Replies

"If you are supporting the silly young Earth creationism you are either a false agnostic, a fool, or a troll."

Did I say I thought creationism was proven? Hell no. In fact, I made it obvious that I believed this spittle-flying belief in Darwinism is just as unproven as the Bible - which would -not- indicate that I believe the Bible itself is "proven".

What I believe is - we don't know! We don't have -nearly- enough evidence to know. It is clear that there is such a thing as genetic mutation and it is clear that it can lead to changes in a species over time... that doesn't even come CLOSE to proving that every last form of life on earth evolved from a bunch of randomly floating amino acids that just happened to form into a DNA strand that just decided it'd be fun to start self-replicating, especially when all our vaunted scientific knowledge can't even come close to replicating the situations that make that possible.

How old do I think the Earth is? Last I heard, 4 billion years, but I believe that "fact that only a whaco wouldn't believe" was recently revised to 6 billion. And I believe that the age of the Universe, for a decade or two pegged at 10 billion years, has recently revised to being at least 15. In fact, both those figures have been revised so often (and the last revision so recent) that the only obvious thing is that it is absolutely sure to be revised again and are almost certainly inaccurate where they are pegged now.

And in light of the fact that science is continually having to revise it's findings, to presume at such an incredibly early stage of scientific inquiry into the question that it has taken ALL factors into account is the first and foremost stupid blunder scientists make. Science based on ego ain't science.

My answer to "Is there a God?" is "Insufficient Data". What is so hard to understand about that? I don't believe I have sufficient data, and I don't believe -you- have sufficient data to answer that question. It may be that we won't have enough data to answer that question for another thousand years.

One of the "facts" that I take into consideration, and that to me is far more obvious than the age of the universe, is that it is absolutely undeniable that there is something called a "religious sense". That billions and billions of human beings throughout history have experienced this sense as palpably and real to them as my own eyesight is to me.

I'm not so self-righteously arrogant that I'm ready to be the blind man frothing at the mouth that light can't possibly exist just because I can't see it. Atheists just dismiss the religious sense as the obvious symptom of an unstable mind - a more arrogant dismissal can hardly be imagined.

What's clear is that atheists are so sanctimonius in their beliefs that they have already predetermined what they expect to find from the evidence and they WILL, without doubt, make those facts reflect their preestablished conclusion.

What is apparent to me, is that both sides of the debate sport a large share of intolerant zealots. But the atheists are the most sanctimonius by far. Well, wait, that's not fair, let me reword that. Let's say that the average atheist is far more likely to be insufferably sanctimonius about his own beliefs than the average Christian is to be about theirs. But the extremists on both sides are equally as whacked.

Qwinn

Qwinn, I have been reading your on going debate with Sentis in this thread. It seams that Sentis is proving your point about tolerance more and more with every post.

I am one of those "intelligent design" believers that a so loved by the fringes of both sides of the argument. While that makes my beliefs of the creation of the Earth different from yours, it allows me see perfectly the ego and audacity that can be found on both sides of the argument. I guess that would reflect on who I see as the winners of the two major debates raging through this thread. You soundly defeated Sentis, and VadeRetro defeated Truth666. Both of conclusions are of course IMHO.

I appreciate greatly both your and Vade's remarks. They were well thought, well written, and very insightful.