Creation

[g_bambino]

Fossil record shows what creatures exited...

And morphed as they evolved, yes.

[g_bambino]

As far as evidence goes both evolution and creation are BELIEFS.

On a very simplisitc level, yes. But there is a mountain of evidence supporting the former and essentially nothing for the latter (assuming we're talking about the Biblical literalist Creationism, that is).

[betsy]

And morphed as they evolved, yes.

Nope. That's not a fact. That's just one of the twists and contortions macro-evolutionists do in their desperate attempt to resuscitate the deadwood.

CPR.

Have you noticed, you guys just keep using 29 Evidences by Theobold as a so-called refutation! Even though it's already been slammed by critics! Your deadwood will not resuscitate.

Not only are your arguments outdated....they're also been ridiculed!

Time to step out of the narrow-minded view of it.....go for ID!

At least it opens to a lot of options. Of course, it also suggests a Creator.

Become agnostics. Atheism is dead.

Edited July 13, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

On a very simplisitc level, yes. But there is a mountain of evidence supporting the former and essentially nothing for the latter (assuming we're talking about the Biblical literalist Creationism, that is).

I have to admit, like me....you're a true believer of your faith.

A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s

“29 Evidences for Macroevolution”

by Ashby Camp

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

Camp Answers Theobald

Reply to Theobald’s Response to Part 1 of Critique

By Ashby L. Camp

Copyright 2002 by Ashby L. Camp. All rights reserved.

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_ac_01.asp

....and this scathing rebuke from Luskin....

Douglas Theobald Tests Universal Common Ancestry by Refuting a Preposterous Null Hypothesis

Casey Luskin November 29, 2010 11:00 AM

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/douglas_theobald_tests_univers041021.html

And.....these two latest news....

Evolutionary Leftovers in DNA? Not So, Says New Study.

http://www.icr.org/article/evolutionary-leftovers-dna-not-so-says/

Science Overturns Evolution's Best Argument

http://www.icr.org/article/science-overturns-evolutions-best-argument/

[g_bambino]

A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s

“29 Evidences for Macroevolution by Ashby Camp

Reply to Theobald’s Response to Part 1 of Critique

By Ashby L. Camp

Douglas Theobald Tests Universal Common Ancestry by Refuting a Preposterous Null HypothesisCasey Luskin

Evolutionary Leftovers in DNA? Not So, Says New Study.

Science Overturns Evolution's Best Argument

*Yawn* Pitting five articles (two by the same author, all trying to prove the existence of God) against 200 years of biological, genetic, and archaeological research and discovery of tangible evidence (conducted in an effort to expand our understanding of nature rather than disprove the existence of God) is pathetic.

[c/e]

Edited July 13, 2011 by g_bambino

[bloodyminded]

Time to step out of the narrow-minded view of it.....go for ID!

At least it opens to a lot of options. Of course, it also suggests a Creator.

No. It demands a Creator.

Become agnostics. Atheism is dead.

Many atheists, including myself, are agnostics also. The two are not mutually exclusive, even though critics (and some atheists) believe they are.

[DogOnPorch]

[Oleg Bach]

Half of western society is more than willing to beieve in little green men or life else where. Yet these people scoff at the idea of an intelligent devine force called God. There is absolutely no proof of life else where but the believe. There is proof on earth of intelligent life yet they do not want to believe. For some reason people think it's more sophisticated to believe in something with out proof such as aliens - but will NOT believe in God and the creation that is in front of them. ODD?

[cybercoma]

*Yawn* Pitting five articles (two by the same author, all trying to prove the existence of God) against 200 years of biological, genetic, and archaeological research and discovery of tangible evidence (conducted in an effort to expand our understanding of nature rather than disprove the existence of God) is pathetic.

[c/e]

Yeah, but her position is just as credible because she has faith in it and you have faith in all that other stuff.

See. Same thing.

[bloodyminded]

Yeah, but her position is just as credible because she has faith in it and you have faith in all that other stuff.

See. Same thing.

Ha!

Actually, this is an important component of these sorts of "debates."

The fact is that we don't know everything. The fact is that, yes, we could be wrong about any number of things, despite truly overwhelming evidence.

However, we live and die by probabilities.

I believe I exist, and am not part of a complex dream in the sleeping brain of a different entity.

It would be perverse and foolish for me to believe other than I do on this matter...even though I don't absolutely and irrefutably know it in the fullest sense of the word.

