Top Atheist becomes Christian [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Top Atheist becomes Christian


Vic Hays
06-24-2012, 22:12
http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c2#/video/bestoftv/2012/06/24/intv-atheist-catholic.cnn

Animal Mother
06-24-2012, 22:24
Presumably, this is about Leah Libresco. I don't think I'd call her a "top atheist" if there even is such a thing. Regardless, her blog post (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unequallyyoked/2012/06/this-is-my-last-post-for-the-patheos-atheist-portal.html) on her conversion seems to centered on deciding that morality must have some magical basis (despite the contrary evidence which she summarily dismisses) not on any revelation from a higher power. She seems to suffer from the same problem a lot of people do, assuming an objective morality without actually demonstrating one exists.

weemsf50
06-24-2012, 22:37
Actually she said that morality needed a basis or foundation. Atheism gives only moral relativism or social morals that constantly evolve and change.

Animal Mother
06-24-2012, 23:37
Actually she said that morality needed a basis or foundation. Atheism gives only moral relativism or social morals that constantly evolve and change.As I said, she assumes an objective morality without demonstrating one actually exists, then decides it must have form in a person, and that person must be the Catholic version of God. The problem that she hopefully will address in future posts is that none of her assumptions rest on any foundation other than simply wanting it to be that way. She dismisses evolutionary psychology without explanation and offhandedly references some mathematical formulation she chooses not to share.

Gunhaver
06-25-2012, 01:31
Popular atheist blogger? I've never heard of her. Funny that when Christians become atheists every day no one notices but an atheist goes Catholic and it's CNN newsworthy.

At least we still have Christina Rad.

How to be a good Creationist - In 5 easy steps - YouTube

MadMonkey
06-25-2012, 02:08
Christian = Creationist?

High-Gear
06-25-2012, 06:04
Never heard of her. Top Atheist my arse!

Syclone538
06-25-2012, 09:58
Never heard of her.

Altaris
06-25-2012, 10:36
Never heard of her either.

What does 'top atheist' even mean anyway?
Is there a 'top person' for people that reject the existence of dragons? :dunno:

Schabesbert
06-25-2012, 10:47
Top Atheist becomes Christian
Hallelujah!

She seems to suffer from the same problem a lot of people do, assuming an objective morality without actually demonstrating one exists.
Much as people assume that gravity, electromagnetism, or the weak & strong nuclear forces exist. We can explain them by their effects, but we don't know what they ARE.

JBnTX
06-25-2012, 11:37
She's just one more example of the old saying that there's only two kinds of people.

Those who believe in God, and those who will.

randrew379
06-25-2012, 13:08
She's just one more example of the old saying that there's only two kinds of people.

Those who believe in God, and those who will.

Read "Where Men Win Honor" by Jon Krakauer. Pat Tillman went to his grave rejecting superstitious nonsense; and he was a man of honor, talent, intelligence and integrity.

RC-RAMIE
06-25-2012, 13:12
She's just one more example of the old saying that there's only two kinds of people.

Those who believe in God, and those who will.

With you lack of understanding atheist im not surprised by this post.

Guss
06-25-2012, 13:46
Never heard of her.
I just now went looking on Amazon for some of her atheist books, but I came up empty-handed.
So I then tried looked for some of her atheist postings on YouTube, and couldn't seem to find anything.
Has she been a spokesperson for any major atheist group?
Well, I'm looking forward to seeing her proof of god. I'll bet she couldn't even hold up her end if she came here to debate us.

Kentak
06-25-2012, 14:03
She's obviously lost her mind. Hopefully she'll come to her senses and reject her misplaced faith in mysticism.

Guss
06-25-2012, 14:57
Actually she said that morality needed a basis or foundation. Atheism gives only moral relativism or social morals that constantly evolve and change.
So?
I wonder if Bible-based religions would have survived if they hadn't evolved their morality.

Woofie
06-25-2012, 15:00
Did she say her atheist friends told her that Christianity makes more sense or did I misinterpret that?

Sounds like another person who claims "I used to be an atheist" when really she just didn't attend church.

Guss
06-25-2012, 15:06
She is a fulfillment of the great prophet Warhol... "In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes."

JBnTX
06-25-2012, 15:26
Read "Where Men Win Honor" by Jon Krakauer. Pat Tillman went to his grave rejecting superstitious nonsense; and he was a man of honor, talent, intelligence and integrity.

I'm sure the devil will put all that honor, talent, intelligence and integrity to good use.

JBnTX
06-25-2012, 15:29
With you lack of understanding atheist im not surprised by this post.


I know all I need to know about Atheists.
All the other stuff you allude to is only important to atheists, not to me.

Convince yourself it's true, not me.
I know better.

..

Animal Mother
06-25-2012, 15:50
Much as people assume that gravity, electromagnetism, or the weak & strong nuclear forces exist. We can explain them by their effects, but we don't know what they ARE. They're fundamental forces, and we don't imagine a magic giver of gravity to explain their existence, do we?

ksg0245
06-25-2012, 16:10
I know all I need to know about Atheists.
All the other stuff you allude to is only important to atheists, not to me.

Convince yourself it's true, not me.
I know better.

..

:rofl:

Animal Mother
06-25-2012, 16:38
I know all I need to know about Atheists.
All the other stuff you allude to is only important to atheists, not to me.

Convince yourself it's true, not me.
I know better.

..Are you admitting to being willfully ignorant?

Kingarthurhk
06-25-2012, 16:42
Actually she said that morality needed a basis or foundation. Atheism gives only moral relativism or social morals that constantly evolve and change.

Pretty much.

Kingarthurhk
06-25-2012, 16:48
Popular atheist blogger? I've never heard of her. Funny that when Christians become atheists every day no one notices but an atheist goes Catholic and it's CNN newsworthy.

At least we still have Christina Rad.

How to be a good Creationist - In 5 easy steps - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Viw7MpXU4GU&feature=relmfu)

Hey, and you all also have your own religious theme song too:

Bloodhound Gang - The Bad Touch - YouTube

muscogee
06-25-2012, 16:48
I think, “Confused young woman reverts to Christianity” would be a more appropriate title.
Shall we discuss those who have left the faith?

http://www.flamewarrior.com/barker_interview.htm

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/100757/qa-sam-harris?all=1

There's even hope for Weems.

http://clergyproject.org/

Schabesbert
06-25-2012, 16:53
They're fundamental forces,
They are? Is this just an assertion without any supporting evidence?

Do they NEED to exist?

muscogee
06-25-2012, 16:55
Christian = Creationist?

Creationist = Abrahamic religion. One thing Jews, Christians, and Muslims have in common. No one else even considers it viable.

muscogee
06-25-2012, 16:57
She's just one more example of the old saying that there's only two kinds of people.

Those who believe in God, and those who will.

The old, "God's gonna gitch'a" Bull****.

Kingarthurhk
06-25-2012, 17:00
Creationist = Abrahamic religion. One thing Jews, Christians, and Muslims have in common. No one else even considers it viable.

Hindu creation story - YouTube

Wrong.

muscogee
06-25-2012, 17:01
I know all I need to know about Atheists.
All the other stuff you allude to is only important to atheists, not to me.

Convince yourself it's true, not me.
I know better.

..

"You know nothing John Snow"

Altaris
06-25-2012, 17:06
They are? Is this just an assertion without any supporting evidence?

Do they NEED to exist?

Without them we don't exist, so yes, WE need them to exist.

Our universe (or alternate universes), could very well exist without those forces, but we, as we are today, certainly wouldn't be there.

muscogee
06-25-2012, 17:06
Hindu creation story - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9yWwFWpbRo)

Wrong.

I didn't realize the Hindus were demanding this be taught in school. There are numerous creation stories but only the Christians are Muslims are trying to force theirs on everyone else.

Kingarthurhk
06-25-2012, 17:09
I didn't realize the Hindus were demanding this be taught in school. There are numerous creation stories but only the Christians are Muslims are trying to force theirs on everyone else.

Violence against Christians in India continues - YouTube

World religious really aren't your forte.

Schabesbert
06-25-2012, 17:20
I think, “Confused young woman reverts to Christianity” would be a more appropriate title.
Shall we discuss those who have left the faith?

You might want to re-think that challenge if you listen to, say, the debate between Harris and Craig.

Schabesbert
06-25-2012, 17:23
Without them we don't exist, so yes, WE need them to exist.
Right. That just begs the question: do WE need to exist?

Our universe (or alternate universes),
Another premise for which there is no evidence ...

could very well exist without those forces, but we, as we are today, certainly wouldn't be there.
But it's not necessary for us to exist ANYwhere.

Animal Mother
06-25-2012, 17:47
They are? Yes.
Is this just an assertion without any supporting evidence? No, it isn't.
Do they NEED to exist?For the universe as we observe it to exist, yes, they do.

Animal Mother
06-25-2012, 18:01
World religious really aren't your forte.And your forte is what exactly?

HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?
2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.
That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.
3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.
4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?
There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder
6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

HYMN CXXX. Creation.

1. THE sacrifice drawn out with threads on every side, stretched by a hundred sacred ministers and one,—
This do these Fathers weave who hitherward are come: they sit beside the warp and cry, Weave forth, weave back.
2 The Man extends it and the Man unbinds it: even to this vault of heaven hath he outspun, it.
These pegs are fastened to the seat of worship: they made the Sāma-hymns their weaving shuttles.
3 What were the rule, the order and the model? What were the wooden fender and the butter?
What were the hymn, the chant, the recitation, when to the God all Deities paid worship?
4 Closely was Gāyatrī conjoined with Agni, and closely Savitar combined with Usnih.
Brilliant with Ukthas, Soma joined Anustup: Bṛhaspati's voice by Brhati was aided.
5 Virāj adhered to Varuṇa and Mitra: here Triṣṭup day by day was Indra's portion.
Jagatī entered all the Gods together: so by this knowledge men were raised to Ṛṣis.
6 So by this knowledge men were raised to Ṛṣis, when ancient sacrifice sprang up, our Fathers.
With the mind's eye I think that I behold them who first performed this sacrificial worship.
7 They who were versed in ritual and metre, in hymns and rules, were the Seven Godlike Ṛṣis.
Viewing the path of those of old, the sages have taken up the reins like chariot-drivers.

Rig Veda Book 10 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm)

Kingarthurhk
06-25-2012, 18:35
I just covered Hinduism. You really should try to keep up.

Kingarthurhk
06-25-2012, 18:38
While we are on Non-Abrahamic creation beliefs there is the well known Onandaga story:

Earth on Turtle's Back - YouTube

Kingarthurhk
06-25-2012, 18:42
Or another Non-Abrahamic creation story of the Incas:

THE INCA CREATION MYTH - YouTube

Animal Mother
06-25-2012, 18:44
I just covered Hinduism. You really should try to keep up. The fact that you think posting a link to a video on youtube constitutes covering something speaks volumes.

Kingarthurhk
06-25-2012, 18:45
Or another Non-Abrahamic, your favorite people, the Norse:

Norse Creation Myth - YouTube

Animal Mother
06-25-2012, 18:45
While we are on Non-Abrahamic creation beliefs there is the well known Onandaga story:

Earth on Turtle's Back - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOxrvbA_KCE) Why should the Christian creation myth be accepted or taught in schools rather than one of the others?

Kingarthurhk
06-25-2012, 18:45
The fact that you think posting a link to a video on youtube constitutes covering something speaks volumes.

I was trying to keep it as simple as possible for all involved.:upeyes:

Kingarthurhk
06-25-2012, 18:46
Why should the Christian creation myth be accepted or taught in schools rather than one of the others?

Non-sequitor.

Altaris
06-25-2012, 18:48
Right. That just begs the question: do WE need to exist?


No, we don't need to exist. I would much prefer to exist, just like you would, but the universe doesn't need or care about either of us.

If an asteroid hit earth and wiped us out the universe would miss us as much as the dinosaurs ....which is not at all.



Another premise for which there is no evidence ...


Never said there was any. Was just covering all the bases by saying any universe.


But it's not necessary for us to exist ANYwhere.

