David Barton cherry picks history and manipulates language to distort the truth. The result is a lie, of which the ninth commandment of the Christian Bible forbids.
Not at least in the public schools because USA is constitutionally secular state. Where do these morons come from? From private shools? Do they teach there also that earth is flat?
Barton is a modern day Nathaniel Hawthorne ... literally lying about history to get his friends elected.
The U.S.A. is a secular nation, founded by near-atheists (B. Franklin was no doubt an atheist) ... who would laugh at David Barton, had they been around to hear his utter Bullshit.
@FireByNight Please don't spread silly conspiracy theories. Yes, we all no David Barton is full crap, but I've yet to find any record of him being a mason. Sincerely, A mason.
I am not sure if this man is ignorant or outright lying. If he is ignorant he needs to educate himself before he attempts to make statements about history or evolution. I can safely say that this is the silliest thing I have heard in a long time.
I wonder how Barton feels about not using flush toilets, since the Founding Fathers advocated outhouses (even the most sanitary minded of them). The Founding Fathers were not aware of flush toilets or evolution theory at the time.
"Mr Jefferson, build up that wall (of separation between church and state)." - C Hitchens
@drfoxcourt The founders were well versed in history. Particularly Greek history. You would do well to do so as well, because you would learn that evolution is an old concept originating from the Greeks.
@thequantumvacuum While some Greeks managed to realize that life came from the sea and some realized that species were related, they nor anyone else until Wallace and Darwin articulated the origin of species from natural selection (and variation). The Greeks appear to be far more Lamarckian than Darwinian.
The Founding Fathers may have known much history including just how detrimental and dangerous religion had been. Creationism is religion and just as bad to institutionalize.
@drfoxcourt Religion is mans attempt to relink with god. Creation science didnt become an ism until evolution was challenged by the Intelligent Design movement. DNA is the end of evolution. SETI would have considered prime numbers from outer space evidence for intelligence. There is a far more complicated language convention inside the DNA than any that we can currently create. And to teach students that there is an alternative theory to evolution is bad? Beware the sound of one hand clapping.
@thequantumvacuum "Religion is mans attempt to relink with god." This assumes a God not in evidence. You cannot relink with Zeus.
Humans naturally see design in everything. That is the analytic modules of our brain at work and something we evolved from our ape ancestry. Design does not have to be present for us to think it is there.
DNA and the time it takes to evolve new species are hard to grasp but the changes of evolution are subtle, continuous, and observable. No designer needed.
@drfoxcourt Very good! Using logic! A creator IS separate from his creation. See, you can use logic when it suits you. I guess I misjudged you. No wait, selective application of logic makes you like every other atheist I know. You believe what you want to believe, and nothing will dissuade you. I have some questions for you. Where do the natural laws come from, and why arent they evolving? How do you know right from wrong? What exploded in the Big Bang?
@thequantumvacuum Enough of your deciding what I think please. Unhelpful.
Natural laws origins (I'm guessing you mean physical laws like law of motion F=ma, and general relativity E=mc ^2) - The Scientific answer is we don't know. That they exist is no indication of a designer.
Why don't natural laws evolve? There is no variation and no selective pressure on natural laws.
What exploded in the Big Bang? - My best explanation is that the dimensions uncurled and matter/energy expanded into them.
@drfoxcourt Well, it wasnt until 1775 that Alexander Cumming designed a “stink trap” for toilets. Anyone can understand that they were advocating cleanliness rather than outhouses. your point shows your contempt for logic. You atheists are insecure. You cant argue with facts and have to demean those who think differently than you. Thats why you cover a WWI monument in the middle of the desert. Because its a cross and it reminds you of your choice. Examine yourself and see if hate motivates you.
@thequantumvacuum Where the hell did this vitriol come from"? First you intimate that I don't know history, then you overtly claim that I have contempt for logic? I don't cover WWI monuments and I could not care less if someone puts up a cross. God doesn't bother me. It's the people who want me to believe in God that bother me.
Keep your filthy religion off my government and I will work to prevent any government I have a voice in off your religion (see 1st Amendment)
@drfoxcourt Please know that I have enjoyed this conversation. So few atheists I know are as intelligent as you have proven to be. I mean you no disrespect. I am trying to challenge you as I hope you do for me.
An atheist claims to have proven to themselves with certainty that God is not. That is to prove a negative. To do so one must know all things to retain logical integrity. Maybe you do. I only claim faith because I see design in nature, and infer a higher intellect. That is only logical.
@thequantumvacuum "Please know that I have enjoyed this conversation." You don't show it.
As an atheist, I make no claim regarding God. I see no evidence (apparent design is not evidence IMHO) for God and so logically assume no God (I see no evidence for Unicorns in the same way). The positive claim is theism and so should rightly bear the burden of proof. Call me what you will but I am prefer anti-theist and merely use atheist as the collective of agnostic, atheist and anti-theist. (more)
@drfoxcourt An atheist makes only one claim, there is no God, and do it with certitude. What is the difference between an atheist and an agnostic?
You choose to see no evidence. Can you admit that DNA is a code, or the body a machine, or the planet a system? Perhaps you can show 1 example of chance creating any of these, even though science demands multiple examples? Design is evidence. You would be a fool to claim that Egyptian ruins were formed by wind and erosion. Data only comes from a mind
@thequantumvacuum I make no claim regarding God. I am an anti-theist if you must call me something.
I don't choose to see no evidence, I evaluate the facts and observe no evidence.
The wave pattern of sand dunes in a desert sure looks designed, but indeed it is not. It is the result of complex natural forces. When you father's sperm mixed with your mother's egg, the result emerged as a VERY complex machine indeed. Again no God needed. Small variations and selective pressure account for it all.
@drfoxcourt You claimed to be an atheist. That means you claim there is no God. Coward, own your statement. Now you want to be an anti-theist? You are against people who believe something you dont? So you are a thought police? You have proven to be intellectually dishonest. You lie to yourself, and selectively apply critical thinking. I only hope that this banter will show readers the shallow depth of the atheist position. You are no longer worth my time, as you have no challenge to offer me.
@thequantumvacuum Atheist = Someone who does not believe there is a god or gods (note no claim is made)
Agnostic = Someone who does not know if there is a god or gods
Anti-theist = Someone who is opposed to theism (the belief that there is a god or gods).
Just as we are getting going you are going to back out? Just as I point out the central tenets of evolution (variation and selection) you decide to attack my character rather than address the issue? Shame on you.
"Just as I point out the central tenets of evolution (variation and selection) you decide to attack my character rather than address the issue? "
That's religion for you.
Someone says something that disagrees with their dogma, don't have a reasoned debate just burn them at the stake. The methods might have changed but their reaction to criticism hasn't.
I like how Barton claims that U.S. Founding Fathers such as Thomas Paine, who died when Charles Darwin was only 4 months old, "had already had the entire debate on creation/evolution". Just...wow.
Does he not realize that Darwin didn't release his book "On the origin of species" until 1859 and the US was founded in 1776? The founding father of the USA most likely not ever aware of evolution because it came after their time
Because your answer proves that the concept of a nation that requires a particular religious belief of it citizenry is a vulgar one. Christianity and American-ness are different things. So shut up trying to link your crappy religion with your much more enlightened and wise Constitution, which rightly separates Church and State.
is this guy that fucking retarded? evolution was founded wayyy after the founding fathers created america as a free nation, and most of the FF's were secularist and atheistic or deistic. and they all didnt even believe in the creation story of the bible
@gphhawkins They were? Where did you study American history? Can you name ONE influential Founder that was an atheist? Can you name just ONE influential Founder who was a known "secularist" by quoting their own words to that affect?
@aThinkingChristian Thomas paine was an atheist Thomas Jeff was a diest as was Ben F George W, etc and here: gphhawkins.weebly.com/thomas-jefferson-quotes
LOL! I rarely use youtube and I'm not familiar with the layout, that is to say, for about 5 minutes I was reading this thread as chiachuck's comments being made by @aThinkingChristian and I couldn't help asking myself "I kinda agree with this guy, sounds like he's thinking, so why is he a christian??? Worse, how is it that I'm agreeing with a christian?!?!"
Atheism, Secular Humanism or what ever you want to call it, is also religion. So would`nt that mean that teaching evolution in science classes also be teaching a religious subject?
@jayaye21 No, because, first, atheism is not a religion. Evolution, and more importantly, the scientific method, follow a strict structure of inquiry which has the intention of presenting standardized information . Religion does not do this, and is incapable, because it has no such code, and relies purely on subjectivity, rendering it useless in a public environment. Hope this makes sense.
@chiachuck Wrong atheism is a religion. the Supreme Court ruled it so back in 1961 a case Torcaso vs Watkins. The court described(ruled)Secular Humanisn(atheism) as a religion. You believe what you want, I prefer to believe the word of GOD.
@jayaye21 Think you might want to read the case again. But, hey, why bother? Might as well throw another "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!" carcass on the fire. Let me guess, you also have no evidence whatsoever to back up your claims about the word of God, eh?
@jayaye21 Evolution is not atheism or secular humanism. It's science. While atheists might believe and defend it, it is not religious based. It's evidence based. There is no holy book or teachings of evolution, it's simply observations and explanations of the world we live, much like the theory of gravity. We observe that objects fall, why is that? The theory explains it. Same goes for evolution.
"Well, since this is the first time you've even mentioned the 1st Law of Thermodynamics,"
To quote myself:
"Okay, but I'll need you to do something for me first. I need you to recite for me the First Law of thermodynamics."
This can be found in a post on page three. I stated this a LONG time ago. Again, are you trying to be dishonest on purpose or are you truly that ignorant?
