The big scientific problem with the idea of Creationism

page: 21
37
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


I know what a metaphor is. I'm arguing that the Genesis account is a metaphor too (given that the literal interpretation is complete scientific nonsense) and that you're cherry picking what you consider a metaphor and what isn't if you accept the Genesis account as truth


So let me get this straight. You're arguing that the Genesis account is a metaphor. Since when can you call a metaphor fiction? Metaphors always require the use of interpretation and therefore cannot be considered fiction based upon ones own interpretation. You're interpretation can be inaccurate, but that does't make the statement/metaphor itself inaccurate.

You're arguing for something that was never even brought up. No one here said that the Genesis account requires literal translation. It all started when I said "The light came into the world and the darkness did not comprehend it." That statement is not even from Genesis. Yet somehow you still managed to refute a metaphor...

How silly is that? "I disagree with your metaphor!"

Please...gimme a break. Just because I'm a Christian does not mean you have to argue with me over each and every little thing. We're both humans therefore we both have the right to our own opinions. (Now don't go saying "Yes, but don't force your opinion on me" because I didn't force anything on anybody. Just look who started the thread....it most certainly wasn't me.)

A2D




posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 



Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
So let me get this straight. You're arguing that the Genesis account is a metaphor. Since when can you call a metaphor fiction? Metaphors always require the use of interpretation and therefore cannot be considered fiction based upon ones own interpretation. You're interpretation can be inaccurate, but that does't make the statement/metaphor itself inaccurate.


...the metaphor is a metaphor for the deity's individual sovereignty over the cosmos...or so I'm told by a few Rabbis. It would actually be better described as an allegory, which is a work of fiction which is supposed to have a meaning despite the fact that the story is entirely fictional



You're arguing for something that was never even brought up. No one here said that the Genesis account requires literal translation. It all started when I said "The light came into the world and the darkness did not comprehend it." That statement is not even from Genesis. Yet somehow you still managed to refute a metaphor...

How silly is that? "I disagree with your metaphor!"


Because your 'metaphor' isn't a 'metaphor' it's a post hoc rationalization of bronze age mythology to mean something that is definitely not in the text.



Please...gimme a break. Just because I'm a Christian does not mean you have to argue with me over each and every little thing. We're both humans therefore we both have the right to our own opinions. (Now don't go saying "Yes, but don't force your opinion on me" because I didn't force anything on anybody. Just look who started the thread....it most certainly wasn't me.)


Yes, we both have the right to our opinions...and I have the right to demonstrate that your opinion is illogical, based in ignorance, and downright silly.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


As do I have the right to point out that your opinion is completely illogical and based in a tremendous bias.
Then all that is left is for the readers to make up their own minds. Stop trying so hard to influence people and keep them from believing in a belief system of their choice.

A2D



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 





As do I have the right to point out that your opinion is completely illogical and based in a tremendous bias.


Well, at least he backs up his claims with objective evidence...so saying it's "illogical" and "biased" is silly given the definition of scientific method


And no one's stopping you from believing whatever you want, I and others are just pointing out why some parts of that belief lack any sense of logic or rationality. It's a free country, you can believe whatever you want, and we get to poke holes in your hypothesis...last I checked that's the use of a forum



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


The only thing you've poked holes in is your own life preserver.

A2D
edit on 25-4-2011 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


That must be another one of your metaphors! I am starting to get it! Ok let me see if this is correct.

The proverbial "Life preserver" is the belief in a religion or a god and by poking holes in it we are embracing science and our soul/spirit whatever will not go to an afterlife!

edit on 25-4-2011 by idonotcollectstamps because: Humor



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by idonotcollectstamps
 


Science and belief in God are not mutually exclusive mind you. So what you're doing by "poking holes in your own life preserver" is the same as "digging your own grave". You're burying yourself deeper and deeper under a mound of lies that you keep feeding yourself in order to maintain a wee bit of pride.

Nobody ever wants to admit "Yes God, I'm helpless without you. Yes God, I am not as smart as I think. Yes God, you do exist and I'm tired of running from you." It's pride that keeps you from accepting God....not knowledge...not science...not whatever excuse you throw out...it's pure and simple pride.

When I think pride I think...."Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it."
I doubt you understand what it means to lose your life to God though. It's a difficult concept to grasp, especially if you're not willing.

A2D
edit on 26-4-2011 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 



Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


As do I have the right to point out that your opinion is completely illogical and based in a tremendous bias.


Well, I never said I was pointing anything out, I said I was demonstrating things. And you're right, I do have a bias. My bias is towards that which is demonstrated by the evidence.

Now, if you can actually demonstrate where I am being illogical (please identify the specific logical flaws in my positions) or where my bias is, go ahead.



Then all that is left is for the readers to make up their own minds. Stop trying so hard to influence people and keep them from believing in a belief system of their choice.


I'm sorry, but I'm not the one that started this battle...the creationists started it. They're wrong, end of story...but they keep trying so hard to shove anti-science into the public classroom.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 



Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by idonotcollectstamps
 


Science and belief in God are not mutually exclusive mind you.


