evolution. It is just another silly, false and misleading statement.
Why does it seem that some biblical literalist fundamentalist christians cannot demonstrate that they can read the literal facts in front of them and have to change it and redefine words to argue against?
But that original creation DIED when Death came into the world, and God covered us in skin, to keep our rotting selves in, ...
Like I said before, you need to take this to the bible study forum, but it sure seems like you have some real
issues you need to work through, such as why you hate yourself and your body so much.
The topic is whether evolution denies god or not. It doesn't. That leaves the last question of the original post to discuss:
If it (the claim that the theory of evolution does not deny the existence of God) is (valid), why does this website exist?
It exists because some people feel that their belief invalidates evolution (or other scientific evidence). It doesn't. Belief never trumps evidence.
This gets back to the issue of the flat earth, geocentrism, religious beliefs and the reality of the universe - the age of the universe, the earth, and the formation and evolution of life on this planet.
For it is also a matter of record that there are a couple of beliefs that many biblical literalist fundamentalist christians have that are equally false:
the false concept that the earth is young.
the false concept that there was a world wide flood.
the false concept that species are not evolving.
These concepts are also increasingly ridiculed today because they are patently false and have been invalidated by the evidence available.
This is the history of false religious beliefs in the face of scientific evidence. It does not matter what the flavor of the belief involved covers, if it conflicts with reality it is by definition delusional:
quote:
delusion” -noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.
In other words resistant to evidence that invalidates the delusional belief.
Compare this with belief:
quote:
belief” -noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
And note that something that can be disproved by evidence cannot fit definition #2, but it fits definition #1 rather well eh?
So this forum exists to give the proponents of various beliefs that they feel invalidate evolution (and the age of life, the earth and the universe) to have a place to show that their beliefs are not delusional.
And note, please, that it is not christianity that is in question here, as there are many christians that accept the scientific evidence of evolution and an old, floodless earth, what is in question are specific interpretations that conflict with reality.
How can one tell when their beliefs are delusional? When they need to deny evidence that invalidates it.
Enjoy.
Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2