The hilarious thing was that the Bible says such things as the sky is blue because there is water above it. [In Genesis, explaining the creation of the earth.
And other such paradoxes, like how saying you should not commit adultery, but God himself commanded someone to bang his brother's wife.
Lol.

JordanN, How do you handle the cognitive dissonance? Trying to reconcile fundamentalist Christianity with natural evidence is not possible,
http://dresdencodak.com/cartoons/dc_022.htm

You can't both believe and disbelieve that supernatural events happen at the same time, ill wager you bounce between the two, using the more convenient set of beliefs for the situation, but never using both at the same time. I also will wager that even among fundamentalist Christians, in cases of illness and injury, trust is placed in the atheistic science of medicine, more readily than it is placed in the hands of a cleric.

[citation needed]

what, you never heard of hydroplate theory?

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/topics/firmament.html

Amen.

Make no mistake, i have seen creationists try to argue in places FAR less credulous than here.

I really meant a citation to the Bible. The Bible, from what I can tell of this, does not make any sort of theory regarding any hydroplate. It talks about the "firmament." This seems open to interpretation, but the Bible clearly does not say "the sky is blue because there is water above it."

It said God created a dome which seperated the water above from the water below, placed the earth in the dome, and put stars at the top of the dome. =p

The bible is made up of allegoric text. Literal meanings exist, but in the past- how would you explain a car? An iron boar. Obviously. Not to be smartialec... but while you can't be an atheist and be a theist at the same time, atheist is just a belief that god does not exist. An atheist could be scientific and unscientific. An atheist obviously should not go out of place since science is not its area of expertise. A baffoon who does not believe in god but also knows a jack about science falls in that category. Unless of course, that atheist majored in a scientific part (But obviously, a small portion of science.) Also, a 'theist' could also be scientific. Thats when you mention a person.

Also, Science is not absolute. It is subject to change whenever proven otherwise. ( In a 'scientific way' ). Anyone could make a scientific statement. A statement that follows an already scientifically proven is not a scientific statement. It is merely a citation. A scientific statement, ( obviously is more complicated. ) requires that you use scientific methods to explain a phenomena, or otherwise to boost your argument. A scientific statement is not something that ultimately proves the other is wrong, but to give asset to your argument.

There is quite a few translations Bible has. Each different for every language you could imagine. And, the sky is practically water/gas. Since clouds are water.

I believe this forum is intended to be somewhat serious. I already asked for a citation. If you can't give one, then stop making these statements.

Dear Jordan:
Atheism is a-theism. Theism means belief in one or more divinities or deities, and "A" means without. That is the full extent of atheism. Anything else, such as humanism, naturalism, science, evolution, etc, are seperate entities. You may personally subscribe to any number of these entities, but atheism itself does not include them.

To say you are an Athiest-Christian is to say that you believe and follow the Christian God and His tenents, and that you do not believe in any gods. Because these concepts are mutually exclusive due to their inherant conflict, to be both at the same time cannot happen. You can flip-flop, or be unsure, but entertaining the concept in thought does not make it possible in reality.

1. God exists. (assertion)
2. God created all things (assertion)
3. Fossils were created by God. (follows from 2)
4. Mutations are created by God. (from 2)
5. Nothing evolves since apparent "evolutions (survival through benign genetic reproductive mutations)" are simply created by God (2,3,4)

Interesting argument I think, assuming God exists I think this one might be hard to refute. In finding flaws in this argument, for the sake of the argument's logic, please assume God exists. We all can point out the flaws assuming God does not exist.
As for assuming the existence of god, please keep in mind that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And, I'm not necessarily an Evolutionist or a Creationist.

Nobody knows if god exists or doesn't exist. You're right, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But thats like me saying that theres a invisible ghost watching you and if he sees you drinking beer he'll curse you for life. You can't disprove my argument, and I can simply blame all chance occurrences of bad luck on the beer ghost cursing you. Will everyone stop drinking beer because I tell them the beer ghost will curse them? I doubt even one person will as a result of that.

Science takes evidence and makes a theory, which can always be replaced by new theories if one is proven more plausible. Creationism takes text written thousands of years ago and attempts to make itself comparable to science by changing the meaning of it. It's a creative art, not a science.

Creationism starts with the answer and then tries to make evidence, science starts with the evidence and then makes an answer.

Creationism is not a science. Period. You can go believe whatever you want to believe, but it does not even belong near the plateau that is science, so stop trying to bring it up there.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 12 2008, 11:54 pm by Yoshi.

Dear Yoshi:

1). Never claimed Creationism was a science
2). You didn't refute the argument, you attacked me and the existence of God, when I clearly stated you should assume for the sake of the argument God exists
3). We UNDERSTAND about the existence of God, I never said he did or didn't exist, just for the sake of the argument, assume he does

4). Yes, I will believe what I believe, have no doubts about that

I would ask that you attempt to remain neutral in further discussion, I don't appreciate the tone of your post.

Admins can have opinions too. Why do they have to conceal it all the time to be neutral? Besides, he didn't attack you.

In my opinion, a forum filled mostly with teenagers is not probably not going to think of something that people who have spent many decades in their fields hasn't already thought of.

I'm not attacking, im simply stating you're comparing apples and oranges.

It's a waste of time trying to disprove something with absolutely no merit. No matter what kind of evidence anybody can mount up, creationists can always say "god intended it for it to be like that". It still leaves the bigger question unanswered, such as if god is perfect, why did he build us from such imperfections?

The only reason the argument is difficult to refute is because you have to assume he exists. If you assume a supernatural being exists then all of a sudden everything is possible.

Neutrality is advantageous because it is more likely that views will be expressed when fear of retribution is absent.


Perhaps my original post was a bit belated to take part in the actions described in Jourdan's original post.
However, if anyone would like to actually argue the case, I'd be delighted to hear your ideas, otherwise I'll withdraw from the forum.

It's a contradiction dumb ass not a paradox. And you failed to mention that his brother IS DEAD.

Merrell: watch the flaming...

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 13 2008, 12:38 am by Merrell.

Dear Vrael:
So by that logic, all breeding is regulated by God? Then I guess it wasn't cat breeders who bred the short-legged cat?



So God wanted short-legged cats?