(Split Topic) What would it take for you (a creationist) to...

[Happy Christian]

Atheism .....
The belief that in the beginning there was nothing and nothing happened to it. As a result nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically arranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self replicating bits which totally by chance turned into dinosaurs.

If this is your sense of logic then I think I'd rather stick to mine.

[Whitney]

Atheism .....
The belief that in the beginning there was nothing and nothing happened to it. As a result nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically arranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self replicating bits which totally by chance turned into dinosaurs.

If this is your sense of logic then I think I'd rather stick to mine.

I think you should go look up the definition of a strawman argument.

[Happy Christian]

Atheism .....
The belief that in the beginning there was nothing and nothing happened to it. As a result nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically arranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self replicating bits which totally by chance turned into dinosaurs.

If this is your sense of logic then I think I'd rather stick to mine.

I think you should go look up the definition of a strawman argument.

Not sure what you mean by "strawman argument" but the basic point I was trying to make is that ultimately we could only have gotten here by one of two methods - creation by a higher power or by pure chance. As Sherlock Holmes put it, "once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is (left no matter how improbable) is the truth".

I think the following quote shows where most evolutionists are coming from:

Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate, George Wald,
‘One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here- as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation… When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: Creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!’

[Whitney]

Not sure what you mean by "strawman argument"

That would be why I told you to look it up.  Hint, you built one in your previous post.

but the basic point I was trying to make is that ultimately we could only have gotten here by one of two methods - creation by a higher power or by pure chance. As Sherlock Holmes put it, "once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is (left no matter how improbable) is the truth".

Well, there is the third option that you are more than willing to apply to the higher power, that the natural state of things, the only way it could happen is for that higher power to exist.  This is an option for the universe too...maybe the natural state of things is for something to exist.  The 'higher power' could be a result of chance too...so I don't really see what your issue is with chance.

I prefer "I dont know" it's much more honest than pretending to have special knowledge related to the origins of the universe.

I think the following quote shows where most evolutionists are coming from:

I thought you were talking about the origins of the universe...that doesn't have anything to do with evolution.

[LoneMateria]

Not sure what you mean by "strawman argument" but the basic point I was trying to make is that ultimately we could only have gotten here by one of two methods - creation by a higher power or by pure chance. As Sherlock Holmes put it, "once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is (left no matter how improbable) is the truth".

We don't care about the basic point because its a straw man argument.  Oh and that poor argument you used can be applied to your own god ^_^.  

(Christianity) …the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree… makes perfect sense.

I think the following quote shows where most evolutionists are coming from:

*** Some quote from some non-biologist who has no understanding of evolution***

Before you reject evolution why don't you actually look at it.  From your posts it is obvious that you have no understanding of evolution and are just agreeing with whatever your pastor or priest is telling you.  There is an evolution for dummies book (not trying to be mean here i'm trying to be helpful) that is an excellent book for beginners who know little or nothing about evolution.  

Evolution is not a difficult concept to grasp.  Live evolved for billions of years through small changes ... the useful changes stuck around and the useless ones died off.  Natural selection is the opposite of random chance.  See isn't that simple?

[Ellainix]

Forget straw-man argument-look up Solid State Theory.

[Recusant]

Hello, and welcome to the Happy Atheist Forum, Happy Christian.

 

Atheism .....
The belief that in the beginning there was nothing and nothing happened to it. As a result nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically arranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self replicating bits which totally by chance turned into dinosaurs.

I'll forgo the sarcasm about the brilliant and original attempt at a definition of atheism.

 

url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism]Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary[/url]"]
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Instead I'd like to take a look at what you've written here, in the light of my understanding of current thinking on the subjects of cosmology and biology:

 

...in the beginning...

It's pretty clear that our universe, as we understand it, had a beginning, yes.  There are several theories about the origin of that beginning, but we don't now, and may possibly never will, know for sure what the "cause," if there was one, is.  You of course are welcome to say that "God did it."  There is no proof of this, however, so just like any other theory without proof, your idea remains just that.  Prove in a falsifiable way that God created the universe, and you will become quite famous.  Until then, your attempt to ridicule the simple admission that we don't know the answer to the question of the origin of the universe is ill founded and absurd.

 

...there was nothing and nothing happened to it.

There may be some theories of cosmology that more or less agree with this, but they are not any more valid than other theories that are in competition with them.  To say that this is how all cosmologists (or atheists) view this question is to display your ignorance of the subject.

 

As a result nothing magically exploded for no reason...

Here, you introduce the term "magically."  This has no basis at all.  There is no theory of scientific cosmology which uses magic.  In fact the one place where you will find magic is in theistic creation myths.  The term "exploded" is incorrect, according to current understanding, as well.  There seems to have been a very rapid expansion, but it was quite different than what we would understand by the word "explosion."  Also, there's a definite difference between "nothing" and a singularity, which is thought to be the beginning of this universe.

 

...a bunch of everything magically arranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self replicating bits which totally by chance turned into dinosaurs.

More magic?  Where did you get this idea?  Atheism repudiates magic.  If an atheist doesn't know exactly how something happened, then they'll say so.  You will search in vain for an atheist who believes that there is any such thing as magic.  The mechanisms of life's progression from cells to complex organisms are fairly well understood.  The element of chance is indeed a part of that progression, but it's only a small part of what we know to have happened.  What is not currently known is exactly how life first originated.  The subject is being actively investigated, however, and it's reasonable to expect that eventually there will be a good falsifiable theory that explains it.

