Barbara Forrest: The Woman Texas Creationists Don't Like#4

[abyssquick]

This individual is very intelligent, and very incisive & well spoken. Thank you. Exactly what America needs.

[Rib64]

good vid

[procommenter]

The U.S. is further removed from Christian law & tradition now than at any time since its founding. Adore/abhor: The facts of this world aren't in the filthy clutches of atheistic revisers of history. I prefer to read accounts of great events written at the time or soon thereafter. I just finished Blackford's: "Letters from Lee's Army". I maintain a healthful distrust for those in academia who are tenured & locked in. Nature corrects herself as the world's in constant flux.

[fairguynova]

All hail Lord Krishna.

[EvolvedAtheist]

C. It matters *not* that you regard "American jurisprudence as grounded upon biblical jurisprudence". This still would *not* prove your claim that rights were endowed by a "Creator". To do so, you have to come up with more than a genetic fallacy that demonstrates *no more* than the beliefs of the FFs. To do so, you have to "prove" that there is a Creator. Your claims are circular.

You probably cannot see the philosophical tension in your beliefs.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

Now let me be straight with you. I am not frustrated in the least by your evidence. Because you have presented none that which refutes me nor my position. And you were the one who lowered himself to being nasty first. But admittedly, I have had enough of arrogant snobs like you who typically wax rude first. And then call "foul" when even just a small taste of your own medicine is returned back to you. As you're not the first so called evolved atheist to demonstrate their inferior manners to me.

[EvolvedAtheist]

If you want *evidence*, which is voluminous, I suggest that you look at some decent websites, texts, or even research papers.

First? In one of your earliest comments, you basically accused me of lying. Nasty? You have now called me "nasty" and an "arrogant snob". I pointed out that your *arguments* were illogical. They *are* illogical.

However, creationists of any ilk *must* resort to fallacies, including ad hominems.

If Genesis is an allegory, why do you believe in Adam and Eve?

[EvolvedAtheist]

"B. Yes I did answer, as best anyone can, "what created the creator" ?"

Since theists are the claimants, the burden of proof lies with theists.

Those who believe in the Abrahamic religions have had over 2,000 years to prove their claim. They, and you, are failing. Not good enough.

Btw, if you acknowledge that Genesis is an allegory, why do you believe in Adam and Eve?

[JustAboutMyFaith]

The origin of a Creator can no more be explained by religion, than it can by science. The answer is the same. No one knows. That's why I hold God is the "unknown quantity" who created the singularity. And since I hold to my position by faith, I can no more prove God created it than science can explain its origin. But since you are the one trying to prove God doesn't exist, then I'd say you have the greater burden to explain its origin than I. And I already explained what I believe about Genesis.

[EvolvedAtheist]

Not so, JA. I am the one who believes that there is no creator because there is NO evidence of a creator - and there really *ought* to be. I don't mean the sort of "evidence" that creationists cook up. I mean evidence that cannot be explained any other way than by a deity. There simply is not.

The burden of proof is on the claimant -- on theists. Theists have not managed to do any more than concoct failed apologetics. The God of the Gaps Regress is just another fallacy of logic.

[EvolvedAtheist]

2. You might *imagine* that I am trying to prove that supernatural deities do not exist. I am not. Why? It is logically *impossible* to prove that anything non-existent does not in fact exist. So, to expect anyone to disprove something that is non-existent is ridiculous, and is usually part of a fallacious argument to ignorance committed by the claimant. Again, it behooves the claimant to support the claim with evidence.

You did not answer how an allegorical Genesis makes A&E believable.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

The very fact you call yourself an Atheist proves you deny God. And I'm sure you won't agree, but I submit again by the very fact you have no evidence to answer "where the singularity came from" proves you don't have all the answers either. And so I'd say if you was truly as "intellectually honest" as you claim, you would at least call yourself an Agnostic. And as for Genesis, I have already said I hold that chapter one happened progressively over the past 14 billion years. And chapter two 6000.

[EvolvedAtheist]

That is incorrect. Deny" implies that there is a deity and I simply refuse to acknowledge this. I acknowledge only that there is no evidence for a deity when there ought to be some. That is not denial.

Scientists cannot look past the singularity because any evidence of a prior state is obliterated - rather like an atomic blast that has vaporized the bomb. Scientists are honest about this. Deists and theists claim that they know of something that preceded the BB singularity. Dishonest.

