(August 11, 2017 at 10:43 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: And nope only creationists redefine evolution so they can cherry pick stuff the does not contradict there nonsense .

Unsupported claim.

(August 11, 2017 at 9:51 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(August 11, 2017 at 3:43 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote: Operational (Observational) Science: a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves.

Historical (Origins) Science: interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view.

underlined mine

This is the entire point, god can't be philosophized into existence. Therefore any science (historical or operational) where you make interpretations based on the held philosophy that god exists is in error. 

Again, if you, or the god entity itself, can show evidence that it exists then do it. 

Until that time, whether you like it or not, the idea of any god is a psychological tool used for manipulation, both good and bad.

I cannot stress this enough. No sane person should want to rid religion out of existence by force. All that is really going on with EVERY religion WORLD WIDE, is that it gets sold to the youth before they can formulate adult critical thinking skills.

Unfortunately for R someone got to him before he was armed. The desire to want something to be true even if it is not is strong in our species.

(August 11, 2017 at 9:18 pm)Succubus Wrote:

(August 11, 2017 at 9:05 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote: I am a creationist. So as you might expect, I think the God who created used similar building blocks in the various kinds that were created.

How very convenient.

And what did you expect the answer to be?

And I suppose any evolutionist would answer your question: because everything evolved from a common ancestor.

To which I could reply: How very convenient.
*or
In other words you are a moron.

---

(August 11, 2017 at 10:50 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Unfortunately for R someone got to him before he was armed. The desire to want something to be true even if it is not is strong in our species.

Here, Brian, I will set you up for a good one.

Brian, you are wrong, as I did not become a Christian until I was 19.

You can thank me later.

---

(August 11, 2017 at 10:50 pm)Brian37 Wrote: The desire to want something to be true even if it is not is strong in our species.

Assuming this is true. Why do you suppose that is? (and I mean from an evolutionary point of view)

(August 11, 2017 at 10:51 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote:

(August 11, 2017 at 9:18 pm)Succubus Wrote: How very convenient.

And what did you expect the answer to be?

And I suppose any evolutionist would answer your question: because everything evolved from a common ancestor.

To which I could reply: How very convenient.
*or
In other words you are a moron.

---

Everything 'did' evolve from a common ancestor. We have mountains of evidence that show this. Where is the evidence for your god? Fuckhead!

It's just not worth arguing with "evolution deniers", they clearly are not concerned with what's actually true.

(August 11, 2017 at 10:46 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote:

(August 11, 2017 at 9:51 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: This is the entire point, god can't be philosophized into existence.

He doesn't have to. He already exists. And He can't be ignored into non-existence.

Waiting for the evidence, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting,.................

(August 12, 2017 at 7:34 am)mh.brewer Wrote:

(August 11, 2017 at 10:46 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote: He doesn't have to. He already exists. And He can't be ignored into non-existence.

Waiting for the evidence, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting,.................

Meh, me I  cant wait, football season is coming up, not going to waste my Sundays listening to a used car salesman. I have games to watch and beer to drink.

(August 11, 2017 at 10:50 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(August 11, 2017 at 9:51 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: underlined mine

This is the entire point, god can't be philosophized into existence. Therefore any science (historical or operational) where you make interpretations based on the held philosophy that god exists is in error. 

Again, if you, or the god entity itself, can show evidence that it exists then do it. 

Until that time, whether you like it or not, the idea of any god is a psychological tool used for manipulation, both good and bad.

I cannot stress this enough. No sane person should want to rid religion out of existence by force. All that is really going on with EVERY religion WORLD WIDE, is that it gets sold to the youth before they can formulate adult critical thinking skills.

Unfortunately for R someone got to him before he was armed. The desire to want something to be true even if it is not is strong in our species.

[snicker]

I am less concerned about the religionites rubbing each other out of existence by whatever means they feel works for them.  Competing against Mormonism for instance, by having Seventh Day Adventists pointing out in a massive advertising campaign they are 58% less fucked up, is fine.  If they want to get a little more physical at some point, well, watch your aim and clean up your mess when you're done.

(August 11, 2017 at 9:05 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote:

(August 11, 2017 at 8:56 pm)Succubus Wrote: How do you explain the fact that all living things on this planet share the same DNA?

I am a creationist. So as you might expect, I think the God who created used similar building blocks in the various kinds that were created.

Why would an omniscient and omnipotent being confine itself to one design format? Surely it would not require any 'extra effort' on God's part to make each organism's instruction format radically different, which would incidentally make common descent wildly implausible. Do you think God wants us to think all the organisms we've discovered so far are a product of common descent?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleogenetics#Evolution

---

(August 11, 2017 at 10:51 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote:

(August 11, 2017 at 10:50 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Unfortunately for R someone got to him before he was armed. The desire to want something to be true even if it is not is strong in our species.

Here, Brian, I will set you up for a good one.

Brian, you are wrong, as I did not become a Christian until I was 19.

You can thank me later.

You didn't learn anything about Christianity until you were 19? That's quite unusual, I'd love to hear the story behind that. Were your parents atheists?

---

(August 11, 2017 at 10:51 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote: Assuming this is true. Why do you suppose that is? (and I mean from an evolutionary point of view)

For a social species, the ability to reach consensus can be more important to reproductive success in many cases than whether the consensus is correct.

I have a syllogism for you.

1) If the atheists other than Brian who have participated in  this thread think that rjh4 is wrong on an argument, they will address rjh4's argument.

2) The atheists other than Brian who have participated in this thread have not addressed rjh4's argument that Brian is full of BS when he said: "Close proximity of individual atoms that by themselves are not a living thing, but because they bond like magnets exchanging electrons, that makes it very easy to go from non life to life."

3) Therefore, the atheists other than Brian who have participated in this thread think rjh4 is right in his argument that Brian is full of BS when he said: "Close proximity of individual atoms that by themselves are not a living thing, but because they bond like magnets exchanging electrons, that makes it very easy to go from non life to life."

What do you think?  Is it valid and sound?