There is No God (And You Know It)

[jochhejaam]

Creationist "scientists"

Say that again.
Creationist scientists attempt at ever turn to dismiss evolution, and turn their backs on their god-given intellects.

The term simply refers to scientists that believe in Creation and that gets a lmao smiley?

It would be helpful if you would do some independent research before posting but I'll do it for you.
Here's some information for you from the Ins ute for Creation Research including a partial yet extensive list Scientists of the Physical Sciences and another extensive list of those in the Biological Sciences (all of who would surely make you look like "little johnny dumdum" when it comes to knowledge of these sciences and there corresponding research). There's also info into the areas of research in their graduate programs.

Today there are thousands of scientists who are creationists and who repudiate any form of molecules-to-man evolution in their analysis and use of scientific data. Creation scientists can now be found in literally every discipline of science, and their numbers are increasing rapidly. Evolutionists are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain the fiction that evolution is "science" and creation science is "religion". When news media personnel and others make such statements today, they merely reveal their own liberal social philosophies — not their awareness of scientific facts. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...esearch_physci

Seriously consider giving something resembling an authorative and educated response to this area of study by educating yourself.
At least then you'll be able to post something deeper and more substantial than a wisecrack and a couple of smileys.

[RandomGuy]

I am very familiar with the scientific method thank you.

I will never bother with reading much about "creation" science because it is a conclusion looking for evidence, not the other way around.

When you start with a given set of faith-based assumptions (see the "tenets" page on the IRC), and then go out and only look for data that supports your conclusion THAT is not science.

It is a bit like weighing a gnat and a small dog on a balance scale with your thumb on the side with the gnat and then saying "AHA!! I told you this gnat weighs more than the Chiahuahua!"

Whenever this group encounters something that doesn't fit, they can wave their hands and say "God did it".

"the RATE group suspects that a large amounts of radioactive decay may have occurred during the first two and a hald days of Creation as part of the supernatural Creation process."
Pg2 of http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Vardiman.pdf

That isn't science, that is theology.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE]

I will never bother with reading much about "creation" science because it is a conclusion looking for evidence, not the other way around.

Evolution has it's own conclusion it's Adaption plus Time equals Evolution, so what it comes down to, given your admitted myopia regarding scientific study into ID, is that you fall into the category aforementioned which is that you have merely revealed your own liberal social philosophies.
You cling with every fiber of your being to a theory, even to the exclusion of viable alternative scientific study, as if it's a law. The true scientific community welcomes alternative scientific study.
Another conclusion promoted by evolutionists is that there is no God and with that unprovable conclusion they then set out to discover how we came into existence.

When you start with a given set of faith-based assumptions (see the "tenets" page on the IRC), and then go out and only look for data that supports your conclusion THAT is not science.

Evolution starts out and ends with the "faith based" assumption that there is no God and they move on from there. The evolutionist's assumptions are no more or less valid than those in the scientific study of ID so why the acrimonious and unwarranted assault on ID's scientific study?

It is a bit like weighing a gnat and a small dog on a balance scale with your thumb on the side with the gnat and then saying "AHA!! I told you this gnat weighs more than the Chiahuahua!"Whenever this group encounters something that doesn't fit, they can wave their hands and say "God did it".

Thanks for the silly preschool analogy, next time don't bother and save the wear and tear on your keyboard.
Now can you come up with a scientifically sound reason why ID can never be substantiated through study or why they are wasting their time with study?

Related question, would you happen to be an atheist or agnostic?

That isn't science, that is theology.

Evolution and athiesm go hand in hand and many feel that athiesm is also a religion, so I'll match your unprovable statement and say that evolution isn't science, it's theology.

[jochhejaam]

Atheism is listed in the BBC website in it's list of Religions.

One of the definitions of religion is A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." -
Atheists pursuit their theory of evolution fits nicely into this defition.

Atheist Rites and Rituals

People often mark the major life stage events in life - like being born, getting married and so on - with religious ceremonies like christenings, weddings and funerals.

Atheist and Humanist organisations offer their own rituals for these events that give them meaning and significance without any religious content.

Ceremonies:
Namings, Weddings, Funerals

Such a ceremony can have as much significance and be as dignified as a religious ceremony.