This is what Creationists are trying to argue; that since we can't know--100%--that evolution as we understand it is real...we should give at least "equal weight" to another concept, even if its miles away in evidence, and in fact part of an entirely different paradigm.

A stunningly dishonest argument, for anyone who "knows" that some foods are better for our health than others, that cars run because of their construction and because of physics, that there are people who love us, that some human behaviour is bad, and some good...all are "beliefs" in the disingenuous sense that they are offering the word.

Edited July 13, 2011 by bloodyminded

[g_bambino]

The fact is that, yes, we could be wrong about any number of things, despite truly overwhelming evidence.

And therein lies the difference between a pragmatic scientist and a devout Biblical literalist: in order to both fit their respective definitions, the former must be willing to constantly let his beliefs be challenged by irrefutable evidence, whereas the latter must hold true to what he believes and filter and force the evidence to fit that.

This is what Creationists are trying to argue; that since we can't know--100%--that evolution as we understand it is real...we should give at least "equal weight" to another concept, even if its miles away in evidence, and in fact part of an entirely different paradigm.

Precisely.

[sp]

Edited July 13, 2011 by g_bambino

[Oleg Bach]

Joy to the world! Look a the sky and trees- today....Creation is awesome!

[betsy]

*Yawn* Pitting five articles (two by the same author, all trying to prove the existence of God) against 200 years of biological, genetic, and archaeological research and discovery of tangible evidence (conducted in an effort to expand our understanding of nature rather than disprove the existence of God) is pathetic.

[c/e]

Redundant argument requires redundant rebuttal.

Circular reasoning requires a good chop.

Sleepwalkers require a good jolt.

Poor eyesight requires big, bold fonts.

[betsy]

Ha!

Actually, this is an important component of these sorts of "debates."

The fact is that we don't know everything. The fact is that, yes, we could be wrong about any number of things, despite truly overwhelming evidence.

There is no such thing as "overwhelming" ebidence for evolution. There isn;t even one single evidence for it, never mind overwhelming.

However, we live and die by probabilities.

I believe I exist, and am not part of a complex dream in the sleeping brain of a different entity.

The fact that you don't have any proof whether God exists or not....and yet you believe the way you do, that is called, faith.

I am openly saying that I have my faith.....but you deny yours. Furthermore, New Atheism ridicules those who do have faith....and yet don't even realize or understand the very meaning of what they're ridiculing since they don't even see that they - new atheists - based their belief on faith as well.....that's the big difference between us.

It would be perverse and foolish for me to believe other than I do on this matter...even though I don't absolutely and irrefutably know it in the fullest sense of the word.

Read the rsponse preceding this.

This is what Creationists are trying to argue; that since we can't know--100%--that evolution as we understand it is real...

Evolution is dead. Long gone. The only reason it remains is due to secularism.....and the scary thought that anything else could lead to the possibility the existence of God or a god.

That's why atheists really clings to it - just like a captain stays on a sinking ship.

we should give at least "equal weight" to another concept, [/quote

Which is only rational compared to clinging to a deadwood.

even if its miles away in evidence, and in fact part of an entirely different paradigm.

Not so. ....If you'll open your eyes and open your mind.

Considering that

A stunningly dishonest argument, for anyone who "knows" that some foods are better for our health than others, that cars run because of their construction and because of physics, that there are people who love us, that some human behaviour is bad, and some good...all are "beliefs" in the disingenuous sense that they are offering the word.

Are you referring to neo-darwinism?

[Oleg Bach]

There is no such thing as "overwhelming" ebidence for evolution. There isn;t even one single evidence for it, never mind overwhelming.

The fact that you don't have any proof whether God exists or not....and yet you believe the way you do, that is called, faith.

I am openly saying that I have my faith.....but you deny yours. Furthermore, New Atheism ridicules those who do have faith....and yet don't even realize or understand the very meaning of what they're ridiculing since they don't even see that they - new atheists - based their belief on faith as well.....that's the big difference between us.

What there is a new - Darwinism ? DID Darwin approve the movement? I think not seeing he is dead and can not speak...so some other jerks are revamping evolutionary theory to suit themselves? This sounds like what happened to Christianity - that is now un-recognizable to the original.

Read the rsponse preceding this.

Evolution is dead. Long gone. The only reason it remains is due to secularism.....and the scary thought that anything else could lead to the possibility the existence of God or a god.

That's why atheists really clings to it - just like a captain stays on a sinking ship.

Are you referring to neo-darwinism?