Correct.
We need those fundamental forces. They don't need us.

Animal Mother
06-25-2012, 18:50
I was trying to keep it as simple as possible for all involved.:upeyes: Your preference for simple things it understandable.

steveksux
06-25-2012, 18:50
Non-sequitor.

I'd be interested in hearing how many of those creation myths deserve equal time in science classes...

Randy

Animal Mother
06-25-2012, 18:51
Non-sequitor.No, it's a question. One of those things that frightens you so. What makes any one of these myths more or less true than the others?

Altaris
06-25-2012, 18:52
I'd be interested in hearing how many of those creation myths deserve equal time in science classes...

Randy

We should teach the controversy, right?

Why should the christian creation myth get preference over any of the other creation myths?

steveksux
06-25-2012, 19:31
We should teach the controversy, right?

Why should the christian creation myth get preference over any of the other creation myths?That right there sounds like a controversy too! :supergrin:

I think the people that think the earth is suspended on the back of a turtle would like to hear about the contrary evidence that goes against the Christian creation myths...

Randy

GAFinch
06-25-2012, 21:53
I didn't realize the Hindus were demanding this be taught in school. There are numerous creation stories but only the Christians are Muslims are trying to force theirs on everyone else.

Having been to high school and college, I'm pretty sure that atheists/seculars are trying to force theirs on everyone else also. Evolution, Darwinism in particular, has had numerous studies turn out to be wrong or fraudulent, so what makes the Marxist religion's story inherently superior to other religions?

efman
06-25-2012, 22:03
am I the only one who thought it was interesting that she just became a christian and she did not mention her personal relationship with jesus christ? Hope she truly does believe....

ksg0245
06-25-2012, 22:05
Having been to high school and college, I'm pretty sure that atheists/seculars are trying to force theirs on everyone else also. Evolution, Darwinism in particular, has had numerous studies turn out to be wrong or fraudulent, so what makes the Marxist religion's story inherently superior to other religions?

Which "Darwinism studies" were wrong or fraudulent?

Animal Mother
06-25-2012, 22:06
Having been to high school and college, I'm pretty sure that atheists/seculars are trying to force theirs on everyone else also. Evolution, Darwinism in particular, has had numerous studies turn out to be wrong or fraudulent Are you saying that some people have falsified results or that the core components of evolutionary theory have been shown to be false? Whichever is the case, could you provide some specific examples?

jollygreen
06-26-2012, 00:01
"Christian" by which standard. You are 7th Day Adventist. You're a member of a cult and definitely not Christian.

Re your article. She didn't convert to Christianity.

jollygreen
06-26-2012, 00:04
I am curious however, as to why you cultists are drawn to this site.

Proselytizing?

Please tell me no GTrs are buying into your propaganda.

Animal Mother
06-26-2012, 00:05
"Christian" by which standard. You are 7th Day Adventist. You're a member of a cult and definitely not Christian.

Re your article. She didn't convert to Christianity.Who qualifies as definitely Christian in your mind?

ETA: I have been waiting on the first "Catholic isn't Christian" post though, thanks for not letting me down.

jollygreen
06-26-2012, 00:55
Who qualifies as definitely Christian in your mind?

ETA: I have been waiting on the first "Catholic isn't Christian" post though, thanks for not letting me down.

It's actually quite clearly defined in the New Testament.

It's one of those things that, if you have to ask, you probably won't accept.

Animal Mother
06-26-2012, 01:41
It's actually quite clearly defined in the New Testament.

It's one of those things that, if you have to ask, you probably won't accept. Another one of those "If you don't believe you can't understand" things then? They sure are convenient for avoiding anything approaching a coherent explanation for your beliefs.

Kingarthurhk
06-26-2012, 04:27
We should teach the controversy, right?

Why should the christian creation myth get preference over any of the other creation myths?

Or Atheist Creation Myth.

Kingarthurhk
06-26-2012, 04:28
"Christian" by which standard. You are 7th Day Adventist. You're a member of a cult and definitely not Christian.

Re your article. She didn't convert to Christianity.

What "Cult" do you belong to?

Kingarthurhk
06-26-2012, 04:29
Your preference for simply things it understandable.

I have to consider the audience.

Kingarthurhk
06-26-2012, 04:30
I'd be interested in hearing how many of those creation myths deserve equal time in science classes...

Randy

I know, only the Atheist Creation Myth, according to to Atheists anyway.

Kingarthurhk
06-26-2012, 04:32
I am curious however, as to why you cultists are drawn to this site.

Proselytizing?

Please tell me no GTrs are buying into your propaganda.

I am curious who you are, and what glass house you live in?

Animal Mother
06-26-2012, 05:34
I have to consider the audience. If that were true, you'd give the audience what they're constantly asking for: Evidence to support your position.

Animal Mother
06-26-2012, 05:35
Or Atheist Creation Myth.No such thing. Atheists reject deities, which carries with it a requirement to reject mythology involving them.

Altaris
06-26-2012, 07:29
It's actually quite clearly defined in the New Testament.

It's one of those things that, if you have to ask, you probably won't accept.


I guess I don't get it since I have to ask, but is bullying part of the Christianity that you learned....

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19131469&postcount=23

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19131626&postcount=29

muscogee
06-26-2012, 08:25
Violence against Christians in India continues - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95T5I_ENtpQ)

World religious really aren't your forte.

Explain?

muscogee
06-26-2012, 08:52
Having been to high school and college, I'm pretty sure that atheists/seculars are trying to force theirs on everyone else also. Evolution, Darwinism in particular, has had numerous studies turn out to be wrong or fraudulent, so what makes the Marxist religion's story inherently superior to other religions?

Non-believers don't have tax free buildings where they gather on specific days to reinforce their beliefs and urge non-believers to go convert others. We don't flood the airways on Sunday or any other day attempting to convert everyone. Non-believers are not trying to force anyone to do anything but think at a higher cognitive level.

The main problem with your post is that you equate logic, rational thought, and common sense with atheism/secularism.
Evolution may not be perfect, but it makes infinitely more sense than the Garden of Eden story. That is why it replaced creation myths in the science classrooms. Do you have any evidence that snakes used to talk to people? If not, then don't claim the Garden of Eden story is anything but a myth. Don't claim it's on the same logical scientific level as evolution and therefore deserves equal discussion in the science classroom.

Vic Hays
06-26-2012, 09:53
Non-believers are not trying to force anyone to do anything but think at a higher cognitive level.



But atheists are trying to assert their opinion on society that all there is is a purely material universe. Please don't deny that. If it was not so then there would not be court cases contesting anything more than a material world view.

Your opinion may be that this is a higher level of thinking, but the reality is that it disregards the possibility that there may be more to the universe than what we can see or feel so I would not call that a higher level.

muscogee
06-26-2012, 10:20
Your opinion may be that this is a higher level of thinking, but the reality is that it disregards the possibility that there may be more to the universe than what we can see or feel

No it does not. I feel sure there is more to the universe than we currently know or can understand. I'm not the one insisting that the world as we understood it 6000 years ago is the only correct way to understand it today.

so I would not call that a higher level. Call it what you like. Refusing to reject obvious absurdities is not higher level thinking. Snakes didn't walk and talk, men didn't live to 600-900 years old, the world was not covered by a flood, the truly dead do not come back, and on and on.

Vic Hays
06-26-2012, 10:51
Call it what you like. Refusing to reject obvious absurdities is not higher level thinking. Snakes didn't walk and talk, men didn't live to 600-900 years old, the world was not covered by a flood, the truly dead do not come back, and on and on.

You don't know those things for sure, they are only your opinion which nearly everyone has one of.

You are judging reality by what your opinion is. No problem, just don't expect everyone to have the same opinion as yourself.

Schabesbert
06-26-2012, 12:17
Is this just an assertion without any supporting evidence?

No, it isn't.
I'm sorry, but you can provide the evidence below. If there isn't enough white space for your evidence, you can add more by hitting the return key.

For the universe as we observe it to exist, yes, they do.
But it's not necessary that we exist to observe anything.

Schabesbert
06-26-2012, 12:23
Non-believers don't have tax free buildings where they gather on specific days to reinforce their beliefs and urge non-believers to go convert others.
They're called public schools :whistling:.

Altaris
06-26-2012, 12:27
But it's not necessary that we exist to observe anything.

For humans to observe something we of course need to exist. We are not necessary to the universe however, and it would exist just fine without us or anyone observing it.

Woofie
06-26-2012, 12:42
But atheists are trying to assert their opinion on society that all there is is a purely material universe. Please don't deny that. If it was not so then there would not be court cases contesting anything more than a material world view.

Your opinion may be that this is a higher level of thinking, but the reality is that it disregards the possibility that there may be more to the universe than what we can see or feel so I would not call that a higher level.

How is it that the Christian opinion in one thread is that the position of science is only promoted by atheists, but in another thread claim that science is based on western Christian principles?

Vic Hays
06-26-2012, 15:24
How is it that the Christian opinion in one thread is that the position of science is only promoted by atheists, but in another thread claim that science is based on western Christian principles?

I think you are distorting here a bit. Science has no position. People have opinions and scientists have opinions, but there is no place where science has an opinion.

muscogee
06-26-2012, 15:25
You don't know those things for sure, they are only your opinion which nearly everyone has one of.
It's not just my opinion. There is no evidence to support the belief that they did. In fact, all evidence points in the opposite direction.

You are judging reality by what your opinion is. No problem, just don't expect everyone to have the same opinion as yourself.

I'm judging reality by the evidence, not some ancient mythology. Sticking with what you memorized is a lower order thinking skill. Analyzing what you memorized in light of the best available evidence is a higher order thinking skill.

Do you have any hard evidence that these myths actually happened? Do you have evidence that men lived for centuries? Do you have any hard evidence that snakes used to walk and talk? You don't but you claim that believing these obvious absurdities is requires the same level of critical thinking skills as rejecting them. Even a child who hasn't been brainwashed by his religion knows better. You are so brainwashed that you can't even consider that these myths cannot be true. Don't say that I'm brainwashed too. I've been were you are but I have recovered.

Kingarthurhk
06-26-2012, 16:54
No, it's a question. One of those things that frightens you so. What makes any one of these myths more or less true than the others?

I'll play the tune this time. Wrong.

Kingarthurhk
06-26-2012, 16:56
Explain?

You were implying Hindus were a peaceful tolerant people. I was showing you otherwise.

RC-RAMIE
06-26-2012, 16:58
I'll play the tune this time. Wrong.

You do know there is other creation stories?


....

Kingarthurhk
06-26-2012, 17:02
You do know there is other creation stories?


....

Yes, and ironically they have a familiar theme, as if they borrowed something from an original and made their own version. Interesting.

Altaris
06-26-2012, 17:12
Yes, and ironically they have a familiar theme, as if they borrowed something from an original and made their own version. Interesting.

What I find more interesting is that none of them provide any evidence to back up any of their claims.

RC-RAMIE
06-26-2012, 17:17
Yes, and ironically they have a familiar theme, as if they borrowed something from an original and made their own version. Interesting.

They proably feel the same about yours.


....

Kingarthurhk
06-26-2012, 17:30
They proably feel the same about yours.


....

Well, you can feel unique about your cration myth. In that you have one yet deny one at the same time. I am beginning to think Atheists are Zen Budhists in disguise.:whistling:

RC-RAMIE
06-26-2012, 17:48
Well, you can feel unique about your cration myth. In that you have one yet deny one at the same time. I am beginning to think Atheists are Zen Budhists in disguise.:whistling:

What is our creation myth? I must have missed it at my atheist Saturday school.


....

Kingarthurhk
06-26-2012, 18:32
What is our creation myth? I must have missed it at my atheist Saturday school.


....

Let me break it down for you.

Atheist: We don't believe in a God, but all of you that do are wrong.

Atheist: We don't believe in Creation, and all of you do are wrong; but, let us tell you about how the Universe was created.

Atheist: We don't know where this signularity appeared from, but it created everything, even though we don't believe in Creation, but we will tell you one thing with certaintity Goddidn'tdoit!

That is the Atheist Creation Myth, that asserts both a Creation and denies at the same time.

