Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
I do not believe that God is an object to be defined and studied in a lab. But I still believe in the existence of God.

But you must give some definition for the word 'God' or you are talking nonsense. I think you are confusing the definition of a word, with somehow confining the entity described by that word. I have no problem with grey edged definitions, but no definition at all means the word is meaningless. How can you claim to believe something exists when you can say nothing whatsoever about what that something is? How do you know it is not the spaghetti monster, or a slice of toast? How can I affirm or deny its existence if you cannot tell me whether or not it is a slice of toast?

If science cannot accept this position,so be it.
This has nothing to do with science. It is about communication and logic.

As regards the 2 labels,they were defined by rwingett. Agnostic atheist means that he believes that God does not exist but he does not know if God does not exist. An atheist knows that God does not exist.
I would say I am probably an agnostic atheist, with the understanding that I am absolutely sure that God, as described by most religions I am aware of, does not exist.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you must give some definition for the word 'God' or you are talking nonsense. I think you are confusing the definition of a word, with somehow confining the entity described by that word. I have no problem with grey edged definitions, but no definition at all means the word is meaningless. How can you claim to believe something exists when you can say ...[text shortened]... t I am absolutely sure that God, as described by most religions I am aware of, does not exist.

"How can I affirm or deny it's existence.."

Because that is dualistic thinking.

"God" can only be understood for oneself,imo, any universal definition will be left impotent because of the limitations of language, for one thing.

I believe in God, but I would also hold someone like Black beetle's position totally valid where he says that there are no gods. There is more than one way to skin a cat

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are wrong my dear puttycat. There is much rational argument
against evolution. Even the DNA discoveries, as you pointed out, is
evidence of design and not evolution. You may not have seen the video
of Richard Dawkins, the self-proclaimed british authority on evolution
being stumped by a question on the proof of evolution that I posted the
link to earlier. It is not over until the fat lady sings, my dear.

It is you who is wrong, Mr Hinds. I have twice in this thread stated a widely accepted definition of precisely what evolution is, and this definition can be and has been (repeatedly) demonstrated to be true by genetic analysis. You may dispute the definition if you wish, but you would obviously be on shaky ground there since it is a definition coined by reputable biologists in a widely used textbook on the subject. And accepting the definition, you can only doubt evolution's existence by claiming some sort of global conspiracy on the part of 'science' to falsify data to support it. Such an argument would clearly be irrational

I also take issue with the use of the term 'self-proclaimed' which you use to slander Richard Dawkins. His credentials are available to check at your leisure and are quite beyond reproach, unlike those of the supposed scientists you choose to believe. He is not entirely temperate in his treatment of those who cling to irrational beliefs such as yourself, and I do therefore understand why some of his views would irritate you, but like it or not he is an extremely well qualified expert on the subject.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is definitely in the "less" category. No evolution there.
Only adaptation, my dear puttycat.

Yes, inheritable adaptation. That is pretty much what evolution is.

Edit: It appears to me that it is the idea of speciation consequent to evolution which you are really taking issue with. Let me ask you a question then which I have put to one of your fellow faithful before but still not received an answer - is a lion a 'type' according to the bible? Or how about a horse? Or did god create 'felines' and 'equines' which, over the course of the 10,000 years you believe have elapsed since creation, have 'adapted' into their various species?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Yes, inheritable adaptation. That is pretty much what evolution is.

Edit: It appears to me that it is the idea of speciation consequent to evolution which you are really taking issue with. Let me ask you a question then which I have put to one of your fellow faithful before but still not received an answer - is a lion a 'type' according to the bib ears you believe have elapsed since creation, have 'adapted' into their various species?

i think a more pertinent question to ask is, does it allow wholesale transmutation from fish to humans!

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Yes, inheritable adaptation. That is pretty much what evolution is.

Edit: It appears to me that it is the idea of speciation consequent to evolution which you are really taking issue with. Let me ask you a question then which I have put to one of your fellow faithful before but still not received an answer - is a lion a 'type' according to the bib ...[text shortened]... ears you believe have elapsed since creation, have 'adapted' into their various species?

There is a pretty good discussion of "kind" at http://www.creationfaq.net/

Of course this may not be what RJ subscribes to in terms of beliefs about "kind."

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
I do not believe that God is an object to be defined and studied in a lab. But I still believe in the existence of God. If science cannot accept this position,so be it. As regards the 2 labels,they were defined by rwingett. Agnostic atheist means that he believes that God does not exist but he does not know if God does not exist. An atheist knows that God does not exist.

An atheist knows that God does not exist

No they don't. No atheist who participates on this forum will make that claim.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i think a more pertinent question to ask is, does it allow wholesale transmutation from fish to humans!

What do you mean by 'wholesale transmutation'? If you mean can fish evolve into humans, well, in 10,000 years, no, I don't think they could. In four and half billion years, of course! They could evolve into reptiles, birds, mammals, humans, hell, all sorts of stuff. And all without magic.

Originally posted by JS357
There is a pretty good discussion of "kind" at http://www.creationfaq.net/

Of course this may not be what RJ subscribes to in terms of beliefs about "kind."

I had a quick glance at this site. Am I really arguing with people who accept this sort of garbage in preference to modern science? Good grief...

🙄

Originally posted by Proper Knob
No, because they and i will provide links to corroborate their/our claims.

That's the difference.

Links to corroborate an untruth is useless to me. There are many people
that agree with me on evolution, so I don't need to provide any links that
say the same thing I am saying. My word should be good enough and
if you want to see the same thing written by someone else, I am sure
that you can find that easily enough, probably by just googling it.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
It is you who is wrong, Mr Hinds. I have twice in this thread stated a widely accepted definition of precisely what evolution is, and this definition can be and has been (repeatedly) demonstrated to be true by genetic analysis. You may dispute the definition if you wish, but you would obviously be on shaky ground there since it is a definition coined ...[text shortened]... d irritate you, but like it or not he is an extremely well qualified expert on the subject.

Your definition is very limiting and does not encompass the true idea
meant by theory of evolution. The repeated demonstrations that you
refer to only show that God has programed information into His creations
to allow for adaptation; it does not demonstrate the evolution from one
kind of creature to another totally different kind of creature. And I do
not recall claiming some type of gobal conspiracy to falsify data in science.
They are simply indoctinated to believe what they are doing is science.

Richard Dawkins did not appear to be a well qualified expert on that video
I posted the link to did he? Unless you think he is well quaulified to make
up lies about evolution. He is definitely no scientist. He is too afraid to
debate someone that does have credentials beyond reproach from the
other side of the argument because he knows his book "The God Delusion"
can not stand up to real scrutiny.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i think a more pertinent question to ask is, does it allow wholesale transmutation from fish to humans!

A horse is a horse, is a horse, of course, of course.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]An atheist knows that God does not exist

No they don't. No atheist who participates on this forum will make that claim.[/b]

Then such posters,who believe that God does not exist but do not KNOW that he does not exist will be classified as agnostic atheists,as per rwingett. Agnostic atheist is a more sensible and humbler poster.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Then such posters,who believe that God does not exist but do not KNOW that he does not exist will be classified as agnostic atheists,as per rwingett. Agnostic atheist is a more sensible and humbler poster.

It is hard to believe but maybe a little progress is being made.
What do you think?

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is hard to believe but maybe a little progress is being made.
What do you think?

Yes,indeed.Proper Knob and twhithead have resiled a bit from their hard stand.Now they imply that they are agnostic atheists.