[Oleg Bach]

Neo - Darwinism is like Christianity - it does not have the full apporval of the founder.

[bloodyminded]

The fact that you don't have any proof whether God exists or not....and yet you believe the way you do, that is called, faith.

I am openly saying that I have my faith.....but you deny yours. Furthermore, New Atheism ridicules those who do have faith....and yet don't even realize or understand the very meaning of what they're ridiculing since they don't even see that they - new atheists - based their belief on faith as well.....that's the big difference between us.

Either you didn't understand what I wrote, or you're debating in bad faith. I honestly can't say which; but being of a generous disposition, I'll assume you just didn't understand.

Read the rsponse preceding this.

Read your remarks twice? That's asking a lot.

Evolution is dead. Long gone.

Actually, this is even worse than your other assertions, because you can't claim it as a matter of opinion; you can't offer "evidence" (no matter how weak and flimsy). Even if evolution were totally bogus (and it isn't), it remains a solid and core component of the scientific curriculum.

Which makes your claim factually wrong; 100%, uncontroversially wrong.

Go check out the science departments on any university website. Evolution is there, Betsy. If it were a "dead" theory, it wouldn't remain so central and important a part of science, and of science education.

That's why atheists really clings to it - just like a captain stays on a sinking ship.

They don't cling to it. They adhere to understanding the objective world as best as we can do so.

Edited July 14, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Oleg Bach]

I don't personally have a problem with atheists - or religious zealots - long as they keep their belief to themselves..and not be pushy - Yes I do believe that a lot of atheists are stupid - as are a lot of fundies. The key is to be moderate and understand that humanity has a lot of traits and one of them is arrogance - the believer believes they are more sophisticated than the non-believer and vice-versa. It is a battle of egos and has little to do with the existance or non-existance of God.

[Oleg Bach]

Further more to be as honest as possible _ I don't really care if a person believes or not - and I assume that God does not bother himself with such triva either. Why is it that people are so bound and determined to play this game of one upsmanship? In the end as in the begining it will not matter one way or the other - Believers that push there agenda are the same as atheistts that push theirs. They are proslytites (hope I spelled that right) One wants to convert the other..why? What is the point...when we die it will all sort it self out one way or another - what is with this impatience?

[g_bambino]

Redundant argument requires redundant rebuttal.

I'm glad you consider it settled, then. Evolution has a thousand-fold more evidence to support it than does Biblical Creationism. Good.

[M.Dancer]

The fact that you don't have any proof whether God exists or not....and yet you believe the way you do, that is called, faith.

Does that mean that everything that I don't believe, and have no evidence for not believing, is an act of faith\?

I have no evidence that aliens visited the planet and sowed the seeds of life...I don't blieve they did because there is no evidence...I don't think that is faith, but the intellectual ability to discount every fanciful thought as hooey

[cybercoma]

Scientific evidence of evolution being a hoax

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence_of_evolution_being_a_hoax

[cybercoma]

Even if evolution were totally bogus (and it isn't), it remains a solid and core component of the scientific curriculum.

More importantly, even if evolution were totally bogus, that in itself does not prove creationism at all. I've asked I don't know how many times for her to stop disproving evolution scientifically and start proving creationism scientifically to show that it's a better theory. She just keeps ignoring me.

[betsy]

Either you didn't understand what I wrote, or you're debating in bad faith. I honestly can't say which; but being of a generous disposition, I'll assume you just didn't understand.

I should've quoted more than what I had....for I was basing my response along the context of what you were saying. Let me try again.

Bloodyminded:

The fact is that we don't know everything. The fact is that, yes, we could be wrong about any number of things, despite truly overwhelming evidence.

However, we live and die by probabilities.

I believe I exist, and am not part of a complex dream in the sleeping brain of a different entity.

It would be perverse and foolish for me to believe other than I do on this matter...even though I don't absolutely and irrefutably know it in the fullest sense of the word.

You said that we don't know everything. That we could be wrong about any number of things, despite truly overwhelming evidence. That's a fact. And I agree with you there 101%!

Not knowing everything and yet believing - that, is faith!

Having no proof and yet believing - that, is faith!

The fact that you don't know whether God exists or not, and yet an atheist believes that there is no God or gods - that, is faith!

The fact that there is no clear scientific evidence for the existence of God and NON-EXISTENCE of God, and yet an atheist believes there is no God or gods - that, is faith.

I am openly saying that my belief in God is based on faith. An atheist, on the other hand, denies that his belief is based on faith.

