"Creationists believe the straightforward interpretation of Scripture—the earth and all living things were supernaturally created in six solar days by the God of the Bible about 6,000 years ago."
I am writing a paper refuting religious claims in a philisophical manner (using science, history, archeology, and anthropology to back my claims). I was looking at a Creation Science website and saw the above quote on this page: http://www.creationsciencetoday.com/01-Creation%20_vs_Evolution.html
After browsing this site, I realized that these people are stunningly wrong, and are making up scientific evidence!
What do you guys think?
no one was better at countering the garbage dished up by fundie frauds than Steven Jay Gould.
The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (2002) -- if you're up to it. His volumes of popular essays are excellent education in modern evolutionary theory up to his (all too early) death in 2002.
Of course it's a crock of crap - interestingly, there seem to be no options available to leave a public comment.
As everyone knows, far be it from me to break into a thread with a non sequitur, but I've got a little mental chess game going on with a theist on another site, and he has just said this:
Alright then. Just so I am clear, you are saying that unless your evidence for something’s existance is testable, reproducible, and peer reviewed then it is indefensible to believe in it. Is that correct?
Obviously, he is backing me into a corner, and, expecting me to say, "that's correct!" and has a follow-up move that is designed to put me in check - what is he likely to say, and how does anyone suggest I best respond, so as not to be pinned?
He's "Mark Hamilton" at http://fidedubitandum.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/moving-on-to-the-beg... in case anyone wants to jump in --
You can't actually KNOW what a chess move will be until it's made either, but there are certain assumptions that can be made, regarding what it might be, based on an analysis of the possible available moves and the resultant outcomes. I guess that's what I'm fishing for, a list of possible available moves.
The guy's a theist, on a theist website, and I can't imagine he has a desire to learn anything, and as on that site, at least, I represent the validity of all atheists, so yeah, I want to win.
Make no mistake, I have no aversion to learning, but if I learn anything from a theist site, it will be through observation, not participation, which, if done sub par, could conceivably lessen the credibility of other atheists.
He's going to hit you with "Love"
Would that be the love of the Cat o' Nine Tails perhaps?
Or living in the love of the common people (smiles from the heart of a family man)...
no, he (Mark Hamilton) is trying to engineer a situation where he can point to "love" and say it can't be tested or peer reviewed.
And then, by extension, other "metaphysical" experiences, which, before he's finished, would include god. I knew there was an agenda, I just didn't want to walk into the trap, to find out what it was.
I open Christmas presents before Christmas, too.
Well I'd have to call myself a materialist or naturalist (on this issue) for the most part but I do insist that what goes on inside peoples heads actually does exist albeit only in people's heads. I just don't think it somehow magically affects the outside world, which is what people are trying to do with prayer.
You want to change the world, even in a trivial sense like making sure there is dinner ready to eat? Well you or someone else is going to have to fucking do something, you can't just ask god to miracle it.