@tskasa1 Or, maybe I just missed what you said? LOL. Accusations don't fare too well with me, bud. If I can tell you one certain thing about me, it's that I NEVER seek to be dishonest or misleading (it's not a very good Christian trait, if you know what I mean).
@tskasa1 No, that is the pure figment of your imagination and apparent accusatory tendencies. The problem is in your mirror, not with the one you're debating.
I want to know what the Founding Fathers thought of reconciling quantum mechanics and general relativity. I'm sure Thomas Paine must have had a really good theory of quantum gravity. It's a shame the liberal academic establishment turns to socialist Einstein and Nazi Heisenberg for their science instead of Paul Revere, who rode his horse through town to demonstrate time dilation as the speed of his horse approached c.
Paine did not say that... And even if he did, he say that - "The circumstances of the world are continually changing, and the opinions of men change also; and as government is for the living, and not for the dead, it is the living only that has any right in it. That which may be thought right and found convenient in one age, may be thought wrong and found inconvenient in another. In such cases, who is to decide, the living, or the dead?"
So back before Darwinian evolution was a thing our founding fathers, only a handful of which were in any way scientists (with none that I know of being biologists), decided that creationism was right? Let's concede all of this as unobjectionable though... why in the fuck should we value historical facts or claims over the claims of science, especially in the realm of science and science education? These people remind of the USSR when it spoke of revolutionary and bourgeois science, Jesus Christ.
@aThinkingChristian Liar. As you require no proof for your various lunatic assertions, and even when people provide you with it you mark their comment as spam, it seeks fruitless to point out that you are a liar. Nevertheless. Your pants are on fire. You're a liar and an idiot.
@Oceanus57 LOL! I've never marked a comment as spam in my life. You're a bit too accusatory for me, bud. You better to find someone else to try and scare, because I've been around the block for too many years on this issue to be impressed with the sharpness of your pointed nose. You're more interested in name calling than in real debate, and certainly that's because you have nothing of value to say.
@RabornTau Well, yes, but by definition Deists believe that the Creator was hands-off, too. But the Founders didn't believe that. Not Thomas Paine, not Ben Franklin, none of 'em. They all felt that God played a role in delivering them from the British. And most of them were not Deists, but Christians.
Question for you. Why weren't any of them atheists? If you are and it makes sense to you, then where they smart enough to conclude as you have?
@aThinkingChristian They're plenty smart, i'm not saying they're STUPID for believing genesis, if they did indeed, but I am saying they were /wrong/ when considering the evidence doesnt' back it up. Why weren't any of them atheists? I don't know, nor do I care, i'm not trying to say they were. I know many of them were christians, but when the only reference in the constitution about religion is "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the exercise thereof" then (cont.)
@RabornTau But it's your opinion that the evidence doesn't back up Genesis. There are thousands of scientists who disagree. Remember, we all have the same evidence. It's the interpretation that varies.
There are valid reasons why the Constitution wasn't a Christian treaty. First and foremost, it wasn't meant to be. The federal govt left it up to the states on these issues, and the evidence for that is in their Constitutions. But Adams said it was ONLY designed for a moral and religious people.
@aThinkingChristian It is not my opinion, it is objective fact. There are far more scientists who support it than don't, and it is disparaging for your view. Science is convergent and they have converged on the explanation that best fits the facts. The interpretation may vary, but only one side can be most correct.
Adams may very well have said that. Secular Humanism is a religion AND an atheistic one. You would find those people generally moral and religious, no gods required.
@RabornTau I disagree. Gravity is a fact. Darwinian evolution is still a hotly debate theory. What the majority believes is of little relevance. They've been wrong before (as you would quickly claim with regards to the creationism belief pre-Darwin, am I correct?). But you're right, both sides cannot be right. It's all based on interpretation.
Ah, but Adams was a Christian. Be careful about erroneously downplaying a historical statement because you're uncomfortable with its implications.
@aThinkingChristian The theory of gravity, germ theory, atomic theory. These are all theories. Facts are observations, theories (the highest level of science) are the explanation as to WHY the observations have occurred. You pointed out how thousands disagree, majority or not, convergent science
He was a christian that doesn't matter, the religion I pointed out still applies to his quote. His implication is irrelevant anyway considering the constitution doesnt have any such requirements within.
@RabornTau Ok, but there is a big difference with regards to observing an apple fall from a tree, and then repeated that over and over with any object falling from any source. It's 100% foolproof under like conditions.
That is not what we observe with evolution. Darwin thought future generations would settle the issue, because he knew it wasn't settled in his time. There are thousands of qualified scientists who have valid arguments, and who do NOT believe it has been settled at all.
@aThinkingChristian Are you still rambling? 1) You still don't know what a Theory is. 2) You still think there are "thousands" of scientists who don't believe in Evolution..There aren't. 3)You quote Adams, and then say there were no atheist founders...funny, considering Adams himself said there were. 4) Your simple understanding cannot seem to grasp that there's a difference between private ideology and public image. 5) Finally, you STILL haven't given any evidence for creationism. Keep digging.
@chiachuck Yep! Rambling with the truth. Well...better answer your claims: 1. Yes, I do understand what a theory is, 2. there absolutely ARE thousands of scientists who disagree with evolution, 3. I bet you can't quote Adams to back up your claim, 4. the problem is not my understanding, but yours. You fail to understand the BIG philosophical differences between American Christianity in the 1700s vs. 2011, 5. Evidence abounds for creationism. Just Google it. It's a great tool!
@aThinkingChristian Again, wrong on every count. At this point, I'm simply amused/intrigued at the fact that I read these threads filled with so many people with so many evidences for what THEY believe...and you haven't even the courtesy to give us one..ONE evidence for what you believe. This makes you a fool, and a coward, and until you provide said evidence, I stand by that judgement...
There are not thousands of qualified scientists. There are a few dozen fringe scientists, but that is about it. I work in the field. And I have in all honesty met one creationist, and I was completely unimpressed. It was all about the dogma. The two most publicly respected creationist scientist I can think of are Dembski and Behe, and there is absolutely no respect for them at all in professional circles. Their ideas and theories have been complete trashed.
@RabornTau As for John Adams' statement, you can't relegate a man's words to a particular worldview just because it sounds good. As a Christian, "religion" for him certainly meant Christianity. That would be the case for ALL the founders. You can't view history with 2011 eye-glasses. It wasn't a religious melting pot back then. He wasn't thinking of Islam or Hinduism. American was emphatically Christian. That is a historical fact.
@aThinkingChristian Okay, let's assume he meant christianity, he probably did. However, that does not remove the establishment clause from the first amendment, nor does it take away the fact that they did not inject their religions into the constitution.
The US is not a christian nation, nor has it ever been. It is a nation, with a bunch of christians in it AND OTHER BELIEFS AS WELL. Those beliefs hold just as much weight as christianity's does, even if there's more people who believe in christ
@RabornTau No, but one other tidbit of history is needed here. For the first 150 years after the First Amendment the courts ruled in favor of the church. The design of the Amendment is to protect the CHURCH from the state, not the other way around. So there was no conflict between what Adams said and the 1st Amendment.
The US was totally Christian back then. There were other beliefs (e.g. Judaism, Catholicism), but not many. You can argue any way you want: Christianity ruled the day.
@aThinkingChristian So, is your argument that because the US was/is predominantly christian, then their religious views should be made into laws and taught in public schools? You're right, there wasn't a conflict, because he had the right to say it. It was his opinion that the constitution was only for religious and moral people, assuming he said that. Even if he did, that isn't a law, keeping the church out of state business and vice versa IS.
@RabornTau My point is that the Founders never meant for Christian principles to be eradicated from government. No one who has read their own words would think otherwise. They believed Christianity to be the best worldview for humanity. Is it logical, then, that they would put that worldview aside and create a totally secular government? No, that makes no sense.
"The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man." -Thomas Jefferson
@tskasa1 You're wrong. John Adams said, ""The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity."
Now, you can say what you want and claim what you want. But there you have a Founder that said that Christian principles played a big role. That's history. What you're stated is baseless opinion.
"John Adams said, ""The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity.""
Is this the same John Adams who signed the Treaty of Tripoli? The treaty that stated that the US was in no way, shape, or form a Christian nation? And again, simply sharing principles does not tie you to one religion. Just like learning the Muslim-invented concept of Algebra does not make one Muslim.
@tskasa1 Yep! Same guy. And I've addressed the Treaty of Tripoli several times in this thread.
Now answer me honestly. Have you even read the Treaty? I have and it does not say what you're implying. You have to hack an article in half and twist it to make it fit your view. That's dishonest to history and you should be ashamed to do such things.
"Now answer me honestly. Have you even read the Treaty"
Yes, I have. In fact:
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen"
There is the EXACT quote from the treaty. Signed by Adams himself. It is article 11, you can read it for yourself.
@tskasa1 (Sigh.) I've already addressed this at length in this thread, but in short: 1.) Article XI may not have been in the original Treaty and 2.) its no where says that America wasn't a Christian nation. It says that American is not a Christian nation that is hostile towards Muslims, like Europe was: "...as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen"
The context is clear. So why do atheists cut the sentence short? That's dishonest.
"1.) Article XI may not have been in the original Treaty"
And yet it was? How do we know this? Because we have original records of it, and like every other major treaty in US history we know what happened with it down to the dots on the "i"s.
"its no where says that America wasn't a Christian nation."
To quote the treaty:
"As the Government of the United States of America IS NOT, IN ANY SENSE, FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION;"
Caps added by me. It is REALLY hard to take that out of context, especially given the semicolon which shows that it is a complete thought but subordinated.