Furthermore, a new atheist takes his irrational stance a step further by ridiculing those who believe in God/gods.

That is the main reason why Dwakins wouldn't come out and face Craig one-on-one over his garbage book, The God Delusion. It's been pointed out to Dawkins by other critics that he is quite ignorant - not only about theism and religion(s) - about his own philosophy!

Perhaps Dawkins finally got it. Dawkins now know and he now understands he can never defend his stance - that he'll undoubtedly look so foolish and face public humiliation if he ever comes face-to-face with Craig.

Bloodyminded

Even if evolution were totally bogus (and it isn't), it remains a solid and core component of the scientific curriculum.

Who's saying evolution is totally bogus? Creationists believe in evolution too....only not in the kind of evolution that neo-darwinists do.

This is what Creationists are trying to argue; that since we can't know--100%--that evolution as we understand it is real...we should give at least "equal weight" to another concept, even if its miles away in evidence, and in fact part of an entirely different paradigm.

Actually, considering the latest round of articles I just gave as sources I'm no longer saying you should give equal weight to another concept - Intelligent Design to be specific.

A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s

“29 Evidences for Macroevolution”

by Ashby Camp

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

Camp Answers Theobald

Reply to Theobald’s Response to Part 1 of Critique

By Ashby L. Camp

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_ac_01.asp

Douglas Theobald Tests Universal Common Ancestry by Refuting a Preposterous Null Hypothesis

Casey Luskin http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/douglas_theobald_tests_univers041021.html

Evolutionary Leftovers in DNA? Not So, Says New Study.

http://www.icr.org/article/evolutionary-leftovers-dna-not-so-says/

Science Overturns Evolution's Best Argument

http://www.icr.org/article/science-overturns-evolutions-best-argument

I'm saying, you should abandon the theory of evolution and replace it with the theory of ID.

That is, if you want to be scientific about it, and not faith-based.

Casey Luskin:

Before going any further, I must make it clear that intelligent design (ID) is certainly not incompatible with common ancestry. ID refers to the mechanism of change, and does not claim that species are necessarily unrelated.

Did you read that explanation from an Intelligent Designer? ID is actually up your alley. There's only one kicker.....

Casey Luskin:

So ID grants that it's possible that all living species shared a common ancestor, but ID doesn't require it

ID is saying it will go where the evidence leads them. It's not strictly bound to common ancestry.

Casey Luskin:

In contrast, neo-Darwinism is inextricably wedded to common ancestry and requires a common ancestor (or common gene pool) for all living organisms. That's why neo-Darwinists must defend UCA at all costs.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/douglas_theobald_tests_univers041021.html

Neo-Darwinists got themselves in a dead-end situation, all boxed in....and yet close-mindedly refusing to shift.

Science is all about empirical evidence! That's the strict rule, isn't it?

Whereas ID is willing to let the evidence lead to the conclusion. In contrast neo-darwinists came up with a conclusion and are trying desperately to get the evidence to fit to their conclusion!

Bloodyminded:

A stunningly dishonest argument, for anyone who "knows" that some foods are better for our health than others, that cars run because of their construction and because of physics, that there are people who love us, that some human behaviour is bad, and some good...all are "beliefs" in the disingenuous sense that they are offering the word.

If it talks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and floats like a duck....it must be a duck!

Denying faith when it is actually faith. Claiming a "reason" is rational when in fact it is irrational. Posturing it is "science" when in fact it is no longer scientific....stunningly dishonest argument indeed!

That's why I asked, are you referring to neo-darwinists?

Edited July 17, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Does that mean that everything that I don't believe, and have no evidence for not believing, is an act of faith\?

But you believe that there is no God!

You believe in neo-darwinism with not a single irrefutable evidence to support it because it counteracts the belief that there is a Creator. That is not rational.

Faith is belief without proof or evidence. Faith is not based on rational thought.

I have no evidence that aliens visited the planet and sowed the seeds of life...I don't blieve they did because there is no evidence...I don't think that is faith, but the intellectual ability to discount every fanciful thought as hooey

Do you go about arguing about the aliens? Do you go on forums debating with those who believe that aliens visited the planet and sowed the seeds of life? Arguing that they're wrong and you are right?

Do you argue so strongly about these aliens that it drives you mad? Makes you lose your cool? Sputtering and spitting and stoop to calling names? Makes you stomp off in a sulk and tantrum?

Do you come back to the same topic for more????

Edited July 17, 2011 by betsy