g_bambino Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 What do you mean you accept creation? I think the statement is pretty self-explanatory: I accept the phenomenon of creation. If I didn't, I would have to accept that I don't exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 if the ideas of Christianity held their rightful place, culturally and intellectually, I could play David and Goliath or Noah's Ark, too, or any number of myths; knowing it was a fun belief that they would grow out of by the time they were six or eight years old.I would make this my Facebook status if it weren't possible for someone to type it into Google and find me by doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 That would be to deviate from the topic of discussion with betsy. We all accept creation. But, she's specifically a Biblical creationist. Even if a the bible never existed there would still be creation. Of course we don't want to frighten Betsy or make her feel insecure by taking her book away and discussing the topic on a less acedemic level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 I would make this my Facebook status if it weren't possible for someone to type it into Google and find me by doing so. Thank you my good man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 22, 2011 Report Share Posted July 22, 2011 I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your post because this is so fundamentally wrong that it's absurd. At faith's core is the acceptance once and for all of an answer. Faith has nothing whatsoever to do with "a forever questioning and searching mind" because faith already has the answer and no amount of logical deductive reasoning will convince the faithful otherwise. I have total blind and unwavering faith that there is an all mighty GOD..also I have faith in the fact that GOD granted me a searching mind...and also have faith tht GOD does not expect me to be totally stupid and never question even HIM> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted July 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 (edited) Given your explanation about the faeries....No, I'm not mis-understanding your thrust. Your reasoning is the same as MDancer's. Let me ask you these. I expect you to answer each question honestly. Do you argue strongly with those who believe in faeries? Do you debate strongly that there are no faeries, and that they're just a figment of a fertile imagination? Do you go openly calling those people who believe in faeries stupid, or ignorant etc..? Do you go to the extent of writing books that mock and ridicule those people who believe in faeries? Do you go about reading those books that mock and ridicule those people who believe in faeries? Do you go about supporting the views of the authors of the books that ridicule and mock those who believe in faeries? Is there a movement for those who don't believe in faeries? Whose purpose is to counteract those who believes in faeries? Just like the New Atheists counteracting the Faith Believers? Do you await the scientific evidence that will irrefutably prove that there are no faeries? Does science even try to find such evidence about faeries? Never mind the science community splitting hairs about it among themselves, with some strongly suggesting that they do exist! Do you correct your children at every turn - everytime they talk about faeries - correcting them and explaining that there are no such things? Have you played the role of the tooth fairy to your children? Have you dressed your children in fairy costumes? Have you posted anything in any forums that argumentatively or vehemently support your views about faeries? Have you stopped your school from reading fairy tales, or showing any movies or media that depict faeries? Have you even made any attempt at all - no matter how feeble it is - to stop the school from doing so? Bloodyminded, I thought your reasoning (as with MDancer's) about faeries etc.., sounded quite familiar. It's derived from the Church of the Non-Believer's Apologetics 101. Go to the topic the Church of the Non-Believers and check out this new religious sect, founded by Dawkins and company. Straight from your messiah's mouth.... Dawkins rejected all these claims, but the last one – that science could never disprove God – provoked him to sarcasm. "There's an infinite number of things that we can't disprove," he said. "You might say that because science can explain just about everything but not quite, it's wrong to say therefore we don't need God. It is also, I suppose, wrong to say we don't need the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, Thor, Wotan, Jupiter, or fairies at the bottom of the garden. There's an infinite number of things that some people at one time or another have believed in, and an infinite number of things that nobody has believed in. If there's not the slightest reason to believe in any of those things, why bother? The onus is on somebody who says, I want to believe in God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, or whatever it is. It is not up to us to disprove it." Science, after all, is an empirical endeavor that traffics in probabilities. The probability of God, Dawkins says, while not zero, is vanishingly small. He is confident that no Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Why should the notion of some deity that we inherited from the Bronze Age get more respectful treatment? http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html?pg=1&topic=atheism&topic_set= Edited July 31, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted July 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 Of course I have to include this part too that..... Dawkins has been talking this way for years, and his best comebacks are decades old. For instance, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a variant of the tiny orbiting teapot used by Bertrand Russell for similar rhetorical duty back in 1952. It's not even original! Dawkins is perfectly aware that atheism is an ancient doctrine and that little of what he has to say is likely to change the terms of this stereotyped debate. But he continues to go at it. His true interlocutors are not the Christians he confronts directly but the wavering nonbelievers or quasi believers among his listeners – people like me, potential New Atheists who might be inspired by his example. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html?pg=1&topic=atheism&topic_set= Read that huge font part? Of course I don't need to remind you guys that his book The God Delusion has been lambasted for being garbage....that it showed his ignorance! And of course, I don't need to remind you guys again that your messiah Dawkins is in hiding right now - hiding from our Apologeticist, William Lane Craig! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted July 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 (edited) I think the statement is pretty self-explanatory: I accept the phenomenon of creation. Oh. Yeah. I understand what you're saying now. The word "Creation" does sounds much better than fluke....not to mention that yukky other word fluke rhymes with. If I didn't, I would have to accept that I don't exist? ...or to say that you're just the product of an accident! That you exist by sheer fluke? Anyway, getting serious now and back to being fluked....why do you say you wouldn't exist if you don't use the word "creation?" Is there something reassuring with the word, creation? From your subconscious? A comfort zone maybe? Why does it seem to matter that much to you to say that the grand accident was a "creation" instead of a fluke? Edited July 31, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 31, 2011 Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 Sooo painfully dense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 31, 2011 Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 Compostion and de-compostion of creations...we are temporal beings...so any thought of proving or disproving creation are acts of vanity - in the end - we disappear like we were never born - and we then enter oblivion..and are forgotten for ever...so why argue about where we came from - we don't know where we came from and don't know where we go...Lets just enjoy this heaven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted August 1, 2011 Report Share Posted August 1, 2011 I understand what you're saying now. I don't believe you do. The word "Creation" does sounds much better than fluke....not to mention that yukky other word fluke rhymes with. If you say so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 (edited) I don't believe you do. If you say so. You're really serious? So what about this part? I accept the phenomenon of creation. If I didn't, I would have to accept that I don't exist. Eh? Come again? Explain what you mean by that... Edited August 2, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 (edited) Oh boy....anything is possible to Dawkins, except the possibility of God. Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien DesignWilliam Hooper, May 2008, updated Jan 2011 Intelligent Alien Design? You can't be serious? Well actually I am. Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most famous champions of Darwin's Theory of Evolution and a staunch atheist, has recently been discussing the possibility that life on Earth could be the result of advanced alien engineering. Dawkins has said that he still believes that life most likely originated on earth, but he has also said than an alien designed start is an "intriguing possibility". Intelligent life, he has explained, could have evolved elsewhere in the universe according to modern Darwinian theory, and this intelligent life could have eventually learned to engineer new life, and an engineered seed could then have ended up on earth and subsequently evolved into to all the life found here today. Dawkins appears quite serious about the possibility of Intelligent Alien Design and has mentioned it on a number of occasions. From a recent documentary called "Expelled" we have: BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution? DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer. Why on earth would someone who vehemently argues against the existence of God by quoting Occam's Razor talk about space aliens designing and seeding life on planet earth?! Well, Darwin's Theory, although still hugely popular with the scientific masses and the educated public, is coming under increasing attack. A few very eminent and very serious scientists, including Nobel Prize Winners, are arguing that Darwin's Theory just doesn't work. These scientists are not necessarily saying that this proves the existence of God, they are just saying scientists have absolutely no idea what caused life on Earth to originate and evolve. Whilst Richard Dawkins is still selling a record number of pro-Darwinian books to the public, in the upper echelons of the scientific community support for evolution is undoubtedly in decline. There are several major problems with Darwin's Evolution but for the sake of brevity I will detail here only the most popular one. Some notes on other problems can be found at this footnote. http://www.theoligarch.com/richard-dawkins-aliens.htm Edited August 2, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 (edited) You're really serious?So what about this part? Eh? Come again? Explain what you mean by that... I'll respond when you stop talking gibberish. Surely you can do that, can't you? You might want to start with responding to what I actually say, rather than what you invent. [+] Edited August 2, 2011 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 (edited) I accept the phenomenon of creation. If I didn't, I would have to accept that I don't exist. Betsy: Eh? Come again? Explain what you mean by that... I'll respond when you stop talking gibberish. Surely you can do that, can't you? Excuse me? What I did was QUOTE YOU! If I sounded gibberish, that's thanks to you! You might want to start with responding to what I actually say, rather than what you invent. [+] I invent? Boy, you make lying seem so natural like going to the loo. You said: That would be to deviate from the topic of discussion with betsy. We all accept creation. But, she's specifically a Biblical creationist. You said your acceptance of creation is self-explanatory. You refused to enlighten. So I gave you my take or speculation on your self-explanatory belief. I'm forced to speculate! I'll repeat how I interpret your so-called, "self-explanatory" belief. I take it that specifically, Biblical creationism is definitely not it. What about Intelligent Design then? You didn't specifically mention ID unlike you did Biblical Creation....therefore, your kind of "creation" could be the Intelligently Designed creation. That must be it. Furthermore, I've wondered why you seem to place so much significance in the use of that word, creation, that you'd go to great length doing a gymnastic contortion to come up with what sound to me like a convoluted "philosophy." Why"creation"? Why not fluke? Why this seeming need to replace the word, fluke, with the word, creation? Are you ashame to say openly that you're just a product of a fluke? What is a "fluke?" 