Evolution or Creationism

[Abdju]

I don't know why there's even a thread for this. Everyone will just say evolution. When I point out that I think it's creationism for the reason that I have faith, you all will try to sway me and tell me I'm ignorant. I don't get swayed, but I do get insulted for being called ignorant. That's how it'll always go.

Saying you believe in creationism because you have faith isn't a complete argument. Why do you have faith in that specific belief, over any other belief?

[MenMenMenMenMenlyMen]

I don't know why there's even a thread for this. Everyone will just say evolution. When I point out that I think it's creationism for the reason that I have faith, you all will try to sway me and tell me I'm ignorant. I don't get swayed, but I do get insulted for being called ignorant. That's how it'll always go.

Saying you believe in creationism because you have faith isn't a complete argument. Why do you have faith in that specific belief, over any other belief?

Exactly my point. I don't have a complete argument, and yet you can't change the way I feel.

[Genivar]

Saying you believe in creationism because you have faith isn't a complete argument. Why do you have faith in that specific belief, over any other belief?

Exactly my point. I don't have a complete argument, and yet you can't change the way I feel.

Then why are you here?

[MenMenMenMenMenlyMen]

Exactly my point. I don't have a complete argument, and yet you can't change the way I feel.

Then why are you here?

......Actually, that's a good question. I guess I just wanted to vote in the poll and then say how I feel. Creationism really is unreasonable, and yet there are people who believe in it.

[Abdju]

Saying you believe in creationism because you have faith isn't a complete argument. Why do you have faith in that specific belief, over any other belief?

Exactly my point. I don't have a complete argument, and yet you can't change the way I feel.

It is not my place to change how you feel. This is a place for debate, not brainwashing. However, if you don't have an argument to bring to the debate, then you are missing the whole point of NSG. (at least officially, in reality it's just a right wing circle jerk and troll fest)

[Sociobiology]

Saying you believe in creationism because you have faith isn't a complete argument. Why do you have faith in that specific belief, over any other belief?

Exactly my point. I don't have a complete argument, and yet you can't change the way I feel.

we try to change your mind for the same reason you would try to change the mind of someone who thought gaping chest wouldn't hurt, even when you tell them it would hurt, you present mounds of evidence and if that doesn't change their mind you label them mentally impaired.

[MenMenMenMenMenlyMen]

Exactly my point. I don't have a complete argument, and yet you can't change the way I feel.

we try to change your mind for the same reason you would try to change the mind of someone who thought gaping chest wouldn't hurt, even when you tell them it would hurt, you present mounds of evidence and if that doesn't change their mind you label them mentally impaired.

Hey! That's fucking rude! I don't much like being called mentally impaired! Maybe evolution is correct. Wouldn't surprise me if it is. But I don't think so.

[Jahada]

"Religious" and "Christian" are not synonyms.

I don't know about non-theistic religions, but theistic religions are incompatible with evolution.

Wow, did anyone bother to read my post?

[Norstal]

I don't know about non-theistic religions, but theistic religions are incompatible with evolution.

Wow, did anyone bother to read my post?

Wow, did you read the next posts that I made later?

[Kobeanare]

we try to change your mind for the same reason you would try to change the mind of someone who thought gaping chest wouldn't hurt, even when you tell them it would hurt, you present mounds of evidence and if that doesn't change their mind you label them mentally impaired.

Hey! That's fucking rude! I don't much like being called mentally impaired! Maybe evolution is correct. Wouldn't surprise me if it is. But I don't think so.

Why? Given that there are mountains of evidence for evolution (which has apparently been shown to you before) and that you admit yourself you have no argument against any of it...

[The Black Forrest]

I don't know why there's even a thread for this. Everyone will just say evolution. When I point out that I think it's creationism for the reason that I have faith, you all will try to sway me and tell me I'm ignorant. I don't get swayed, but I do get insulted for being called ignorant. That's how it'll always go.

Wouldn't it be easier to put your fingers in your ears and go "LALALALALLAALALALALAL"

What you describe is not ignorance......

[Nightkill the Emperor]

"Religious" and "Christian" are not synonyms.

I don't know about non-theistic religions, but theistic religions are incompatible with evolution. Though you are right.

Nope, I make it work.