[EvolvedAtheist]

2. All that your "explanation" accounts for is non-YEC attitudes = OEC.

What is your *evidence* that Ch1 took 14 billion years and Ch2 6,000. Ussher?

You still have not answered how you can reconcile this with believing in Adam & Eve.

You have been consistently fond of claiming that I am being dishonest. How could you know more of my mind than I do? Oh, I forgot. Creationists think that they "know" of things that they do not know.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

I got into this whole mess because I knew YEC was utterly absurd & false theology. And so I began to look at the differences between TE (theistic-evolution) & OEC. And found they are essentially the same except on three points; shared DNA, macro-evolution, and no biblical flood (not even local). And so since I hold that God created mankind, I can not hold to TE. And I hold to Ussher only inasmuch that he determined virtually the precise time from Jesus back to Adam; but not the age of the Earth.

[EvolvedAtheist]

I'm assuming that you don't think that OEC is a mess, since that is the view that you have settled on.

I would not say that Ussher determined the "precise time" - he merely added up biblical accounts of a genealogy that fails to account for DNA evidence.

I got into science because it works from fact to explanation, rather than picking and choosing facts to fit received conceptions. To me, science has the approach more likely to provide the best explanation.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

I only have two pre-determined & fixed views. Which are God created both the universe & all life therein. And since science has no more answer than religion, then I don't see my views as arrogant ignorance. But rather just as plausible & reasonable as what you hold to. And having said that, I don't think there is anything left for us to continue to contend with each other over any further. And so thanks for both the highs and the lows we both went through on this journey together. Take care !

[EvolvedAtheist]

Actually, science provides* vastly* more answers than religion. Admittedly, comprehending science is much less easily accessible than godidit. (Yes, I know that the Bible is a challenge to comprehension, but we're discussing metaphysics.)

Of course you would not see your views as arrogant ignorance. I give you credit for being too much a questioner to stick with any views that you thought to be ignorant.

Yes, highs and lows sums it up ;} Take care, yourself.

[ThieleM]

Please post your methodologies for deducing your numbers.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

Watch clips 1 thru 8 of "The Science of God" (especially parts 7 & 8) right here on YouTube.

[ThieleM]

I did, is that the bullshit that you are basing your 'faith' on?  If it is then you are f'ed bucko...

[JustAboutMyFaith]

I came to my faith long before I knew of Gerald Schroeder. But I'm not going to get into another drawn out debate with yet another so called "evolved" atheist. The last one ended in a draw. And based upon your demonstration of intelligence (or rather lack thereof) in your last comment, it is clear you're not all that evolved either. It has been an established fact in the scientific community for more than 80 years now that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, and the universe 14.5.

[ThieleM]

I am looking for a post where I said anything about the age of the earth.  hmmmm

can't find it. Maybe you should start over.

[ThieleM]

and after reviewing the vids you suggest....they are EASY to suggest. The guy is clearly working backwards. He has answers he wants and is making biblical data 'fit'

It is interesting but ultimately is not legit science. You are not going to accept that but that is actually a good thing. Reason doesnt need the unreasonable in disguise.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

Clearly, Ms. Forrest believes modern science has disproven God exists. And if she had her way, we would all abandon our superstitious beliefs. And would become as enlightened as she is. But she's not as smart as she thinks she is. Because if it wasn't for the Declaration of Independence, we wouldn't have any inalienable rights from our Creator. But only alienable civil rights granted by government that can be taken away by them just as were given. As a philosopher, you'd think she'd know that !

[califoniania]

Most people that don't believe in God believe in inalienable rights (i.e. free speech, freedom of religion, etc.). FAIL. Also, those rights I mentioned in my example, not in the Bible. Double FAIL. Also, just because people SAY that our rights come from some sky pixie doesn't make it true and there is every indication that they were developed by human philosophers rather than any gods. Triple FAIL.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

Well then I guess you'll just have to be happy with whatever "civil" rights they dole out to you. I know the government has alot of processed cheese available for folks like you. Too bad they don't have any parmesan for your spaghetti.

[califoniania]

"Well then I guess you'll just have to be happy with whatever "civil" rights they dole out to you."

Ummm, no. If they dare take away my right to free speech, I'll be the first to do something about it.

"I know the government has alot of processed cheese available for folks like you."

Take your ad homs and shove them up your ass where they belong.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

I capitulate to your superior intellect and refined manners.

