Author Topic: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)  (Read 12329 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jtk73

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 157
  • Darwins +13/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #406 on: December 10, 2013, 02:56:00 PM »
* If yes to above, does your God grant free will?

* If yes to above, what would your God do in response to human decisions and actions that cause suffering?

Just a thought here. If a being is powerful enough to create an entire universe (not saying, MM, that you necessarily consider Yahweh to be that powerful), this being could literally shape everything. A being that powerful could completely dis-allow the very concept of murder/rape/<insert harmful act here> from ever existing. A child grows up and for whatever reason becomes a sociopath. Some one rubs him/her the wrong way. Murder as a concept or thought or even the word itself does not and cannot exist. He/she is still left with options of possible actions to take, just none that cause serious harm. Actions that cause suffering are reduced or even removed but free will still exists.

Maybe I'm way off base here.


Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6598
  • Darwins +787/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #407 on: December 10, 2013, 04:12:15 PM »
^^^ You're not off base at all jkt. And it makes no sense that a product of a god could be so intellectually and morally superior to the god itself. "Supreme Being" kind of indicates superiority, and if he's not very good at it, may that is an indication that he doesn't exist at all.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4654
  • Darwins +106/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #408 on: December 10, 2013, 09:21:44 PM »
* If yes to above, does your God grant free will?

* If yes to above, what would your God do in response to human decisions and actions that cause suffering?

Just a thought here. If a being is powerful enough to create an entire universe (not saying, MM, that you necessarily consider Yahweh to be that powerful), this being could literally shape everything. A being that powerful could completely dis-allow the very concept of murder/rape/<insert harmful act here> from ever existing. A child grows up and for whatever reason becomes a sociopath. Some one rubs him/her the wrong way. Murder as a concept or thought or even the word itself does not and cannot exist. He/she is still left with options of possible actions to take, just none that cause serious harm. Actions that cause suffering are reduced or even removed but free will still exists.

Maybe I'm way off base here.
For God to be all powerful ommni-max being the theists hold him up to be,they sure have to ignore large parts of the writings about said deity
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #409 on: December 12, 2013, 07:21:16 PM »

MM, you give away some now, but agree you could do more.  If YOUR resources were limitless, what would stop YOU from feeding all the starving, all the time?

I don't know, because I can't assume that just because my resources were unlimited, some other circumstance might not exist to prevent me from doing that.

You've missed the point entirely. Having limitless resources (like this alleged God has) means that there would be no circumstances holding you back! Is it actually possible for you to be honest about this question? What circumstances can you possibly imagine would prevent you from ending world hunger if you had unlimited resources at your disposal? Think about what was just said - unlimited resources (unending life, health, wealth, prosperity, etc). Can you honestly say that you do-not-know if you would help people if you had such resources? Have you EVER helped anybody? It's quite surprising to see you make those claims since you claim to be a follower of Christ. But perhaps you're not actually a Christian. I'm sure you can see why many of us view this as nothing but an obfuscation to save your theology from refutation.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4654
  • Darwins +106/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #410 on: December 12, 2013, 10:42:19 PM »
Median maybe the fact that he would only feed those who worship him(much like his God) could be a factor? Like said God he only has an interest in those who have an interest in him and not the people who actually need the help?
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3948
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #411 on: December 13, 2013, 08:12:05 AM »
Median maybe the fact that he would only feed those who worship him(much like his God) could be a factor? Like said God he only has an interest in those who have an interest in him and not the people who actually need the help?

of course that would bring up the question of the distinct lack of manna falling onto Aushwitz.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4654
  • Darwins +106/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #412 on: December 13, 2013, 10:30:42 AM »
Median maybe the fact that he would only feed those who worship him(much like his God) could be a factor? Like said God he only has an interest in those who have an interest in him and not the people who actually need the help?

of course that would bring up the question of the distinct lack of manna falling onto Aushwitz.
There are so many examples of this "god" and his lack of "manna"
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Shaffy

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
  • Darwins +8/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Im A Realist ;)
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #413 on: December 13, 2013, 11:26:36 AM »
Skeptic,

Ever been laid?