@tskasa1 Oh, it's very easy to take it out of context if you cut it off where you did. And that is exactly what people like you have done. The sentence doesn't end there. The rest of it explains what is meant (i.e. "...as it has..."), and I explained that. You atheists should really stop using the Treaty. It's dishonest.
" Oh, it's very easy to take it out of context if you cut it off where you did. And that is exactly what people like you have done. "
Do you know what a semicolon is? That is exactly what it means. A semicolon shows a complete thought that has been subordinated. Not to mention that there is no way one to rephrase the phrase that it was not founded on christian values into anything but that.
@tskasa1 Yes, I know what a semicolon is, and I also know what a complete sentence is. By the way, have you seen the original of the Treaty? Is there a semicolon? Better check that.
Also, are you ever going to state that first law of quantum dynamics for me or are you just going to skirt it so as to avoid getting your ass handed to you? Because honestly, after misrepresenting me so many times, I'd at least expect you to have the tiny semblance of integrity to take my challenge head on.
@RabornTau "Rarely do those who make this claim let Jefferson speak for himself. Jefferson's own words explain that his intent for that book was not for it to be a “Bible,” but rather for it to be a primer for the Indians on the teachings of Christ (which is why Jefferson titled that work, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth”). What Jefferson did was to take the “red letter” portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality."
@aThinkingChristian " "Rarely do those who make this claim let Jefferson speak for himself. " *and* "What Jefferson did was to take the “red letter” portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality."
See letters: Jefferson to Priestley, Jan 29, 1804 and Jefferson to Adams, Oct. 12, 1813.
So much for letting him speak for himself, huh? ...and you are, again, either ignorant, or lying...
"The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man."
Is this the same Thomas Jefferson who spent his nights as president working with a razor, by candlelight, cutting out pieces of scripture he didn't agree with (and he cut out a LOT of text)?? Jefferson was by no means a Christian. You can approve of Jesus without being Christian, as Ghandi did.
@tskasa1 "Rarely do those who make this claim let Jefferson speak for himself. Jefferson's own words explain that his intent for that book was not for it to be a “Bible,” but rather for it to be a primer for the Indians on the teachings of Christ (which is why Jefferson titled that work, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth”). What Jefferson did was to take the “red letter” portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality."
If you give me a quote, also give me a source. A random quote means nothing to me. Also, by trying to teach someone about the teachings of another man, it STILL does not make him Christian. Just like teaching people about the works of Martin Luther King does not make them Christian. Teaching about Malcolm X's work does not make them Muslim. And teaching about Ghandi does not make them Hindu. You can teach about religious figures and remain religiously neutral.
@aThinkingChristian More rubbish. Is it your assertion that a Jewish American is less American than a Christian American? Good luck with that idea. You'll find it's utterly unconstitutional. And deeply insulting. America is an nation that was founded on the principles of enlightenment thinking. Which is why the founding fathers checked the church at the door to the government. And very wise they were to do so.
"Darwinian evolution is still a hotly debate theory."
No it is not. There is NO debate amongst scientists over whether or not evolution happened. Only the scientifically illiterate actually argue that it didn't.
Gravity, like evolution, is both a fact and a theory. There is an observed force that we called gravity, that is gravity as a fact. Predicting how that force operates is the Theory of Gravity. We know that the genetic frequencies and the physical traits of a population change over time. That is the fact of evolution. How and why these markers change is the theory of evolution. And the Theory of Evolution is current less debated than an current theory of gravity.
@Colocharis "We know that the genetic frequencies and the physical traits of a population change over time. That is the fact of evolution."
No, that is a fact of nature. The Theory of Evolution requires those small changes, which nobody on either side of the aisle disputes, turn into big (added info) changes over millions of years. There is zero proof for that. It's never been observed or substantiated by the fossil record. Micro changes? Yes. Macro changes? No. That's assumption, not science.
Also you should be careful in using the term 'Christian' when referring to historical figures. Adams and Jefferson were both 'Christian,' but they were not 'Christian' in the sense that most evangelicals use the term 'Christian'. Adams was a universalist, and Jefferson denied the divinity of Christ. In their minds, they may have been Christian (although I am not sure of that), but to imply that they believed the same doctrine as evangelicals do today is absurd.
@Colocharis Adams was not a universalist all his life. As a matter of fact, in the end he embraced orthodox Christianity. He was a true Christian.
Any true Christian knows that Jefferson was probably not. But HE though himself to be. I'm not in a position to say for sure. He knows now.
What I do know is that both of them believe strongly in the benefits of the principles of Christianity, and they, and most of the other Founders, felt them to be the best principles for all humanity.
@aThinkingChristian Evolution is just as much a fact as gravity. The theory of gravity and the theory of evolution have equal status - both are borne out by facts and data. Neither has experienced any data contrary to the theory, which is why they are both extant theories. The only people who argue that evolution isn't true are religious morons who have a vested interest in proclaiming the veracity of their one and only lousy book. The one with all the instructions for slave keeping.
@aThinkingChristian Can't hate what ain't there, god-botherer boy. As I know for a certain fact that there is no God, the idea that I hate god isn't going to get off the ground.
Answer the question. Is a Jew a lesser American because he isn't a Christian? I'm waiting...
@Oceanus57 Um, no, you can't say that God doesn't exits for a fact. Not unless you possess all knowledge (omniscience). Sorry to burst your bubble there, but you're a self-proclaimed thinker, so I just want to keep you thinking that way. (Sigh.)
@aThinkingChristian I sure can say that God doesn't exist, and that I know this for a fact.. And there's nothing you can say to refute it. There is no God. Simple fact. God is a construct of the berserk human imagination, just like any other animated character. No animators - no God. Simple. That's why you're here, after all. Because you have no real confidence that God is real. You're an animator. Let's face it, if you and your other god-botherers give it up, your God won't move.
@Oceanus57 LOL! I've already said it and you can't deny it. Let me say it again, unless you are ALL-KNOWING you cannot say for certain that God doesn't exist. The best you can is "I don't know." That that is a logical fact. Deny it all you want. You're wrong.
@aThinkingChristian Nope. I can state with complete certainty that God is a construct of the human imagination. And this is a simple and easy and perfect conclusion to draw. There is no God. All Gods are conjured up by pesky human animators, of whom you are one. When the animators depart, so do the Gods. The roads that lead from the past to the present are littered with the corpses of no-longer animated gods. When they no longer have their human enablers, they get puny real fast.
"But it's your opinion that the evidence doesn't back up Genesis."
No it is not. It is an objectively verifiable fact. There is not ONE single thread of evidence for either spontaneous creation of either the universe and life, nor a global flood, nor anything else in Genesis pertaining to science.
@tskasa1 Oh, there is PLENTY of evidence for spontaneous creation. It's been a huge enigma for evolutionists since the beginning of the theory. As a matter of fact, I bet YOU believe it, too. Just how did that "Big Bang" happen from nothing?
There is also plenty of evidence for a global flood. Google: "evidence for a global flood" and enjoy!
(Be careful about simply believing something because you imagine it to be so. Some actual research can put that thinking to rest.)
"Oh, there is PLENTY of evidence for spontaneous creation."
Name. A single. One.
"Just how did that "Big Bang" happen from nothing?"
...Except that it DIDN'T happen from nothing. The Big Bang resulted from the exponential expansion of an already existing inflaton field, which drove inflation and caused the Big Bang. And that is only a VERY basic covering of it. Please, I suggest you don't speak such mindless drivel about what you don't understand.
@tskasa1 And you were there, or know someone who was, that convinces you of this? Oh, and so matter is eternal and had no beginning? The science for that, please? (It does make your problem of spontaneous creation easier to swallow, doesn't it.)
"Oh, and so matter is eternal and had no beginning?"
Except I never said that. And also, inflatons aren't conventional matter, they would be exotic particles with properties different from that of normal matter. Again, don't talk about what you don't know.
"The science for that, please?"
The quanta that compose atoms (electrons and quarks), like all other quanta, do not decay. Hence, it is actually possible for them to exist an infinite amount of time.
"So exotic particles are eternal and had no beginning? Is that what you're proposing?"
Again, I never said that. There ARE indeed known methods under which you can create matter and energy as LONG as you have the correct initial conditions and the correct final conditions so as to not violate the second law of thermodynamics.
"Again, where is the sound science that matter has always existed?"
And again, I never stated that. Stop trying to strawman me.
@tskasa1 So, help me out. What you're saying is that INTELLIGENT AGENTS can CREATE matter and energy under a very delicate set of conditions that, if not PERFECT, could not bring the desired result?
Very well said. Accurate and true! And...a perfect argument for creationism. Thank you!
" INTELLIGENT AGENTS can CREATE matter and energy under a very delicate set of conditions that, if not PERFECT, could not bring the desired result?"
When did I say ANYTHING about intelligent agents? Exactly, I didn't. I stated that under certain conditions it IS possible to do so. Not to mention that these conditions are FAR from delicate and there are trillions of possible permutations that could cause a working universe. You actually only need 2 set conditions.
@tskasa1 Yes you did. Just not using that wording. I just peeled back the facade to show you what you were really saying. You said, "There ARE indeed known methods under which YOU CAN CREATE matter and energy..."
The "you" in your statement references a scientists in a lab: an INTELLIGENT agent.
Oh, they are very delicate! Mutation are most of the time NOT good. They are either neutral or bad. They are no aid to your theory.
@aThinkingChristian 1: There are other ways that NATURAL processes occur that we can reproduce, yet they still occur naturally with no apparent guidance.
2. Mutations are mostly neutral, some are bad, and some are good. They are NOT mostly bad and the ones with bad mutations typically don't reproduce (So they are selected against). You currently have THOUSANDS of mutations in your own genes, most of which /do not affect you/. There may be a few that give you ever so slight an edge though.