How Zen of you.

Animal Mother
06-26-2012, 18:34
I'm sorry, but you can provide the evidence below. If there isn't enough white space for your evidence, you can add more by hitting the return key. Are you really asking for evidence that fundamental forces exist? See the screen you're reading this on? There you go. The chair you're sitting in? There's another one.
But it's not necessary that we exist to observe anything. Correct.

Animal Mother
06-26-2012, 18:35
I'll play the tune this time. Wrong.And that tune is what exactly? "The Avoiding All Questions or Substantive Discussion So I don't Get Caught Making More False Claims Rag"?

Kingarthurhk
06-26-2012, 18:38
And that tune is what exactly? "The Avoiding All Questions or Substantive Discussion So I don't Get Caught Making More False Claims Rag"?

That is your game, I am only turning the tables.

Altaris
06-26-2012, 18:41
Let me shorten this for you....

Let me break it down for you.
Atheist: We don't believe in a God,


Correct!




Everything else we go off of is the evidence we can gather through the scientific method.

Woofie
06-26-2012, 18:41
Let me break it down for you.

Atheist: We don't believe in a God, but all of you that do are wrong.

Atheist: We don't believe in Creation, and all of you do are wrong; but, let us tell you about how the Universe was created.

Atheist: We don't know where this signularity appeared from, but it created everything, even though we don't believe in Creation, but we will tell you one thing with certaintity Goddidn'tdoit!

That is the Atheist Creation Myth, that asserts both a Creation and denies at the same time.

How Zen of you.

I assume you're referencing the Big Bang Theory. You should note that the theory only describes how the universe developed from 10^-43 seconds after the universe began expanding. It doesn't describe how the universe came to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

Gunhaver
06-26-2012, 18:49
I assume you're referencing the Big Bang Theory. You should note that the theory only describes how the universe developed from 10^-43 seconds after the universe began expanding. It doesn't describe how the universe came to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

Wow. It's almost as if science knows it's place and what it can explain and what it can't.

Animal Mother
06-26-2012, 18:54
That is your game, I am only turning the tables. No, if you were turning the tables, you'd be presenting evidence to support your position and making claims that could be demonstrated to be true.

You aren't doing either of those things.

Kingarthurhk
06-26-2012, 20:23
Let me shorten this for you....



Correct!




Everything else we go off of is the evidence we can gather through the scientific method.

In the immortal word of Animal:

Incorrect.

Kingarthurhk
06-26-2012, 20:23
No, if you were turning the tables, you'd be presenting evidence to support your position and making claims that could be demonstrated to be true.

You aren't doing either of those things.

That statement is inaccuarte.:supergrin:

High-Gear
06-26-2012, 20:26
Read "Where Men Win Honor" by Jon Krakauer. Pat Tillman went to his grave rejecting superstitious nonsense; and he was a man of honor, talent, intelligence and integrity.

That is a great read!

RC-RAMIE
06-26-2012, 20:40
In the immortal word of Animal:

Incorrect.

No that is 100% right.


....

Guss
06-26-2012, 20:54
Yes, and ironically they have a familiar theme, as if they borrowed something from an original and made their own version. Interesting.
More like 5 different basic themes...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myths

Woofie
06-26-2012, 20:57
Wow. It's almost as if science knows it's place and what it can explain and what it can't.

It's pretty interesting how scientific theories tend to only explain specific phenomena, and only with support of verifiable evidence.

Animal Mother
06-26-2012, 21:16
That statement is inaccuarte.:supergrin: You've abandoned all semblance of honest discourse? Disappointing.

Syclone538
06-26-2012, 22:47
Let me break it down for you.

Atheist: We don't believe in a God, but all of you that do are wrong.

Atheist: We don't believe in Creation, and all of you do are wrong; but, let us tell you about how the Universe was created.

Atheist: We don't know where this signularity appeared from, but it created everything, even though we don't believe in Creation, but we will tell you one thing with certaintity Goddidn'tdoit!

That is the Atheist Creation Myth, that asserts both a Creation and denies at the same time.

How Zen of you.

When you've been told several times that all of this is false and you keep repeating it, what exactly are we supposed to think about why you are here?



I know I'm wasting my time, but I will give my personal correction for it. This is not to speak for anyone else.

I don't believe in any god, and I think that all of you that do are probably wrong.

I don't believe in divine creation, and I think all of you that do are probably wrong. I don't know if the universe was created, and if so, how. The cyclic model seems to make sense to me, but I really don't know, or claim to.

What singularity? I won't try to tell anyone anything about before the big bang with any certainty

Gunhaver
06-27-2012, 01:08
Let me break it down for you.

Atheist: We don't believe in a God, but all of you that do are wrong.

Atheist: We don't believe in Creation, and all of you do are wrong; but, let us tell you about how the Universe was created.

Atheist: We don't know where this signularity appeared from, but it created everything, even though we don't believe in Creation, but we will tell you one thing with certaintity Goddidn'tdoit!

That is the Atheist Creation Myth, that asserts both a Creation and denies at the same time.

How Zen of you.

SDA: We believe in a very specific God and all of you who don't believe or who believe in a different God or even a slightly different version of our God are wrong.

SDA: We believe that the earth was created in six literal days and all of you with evidence to the contrary; let us very ineffectively tell you how you're wrong.

SDA: We know that our God didn't come from anywhere because he's always existed because something created had to have a creator because we know everything about the universe and we know it couldn't have created itself or have always existed. Also, don't eat meat, be gay or have premarital sex.

How very Christian of you.


You seem to have a burning desire to misrepresent what atheists believe. Do you do this because you can't read the dozens of times that you've been corrected or because you need to crazy up the simple state of requiring evidence before believing nonsense so it's on par with your own belief system?

muscogee
06-27-2012, 06:43
You were implying Hindus were a peaceful tolerant people. I was showing you otherwise.

Where did I imply that? My point was that they are not trying to get the U.S. courts to force the public schools to teach Creationism in the public schools.

muscogee
06-27-2012, 07:04
You seem to have a burning desire to misrepresent what atheists believe. Do you do this because you can't read the dozens of times that you've been corrected or because you need to crazy up the simple state of requiring evidence before believing nonsense so it's on par with your own belief system?

He does this to keep convincing himself. He has been pushed into a corner where his rational mind knows he has lost the argument. However, he is not emotionally ready to accept that so he keeps making statements to keep convincing himself that he still has a case to make. In short, he's in the process of leaving the faith. It can be a slow frightening process. I would pray for him, but I don't know who I would pray to.

Lone Wolf8634
06-27-2012, 08:20
Let me break it down for you.

Get down widdit!!

Atheist: We don't believe in a God, but all of you that do are wrong.

:sigh: We reject deities of any type due to lack of evidence, and those of you that accept a particular deity have, so far, failed to provide any.

Atheist: We don't believe in Creation, and all of you do are wrong; but, let us tell you about how the Universe was created.

It follows that since we reject the deities, we also reject the mythology that surrounds them. Its that evidence thingy again.:dunno:And again, believers have utterly failed to provide evidence for their "knowledge".

And we dont know how the universe came into existence.

Atheist: We don't know where this signularity appeared from, but it created everything, even though we don't believe in Creation, but we will tell you one thing with certaintity Goddidn'tdoit!

Ignorance is not a "creation myth".

And just because we are ignorant, doesn't mean we're gonna try to explain it with "goddidit" when there is nothing to back it up.

That is the Atheist Creation Myth, that asserts both a Creation and denies at the same time.

Obviously, something happened or we would not be here to debate what it was that did happen.

We just deny your version of events.

You seem purposefully intent on ignoring the fact that science has nothing to do with Atheism, and vice versa. There are many scientists who do good work and are theists at the same time, while there are many Atheists, like myself, who are woefully ignorant (but I'm learning) of science, yet still reject the existence of deities.

To be, say, a Christian, you must believe the mythology that surrounds your god. Creationism, life after death, worldwide floods, talking objects both animate and inanimate, the dead rising etc.

To be an Atheist I need not supply a "mythology" to justify my rejection of deities. I also needn't accept any of sciences theories. In fact, I could live my entire life without the need to explain any of that which I do not know. And, until recently, I did just that.

You keep trying to tuck Atheism into a pigeonhole that you can accept and it just doesn't work that way.

How Zen of you.

Thank you.

Live long and prosper.:supergrin:

Vic Hays
06-27-2012, 09:13
SDA: We believe in a very specific God and all of you who don't believe or who believe in a different God or even a slightly different version of our God are wrong.

SDA: We believe that the earth was created in six literal days and all of you with evidence to the contrary; let us very ineffectively tell you how you're wrong.

SDA: We know that our God didn't come from anywhere because he's always existed because something created had to have a creator because we know everything about the universe and we know it couldn't have created itself or have always existed. Also, don't eat meat, be gay or have premarital sex.

How very Christian of you.


You seem to have a burning desire to misrepresent what atheists believe. Do you do this because you can't read the dozens of times that you've been corrected or because you need to crazy up the simple state of requiring evidence before believing nonsense so it's on par with your own belief system?

You seem to have a burning desire to misrepresent Seventh-day Adventists and Christians in general.

This thread is about an atheist that became a Christian. That is hardly pushing the Christian agenda down your throat or telling you you are wrong.

This creates anxiety within you because you are afraid that God might exist. This is why you are so militant as an atheist.

This type of reaction is common to humanity. Insecurity causes a lot of conflict.

muscogee
06-27-2012, 09:47
This thread is about an atheist that became a Christian. That is hardly pushing the Christian agenda down your throat or telling you you are wrong.

This creates anxiety within you because you are afraid that God might exist. This is why you are so militant as an atheist.

This type of reaction is common to humanity. Insecurity causes a lot of conflict.

You're projecting again. The fear and insecurity your religion breeds is one of the hardest things to overcome.

Gunhaver
06-27-2012, 09:55
You seem to have a burning desire to misrepresent Seventh-day Adventists and Christians in general.

This thread is about an atheist that became a Christian. That is hardly pushing the Christian agenda down your throat or telling you you are wrong.

This creates anxiety within you because you are afraid that God might exist. This is why you are so militant as an atheist.

This type of reaction is common to humanity. Insecurity causes a lot of conflict.

That was an intentional misrepresentation of SDA beliefs in exactly the same fashion that KA misrepresented atheism to show him how simple minded he was being about it. I'm surprised you didn't pick up on that.

Tell me how I'm wrong. I don't mind at all. If I don't have some important information or am overlooking something I'd honestly like to remedy that. No harm in constructive criticism. Just do it with facts instead of mythology.

I also have no fear of god's existence. If there be a god he must know that I want to have all the information and shouldn't fault me for actually studying the world around me before coming to a conclusion instead of simply sticking with the belief system I was born into or choosing another at random. Any anxiety I might feel is from others that feel compelled to push their beliefs (and we've been over all the ways that's being done hundreds of times) that don't make any rational sense. It's not the possibility that you may be right that I fear, it's the possibility that you might convince others.

Gunhaver
06-27-2012, 10:45
You're projecting again. The fear and insecurity your religion breeds is one of the hardest things to overcome.

This is true. I never had so much fear and insecurity as I did when I was Christian. I remember being tortured by the thought of going to hell because I played doctor with a girl in my church when I was 14. About as rational as thinking the next 7 years of my life were ruined because I broke a mirror. Stupid superstition is all it is.

But I didn't have a hard time overcoming it. All I needed was an alternate explanation that made more sense and I found that in a book by Darwin and many many others. Once I realized that I was being lied to by fearful control freaks my whole life I bailed and never looked back.

I :rofl: every time some Christian tells me I'm scared or fearful of god. I don't have time for that garbage anymore. I'm too busy screwing my way through match.com guilt free.

Vic Hays
06-27-2012, 11:00
That was an intentional misrepresentation of SDA beliefs in exactly the same fashion that KA misrepresented atheism to show him how simple minded he was being about it. I'm surprised you didn't pick up on that.

Tell me how I'm wrong. I don't mind at all. If I don't have some important information or am overlooking something I'd honestly like to remedy that. No harm in constructive criticism. Just do it with facts instead of mythology.