-Nam

 :laugh: :laugh: Dying right now... +1

-Shaffy
We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it.

~ParkingPlaces

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #414 on: December 13, 2013, 11:39:24 AM »
Wasn't this supposed to be THE thread where Skep answers people's questions? But all we get are half baked incomplete answers, post-and-runs, and obfuscations. What gives? For a professing Jesus follower this guy certainly is dishonest as they come.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Shaffy

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
  • Darwins +8/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Im A Realist ;)
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #415 on: December 13, 2013, 12:14:07 PM »
Skeptic,

Ever been laid?

-Nam

Yes, Nam. I discussed this in my other threads. I was a wild one back in the day before I came to Christ. Now, I am celibate by choice until I get married.

Nothing but Jesus could have changed my life. There's no reason to change if there's no God. God is obviously real. There's absolutely no feeling the world like the Holy Spirit flowing through you. Once someone experiences this, no amount of rational argument can dissuade you from the Eternal King.

What was his name?

-Nam

Didnt see this one.... :laugh: Your on a roll

-Shaffy
We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it.

~ParkingPlaces

Offline penfold

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 681
  • Darwins +63/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • ...buzz buzz buzz...
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #416 on: December 13, 2013, 01:06:23 PM »
Skeptic,

Ever been laid?

-Nam

Yes, Nam. I discussed this in my other threads. I was a wild one back in the day before I came to Christ. Now, I am celibate by choice until I get married.

Nothing but Jesus could have changed my life. There's no reason to change if there's no God. God is obviously real. There's absolutely no feeling the world like the Holy Spirit flowing through you. Once someone experiences this, no amount of rational argument can dissuade you from the Eternal King.

What was his name?

-Nam

Didnt see this one.... :laugh: Your on a roll

-Shaffy


Yeah you go Nam! Maybe he's a virgin - maybe he's gay. Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo funny! That's why I'm a heterosexual & a sexually active person. Imagine how embarrassed I'd be if that weren't true. I bet that's what skeptic54768 feels like - really embarrassed. And totally defeated. We all know he's wrong because he's either a virgin or gay! Yeah! ... Stupid gay virgin!

And well done Shaffy, good job on the thread. Really contributing to the whole gay virgin thing. Yeah! You go Shaffy!

Have I mentioned how funny this is.

wow...

fucking funny...

Yeah!

 
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away." - P.K.D.

Online Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2112
  • Darwins +132/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #417 on: December 13, 2013, 05:19:55 PM »
Out of curiosity, does anyone know if skeptic has admitted he was wrong or conceded any points on this forum?
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2752
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #418 on: December 13, 2013, 08:42:28 PM »
Wasn't this supposed to be THE thread where Skep answers people's questions? But all we get are half baked incomplete answers, post-and-runs, and obfuscations. What gives? For a professing Jesus follower this guy certainly is dishonest as they come.

No, he's not dishonest, because he is too dishonest to engage with any inquiry which would result in him being proven dishonest.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1338
  • Darwins +100/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #419 on: December 13, 2013, 11:14:23 PM »
There's absolutely no feeling the world like the Holy Spirit flowing through you. Once someone experiences this, no amount of rational argument can dissuade you from the Eternal King.

emphasis added.

that is ABSOLULTEY FALSE.  I felt the holy spirit flow through me as a teenager; I vividly recall the incredible feeling of euphoria and peace.

I have come to learn, years later, that it was exactly that--a feeling, brought on by the situation (a form of group hypnosis + months of preparation and anticipation -->release).  I have come to learn that I can, with enough effort, elicit a similar state of altered consciousness if I so choose.