"The "you" in your statement references a scientists in a lab: an INTELLIGENT agent."
Ehhh, no. No intelligent agent can do this as it is an inherently quantum mechanical process. Just like "you" can't smash atoms in an atom smasher (which, hysterically enough, don't actually smash atoms anymore). I was stating that "you" could observe it, but "you" cannot do it, as you are not able to work on the quantum mechanic level.
But...are you stating that simply because something can be done in a lab it means that it cannot be done naturally? You DO understand that most experiments done in labs are done under naturalistic conditions with the scientist doing very little outside of observing once the experiment has been adjusted for natural conditions? Right?
@tskasa1 No, I'm saying that something done in a lab (which you used as your example) is done by intelligent agents. If you want to recreate what you claim happened naturally then you need intelligence to demonstrate it. I find that amusing and revealing all at the same time. :-)
The problem with your reasoning is that in your example there is always an intelligent person overseeing the "conditions." There is no evidence that natural could do the same.
"Oh, they are very delicate! Mutation are most of the time NOT good. They are either neutral or bad. They are no aid to your theory."
...How do you get from creating matter and energy to this? Talk about completely unrelated. Regardless, most mutations are neutral. And many mutations are situational. A shift in color, for example, can be a beneficial mutation. And yes, there ARE documented cases of beneficial mutations.
@tskasa1 I never said there weren't beneficial mutations. I said they are not common. But for evolution to be true they MUST be very, very common. That's problematic. Observation goes against the theory.
"I never said there weren't beneficial mutations. I said they are not common."
Nor are bad mutations. Most mutations do nothing. And most mutations are situational. A mutation that may be detrimental to one species somewhere may be beneficial to that exact same species somewhere else. An easy example is that of colour.
"But for evolution to be true they MUST be very, very common."
Not very common. But when you have millions if not billions of life forms all undergoing mutations you are bound to get good ones here and there. Any beings with extremely detrimental mutations will be eliminated by natural selection, whereas those with good ones will be selected for. You can also have slightly damaging mutations that aren't too serious and are hence not selected against, such as hemophilia.
@aThinkingChristian We can bring about other things that NATURAL causes do as well, does that mean that someone must be making trees grow and cells divide? No, it doesn't. What it means is, that such things are possible, it does not necessarily mean somone/thing made it happen. You're adding in variables without evidence to put them there. It's not something you can infer automatically.
@RabornTau No, but I submit that the evidence shows that Someone did put it in motion. What we do see is trees growing and cells dividing, and we have to ask if those mechanism could have originated without an intelligent Agent. I say they couldn't.
@RabornTau I say that because I believe it. (?) I have no issue with a God creating and then allowing the nature he created run its course. Men do it with machines all the time.
@tskasa1 Ok, a good Google search brings up, "The first law of thermodynamics, an expression of the principle of conservation of energy, states that energy can be transformed (changed from one form to another), but cannot be created or destroyed."
How's that? But I fail to see how that helps your cause. Especially that part about it not being able to "be created." (Like from nothing!)
Ehh, no. That is not actually what the 1st Law States, because the first law is an equation. It is phrased in the following manner:
dU=iQ-iW
Where dU is the (change) or net energy, and iQ represents the energy in the system and iW represents the work done in the system. This equation essentially states not that matter cannot be created or destroyed, but that the net energy of the universe must ALWAYS be constant. Okay, do you understand that?
"Existing an "infinite amount of time" is not the same as ETERNAL (having no beginning or ending)."
No shit Sherlock, I was pointing out a bit of trivia which I found to be interesting. I do that often. At least it's educating you. You need it, so that at least next time when you speak you don't sound so ignorant.
@tskasa1 And so we are still at you implying that matter is eternal (whether you claim that or not) and me saying it's not possible materialistically.
"And so we are still at you implying that matter is eternal (whether you claim that or not) and me saying it's not possible materialistically."
Except that I have NEVER stated that. And EVER time you've asked me I've said NO. And I even offered to explain to you how matter can come about materialistically. But you are extremely dishonest and simply construct strawmen to pick at.
@tskasa1 Well, of course you never stated it. It would totally expose your theory, because you know its absurd to think that nothing can create something naturally. But say it or not, that IS what you believe if you're going to cling to a naturalistic origin to the universe.
@aThinkingChristian Except it's not, because it naturally occurs frequently. Virtual particles are constantly going in and out of existence /with no apparent guiding force/
" Well, of course you never stated it. It would totally expose your theory,"
No, I never stated it because it wasn't what I was getting at. And I'd appreciate it if you'd have the intergrity and honesty to stop twisting my words and constructing strawmen to fit your own needs as you don't seem e doing that to you.
"because you know its absurd to think that nothing can create something naturally."
And yet, you can. And it is known how it can be done.
@tskasa1 No it can't be done! Nothing is NOTHING--NO THING. Where there is nothing there cannot be something. That's entirely illogical. But you MUST believe that that happened. I'm not twisting your words. You're living in denial because you know how insane such a belief is, but you are forced to believe it. There is no other option for you.
"You're living in denial because you know how insane such a belief is"
How the HELL am I living in denial when I already told you I'd explain it to you? You have yet to even hear my explanation and yet you've already dismissed it! Not only ignorant and dishonest but impossibly arrogant as well. You cannot even do something as simple as fulfill an easy request which, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, you understand well.
Again, common sense is NOT a valid measure of truth in science. Quantum Theory and Relativity taught us that. Common Sense means jack shit in the world of science, only what you can and cannot prove.
LOL this guy has his history all messed up
claton95 2 days ago
David Barton cherry picks history and manipulates language to distort the truth. The result is a lie, of which the ninth commandment of the Christian Bible forbids.
TouchOfGreatness 2 weeks ago
My head hurts so fucking much.
redsawdom 1 month ago
David Barton makes more sense than any historian I've ever studied.
sensibleadult 4 months ago
Not at least in the public schools because USA is constitutionally secular state. Where do these morons come from? From private shools? Do they teach there also that earth is flat?
dafjkldfa 4 months ago
Barton is a modern day Nathaniel Hawthorne ... literally lying about history to get his friends elected.
The U.S.A. is a secular nation, founded by near-atheists (B. Franklin was no doubt an atheist) ... who would laugh at David Barton, had they been around to hear his utter Bullshit.
treid100182 5 months ago 3
Many of our most beloved founding fathers (Franklin and Jefferson for example) weren't christian.
SirRobertDole2 6 months ago
This shit lends weight to the call for improved mental health care in the U.S.
EVLWNS 7 months ago 4
David Barton is a mason and a liar! The Hidden Faith of The Founding Fathers 2010 Search it and watch it! Know the truth. xU24fJ4NQxo
FireByNight 8 months ago
@FireByNight Please don't spread silly conspiracy theories. Yes, we all no David Barton is full crap, but I've yet to find any record of him being a mason. Sincerely, A mason.
rightisray 5 months ago
@rightisray He does make interesting finger and hand jestures. Watch him closely.
jfsfrnd 4 months ago
I am not sure if this man is ignorant or outright lying. If he is ignorant he needs to educate himself before he attempts to make statements about history or evolution. I can safely say that this is the silliest thing I have heard in a long time.
uniteordie1 8 months ago
this makes no sense. of course pre-darwinian founding fathers thought they should teach creationism - there was no other choice at that time!
CMichaelEH 8 months ago
Fail!
326742 8 months ago
I wonder how Barton feels about not using flush toilets, since the Founding Fathers advocated outhouses (even the most sanitary minded of them). The Founding Fathers were not aware of flush toilets or evolution theory at the time.
"Mr Jefferson, build up that wall (of separation between church and state)." - C Hitchens
drfoxcourt 8 months ago 17
@drfoxcourt The founders were well versed in history. Particularly Greek history. You would do well to do so as well, because you would learn that evolution is an old concept originating from the Greeks.
thequantumvacuum 3 months ago
@thequantumvacuum While some Greeks managed to realize that life came from the sea and some realized that species were related, they nor anyone else until Wallace and Darwin articulated the origin of species from natural selection (and variation). The Greeks appear to be far more Lamarckian than Darwinian.
The Founding Fathers may have known much history including just how detrimental and dangerous religion had been. Creationism is religion and just as bad to institutionalize.
drfoxcourt 3 months ago
@drfoxcourt Religion is mans attempt to relink with god. Creation science didnt become an ism until evolution was challenged by the Intelligent Design movement. DNA is the end of evolution. SETI would have considered prime numbers from outer space evidence for intelligence. There is a far more complicated language convention inside the DNA than any that we can currently create. And to teach students that there is an alternative theory to evolution is bad? Beware the sound of one hand clapping.
thequantumvacuum 3 months ago
@thequantumvacuum "Religion is mans attempt to relink with god." This assumes a God not in evidence. You cannot relink with Zeus.
Humans naturally see design in everything. That is the analytic modules of our brain at work and something we evolved from our ape ancestry. Design does not have to be present for us to think it is there.
DNA and the time it takes to evolve new species are hard to grasp but the changes of evolution are subtle, continuous, and observable. No designer needed.
drfoxcourt 3 months ago
@drfoxcourt Very good! Using logic! A creator IS separate from his creation. See, you can use logic when it suits you. I guess I misjudged you. No wait, selective application of logic makes you like every other atheist I know. You believe what you want to believe, and nothing will dissuade you. I have some questions for you. Where do the natural laws come from, and why arent they evolving? How do you know right from wrong? What exploded in the Big Bang?
thequantumvacuum 3 months ago
@thequantumvacuum Enough of your deciding what I think please. Unhelpful.