I also have no fear of god's existence. If there be a god he must know that I want to have all the information and shouldn't fault me for actually studying the world around me before coming to a conclusion instead of simply sticking with the belief system I was born into or choosing another at random. Any anxiety I might feel is from others that feel compelled to push their beliefs (and we've been over all the ways that's being done hundreds of times) that don't make any rational sense. It's not the possibility that you may be right that I fear, it's the possibility that you might convince others.

I am not pushing my belief on you. You are free to believe as you wish. Denial is a common human defense mechanism.

Again, this thread is about an atheist who decided to become a Christian, no compelling force upon you.

Vic Hays
06-27-2012, 11:03
But I didn't have a hard time overcoming it. All I needed was an alternate explanation that fit my rebellious nature


fixed it for you. :upeyes:

void *
06-27-2012, 12:42
fixed it for you. :upeyes:

Because assuming that what you think about other people's motivations must be correct is the only way to gain understanding, amirite?

Vic Hays
06-27-2012, 14:21
Because assuming that what you think about other people's motivations must be correct is the only way to gain understanding, amirite?

Actually, the Bible may not be a scientific text, but it does show insight into human behavior.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Humans tend to join in what the Bible calls a confederacy because of their fears. In this case that confederacy is science with an atheistic philosophy.

Isaiah 8:12 Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid.

void *
06-27-2012, 14:52
Actually, the Bible may not be a scientific text, but it does show insight into human behavior.

And given that I've had people use that sort of logic to attribute to me motivations that were in fact not actually my motivations, this approach is *quite* likely to lead people like you, who use those bible verses as justification for telling other people that they're only atheist because they're rebellious or hate god or whatever, to false conclusions - such as the conclusion that people are only atheist because they're rebellious or hate god, etc.

However, getting people such as yourself to actually understand that is quite challenging.

Gunhaver
06-27-2012, 15:52
fixed it for you. :upeyes:

Rebellious against who? I'm beginning to think you don't get it. :dunno:

Kingarthurhk
06-27-2012, 16:05
You've abandoned all semblance of honest discourse? Disappointing.

No I haven't.

Kingarthurhk
06-27-2012, 16:09
Where did I imply that? My point was that they are not trying to get the U.S. courts to force the public schools to teach Creationism in the public schools.

Atheist Creation, Theist Creation, Deist Creation. Paintheism Creation. Which creation explaination are we discussing?

RC-RAMIE
06-27-2012, 16:29
Atheist Creation, Theist Creation, Deist Creation. Paintheism Creation. Which creation explaination are we discussing?

There is no atheist creation!!


....

Kingarthurhk
06-27-2012, 16:32
There is no atheist creation!!


....

Atheists agree that there was a Bing Bang singularity that made everything, that chaotic inorganic matter, made orgianic order, and by a process of further complexity made life to its present state. Sounds like an Atheist Creation story to me.

Woofie
06-27-2012, 16:54
Atheists agree that there was a Bing Bang singularity that made everything, that chaotic inorganic matter, made orgianic order, and by a process of further complexity made life to its present state. Sounds like an Atheist Creation story to me.


Not all atheists are scientists and not all scientists are atheists. Big Bang Cosmology is a branch of science, not a religion. It is a mathematical model describing how the early universe developed into what we observe now. The math is the same disirregardlessly of the mathematician's religion.

There is no atheist creation story.

muscogee
06-27-2012, 17:13
Atheist Creation, Theist Creation, Deist Creation. Paintheism Creation. Which creation explaination are we discussing?

Come on. You haven't been living in a cave. http://www.creationism.org/

Kingarthurhk
06-27-2012, 18:00
Not all atheists are scientists and not all scientists are atheists. Big Bang Cosmology is a branch of science, not a religion. It is a mathematical model describing how the early universe developed into what we observe now. The math is the same disirregardlessly of the mathematician's religion.

There is no atheist creation story.

Please find an Atheist that does not subsribe to the Big Bang singularrity, that has no origin, that expanded violently in a chaotic episode, that then expanded to create everything that exists today?

I challenge you to find a big enough group to make a statistical difference. I suspect you won't.

Thus, the Atheist Creation story, which is demanded to be taught in every school system to the exclusion of all others.

Kingarthurhk
06-27-2012, 18:00
Come on. You haven't been living in a cave. http://www.creationism.org/

Well, not yet anyway. This century is young.

Woofie
06-27-2012, 18:30
Please find an Atheist that does not subsribe to the Big Bang singularrity, that has no origin, that expanded violently in a chaotic episode, that then expanded to create everything that exists today?This has what to do with all the tea in China?

I challenge you to find a big enough group to make a statistical difference. I suspect you won't.

Thus, the Atheist Creation story, which is demanded to be taught in every school system to the exclusion of all others.

How about a statistically large sample of Christians who accept the Big Bang Theory? Like the whole Catholic Church
and some Protestant denominations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_interpretations_of_the_Big_Bang_theory#Christianity

I also present to you Father Georges Lemaitre: the Catholic priest who discovered the Big Bang.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaitre

Kingarthurhk
06-27-2012, 19:17
How about a statistically large sample of Christians who accept the Big Bang Theory? Like the whole Catholic Church
and some Protestant denominations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_interpretations_of_the_Big_Bang_theory#Christianity

I also present to you Father Georges Lemaitre: the Catholic priest who discovered the Big Bang.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaitre

It's a good thing I am not Catholic. Otherwise I would also accept that communion is actually canabalism, celebrate pagan festivals such as All Saints Day, etc. The point is, the Catholic Church has always adapted its practices to any predominate opinion.

That means, if the predominately accepted Atheist position of the day that is widely taught, that a singularity created all life, they are probably on board with it.

That is pretty much the exception that proves the rule.

Woofie
06-27-2012, 19:36
It's a good thing I am not Catholic. Otherwise I would also accept that communion is actually canabalism, celebrate pagan festivals such as All Saints Day, etc. The point is, the Catholic Church has always adapted its practices to any predominate opinion.

That means, if the predominately accepted Atheist position of the day that is widely taught, that a singularity created all life, they are probably on board with it.

That is pretty much the exception that proves the rule.

It is your position that atheists ultimately determine Church doctrine?

And how can you apply that to the Big Bang Theory since it was originally developed by a Catholic Priest?

Gunhaver
06-27-2012, 19:37
Please find an Atheist that does not subsribe to the Big Bang singularrity, that has no origin, that expanded violently in a chaotic episode, that then expanded to create everything that exists today?

I challenge you to find a big enough group to make a statistical difference. I suspect you won't.

Thus, the Atheist Creation story, which is demanded to be taught in every school system to the exclusion of all others.

Your whole problem is that you consider atheism a religion when it's really just a state of requiring evidence (the pesky kind that's objective and verifiable) before forming a belief. Science deals in objective verifiable evidence so it stands to reason that most atheists would follow the general consensus of the science community when they wonder how the universe came about and where life came from. No need for ancient texts anymore, we have a much better solution given to us not by atheists but by men of faith like Darwin and Lemaître who simply adapted their new discoveries into their faith rather than deny them.

Big bang and evolution are no more atheist ideas than pasteurization or radioactivity. What makes you sore is the fact that schools teach science which is the study of evidence and when you don't like the conclusions of that evidence you cry foul and blame the atheists for having their "religion" taught in public schools. Too bad so sad. You can enjoy your tax exemptions and we'll enjoy our publicly funded science classes.

Now I know SDAs advocate freedom of religion for all as one of their main tenants rather than just giving it a begrudging approval like many religions and I think that's awesome of you guys. If you truly believe that and you really think atheism is a religion then would you have a problem with tax exempt atheist schools, meeting centers, hospitals and any other business that wants to put itself under the umbrella of "atheist" and claim not to make a profit?

WS6
06-27-2012, 20:49
It's a good thing I am not Catholic. Otherwise I would also accept that communion is actually cannibalism,

Wow, that statement puts you in the good company of disputing Jews, murmuring disciples, and Judas.

I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."

This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper'na-um. Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?

It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also wish to go away?" Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God." Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?" He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him. [John 6:51-71]

Continuing ...

[ ... ] celebrate pagan festivals such as All Saints Day, etc. The point is, the Catholic Church has always adapted its practices to any predominate opinion.

This you cannot prove.

That means, if the predominately accepted Atheist position of the day that is widely taught, that a singularity created all life, they are probably on board with it.

Don't misrepresent Catholic teaching, and I won't dig into your mean-spirited religiosity.

Kingarthurhk
06-27-2012, 21:12
Your whole problem is that you consider atheism a religion when it's really just a state of requiring evidence (the pesky kind that's objective and verifiable) before forming a belief. Science deals in objective verifiable evidence so it stands to reason that most atheists would follow the general consensus of the science community when they wonder how the universe came about and where life came from. No need for ancient texts anymore, we have a much better solution given to us not by atheists but by men of faith like Darwin and Lemaître who simply adapted their new discoveries into their faith rather than deny them.

The point is you have no evidence. You have conjecture.


Big bang and evolution are no more atheist ideas than pasteurization or radioactivity. What makes you sore is the fact that schools teach science which is the study of evidence and when you don't like the conclusions of that evidence you cry foul and blame the atheists for having their "religion" taught in public schools. Too bad so sad. You can enjoy your tax exemptions and we'll enjoy our publicly funded science classes.[/quote[

Sure, they are Atheist ideas, as they demand the exclusion of a God.

[quote]
Now I know SDAs advocate freedom of religion for all as one of their main tenants rather than just giving it a begrudging approval like many religions and I think that's awesome of you guys. If you truly believe that and you really think atheism is a religion then would you have a problem with tax exempt atheist schools, meeting centers, hospitals and any other business that wants to put itself under the umbrella of "atheist" and claim not to make a profit?

I fully believe Atheism is a religious choice, as it makes a clear undefendable statement about the metaphysical. That statement, or presuposition, defines the entire matrix of reality for the adherant. On that basis, as you pointed out, I am opposed to a singular religious view being represented as the exclusive point of view in a publically funded institution, such as the school system.

I would be equally oposed, as you pointed out, to any religious system dominating a tax payer based institution on the basis of religous freedom for all.

That is my sticking point in all of this.

Kingarthurhk
06-27-2012, 21:14
Wow, that statement puts you in the good company of disputing Jews, murmuring disciples, and Judas.



Continuing ...



This you cannot prove.



Don't misrepresent Catholic teaching, and I won't dig into your mean-spirited religiosity.

Please point me in the direction of scripture where a priest has the same creative power as God to force Jesus down in the flesh and then have everyone consume that flesh? Also, please point in the direction of scripture whre All Saints Day (The Celtic Druidic tradition of celebrating the dead) in scripture. While you are at it, please point me in the direction of where hot cross buns can be found in scripture.

When you can do all those things, feel free to be indignant with me.

Woofie
06-27-2012, 21:29
The point is you have no evidence. You have conjecture.


Big bang and evolution are no more atheist ideas than pasteurization or radioactivity. What makes you sore is the fact that schools teach science which is the study of evidence and when you don't like the conclusions of that evidence you cry foul and blame the atheists for having their "religion" taught in public schools. Too bad so sad. You can enjoy your tax exemptions and we'll enjoy our publicly funded science classes.[/quote[

Sure, they are Atheist ideas, as they demand the exclusion of a God.



I fully believe Atheism is a religious choice, as it makes a clear undefendable statement about the metaphysical. That statement, or presuposition, defines the entire matrix of reality for the adherant. On that basis, as you pointed out, I am opposed to a singular religious view being represented as the exclusive point of view in a publically funded institution, such as the school system.

I would be equally oposed, as you pointed out, to any religious system dominating a tax payer based institution on the basis of religous freedom for all.

That is my sticking point in all of this.

What supporting evidence do you have for your assertion in light of the fact that Catholics accept both Evolution and the Big Bang, especially since the originators of both had a formal theological education? Or do you assert that Catholics do not believe in God?

Gunhaver
06-27-2012, 22:41
The point is you have no evidence. You have conjecture.

