Christians are anti-science.

[TexanManWithPlans]

How do you know gods do not exist? This is your initial circular argument. All your other arguments stem from this argument. That is the very definition of a religion. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'.

There is no observable phenomenon compelling us to ask if a god exists. You're not justified in asking if gods exists anymore than you are asking if "The Force" from Star Wars exists.

And what is your definition of "god," anyway?

 

[TexanManWithPlans]

No. Many atheists openly declare there is no god or gods. That is a positive statement. That is a religion.

Lol. So if I say that The Force from Star Wars doesn't exist, I'm making a religious statement?

Stop being so arrogant.

 

[IBDaMann]

There is no observable phenomenon compelling us to ask if a god exists.

... nor is there anything compelling us to believe in the Climate goddess who centrally plans the earth's weather and who miraculously causes the earth to spontaneously increase in temperature in violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

And what is your definition of "god," anyway?

What is your unambiguous definition of the global climate that doesn't violate physics?

 

[IBDaMann]

You said all of your statements are speculations and I was agreeing. We have no idea how advanced their technologies are.

We can further speculate that no matter how advanced they become, they cannot violate physics, e.g. accelerate beyond the speed of light, magically teleport, etc... despite our vivid sci-fi imaginations. Further, we can speculate that such life forms are bound to the laws of thermodynamics, including the 2nd law, which means they are probably not immortal and have finite lifespans.

We can speculate that the conditions for life to generate and to exist are relatively uncommon but because the universe is simply so vast that we can speculate that the closest other such life forms are probably at least billions of times millions of light years away, that they aren't necessarily aware of us and thus unaware of our vector/direction. We have been emitting radio signals and other electronic signals for two centuries that travel at the speed of light so we can speculate that our signals have a few billion times millions of years to go to reach other life forms ... and that's assuming they are advanced enough to receive them and understand them.

 

[jacksonsprat22]

Lol. So if I say that The Force from Star Wars doesn't exist, I'm making a religious statement?

Stop being so arrogant.

Intothenight is an idiot. He does not even read posts he replies to. Troll

 

[IBDaMann]

Lol. So if I say that The Force from Star Wars doesn't exist, I'm making a religious statement?

Absolutely. If you have a theism that specifies with certainty that no "The Force" exists then that is an affirmative belief, just as if you affirmatively believe that Global Warming is real. Your religious beliefs are not limited to those things that do exist; you are entitled to believe things do not exist as well. Jews will affirmatively state that no Son of God Messiah ever existed.

Everything changes when you phrase it in a non-affirmative statement of a lack of a belief, i.e. from "There is no Force" to "I don't have any belief in the Force." In the former, your affirmative belief precludes you from accepting the possibility the Force exists whereas the atheism of the latter case allows for discovery that it does.

 

[gfm7175]

Depends on what they believe.

Creationists, people such as myself who accept (on a faith basis) the Theory of Creation as a True, believe that life appeared on Earth as a result of an act of some kind of intelligence.

A Christian, such as myself, will additionally claim that the Christian God is this "intelligence", but a Creationist need not be a Christian.


How, by any of that, is a Creationist (or even a Christian) "anti-science"?

 

[gfm7175]

When a Creationist says that the Earth is 6,000 years old,

A Creationist need not believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old. At this point, you are speaking of an entirely different religious belief, this one about the age of Earth rather than about how life came to be on Earth.

he assumes that the scientists are lying or that the Devil has been planting false evidence.

No, he is just expressing his religious belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old. This is not denying science in any way, which does not speculate about the past.

Personally, there is no particular theory about the age of the Earth that I accept as a True. I simply do not care about how old the Earth is and thus do not subscribe to any particular view about it. I do, however, find various views to be reasonable and/or interesting for one reason or another...

 

[gfm7175]

The fossils exist. And yes we can verify their ages using various equipment.

And yes I think there are life forms elsewhere but it's a speculation to say they cannot reach us.

Oh really??!! How so?

Faith is required to believe in radiometric dating, you know...

 

[jacksonsprat22]

Oh really??!! How so?

Faith is required to believe in radiometric dating, you know...