Natural laws origins (I'm guessing you mean physical laws like law of motion F=ma, and general relativity E=mc ^2) - The Scientific answer is we don't know. That they exist is no indication of a designer.
Why don't natural laws evolve? There is no variation and no selective pressure on natural laws.
What exploded in the Big Bang? - My best explanation is that the dimensions uncurled and matter/energy expanded into them.
drfoxcourt 3 months ago
@drfoxcourt Well, it wasnt until 1775 that Alexander Cumming designed a “stink trap” for toilets. Anyone can understand that they were advocating cleanliness rather than outhouses. your point shows your contempt for logic. You atheists are insecure. You cant argue with facts and have to demean those who think differently than you. Thats why you cover a WWI monument in the middle of the desert. Because its a cross and it reminds you of your choice. Examine yourself and see if hate motivates you.
thequantumvacuum 3 months ago
@thequantumvacuum Where the hell did this vitriol come from"? First you intimate that I don't know history, then you overtly claim that I have contempt for logic? I don't cover WWI monuments and I could not care less if someone puts up a cross. God doesn't bother me. It's the people who want me to believe in God that bother me.
Keep your filthy religion off my government and I will work to prevent any government I have a voice in off your religion (see 1st Amendment)
drfoxcourt 3 months ago
@drfoxcourt Please know that I have enjoyed this conversation. So few atheists I know are as intelligent as you have proven to be. I mean you no disrespect. I am trying to challenge you as I hope you do for me.
An atheist claims to have proven to themselves with certainty that God is not. That is to prove a negative. To do so one must know all things to retain logical integrity. Maybe you do. I only claim faith because I see design in nature, and infer a higher intellect. That is only logical.
thequantumvacuum 3 months ago
@thequantumvacuum "Please know that I have enjoyed this conversation." You don't show it.
As an atheist, I make no claim regarding God. I see no evidence (apparent design is not evidence IMHO) for God and so logically assume no God (I see no evidence for Unicorns in the same way). The positive claim is theism and so should rightly bear the burden of proof. Call me what you will but I am prefer anti-theist and merely use atheist as the collective of agnostic, atheist and anti-theist. (more)
drfoxcourt 3 months ago
@drfoxcourt An atheist makes only one claim, there is no God, and do it with certitude. What is the difference between an atheist and an agnostic?
You choose to see no evidence. Can you admit that DNA is a code, or the body a machine, or the planet a system? Perhaps you can show 1 example of chance creating any of these, even though science demands multiple examples? Design is evidence. You would be a fool to claim that Egyptian ruins were formed by wind and erosion. Data only comes from a mind
thequantumvacuum 3 months ago
@thequantumvacuum I make no claim regarding God. I am an anti-theist if you must call me something.
I don't choose to see no evidence, I evaluate the facts and observe no evidence.
The wave pattern of sand dunes in a desert sure looks designed, but indeed it is not. It is the result of complex natural forces. When you father's sperm mixed with your mother's egg, the result emerged as a VERY complex machine indeed. Again no God needed. Small variations and selective pressure account for it all.
drfoxcourt 3 months ago
@drfoxcourt You claimed to be an atheist. That means you claim there is no God. Coward, own your statement. Now you want to be an anti-theist? You are against people who believe something you dont? So you are a thought police? You have proven to be intellectually dishonest. You lie to yourself, and selectively apply critical thinking. I only hope that this banter will show readers the shallow depth of the atheist position. You are no longer worth my time, as you have no challenge to offer me.
thequantumvacuum 3 months ago
@thequantumvacuum Atheist = Someone who does not believe there is a god or gods (note no claim is made)
Agnostic = Someone who does not know if there is a god or gods
Anti-theist = Someone who is opposed to theism (the belief that there is a god or gods).
Just as we are getting going you are going to back out? Just as I point out the central tenets of evolution (variation and selection) you decide to attack my character rather than address the issue? Shame on you.
drfoxcourt 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@drfoxcourt
"Just as I point out the central tenets of evolution (variation and selection) you decide to attack my character rather than address the issue? "
That's religion for you.
Someone says something that disagrees with their dogma, don't have a reasoned debate just burn them at the stake. The methods might have changed but their reaction to criticism hasn't.
ThereIsCake 2 months ago
Dear Fundamentalist Christians,
Go f@#k yourselves.
That is all.
LiveTheWild 8 months ago
Even before Christianity we were taught creationism. Thank god we have grown out of that.
b991228 8 months ago
I like how Barton claims that U.S. Founding Fathers such as Thomas Paine, who died when Charles Darwin was only 4 months old, "had already had the entire debate on creation/evolution". Just...wow.
geezerbill 8 months ago 3
Does he not realize that Darwin didn't release his book "On the origin of species" until 1859 and the US was founded in 1776? The founding father of the USA most likely not ever aware of evolution because it came after their time
vnorthru 8 months ago 2
This is the guy who wrote that George Washington had god powers making him bulletproof.
grendelee 8 months ago
Because your answer proves that the concept of a nation that requires a particular religious belief of it citizenry is a vulgar one. Christianity and American-ness are different things. So shut up trying to link your crappy religion with your much more enlightened and wise Constitution, which rightly separates Church and State.
Oceanus57 8 months ago
Here's your 1000 dollar question, god-botherer boy. Is a Christian more qualified to be an American than a Jew?
Mind how you answer.
Oceanus57 8 months ago
@Oceanus57 Nope. Why would such a vulgar question even enter your mind?
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
Thomas Paine died June 8,1809
Charles Darwin was born February 12, 1809
I seriously doubt they had a debate about this subject!
mafarmerga 8 months ago 34
Wow, the founding fathers could foresee the future? The founding fathers signed the declaration in 1776, and Darwin revealed his theory in 1859.
This guy is so full of shit that I think I can see him bursting at the seams. I can't believe conservatives believe this fiction.
Afryte 8 months ago
Isn't "thinking Christian" an oxymoron? Like "Arrogant Humility", or "creation science", or "false hope".
Make your mind up. Either be a Christian and believe everything the Pope tells you, or do a bit more thinking.
After enough thinking, you'll come to appreciate that there's No God . No Afterlife, or ghosts or pixies These things are all imaginary.
You might want to start your thinking process by looking up the concept of equivocation. Afterwards skip to the d's and investigate denial.
Oceanus57 8 months ago
is this guy that fucking retarded? evolution was founded wayyy after the founding fathers created america as a free nation, and most of the FF's were secularist and atheistic or deistic. and they all didnt even believe in the creation story of the bible
gphhawkins 8 months ago
@gphhawkins They were? Where did you study American history? Can you name ONE influential Founder that was an atheist? Can you name just ONE influential Founder who was a known "secularist" by quoting their own words to that affect?
Happy searching...
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aThinkingChristian Thomas paine was an atheist Thomas Jeff was a diest as was Ben F George W, etc and here: gphhawkins.weebly.com/thomas-jefferson-quotes
gphhawkins 8 months ago
Can you believe this idiot? Leave it to Glenn Beck to add this creature to his "university" of misinformation.
1Onionpeeler 8 months ago
LOL! I rarely use youtube and I'm not familiar with the layout, that is to say, for about 5 minutes I was reading this thread as chiachuck's comments being made by @aThinkingChristian and I couldn't help asking myself "I kinda agree with this guy, sounds like he's thinking, so why is he a christian??? Worse, how is it that I'm agreeing with a christian?!?!"
LBEAVER4747 8 months ago
"Can't tell if trolling or just very stupid."
Saying that the founding fathers had alredy debated creation/evolution would require a time machine since the theory of evolution did not exist yet.
nukepwetty 8 months ago
Atheism, Secular Humanism or what ever you want to call it, is also religion. So would`nt that mean that teaching evolution in science classes also be teaching a religious subject?
jayaye21 8 months ago
@jayaye21 No, because, first, atheism is not a religion. Evolution, and more importantly, the scientific method, follow a strict structure of inquiry which has the intention of presenting standardized information . Religion does not do this, and is incapable, because it has no such code, and relies purely on subjectivity, rendering it useless in a public environment. Hope this makes sense.
chiachuck 8 months ago
@chiachuck Wrong atheism is a religion. the Supreme Court ruled it so back in 1961 a case Torcaso vs Watkins. The court described(ruled)Secular Humanisn(atheism) as a religion. You believe what you want, I prefer to believe the word of GOD.
jayaye21 8 months ago
@jayaye21 Think you might want to read the case again. But, hey, why bother? Might as well throw another "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!" carcass on the fire. Let me guess, you also have no evidence whatsoever to back up your claims about the word of God, eh?
chiachuck 8 months ago
@jayaye21 Atheism is not Secular Humanism and as I recall atheism is simply afforded the same protections as a religion, it is not itself one.
RabornTau 8 months ago
@jayaye21 Evolution is not atheism or secular humanism. It's science. While atheists might believe and defend it, it is not religious based. It's evidence based. There is no holy book or teachings of evolution, it's simply observations and explanations of the world we live, much like the theory of gravity. We observe that objects fall, why is that? The theory explains it. Same goes for evolution.
RabornTau 8 months ago
yep, back LOOOONG before darwin was born the founding fathers had a debate over his theory vs magic pixie dust
MoonKittenJD 8 months ago
Wow, had no idea the founding fathers also invented a time machine
deeema107 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aThinkingChristian
"Well, since this is the first time you've even mentioned the 1st Law of Thermodynamics,"
To quote myself:
"Okay, but I'll need you to do something for me first. I need you to recite for me the First Law of thermodynamics."