I was a True Christian.  I have learned enough that now I'm an atheist.  Your arguments and observations really aren't convincing.
It's one of the reasons I'm an atheist today.  I decided to take my religion seriously, and that's when it started to fall apart for me.
~jdawg70

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #420 on: December 13, 2013, 11:21:09 PM »
Isn't it obvious?

You were not a true christian, that is why you are an atheist 9_9.

I hate hand waving arguments...
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline Jonny-UK

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 356
  • Darwins +31/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #421 on: December 15, 2013, 06:54:19 AM »

There is no evidence of anything older than 6,000-10,000 years old.
Apart from moving your goalposts from 6000 years to 10,000 years when archaeology proves the biblical dated creation wrong, you also have this little problem.

You can see this with your own eyes. Light takes 2.5 million years to reach your eyes from the andromeda galaxy. No doubt you agree with that other guy that your god is a liar and light has not taken so long to reach your eyes.
No, that isn't evidence. Ever heard of in situ? That's how God created the light. It's the exact same thing as God creating Adam and he looks 25 years old even though he is 0 years old.
God makes it so simple for us to comprehend.
This is from another thread but I think it should be asked here.
Something about your reply Skeptic just does not add up for me.
If your god created everything between 6 and 10 thousand years ago then why not have all the information we can observe point to that fact?
Why did he not ensure that all carbon dating, for example, would only ever max out at 10,000 years?
Why have a universe larger than 10,000 light years?
It would seem that god deliberately wants people to not believe in him by leaving proof that the bible he instructed is wrong. Why would he do that ?
If he does exist he is deliberately trying to show he does not.
Could you perhaps shed some light on this Skeptic?
"Do I look like someone who cares what god thinks" - pinhead

Offline Jonny-UK

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 356
  • Darwins +31/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #422 on: December 15, 2013, 07:49:44 AM »
A system, by definition, denotes intelligence behind it.
You're making things up again. Give me a link to your definition. What are you using, Merriam-Webster?
The onus is on you to describe a system without intelligence. Every job I have ever worked had a system they used ad they taught me the system.
Should I assume the system was created without intelligence?
flipping burden of proof, your argument is invalid
No, my argument is based on empiricism. I see systems created using intelligence. The universe is a majorly complex system, as is the human body. This means it's only logical that intelligence is responsible for the universe and everything in it.
Logic and empiricism are 2 gifts from God that we can use to deduce his existence. The problem is that a lot of atheists try to turn it around against God.
But the facts show that empiricism and logic prove God's existence.
Just an additional point to my post above.
"Do I look like someone who cares what god thinks" - pinhead

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12663
  • Darwins +332/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #423 on: December 22, 2013, 01:17:36 PM »
Yeah you go Nam! Maybe he's a virgin - maybe he's gay. Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo funny! That's why I'm a heterosexual & a sexually active person. Imagine how embarrassed I'd be if that weren't true. I bet that's what skeptic54768 feels like - really embarrassed. And totally defeated. We all know he's wrong because he's either a virgin or gay! Yeah! ... Stupid gay virgin!

And well done Shaffy, good job on the thread. Really contributing to the whole gay virgin thing. Yeah! You go Shaffy!

Have I mentioned how funny this is.

wow...

fucking funny...

Yeah!

 


Don't add me to that. My response was based on his (skeptic's) stupidity, Shaffy, well, he's probably an actual child (compared to you and I).

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2726
  • Darwins +53/-443
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #424 on: December 22, 2013, 01:23:17 PM »

There is no evidence of anything older than 6,000-10,000 years old.
Apart from moving your goalposts from 6000 years to 10,000 years when archaeology proves the biblical dated creation wrong, you also have this little problem.