These ceremonies differ from mainstream secular ceremonies like civil weddings, in that they are highly personalised for the individuals concerned.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/


In fact, Atheists comprise the third largest religion in the World

1. Christianity: 2.1 billion

2. Islam: 1.3 billion

3. Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion

4. Hinduism: 900 million

5. Chinese traditional religion: 394 million

6. Buddhism: 376 million

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

[RandomGuy]

Evolution has it's own conclusion it's Adaption plus Time equals Evolution, so what it comes down to, given your admitted myopia regarding scientific study into ID, is that you fall into the category aforementioned which is that you have merely revealed your own liberal social philosophies.
You cling with every fiber of your being to a theory, even to the exclusion of viable alternative scientific study, as if it's a law. The true scientific community welcomes alternative scientific study.

Egads, Jochhe, I have I touched a nerve? I guess I must have by the level of hostility evident in your post. You will pardon me if I do not return the favor.

You make an awful lot of assumptions about what I believe in here, so let's start with that.

I am sure your mention of "liberal social philosophies" was meant as an epithet, as most conservatives think people who don't agree with them are some form of sub-human, but I am a liberal, and I do have social philosphies, so: mea culpa.

I do not "cling with every fiber of [my] being to a theory". That is the job of creationists, as their statement of tenets readily attests.

In the balance of things, I think the weight of evidence simply doesn't support the theory of a universe that is only a few thousand years old. There is no more, or no less to it than that. Give me a theory supported by evidence to make it work, holds up to honest peer review, and I will give it the weight it deserves. A good critical thinker would do no less for any topic.

As for "evolution has it's own conclusion", you have it backwards. Evolution is simply an attempt to encompass the bulk of available evidence. Evolution IS a conclusion, but does not HAVE conclusions.

Another conclusion promoted by evolutionists is that there is no God and with that unprovable conclusion they then set out to discover how we came into existence.

Not all "evolutionists" are atheists. The conclusion that there is no God is not part of evolutionary theory that I know of. Perhaps you have read different books on it than I have.

Evolution starts out and ends with the "faith based" assumption that there is no God and they move on from there. The evolutionist's assumptions are no more or less valid than those in the scientific study of ID so why the acrimonious and unwarranted assault on ID's scientific study?

Acrimonious? (shrugs) If you say so. I will try to ratchet it down then, as it really wasn't my intention.

Thanks for the silly preschool analogy, next time don't bother and save the wear and tear on your keyboard.
Now can you come up with a scientifically sound reason why ID can never be substantiated through study or why they are wasting their time with study?

I thought my analogy rather apt. I find that simplifying things makes concepts more relatable to my readers/listeners. I am told I am rather good at explaning complicated concepts to lay people, so I think I will keep bothering with them, thank you.

Hmm, scientifically sound reason...
I will decline. Honestly, this is not a debate that holds much interest for me, as I think it has been done to death.
I think ID pretty much lands in the realm of pseudoscience as wikipedia lays it out. I really don't feel it deserves much weight.

Related question, would you happen to be an atheist or agnostic?

Niether.

I can assume you think of yourself as a Christian, then?

Evolution and athiesm go hand in hand and many feel that athiesm is also a religion, so I'll match your unprovable statement and say that evolution isn't science, it's theology.

You can "match" my "unprovable" statement and say that apples are turnips, but that doesn't make you right about that either.

In the end, ID is simply a new tactic from Biblical literalists to cloak the Bible in the mantle of science, and somehow shoehorn reality into something that makes a literal interpretation of the Bible possible.

The big problem is that the universe doesn't jibe with this. THAT is the ultimate weakness of ID theory.

[RandomGuy]

In fact, Atheists comprise the third largest religion in the World

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Actually, according to the website given above:
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist:
This is a highly disparate group and not a single religion. Although atheists are a small subset of this grouping, this category is not synonymous[author's emphasis] with atheism...

Different type of data collection methodologies using different types of questions showed a consistent pattern: In most countries only a tiny number of people (zero to a fraction of 1 percent) will answer "atheism" or "atheist" when asked an open-ended question about what their religious preference."

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE]

Egads, Jochhe, I have I touched a nerve? I guess I must have by the level of hostility evident in your post. You will pardon me if I do not return the favor.

