Can God love? (Part 1)

Some people laugh at creationists for one reason only, they are ignorant of the facts.

Some people laugh at creationists for one reason only, they are both equally dismissive of the facts which do not fit their respective arguments.

The problem is that creationists don't have facts. They have faith and belief and that is all they have. If they had hard evidence it would appear in a peer reviewed journal, the experiments would be reproducible by anyone. The fact that not one creation scientist has ever had one paper appear in recognised scientific journal ought to tell you something.

Why did God give rhythm to the African people?

Because He realised his faux pas over the hair.

Some people laugh at creationists for one reason only, they are both equally dismissive of the facts which do not fit their respective arguments..

Care to supply the facts of creationism that are being dismissed ?

I will wait here.

The problem is that creationists don't have facts. They have faith and belief and that is all they have

snowyflake. That point is well demonstrated by an astonishing oxymoron that appears in the standard burial service used in the UK, dating from the 1662 version of the Book of Common Prayer. It talks of “sure and certain hope” (of a resurrection). How on earth can 'hope' ever be either 'sure' or 'certain'?

Hi Ivan!

That is a very good question. Believers are 'sure' and 'certain' about God.
Something they've never seen, heard (unless they are in the asylum), touched, smelt or tasted. Something that cannot be tested, does not have a chemical or biological configuration, yet it is demanded by believers that we non-believers believe them because they speak the TRUTH. How the hell do they know?

Hope you are well, Ivan. Nice to see you here. Take care.

Still waiting ?

Was my question relevant to your post or the thread topic ?

The silence is deafening.

Some people laugh at creationists for one reason only, they are both equally dismissive of the facts which do not fit their respective arguments.

I have to agree with Tosh.

What facts are non-believers dismissing, exactly?

This is indicative of, perhaps, the single-most greatest fatal error that believers make. They believe that a debate of science vs. superstition has actual merit. They believe that the opinion of the scientifically uneducated carries the same weight as a scientific expert and thus the world at large should treat the statements of both sides equally.

That is pure and utter rubbish. That's why I go to a doctor when I'm sick, not my accountant, auto mechanic, or Wal-Mart clerk. A doctor understands medicine whereas the others do not. So why should I believe the scientific opinions of Creationists with a degree in law (Kent Hovind) or a degree in economics (Ben Stein) over 95% of scientists all of whom have degrees in genetics, zoology, molecular biology, biology, and so forth?

If I want to know all about quantum mechanics, I do not consult an economist or a lawyer ... but that's EXACTLy what Creationists do. If the REAL scientific community accepted Creationism, then Creationists wouldn't have to appeal to unqualified people.

Ergo, what it all boils down to is that non-believers aren't necessarily dismissing creationist "facts" but calling Creationists to the carpet for their consistent misrepresenting scientific fact or simply getting it straight-up wrong.

A really over-used example of this is how Creationists keep pushing the idea that evolution addresses the origin of life. It doesn't ... and even though we keep saying it doesn't over and over and over again, what do Creationists keep saying? Take a wild guess.

Failing to entertain information that is misleading or flagrantly wrong is not being closed-minded or dismissive, and bad information stemming from a religious perspective does NOT give religion a free pass to be scientifically bogus. No one would accuse someone of being closed-minded by not accepting the "fact" that 1 + 1 = 3, so it seems nonsensical to accuse a non-believer of being "closed-minded" if we don't accept scientifically impossible scenarios like the earth being surrounded by an ice shield above the atmosphere 800km thick.

Even religious people don't have to be THAT stupid to believe in their faith.

But ... even if Creationists wanted to believe idiotic things like mom and dad each splitting their DNA strands in order to reproduce, I personally wouldn't care if they kept it to themselves or lived in happy ignorance sharing it with their family, clan, church, or whatever. But when they want to introduce their idiocy as educational policy within our schools or spout this crap to children at "Jesus Camps," I get a bit irate. Nothing is going to change how I feel about that.

Shirina,

The creationist argument is simple, they do not accept the authority of science, a bunch of unqualified self appointed judges pretending they have a scientific case against the consensus.

It is a delusion in every sense of the world, and their amateurish attempts to legitimise their position borders on the hysterical, these people really believe they have a right to cherry pick which parts of science to accept or reject ?

1.Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.
Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSE n.d.). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science.

Polyglide and Texas reject evolution, both are not scientists in the relevant field and 99.9% of scientists in the relevant field accept evolution, and then some have the gall to state they have spent decades seeking the truth. They then have the audacity to try and use science to justify their disbelief but 99.9% of science believes ?

Now that is funny, whose truth are they interested in ?

I scratch my head at the flat earth/evolution analogy repeated on here like some verbal tic, a belief based on no evidence is compared to a belief based on evidence ? If there is an analogy it is one that demonstrates the importance of basing ones belief on evidence, and not intuition or subjective perceptions.

In addition, they are encouraging fellow creationist groups to adopt an aggressive combat style of leadership and help proliferate new creation evangelism and internet evangelism groups.[4]

LINK

This shit has to end.

There must be shed loads of money available for this to prosper.

How do you get the cash out of the loop?

(My half stomach finds that link churningly disgusting!)

Another absolute cracker is the creationist claim that life breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics ?

Oh really, then why do the world's Physicists not think so ?

I don't care if some religious nutter thinks it does, he is not qualified to make these claims.

How do you get the cash out of the loop?

I really wish I knew. Any move to do so would probably result in church groups going ape over losing their freedoms.

I wonder when the evolutionists will realise that if there was conclusive evidence of evolution there would be no debate, just as there is every proof of creation if one looks around and considers the alternatives and this should end the debate, however, lets get on with it and see how much dafter the evolutionists can get.

I wonder when the evolutionists will realise that if there was conclusive evidence of evolution there would be no debate

That's utter nonsense. I said in another post that religious tyranny is the most dangerous kind because it deals in unchangeable absolutes. THAT is why there will always be a debate. No amount of evidence will sway religious devotees from their unalterable views. Incorrect beliefs have to be weeded out over the course of generations. It's not as though the Church and religion in general instantly agreed with Galileo's heliocentric solar system. It took awhile for geocentrism to be kicked to the curb ... and even now, there are crackpots who STILL hang on to geocentrism out of simple stubbornness.

just as there is every proof of creation if one looks around and considers the alternatives

What other alternatives? A surgically selective belief in magic? No thanks.

I wonder when the evolutionists will realise that if there was conclusive evidence of evolution there would be no debate, just as there is every proof of creation if one looks around and considers the alternatives and this should end the debate, however, lets get on with it and see how much dafter the evolutionists can get..

You are a wind up troll, neither science nor I care about your unqualified opinion, there is no debate about evolution except in the minds of unqualified people, 99.9% of qualified scientists accept evolution and reject creationism.