You can see this with your own eyes. Light takes 2.5 million years to reach your eyes from the andromeda galaxy. No doubt you agree with that other guy that your god is a liar and light has not taken so long to reach your eyes.
No, that isn't evidence. Ever heard of in situ? That's how God created the light. It's the exact same thing as God creating Adam and he looks 25 years old even though he is 0 years old.
God makes it so simple for us to comprehend.
This is from another thread but I think it should be asked here.
Something about your reply Skeptic just does not add up for me.
If your god created everything between 6 and 10 thousand years ago then why not have all the information we can observe point to that fact?
Why did he not ensure that all carbon dating, for example, would only ever max out at 10,000 years?
Why have a universe larger than 10,000 light years?
It would seem that god deliberately wants people to not believe in him by leaving proof that the bible he instructed is wrong. Why would he do that ?
If he does exist he is deliberately trying to show he does not.
Could you perhaps shed some light on this Skeptic?

No.

As I have explained, if someone were to examine Adam when God created him, they would say, "Male, about 25 years old." But, this would be wrong because Adam would technically be 1 minute old but he would APPEAR to be 25 years old.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3615
  • Darwins +119/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #425 on: December 22, 2013, 01:25:51 PM »
No.

As I have explained, if someone were to examine Adam when God created him, they would say, "Male, about 25 years old." But, this would be wrong because Adam would technically be 1 minute old but he would APPEAR to be 25 years old.

So you're suggesting that when your supergod created everything he also created it with light already in transit between stars?
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2726
  • Darwins +53/-443
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #426 on: December 22, 2013, 01:28:53 PM »
No.

As I have explained, if someone were to examine Adam when God created him, they would say, "Male, about 25 years old." But, this would be wrong because Adam would technically be 1 minute old but he would APPEAR to be 25 years old.

So you're suggesting that when your supergod created everything he also created it with light already in transit between stars?

Yes, Adam could see the stars right away.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3615
  • Darwins +119/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #427 on: December 22, 2013, 08:04:03 PM »
How do you know the universe wasn't created 1 second ago?
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3948
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #428 on: December 22, 2013, 08:28:45 PM »
How do you know the universe wasn't created 1 second ago?

or at least last Thursday starting with a Mountain and a Midget.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline OldChurchGuy

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1555
  • Darwins +102/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • One of those theists who enjoys exchanging ideas
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #429 on: December 22, 2013, 08:47:35 PM »
No.

As I have explained, if someone were to examine Adam when God created him, they would say, "Male, about 25 years old." But, this would be wrong because Adam would technically be 1 minute old but he would APPEAR to be 25 years old.

So you're suggesting that when your supergod created everything he also created it with light already in transit between stars?

Yes, Adam could see the stars right away.

If I am understanding things correctly, because of what is written in Genesis 1 and 2, the known universe is about 6,000 to 10,000 years old and was created by God with everything in motion as we see it today?  Based on scientific observation the universe appears to be approximately 14 billion years old.  Correct? 

Ever curious,

OldChurchGuy
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2726
  • Darwins +53/-443
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #430 on: December 22, 2013, 09:20:27 PM »
No.

As I have explained, if someone were to examine Adam when God created him, they would say, "Male, about 25 years old." But, this would be wrong because Adam would technically be 1 minute old but he would APPEAR to be 25 years old.

So you're suggesting that when your supergod created everything he also created it with light already in transit between stars?

Yes, Adam could see the stars right away.

If I am understanding things correctly, because of what is written in Genesis 1 and 2, the known universe is about 6,000 to 10,000 years old and was created by God with everything in motion as we see it today?  Based on scientific observation the universe appears to be approximately 14 billion years old.  Correct? 

Ever curious,

OldChurchGuy

That is correct. But science is based on the premise of getting rid of God as an explanation, plus it's entirely circular.

 Genesis can't be correct. Why? Because God isn't real.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2770
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #431 on: December 22, 2013, 09:29:47 PM »
That is correct. But science is based on the premise of getting rid of God as an explanation, plus it's entirely circular.

 Genesis can't be correct. Why? Because God isn't real.

Strawman.  Science is not about "getting rid of god".  It's about looking at the evidence, and seeing where it leads.