[Beldonia]

Hey! That's fucking rude! I don't much like being called mentally impaired! Maybe evolution is correct. Wouldn't surprise me if it is. But I don't think so.

Why? Given that there are mountains of evidence for evolution (which has apparently been shown to you before) and that you admit yourself you have no argument against any of it...

He has faith.

[The Black Forrest]

Why? Given that there are mountains of evidence for evolution (which has apparently been shown to you before) and that you admit yourself you have no argument against any of it...

He has faith.

So did George Michael.

[Kobeanare]

Why? Given that there are mountains of evidence for evolution (which has apparently been shown to you before) and that you admit yourself you have no argument against any of it...

He has faith.

That's not faith, it's willful ignorance.

[Mostrov]

Just one last thing before I go, to clarify.

-snip-

Which was my point, there is no proof, so it is irrelevant to theorise. I am not coming in from assumed belief. I'm just saying you can neither prove nor disprove god, but the challenge is for Theologians to reconcile this with their beliefs, which Anglicanism does relatively well (Although not entirely foolproof). Hence, religion isn't incompatible with Science.

self deception does not make something compatible, humans are quite capable of believing inconsistent things, finding people who believe them does not prove compatibility.
evidence based inquiry (science)and the position that evidence is not necessary (religion)are diametrically opposed and logically incompatible.

On the contrary, in this small example, as I have shown you could show the universe to be proof of such a creator or you may not. But you cannot definitively rule out a god.

And I don't ascribe any major attributes to this being, neither as I say whether he exists or not, and because there is no time outside of our own universe his 'continued' existance is somewhat irrelevant. Others do and it is their faults that do exist, we can assume beliefs of our own, but we can't prove/disprove them if we follow this model. But one can assume that a god has certain attributes, due to their own experiences and theorising.

again by ascribing anything, including existence or ANY attribute to the god or the outside of the universe such as time does or does not exist outside the universe, you violate your own premise. either logic applies or it doesn't.
If it doesn't then any reasoning you use, is by definition, faulty.

Actually due to the fact that this belief is similarly untied to religion, and the concept of 'faith' is the sole provider of 'evidence' what can you say to someone who says that something like that exists, as you cannot disprove them, so they are entitled to their own belief as it is not something is demonstrably fallacious.

I never said anything against both of them, both of which I regard as fact alongside the common scientific communities consensus. The big bang is merely after the creation of the universe so to speak, we don't know much if anything about beforehand.

In conclusion, people are entitled to their own beliefs as long as it doesn't conflict with the above model etc., so their is really no need to be so damn intolerant.

no you just bask in the benefit of science while undermining the very principle it functions on, evidence. like a democratically elected leader trying to eliminate democracy. At least creationists can claim ignorance of scientific principles.

Are you assuming I am religious, do you know whether I am or not? In order to clarify I am not speaking out for religion, but for the concept that god is neither provable nor disprovable - which IMO ties into religion, hence religion is not necessarily incompatible with science. So in essence my reasoning can be surmised as you can't disprove god, so why should you want to think that belief in a divine is incompatible with science? Can you actually disprove god*, aside from the bias in both my reasoning and my explanation

*By god I mean a creator figure or whatever.

Also I fixed up the problem with your editing.

[Salandriagado]

They're not the same thing. In the first case, you simply assume it because it makes sense to you—there isn't actual empirical evidence stated. In the latter, you give empirical evidence as a reason for why the ball will fall down.

Evolution happens. We know evolution happens because we see it happens. Evidence.

[Farnhamia]

self deception does not make something compatible, humans are quite capable of believing inconsistent things, finding people who believe them does not prove compatibility.
evidence based inquiry (science)and the position that evidence is not necessary (religion)are diametrically opposed and logically incompatible.

On the contrary, in this small example, as I have shown you could show the universe to be proof of such a creator or you may not. But you cannot definitively rule out a god.

again by ascribing anything, including existence or ANY attribute to the god or the outside of the universe such as time does or does not exist outside the universe, you violate your own premise. either logic applies or it doesn't.
If it doesn't then any reasoning you use, is by definition, faulty.

Actually due to the fact that this belief is similarly untied to religion, and the concept of 'faith' is the sole provider of 'evidence' what can you say to someone who says that something like that exists, as you cannot disprove them, so they are entitled to their own belief as it is not something is demonstrably fallacious.

no you just bask in the benefit of science while undermining the very principle it functions on, evidence. like a democratically elected leader trying to eliminate democracy. At least creationists can claim ignorance of scientific principles.

