Originally posted by Wild Shadow
but if is going to be based on facts and evidence creationism loses regardless the only defense is philosophical and the assumption that your religion is right..
Exactly these demands of "facts" and "evidence" make the whole question completely biased in favor of evolution.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If we based it on the true word of God then it would be fair and unbiased.
which true word of god would we use or go by? after all there are plenty out there.
😉
even then it would still be biased because science makes no claim of god in any form and by default loses..
but what if we were to simply point out all the inaccuracy of the so called truth instead using our evidence and understanding?
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
which true word of god would we use or go by? after all there are plenty out there.
Mine. Duh, why use anything else?
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
even then it would still be biased because science makes no claim of god in any form and by default loses..
Well that's science's problem, not mine.
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
but what if we were to simply point out all the inaccuracy of the so called truth instead using our evidence and understanding instead?
I'd point out that being the truth it doesn't have any inaccuracies.
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
so the argument would consist of you being right at all points regardless of blatant inaccuracy because god said so?
God? No, because I say so. Makes things so much easier, I don't even need a reference text.
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
then it would not be a debate but simply a one sided point of view..lecture/sermon ect ect..
I . . . I don't see the problem.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Shaky... "nature is a creator"? C'mon... touch base with me, please. What do you mean by that, and what is the evidence(s) to support the statement?
Why don't you understand that? That is right down the line of thinking that you use all the time. It is an alternate answer that you and JIA ignore. It leads to the same questions that a god as a creator dose, and has the same answers. The only difference is that there is no need to worship nature.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Shaky... c'mon... I'm not trying to sharp-shoot you, but if you relayed this statement to a board of scientists or an audience at Harvard, you would not be taken seriously, to say the least. Regardless, you have an opinion and a reason as to why you have that opinion. Walk me through it, please.
I disagree. You must not know many scientists.
Walk you through it?
What are you asking me?
I have one problem with the idea of creation, and that is the idea is too simple and finite. The question of creation leads to silly questions like "what came before?", and "why?.
The book Flatland by Edwin A. Abbott sits on my desk in a prominent location. It was the start of my personal journey. Have you read it? If you took flatland and curved into a ball, and then expand this ball, the flatlanders would be surprised to see new land come from nothingness. You see, the big bang was a bubble in a ten dimensional universe. There was no creation, just an expanding bubble in the multiverse.