Genesis is considered incorrect not because "god is in it", but because there is a lack of evidence to support the story.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2726
  • Darwins +53/-443
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #432 on: December 22, 2013, 09:36:34 PM »
That is correct. But science is based on the premise of getting rid of God as an explanation, plus it's entirely circular.

 Genesis can't be correct. Why? Because God isn't real.

Strawman.  Science is not about "getting rid of god".  It's about looking at the evidence, and seeing where it leads.

Genesis is considered incorrect not because "god is in it", but because there is a lack of evidence to support the story.

Polonium halos prove the Earth is young though. It's suppressed because they want God out of the picture. True origin has a whole thesis about the halos, along with rebuttals to scientists who say that it's nonsense.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1338
  • Darwins +100/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #433 on: December 22, 2013, 09:40:22 PM »
That is correct. But science is based on the premise of getting rid of God as an explanation, plus it's entirely circular.

 Genesis can't be correct. Why? Because God isn't real.

Strawman.  Science is not about "getting rid of god".  It's about looking at the evidence, and seeing where it leads.

Genesis is considered incorrect not because "god is in it", but because there is a lack of evidence to support the story.

Polonium halos prove the Earth is young though. It's suppressed because they want God out of the picture. True origin has a whole thesis about the halos, along with rebuttals to scientists who say that it's nonsense.

Who does, and why?
It's one of the reasons I'm an atheist today.  I decided to take my religion seriously, and that's when it started to fall apart for me.
~jdawg70

Offline OldChurchGuy

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1555
  • Darwins +102/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • One of those theists who enjoys exchanging ideas
Re: The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)
« Reply #434 on: December 22, 2013, 09:48:40 PM »
That is correct. But science is based on the premise of getting rid of God as an explanation, plus it's entirely circular.

 Genesis can't be correct. Why? Because God isn't real.

Strawman.  Science is not about "getting rid of god".  It's about looking at the evidence, and seeing where it leads.

Genesis is considered incorrect not because "god is in it", but because there is a lack of evidence to support the story.

Polonium halos prove the Earth is young though. It's suppressed because they want God out of the picture. True origin has a whole thesis about the halos, along with rebuttals to scientists who say that it's nonsense.

This Polonium halos idea is new to me.  Did a little search on Wikipedia and found the following:

"Robert V. Gentry studied halos which appeared to have arisen from Po-218 rather than U-238 and concluded that solid rock must have been created with these polonium inclusions, which decayed with a half-life of 3 minutes. They could not have been formed from molten rock which took many millennia to cool (the standard theory) because polonium decays in a few minutes. This is taken by creationists as evidence that the Earth was formed instantaneously (Gentry 1992).

Critics of Gentry, including Thomas A. Baillieul (Baillieul 2005) and John Brawley (Brawley 1992), have pointed out that Po-218 is a decay product of radon, which as a gas can be given off by a grain of uranium in one part of the rock and migrate to another part of the rock to form a uraniumless halo. Apparently a large number of radon atoms are caught or absorbed at a particular point. This has not been proved experimentally, but is supported by the fact that Gentry's "polonium halos" are found along microscopic cracks in rocks that also contain uranium halos (Wakefield 1988).

Gentry's work has been continued and expanded by the Radioactivity and the Age of the Earth (R.A.T.E.) project that was operating between 1997 and 2005 (Wieland 2003). However, Collins (1997), Wakefield (1988) and others have repeatedly offered rebuttals of the radiohalo evidence for a young Earth in peer-reviewed publications."

Source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium_halos

There is also a link on creation geophysics:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_geophysics

All this raises a question that I am still trying to resolve.  That is, why should theists feel threatened by advances in science? If the advances show that a given theistic understanding is incorrect, why not adopt the new information and go on with the work of the church to take care of widows and orphans? 

As always,

OldChurchGuy


Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama