Creation Answer Book

Originally posted by googlefudge
oh good grief... look ill give a longer post later, but, and I have said this several times before...

First, and I don't seem to be able to say this often enough for it to sink in.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT NO GOD EXISTS.

I DON'T CLAIM TO KNOW NO GOD EXISTS.

I SIMPLY DON'T HAVE A BELIEF THAT A GOD EXISTS.

Is that clear enough for you to underst ...[text shortened]... gion.
And I have no faith, in anything.

Ill post more tomorrow.

If you don't belief in religion and don't believe in evolution either, you make a well argument towards evolution thus most people will assume you being an evolutionist. You probably get this misunderstanding a lot I guess but the way you support it can not be guessed.

Then, I don't see any reason why I need to continue discussing evolution with another which doesn't believe in it ether.

Originally posted by JS357
This is why I call myself a non-theist.

The prefix a- means not or non. so atheist literally means non-theist or not-theist.

Originally posted by Nicksten
If you don't belief in religion and don't believe in evolution either, you make a well argument towards evolution thus most people will assume you being an evolutionist. You probably get this misunderstanding a lot I guess but the way you support it can not be guessed.

Then, I don't see any reason why I need to continue discussing evolution with another which doesn't believe in it ether.

That's right and what is the need for him to accept something he claims he
doesn't believe in for the evolutionist are not threatening him with some kind
of punishment for not believing are they?

Originally posted by Nicksten
If you don't belief in religion and don't believe in evolution either, you make a well argument towards evolution thus most people will assume you being an evolutionist. You probably get this misunderstanding a lot I guess but the way you support it can not be guessed.

Then, I don't see any reason why I need to continue discussing evolution with another which doesn't believe in it ether.

There is a difference between believing in something, and accepting something as true based on strong supported evidence.

I accept 2+2=4 as fact. I don't believe 2+2=4.

Belief is like faith (although faith is a lot stronger). You don't have evidence for it, but you assume it to be the case anyway.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That's right and what is the need for him to accept something he claims he
doesn't believe in for the evolutionist are not threatening him with some kind
of punishment for not believing are they?

I accept that evolutionary theory is the best current explanation of how the diversity of life
developed on this planet and is still going on today and is observed to be going on today.
I accept that the process of evolution happens, this has been observed and is indisputable.
I accept that the process of evolution adequately and completely explains the development
of life on this planet from simple proto-life to the complex multicellular life we have today.

I don't 'believe' in evolution, it isn't a religion, or god, it's a scientific theory that must be and
is constantly tested and refined to account for and explain the evidence and observations we
make.


There is no such thing as an evolutionist. This is a figment of creationist whakjobs imaginations.
It is not a real word, and applies to nobody.

I accept evolution because it is a logical inevitability that life forms that reproduce through
imperfect copying of DNA will evolve and that this is backed up by all the available evidence and
is in conflict with no evidence or observation ever made.

I accept evolution as being true to the very best of our current ability to test it's veracity but as
all science theories must be it is and should be constantly tested and challenged and refined and
should not be held as irrefutable 'truth' because no theory ever can be.

This is a complicated idea that I can see you are struggling with, but [you*] don't believe in science
or scientific theories. You accept them if the evidence supports it until such a time as the evidence
doesn't support them and supports something else.
There may be a time when evidence arises that disproves evolutionary theory as we know it today.
At which point evolutionary theory would either have to be modified or discarded and replaced with
something else.
But that something else would have to make exactly the same predictions for the observations and
evidence we already have and have made while also explaining the new observations and evidence.
This new theory would not be creationism and can never be creationism because creationism makes
no predictions and is not falsifiable.

EDIT:
* this is the royal you as it were, talking about people in general as opposed to the you earlier in the
sentence which applied to RJHinds and Nicksten. I apologise for the ambiguity.

Originally posted by lausey
There is a difference between [b]believing in something, and accepting something as true based on strong supported evidence.

I accept 2+2=4 as fact. I don't believe 2+2=4.

Belief is like faith (although faith is a lot stronger). You don't have evidence for it, but you assume it to be the case anyway.[/b]

I for one will not accept something unless I believe it to be true.

P.S. I believe 2+2=4.
I have evidence for my faith. I don't assume it. I know it.
😏

Originally posted by lausey
There is a difference between [b]believing in something, and accepting something as true based on strong supported evidence.