If you don't mind, Happy Christian, I'd like to ask you a question.  Why did you join this forum?

[Squid]

Atheism .....
The belief that in the beginning there was nothing and nothing happened to it. As a result nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically arranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self replicating bits which totally by chance turned into dinosaurs.

If this is your sense of logic then I think I'd rather stick to mine.

I think you should go look up the definition of a strawman argument.

Not sure what you mean by "strawman argument" but the basic point I was trying to make is that ultimately we could only have gotten here by one of two methods - creation by a higher power or by pure chance. As Sherlock Holmes put it, "once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is (left no matter how improbable) is the truth".

Now it's time to look up "false dichotomy".

[SSY]

Atheism .....
The belief that in the beginning there was nothing and nothing happened to it. As a result nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically arranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self replicating bits which totally by chance turned into dinosaurs.

WELL DONE!!! YOU READ THE POSTER!!!!!

Moving on, to your quote.

One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here- as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation… When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: Creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!

This, as Squid rightly pointed out is a false dichotomy (clicking all the way over to wiki seems hard for you, so I will tell you that a false dichotomy is defined as presenting only two resolutions to a problem or question, when in fact, there may be more). There are also, other, insidious, snide, sneaky little things about this manipulative and obviously agenda laden soundbite that rankle me. The use of the term spontaneous generation, which is indeed a thoroughly disproved concept, foremost amongst my annoyances. Your chap (who went to Harvard, that must make him a paragon of virtue and truth, while simultaneously educating him in the finer points of syllogistic logic and abiogenic biology, right?) neglects to mention, that this particular hypothesis, posits that should one leave grain lying in a pot for days, then mice will spring forth from it, and that logs, when left in the sun, will transmute into crocodiles. This fanciful nonsense is indeed rubbish, and by equating abiogenesis, the modern, developing field of science, with this superstitious and fantastical twaddle, he reveals himself as a disingenuous and deceptive charlatan.

All modern abiogensis theories rely on life originating in tiny, simple, almost mechanical processes and agents, formed through the natural action of organic chemicals and their reactions. No one makes such brash, magical claims about something, which is clearly arrant tosh (except of course, the bible   ). This is the third way, the way of reason.

[Renegnicat]

See? This is why I don't come into this forum.

To quote a very good linguist: "We haven't thought that about transformational grammar in years! Get with the program, man, if you need a ride, we'll give it to you, just come into the next century."

transformational grammar == Origin.

[Will]

Hello, Happy Christian. Welome to the forum.

Atheism .....
The belief that...

I'm going to have to stop you right there. The "a" in "atheism" is derived from the Greek to mean "no, absence of, without, lack of, not". Atheism does not describe an active belief but a passive disbelief. An atheist is one that disbelieves or is unconvinced of the existence of god or gods. Nothing more. Everything else, the science, the logic, the Dawkins... those come after atheism.

In order to be atheist you are not required to understand or accept evolution. In order to be atheist you're not required to understand the big bang or the singularity. In order to be atheist you don't even have to believe that dinosaurs existed. The one and only thing you need to be an atheist is disbelief in god or gods. That's it.

[karadan]

Oh and that poor argument you used can be applied to your own god ^_^.  

(Christianity) …the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree… makes perfect sense.?  

Awesome.

[Happy Christian]

Before you reject evolution why don't you actually look at it.  From your posts it is obvious that you have no understanding of evolution and are just agreeing with whatever your pastor or priest is telling you.  There is an evolution for dummies book (not trying to be mean here i'm trying to be helpful) that is an excellent book for beginners who know little or nothing about evolution.  

Thanks for the advice but to be honest you're about as far from the truth as it could possibly be. I have an IQ of 151, a degree in astrophysics (albeit a long time ago!!) and my wife is college lecturer with a degree in general biology and a doctorate in biochemistry. Far from me simply agreeing with what my pastor says I insist on thinking for myself which is actually how I became a Christian in the first place. I wont give you the full story its too long but my doubts began when I read the excellent book, "The Facts of Life - Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" by Richard Milton. A particularly good book as Richard Milton at the time was not a Christian or Theist of any type but described himself as agnostic. I've read numerous other books on the subject since then (Christian and Atheist) and to be truthful the more I read the more convinced I become that neither the origin of the universe or life itself is anywhere near being explained by science and belief in God is more logical and fulfilling. As you so kindly recommended that I read "Evolution for Dummies" let me recommend one for you, "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel.

[Happy Christian]

Oh and that poor argument you used can be applied to your own god ^_^.  

(Christianity) …the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree… makes perfect sense.?  

Awesome.

Well it would be awesome if it actually had something to do with Christianity instead of sounding like the plot from a bad b-movie! As for Atheism not being a religion Buddhists are Atheists so presumably Buddhism isn't a religion?

[Whitney]

As for Atheism not being a religion Buddhists are Atheists so presumably Buddhism isn't a religion?

Don't try to pretend like you have an IQ of 151 then use the above poor logic.  Hint of the problem by example:  All cats are animals but not all animals are cats.