Creation v Evolution argument can end

a reply to: TerryDon79

You know, you'd get a lot further with people who don't share your religious beliefs if you didn't insult them for believing differently.

It's bigotry, really.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: TerryDon79

You know, you'd get a lot further with people who don't share your religious beliefs if you didn't insult them for believing differently.

It's bigotry, really.

I don't have a religion. I'm an atheist. I don't have a deity to worship.

And it's not bigotry. It's honesty. Prove its not some transgender fairy with a pink tutu and a white fluffy robe.

Oh wait. You can't.

You can't even prove (or have the slightest evidence for) any form of deity.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Lots of religions don't have deities. It doesn't make them not religions.

And yes, it is bigotry when you run around insulting people and their beliefs when they challenge you. In fact, not only is it bigoted, it signifies a lack of confidence in your argument.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: TerryDon79

Lots of religions don't have deities. It doesn't make them not religions.

And yes, it is bigotry when you run around insulting people and their beliefs when they challenge you. In fact, not only is it bigoted, it signifies a lack of confidence in your argument.

And there are religions that have monsters made from spaghetti, a thing travelling on the back of a plane, a sky fairy wearing a house robe and a fat dude. Your point?

I don't care what you call it. You're still wrong lol.

So, why don't you show me some evidence (yes, evidence) of a deity? I won't even ask for "emperical evidence".

a reply to: TerryDon79

I'm not here to prove any religion. I'm simply pointing out that you don't have any proof of evolution. That does not require that I prove anything, nor am I interested in doing so.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: TerryDon79

I'm not here to prove any religion. I'm simply pointing out that you don't have any proof of evolution. That does not require that I prove anything, nor am I interested in doing so.

Nope. There isn't proof of evolution. There's evidence (and a crap ton of it) of evolution.

See my posts on the last page. I did mention all this.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Fair enough.

originally posted by: NthOther
You sure are defending it like you believe it is.

Personally, and I said it in another post, I take offense at being told that evolution is my belief/faith/religion when my stance is that I am open to the theory of evolution having some merit.

If I'm defending anything it's my right to do so without being called religious about it.

With a religious zeal, in fact.

Adding religious to whatever zeal someone has for a topic doesn't make it so.

a reply to: daskakik

You have a belief system that lacks empirical proof (requiring, by definition, some degree of faith)--a system that serves as your ultimate source of knowledge and authority.

If that isn't a religion, I don't know what is. I'm sorry you don't like that, but if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck...

a reply to: NthOther

There's a difference between trusting that all the evidence points to the currently accepted answer and being open to it changing if new evidence comes to light, and faith in a religion.

I don't have faith that my laptop won't burst into flames. I trust the technology, but am still open to the possibility of it bursting into flames.

There is a difference between conditional (not unconditional) trust and religious faith.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Whoever said religious faith wasn't conditional?

I wouldn't believe in any of it if I didn't have my own life experiences serving as evidence that there's something to it.

It's just not any evidence you would accept. But it's not like I believe unconditionally simply because someone told me to or as a cultural thing. There are many conditions to one's personal belief system.

Well, to mine, at least.

a reply to: NthOther

I never said religious faith wasn't conditional. I was saying that conditional trust in science isn't unconditional.

originally posted by: NthOther
You have a belief system that lacks empirical proof (requiring, by definition, some degree of faith)--a system that serves as your ultimate source of knowledge and authority.

I might but it isn't evolution. I'm just entertaining that idea.

If that isn't a religion, I don't know what is. I'm sorry you don't like that, but if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck...

I'm not sure entertaining an idea requires faith so I'm not seeing it looking or walking like a duck.

a reply to: NthOther

If that isn't a religion, I don't know what is. I'm sorry you don't like that, but if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck...

There is a certain amount of evolution involved in the concept of religion. A major leap in evolution during the 17th century it seems.

Religion
The modern concept of "religion" as an abstraction which entails distinct sets of beliefs or doctrines is a recent invention in the English language since such usage began with texts from the 17th century due to the splitting of Christendom during the Protestant Reformation and more prevalent colonization or globalization in the age of exploration which involved contact with numerous foreign and indigenous cultures with non-European languages. It was in the 17th century that the concept of "religion" received its modern shape despite the fact that ancient texts like the Bible, the Quran, and other ancient sacred texts did not have a concept of religion in the original languages and neither did the people or the cultures in which these sacred texts were written.
...
It was in the 19th century that the terms "Buddhism", "Hinduism", "Taoism", and "Confucianism" first emerged.[16][18] Throughout its long history, Japan had no concept of "religion" since there was no corresponding Japanese word, nor anything close to its meaning, but when American warships appeared off the coast of Japan in 1853 and forced the Japanese government to sign treaties demanding, among other things, freedom of religion, the country had to contend with this Western idea

originally posted by: NthOther
It's just not any evidence you would accept. But it's not like I believe unconditionally simply because someone told me to or as a cultural thing. There are many conditions to one's personal belief system.

Well, to mine, at least.

I agree and that is why personal belief system is personal but it isn't evolution.

Like TD79 said, you can have faith in something without it being religious, at least that is what I took from his post about flaming laptops.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: NthOther
It's just not any evidence you would accept. But it's not like I believe unconditionally simply because someone told me to or as a cultural thing. There are many conditions to one's personal belief system.

Well, to mine, at least.

I agree and that is why personal belief system is personal but it isn't evolution.

Like TD79 said, you can have faith in something without it being religious, at least that is what I took from his post about flaming laptops.

Close enough lol. At least you get the jist of what I mean.

I love watching Kent Hovind make fun of evolution, you seen those videos.

Still wouldn't mind seeing empirical evidence

Repeatable, observable and testable

Cheers, keep up the good fight, ad hominids, strawman and childish behavior, pun intended

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: NthOther
It's just not any evidence you would accept. But it's not like I believe unconditionally simply because someone told me to or as a cultural thing. There are many conditions to one's personal belief system.

Well, to mine, at least.

I agree and that is why personal belief system is personal but it isn't evolution.

Like TD79 said, you can have faith in something without it being religious, at least that is what I took from his post about flaming laptops.

Close enough lol. At least you get the jist of what I mean.

Spoken like a true evolutionist trying to understand science

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I love watching Kent Hovind make fun of evolution, you seen those videos.

The guy is a moron. He doesn't have any argument apart from putting his fingers in his ears. Yeah, no wonder you like him.

Still wouldn't mind seeing empirical evidence

And you're never going to get it. It will disprove evolution.

Repeatable, observable and testable

That has already been shown to you.

Cheers, keep up the good fight, ad hominids, strawman and childish behavior, pun intended

That's rich coming from the person who created the thread solely based on a strawman.

But hey ho. Religious fundementalist a need to deny science to believe in their fairy tales. I just find it funny that they use the SAME science all the time. Things like medicine.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Close enough lol. At least you get the jist of what I mean.

Well you said trust and I used faith because of the present context but they are synonyms.

Actually late last night I was thinking about Darwin's finches. The church at that time (probably some still feel the same) had some fierce criticism. Darwin supposedly had his aha moment when seeing that the beaks of these birds had adapted to their particular environment.

Now this is just guessing on my part but, I could imagine the church's argument being that the finches had different beaks because god had given each group different beaks because he knew where he was going to place them. I mean, it sounds like something the church would say.

But, the OP is actually fine with the evolutionary answer to the different beaks since they are "micro" and all the birds were still finches.

Progress? Silver lining?