Why creation science is an oxymoron

Quote from hermit:

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -Bertrand Russell



agreed ... why then do so many of the supposed "intellegentsia" here speak in such absolutes?


Here's the only thing I'm absolutely sure of .. everyone is wrong, and most people who claim to be right are wrong most of the time
 
Quote from kut2k2:

...I think you'd be hard pressed to find a naturalistic explanation for most of the miracles described in the Bible, for example. Talking snakes, talking bushes, parting seas, water into wine, manna from heaven, a 48-hour day, etc.
Magic mushrooms?
 
Quote from kut2k2:

That may be one description but not a widely accepted one. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a naturalistic explanation for most of the miracles described in the Bible, for example. Talking snakes, talking bushes, parting seas, water into wine, manna from heaven, a 48-hour day, etc.

The fact that modern miracles have been reduced to paltry stuff like an "image" of Jesus Christ in a piece of burnt toast or like the "miracle" of birth (as if every single mammal alive didn't experience that) pretty much puts Biblical miracles in the fairytale category.

The apostles pretty much succeeded at putting miracles into the category of 'paltry". You found that little crack in my observation and exploited it, that I might actually believe those miracles. That manual of how to deal with non-believers that you all own or took courses in is far too predictable. Its not about debating
tactics its about rationalism. Truth is the immovable object AND
the irresistable force ...at once.
 
Look up the word being, you find a state of existence. Look up the word existence, you find a state of being.

That means being and existence aren't real, because they are beyond understanding without experience?

Say someone tried to find God through faith, and they failed. They say, "God doesn't exist."

Because of their failure in faith, does that mean God does not exist?

It isn't like the resident ET atheist will be honest, but it is very likely that nearly all the ET atheists are failed theists...which means they did have a belief in God, but rejected it...

stu is clearly a failed theist, otherwise the anger would not be present the way it obviously is...so he had belief, and still has belief...just a change from one belief to another.

A guy like stu is as much of an evangelist for atheism as Billy Graham was for his theism...

Quote from kut2k2:

As long as the dictionary contradicts itself on the subject, I have a say.

Look up the definition of the word 'god': you'll find 'deity'. Look up the word 'deity': you'll find 'god.' ROTFL!! Your simplistic notion that the fucking dictionary is always the final authority on anything just reveals how clueless you are.

Seventy years ago, the word 'computer' invariably defined a human being who did computations. Less than a decade later, the word referred to computing machines. Language is plastic. Especially the English language, which has done wholesale pillage and plunder of other languages. Get over it.
 
Quote from FeenixRizin:

agreed ... why then do so many of the supposed "intellegentsia" here speak in such absolutes?


Here's the only thing I'm absolutely sure of .. everyone is wrong, and most people are wrong most of the time


Oh, I also know that "Global Warming" and the "Origin of Species" are both crocks of shit. (or at the very least, not nearly as definitive as purported)
 
Quote from FeenixRizin:

Oh, I also know that "Global Warming" and the "Origin of Species" are both crocks of shit. (or at the very least, not nearly as definitive as purported)


You KNOW that ....why even bother.
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Look up the word being, you find a state of existence. Look up the word existence, you find a state of being.

That means being and existence aren't real, because they are beyond understanding without experience?
No, it means the dictionary is by no means perfect. There are circular definitions. Atheists feel no need to be constrained by a dictionary that can't even give a logical and straightforward definition for god.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Say someone tried to find God through faith, and they failed. They say, "God doesn't exist."

Because of their failure in faith, does that mean God does not exist?

It isn't like the resident ET atheist will be honest, but it is very likely that nearly all the ET atheists are failed theists...which means they did have a belief in God, but rejected it...

stu is clearly a failed theist, otherwise the anger would not be present the way it obviously is...so he had belief, and still has belief...just a change from one belief to another.

A guy like stu is as much of an evangelist for atheism as Billy Graham was for his theism...
I doubt stu is holding tent meetings to spread atheism.

If the gods want people to believe in them, they need only demonstrate their existence. There is nothing humans can do to prove the existence of a god, therefore the choice of human faith lies not on the shoulders of humans, but on the shoulders of gods.
 
Quote from kut2k2:

No, it means the dictionary is by no means perfect. There are circular definitions. Atheists feel no need to be constrained by a dictionary that can't even give a logical and straightforward definition for god.

A dictionary can't give a logical and straightforward definition of thoughts, or mind without being fully circular...

...and you can't even define atheism without first having an understanding of God.

I understand atheist think of God as something like Santa Claus or some "big sky fairy." Maybe because they are still hung up with their childhood daddy issues of God, who knows...



I doubt stu is holding tent meetings to spread atheism.

No one would attend...if they would, he would give them.

If the gods want people to believe in them, they need only demonstrate their existence. There is nothing humans can do to prove the existence of a god, therefore the choice of human faith lies not on the shoulders of humans, but on the shoulders of gods.

Your God phobia is amusing. Afraid to write the name God

Ohhhh, how scary. Typing the capital G followed by lower case o and d. Oh, I can't do it, so scary...

Can't look at US money and see "In God We Trust" or I might revert to theism...

Oh the horror...

LOL!!!

Oh, and what logical reason can you give for being able to understand or observe God's existence?

You can't even catch a fly with your bare hand, can't even see the back of your own head...

You sound so childish when you demand of God, just like little children demanding of their parents...

"Why daddy, why, why why?"

...as if the child could even begin to understand the real answer...
 
Quote from kut2k2:


If the gods want people to believe in them, they need only demonstrate their existence. There is nothing humans can do to prove the existence of a god, therefore the choice of human faith lies not on the shoulders of humans, but on the shoulders of gods.

Does this mean you are going to quit badgering believers for proof that you demand?
 
Quote from Index piker:

Does this mean you are going to quit badgering believers for proof that you demand?
As long as you keep shoving your god in my face, you damn well better be able to prove it or own up to the fact that you can't. If you believe because it makes you feel good, then man up and admit that. But stop demanding that everybody share in your personal fantasy about how the world works. Some of us have better things to do with our lives.
 
Back
Top