Oh I have plenty of evidence and it's all very well scrutinized and accepted by the people that matter. You don't have to accept it, it's been widely accepted by the people that decide what to teach in public schools and more importantly universities. You're opinion of it is of little relevance because you can't discuss it in a manner that shows you even understand it as you clearly demonstrate in your next statement...

[quote]
Big bang and evolution are no more atheist ideas than pasteurization or radioactivity. What makes you sore is the fact that schools teach science which is the study of evidence and when you don't like the conclusions of that evidence you cry foul and blame the atheists for having their "religion" taught in public schools. Too bad so sad. You can enjoy your tax exemptions and we'll enjoy our publicly funded science classes.[/quote[

Sure, they are Atheist ideas, as they demand the exclusion of a God.

Where in the big bang theory or the theory of evolution does it say, "And god had absolutely nothing to do with it"? Even mention god let alone demand he be left out? Why don't you look up and read what the theories actually say instead of arguing from ignorance?

I fully believe Atheism is a religious choice, as it makes a clear undefendable statement about the metaphysical. That statement, or presuposition, defines the entire matrix of reality for the adherant. On that basis, as you pointed out, I am opposed to a singular religious view being represented as the exclusive point of view in a publically funded institution, such as the school system.

Hmmm, if a school teaches vegetarianism do I get to complain that that's a SDA thing and they're teaching religion? What about abstinence? That's something a lot of religions are into, must be a religious thing and it has to go, you know, to be fair. Can't touch on the possibility of life on other planets because that's a Scientology/Ralien thing. See how this nonsense can get out of hand? Can you understand the concept that just because a large number of people in a given group subscribe to a particular concept because it works for them that does not mean that concept is exclusive to that group?

It's already been shown to you that the two scientific theories that you take issue with were both the work of Christian men and you've been shown how many religious people accept those theories because there's nothing in them that excludes god. Based on those two factors alone it's safe to say that evolution and big bang are not atheist concepts. They are scientific concepts and atheists being generally interested in science accept them. Christians and Hindus and other people of many religious background also accept them.

Weren't proposed by atheists, not even close to being exclusively accepted by atheists, so tell me again exactly how these theories are atheistic?

I would be equally oposed, as you pointed out, to any religious system dominating a tax payer based institution on the basis of religous freedom for all.

As would I if they were actually teaching religious concepts but I've clearly shown that they're not in the case of evolution and big bang.

That is my sticking point in all of this.

Well I hope I helped you get unstuck. Maybe you can focus your energy towards an abstinence program instead.

Gunhaver
06-27-2012, 22:46
And BTW if you're going to get all huffy about post deletion scandals then learn to use the quote function or something to clear up who said what in these multi-quote threads.

Syclone538
06-27-2012, 23:20
Atheists agree that there was a Bing Bang singularity that made everything, that chaotic inorganic matter, made orgianic order, and by a process of further complexity made life to its present state. Sounds like an Atheist Creation story to me.

It might be if it were true. I think it likely that the big bang didn't make anything, but rearranged everything.


Please find an Atheist that does not subsribe to the Big Bang singularrity, that has no origin, that expanded violently in a chaotic episode, that then expanded to create everything that exists today?

I challenge you to find a big enough group to make a statistical difference. I suspect you won't.

Thus, the Atheist Creation story, which is demanded to be taught in every school system to the exclusion of all others.

As far as I know, the big bang theory is about matter expanding, not being created.

I currently think the cyclic model makes sense.

Altaris
06-27-2012, 23:26
Sure, they are Atheist ideas, as they demand the exclusion of a God.


The only thing we demand is evidence. That is it.

If god is excluded or included means nothing to us. Does the evidence support it, yes or no....that is what matters.

Animal Mother
06-27-2012, 23:28
No I haven't.You certainly are giving that appearance, but I'm willing to give you another chance. What have I written that was inaccurate (with the attendant evidence if you don't mind)?

Animal Mother
06-27-2012, 23:30
Please find an Atheist that does not subsribe to the Big Bang singularrity, that has no origin, that expanded violently in a chaotic episode, that then expanded to create everything that exists today?

I challenge you to find a big enough group to make a statistical difference. I suspect you won't.

Thus, the Atheist Creation story, which is demanded to be taught in every school system to the exclusion of all others.Not because it's the "Atheist Creationist Story", even in the distorted form you present, but because the Standard Model is the only explanation for which there is any evidence.

Animal Mother
06-27-2012, 23:40
The point is you have no evidence. You have conjecture. As always, this is simply false. The Standard Model has literally all the evidence.
Sure, they are Atheist ideas, as they demand the exclusion of a God. No, they are naturalist ideas, based on evidence, which exclude the supernatural because there's no evidence the supernatural exists. They may exclude God or gods, but they also exclude dragons and pixies.
I fully believe Atheism is a religious choice, as it makes a clear undefendable statement about the metaphysical. That statement, or presuposition, defines the entire matrix of reality for the adherant. On that basis, as you pointed out, I am opposed to a singular religious view being represented as the exclusive point of view in a publically funded institution, such as the school system. OK, How about we base what's taught in schools on what is supported by the evidence? How does that work for you? You falsely propose that atheists invented science to justify discarding religion, when the reality is that the science arose based on examining the evidence rather than imposing a preexisting belief.
I would be equally oposed, as you pointed out, to any religious system dominating a tax payer based institution on the basis of religous freedom for all. Then we agree that creationism is out and science is in.

Kingarthurhk
06-28-2012, 04:02
And BTW if you're going to get all huffy about post deletion scandals then learn to use the quote function or something to clear up who said what in these multi-quote threads.

I will when I am being played. I despise dishonsesty.

Kingarthurhk
06-28-2012, 04:15
As always, this is simply false. The Standard Model has literally all the evidence.

An unlogical and inaccurate statement.


No, they are naturalist ideas, based on evidence, which exclude the supernatural because there's no evidence the supernatural exists. They may exclude God or gods, but they also exclude dragons and pixies.

There is no evidence it does not exist, other than your religious view point.


OK, How about we base what's taught in schools on what is supported by the evidence? How does that work for you?

Yes, it would. However, I am not naieve enough to believe that will ever happen. It certainly didn't happen when I went through, and it certainly isn't happening now.


You falsely propose that atheists invented science to justify discarding religion, when the reality is that the science arose based on examining the evidence rather than imposing a preexisting belief.

It is accurate. The belief was presupposed and then all the information obtained was only viewed through that view point and all others excluded out of hand.


Then we agree that creationism is out and science is in.

When science is being treated as science instead of a whore to serve and agenda.

We are told we should accept things like this as undisputable science, and then this happens:

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel

"Sorry, it was all a lie to put forth a political agenda." So, we should trust these people implicitly about their honest agenda toward a religous concept? Hardly.

ksg0245
06-28-2012, 06:47
Sure, they are Atheist ideas, as they demand the exclusion of a God.

Could you please point out the specific "god excluding" sections of the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution?

Is it your belief there are no theist scientists who accept the Big Bang Theory or the Theory of Evolution as the best explanation of the evidence?

I fully believe Atheism is a religious choice, as it makes a clear undefendable statement about the metaphysical.

You're free to believe whatever you like; the only statement atheism makes is "There's no objective, verifiable evidence of deities, so I reject the assertion."

Not believing something for which there is no legitimate reason to believe isn't "a religious choice;" it's a rational conclusion.

That statement, or presuposition, defines the entire matrix of reality for the adherant. On that basis, as you pointed out, I am opposed to a singular religious view being represented as the exclusive point of view in a publically funded institution, such as the school system.

So public schools shouldn't present known scientifically determined evidence because it doesn't include mention of deities?


I would be equally oposed, as you pointed out, to any religious system dominating a tax payer based institution on the basis of religous freedom for all.

That is my sticking point in all of this.

Animal Mother
06-28-2012, 07:01
I despise dishonsesty. If only this were true. Shall I link to the posts that demonstrate it simply isn't?

Animal Mother
06-28-2012, 07:12
An unlogical and inaccurate statement. Please provide some contrary evidence not unsupported claims like, "kangaroos must have lived in the Middle East, since that's where the Ark landed".
There is no evidence it does not exist, other than your religious view point. There's literally no evidence it does exist, every attempt to show any kind of supernatural phenomenon has utterly failed. While that isn't an absolute proof of non-existence, it is a substantive reason to exclude supernatural claims unless and until they can be demonstrated to be true. Of course, if you have evidence to the contrary....
Yes, it would. However, I am not naieve enough to believe that will ever happen. It certainly didn't happen when I went through, and it certainly isn't happening now. It is unfortunate if you were taught non-evidence based beliefs, like ID or creationism, but groups like the NCSE are doing their best to see that superstition and mythology are excluded from science classes in favor of education based on the evidence. Maybe your hopes will be true soon.
It is accurate. The belief was presupposed and then all the information obtained was only viewed through that view point and all others excluded out of hand. Please provide some evidence that this claim is true.

When science is being treated as science instead of a whore to serve and agenda.

We are told we should accept things like this as undisputable science, and then this happens:

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel

"Sorry, it was all a lie to put forth a political agenda." So, we should trust these people implicitly about their honest agenda toward a religous concept? Hardly.That quote appears no where in the article, so much for you hating dishonesty....

void *
06-28-2012, 08:41
Please find an Atheist that does not subsribe to the Big Bang singularrity, that has no origin, that expanded violently in a chaotic episode, that then expanded to create everything that exists today?

I challenge you to find a big enough group to make a statistical difference. I suspect you won't.

How many atheists on this board have told you that they do not know the origin of the singularity, if it had one? How many have told you that this is basically because we can't get observational data that would tell us what the origin was, or if it had one, and that the big bang theory does not in fact depend on any particular origin or lack thereof of the singularity, because the big bang theory is based on things we *can* and *have* observed?

Are you so quickly forgetting that ever happened or are you intentionally ignoring that it happened?

WS6
06-28-2012, 09:12
Please point me in the direction of scripture where a priest has the same creative power as God to force Jesus down in the flesh and then have everyone consume that flesh?

Why should I? What you describe is not Catholic doctrine.

Also, please point in the direction of scripture whre All Saints Day (The Celtic Druidic tradition of celebrating the dead) in scripture.

Right as soon as you show the connection between the Catholic observance of All Saints Day and Celtic Druid tradition.

While you are at it, please point me in the direction of where hot cross buns can be found in scripture.

I'll get hot on that, as soon as you find a reference to hot cross buns in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

When you can do all those things, feel free to be indignant with me.

Why should I be indignant, when I have only pity for someone who has the pressing need to define their religious beliefs in terms of how they are not Catholic? Like it or not, the Catholic Church remains your standard of belief, albeit in a negative sense.

Kingarthurhk
06-28-2012, 17:14
It might be if it were true. I think it likely that the big bang didn't make anything, but rearranged everything.




As far as I know, the big bang theory is about matter expanding, not being created.

I currently think the cyclic model makes sense.

Cyclical had to have an origin. You can't draw a circle without a point of origin.

muscogee
06-28-2012, 17:37
Cyclical had to have an origin. You can't draw a circle without a point of origin.

The God must have had an origin. What proceeded God? This is where you reverse your argument and say God always was.

Kingarthurhk
06-28-2012, 17:49
Why should I? What you describe is not Catholic doctrine.

So, you don't subscrbe to transubstantiation?


It was in force of that same power, by which Jesus Christ changed the elements of bread and wine into His body and blood at the Last Supper, that he conferred also on His apostles and their successors the power to do that selfsame action which He Himself had just accomplished. And this wonderful power was to last to the end of time.

So Christ ordered that the Catholic priest not only should represent Him upon earth, but that he should be, as it were, Himself again, raising him above the rest of mankind, nay, above all angelic spirits who admire, with holy envy, those among the sons of men whom they see clothed with sacerdotal dignity. Thus the seraphic St. Francis was wont to say that, were he to meet at one time an angel and a priest, he would first salute the priest.

Now, this dignity of the Catholic priesthood takes its root in the Most Holy Eucharist. In fact, it was in view of this divine Sacrament that Jesus Christ instituted the order of priests, whose function it is to consecrate and distribute the Lord's body to the faithful.

