Why do theists reject evolution?

[Xelasnave.1947]

I like cage fighting, I see it as a contest of intelligence which so many folk find an unusual observation given that on the face of it there is this aspect of beating an opponent senseless..but you need to out smart the opponent is the way I see it..exploit the opponents weakness by being clever...kick him in the head when he is expecting a take down...nothing like a good kick in the head really..but they don't feel it cause they are professionals..they train to be kicked in the head..no doesn't hurt at all.

What I do like is the way most of them look up obviously as they pray and ask to be given victory..does this even make sense as I understand the teachings would seem to require that one turn the other cheek and in general not fight.
But they call in the Lord to give them victory..and when they win guess who they thank..no not the gym or their trainers or even themselves for working out so hard..you guessed it..the Lord.. could not have done it without him.

But something I did enjoy..so Kenny F is getting flogged and his brother between rounds, rather than suggesting a take down or concentrate on destroying the legs of the opponent gives the advice that the Lord will guide him and just trust in that..the Lord will tell you what to do....yeh Kenny was beaten to a pulp..no doubt failed to listen to the lord...I think we can only realise that the Lord must have seen that he was getting too cocky and needed a good flogging to inject some humility...really where do these folk get their marbles?

Maybe the Lord was saying..hey what about what I said about turn the other cheek and love your fellow man.
Maybe the Lord had fifty bucks on the other guy.
Sometimes I wonder..does the Lord even watch cage fighting.
Alex

 

[Michael 345]

I can't lead you to enlightenment

You can lead a theist to evidence but truely, so help me Flying Spaghetti Monster, it is not worth any effort trying to enlighten (rewire)

As a Nurse spent lot of energy looking after the physical body of brain damaged people, from trauma, while exhausting, had mostly rewarding outcomes. A traumatised brain seems to repair (rewire) to try and fit back to original wiring

Looking after physical body those in the psychiatric ward, different. Doctors did great job, via medication, to settle patients down to a level safe enough for a nurse to treat the body

Problem with the mental problems, you have almost no medication or instruments to rewire the brain

Frequently the body healed and the mental problem subdued enough for release from hospital. However a couple of days missed medication and defective circuits (frequently brain washed circuits) fire up again. Other circuits, such as those affected by, let's say self medication for non existent medical reasons

In other words self induced damage. In such cases it seems medical staff are turning down the effects of the damaged (or brain washed circuits). Lack of medication does not lead brain to replace damaged circuits with new, or fresh, circuits. Lack of medication turns the damped down effects of damaged circuits, back up to levels where the circuits again are in operation

As long as theist are not damaging their body or others or society in general best treat as a unruly child, with a large doses of ignoring

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

As long as theist are not damaging their body or others or society in general best treat as a unruly child, with a large doses of ignoring

You are correct, at the risk of stating the obvious.
If I had a pet I would not need to bump my gums here...I could talk to the cat or the dog..there was this spider but it left...it is interesting how they just don't get it... It's like the guy waiting for fifty million from Nigeria the promise of reward just switched off reason...
Did you hear about that kid who got lost in the bush outside of Melbourne..they found him..two nights in the bush an he survived...yes another mirrrical...miracles what would we do without them...only because lots of folks were praying for him.
They say there is a sucker born every minute but I think that is way too conservative.
Alex

 

[Michael 345]

Did you hear about that kid who got lost in the bush outside of Melbourne..they found him..two nights in the bush an he survived.

YES I did. Also one in Queensland

 

[Vociferous]

I get what you are saying I get it...I am addressing all that which is past personal experience.

If you divorce faith from personal experience, you're not talking about faith at all. Just your own straw man.

Actually in a small respect but one of the lawyers will object if not the judge points out the rules of evidence and tells the jury to disregard the offending testimony..the way you put it really is like you may see on tv which I presume is the limit of your experience in these matters. The fact remains hearsay evidence is not admissable and for very good reason.

Again, objections can only come after enough has been heard to have legal grounds to object so it can be sustained by the judge. IOW, the jury already heard the objectionable testimony. And having already heard enough, human nature dictates that you can't just order people to forget what they've heard or not be swayed by it. Those are the realities. And this is still your own straw man about faith being hearsay. Your arguments from obvious ignorance, no matter how often repeated, have no bearing on reality.

I think you are the one relying upon bare assertions..how are my observations of the rules of evidence bare assertions?
Do you assert that hearsay is admirable or not and if hearsay slips in that it will not be instantly corrected by the judge.

No one said your observations of the rules of evidence were bare assertions. I said that you claiming faith is hearsay or that hearsay can't have influence in court are claims you have done zilch to support.

