Looking for a debate with creationists (I am an atheist)

[Wandering Monk]

Why is it that so many creationists make nonsense comments and then, when asked to support or justify their comments, duck and dodge?

'Cause they've got nothing!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why is it that so many creationists make nonsense comments and then, when asked to support or justify their comments, duck and dodge?

That's an easy one. Because creationists that debate the topic honestly do not remain creationists for very long. On the internet you only see the worst of the worst. Those that simply cannot handle reality at all. Duck, dodge, and evade is creationism debating 101.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Why is it that so many creationists make nonsense comments and then, when asked to support or justify their comments, duck and dodge?

Creation, evolution, and learning must be new things at some point, but I believe in singular eternity.

 

[ecco]

Creation, evolution, and learning must be new things at some point, but I believe in singular eternity.

That still doesn't explain your comment...

Both creation and evolution are the same. Neither are necessary to God, but its alright.

Clearly, Creation and Evolution are not the same things in terms of how they are commonly used, especially here in these forums.

Also, aside from yourself, I don't think anyone knows what you mean by "singular eternity". But don't put yourself out providing an answer. Most of us probably don't care.

 

[night912]

Fortunately for my position as a religious person, the science has many holes in it.

So you admit that you're not coming from a scientific perspective, instead, it's based off of your religious perspective. So there's no need to further the discussion.

 

[MonkeyFire]

That still doesn't explain your comment...


Clearly, Creation and Evolution are not the same things in terms of how they are commonly used, especially here in these forums.

Also, aside from yourself, I don't think anyone knows what you mean by "singular eternity". But don't put yourself out providing an answer. Most of us probably don't care.

Weasle.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Abiogenesis definitely is "a work in progress". Abiogenesis will not be "proven" any more than evolution is "proven". The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. At some point in the future, the evidence for the methodology of abiogenesis will also be overwhelming.

However, there are many things that demonstrate that the origins are not like what is described in your Bible as the work of your God. One of the most obvious of these is the absence of any evidence of a worldwide flood and overwhelming evidence that there never was a worldwide flood. The other is the overwhelming evidence that the age or the earth is in the billions of years, not in the thousands of years. This is evidence that your Bible, and therefore your God, are nothing more than myths just as the stories of Atlas and Jupiter are myths.

As I've told you many times, and as we all know, you accept science up to and only up to the point that it conflicts with your fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible.



However, keeping on the track that you have duck and dodged from, you previously asserted that research into abiogenesis was "near-empty". I guess I'll accept your comments above as an indication that your earlier assertion was just Something You Pulled From Your A**.

You do that a lot.

Regarding abiogenesis, how did you conflate "unproven hypothesis" with "a work in progress"? You can tell me all you like that scientists are working to prove this hypothesis, I will agree with that, but...

...While certain interpretations of biblical origins are up for grabs (giving you straw man arguments above) what is not debatable is that "In the beginning, God created all..." The unproven hypothesis of abiogenesis has some severe obstacles to overcome, still.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So you admit that you're not coming from a scientific perspective, instead, it's based off of your religious perspective. So there's no need to further the discussion.

You might try reading what I wrote, more S-L-O-W-L-Y:

"Fortunately for my position as a religious person, the science has many holes in it."

As a religious believer, and as a rationalist, I'm excited the SCIENCE AGREES with the Bible and the parts that don't, have many SCIENTIFIC HOLES/GAPS/LACKS/INCONSISTENCIES.

 

[ecco]

Regarding abiogenesis, how did you conflate "unproven hypothesis" with "a work in progress"?

Duh!

A scientific hypothesis is the initial building block in the scientific method. It is clear to any rational person that there are two possible origins for life:
GodDidIt
NatureDidIt

We don't bother looking into GodDidIt because that explanation has consistently failed.

The leaves NatureDidIt. That means that there was a process that went from "non-life" to "life". The study of that process is called abiogenesis.

But you already knew all that. It's like talking to a four-year-old.

You can tell me all you like that scientists are working to prove this hypothesis, I will agree with that,

Yay!

...While certain interpretations of biblical origins are up for grabs (giving you straw man arguments above) what is not debatable is that "In the beginning, God created all...

Your creation myth is only one of thousands of creation myths man has concocted over the centuries.

" The unproven hypothesis of abiogenesis has some severe obstacles to overcome, still.

Yes, it does.
One thousand years ago the unproven hypothesis of heliocentricity had some severe obstacles to overcome.
Five hundred years ago the unproven hypothesis that germs cause infections had some severe obstacles to overcome.
Two hundred years ago the unproven hypothesis that man could fly had some severe obstacles to overcome.

What's your point.

ETA: You do believe in geocentricity and germ theory and you do believe planes can fly, don't you?

 

[ecco]

As a religious believer, and as a rationalist,

Oxymoronic.

 

[night912]

You might try reading what I wrote, more S-L-O-W-L-Y:

"Fortunately for my position as a religious person, the science has many holes in it."

As a religious believer, and as a rationalist, I'm excited the SCIENCE AGREES with the Bible and the parts that don't, have many SCIENTIFIC HOLES/GAPS/LACKS/INCONSISTENCIES.

Yes, you as a RELIGIOUS BELIEVER. So you see "holes" according to your religion and according to science. Whether I read it slowly or not, what you admitted remains the same, that you're coming from a religious perspective and not a scientific perspective.

Anyways, thanks for proving that I'm right about what I said.


Definition of 'rationalist'
Learner: rationalist Example sentences
rationalist
(ræʃənəlɪst )
Word forms: rationalists
1. ADJECTIVE
If you describe someone as rationalist, you mean that their beliefs are based on reason and logic rather than emotion or religion.