FAIL !

[califoniania]

"FAIL ! "

Yes, you did.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

No I did not fail. You were the one who lowered himself unto vulgarity.

[califoniania]

"You were the one who lowered himself unto vulgarity."

Ass? That's vulgarity? What are you, a puritan? That would explain your use of the word "heretic" on the other comment board, which, BTW, I see as FAR more vulgar as it brings to mind the torture and burnings 'heretics' were put through. Also, you insinuated that I was a rat (pied piper reference?).

"No I did not fail."

Clearly, you did.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

I apologize for the feelings I stirred within you by the word heretic. And for your perception I had insinuated you was a rat. But I honestly don't think I made any "pied piper" reference. But if I did, then I'm sorry.

[califoniania]

No problem. I can forgive and forget.

[EvolvedAtheist]

She is a philosopher. This means that she, like scientists, recognizes that it is logically impossible to prove that the non-existent does not exist. That is, it is not logical to attempt to do so. However, science has falsified all the metaphysical claims in the Bible.

As to the Declaration of Independence, you don't have inalienable rights from a creator. "God" did not write it. The writers were deists (~atheists).

She says USians are ill-informed - often quite true.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

A. Same old rhetoric.

B. How has science falsified the claims of the bible ?

C. Deists believe in God & are not atheists.

D."She says USians are ill-informed - often quite true" ? What's that supposed to mean ?

[EvolvedAtheist]

A. Same old rhetoric.

Yours, yes. My facts are not rhetoric.

B. How has science falsified the claims of the bible ?

By disproving the metaphysics.

C. Deists believe in God & are not atheists.

"Deists" of the 18th century *were equivalent* to modern atheists.

D."She says USians are ill-informed - often quite true" ? What's that supposed to mean ?

Check the PITA scores, etc. She's an American speaking of Americans.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

A. If you're so evolved, you should know we all have an inbred propensity to look outside ourselves for whatever moral highground we look to live by. In other words we all look for, and in fact even want & need to find our own "higher power". And for evolutionists, it becomes science itself.

B. What specific metaphysics ?

C. Some right wing radical Christians called them Atheists back then. As many would today. But Deists of the 18th century were no more Atheists then, than they are today.

[EvolvedAtheist]

I value morality, but have *no need* for a higher power. Scientists actually value truth and understanding - science and rationality are the optimal routes.

Origin of solar system & life, flood, age of earth, etc.

Right wing radical Christians? What an odd contention.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

A. I don't think you're being honest. But since only God can look into your heart, I accept your answer as truth.

B. Science, not even abiogenesis, has 100% disproven God exists. But I agree with the rest. As I do not hold to YEC. If anything, I hold to either OEC or TE.

C. As Deists, most of our founding fathers believed in a Creator God. The mere fact the Declaration of Independence was written as it was is proof of that. And to say otherwise is 100% false secular propaganda.

[EvolvedAtheist]

Because my truth does not fit your views, you accuse me of dishonesty. How typically "christian" of you.

It is not logically possible to disprove a non-existence. So, it is ridiculous to talk of "100% disproof". I said the metaphysics was falsified, or do you believe in talking snakes?

Do you simply mean that "creator" and "God" is mentioned? That fits with deist, which is what I said. There are still deists, though I cannot imagine a modern Ben's being anything other than an atheist.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

A. I apologize.

B. The question "where do molecules & atoms come from" can be debated infinitesimally. And so that's proof enough of an "unknown quantity" for me.

C. I believe Genesis chapter one happened progressively over the past 14 billion years. And chapter two 6000 years ago. And so I believe in Adam & Eve. And that Satan was in the Garden of Eden in the form of "The Serpent" and tempted Eve to sin.

D. Yes I meant that "Creator" is mentioned is proof of the founders deist beliefs.

[EvolvedAtheist]

a. Thanks.

b. It's not debated by astrophysicists and chemists. Elementary particles and then light elements condensed after the Big Bang, and heavier element form in stars. Bonds unite atoms into molecules.

c. That's not what Genesis says - you are rewriting a creation myth to fit science (albeit, your view is more accurate than YEC).

d. A document written by deists does not mean that you received inalienable rights from your Creator, merely that the document acknowledged widespread belief.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

A. You're welcome.

B. Where did the "elementary particles" come from ?

C. Genesis chapters one & two were clearly written at different times & by two different authors; then compiled by a scribe at a later date; and then ultimately accredited to Moses.