Hence the Catholic priesthood is justly called a reflection of the Blessed Eucharist. Moreover, as this Sacrament is the life of the Church, so, consequently, the religion of Jesus Christ would cease to exist, the moment the world were left without priests.

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/priesthd/euchpr02.htm

Same source, with the blasphemy continuing:


We have said that this great dignity, this wonderful pre-eminence, the priest owes all to the most Blessed Eucharist. For, by the imposition of the bishop's hands, he receives a mysterious power over both the real and mystical body of Jesus Christ. In virtue of this power he, on the one hand, comes nearest to the great King of kings, to the divine Lord, who is the fountainhead of every dignity and honor. On the other hand, he is appointed Christ's representative upon earth, being set as a mediator between Him and men. In one word, the Catholic priest is, as it were, another Christ: Sacerdos alter Christus.

Revelation 13:1-9, "
And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. <sup class="crossreference" value='(A (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV1984-30894A))'></sup> He had ten horns and seven heads, <sup class="crossreference" value='(B (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV1984-30894B))'></sup> with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. <sup class="crossreference" value='(C (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV1984-30894C))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">2 </sup>The beast I saw resembled a leopard, <sup class="crossreference" value='(D (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV1984-30895D))'></sup> but had feet like those of a bear <sup class="crossreference" value='(E (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV1984-30895E))'></sup> and a mouth like that of a lion. <sup class="crossreference" value='(F (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV1984-30895F))'></sup> The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority. <sup class="crossreference" value='(G (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV1984-30895G))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">3 </sup>One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. <sup class="crossreference" value='(H (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV1984-30896H))'></sup> The whole world was astonished <sup class="crossreference" value='(I (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV1984-30896I))'></sup> and followed the beast. <sup class="versenum">4 </sup>Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like <sup class="crossreference" value='(J (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV1984-30897J))'></sup> the beast? Who can make war against him?”

<sup class="versenum">5 </sup>The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies <sup class="crossreference" value='(K (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV1984-30898K))'></sup> and to exercise his authority for forty-two months. <sup class="crossreference" value='(L (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV1984-30898L))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">6 </sup>He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. <sup class="crossreference" value='(M (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV1984-30899M))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">7 </sup>He was given power to make war <sup class="crossreference" value='(N (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV1984-30900N))'></sup> against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. <sup class="crossreference" value='(O (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV1984-30900O))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">8 </sup>All inhabitants of the earth <sup class="crossreference" value='(P (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV1984-30901P))'></sup> will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life <sup class="crossreference" value='(Q (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV1984-30901Q))'></sup> belonging to the Lamb <sup class="crossreference" value='(R (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV1984-30901R))'></sup> that was slain from the creation of the world.<sup class="footnote" value=''>[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NIV1984&search=Revelation+13+,17#fen-NIV1984-30901b)]</sup> <sup class="crossreference" value='(S (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV1984-30901S))'></sup>

<sup class="versenum">9 </sup>He who has an ear, let him hear."


Right as soon as you show the connection between the Catholic observance of All Saints Day and Celtic Druid tradition.

http://www.gty.org/resources/articles/a123

You took Samhein and gave it a different name.


I'll get hot on that, as soon as you find a reference to hot cross buns in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Hot Cross Buns were traditionally served during the Lenten Season, especially on Good Friday. Their origins, however, [B]like the Easter holiday, are mixed with pagan traditions. To the ancient Aztecs and Incas, buns were considered the sacred food of the gods, while the Egyptians and Saxons offered them as sacrifices to their goddesses. The cross represented the four quarters of the moon to certain ancient cultures, while others believed it was a sign that held supernatural power to prevent sickness. To the Romans, the cross represented the horns of a sacred ox. The word "bun" is derived from the ancient word "boun," used to describe this revered animal. The Christian church adopted Hot Cross Buns during their early missionary efforts to pagan cultures. They re-interpreted the "cross" of icing which adorns the bun to signify the cross on which Jesus sacrificed His life. Some historians date the origin of Hot Cross Buns back to the 12th century, when an Angelican monk was said to have placed the sign of the cross on the buns to honor Good Friday, known at that time as the "Day of the Cross." In 1361, a monk named Father Thomas Rocliffe, was recorded to have made small spiced cakes stamped with the sign of the cross, to be distributed to the poor visiting the monastery at St. Albans on Good Friday. According to the scholar Harrowven, the idea proved so popular that he made the buns every year, carefully keeping his bun recipe secret.

http://www.dianasdesserts.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/recipes.recipeListing/filter/dianas/recipeID/252/Recipe.cfm

Link with recipe.


Why should I be indignant, when I have only pity for someone who has the pressing need to define their religious beliefs in terms of how they are not Catholic? Like it or not, the Catholic Church remains your standard of belief, albeit in a negative sense.

In the sense that I was told that I should embrace everytihing the Catholic Church does by an Atheist as we are all suppoedly under the Catholic auspice.

So, I am very protestant.

Kingarthurhk
06-28-2012, 17:52
You certainly are giving that appearance, but I'm willing to give you another chance. What have I written that was inaccurate (with the attendant evidence if you don't mind)?

Pretty much everything, especially in your constant use to total and definate inclusion.

Gunhaver
06-28-2012, 18:17
I will when I am being played. I despise dishonsesty.

Aw shucks, I was more looking forward to you response to post #135. I guess you decided best to just glance right over it.

Kingarthurhk
06-28-2012, 18:51
Aw shucks, I was more looking forward to you response to post #135. I guess you decided best to just glance right over it.

It would have been easier to respond to, if you would stop imbeding your comments within the qoute. If you seperate them, it is easier to deal with.

Gunhaver
06-28-2012, 19:03
It would have been easier to respond to, if you would stop imbeding your comments within the qoute. If you seperate them, it is easier to deal with.

Are you serious? :rofl:

Can you not tell the blue letters from the rest? I do that specifically so folks know exactly what my response is.

Let me break the main point down here for you in regular black letters. How do you maintain that the theories of evolution and the big bang are atheistic when they were neither published by atheists nor are they exclusively accepted by atheists?

Woofie
06-28-2012, 21:04
In the sense that I was told that I should embrace everytihing the Catholic Church does by an Atheist as we are all suppoedly under the Catholic auspice.

So, I am very protestant.

I get the feeling this is directed at me, despite the fact that I am not an atheist.

Perhaps you could quote exactly where I told you to embrace everything the Church does.

Tilley
06-28-2012, 21:27
Let me break the main point down here for you in regular black letters. How do you maintain that the theories of evolution and the big bang are atheistic when they were neither published by atheists nor are they exclusively accepted by atheists?

If that was how God established the physical realm, then so be it. What I have a problem with is that with man's limited knowledge of the Universe, this particulat theory seems TO ME right up there with unicorns.

I don't see the factual basis for the big bang, and I also believe in cause and effect. If you find out how all physical properties came to be, you will find this answer.

Find out how life came from non-life, and you will see the face of God.

Animal Mother
06-28-2012, 21:29
Pretty much everything, especially in your constant use to total and definate inclusion.What? That isn't even a coherent sentence, and it certainly doesn't include the requested evidence. It should be easy enough, quote something I've written that is inaccurate, then provide the evidence showing that inaccuracy.

Animal Mother
06-28-2012, 21:30
I get the feeling this is directed at me, despite the fact that I am not an atheist.

Perhaps you could quote exactly where I told you to embrace everything the Church does.You've probably edited your post to change, you know how you are.

Animal Mother
06-28-2012, 21:37
If that was how God established the physical realm, then so be it. What I have a problem with is that with man's limited knowledge of the Universe, this particulat theory seems TO ME right up there with unicorns.

I don't see the factual basis for the big bang, and I also believe in cause and effect. If you find out how all physical properties came to be, you will find this answer. You do understand that all those studying physics and specifically cosmology disagree with you, don't you? How, absent the BBT and the Standard Model, do you explain observations like the Cosmic Microwave Background and redshift?

Syclone538
06-28-2012, 23:45
Cyclical had to have an origin. You can't draw a circle without a point of origin.

Then you don't understand what the cyclic model is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

As far as I know, matter/energy can not be created or destroyed. I don't see an exception to that. Many people smarter then me disagree with the cyclic model, so take it for what it's worth.

Oh and, yes I can.

Kingarthurhk
06-29-2012, 16:26
What? That isn't even a coherent sentence, and it certainly doesn't include the requested evidence. It should be easy enough, quote something I've written that is inaccurate, then provide the evidence showing that inaccuracy.

Frustrating, isn't?

Kingarthurhk
06-29-2012, 16:29
Then you don't understand what the cyclic model is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

As far as I know, matter/energy can not be created or destroyed. I don't see an exception to that. Many people smarter then me disagree with the cyclic model, so take it for what it's worth.

Oh and, yes I can.

So, you can draw an accurate circle witout a point of origin? I am not talking about a squiggled elipses.

Entropy and thermodynamics puts a damper on the propposed idea, along with a constant effect without cause, which clearly is not represented anywhere else.

High-Gear
06-29-2012, 19:40
Yes, and ironically they have a familiar theme, as if they borrowed something from an original and made their own version. Interesting.

What common theme? Some have man being made from dirt, a clot of blood, melting ice, from a spider woman . What is the common theme again?


http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/CS/CSPG&NW.html

Woofie
06-29-2012, 19:52
I would still like to know how a priest managed to develop a theory that necessarily excludes God.

Gunhaver
06-29-2012, 21:08
I would still like to know how a priest managed to develop a theory that necessarily excludes God.

He's actively avoiding that one.

Woofie
06-29-2012, 21:15
I think he's avoiding me. Kingarthur doesn't seem to like me too much since the editing incident.

Kingarthurhk
06-29-2012, 21:16
What common theme? Some have man being made from dirt, a clot of blood, melting ice, from a spider woman . What is the common theme again?


http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/CS/CSPG&NW.html

Well, if you look at the Hindug myth you see a Deity represented in three persons. You see a regular theme of humans being created by a god out of the earth, and it continues. It appears to be a copy, with its own variations of the creation story of Genesis. The fact that it is so widespread over the earth, though changed by the various religions is telling. Why would there be globally similar threads running through an explanation of creation? My theory is there is an unadulturated original, and it can be found in Genesis.

Kingarthurhk
06-29-2012, 21:17
I think he's avoiding me. Kingarthur doesn't seem to like me too much since the editing incident.

No, I am not irritated with you. Though, I am giving one of your comrades a taste of his/her own medicine to prove a point. I don't think they have yet to grasp the point, however.

Kingarthurhk
06-29-2012, 21:20
I would still like to know how a priest managed to develop a theory that necessarily excludes God.

Actually, my point is the Big Bang as used by Atheists is a methodology of trying to exclude God. I by no means suggest that it i has been successful. As for Catholicms, I think I have provided enough evidence to show that it clearly believes in adaptation to is environment to continue growth.

Animal Mother
06-29-2012, 21:25
Frustrating, isn't?
That you persist in your dishonesty? Yes, it is but unfortunately, it isn't unexpected at this point.

Woofie
06-29-2012, 21:35
Actually, my point is the Big Bang as used by Atheists is a methodology of trying to exclude God. I by no means suggest that it i has been successful. As for Catholicms, I think I have provided enough evidence to show that it clearly believes in adaptation to is environment to continue growth.

I've not run across any atheist who says the Big Bang suggests God does not exist. I would say that anyone who makes that claim does not understand the theory.

From my limited understanding, the Big Bang Theory is silent on the subject of God.

Kingarthurhk
06-29-2012, 22:28
That you persist in your dishonesty? Yes, it is but unfortunately, it isn't unexpected at this point.

Yes, I have been down that manufacturered road with you before. I didn't like it the first time.