You may care to note trials by jury are not as frequent as tv suggests.

Complete non sequitur.

I ask again..what was your point?

Again, you're the one who claimed that legal standards of evidence somehow (unexplained) apply to human beliefs. If you don't like the direction of your own argument, abandon it.

That's all you have?

At least perhaps some recognition that I gained my experience from real life and not tv as you casually suggested.

Further you have no idea of what I know as I have tried to keep it simple and not expand upon my day to day experiences wherein I had a reasonable insite as to the law, the courts and evidence...I conducted cases for goodness sake...

You obviously lack knowledge of basic human nature, and you've made some serious legal errors from which you've tried to backpedal. All already clearly demonstrated in your posts, for anyone to read.

Well let me share with you this..I accept the Big Bang model is our best current theory however I personally think it can not reflect reality..I have no faith, rather confidence, in the inflation epock...I don't see it as science ...and personally I believe the universe is eternal reflecting that I prefer the steady state model...no the only point here is that I have stated such on many occasions and to my mind that hardly entitles you to suggest I follow the models without question...and so really not guilty of your vague crime of scientism.

Seeing as evidence clearly doesn't support the steady state model, there does seem to be a measure of faith in your beliefs. There's plenty of religious believers who have faith in non-mainstream doctrines too. That doesn't, itself, absolve them or you from blind faith. See how the logic holds for both? Neat, huh?

My confidence in science is reasonable in that for a scientific model to be retained it must make predictions and they must deliver...religion has predictions which we call prophesy.. most vague that they are useless..but GR for example explains why Mercury is where is to a incredibly small measurement...no waffle just hard cold observable results. One can have confidence in that delivery but I still do not call it faith..faith is the acceptance without evidence..that is why it is the buzz word for theists..they sprout "I have faith" as if a virtue but when you define it..belief without evidence it hardley is a virtue..it is a cop out..pure and simple.

No one said any science with ample evidence required any faith at all. I have clearly and repeated told you that scientism is blind faith that science will solve things without any current evidence. Like your faith in abiogenesis, without any evidence of life coming from the inanimate, just speculative sources for inanimate amino acids and proteins. So your objection here is just another of your own straw men.

Religious prophecy was give to people who had no way to comprehend more modern technology and events. Just like people believed in heliocentrism before we could comprehend better. But comparing religion with a rigorous methodology is a faulty comparison. Neither was ever meant to be or replace the other, except to those who believe in scientism. Faith is acceptance on personal experience. It's why most children burn themselves at least once. Being told isn't always compelling on its own.

Belief without scientific or demonstrable evidence is not belief without evidence. Most people take their own personal experience to be evidentiary.

Well tell me how one can sort thru the nonsense if one does not have rules to prevent folk contributing facts when all they have is a mental problem turning on delusion and confusion. Do you believe folk who claim to have been abducted by aliens? I hope not..my experience in law taught me that many are liars, many more than you would guess are delusional...I would take a statement from a client when taking initial instructions..funny how it became a different story waiting a couple of years for a hearing..the statement was real handy to remind them of the facts they presented at the start.
I think you are too casual in dismissing our law and courts..it is not like tv...it is very different.

People are not convicted because the judge knows he is guilty because he has long hair and an ear ring..and let's face it on your wishy washy approach to reality I bet you would judge a chap guilty if he was just different to you...now that is cruel but you hold such poor regard for evidence I can only guess at how casual you must be in looking at any assembly of facts.

Again, it's only your own faith that everything can be discerned through scientific or legal standards of evidence. That is clearly not the case, otherwise we wouldn't have whole branches of knowledge completely impervious to them. It's a false equivalency to compare the religious to alien abductees (which I agree are, at best, attention seeking). Theists compose ~80% of the world population.
BTW, no has dismissed the law or courts...another of your seemingly endless supply of straw men. Nor has anyone claimed that judges make spurious rulings, but perhaps you feel the need to poison the well.

This is what I do not understand...it is god inspired so could we not expect something very special..you know each sentence undeniable fact, each observation wisdom that leaves you shaking your head and saying that is just profound...why why why does one have to cherry pick? Read any book on science and find one mistake..you know 2+2 =5 That sort of thing..well you may but you could spend a life time to find any mistake and you can bet the next edition fixed it..what does that whale story offer? I can't find a moral or truth..did god inspire that while drunk? There is no defence to these sort of allegations..I presume that you have never read the bible and your knowledge is from preachers or ministers picking out good bits as you would for the croud on Sunday..have you read the lot and not nodded off? Do you know that generally atheists know the bible better than believers..probably why they are atheists...all I am saying is there is little to suggest the bible is the word of God and that being the case why claim that it is..