This can be found in a post on page three. I stated this a LONG time ago. Again, are you trying to be dishonest on purpose or are you truly that ignorant?
tskasa1 8 months ago
@tskasa1 Or, maybe I just missed what you said? LOL. Accusations don't fare too well with me, bud. If I can tell you one certain thing about me, it's that I NEVER seek to be dishonest or misleading (it's not a very good Christian trait, if you know what I mean).
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian
"Accusations don't fare too well with me, bud. If I can tell you one certain thing about me, it's that I NEVER seek to be dishonest or misleading"
You ENTIRE conversation with everyone here has only shown the exact opposite.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@tskasa1 No, that is the pure figment of your imagination and apparent accusatory tendencies. The problem is in your mirror, not with the one you're debating.
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
I want to know what the Founding Fathers thought of reconciling quantum mechanics and general relativity. I'm sure Thomas Paine must have had a really good theory of quantum gravity. It's a shame the liberal academic establishment turns to socialist Einstein and Nazi Heisenberg for their science instead of Paul Revere, who rode his horse through town to demonstrate time dilation as the speed of his horse approached c.
FlyoviaUSA 8 months ago
is it too late for David Barton to be aborted?
SuperAtheist 8 months ago
Paine did not say that... And even if he did, he say that - "The circumstances of the world are continually changing, and the opinions of men change also; and as government is for the living, and not for the dead, it is the living only that has any right in it. That which may be thought right and found convenient in one age, may be thought wrong and found inconvenient in another. In such cases, who is to decide, the living, or the dead?"
So, blow me!
therrydicule 8 months ago
Creation science? What an oxymoron!
This lying ignoramus douchebag should be in jail, instead of the millions of people filling up the kails for smoking a joint.
Nilguiri 8 months ago 2
So back before Darwinian evolution was a thing our founding fathers, only a handful of which were in any way scientists (with none that I know of being biologists), decided that creationism was right? Let's concede all of this as unobjectionable though... why in the fuck should we value historical facts or claims over the claims of science, especially in the realm of science and science education? These people remind of the USSR when it spoke of revolutionary and bourgeois science, Jesus Christ.
fauyd 8 months ago
They had the evolution/creation debate before there even was a theory of evolution? That's a neat trick.
TheDiMono 8 months ago
@TheDiMono The theory did not begin with Darwin. He simply opened it up to the world. The debate was going on long before him.
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian Liar. As you require no proof for your various lunatic assertions, and even when people provide you with it you mark their comment as spam, it seeks fruitless to point out that you are a liar. Nevertheless. Your pants are on fire. You're a liar and an idiot.
Oceanus57 8 months ago
@Oceanus57 LOL! I've never marked a comment as spam in my life. You're a bit too accusatory for me, bud. You better to find someone else to try and scare, because I've been around the block for too many years on this issue to be impressed with the sharpness of your pointed nose. You're more interested in name calling than in real debate, and certainly that's because you have nothing of value to say.
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian And you're chicken. bwakkkk bk bk bk bk bk bk...
Oceanus57 8 months ago
@Oceanus57 Thank you for displaying your respectful intelligence for all of us to see.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
Obviously Thomas Paine had a time machine.
Duh!
GileadDelphi 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian Yes, yes it is, because that's what deists believe. He did not believe in christ or yahweh, he believed in "a creator".
RabornTau 8 months ago
@RabornTau Well, yes, but by definition Deists believe that the Creator was hands-off, too. But the Founders didn't believe that. Not Thomas Paine, not Ben Franklin, none of 'em. They all felt that God played a role in delivering them from the British. And most of them were not Deists, but Christians.
Question for you. Why weren't any of them atheists? If you are and it makes sense to you, then where they smart enough to conclude as you have?
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian They're plenty smart, i'm not saying they're STUPID for believing genesis, if they did indeed, but I am saying they were /wrong/ when considering the evidence doesnt' back it up. Why weren't any of them atheists? I don't know, nor do I care, i'm not trying to say they were. I know many of them were christians, but when the only reference in the constitution about religion is "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the exercise thereof" then (cont.)
RabornTau 8 months ago
@RabornTau But it's your opinion that the evidence doesn't back up Genesis. There are thousands of scientists who disagree. Remember, we all have the same evidence. It's the interpretation that varies.
There are valid reasons why the Constitution wasn't a Christian treaty. First and foremost, it wasn't meant to be. The federal govt left it up to the states on these issues, and the evidence for that is in their Constitutions. But Adams said it was ONLY designed for a moral and religious people.
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian It is not my opinion, it is objective fact. There are far more scientists who support it than don't, and it is disparaging for your view. Science is convergent and they have converged on the explanation that best fits the facts. The interpretation may vary, but only one side can be most correct.
Adams may very well have said that. Secular Humanism is a religion AND an atheistic one. You would find those people generally moral and religious, no gods required.
RabornTau 8 months ago
@RabornTau I disagree. Gravity is a fact. Darwinian evolution is still a hotly debate theory. What the majority believes is of little relevance. They've been wrong before (as you would quickly claim with regards to the creationism belief pre-Darwin, am I correct?). But you're right, both sides cannot be right. It's all based on interpretation.
Ah, but Adams was a Christian. Be careful about erroneously downplaying a historical statement because you're uncomfortable with its implications.
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian The theory of gravity, germ theory, atomic theory. These are all theories. Facts are observations, theories (the highest level of science) are the explanation as to WHY the observations have occurred. You pointed out how thousands disagree, majority or not, convergent science
He was a christian that doesn't matter, the religion I pointed out still applies to his quote. His implication is irrelevant anyway considering the constitution doesnt have any such requirements within.
RabornTau 8 months ago
@RabornTau Ok, but there is a big difference with regards to observing an apple fall from a tree, and then repeated that over and over with any object falling from any source. It's 100% foolproof under like conditions.
That is not what we observe with evolution. Darwin thought future generations would settle the issue, because he knew it wasn't settled in his time. There are thousands of qualified scientists who have valid arguments, and who do NOT believe it has been settled at all.
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian Are you still rambling? 1) You still don't know what a Theory is. 2) You still think there are "thousands" of scientists who don't believe in Evolution..There aren't. 3)You quote Adams, and then say there were no atheist founders...funny, considering Adams himself said there were. 4) Your simple understanding cannot seem to grasp that there's a difference between private ideology and public image. 5) Finally, you STILL haven't given any evidence for creationism. Keep digging.
chiachuck 8 months ago
@chiachuck Yep! Rambling with the truth. Well...better answer your claims: 1. Yes, I do understand what a theory is, 2. there absolutely ARE thousands of scientists who disagree with evolution, 3. I bet you can't quote Adams to back up your claim, 4. the problem is not my understanding, but yours. You fail to understand the BIG philosophical differences between American Christianity in the 1700s vs. 2011, 5. Evidence abounds for creationism. Just Google it. It's a great tool!
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian Again, wrong on every count. At this point, I'm simply amused/intrigued at the fact that I read these threads filled with so many people with so many evidences for what THEY believe...and you haven't even the courtesy to give us one..ONE evidence for what you believe. This makes you a fool, and a coward, and until you provide said evidence, I stand by that judgement...
chiachuck 8 months ago
@chiachuck Worse - if you provide this evidence, the "thinking christian" will flag it as spam.
Oceanus57 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian
There are not thousands of qualified scientists. There are a few dozen fringe scientists, but that is about it. I work in the field. And I have in all honesty met one creationist, and I was completely unimpressed. It was all about the dogma. The two most publicly respected creationist scientist I can think of are Dembski and Behe, and there is absolutely no respect for them at all in professional circles. Their ideas and theories have been complete trashed.
Colocharis 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aThinkingChristian Rubbish. More lies. You are a fool and a liar.
Oceanus57 8 months ago
@RabornTau As for John Adams' statement, you can't relegate a man's words to a particular worldview just because it sounds good. As a Christian, "religion" for him certainly meant Christianity. That would be the case for ALL the founders. You can't view history with 2011 eye-glasses. It wasn't a religious melting pot back then. He wasn't thinking of Islam or Hinduism. American was emphatically Christian. That is a historical fact.
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian Okay, let's assume he meant christianity, he probably did. However, that does not remove the establishment clause from the first amendment, nor does it take away the fact that they did not inject their religions into the constitution.
The US is not a christian nation, nor has it ever been. It is a nation, with a bunch of christians in it AND OTHER BELIEFS AS WELL. Those beliefs hold just as much weight as christianity's does, even if there's more people who believe in christ
RabornTau 8 months ago
@RabornTau No, but one other tidbit of history is needed here. For the first 150 years after the First Amendment the courts ruled in favor of the church. The design of the Amendment is to protect the CHURCH from the state, not the other way around. So there was no conflict between what Adams said and the 1st Amendment.
The US was totally Christian back then. There were other beliefs (e.g. Judaism, Catholicism), but not many. You can argue any way you want: Christianity ruled the day.
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian So, is your argument that because the US was/is predominantly christian, then their religious views should be made into laws and taught in public schools? You're right, there wasn't a conflict, because he had the right to say it. It was his opinion that the constitution was only for religious and moral people, assuming he said that. Even if he did, that isn't a law, keeping the church out of state business and vice versa IS.
RabornTau 8 months ago
@RabornTau My point is that the Founders never meant for Christian principles to be eradicated from government. No one who has read their own words would think otherwise. They believed Christianity to be the best worldview for humanity. Is it logical, then, that they would put that worldview aside and create a totally secular government? No, that makes no sense.
"The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man." -Thomas Jefferson
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian
"My point is that the Founders never meant for Christian principles to be eradicated from government."
Nor did they mean for there to be any in there to be eradicated to begin with.
" They believed Christianity to be the best worldview for humanity."