D. I will never agree that our rights are not antecedent of government.

[EvolvedAtheist]

b. The "fireball". Remember E=mc^2? This is what it means - energy and matter are interconvertible.

c. The entire Bible was written by a variety of authors, some of who were scribes who added segments many centuries later. The evidence indicates that Genesis is an allegory.

d. Technically, rights are the result of legislation. As a secular humanist, I do agree that human conscience dictates for basic rights. That is, being human inheres value to most other humans.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

A. Where did the matter & energy come from to form the fireball ?

B. I agree Genesis chapter one is largely poetic allegory.

C. You can trust mere men to legislate your rights if you want. And you can trust in yourself to defend them. But if the men legislating your rights don't recognize they are inherent to you antecedent of them, then considering not even deistic philosophy has any persuasion on the men in black robes today, then how can you trust secular humanists to serve you any better ?

[EvolvedAtheist]

a. Astrophysicists cannot see back beyond the singularity. However, the same question applies to your "creator". What created the creator?

c. One can believe that human rights are inherent to humanness without recourse to a creator. Unless you can prove that there is indeed a deity, then all religions devolve to dressed-up secularism.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

A. Where did the "singularity" come from ?

B. Neither religion nor science can say for sure how God Himself came into existence. He is the "unknown quantity" that scientists know is there. But rather than admit they don't know how it got there, they just call it "The Singularity".

C. If your only recourse to defend your rights is yourself & secular humanist legislators & adjudicators, then good luck on trying to exercise & defend them in one of their courtrooms.

[EvolvedAtheist]

a. I answered that. You did not answer where "God" came from?

b. "God" is NOT an ""unknown quantity" that scientists know is there" By definition, an unknown quantity is not known. That's what "un" means. Your arguments are becoming more blatantly fallacious.

c. You apparently have not noticed that Western courtrooms *are* secular. Religionists seek to abrogate rights. If you desire theocratic courtrooms, move to the ME and enjoy Sharia law.

[JustAboutMyFaith]

A. No you didn't answer where the "singularity" came from ?

B. Yes I did answer, as best anyone can, "what created the creator" ?

C. Whether you like it not, or want to admit it or not, American jurisprudence is, and always has been, derived from, rooted in, and grounded upon, biblical jurisprudence. And there's plenty of quotes from our founding fathers to prove it. And so if you don't like it, then you can move to the Middle East.

D. Because you are the one who has become blatantly polemic.

[EvolvedAtheist]

a. I said that I answered that. Scientists do not know.

Let me be clear. Failure of complete explanation is not a valid argument for claims for supernatural deities. To attempt this is argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Unfortunately, people cling to cognitive schemas with which they were indoctrinated when too young to be logical. Irrationality causes strife.

[EvolvedAtheist]

And so if you don't like it, then you can move to the Middle East.

D. Because you are the one who has become blatantly polemic.

Now you are descending into nastiness. Congratulations, you restrained yourself longer than many Christians who are frustrated with being refuted.

Admittedly, I had said that your arguments were becoming more blatantly fallacious. That was an observation of fact and not an ad hominem fallacy.

[darkblood626]

Hence; perfect solution ban the bullshit as wet the teaching the world is flat O wait thats one thing they want taught

[nag73]

Go get em Babs.

[tattypatty]

This is great. Dear Americans: please stand firm. You've produced so many good scientists...

[Swa6543]

You're the one that sounds like a jew hater! Were YOU abused as a child? You sound like you're still a child!

[1n354a]

No - I think she proposes a pretty good explanation about the shadiness of creationism and "intelligent" design (though they are one in the same). I am betting that you are probably in the group of people who think the Universe is 6,000 years old....back into the closet with you!

[1n354a]

ask your mom.

[TheProf1988]

'She is a total bimbo and probably a lesbian'

a fully qualified bimbo mabye, as for being a lesbian, well...who cares? if you dont like freedom of sexuality, go and live in iraq

[EarlFaulk]

Well now Im counting the 1st 2nd 3rd and now 4th parts this loser has posted this accusation to.

[phreecfrancis]

Keep exposing those ignorant creationist phonies. Trying to destroy our Constitution.

[Skavar4000]

This woman is amazingly good! Keep it up Barbara...

[Aaron518]

Thanks,these are great.