God

[Bigga]

This is a totally circular argument that will achieve nothing but bad feeling as both parties are convinced they are right. This will cause passions to rise and on-line feuds to be formed.
Save it for the RAGS guys. Agree to disagree and walk away!

I'll agree with that.

 

[tonea2003]

This is a totally circular argument that will achieve nothing but bad feeling as both parties are convinced they are right. This will cause passions to rise and on-line feuds to be formed.
Save it for the RAGS guys. Agree to disagree and walk away!

I'll agree with that.

until next time :-)

 

[lloydie]

Couple of points
1 God botherers make things up.
2 They are like little children that repeat the question "Why?" ad nauseam, as soon as you give them a reason they will ask again until the point is reached when science does not YET have the answer. At this point they triumphantly proclaim the truth of their revelation.
3. They deliberately avoid arguments that do not fit within their world view.

Science, (once again), does not seek to prove the absence of something, rather it seeks to find evidence for the presence of something. There is no evidence for God that I'm aware of and if anyone has any could they please post it.

 

[Damocles]

I think we all can agree that everything written in books are either facts or fiction, facts are something that have been proven such as the Earth's surface contains an air based substance called oxygen which we need to live, simple yet proven true so there for a fact.

Fiction is something we see as make believe or only so as there is no proof to back fiction such as the world will end in 2012 the Myherns (spelling) predicted this but had no evidential facts to back their prediction, so we see this fictional based.

Simple conclusion is

Science = FACT

God = FICTION

To quote Einstein

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

I believe science supports creationist theory.

Im not sure what premise you are using to say that God IS fiction (is highlighted because you have portrayed it as fact on the matter without any backing)

That's entirely wrong. I love debating Creationists, they are the funniest people alive today. They are actually using the worst type of science ever.

Nobody in the educated world has any sort of evidence to suggest anything a Creationist event. Please tell me your 'science' that supports it, as you'd be the first one in the world to find any.

Oh, and please don't confuse absence of evidence, previously incorrect evidence or gaps in knowledge in Evolution Theory as actual evidence for Creationism. It isn't.

 

[MCFC BOB]

... I think Scientology is funny.

 

[Damocles]

I think for an atheist to say that religion is impossible is completely ignorant. Some of the greatest minds of all time have been creationists (Newton, Keplar, Boyle, Einstein, just to name a few).

Wahey! The stupid started before I got here!

Newton was a Creationist simply because no other system could have possibly being conceived at that point. You may as well say that Newton was anti-Evolution too.

Keplar was the same, and also believed heavily in astrology, but it doesn't make that true either.

I don't know anything about Boyle really, but seeing that he was also a 17th Century scientist, I'm not surprised that he was a Creationist.

Einstein, you're utterly wrong about. He wasn't a Creationist in any sense of the word and went to great lengths to dispel; this myth. He did believe in a type of God, but not the one that you seem to think.

Lastly, and the absolute dumbest thing about your whole argument here is that it is entirely based on a logical fallacy. This is a fallacy known as argument to authority.

Just because some of the famous scientists in the world believed in Creation 400 years ago, doesn't make Creation Science anything other than pure tripe. Let's say they all wore yellow shoes and believed in Neverland, this also doesn't make that true.

 

[Matty]

I think for an atheist to say that religion is impossible is completely ignorant. Some of the greatest minds of all time have been creationists (Newton, Keplar, Boyle, Einstein, just to name a few).

Wahey! The stupid started before I got here!

Newton was a Creationist simply because no other system could have possibly being conceived at that point. You may as well say that Newton was anti-Evolution too.

Keplar was the same, and also believed heavily in astrology, but it doesn't make that true either.

I don't know anything about Boyle really, but seeing that he was also a 17th Century scientist, I'm not surprised that he was a Creationist.

Einstein, you're utterly wrong about. He wasn't a Creationist in any sense of the word and went to great lengths to dispel; this myth. He did believe in a type of God, but not the one that you seem to think.