I accept 2+2=4 as fact. I don't believe 2+2=4.

Belief is like faith (although faith is a lot stronger). You don't have evidence for it, but you assume it to be the case anyway.[/b]

I think you can believe something based on having reasonable evidence and justification for doing so.
[edit: you are just not required to have a justification for a belief as opposed to a knowledge claim]

And I think it can be applied to believing certain facts are true, although that then bumps up to a
personal knowledge claim, but that's a separate argument.


However a theory is a scientific explanation of a set of facts and/or laws that makes testable predictions
and is falsifiable.
And you don't believe in theories, because they are never ever assumed to be wholly and completely true,
even if there is no evidence that currently disagrees with the theory, or observation it should explain but
doesn't.

This is why theories are constantly tested and checked and not believed in but accepted as the current
best explanation available.


Also in term of word use while you could make the argument that you could believe that 2 + 2 = 4 ...
you wouldn't use the term believe you would instead say know or accept as believe is not the important
or operative word.
Certainly if you did say believe you would not mean the same thing (or anything even remotely similar) to
what someone means if they claim to believe in god.
Claiming an equivalency here is idiotic, and trivially demonstrably untrue.

In these circumstances belief is the wrong word describing an incorrect pattern of thought and thus I don't use it.
This isn't a difference in semantics, but of meaning.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I accept that evolutionary theory is the best current explanation of how the diversity of life
developed on this planet and is still going on today and is observed to be going on today.
I accept that the process of evolution happens, this has been observed and is indisputable.
I accept that the process of evolution adequately and completely explains ...[text shortened]... n the
sentence which applied to RJHinds and Nicksten. I apologise for the ambiguity.

I accept that God exists because it is true. It is not a theory.
It is the truth. 😏

Originally posted by googlefudge
I think you can believe something based on having reasonable evidence and justification for doing so.
[edit: you are just not required to have a justification for a belief as opposed to a knowledge claim]

And I think it can be applied to believing certain facts are true, although that then bumps up to a
personal knowledge claim, but that's a separa ...[text shortened]... of thought and thus I don't use it.
This isn't a difference in semantics, but of meaning.

Fair point.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I accept that God exists because it is true. It is not a theory.
It is the truth. 😏

Surprisingly you actually got one out of three right...
God's existence isn't a theory...

Originally posted by googlefudge
Surprisingly you actually got one out of three right...
God's existence isn't a theory...

Who made you the judge of what is right or wrong?
It can only be self appointed because of your arrogance in thinking
you know better than others.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Who made you the judge of what is right or wrong?
It can only be self appointed because of your arrogance in thinking
you know better than others.

Says the man who claims to know that god exists. and that the entire scientific community is wrong.
Pot. Kettle. Black.

To claim knowledge (truth) you have to be able to demonstrate that what you know is true.
You manifestly can't and have not demonstrated that your god exists and thus you can't claim it's true.

You have no idea what I am thinking or how I think.
You demonstrate this by getting it wrong every single time you try, you would have thought you would
have stopped guessing what I think by now given your spectacular 100% failure rate at it.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Says the man who claims to know that god exists. and that the entire scientific community is wrong.
Pot. Kettle. Black.

To claim knowledge (truth) you have to be able to demonstrate that what you know is true.
You manifestly can't and have not demonstrated that your god exists and thus you can't claim it's true.

You have no idea what I am thinkin ...[text shortened]... d
have stopped guessing what I think by now given your spectacular 100% failure rate at it.

I think your denial is a coverup to try to play down my 100% success rate.
😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I think your denial is a coverup to try to play down my 100% success rate.
😏

And I sometimes wonder if you are not a 12 year old pretending.

As somebody (claiming to be) drawing a pension you come across as exceedingly childish.

The smugness emoticon on the end of every post to me? really?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Reread the following paragraph from my previous post and explain why this
is all happening, if it is not due to the second law of thermodynamics.

The rotation of the earth is slowing; the magnetic field of the earth is
decaying. Erosion constantly wears down the features of the earth. Our bodies
wear out; we die and decay to a pile of dust. Our house ...[text shortened]... m/53979/when-will-the-sun-burn-out/

I will accept your apology anytime with no hard feelings.

What do you mean the sun is losing its energy? It's only 6000 years old. You know that.