True...but you have to stuff your deity into a 'no critical thinking' compartment to hold on to it.



So what you're doing by "poking holes in your own life preserver" is the same as "digging your own grave". You're burying yourself deeper and deeper under a mound of lies that you keep feeding yourself in order to maintain a wee bit of pride.


Ah, the old 'prideful atheist lying to himself' stereotype. I'm sorry, but if you can tell me which lies I'm feeding myself I'd be happy to stop.



Nobody ever wants to admit "Yes God, I'm helpless without you.


...helpless? I'm sorry, but if you really think you're helpless without your deity then you might want to check in with a psychologist about lingering parental issues. I don't need an ever present paternal figure, I've grown up. I'm an adult. I have not just a right but a duty to fend for myself.



Yes God, I am not as smart as I think.


I'm quite aware of how smart I am and am not. I'm quite aware of my intellectual strengths and weaknesses as well as my knowledge base strengths and weaknesses. I do not pretend to know more about a subject then I can show.



Yes God, you do exist and I'm tired of running from you."


...except that I see no reason to accept the claim of the existence of any deity. I just feel sad for you if this is really what you think goes on in my head.




It's pride that keeps you from accepting God....not knowledge...not science...not whatever excuse you throw out...it's pure and simple pride.


Or...not. This is just typical bigotry that comes from a diet of religious indoctrination.



When I think pride I think...."Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it."
I doubt you understand what it means to lose your life to God though. It's a difficult concept to grasp, especially if you're not willing.


Well, I know I have one life. I'm going to live it as long and fully as possible while trying to have the greatest positive impact possible...so...I don't really get this pride rant. Oh, wait, yes I do...you don't have anything else to say so you're just going to go with hate speech and proselytizing.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 



It's not pride for me (I cannot speak for others).
It is all of the metaphors and the faith and the riddles and the translations and the interpretations.

I try and eliminte pride from the decision on a God. Science requires you to eliminate yourself from the experiment to prevent bias from corrupting your data, your results.

I can afford no pride interfering in my decision making process. I assure you that it is not pride preventing me from having a belief in any gods but it is indeed the Scientific method.

I would be MORE than willing to dedicate my entire life to the will of one of the God's if only we had repeatable testable experimental evidence that proved that one of the God's from history is in fact real. Unfortunately there is no evidence of ANY of the god's existence being proven. No Zeus, no Thor, No Yahweh. No God's. No evidence. Simply science providing the truth regardless of what we want or hope to be true.

Perhaps it is your pride in hoping to continue living in an afterlife that is preventing you from letting go and accepting the results that Science gives us? Perhaps you have Pride that your belief is the correct one and the rest of the humans have chosen wrong. Sure sounds like pride to me.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
...Now I truly understand the saying "Ignorance is bliss."

A2D



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 





Science and belief in God are not mutually exclusive mind you.


Which is why I, amongst others, aren't claiming there is no god. We're saying there's ZERO objective evidence supporting the claim that he/she/it exists. Just like we say there's no evidence supporting the existence of unicorns.



So what you're doing by "poking holes in your own life preserver" is the same as "digging your own grave". You're burying yourself deeper and deeper under a mound of lies that you keep feeding yourself in order to maintain a wee bit of pride.


You're confusing pride with "not believing in things that aren't backed up by objective evidence".



Nobody ever wants to admit "Yes God, I'm helpless without you. Yes God, I am not as smart as I think. Yes God, you do exist and I'm tired of running from you." It's pride that keeps you from accepting God....not knowledge...not science...not whatever excuse you throw out...it's pure and simple pride.


Not pride...common sense. I'm also not walking around saying "Yes mighty unicorn, I'm helpless without you.", but I don't see you attacking me for it. Unicorns have zero objective evidence backing up the claim they exist...just like god.



When I think pride I think...."Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it."
I doubt you understand what it means to lose your life to God though. It's a difficult concept to grasp, especially if you're not willing.



I used to play dungeons & dragons...so yeah, I know how it is to live in a fantasy world. The difference is, I can snap out of it and enjoy reality



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


The difference is, I do have evidence of God whereas I do not have any evidence supportig unicorns.

I know God's Word.
I know His Spirit.
I have felt His presence.
I have heard His Word.
I have seen His work.
I can learn from His Word.
His work is demonstrable.

My life is a testimony to His work.
Elizabeth Sanders' life is a testimony to His work.
This young lady is a testimony to His work.
This lady as well and this
and this
and even this

“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world”

Not only this, but the evidence is within us as well. Deep within us is the recognition that there is something beyond this life and someone beyond this world. Deny it intellectually all you want, but the evidence is still all around.

A2D



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 





I know God's Word.
I know His Spirit.
I have felt His presence.
I have heard His Word.
I have seen His work.
I can learn from His Word.
His work is demonstrable.


Thanks for presenting us such an exquisite example of subjective evidence


Hell, every single link you posted is SUBJECTIVE evidence...not objective evidence. It's also not verifiable, which makes it worthless to assess reality.