Many of them also believed the white race to be the perfect and ultimate race, and negroes to be subhuman. Should we accept this as well?
tskasa1 8 months ago
@tskasa1 You're wrong. John Adams said, ""The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity."
Now, you can say what you want and claim what you want. But there you have a Founder that said that Christian principles played a big role. That's history. What you're stated is baseless opinion.
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian
"John Adams said, ""The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity.""
Is this the same John Adams who signed the Treaty of Tripoli? The treaty that stated that the US was in no way, shape, or form a Christian nation? And again, simply sharing principles does not tie you to one religion. Just like learning the Muslim-invented concept of Algebra does not make one Muslim.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@tskasa1 Yep! Same guy. And I've addressed the Treaty of Tripoli several times in this thread.
Now answer me honestly. Have you even read the Treaty? I have and it does not say what you're implying. You have to hack an article in half and twist it to make it fit your view. That's dishonest to history and you should be ashamed to do such things.
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian
"Now answer me honestly. Have you even read the Treaty"
Yes, I have. In fact:
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen"
There is the EXACT quote from the treaty. Signed by Adams himself. It is article 11, you can read it for yourself.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@tskasa1 (Sigh.) I've already addressed this at length in this thread, but in short: 1.) Article XI may not have been in the original Treaty and 2.) its no where says that America wasn't a Christian nation. It says that American is not a Christian nation that is hostile towards Muslims, like Europe was: "...as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen"
The context is clear. So why do atheists cut the sentence short? That's dishonest.
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aThinkingChristian
"1.) Article XI may not have been in the original Treaty"
And yet it was? How do we know this? Because we have original records of it, and like every other major treaty in US history we know what happened with it down to the dots on the "i"s.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian
"its no where says that America wasn't a Christian nation."
To quote the treaty:
"As the Government of the United States of America IS NOT, IN ANY SENSE, FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION;"
Caps added by me. It is REALLY hard to take that out of context, especially given the semicolon which shows that it is a complete thought but subordinated.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@tskasa1 Oh, it's very easy to take it out of context if you cut it off where you did. And that is exactly what people like you have done. The sentence doesn't end there. The rest of it explains what is meant (i.e. "...as it has..."), and I explained that. You atheists should really stop using the Treaty. It's dishonest.
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian
" Oh, it's very easy to take it out of context if you cut it off where you did. And that is exactly what people like you have done. "
Do you know what a semicolon is? That is exactly what it means. A semicolon shows a complete thought that has been subordinated. Not to mention that there is no way one to rephrase the phrase that it was not founded on christian values into anything but that.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@tskasa1 Yes, I know what a semicolon is, and I also know what a complete sentence is. By the way, have you seen the original of the Treaty? Is there a semicolon? Better check that.
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aThinkingChristian
"Yes, I know what a semicolon is, and I also know what a complete sentence is."
Then you would know that the statement stands by itself, or else it wouldn't have had a semicolon.
"By the way, have you seen the original of the Treaty? Is there a semicolon?"
Yes, there is.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian
Also, are you ever going to state that first law of quantum dynamics for me or are you just going to skirt it so as to avoid getting your ass handed to you? Because honestly, after misrepresenting me so many times, I'd at least expect you to have the tiny semblance of integrity to take my challenge head on.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian And yet he wrote his own bible, removing the supernatural stuff from it. Seems like he doesn't believe every jot and tittle.
RabornTau 8 months ago
@RabornTau "Rarely do those who make this claim let Jefferson speak for himself. Jefferson's own words explain that his intent for that book was not for it to be a “Bible,” but rather for it to be a primer for the Indians on the teachings of Christ (which is why Jefferson titled that work, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth”). What Jefferson did was to take the “red letter” portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality."
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aThinkingChristian " "Rarely do those who make this claim let Jefferson speak for himself. " *and* "What Jefferson did was to take the “red letter” portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality."
See letters: Jefferson to Priestley, Jan 29, 1804 and Jefferson to Adams, Oct. 12, 1813.
So much for letting him speak for himself, huh? ...and you are, again, either ignorant, or lying...
chiachuck 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian
"The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man."
Is this the same Thomas Jefferson who spent his nights as president working with a razor, by candlelight, cutting out pieces of scripture he didn't agree with (and he cut out a LOT of text)?? Jefferson was by no means a Christian. You can approve of Jesus without being Christian, as Ghandi did.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@tskasa1 "Rarely do those who make this claim let Jefferson speak for himself. Jefferson's own words explain that his intent for that book was not for it to be a “Bible,” but rather for it to be a primer for the Indians on the teachings of Christ (which is why Jefferson titled that work, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth”). What Jefferson did was to take the “red letter” portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality."
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
@tskasa1 I never said Jefferson was a Christian. I said HE believed he was (and stated as such). But I don't think he was.
But he certainly wasn't a atheist or deist.
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian
"*snip*"
If you give me a quote, also give me a source. A random quote means nothing to me. Also, by trying to teach someone about the teachings of another man, it STILL does not make him Christian. Just like teaching people about the works of Martin Luther King does not make them Christian. Teaching about Malcolm X's work does not make them Muslim. And teaching about Ghandi does not make them Hindu. You can teach about religious figures and remain religiously neutral.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian More rubbish. Is it your assertion that a Jewish American is less American than a Christian American? Good luck with that idea. You'll find it's utterly unconstitutional. And deeply insulting. America is an nation that was founded on the principles of enlightenment thinking. Which is why the founding fathers checked the church at the door to the government. And very wise they were to do so.
Oceanus57 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian
"Darwinian evolution is still a hotly debate theory."
No it is not. There is NO debate amongst scientists over whether or not evolution happened. Only the scientifically illiterate actually argue that it didn't.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian
Gravity, like evolution, is both a fact and a theory. There is an observed force that we called gravity, that is gravity as a fact. Predicting how that force operates is the Theory of Gravity. We know that the genetic frequencies and the physical traits of a population change over time. That is the fact of evolution. How and why these markers change is the theory of evolution. And the Theory of Evolution is current less debated than an current theory of gravity.
Colocharis 8 months ago
@Colocharis "We know that the genetic frequencies and the physical traits of a population change over time. That is the fact of evolution."
No, that is a fact of nature. The Theory of Evolution requires those small changes, which nobody on either side of the aisle disputes, turn into big (added info) changes over millions of years. There is zero proof for that. It's never been observed or substantiated by the fossil record. Micro changes? Yes. Macro changes? No. That's assumption, not science.
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
Respond to this video...
Also you should be careful in using the term 'Christian' when referring to historical figures. Adams and Jefferson were both 'Christian,' but they were not 'Christian' in the sense that most evangelicals use the term 'Christian'. Adams was a universalist, and Jefferson denied the divinity of Christ. In their minds, they may have been Christian (although I am not sure of that), but to imply that they believed the same doctrine as evangelicals do today is absurd.
Colocharis 8 months ago
@Colocharis Adams was not a universalist all his life. As a matter of fact, in the end he embraced orthodox Christianity. He was a true Christian.
Any true Christian knows that Jefferson was probably not. But HE though himself to be. I'm not in a position to say for sure. He knows now.
What I do know is that both of them believe strongly in the benefits of the principles of Christianity, and they, and most of the other Founders, felt them to be the best principles for all humanity.
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian Evolution is just as much a fact as gravity. The theory of gravity and the theory of evolution have equal status - both are borne out by facts and data. Neither has experienced any data contrary to the theory, which is why they are both extant theories. The only people who argue that evolution isn't true are religious morons who have a vested interest in proclaiming the veracity of their one and only lousy book. The one with all the instructions for slave keeping.
Oceanus57 8 months ago
@Oceanus57 Nope! You're confused. Evolution, by definition, has never, ever been observed.
It's obvious that you hate God and that is sad. Because you're missing the entire purpose of your life.
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
Comment removed
Oceanus57 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian Can't hate what ain't there, god-botherer boy. As I know for a certain fact that there is no God, the idea that I hate god isn't going to get off the ground.
Answer the question. Is a Jew a lesser American because he isn't a Christian? I'm waiting...
Oceanus57 8 months ago
@Oceanus57 Um, no, you can't say that God doesn't exits for a fact. Not unless you possess all knowledge (omniscience). Sorry to burst your bubble there, but you're a self-proclaimed thinker, so I just want to keep you thinking that way. (Sigh.)
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian I sure can say that God doesn't exist, and that I know this for a fact.. And there's nothing you can say to refute it. There is no God. Simple fact. God is a construct of the berserk human imagination, just like any other animated character. No animators - no God. Simple. That's why you're here, after all. Because you have no real confidence that God is real. You're an animator. Let's face it, if you and your other god-botherers give it up, your God won't move.
Oceanus57 8 months ago
@Oceanus57 LOL! I've already said it and you can't deny it. Let me say it again, unless you are ALL-KNOWING you cannot say for certain that God doesn't exist. The best you can is "I don't know." That that is a logical fact. Deny it all you want. You're wrong.
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian Nope. I can state with complete certainty that God is a construct of the human imagination. And this is a simple and easy and perfect conclusion to draw. There is no God. All Gods are conjured up by pesky human animators, of whom you are one. When the animators depart, so do the Gods. The roads that lead from the past to the present are littered with the corpses of no-longer animated gods. When they no longer have their human enablers, they get puny real fast.
Oceanus57 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian
"But it's your opinion that the evidence doesn't back up Genesis."
No it is not. It is an objectively verifiable fact. There is not ONE single thread of evidence for either spontaneous creation of either the universe and life, nor a global flood, nor anything else in Genesis pertaining to science.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@tskasa1 Oh, there is PLENTY of evidence for spontaneous creation. It's been a huge enigma for evolutionists since the beginning of the theory. As a matter of fact, I bet YOU believe it, too. Just how did that "Big Bang" happen from nothing?