1. A stroke of good luck. 2. A chance occurrence; an accident. See? You've been quite lucky - good lucky - to have managed to be what you are now. It could've been worse, you know. Could've been much worse that in the course of your evolution, you could've had the sheer bad luck of taking the "wrong turn" and ended up being a goat...or a slug....or an earwig...or another specie, I mean cousin. Then, I did ask you to explain this part that you said: I accept the phenomenon of creation. If I didn't, I would have to accept that I don't exist. Why did I ask you to explain? Because it sounded gibberish! And of course you can't explain it because it is indeed gibberish! Gee. It's like talking to a monkey! A lot of noise and chatter! I hope you don't expect to get a banana! You don't get a treat for talking rubbish! Edited August 2, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 (edited) What I did was QUOTE YOU! Quoting me does not mean your responses have anything to do with what's quoted. You refused to enlighten. Likely because I can't enlighten anyone on what I never said. I answered your request for clarification on why I accept the phenomenon of creation; I exist (I believe, with confirmation from others), therefore I must have been created, ergo creation is a recognisable occurence. I never uttered a word about Biblical Creationism, Intelligent Design, accidents, or coincidences. It was you who did. Perhaps you're too obsessed with kindergarten insults, infantile giant fonts, and smiley-googly-faces to be able to formulate a proper, investigative question that will lead to the answer you desire. Then again, maybe it's easier for you to invent your own simple targets to attack, rather than face the actual answers that might come your way. [c/e] Edited August 2, 2011 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chippewa Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Well the creation story is simple. Some peoples ancesters come from africa, and monkeys. Others believe that some virgin spit out 6 kids and the world started. Others believe aliens built the Pyrimids. All I can tell you, is your likely created by having your moms toes in the air, with your pappy going to town on her. Thats how creation started, and why we are all here today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 2, 2011 Report Share Posted August 2, 2011 Eh? Come again? Explain what you mean by that... So there's birds and there bees.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 Well the creation story is simple. Some peoples ancesters come from africa, and monkeys. Others believe that some virgin spit out 6 kids and the world started. Others believe aliens built the Pyrimids. All I can tell you, is your likely created by having your moms toes in the air, with your pappy going to town on her. Thats how creation started, and why we are all here today. No no... See... theres this Cosmic jewish guy in the sky who never dies and is his own father. He made man in his own image, and then macguyverized up a hot chick out of a few of the mans ribs, so that he wouldnt be bored. And as long as you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically accept him as your master, you'll get to live forever!. Evolution is a fraud. Richard Dawkins made all the fossils and planted them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 We are here so we are created. Evolution is not a fraud _ it is the disecting and careful study of God's work. Some evolutionists get it right and others make mistakes. We assume that everything that comes out of science is dead on...science does make errors - When I see some person say of a prehistoric creature _"they were herd animals and they protected their young ...and communicated through a type of speech" _ You can't tell this from a fossil! For god's sake we have a generation coming up that beieve that T_Rex made a harsh screaming growl when preturbed...or that dianasuars talk...again - a fossil can not tell you this - It is all specutation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 Quoting me does not mean your responses have anything to do with what's quoted. Likely because I can't enlighten anyone on what I never said. I answered your request for clarification on why I accept the phenomenon of creation; I exist (I believe, with confirmation from others), therefore I must have been created, ergo creation is a recognisable occurence. I never uttered a word about Biblical Creationism, Intelligent Design, accidents, or coincidences. It was you who did. Perhaps you're too obsessed with kindergarten insults, infantile giant fonts, and smiley-googly-faces to be able to formulate a proper, investigative question that will lead to the answer you desire. Then again, maybe it's easier for you to invent your own simple targets to attack, rather than face the actual answers that might come your way. [c/e] Yada-yada-yada whatever....okay Mr Invention, let's go back to your creation. Who is the creator? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 (edited) I answered your request for clarification on why I accept the phenomenon of creation; I exist (I believe, with confirmation from others), therefore I must have been created, ergo creation is a recognisable occurence. [c/e] So? Who was the creator? The Mad Hatter? Edited August 3, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 To grasp the concept of God (not religion) takes above average intelligence- Most people are not that smart. Stop whipping a dead horse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 (edited) So? So stop whinging about nobody enlightening you. Who was the creator? The Mad Hatter? The creator of what? Me? Well, I suppose I could well be the result of a passionate night between my mother and the Mad Hatter. It would explain a lot. If you mean all existence: Possibly. Though, there's about as much evidence in favour of it having been the Mad Hatter as there is for some bearded white guy in the clouds. [+] Edited August 3, 2011 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted August 3, 2011 Report Share Posted August 3, 2011 Yada-yada-yada whatever.... The Creationist's creed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.