Thread: Debunking Dangerously Deceitful Dogma

Correct on all five points VeeDubd. I was trying to make it easy for those who haven't spent years in school.

Except:

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

The question is this: IF a person has accepted that there is a God, and that this god is truly omnipotent, why is it not entirely possible for that god to create the world exactly as described in the bible, but do it in such a way that thousands of years later it would appear that the world was created in the big bang, and that we evolved from lesser primates? (before answering, you should double check the definition of 'omnipotent')

That's an argument from design and it begs the question, "where did the god come from"? What's to stop such a creature from blinking the universe into existence last Tuesday and you with all your memories intact? Also, is there any evidence of that having happened? I should not need to remind you that any written account, Hindu. Sikh or whatever isn't evidence. that begs another question. Which god? Krishna? Chronos? What makes yours the right one?

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

And before you ask why, the answer to 'why' is simple. As you and countless others before you have pointed out, the theory of evolution, and the various theories about the big bang have advanced science, and our understanding of the nature and behavior of the natural universe. It is entirely possible that they are constructs created by God to help later man understand the workings of the universe.

That is a possibility. Is there any evidence of that? Can it be tested?

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

However I am somewhat disturbed at things like calling people "trolls" and calling their opinions "Useless drivel".

No matter how into a subject you are....there's just no call for that.

If I were to come around telling people that women don't deserve the vote or that blacks should be slaves, we would all consider that useless drivel at the least and dangerous at best. This is no different. Some strong defenses are called for.

Originally Posted by Tony Miller

... to call us believers ignorant Xman, is as uncalled for now as it was a week ago. ...

I have not accused any believer of ignorance or stupidity, only the creationist who seeks to degrade our clear understanding of reality for the sake of their own praise, the illogical support of some holy text. They want to put that stuff in your schools, in the science class. They want to rewrite history.
Should Religion Be Taught in Schools? - ABC News

ENUF
Saying "100,000 years ago" is not the same as saying, "once upon a time". It is a very specific time period. It wasn't 10,000 years ago and it wasn't 1,000,000 years ago. "Once upon a time" and "In the beginning" wasn't ever. That's the way fables and fairy tales start. And saying, "it is believed that is actually less accurate I think than saying "it happened", but I suppose more accurately we should say, "incontrovertible mountains of evidence reveal". I have read parts of your Bible BTW. Have you read "on the Origin of Species" or any other seminal scientific text? But you're right, none of the Bible is admissible because it's not evidence and this is a kangaroo court of sorts. You reference to "Dr. Dino" is a fallacious appeal to authority.

Oggie, I don't think this thread should be closed, but I do wish everyone would stick to the topic, not jump to conclusions and reason logically rather than try to force an impossible idea onto reality. The difference may be summed up as such:

Critical Approach - I observe the world around me to uncover the wonders of nature.
Creationist Approach - I have my preferred holy text and I will find the evidence I need to to support it.

The creationist approach puts the cart before the horse.I repeat that it is possible to be a faithful and religious person and a critical thinker as well. Much of the advancements in science have been provided by just such individuals.