I'll pardon you for misreading my post as hostile if you'd like.

In the balance of things, I think the weight of evidence simply doesn't support the theory of a universe that is only a few thousand years old. There is no more, or no less to it than that. Give me a theory supported by evidence to make it work, holds up to honest peer review, and I will give it the weight it deserves. A good critical thinker would do no less for any topic.

I have a thought of my own on the age and aging techniques used to date the earth, tell me what you think of it.
If God has always been, as I believe, let's assume for arguements sake that the substances he used to create the earth have always been, wouldn't that account for the dating of the earth reaching into the millions of years? I haven't heard of any discussion regarding this possibility. There could be good reason why there's not.
There is a readily detectable degree of angst and an obvious bias from atheists directed towards Religion/God. I would surmise that this is easily transferred to those many scientists who believe in God and wish to confront the evolutionists theory with ID research through scientific study of their own.

I can assume you think of yourself as a Christian, then?

I have a deep and heartfelt love for God and Jesus Christ but I do not see myself as realizing the potential of aligning my life with that of Christ's to the point where others would see Him through me and be impacted or reactive because of that aligning.
That being said tomorrow is a new day.

[jochhejaam]

Actually, according to the website given above:
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist:
This is a highly disparate group and not a single religion. Although atheists are a small subset of this grouping, this category is not synonymous[author's emphasis] with atheism...

Different type of data collection methodologies using different types of questions showed a consistent pattern: In most countries only a tiny number of people (zero to a fraction of 1 percent) will answer "atheism" or "atheist" when asked an open-ended question about what their religious preference."

However you slice the pie of atheism the sum total is 1.1 billion. If they answer Agnostic, Atheist or Humanist or any of the other groups that deny the existence of a diety it all amounts to the same thing, disbelief in God. There are varying degrees of Atheistic fervor just as there are with Christianity, and they can range from apathetic to luke warm to zealous.

To each his own.

[RandomGuy]

I have a thought of my own on the age and aging techniques used to date the earth, tell me what you think of it.
If God has always been, as I believe, let's assume for arguements sake that the substances he used to create the earth have always been, wouldn't that account for the dating of the earth reaching into the millions of years? I haven't heard of any discussion regarding this possibility. There could be good reason why there's not.

I think that sounds reasonable, given what I know of the particulars of radiological dating and such things. I understand the process of radioactive decay, but that is about it.

My expertise lies elsewhere.

There is a readily detectable degree of angst and an obvious bias from atheists directed towards Religion/God. I would surmise that this is easily transferred to those many scientists who believe in God and wish to confront the evolutionists theory with ID research through scientific study of their own.

More power to 'em. Healthy scientific debate is a good thing. Assumptions should be challenged. You and I are both for that.

I have a deep and heartfelt love for God and Jesus Christ but I do not see myself as realizing the potential of aligning my life with that of Christ's to the point where others would see Him through me and be impacted or reactive because of that aligning.
That being said tomorrow is a new day.

We are more in agreement on this bit than you might think.

[Oh, Gee!!]

What the is the point? Why the does anyone still argue about the existence of God these days? It makes no difference. Either side will continue to believe whatever they want to believe no matter what evidence they are presented with.

[Mr. Peabody]

What the is the point? Why the does anyone still argue about the existence of God these days? It makes no difference. Either side will continue to believe whatever they want to believe no matter what evidence they are presented with.

Ummm, I am pretty sure that I can convince these people that there is no God.
________
The Peak Towers Condo

[Oh, Gee!!]

Ummm, I am pretty sure that I can convince these people that there is no God.

You sir couldn't convince Tom Benson to move the Saints to SA.

[bigzak25]

What the is the point? Why the does anyone still argue about the existence of God these days? It makes no difference. Either side will continue to believe whatever they want to believe no matter what evidence they are presented with.

the point is salvation. i am not here to argue. i am here to guide. to show people the way so that they can turn to Jesus 100% and thus, save themselves through Him. yes, i am still blind, but i am seeing more day by day. I won't give up on anyone. The hardest and most stubborn are those that judge themselves looking down instead of up. I was there, we all are/were. But you are right, ultimately, Mankind must make a choice. Such is free will.