Oh, I think we all get that you can't manage to apply simple logic to things you don't like. As I've told you before, a message that cannot be understood by contemporary man is a useless message. No cherry-picking. Just the simple understanding that things were different once and the Bible includes things like oral history as well as religious revelation.

Your presumptions are completely ignorant, which explains your copious straw men. Since I'm not a Christian, perhaps that explains why I know the Bible better than any atheist I've come across. I happen to know science better than most atheists too.

 

[Vociferous]

Cont...

Slavery? Stoning an unruly child, the flood, Adam and Eve..the resurrection and the zombies running around at that time..get real.

You applying presentism makes the errors your own. I'm not here to give you Bible lessons, as only a fool would expect you to learn anything from them. I'm not here to upset your delicate apple cart. Just trying to get you to see the apples.

I doubt it..know anyone else who won't roll over for the Big Bang?
Does it really appear to you I accept big bang the way it is presented..does that attitude qualify me for scientism?
I think my friend..I don't buy anything..even what I believe I realise how humans convince themselves they are right...but I know one thing..if there was a god there is no evidence that he has been in touch or that he cares...in fact if there is a god I think there is a case to suggest he likes playing with his pets and seeing how they manage adversity..but the fact is no one knows or can know and speculation is just speculation...you really don't have anything to support your wishful thinking..

And? There's Christians who don't believe in the Trinity either. By your argument, the fact that they simply don't agree with the majority would make them less brainwashed. That just doesn't follow, for you or for them. Again, ad nauseam, it's your claims about stuff we have no evidence for, like abiogenesis, that mean you believe in scientism. Just like my belief in a God I cannot show indisputable evidence for means I'm a believer in theism. If there were no belief involved, they would be called "facts". You have nothing to support abiogenesis either. At least I'm intellectually honest enough with myself to admit where the line is between fact and belief. Your blind faith requires you to blur that line.

Let's get the support ones claim list in order..you clearly come first and if successful I won't get a look in...
Now to accuse me of lazy is not fair, I have read the bible cover to cover which I doubt you could have done..I have looked at the history pre Sun worship, then all civilizations that we know about, tried to understand what is going on..noticed how religion was dictated by environment particularly how Sun worship started and particularly how many cultures adopted human gods with Sun like attributes so as to slip into the place occupied by the Sun god...you know the Big picture..not confined to the 6000 years christianity has to roam..or rather given their new covenant the two thousand years they have limited themselves to inhabit.
My laziness is just restricted to helping you with matters that if you really gave a hoot could research yourself..you have constructed the wall of your prison it is only you who should extend your confinement.

Lazy is as lazy does. You lazily presume a lot if you really believe I've not read the entire Bible nor studied comparative religion and religious history. That's your problem. Fitting things into a neat little story that fits your existing bias is not the least bit surprising. Again, just human nature. Maybe you should study some psychology, to round out your education a wee bit. Your laziness is in presuming I haven't heard such arguments, made with far more support than you offer, many times. There are no new or novel arguments against theism, and a very long history of addressing every one of them. Maybe you need to bone up on the history of religious philosophy too.

Do I impress you as a man who pedals BS?

Clearly.

How does that work?

Everyone possesses the divine spark, no matter how much you may suppress or deny it.

I know how the story goes..all I could ask..if you had no idea about any of this and a show came on tv and the plot was as we have from the bible..would your first response be..change channels cause this stuff is BS..or would you watch the lot and say..wow that is just so logical so god like and I can believe all of it...don't answer you can only strengthen my points or make an idiot of yourself..but hang on that is me cutting off discussion..how do you regard the plot.. do you know the plot? You know the original sin etc..what do you know? Do you find any small concern that stops you from screaming..WTF?

There's very popular shows about zombies, dragons, autonomous androids, etc.. Are you seriously wanting us to believe that those aren't BS? You really believe they all exist?
What about comparing early sci-fi to what we know today? It's pretty silly, huh? Yeah, because that sci-fi wasn't written with today's knowledge or for today's audiences. Much of the Bible was written for largely agrarian people. Again, apply just a little reason.

You get a C minus...and will be used in am application for funding for special needs..You now make me feel guilty as it seems you are on the ropes taking damage..the ref should stop the fight before you will never fight again.

Please show me you can fight back. Do you like cage fighting..I love it when the winner gives thanks to god..and the other guy also a believer gets smashed..funny..humans are just so funny.

If you think your bare assertions warrant rebuttal, that's your problem.

Then show me where I've twisted or turned on any point.