There is also plenty of evidence for a global flood. Google: "evidence for a global flood" and enjoy!
(Be careful about simply believing something because you imagine it to be so. Some actual research can put that thinking to rest.)
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian
"Oh, there is PLENTY of evidence for spontaneous creation."
Name. A single. One.
"Just how did that "Big Bang" happen from nothing?"
...Except that it DIDN'T happen from nothing. The Big Bang resulted from the exponential expansion of an already existing inflaton field, which drove inflation and caused the Big Bang. And that is only a VERY basic covering of it. Please, I suggest you don't speak such mindless drivel about what you don't understand.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@tskasa1 And you were there, or know someone who was, that convinces you of this? Oh, and so matter is eternal and had no beginning? The science for that, please? (It does make your problem of spontaneous creation easier to swallow, doesn't it.)
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian
"Oh, and so matter is eternal and had no beginning?"
Except I never said that. And also, inflatons aren't conventional matter, they would be exotic particles with properties different from that of normal matter. Again, don't talk about what you don't know.
"The science for that, please?"
The quanta that compose atoms (electrons and quarks), like all other quanta, do not decay. Hence, it is actually possible for them to exist an infinite amount of time.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@tskasa1 So exotic particles are eternal and had no beginning? Is that what you're proposing?
Existing an "infinite amount of time" is not the same as ETERNAL (having no beginning or ending).
Again, where is the sound science that matter has always existed?
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian
"So exotic particles are eternal and had no beginning? Is that what you're proposing?"
Again, I never said that. There ARE indeed known methods under which you can create matter and energy as LONG as you have the correct initial conditions and the correct final conditions so as to not violate the second law of thermodynamics.
"Again, where is the sound science that matter has always existed?"
And again, I never stated that. Stop trying to strawman me.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@tskasa1 So, help me out. What you're saying is that INTELLIGENT AGENTS can CREATE matter and energy under a very delicate set of conditions that, if not PERFECT, could not bring the desired result?
Very well said. Accurate and true! And...a perfect argument for creationism. Thank you!
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian
" INTELLIGENT AGENTS can CREATE matter and energy under a very delicate set of conditions that, if not PERFECT, could not bring the desired result?"
When did I say ANYTHING about intelligent agents? Exactly, I didn't. I stated that under certain conditions it IS possible to do so. Not to mention that these conditions are FAR from delicate and there are trillions of possible permutations that could cause a working universe. You actually only need 2 set conditions.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@tskasa1 Yes you did. Just not using that wording. I just peeled back the facade to show you what you were really saying. You said, "There ARE indeed known methods under which YOU CAN CREATE matter and energy..."
The "you" in your statement references a scientists in a lab: an INTELLIGENT agent.
Oh, they are very delicate! Mutation are most of the time NOT good. They are either neutral or bad. They are no aid to your theory.
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian 1: There are other ways that NATURAL processes occur that we can reproduce, yet they still occur naturally with no apparent guidance.
2. Mutations are mostly neutral, some are bad, and some are good. They are NOT mostly bad and the ones with bad mutations typically don't reproduce (So they are selected against). You currently have THOUSANDS of mutations in your own genes, most of which /do not affect you/. There may be a few that give you ever so slight an edge though.
RabornTau 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian
"The "you" in your statement references a scientists in a lab: an INTELLIGENT agent."
Ehhh, no. No intelligent agent can do this as it is an inherently quantum mechanical process. Just like "you" can't smash atoms in an atom smasher (which, hysterically enough, don't actually smash atoms anymore). I was stating that "you" could observe it, but "you" cannot do it, as you are not able to work on the quantum mechanic level.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian
But...are you stating that simply because something can be done in a lab it means that it cannot be done naturally? You DO understand that most experiments done in labs are done under naturalistic conditions with the scientist doing very little outside of observing once the experiment has been adjusted for natural conditions? Right?
tskasa1 8 months ago
@tskasa1 No, I'm saying that something done in a lab (which you used as your example) is done by intelligent agents. If you want to recreate what you claim happened naturally then you need intelligence to demonstrate it. I find that amusing and revealing all at the same time. :-)
The problem with your reasoning is that in your example there is always an intelligent person overseeing the "conditions." There is no evidence that natural could do the same.
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aThinkingChristian
"No, I'm saying that something done in a lab (which you used as your example) is done by intelligent agents."
Yet as it is done under wholly naturalistic conditions, it is essentially as if it were done in nature as well.
"The problem with your reasoning is that in your example there is always an intelligent person overseeing the "conditions"
I've yet to tell you what the conditions are, you cannot make this statement.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian
"Oh, they are very delicate! Mutation are most of the time NOT good. They are either neutral or bad. They are no aid to your theory."
...How do you get from creating matter and energy to this? Talk about completely unrelated. Regardless, most mutations are neutral. And many mutations are situational. A shift in color, for example, can be a beneficial mutation. And yes, there ARE documented cases of beneficial mutations.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@tskasa1 I never said there weren't beneficial mutations. I said they are not common. But for evolution to be true they MUST be very, very common. That's problematic. Observation goes against the theory.
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian
"I never said there weren't beneficial mutations. I said they are not common."
Nor are bad mutations. Most mutations do nothing. And most mutations are situational. A mutation that may be detrimental to one species somewhere may be beneficial to that exact same species somewhere else. An easy example is that of colour.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian
"But for evolution to be true they MUST be very, very common."
Not very common. But when you have millions if not billions of life forms all undergoing mutations you are bound to get good ones here and there. Any beings with extremely detrimental mutations will be eliminated by natural selection, whereas those with good ones will be selected for. You can also have slightly damaging mutations that aren't too serious and are hence not selected against, such as hemophilia.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian We can bring about other things that NATURAL causes do as well, does that mean that someone must be making trees grow and cells divide? No, it doesn't. What it means is, that such things are possible, it does not necessarily mean somone/thing made it happen. You're adding in variables without evidence to put them there. It's not something you can infer automatically.
RabornTau 8 months ago
@RabornTau No, but I submit that the evidence shows that Someone did put it in motion. What we do see is trees growing and cells dividing, and we have to ask if those mechanism could have originated without an intelligent Agent. I say they couldn't.
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian Okay, why do you say that?
RabornTau 8 months ago
@RabornTau I say that because I believe it. (?) I have no issue with a God creating and then allowing the nature he created run its course. Men do it with machines all the time.
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian
Also, I am still waiting for you to cite the first law for me.
"I say that because I believe it."
Whether or not you believe something means jack-shit to science.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@tskasa1 Ok, a good Google search brings up, "The first law of thermodynamics, an expression of the principle of conservation of energy, states that energy can be transformed (changed from one form to another), but cannot be created or destroyed."
How's that? But I fail to see how that helps your cause. Especially that part about it not being able to "be created." (Like from nothing!)
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian
Ehh, no. That is not actually what the 1st Law States, because the first law is an equation. It is phrased in the following manner:
dU=iQ-iW
Where dU is the (change) or net energy, and iQ represents the energy in the system and iW represents the work done in the system. This equation essentially states not that matter cannot be created or destroyed, but that the net energy of the universe must ALWAYS be constant. Okay, do you understand that?
tskasa1 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian
"Existing an "infinite amount of time" is not the same as ETERNAL (having no beginning or ending)."
No shit Sherlock, I was pointing out a bit of trivia which I found to be interesting. I do that often. At least it's educating you. You need it, so that at least next time when you speak you don't sound so ignorant.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@tskasa1 And so we are still at you implying that matter is eternal (whether you claim that or not) and me saying it's not possible materialistically.
What does the evidence tell us?
What does science tell us?
This argument is going south for you. :-)
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian
"And so we are still at you implying that matter is eternal (whether you claim that or not) and me saying it's not possible materialistically."
Except that I have NEVER stated that. And EVER time you've asked me I've said NO. And I even offered to explain to you how matter can come about materialistically. But you are extremely dishonest and simply construct strawmen to pick at.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@tskasa1 Well, of course you never stated it. It would totally expose your theory, because you know its absurd to think that nothing can create something naturally. But say it or not, that IS what you believe if you're going to cling to a naturalistic origin to the universe.
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian Except it's not, because it naturally occurs frequently. Virtual particles are constantly going in and out of existence /with no apparent guiding force/
RabornTau 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian
" Well, of course you never stated it. It would totally expose your theory,"
No, I never stated it because it wasn't what I was getting at. And I'd appreciate it if you'd have the intergrity and honesty to stop twisting my words and constructing strawmen to fit your own needs as you don't seem e doing that to you.
"because you know its absurd to think that nothing can create something naturally."
And yet, you can. And it is known how it can be done.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@tskasa1 No it can't be done! Nothing is NOTHING--NO THING. Where there is nothing there cannot be something. That's entirely illogical. But you MUST believe that that happened. I'm not twisting your words. You're living in denial because you know how insane such a belief is, but you are forced to believe it. There is no other option for you.
aThinkingChristian 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian
"You're living in denial because you know how insane such a belief is"
How the HELL am I living in denial when I already told you I'd explain it to you? You have yet to even hear my explanation and yet you've already dismissed it! Not only ignorant and dishonest but impossibly arrogant as well. You cannot even do something as simple as fulfill an easy request which, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, you understand well.
tskasa1 8 months ago
@aThinkingChristian
"That's entirely illogical."
Again, common sense is NOT a valid measure of truth in science. Quantum Theory and Relativity taught us that. Common Sense means jack shit in the world of science, only what you can and cannot prove.
tskasa1 8 months ago