Are you assuming I am religious, do you know whether I am or not? In order to clarify I am not speaking out for religion, but for the concept that god is neither provable nor disprovable - which IMO ties into religion, hence religion is not necessarily incompatible with science. So in essence my reasoning can be surmised as you can't disprove god, so why should you want to think that belief in a divine is incompatible with science? Can you actually disprove god*, aside from the bias in both my reasoning and my explanation

*By god I mean a creator figure or whatever.

Also I fixed up the problem with your editing.

Don't you think it is a reasonable position to take that there is no creator god when the only evidence offered is faith that one exists? And I can say with certainty that no such god exists when all I am offered as evidence is faith. Bring me evidence that I can analyze and test and I may change my mind. People are certainly entitled to their own beliefs and, indeed, many eminent scientists have been and are believers. I am not, however, honor-bound to "respect" those beliefs simply because someone holds them. I will be polite, because that is my nature, and respect your right to hold those beliefs, but the beliefs themselves, frankly, are not worthy of respect at all.

[The Black Forrest]

self deception does not make something compatible, humans are quite capable of believing inconsistent things, finding people who believe them does not prove compatibility.
evidence based inquiry (science)and the position that evidence is not necessary (religion)are diametrically opposed and logically incompatible.

On the contrary, in this small example, as I have shown you could show the universe to be proof of such a creator or you may not. But you cannot definitively rule out a god.

Actually no you have provided nothing. All you have said is I can't explain so goddidit! It self deception as suggested.

God is ruled out simply because there is no test to prove or disprove. As mentioned time and time again. God is a non-question.

again by ascribing anything, including existence or ANY attribute to the god or the outside of the universe such as time does or does not exist outside the universe, you violate your own premise. either logic applies or it doesn't.
If it doesn't then any reasoning you use, is by definition, faulty.

Actually due to the fact that this belief is similarly untied to religion, and the concept of 'faith' is the sole provider of 'evidence' what can you say to someone who says that something like that exists, as you cannot disprove them, so they are entitled to their own belief as it is not something is demonstrably fallacious.

Actually it's self-deception. As in wait I can't argue it so God is outside our universe or dimension so we can't explain it. As mentioned faulty reasoning.

no you just bask in the benefit of science while undermining the very principle it functions on, evidence. like a democratically elected leader trying to eliminate democracy. At least creationists can claim ignorance of scientific principles.

Are you assuming I am religious, do you know whether I am or not? In order to clarify I am not speaking out for religion, but for the concept that god is neither provable nor disprovable - which IMO ties into religion, hence religion is not necessarily incompatible with science. So in essence my reasoning can be surmised as you can't disprove god, so why should you want to think that belief in a divine is incompatible with science? Can you actually disprove god*, aside from the bias in both my reasoning and my explanation

You can't prove God either. Non-question to science. Religion is not compatible.

*By god I mean a creator figure or whatever.

Also I fixed up the problem with your editing.

Yes. It's called the Intelligent Design question. Which even though they claim it doesn't mean God; it does.......

[Beldonia]

He has faith.

That's not faith, it's willful ignorance.

No, that's faith.

[Beldonia]

He has faith.

So did George Michael.

Nice one.

[Ceannairceach]

That's not faith, it's willful ignorance.

No, that's faith.

"I know it's right but I still don't believe it" isn't faithful, its foolishness.

[Beldonia]

No, that's faith.

"I know it's right but I still don't believe it" isn't faithful, its foolishness.

He says that he knows that it's plausible. Besides, can't it be both?

[Kobeanare]

"I know it's right but I still don't believe it" isn't faithful, its foolishness.

He says that he knows that it's plausible. Besides, can't it be both?

Can't what be both what?

If he's actual looked at the evidence, he would know that it's definitive. So he's ignorant, willfully or otherwise.

[Beldonia]

He says that he knows that it's plausible. Besides, can't it be both?

Can't what be both what?

If he's actual looked at the evidence, he would know that it's definitive. So he's ignorant, willfully or otherwise.

Can't he be faithful and foolish was what I was getting at. And it's not definitive. So good-bye to that argument.