Animal Mother
06-29-2012, 22:32
Yes, I have been down that manufacturered road with you before. I didn't like it the first time.Perhaps you should give honesty a try for a change, then you wouldn't need to worry about it so much.

steveksux
06-29-2012, 22:35
Well, if you look at the Hindug myth you see a Deity represented in three persons. You see a regular theme of humans being created by a god out of the earth, and it continues. It appears to be a copy, with its own variations of the creation story of Genesis. The fact that it is so widespread over the earth, though changed by the various religions is telling. Why would there be globally similar threads running through an explanation of creation? My theory is there is an unadulturated original, and it can be found in Genesis.Genesis is not the oldest account, so wouldn't it be more likely that Genesis is the copy rather than the original?



Randy

steveksux
06-29-2012, 22:39
Actually, my point is the Big Bang as used by Atheists is a methodology of trying to exclude God. I by no means suggest that it i has been successful. As for Catholicms, I think I have provided enough evidence to show that it clearly believes in adaptation to is environment to continue growth.Its also a methodology of trying to exclude pink unicorns. The whole point of science is to find out a physical mechanism for how stuff happens/happened.

Its not a plot. Its baked into the definition of science. If "Goddidit" was an acceptable scientific answer, there's no point studying anything. We'd already have the answer. We'd also still have bronze age technology....

Randy

Kingarthurhk
06-29-2012, 23:02
Perhaps you should give honesty a try for a change, then you wouldn't need to worry about it so much.

My point exactly. When you are willing to be honest, than I am willing to dialogue with you again. Until then, I am simply letting you know what it is like to embark on any discourse with you.

Kingarthurhk
06-29-2012, 23:06
Its also a methodology of trying to exclude pink unicorns. The whole point of science is to find out a physical mechanism for how stuff happens/happened.

Its not a plot. Its baked into the definition of science. If "Goddidit" was an acceptable scientific answer, there's no point studying anything. We'd already have the answer. We'd also still have bronze age technology....

Randy

Wrong. Science can be explored from not simply "Goddidit" to How did God do it?

There is plenty of room for Theism in Science, and in fact the founders worked from the position of How did God do it? Despite the Atheist religio assertion, the concept is not mutually exclusive. Though, Theists are mocked, ridiculed, discriminated against, and even terminated for daring to have a Theist position.

Animal Mother
06-29-2012, 23:11
My point exactly. When you are willing to be honest, than I am willing to dialogue with you again. Until then, I am simply letting you know what it is like to embark on any discourse with you. I challenge you to show a single instance where I've been either intentionally dishonest or refused to produce evidence to support my claims. I assure you I can provide a variety of instances where you've done both those things.

Woofie
06-29-2012, 23:29
Wrong. Science can be explored from not simply "Goddidit" to How did God do it?



It depends. There are plenty of reputable scientists who are also Christian, just as there are atheist scientists.

I can see sort of a God of the Gaps scenario, where a Christian researcher, through the normal process of scientific inquiry makes a discovery, and then makes a personal decision that "Yes, this is how God did X." I'll refer you back to Lemaitre.

But when you start from a question such as "How does the formation of the Grand Canyon support our interpretation of scripture?" you have left the realm of science. As soon as you insert " . . . and then some magic happens . . ." (something I'm guilty of trying in my math classes) the process breaks down.

I can give a an example of a Christian physicist who threw away his reputation by disregarding evidence (some of which he was credited with) and making giant leaps of faith. Dr. Frank Tippler. I have a copy of the book that ruined him. I would give it to you, but you'd no longer call me your friend if I subjected you to that monstrosity of literature.

Animal Mother
06-29-2012, 23:33
There is plenty of room for Theism in Science, and in fact the founders worked from the position of How did God do it?Here's an excellent opportunity to present evidence in support of one of your contentions, even though it isn't really scientific in nature (unless you're talking about the founders of modern science as opposed to the founders of the United States).

Animal Mother
06-29-2012, 23:38
I can give a an example of a Christian physicist who threw away his reputation by disregarding evidence (some of which he was credited with) and making giant leaps of faith. Dr. Frank Tippler. I have a copy of the book that ruined him. I would give it to you, but you'd no longer call me your friend if I subjected you to that monstrosity of literature.Dr. Tipler also provides a counterpoint to the claims that anyone who advocates any sort of religious view in the sciences loses their position. Despite the silliness of the Omega Point stuff he's come up with, he's still a full professor at Tulane.

Kingarthurhk
06-30-2012, 00:09
Here's an excellent opportunity to present evidence in support of one of your contentions, even though it isn't really scientific in nature (unless you're talking about the founders of modern science as opposed to the founders of the United States).

I am talking about the founders of science.

Woofie
06-30-2012, 00:21
Dr. Tipler also provides a counterpoint to the claims that anyone who advocates any sort of religious view in the sciences loses their position. Despite the silliness of the Omega Point stuff he's come up with, he's still a full professor at Tulane.

The book I'm referring to is "The Physics of Immortality." It really is an atrocious read. His loss of reputation comes from the assumptions and conclusions in this book. I know his work followed along the same lines for a while. I'm unaware of any meaningful research that's been published by him since.

Carl Sagan did a fair amount of ridiculing him in "The Demon Haunted World" too.

Animal Mother
06-30-2012, 00:23
I am talking about the founders of science.Nifty. Now, about that evidence....

Animal Mother
06-30-2012, 00:28
The book I'm referring to is "The Physics of Immortality." It really is an atrocious read. His loss of reputation comes from the assumptions and conclusions in this book. I know his work followed along the same lines for a while. I'm unaware of any meaningful research that's been published by him since.

Carl Sagan did a fair amount of ridiculing him in "The Demon Haunted World" too.I read his book on the Anthropic Principle as part of a discussion seminar as an undergrad and also stumbled across some Omega Point silliness in a collection of essays, though I don't remember the title. I'm not aware of anything else he's published, but the fact that he still holds his position at Tulane remains. I've also seen him cited as an atheist ID proponent, but don't actually know his beliefs.

Kingarthurhk
06-30-2012, 00:29
It depends. There are plenty of reputable scientists who are also Christian, just as there are atheist scientists.

I can see sort of a God of the Gaps scenario, where a Christian researcher, through the normal process of scientific inquiry makes a discovery, and then makes a personal decision that "Yes, this is how God did X." I'll refer you back to Lemaitre.

But when you start from a question such as "How does the formation of the Grand Canyon support our interpretation of scripture?" you have left the realm of science. As soon as you insert " . . . and then some magic happens . . ." (something I'm guilty of trying in my math classes) the process breaks down.

I can give a an example of a Christian physicist who threw away his reputation by disregarding evidence (some of which he was credited with) and making giant leaps of faith. Dr. Frank Tippler. I have a copy of the book that ruined him. I would give it to you, but you'd no longer call me your friend if I subjected you to that monstrosity of literature.

Canyon Formations with Geologist Steve Austin - YouTube

Origins - Mount St. Helens - Explosive Evidence for Creation with Dr. Steve Austin - YouTube

Origins - The Worldwide Flood - Geologic Evidences - Pt 2 with Dr. Andrew Snelling- YouTube

Kingarthurhk
06-30-2012, 00:30
Nifty. Now, about that evidence....

I gave it to Woolfie. Standing by for sarcasim, not from him.

Animal Mother
06-30-2012, 00:41
I gave it to Woolfie. Standing by for sarcasim, not from him. First, I really hope that Geologist Steve Austin is also either Stone Cold or the Six Million Dollar Man. That aside, do you not understand that by assuming there was a global flood, despite the complete lack of evidence for such a thing, then requiring everything to fit into that box, you've already abandoned the realm of science?

Kingarthurhk
06-30-2012, 00:51
First, I really hope that Geologist Steve Austin is also either Stone Cold or the Six Million Dollar Man. That aside, do you not understand that by assuming there was a global flood, despite the complete lack of evidence for such a thing, then requiring everything to fit into that box, you've already abandoned the realm of science?

Right on cue. So predictable.

Woofie
06-30-2012, 01:06
I'll watch in the morning and give my thoughts afterward.

Animal Mother
06-30-2012, 01:10
Right on cue. So predictable.When you continue to post the same discredited, disproven and outright erroneous stuff, what exactly do you expect? Last time you started with the Flood stuff, you were asked specific questions about specific observed realities which don't fit in with the creationist model. You abandoned the discussion.

Why would anyone take you seriously at this point?

You'd prefer a different response to Dr. Austion? Here's one (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html). Standing by for you to either ignore it, declare it incorrect without explanation, or abandon the discussion.

Kingarthurhk
06-30-2012, 01:14
I'll watch in the morning and give my thoughts afterward.

Thanks. I am curious what you think.

Kingarthurhk
06-30-2012, 01:16
When you continue to post the same discredited, disproven and outright erroneous stuff, what exactly do you expect? Last time you started with the Flood stuff, you were asked specific questions about specific observed realities which don't fit in with the creationist model. You abandoned the discussion.

Why would anyone take you seriously at this point?

You'd prefer a different response to Dr. Austion? Here's one (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html). Standing by for you to either ignore it, declare it incorrect without explanation, or abandon the discussion.

We used to have mantra back when I was in academy in my early 20's marching around (a life time ago).

"Here we go again, same old stuff[not really, but you get the point] again. [Inster number here] days and we'll be through. We'll be glad and so will you."

Reminds me of the post above.

Syclone538
06-30-2012, 01:55
So, you can draw an accurate circle witout a point of origin? I am not talking about a squiggled elipses.
...

Yes, though not with a pen or pencil.

...
Entropy and thermodynamics puts a damper on the propposed idea,
...

The Baum–Frampton model addresses those, but I don't pretend to really understand it.

Kingarthurhk
06-30-2012, 06:07
Yes, though not with a pen or pencil.

Well, the computer software you might use, also has to have a point of origin to create the radius.



The Baum–Frampton model addresses those, but I don't pretend to really understand it.[/QUOTE]

So, you embrace something youd don't understand?

Kingarthurhk
06-30-2012, 06:07
Yes, though not with a pen or pencil.

Well, the computer software you might use, also has to have a point of origin to create the radius.



The Baum–Frampton model addresses those, but I don't pretend to really understand it.

So, you embrace something youd don't understand?

High-Gear
06-30-2012, 06:35
If that was how God established the physical realm, then so be it. What I have a problem with is that with man's limited knowledge of the Universe, this particulat theory seems TO ME right up there with unicorns.

I don't see the factual basis for the big bang, and I also believe in cause and effect. If you find out how all physical properties came to be, you will find this answer.

Find out how life came from non-life, and you will see the face of God.

This is an argument from ignorance.
Just because you Personally don't know or understand the evidence does not mean "God did it.". I suppose you could go on with this line of reasoning and since you don't trust scientific "theory" maybe you'll discount the theory of gravity and float away.

steveksux
06-30-2012, 06:52
Wrong. Science can be explored from not simply "Goddidit" to How did God do it?
You are correct, and I wasn't thinking of that angle. But if that's the case, what's wrong with "Evolution" and the "Big Bang" is how God did it? That's the Catholic position, and nearly every other mainstream Christian denomination.


There is plenty of room for Theism in Science, and in fact the founders worked from the position of How did God do it? Despite the Atheist religio assertion, the concept is not mutually exclusive. Though, Theists are mocked, ridiculed, discriminated against, and even terminated for daring to have a Theist position.Theists are welcome. Most scientists, at least in America, are probably Christians. Its when your fundamentalist beliefs cause you to attempt to shoehorn or manufacture data to fit your theism, rather than objectively following the facts, where Theism causes issues.

Anytime you're working in the hard sciences, you need to be driven by hard evidence. You can start relying on superstitions the moment you find hard evidence for them.

Randy

Kingarthurhk
06-30-2012, 07:17
When you continue to post the same discredited, disproven and outright erroneous stuff, what exactly do you expect? Last time you started with the Flood stuff, you were asked specific questions about specific observed realities which don't fit in with the creationist model. You abandoned the discussion.

Why would anyone take you seriously at this point?

You'd prefer a different response to Dr. Austion? Here's one (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html). Standing by for you to either ignore it, declare it incorrect without explanation, or abandon the discussion.

