To all the creationists denying evolution ....

Originally posted by twhitehead
But if you accept the possibility that:
1. God might not be sane.
2. God might not be all knowing.
3. God might not be good.
and so on, then there is the possibility that God might not let you into heaven or heaven might not be all its made out to be. And that defeats the whole purpose of believing in God.
As I have often heard Christians say "I wouldn't believe in a God who....."

Which starts you towards the slippery slope of atheism doesn't it. That's certainly where I ended up.

If you accept the supernatural then you can pretty much accept anything ...

Originally posted by amannion
Which starts you towards the slippery slope of atheism doesn't it. That's certainly where I ended up.

If you accept the supernatural then you can pretty much accept anything ...

... like the documentory of the Flintstone Family like KellyJay... 🙄

Originally posted by amannion
I don't believe the evidence points to anyone or anything behaving rationally.
I think the weight of evidence points to there being no god, no fairies, no ghosts, no easter bunnies, no vampires, ... nothing of any sort of supernatural bent at all.

But again, my point is, if you actually did believe in that nonsense then there is no reason to accept that ...[text shortened]... of science or in any other sane way - it's a supernatural being, it can do whatever it wants.

evidence points to there being no god
actually, this is wrong. there is no such evidence. there is no evidence to support god's existence either, which is why, from a scientific point of view, god does not exist. Like Leibniz said, "i had not need for the god hypothesis in my theories". (it is paraphrased, slightly changed, but the meaning is there.). Science cannot make a god powered machine without proving god exists. Faith has no such restrictions. You can believe in the flying spaghetti monster if it makes you happy.

of course god can do whatever he wants, but not because he is supernatural, but because he(or she) is a rational, self-conscious being. We are rational self-conscious beings. We can smear ourselves with honey and run naked through the town hall. We choose not to however. Because it is stupid. I am not making god act in any way. But given that we have the universe as evidence of a well thought, self-sufficient, evolving mechanism, i would say that it is illogical to think god made the universe as it is described in the genesis and then changed it to what we see today. sure, he could have. but to use it bears no more significance than would an actor rehearsing his lines naked in his dressing room while painted red and making weird facen and then going on stage and giving a wonderful performance, clean and fully dressed in his costume.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
... like the documentory of the Flintstone Family like KellyJay... 🙄

the discovery channel had stopped airing that. and just when wilma was about to show us how to properly iron shirts using extinct animals.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
evidence points to there being no god
actually, this is wrong. there is no such evidence. there is no evidence to support god's existence either, which is why, from a scientific point of view, god does not exist.

How many times must I say this? I am sure you have heard me say it before. There is plenty of evidence for and against the existence of God. Whether you find that evidence convincing is another matter.
There is even more evidence for or against the various material in the Bible such as Jesus' resurrection or even Jesus' existence.
The pretense that there is no evidence either way is simply avoidance - usually because you know that the evidence points in a direction that you are not comfortable with.

Originally posted by twhitehead
How many times must I say this? I am sure you have heard me say it before. There is plenty of evidence for and against the existence of God. Whether you find that evidence convincing is another matter.
There is even more evidence for or against the various material in the Bible such as Jesus' resurrection or even Jesus' existence.
The pretense that ther ...[text shortened]... ly because you know that the evidence points in a direction that you are not comfortable with.

that is simply a lie.

you cannot prove or disprove god
you can only claim god is not needed. and from a scientific point of view, god is nonexistent until proven otherwise. but to say that jesus did not resurrect and that you have proof about it is a blatant lie.

to say that genesis didn't happen the way it is described in the bible because you have proof is not a lie because you actually do have proof. and the fact that god is almighty and he could create the universe as he likes and then make it "appear" to be 15 billion years and make it "appear" as if evolution happened is unnecessary. one could claim that the carriers of gravitational force are pink fluffy unicorns but that one is not making science. nor am i when i claim that god exists. neither are you when you claim that you have proof god doesn't exists.