A religious believer you are, but a rationalist, you are not.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Duh!

A scientific hypothesis is the initial building block in the scientific method. It is clear to any rational person that there are two possible origins for life:
GodDidIt
NatureDidIt

We don't bother looking into GodDidIt because that explanation has consistently failed.

The leaves NatureDidIt. That means that there was a process that went from "non-life" to "life". The study of that process is called abiogenesis.

But you already knew all that. It's like talking to a four-year-old.



Yay!


Your creation myth is only one of thousands of creation myths man has concocted over the centuries.






Yes, it does.
One thousand years ago the unproven hypothesis of heliocentricity had some severe obstacles to overcome.
Five hundred years ago the unproven hypothesis that germs cause infections had some severe obstacles to overcome.
Two hundred years ago the unproven hypothesis that man could fly had some severe obstacles to overcome.

What's your point.

ETA: You do believe in geocentricity and germ theory and you do believe planes can fly, don't you?

I think I follow:

God is a pain in your rear, therefore, NatureDidIt wins by fiat over GodDidIt.

Now accuse ME of being "unscientific"!

 

[Wandering Monk]

I think I follow:

God is a pain in your rear, therefore, NatureDidIt wins by fiat over GodDidIt.

Now accuse ME of being "unscientific"!

NatureDidIt is at least potentially falsifiable. God will never be.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Oxymoronic.

That is grossly unfair to say that about "As a religious believer, and as a rationalist," -- my quote.

Why do you feel a person can change that fast? The Bible was subjected and is subjected to my rationalist mindset upon every reading. Fortunately, and here's part of how to prove God's Word as true, the Bible stands up to the applied method--hypothesize X and see the Bible produce X.

For example, your disdaining me above and presuming to read my mind, by the way, without an in-person clinical diagnosis of my "irrational religious behavior" is PREDICTED BY THE BIBLE.

I join other born agains in recognizing who is open-minded and who is a skeptic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think I follow:

God is a pain in your rear, therefore, NatureDidIt wins by fiat over GodDidIt.

Now accuse ME of being "unscientific"!

Since there is no scientific evidence for GodDidit one is unscientific when one demands that God was the cause.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, you as a RELIGIOUS BELIEVER. So you see "holes" according to your religion and according to science. Whether I read it slowly or not, what you admitted remains the same, that you're coming from a religious perspective and not a scientific perspective.

Anyways, thanks for proving that I'm right about what I said.


Definition of 'rationalist'
Learner: rationalist Example sentences
rationalist
(ræʃənəlɪst )
Word forms: rationalists
1. ADJECTIVE
If you describe someone as rationalist, you mean that their beliefs are based on reason and logic rather than emotion or religion.

A religious believer you are, but a rationalist, you are not.

How am I not able to do that? It's as easy as putting on a skeptical mindset when I read the scriptures, for example. "If X is true, then..." is how I advise ANYONE to read ANY nonfiction document or document claiming truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is grossly unfair to say that about "As a religious believer, and as a rationalist," -- my quote.

Why do you feel a person can change that fast? The Bible was subjected and is subjected to my rationalist mindset upon every reading. Fortunately, and here's part of how to prove God's Word as true, the Bible stands up to the applied method--hypothesize X and see the Bible produce X.

For example, your disdaining me above and presuming to read my mind, by the way, without an in-person clinical diagnosis of my "irrational religious behavior" is PREDICTED BY THE BIBLE.

I join other born agains in recognizing who is open-minded and who is a skeptic.

Confirmation bias is not rational. Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How am I not able to do that? It's as easy as putting on a skeptical mindset when I read the scriptures, for example. "If X is true, then..." is how I advise ANYONE to read ANY nonfiction document or document claiming truth.

You have what a skeptical mindset is wrong. Your approach leads to confirmation bias.

 

[ecco]

I think I follow:

God is a pain in your rear, therefore, NatureDidIt wins by fiat over GodDidIt.

Now accuse ME of being "unscientific"!

Me accuse you? Why would I need to? Your own posts have proven that you are unscientific and anti-science.

Your above comment about God being a pain in my butt also shows that you have no real understanding of human nature either.

There is no such thing as God or gods. A non-existent entity cannot be a pain in my butt. What annoys me is ignorance. There is no need for it, yet it runs rampant in these threads. You know who I am referring to, don't you?

The second half of your comment is perhaps also based on ignorance.
Perhaps you really don't know that famines are caused by nature, not because GodDidIt.
Perhaps you really don't know that earthquakes are caused by nature, not because GodDidIt.
Perhaps you really don't know that famines are caused by nature, not because GodDidIt.

There is no "fiat" involved, just acceptance of the accumulated of mankind.

 

[ecco]

That is grossly unfair to say that about "As a religious believer, and as a rationalist," -- my quote.

Not at all.

Why do you feel a person can change that fast?

???

The Bible was subjected and is subjected to my rationalist mindset upon every reading.

Uh huh.

Fortunately, and here's part of how to prove God's Word as true, the Bible stands up to the applied method--hypothesize X and see the Bible produce X.

For example, your disdaining me above and presuming to read my mind, by the way, without an in-person clinical diagnosis of my "irrational religious behavior" is PREDICTED BY THE BIBLE.

Nonsense. Those predictions are nothing more than self-serving paranoia. Any person rationally analyzing them would see that.

I'm sure Jim Jones also told his flock that he was being persecuted. I'm sure the Church of Scientology tells its flock that the Church is being persecuted. I'm sure Joseph Smith told his followers that they would be persecuted.

I join other born agains in recognizing who is open-minded and who is a skeptic.

Your acceptance of "irrational religious behavior is PREDICTED BY THE BIBLE" proves you are not at all skeptical when it comes to your scripture.