Polonium Halos: Unrefuted Evidence for Earth's Creation - YouTube

Animal Mother
06-30-2012, 07:31
Polonium Halos: Unrefuted Evidence for Earth's Creation - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEMDqTxfkmM&feature=related)That would be impressive, if it weren't for the fact the video of "unrefuted evidence" was been posted on July 9, 2008, three years after the refutation of Gentry's claims (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html) was posted on April 22, 2005, and 20 years after they were first addressed (http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm). As for refutations published in scientific journals, something the video claims don't exist, there's a number of them listed in the first link.

ksg0245
06-30-2012, 07:41
Polonium Halos: Unrefuted Evidence for Earth's Creation - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEMDqTxfkmM&feature=related)

“Polonium Halos” Refuted
A Critique of “Radioactive Halos in a Radiochronological and
Cosmological Perspective” by Robert V Gentry (http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/baillieul.pdf)

Creationist Claims about Polonium Radiohalos © Glen Kuban, 2006-2010 (http://paleo.cc/ce/halos.htm)

Polonium Halos as a Creationist Clock (http://orgs.usd.edu/esci/age/content/creationist_clocks/polonium_halos.html)

Syclone538
06-30-2012, 09:22
Well, the computer software you might use, also has to have a point of origin to create the radius.


So, you embrace something youd don't understand?

I was thinking a shot glass and ink pad.

Embrace is a lot stronger word then I would use. Maybe you should reread my posts in this thread.

Vic Hays
06-30-2012, 09:28
Canyon Formations with Geologist Steve Austin - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB4J14KnE-E&feature=related)

Origins - Mount St. Helens - Explosive Evidence for Creation with Dr. Steve Austin - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flrhqjN5BHo&feature=related)

Origins - The Worldwide Flood - Geologic Evidences - Pt 2 with Dr. Andrew Snelling- YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMSSwoJFq-8&feature=relmfu)

I especially enjoyed the presentation on Mt St Helens.

A very spiritual and Christian friend and I were enjoying the Sabbath on a sunny day in Tacoma WA. He said he had a dream and the whole top of Mt St Helens blew off. the ash drifted off to the east and there was a huge part of the mountain missing.

It happened just like he told me about his dream the next week.

WS6
06-30-2012, 12:23
So, you don't subscrbe to transubstantiation?

Of course I do; though, not as you explain it.

Same source, with the blasphemy continuing:

Yes, you do possess a mean-spirited religiosity.

Revelation 13:1-9, "
And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on his horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. 2 The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority. 3 One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was astonished and followed the beast. 4 Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?”

5 The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months. 6 He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. 7 He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. 8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.[b]

9 He who has an ear, let him hear."

You point is not self-evident. Keep in mind that I have no regard for your spin on Catholic scripture.

You took Samhein and gave it a different name.

I fail to see the connection.

Hot Cross Buns were traditionally served during the Lenten Season, especially on Good Friday. Their origins, however, like the Easter holiday, are mixed with pagan traditions. To the ancient Aztecs and Incas, buns were considered the sacred food of the gods, while the Egyptians and Saxons offered them as sacrifices to their goddesses. The cross represented the four quarters of the moon to certain ancient cultures, while others believed it was a sign that held supernatural power to prevent sickness. To the Romans, the cross represented the horns of a sacred ox. The word "bun" is derived from the ancient word "boun," used to describe this revered animal. The Christian church adopted Hot Cross Buns during their early missionary efforts to pagan cultures. They re-interpreted the "cross" of icing which adorns the bun to signify the cross on which Jesus sacrificed His life. Some historians date the origin of Hot Cross Buns back to the 12th century, when an Angelican monk was said to have placed the sign of the cross on the buns to honor Good Friday, known at that time as the "Day of the Cross." In 1361, a monk named Father Thomas Rocliffe, was recorded to have made small spiced cakes stamped with the sign of the cross, to be distributed to the poor visiting the monastery at St. Albans on Good Friday. According to the scholar Harrowven, the idea proved so popular that he made the buns every year, carefully keeping his bun recipe secret.

Again, your point is not self-evident.

In the sense that I was told that I should embrace everytihing the Catholic Church does by an Atheist as we are all suppoedly under the Catholic auspice.

So, I am very protestant.

Your ramble is nonsensical.

Kingarthurhk
06-30-2012, 15:09
Of course I do; though, not as you explain it.



Yes, you do possess a mean-spirited religiosity.



You point is not self-evident. Keep in mind that I have no regard for your spin on Catholic scripture.



I fail to see the connection.



Again, your point is not self-evident.



Your ramble is nonsensical.

Animal Mother, is that you? Your refutation of the evidence, is essentially, "Nuh-uh!" Surely, you can do better than that.

Kingarthurhk
06-30-2012, 15:11
I especially enjoyed the presentation on Mt St Helens.

A very spiritual and Christian friend and I were enjoying the Sabbath on a sunny day in Tacoma WA. He said he had a dream and the whole top of Mt St Helens blew off. the ash drifted off to the east and there was a huge part of the mountain missing.

It happened just like he told me about his dream the next week.

God is good enough to warn us about things in advance. I am certain he avoided the area before the blast.

Kingarthurhk
06-30-2012, 15:12
I was thinking a shot glass and ink pad.

Embrace is a lot stronger word then I would use. Maybe you should reread my posts in this thread.

And if it is a good round shotglass, it was generated using a point of origin.:supergrin:

Kingarthurhk
06-30-2012, 15:26
Radioisotope Dating:

Creation Magazine Live #14 — Radioisotope dating — An evolutionist's best friend - YouTube

Woofie
06-30-2012, 16:12
Thanks. I am curious what you think.

My interwebz hasn't been working properly today. I've watched two of the videos. I'm not a geologist so I can't say too much about his findings. Although I did have a WTF moment in the second video when he made the leap from describing petrified timber to "I've learned that God does what i think is impossible."

The biggest problem I'm having is that when I try to research Dr. Austin, he seems to have absolutely no peer reviewed work, which really calls into question his credibility.

I'd also like to know how he is drawing his conclusion that since Mt St Helens reshaped the landscape, that means the Grand Canyon was formed in a similar way. Are there even any volcanic sites in that area?

Kingarthurhk
06-30-2012, 16:22
My interwebz hasn't been working properly today. I've watched two of the videos. I'm not a geologist so I can't say too much about his findings. Although I did have a WTF moment in the second video when he made the leap from describing petrified timber to "I've learned that God does what i think is impossible."

The biggest problem I'm having is that when I try to research Dr. Austin, he seems to have absolutely no peer reviewed work, which really calls into question his credibility.

I'd also like to know how he is drawing his conclusion that since Mt St Helens reshaped the landscape, that means the Grand Canyon was formed in a similar way. Are there even any volcanic sites in that area?

I believe the analogy he was drawing upon was a sudden violent cataclysm and demonstrating how Mt. St. Helens bears a resemblence. The resemblence of Mt. St. Helens was established on a major cataclymic event.

So, the the idea that such huge landscape changes can occur rapidly is an insight into what we see at the Grand Canyon.

Vic Hays
06-30-2012, 19:29
God is good enough to warn us about things in advance. I am certain he avoided the area before the blast.

It was pretty tempting to go up and see the steam bursts that were going on before the eruption. There were a number of tourists that went around the barricades to get a better view. Some of the ones that drove 100 mph down the mountain road made it. The ones that drove 60 mph didn't. Some of them roasted slowly and were suffocated by the falling ash others burned rather quickly depending on where they were at the time. Harry Truman refused to leave. His lodge got buried 200 feet deep.

The eruption proved that the landscape can change drastically in a very short time. Erosion does not always have to occur or strata be laid down over eons of time.

High-Gear
06-30-2012, 19:57
.

The eruption proved that the landscape can change drastically in a very short time. Erosion does not always have to occur or strata be laid down over eons of time.

True! But there is physical evidence for the eruption left in the strata. When geologists study the strata of the grand canyon, they dont find evidence for a YEC version of events.

Kingarthurhk
06-30-2012, 20:21
True! But there is physical evidence for the eruption left in the strata. When geologists study the strata of the grand canyon, they dont find evidence for a YEC version of events.

Grand Canyon - Flood or Dribble - YouTube

Origins - The Worldwide Flood - Geologic Evidences - Pt 1 with Dr. Andrew Snelling - YouTube

Gunhaver
06-30-2012, 21:03
Grand Canyon - Flood or Dribble - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wax83pqUv10)

Origins - The Worldwide Flood - Geologic Evidences - Pt 1 with Dr. Andrew Snelling - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwGgSNDPhO0)

These lies and misinformation only work on people that know nothing of geology and have no desire to learn. I've heard this same BS since I was raised and once I started to look into what real geologists are doing it made much more sense.

He said right up front in the second video, "If the flood really occurred what evidence would we look for?" instead of, "Let's look at all the evidence and see if it all points towards a worldwide flood." That's all they're looking for and they disregard anything that doesn't support the flood claim.

Have you ever done a google search for evidence of an old earth and read and tried to understand any of it or are you only interested in what supports your current beliefs?

Kingarthurhk
06-30-2012, 21:25
These lies and misinformation only work on people that know nothing of geology and have no desire to learn. I've heard this same BS since I was raised and once I started to look into what real geologists are doing it made much more sense.

He said right up front in the second video, "If the flood really occurred what evidence would we look for?" instead of, "Let's look at all the evidence and see if it all points towards a worldwide flood." That's all they're looking for and they disregard anything that doesn't support the flood claim.

This is different from Atheism how again?


Have you ever done a google search for evidence of an old earth and read and tried to understand any of it or are you only interested in what supports your current beliefs?

Again, this is different from Atheims how again?

Animal Mother
06-30-2012, 23:31
I believe the analogy he was drawing upon was a sudden violent cataclysm and demonstrating how Mt. St. Helens bears a resemblence. The resemblence of Mt. St. Helens was established on a major cataclymic event.

So, the the idea that such huge landscape changes can occur rapidly is an insight into what we see at the Grand Canyon.
Response:

The sediments on Mount St. Helens were unconsolidated volcanic ash, which is easily eroded. The Grand Canyon was carved into harder materials, including well-consolidated sandstone and limestone, hard metamorphosed sediments (the Vishnu schist), plus a touch of relatively recent basalt.

The walls of the Mount St. Helens canyon slope 45 degrees. The walls of the Grand Canyon are vertical in places.

The canyon was not entirely formed suddenly. The canyon along Toutle River has a river continuously contributing to its formation. Another canyon also cited as evidence of catastrophic erosion is Engineer's Canyon, which was formed via water pumped out of Spirit Lake over several days by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The streams flowing down Mount St. Helens flow at a steeper grade than the Colorado River does, allowing greater erosion.

The Grand Canyon (and canyons further up and down the Colorado River) is more than 100,000 times larger than the canyon on Mount St. Helens. The two are not really comparable. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581_1.html)

Animal Mother
06-30-2012, 23:34
This is different from Atheism how again? Atheism says "there is no evidence gods exist".
Again, this is different from Atheims how again? If you mean how is it different from science, that's already been explained to you. Creationism says "Assume the Bible (as we interpret it) is literally true, then force observation to fit that assumption." Science says, "What do we observe in the world around us? What conclusions can we draw from those observations? If those conclusions are accurate, what other evidence would we expect to find?"

steveksux
07-01-2012, 01:57
Radioisotope Dating:

Creation Magazine Live #14 — Radioisotope dating — An evolutionist's best friend - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lKgwrDxZbU)Radioisotope dating should be slang for dating REALLY old cougars.. So if I were single, I wouldn't date women my age, so radioisotope dating isn't something I'd be interested in.. I'd date younger women who can figure out how old they are with just a calendar... :whistling:


Randy

Schabesbert
07-02-2012, 07:23
I would still like to know how a priest managed to develop a theory that necessarily excludes God.

I'm totally confused by this statement, since your post below has a much more correct interpretation:

I've not run across any atheist who says the Big Bang suggests God does not exist. I would say that anyone who makes that claim does not understand the theory.

From my limited understanding, the Big Bang Theory is silent on the subject of God.

Schabesbert
07-02-2012, 07:31
Animal Mother, is that you? Your refutation of the evidence, is essentially, "Nuh-uh!"
He didn't try to refute any evidence simply because there was no evidence to refute.