Lastly, and the absolute dumbest thing about your whole argument here is that it is entirely based on a logical fallacy. This is a fallacy known as argument to authority.

Just because some of the famous scientists in the world believed in Creation 400 years ago, doesn't make Creation Science anything other than pure tripe. Let's say they all wore yellow shoes and believed in Neverland, this also doesn't make that true.

You mean to say Peter Pan isn't true?!!!!!

 

[Damocles]

To me, I feel there has to have been a creator, even just by looking at how our body functions. It works way to well. Look at the eyeball, or the blood clotting system. Also look at things like DNA structure, philosophy etc i think are testament to creationism.

No you bloody idiot. The reason these things work so well, is because they are highly efficiently systems that help the next generation survive. This whole eyeball fascination that Creationists have is ridiculous, coming from the original print of the Origin of Species whereby Darwin said it was "difficult" to explain, then promptly explained it.

Read this to explain how the eye actually evolved:

<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye#Stages_of_eye_evolution" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_ ... _evolution</a>

Also, just because you can't explain something personally doesn't mean that God created it. I highly doubt that you can sit down and explain exactly how the process of human reproduction happens, yet you don't credit God for that. I also don't mean how an egg is fertilised, I mean how a fertilised egg grows into a human.

-- Tue Aug 10, 2010 2:30 pm --

There is still large amounts of creationist scientists. Denial of this just proves you would only read what suits you.

Really? Name me a single top physicist today who is a Creationist.<br /><br />-- Tue Aug 10, 2010 2:38 pm --<br /><br />Just to finish my quote picking here.

I'm not really anti-religion, people are free to believe in whatever they want. However, creation science is just fucking immoral, and raises my blood pressure. You guys are singlehandedly ruining an entire generation of people because it goes against your religious beliefs.

Just to let the quizzers out there aware; there is absolutely no scientific basis for Creation Science, there is no real debate amongst biologists about Evolution, and there is absolutely no debate amongst physicists about the formation of planets and stars.

The people who talk against these things receive far more press than the people who don't, thus it slants the argument somewhat. Dawkins is a bit of a dick at times, but he does represent the majority (and I mean about a 99% majority) amongst biologists with his view in Evolution. The 1% are highly religious people who bend evidence to suit their own needs, then don't actually answers questions that gores against their evidence. I've been down this road on numerous occasions, I've done the reading and I've done the research. Much of my hatred of organised religion comes entirely from Creationists and their attempts to put Creation Science in the classroom.

I'll make a single challenge to Creationists. Show me the science. Don't show me bullshit articles from Christian magazines, or the odd quote here and there. Link me to the actual scientific, peer reviewed, empirical documents which were published in a legitimate and well respected scientific journal that supports your case. Show me the science or shut the fuck up.

 

[Matty]

I highly doubt that you can sit down and explain exactly how the process of human reproduction happens, yet you don't credit God for that. I also don't mean how an egg is fertilised, I mean how a fertilised egg grows into a human.

I think you underestimate creationists, they categorically WILL credit human reproduction with God!!

 

[Damocles]

I highly doubt that you can sit down and explain exactly how the process of human reproduction happens, yet you don't credit God for that. I also don't mean how an egg is fertilised, I mean how a fertilised egg grows into a human.

I think you underestimate creationists, they categorically WILL credit human reproduction with God!!

For more rage inducing creationist crap, read:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexa ... Relativity</a>
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Evolution" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexa ... _Evolution</a>
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_the_Bible" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexa ... _the_Bible</a>
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexa ... _Old_Earth</a>

The last one is a belter:

As with any logical proposition, one contradiction disproves the proposed rule. If each of the 25 counterexamples provided here has merely a 10% chance of being valid, which is certainly an underestimate, then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 7%. From another perspective, these counterexamples demonstrate that the Earth must be young with a likelihood of at least 93%.

ARGH!