In case you're wondering why subjective evidence is bad: LINK

A Texan police officer reported he's "chasing a UFO" (subjective evidence)...which turned out to be him chasing Venus (lol) down a twisty road



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 



Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


The difference is, I do have evidence of God whereas I do not have any evidence supportig unicorns.


Except this is a blatant falsehood.



I know God's Word.


And yet there are tens of thousands of different interpretations of your religious text and entirely different books which claim to have aforementioned word.

And you have no way of verifying the claim of divine authorship/inspiration.



I know His Spirit.


Unverified claim.



I have felt His presence.


Unverified claim.



I have heard His Word.


Well, if you know it I sort of assumed that hearing it had to take place...



I have seen His work.


Such as?



I can learn from His Word.


Yes, you can learn all sorts of barbarity and ignorance from it.



His work is demonstrable.


Demonstrate it.



My life is a testimony to His work.
Elizabeth Sanders' life is a testimony to His work.
This young lady is a testimony to His work.
This lady as well and this
and this


And for every conversion story I can give you a deconversion story. Where is the evidence that this is definitively divine work?



and even this


Em...no, that's evidence of the laws of physics in action...



“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world”


...which was written at a time when less than half of the geographic world was known by the authors. It was a time when they had no idea what those little dots of light in the sky really were, when they thought the sun ventured around the Earth...a time of ignorance.

Why is it that none of these religions which praise the works of their deity ever actually had any grasp of what the universe was actually like? How did they not understand the sheer wonder of deep space, of deep time? How could such a divinely inspired book not illuminate the beauty of the gravitational ballet that goes on in our solar system?



Not only this, but the evidence is within us as well.


*sigh*



Deep within us is the recognition that there is something beyond this life and someone beyond this world.


No, there really isn't.



Deny it intellectually all you want, but the evidence is still all around.


And yet you've provided not a shred of it.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


You only understand what you think you read from scripture.

Jesus said; we are all Gods children; But what do we preach?

If you have felt Gods presence, you must have had a thought of your own.

If God is everything; than God is you as well. Have you ever used the word " I or I am ".

What is the difference between I am Jesus and I am Agree2Disagree.

Would that be religious scripture?

If Jesus is the son of God then who are You?



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


I'd say the probability of a unicorn existing is infinitely more higher than the existence of god, for we have an idea of what a unicorn looks like. People say unicorn, people think of an odd-toed ungulate of the equine variety, with a horn.

God apparently created the universe, comes in many forms (around 350,000), and has traits and behavior that is contingent on the wants and needs of society (aka people make it up, whatever it us, as they go along). How can someone imagine something that transcends matter, yet creates matter, and requires no explanation for existing? Thus god is undefined.

The OP still has yet to be soundly challenged. Is there even a scientific problem to Creationism? Because its in no way scientific, and nobody knows what Creationism is so no problem can be assessed.

But it makes people happy, therefore god.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 


I think that the probability of there being a God is much larger than the existence of a unicorn.

God is a name we humans have given a source, don't forget that.

A unicorn is the name we humans have given a animal with a magical horn.

You don't believe in magical animals do you, so why do you think its more likely that a unicorn exists?

It doesn't make sense.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by uva3021
 


I think that the probability of there being a God is much larger than the existence of a unicorn.


...well, you're wrong.



God is a name we humans have given a source, don't forget that.


...no, "God" is a specific idea. Deities aren't some abstract 'source', they're something more than that.



A unicorn is the name we humans have given a animal with a magical horn.


...and that animal with a magical horn is far less complex and wouldn't be a radical departure from what we know about the universe.



You don't believe in magical animals do you, so why do you think its more likely that a unicorn exists?

It doesn't make sense.


More likely doesn't mean that we believe they exist. Which is more likely, a 25 foot tiger or a 1000 foot tiger?



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by spy66
 



Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by uva3021
 


I think that the probability of there being a God is much larger than the existence of a unicorn.


...well, you're wrong.


Can you prove him wrong?



God is a name we humans have given a source, don't forget that.



...no, "God" is a specific idea. Deities aren't some abstract 'source', they're something more than that.


no, God is not a specific idea. Maybe if you took your generalized version of God and made it a specific one, such as Zeus, or Yahweh then it'd be specific.



A unicorn is the name we humans have given a animal with a magical horn.



...and that animal with a magical horn is far less complex and wouldn't be a radical departure from what we know about the universe.


So, if Harry Potter is correct and unicorn blood can sustain life, indefinately...that wouldn't be a radical departure from what we know about the universe? Excuse me? and far less complex, how do you know? Have you seen a unicorn? Have you studied them? How do you know how complex or linear they really are if they don't even exist. Your argument is simply absurd.



You don't believe in magical animals do you, so why do you think its more likely that a unicorn exists?

It doesn't make sense.



More likely doesn't mean that we believe they exist. Which is more likely, a 25 foot tiger or a 1000 foot tiger?


both are equally likely.

Just curious...do you have any understanding of the mathematical concept of likelihood?

A2D





new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join