I take all of that back..I don't want to humiliate you or destroy you..I do like you even if our views are different..you are clearly intelligent and really we can all be somewhat manipulative unconsciously in presenting our side..I must remember to respect you..just because you are wrong that is no reason for me to disrespect you..I can't lead you to enlightenment if I dont respect you now can I...you show promise that you can be saved..that gives me hope.

IOW, you have nothing. You like to bluster, but when push comes to shove you realize you can't actually back up your claims.
My invitation is genuine and still stands. If you think you can, show me where you imagine I've twisted or turned on any point.
Or just beg off, as you're obviously doing. But if so, have a modicum of intellectual honesty about it. With yourself, or not publicly.

So you don't think I have anything to offer? I just have the problem of getting past square one..you see when you are dumb like me you need little basics like some sort of evidence for god..now being dumb I guess I just miss it..and given there must be lots of dumb folk in the world one wonders if god is real and important etc that we could not see something..anything..oh I know he kills thousands of people and saves one so we understand what miracles are made of but really a personal appearance would be terrific...and JC..here he is promising to the croud to be back in their life times and a no show, obviously for reasons mere humans won't know..but if only JC or god or the holly spirit..did I get them all in..no forgot Mary...heck send a few saints maybe..

Since I'm very open with the fact that I can offer you no evidence of God you'd accept, I'm afraid you're shit out of luck. You'll no doubt just keep making your faulty assumptions and straw men. Jesus never said he would return within the lifetimes of his disciples. In simple terms, he just said that they would not run out of places to flee persecution before his return, and they obviously have not.

The point is that you have to make a completely free choice, without anything to compel your decision.

Absolutely that's how he came over to me..knew nothing..still that's heaps more than all Christians..what BS you guys just can't see it...dream on.

Now you're just desperately backpedaling.

I am looking for places we can agree..there are those on both sides who are followers and unable to think.
As to the start of life I really don't know..but I think it is just a chemical progression...to be fair the call is we don't have the answers yet..but that does not mean you can quote an ancient book and say you have the answer and until we create life in the lab science in some respects is no closer..but no doubt in our life time life will be created in the lab...and if it's not that does not mean the modeling clay story wins..you do see that..don't you?

And I only claim to believe that God exists. Never said I know for a fact, because facts involve demonstrable evidence. How does that differ from you thinking abiogenesis is true, but not knowing? The fact that you say "we don't have the answer yet" and "no doubt in our life time life will be created in the lab" demonstrates your faith in scientism. You presume a source for the answer (scientific methodology), without evidence, just like any Christian citing the Bible.

No one but your own straw man claimed lack of scientific explanation inferred proof of any alternative. Any future scientific explanation is actually what makes the creationism falsifiable. Too bad you can't admit your belief in abiogeneis is falsifiable. After all, if you only accept scientific answers, how could you ever accept anything else. No possible alternative means it's not falsifiable, which is a hallmark of belief, not a proper hypothesis.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

If you divorce faith from personal experience, you're not talking about faith at all. Just your own straw man.

I get that.
The heresay is in relation to the stuff past that.
I think there is no question about hearsay as it relates to the whole deal.

Again, objections can only come after enough has been heard to have legal grounds to object so it can be sustained by the judge. IOW, the jury already heard the objectionable testimony. And having already heard enough, human nature dictates that you can't just order people to forget what they've heard or not be swayed by it.

Oh I see what you mean.

Complete non sequitur.

I was merely trying to inform you.

you've made some serious legal errors from which you've tried to backpeda

I think you have focused on a small aspect and neglect the aspect of hearsay in the story. If you think I am backpedaling go ahead but you would be wrong.

Seeing as evidence clearly doesn't support the steady state model, there does seem to be a measure of faith in your beliefs. There's plenty of religious believers who have faith in non-mainstream doctrines too. That doesn't, itself, absolve them or you from blind faith. See how the logic holds for both? Neat, huh?

Yes neat.

Just trying to get you to see the apples.

You are so kind.

Your blind faith requires you to blur that line.

You are probably right.

Jesus never said he would return within the lifetimes of his disciples.

What did he say?

After all, if you only accept scientific answers, how could you ever accept anything else.

Like what?

Nice post have a nice day.

Alex

 

[Vociferous]

I get that.
The heresay is in relation to the stuff past that.
I think there is no question about hearsay as it relates to the whole deal.

And? Unless you have the expertise and have actually performed the experiments yourself, the vast majority of your personal knowledge of science is hearsay. Yes, you could have some scientist substantiate it, but you don't even have the expertise to differentiate between science and speculation. Hence you're distinction of hearsay is trivial. Now, you could substantiate it in principle, but so could a believer, by showing the many studies that correlate religious belief with higher reported happiness, longer life expectancy, more ethical behavior, etc.. IOW, it's accomplishing its purpose.