I will say this,

Do not trust me, do not trust any man.
Do not trust your mind or your heart.

All of the above are decievers.

Trust in Jesus. He is the Life, the Truth, the Way.

Ummm, I am pretty sure that I can convince these people that there is no God.

that's because your God is yourself.

lets put your faith in yourself to the test.

go ahead and convince me my friend.

All the science in the world cannot overcome my faith.

But you are free to try.

Plus, I assume that those that are such hardline Believers in Man and Science have in fact done their scientific research.

Meaning, I have to assume that those that want to teach that there is no God must have read the Bible. At least the New Testament, i'd avoid revelation if I was you, and then at least Proverbs and Psalms from the Old Testament.

I mean, i'm on the book of Mark right now, i'm just beginning, so I offer no credentials for myself whatsoever.

I offer NONE. Except my faith.

So put all yours on the table, vs. my faith, and lets play the game of life shall we?

who is 1st to cast their stone?

hit me, i am unarmed except for the Good Book.

[Mr. Peabody]

that's because your God is yourself.

lets put your faith in yourself to the test.

go ahead and convince me my friend.

All the science in the world cannot overcome my faith.

But you are free to try.

Plus, I assume that those that are such hardline Believers in Man and Science have in fact done their scientific research.

Meaning, I have to assume that those that want to teach that there is no God must have read the Bible. At least the New Testament, i'd avoid revelation if I was you, and then at least Proverbs and Psalms from the Old Testament.

I mean, i'm on the book of Mark right now, i'm just beginning, so I offer no credentials for myself whatsoever.

I offer NONE. Except my faith.

So put all yours on the table, vs. my faith, and lets play the game of life shall we?

who is 1st to cast their stone?

hit me, i am unarmed except for the Good Book.

You should quit taking yourself so seriously.

If you could not tell that I was joking in my response to Oh, Gee!!, you should quit reading the Bible and start living life.
________
DEPAKOTE SIDE EFFECTS

[RandomGuy]

What the is the point? Why the does anyone still argue about the existence of God these days? It makes no difference. Either side will continue to believe whatever they want to believe no matter what evidence they are presented with.

Heh, until we get giant flaming letters in the sky letting us know what the Big Guy (Gal, Elephant, whatever) is thinking, we will have to keep debating...

[RandomGuy]

You should quit taking yourself so seriously.

If you could not tell that I was joking in my response to Oh, Gee!!, you should quit reading the Bible and start living life.

Yeah, talk about melodrama.

[bigzak25]

You should quit taking yourself so seriously.

If you could not tell that I was joking in my response to Oh, Gee!!, you should quit reading the Bible and start living life.

agreed. but please know that i do not take myself seriously, i am but a fool.

however, i will take your advice to heart and go feed my dog now.

and then look at the paper for employment opportunities as I am in

need of a job in the worst way. i am sorry to have misinterpreted your post,

but you see, i take many posts here at face value.

especially in a thread such as this one where such contrasting viewpoints

have been layed on the table. i guess i just didn't get the joke.

my apologies.

[JoeChalupa]

Believe and let live.

[RandomGuy]

agreed. but please know that i do not take myself seriously, i am but a fool.

however, i will take your advice to heart and go feed my dog now.

and then look at the paper for employment opportunities as I am in

need of a job in the worst way. i am sorry to have misinterpreted your post,

but you see, i take many posts here at face value.

especially in a thread such as this one where such contrasting viewpoints

have been layed on the table. i guess i just didn't get the joke.

my apologies.

No apologies to make. We all take ourselves a bit seriously here sometimes, myself being one of the worst offenders... Give your foofer a scratch behind the ears for me.

[Guru of Nothing]

If there is a heaven and a , all I ask is that I don't wind up in the same place as this guy.

[Marcus Bryant]

Ditto, GoN.

[Marcus Bryant]

It's sad when I drive past that s bag's temple to himself on the death loop.

[Mr. Peabody]

If there is a heaven and a , all I ask is that I don't wind up in the same place as this guy.

Who is that guy?
________
Web shows

[Guru of Nothing]

The one, the grotesque, the only, John Hagee

[Swishy McJackass]

Ugh, that link about Hagee's earnings makes me want to vomit.