Let's take the "it's all religion" argument head on. Religions can be wrong or bad.

 

[AProudLefty]

Oh really??!! How so?

Faith is required to believe in radiometric dating, you know...

How is that a faith? If it's wrong, then science evolve for the betterment.

 

[AProudLefty]

A Creationist need not believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old. At this point, you are speaking of an entirely different religious belief, this one about the age of Earth rather than about how life came to be on Earth.

Correct.

No, he is just expressing his religious belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old. This is not denying science in any way, which does not speculate about the past.

No. When he is saying that science is wrong and that scientists are lying or mislead, that is denying science and scientists.

Personally, there is no particular theory about the age of the Earth that I accept as a True. I simply do not care about how old the Earth is and thus do not subscribe to any particular view about it. I do, however, find various views to be reasonable and/or interesting for one reason or another...

I was a Creationist myself.

 

[AProudLefty]

Creationists, people such as myself who accept (on a faith basis) the Theory of Creation as a True, believe that life appeared on Earth as a result of an act of some kind of intelligence.

A Christian, such as myself, will additionally claim that the Christian God is this "intelligence", but a Creationist need not be a Christian.


How, by any of that, is a Creationist (or even a Christian) "anti-science"?

Theistic evolution is not denying science.

 

[gfm7175]

Let's take the "it's all religion" argument head on. Religions can be wrong or bad.

Never said that everything was religion... A few things is not everything, genius...

 

[gfm7175]

How is that a faith? If it's wrong, then science evolve for the betterment.

Read the bolded, then read the red...

 

[AProudLefty]

Read the bolded, then read the red...

That's how science works. Faith implies they won't change their belief. Like how those scientists believed in ether.

 

[gfm7175]

No. When he is saying that science is wrong

He is not saying that science is wrong, though... The Theory of Creation is not about science. It, in and of itself, does not contradict science in any way...

and that scientists are lying or mislead,

As you have already been told, scientists are NOT science. Scientists, like any other people, most certainly can and do lie. Science, however, does not lie. The Theory of Creation says absolutely nothing about scientists either. All it posits is that life appeared on Earth as the result of an act of some kind of intelligence.

that is denying science and scientists.

No it isn't. It has nothing to do with science or scientists.

 

[AProudLefty]

He is not saying that science is wrong, though... The Theory of Creation is not about science. It, in and of itself, does not contradict science in any way...

Ken Ham says otherwise.

As you have already been told, scientists are NOT science. Scientists, like any other people, most certainly can and do lie. Science, however, does not lie. The Theory of Creation says absolutely nothing about scientists either. All it posits is that life appeared on Earth as the result of an act of some kind of intelligence.

Scientists study science obviously. Scientists are known to falsify evidence and data, as JPP posters love to claim about those Global Warming scientists.

No it isn't. It has nothing to do with science or scientists.

You yourself said that it's a different category of Creationists. That the group I was referring to.

BTW, those people use science to "prove" Creationism and want it taught in public schools.

 

[gfm7175]

Creationists, people such as myself who accept (on a faith basis) the Theory of Creation as a True, believe that life appeared on Earth as a result of an act of some kind of intelligence.

A Christian, such as myself, will additionally claim that the Christian God is this "intelligence", but a Creationist need not be a Christian.


How, by any of that, is a Creationist (or even a Christian) "anti-science"?

Theistic evolution is not denying science.

You ignored my question.

What do you mean by "theistic evolution"? I assume that you are referring to a theist who also happens to believe in the Theory of Evolution (that current life forms are the result of mutations of more primitive life forms)?? Again, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with science... Accepting both Christianity and the Theory of Evolution as true is perfectly fine as they are not mutually exclusive beliefs.

 

[AProudLefty]

You ignored my question.

What question?

What do you mean by "theistic evolution"? I assume that you are referring to a theist who also happens to believe in the Theory of Evolution (that current life forms are the result of mutations of more primitive life forms)?? Again, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with science... Accepting both Christianity and the Theory of Evolution as true is perfectly fine as they are not mutually exclusive beliefs.

Correct.