I think you have focused on a small aspect and neglect the aspect of hearsay in the story.

I think your trivial and narrow focus on hearsay neglects the vast majority of what constitutes religious belief and faith.

Jesus never said he would return within the lifetimes of his disciples.

What did he say?

If you really knew as much about the Bible as you claim, you'd be able to find the relevant verses.

After all, if you only accept scientific answers, how could you ever accept anything else.

Like what?

Philosophy, ethics, ontology, etc..

 

[paddoboy]

Your presumptions are completely ignorant, which explains your copious straw men. Since I'm not a Christian, perhaps that explains why I know the Bible better than any atheist I've come across. I happen to know science better than most atheists too.

You know as much about science, as you chose to misinterpret, and imagine that as support for your mythical sky daddy.

Again, as detailed many times to others...the bible is an ancient obscure book, written by ancient obscure men, which suits people such as yourself. You then can interpret that to whatever you like.

While we all know that Darwinism and the theory of the evolution of life is fact, we are not sure of the exact methodology of Abiogenesis that started this life. Science is the only scientific answer/s to the mysteries of the universe, and it is composed of theories that explain according to the latest data. Those theories can be falsifiable.
Abiogenesis while being the only scientific answer to how life came to be, is not really one claim....it is composed of ideas and models as to how it came about....Earth based, Panspermia, etc, and exact methodologies involved, which are all falsifiable within that scientific discipline of Abiogenesis. Therefor the broader accusation by you that Abiogenesis is not falsifiable, is not applicable, as at this time we simply do not have a viable model for it that can be made falsifiable.

You're simply shitty that being the only scientific answer with many falsifiable variables, leaves out your mythical sky daddy as a choice.
Of course the Catholic church made the same monumental error of judgement as you have. It doesn't work that way.
Science as a work in continual progress, gives us the answers that you imagine your bible and your sky daddy do, and continues on regardless of such unscientific myth.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

If you really knew as much about the Bible as you claim, you'd be able to find the relevant verses.

You did observe that I was lazy. I never said I know it off by heart...if I had my bible with me I would look it up..but I am rather sure that he did promise to return in the life time of those listening..Anyways it doesn't matter he hasn't come back that I know...over two thousand years and no show still leaves folk waiting for a promise to return ...waiting.
I am not concerned and given you are not Christian it should not worry you.
How long do we wait...two thousand years is pushing it..heck if you don't show for seven years they can declare you dead...

Philosophy, ethics, ontology, etc..

OK.
Things where you accept what you like rather than stuff tied to fact.

IOW, it's accomplishing its purpose.

I see where you are coming from, and I agree there are people who need it .... I think it is all built on make believe and lament the fact many humans can't get by without superstition.

I think your trivial and narrow focus on hearsay neglects the vast majority of what constitutes religious belief and faith.

Perhaps. I just try to protect myself from BS and realising the is a lot of BS out there perhaps just require more than faith or belief in mythical entities.... as I said, even though you try and paint things different...I believe dry few things ..there is little you need to believe really.
I guess what I do believe is the universe can only be eternal ..I also believe that no matter what everyone believes as fact can be wrong.
I mean you only have to study history to realise BS is not a new product.
I do believe that JC was just another human god invented with astrology in mind...
Alex

 

[Vociferous]

All that while a suffering psychotic delusionist.
You know as much about science, as you chose to misinterpret, and imagine that as support for your mythical sky daddy.

Again, as detailed many times to others...the bible is an ancient obscure book, written by ancient obscure men, which suits people such as yourself. You then can interpret that to whatever you like.

While we all know that Darwinism and the theory of the evolution of life is fact, we are not sure of the exact methodology of Abiogenesis that started this life. Science is the only scientific answer/s to the mysteries of the universe, and it is composed of theories that explain according to the latest data. Those theories can be falsifiable.
Abiogenesis while being the only scientific answer to how life came to be, is not really one claim....it is composed of ideas and models as to how it came about....Earth based, Panspermia, etc, and exact methodologies involved, which are all falsifiable within that scientific discipline of Abiogenesis. Therefor the broader accusation by you that Abiogenesis is not falsifiable, is not applicable, as at this time we simply do not have a viable model for it that can be made falsifiable.

You're simply shitty that being the only scientific answer with many falsifiable variables, leaves out your mythical sky daddy as a choice.
Of course the Catholic church made the same monumental error of judgement as you have. It doesn't work that way.
Science as a work in continual progress, gives us the answers that you imagine your bible and your sky daddy do, and continues on regardless of such unscientific myth.

It's always very telling how little of my posts you actually manage to address. Instead you opt for this repetitive invective. You'd think it'd get boring. Well, simple minds are easily entertained.
You've never show that I've misinterpreted any science. You've only erected straw men in lieu of what I've actually said. Probably why you don't directly address most of what I actually do say. It's your own personal failing that you cannot manage to read an old book in the context of its proper culture and period.

Do you even hear yourself? "Science is the only scientific answer". Duh. What I assume you mean is that scientific answers are the only answers. And that's exactly what I'd expect from a believer in scientism. Ignoring all the branches of knowledge that are not amenable to the scientific method. Your mental gymnastics trying to avoid the fact that abiogenesis, itself, is not falsifiable, makes the complete lack of evidence for even one wholly speculative method moot. What is it atheists always say? The absence of evidence is evidence of absence?

You're fooling yourself if you really believe there's such a thing as a "scientific discipline of Abiogenesis". There's only unsupported speculation. Nothing more. And hypothesizing about the possible origin of non-living amino acids and proteins is nowhere near addressing how those become incorporated in living organisms.

You did observe that I was lazy. I never said I know it off by heart...if I had my bible with me I would look it up..but I am rather sure that he did promise to return in the life time of those listening..Anyways it doesn't matter he hasn't come back that I know...over two thousand years and no show still leaves folk waiting for a promise to return ...waiting.
I am not concerned and given you are not Christian it should not worry you.
How long do we wait...two thousand years is pushing it..heck if you don't show for seven years they can declare you dead...

You do have the internet, but perhaps I underestimated your laziness. I assure you, he did not. And why would it matter how long the wait? Even for a devout Christian? Do you imagine that their faith hinges upon some limit of patience? And Jesus was already declared dead, or is that another detail you couldn't manage to retain from all your study of the Bible?

OK.
Things where you accept what you like rather than stuff tied to fact.

Apparently you don't believe in or understand logic, don't care about the reasoning that underpins all science and how we can justify that we actually know things, and can't be bothered with the trail of reasoning that directly led to science in the first place. Kind of runs counter to your claim of knowing the history of religion, but then, blind faith can't really afford to scrutinize the origins of what it worships.

I see where you are coming from, and I agree there are people who need it .... I think it is all built on make believe and lament the fact many humans can't get by without superstition.

Scientific studies on the positive correlations to religion do not rely on "need". You think whatever you have to in order to maintain your existing ideology.

Perhaps. I just try to protect myself from BS and realising the is a lot of BS out there perhaps just require more than faith or belief in mythical entities.... as I said, even though you try and paint things different...I believe dry few things ..there is little you need to believe really.
I guess what I do believe is the universe can only be eternal ..I also believe that no matter what everyone believes as fact can be wrong.
I mean you only have to study history to realise BS is not a new product.
I do believe that JC was just another human god invented with astrology in mind...

You try to protect your existing ideology from cognitive dissonance and doubt. That's what true believers do. You believe tons of science you don't understand nor are capable of substantiating for yourself. You have faith in the methodology and those who tell you what it all means.

 

[paddoboy]

It's always very telling how little of my posts you actually manage to address. Instead you opt for this repetitive invective. You'd think it'd get boring. Well, simple minds are easily entertained.
You've never show that I've misinterpreted any science. You've only erected straw men in lieu of what I've actually said. Probably why you don't directly address most of what I actually do say. It's your own personal failing that you cannot manage to read an old book in the context of its proper culture and period.

Do you even hear yourself? "Science is the only scientific answer". Duh. What I assume you mean is that scientific answers are the only answers. And that's exactly what I'd expect from a believer in scientism. Ignoring all the branches of knowledge that are not amenable to the scientific method. Your mental gymnastics trying to avoid the fact that abiogenesis, itself, is not falsifiable, makes the complete lack of evidence for even one wholly speculative method moot. What is it atheists always say? The absence of evidence is evidence of absence?

You're fooling yourself if you really believe there's such a thing as a "scientific discipline of Abiogenesis". There's only unsupported speculation. Nothing more. And hypothesizing about the possible origin of non-living amino acids and proteins is nowhere near addressing how those become incorporated in living organisms.




You do have the internet, but perhaps I underestimated your laziness. I assure you, he did not. And why would it matter how long the wait? Even for a devout Christian? Do you imagine that their faith hinges upon some limit of patience? And Jesus was already declared dead, or is that another detail you couldn't manage to retain from all your study of the Bible?


Apparently you don't believe in or understand logic, don't care about the reasoning that underpins all science and how we can justify that we actually know things, and can't be bothered with the trail of reasoning that directly led to science in the first place. Kind of runs counter to your claim of knowing the history of religion, but then, blind faith can't really afford to scrutinize the origins of what it worships.


Scientific studies on the positive correlations to religion do not rely on "need". You think whatever you have to in order to maintain your existing ideology.


You try to protect your existing ideology from cognitive dissonance and doubt. That's what true believers do. You believe tons of science you don't understand nor are capable of substantiating for yourself. You have faith in the methodology and those who tell you what it all means.

Your fire and brimstone preaching is reaching fever pitch sonny...You probably need a good lay down and a disprin.

Of course you misinterpret science as has been shown, as well as showing ignorance in that science with failure in actually knowing what the BB entails.
And of course with your usual ID creationist driven lies and ideology accusations, nothing need be said except

or if you and your overlords prefer......

Now go somewhere where they might fall for your nonsense.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

You do have the internet, but perhaps I underestimated your laziness.

Can you find that on the internet? Do you have a link save me looking it up?

And Jesus was already declared dead, or is that another detail you couldn't manage to retain from all your study of the Bible?

Yes I know that..just like the Sun appears to die and is resurrected, all the human gods had that in their kit.

Apparently you don't believe in or understand logic, don't care about the reasoning that underpins all science and how we can justify that we actually know things, and can't be bothered with the trail of reasoning that directly led to science in the first place.

No I just believe in the stuff scientism allows.

You think whatever you have to in order to maintain your existing ideology.

Again you are too kind ...so I can think what I like...the universe is eternal therefore no creator..are you sure that's ok with you..I guess my astrology take on human gods is ok as well? It's so nice to have your permission.

You try to protect your existing ideology from cognitive dissonance and doubt.

No I am not that fussed ..can you tell me what cognitive dissonance means..save me looking it up.

You believe tons of science you don't understand nor are capable of substantiating for yourself.

I did not see that..thanks for pointing it out. Did you subtract a couple of kilos for me not being accepting of the Theory of Inflation?

You have faith in the methodology and those who tell you what it all means.

You know sometimes I really think you pay no attention to me..besides your odd answers generally that is...you maybe forgot my comments on faith and that I prefer to use the word confidence...did you miss me saying that? No matter at least now you know..I reject the notion of faith because that is just accepting something mmm let me avoid saying without evidence...accepting on faith...and you probably ignored my comments that I believe in very few things ...but some things, like JC and the various human gods being astrology based...yes I am reasonably confident that approach is reasonable...there are so many Sun like things..death and resurrection, twelve followers..I won't go on as I am too lazy to bother really.

I do hope you are ok..you seem agitated..and you are almost insulting...ruff day at the office, factory? maybe school? I noticed they were making you look silly in another thread..but you have no fear here..we can have a nice little chat..it's only religion and you certainly are entitled to believe in God and you won't get a peep out of me.
Take care and cheer up..I will let you win a few..ok.

Alex

 

[paddoboy]

What is it atheists always say? The absence of evidence is evidence of absence?

Your creationist driven obtuseness is really impressive. Not!
Let me spell it out...Once there was no life: Then there was. Chemistry over a long time frame is far more convincing then some stupid ignorant baseless myth, based on nothing other then incredulity, and the fear in the finality of death that is hard to except.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I have mentioned this so many times but still wait for hearing how a theist who believes in intelligent design or straight out creationism...and it is this...how do they fit in the mass extinctions? I mean if you have a well designed critter indeed lots of them, and you are god presumably have control over all things...why do so many creations just get wiped out...I know there must be a good answer but I have not heard it yet.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Your creationist driven obtuseness is really impressive. Not!
Let me spell it out...Once there was no life: Then there was. Chemistry over a long time frame is far more convincing then some stupid ignorant baseless myth, based on nothing other then incredulity, and the fear in the finality of death that is hard to except.

Now be fair Paddo ..we have yet to hear their side..the details I mean..like I just asked..what about mass extinction?
Does he even believe in Adam and Eve..we get so little input from theists as to detail...as to anything..rejection of life happening by chance" but nothing as an alternative...unless we are supposed to take the clay modeling deal as dinkum...there must be ore surely.
And it's not the creation in those first few days..what I would like to know is how god slips in all the new species.
Our mate has never explained anything when I think about it...now I know why we get told we present straw men..heck that's all we have..nothing based on what they have actually said...cause they don't say a damn thing.. is it just me..have I missed something?

Alex

 

[paddoboy]

Now be fair Paddo ..we have yet to hear their side..the details I mean..like I just asked..what about mass extinction?
Does he even believe in Adam and Eve..we get so little input from theists as to detail...as to anything..rejection of life happening by chance" but nothing as an alternative...unless we are supposed to take the clay modeling deal as dinkum...there must be ore surely.
And it's not the creation in those first few days..what I would like to know is how god slips in all the new species.
Our mate has never explained anything when I think about it...now I know why we get told we present straw men..heck that's all we have..nothing based on what they have actually said...cause they don't say a damn thing.. is it just me..have I missed something?

Alex

Hit the nail on the head Alex...seems to be the modus operandi of many creationists, which is why they chose the bible as their totem...equally obtuse and open for many interpretations.
Obvious as we know how defensive and dishonest they get when finally pinned down, I saw a Christopher Hitchen's video, where he made mince meat out of another fool creationist.
Then they smugly chose to fit in their particular spaghetti monster of choice, after science/cosmology has given a reasonble assessement right up to t+10-43 seconds. Let's put that down figuratively to elaborate the point....at least up to .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds post the actual BB. Scientism as Vociferous likes to smugly deride it, aint done too bad!
Other point that I mentioned a week or so ago in one of his fire and brimstone outrage preaching episodes, was the meaning of his handle Vociferous...."expressing or characterized by vehement opinions; loud and forceful" So, so full of himself, he needs to publicise it and wear it like a badge of honour!

 

[Beer w/Straw]

The absence of evidence is evidence of absence?

Uh

People also ask
What does absence of evidence is not evidence of absence mean?
Per the traditional aphorism, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," positive evidence of this kind is distinct from a lack of evidence or ignorance of that which should have been found already, had it existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

There's a lot in the word not there...

 

[Vociferous]

Your fire and brimstone preaching is reaching fever pitch sonny...You probably need a good lay down and a disprin.

Of course you misinterpret science as has been shown, as well as showing ignorance in that science with failure in actually knowing what the BB entails.

I guess you have no clue what "fire and brimstone preaching" actually entails. Since no one has told you that you're a sinner or going to hell, you must be so overly sensitive that you imagine everyone is judging and condemning you. Sounds like a persecution complex. And repeating your bare assertion about science you merely imagine I've misinterpreted only fools the very dense and those too lazy to risk finding out otherwise.

Can you find that on the internet? Do you have a link save me looking it up?

No, I'm tired of enabling your laziness. You brought it up, you support your own claim.

No I just believe in the stuff scientism allows.

Yep, stuff without any evidence.

You know sometimes I really think you pay no attention to me..besides your odd answers generally that is...you maybe forgot my comments on faith and that I prefer to use the word confidence...did you miss me saying that? No matter at least now you know..I reject the notion of faith because that is just accepting something mmm let me avoid saying without evidence...accepting on faith...and you probably ignored my comments that I believe in very few things ...but some things, like JC and the various human gods being astrology based...yes I am reasonably confident that approach is reasonable...there are so many Sun like things..death and resurrection, twelve followers..I won't go on as I am too lazy to bother really.

If you believe things without evidence, that is faith. If you don't like that word, don't believe in things with zero evidence.

Let me spell it out...Once there was no life: Then there was. Chemistry over a long time frame is far more convincing then some stupid ignorant baseless myth, based on nothing other then incredulity, and the fear in the finality of death that is hard to except.

Faith in a process we have zero evidence to substantiate. What you find convincing with zero evidence does not sway me from what I find convincing without compelling evidence. That you get so angry about that similarity between us would seem to point to an insecurity in your own faith. Mine is fine with you believing whatever you like.

I have mentioned this so many times but still wait for hearing how a theist who believes in intelligent design or straight out creationism...and it is this...how do they fit in the mass extinctions? I mean if you have a well designed critter indeed lots of them, and you are god presumably have control over all things...why do so many creations just get wiped out...I know there must be a good answer but I have not heard it yet.

The simple answer: deism.
If God designed the laws of nature to allow adaptation, it would follow that some adaptations would be better than others, and that some species would essentially become obsolete. Even without any further intervention from God beyond creation.

 

[paddoboy]

I guess you have no clue what "fire and brimstone preaching" actually entails. Since no one has told you that you're a sinner or going to hell, you must be so overly sensitive that you imagine everyone is judging and condemning you. Sounds like a persecution complex.

Your handle gives it away my friend. And no, no persecution complex at all. It's you raving and ranting, without substance on a science forum, and projecting mythical beings in place of science. Perhaps the signs that religion and IDerlism is gradually being eroded, is the reason for your own persecution complex...certainly not mine matey!

And repeating your bare assertion about science you merely imagine I've misinterpreted only fools the very dense and those too lazy to risk finding out otherwise.

Bare assertions?? What bare assertions? You mean the .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds for you to squeeze your god of the gaps into? You need to face reality old friend, that religion/creationism/IDerism is a dying myth, only perpetuated by your abnormal fears of the finality of death.