If creationism is a logical fallacy because we KNOW that God's Word is infallible, then how on Earth can you possible say that Darwinism is scientific when Darwinists are required to ASSUME that God's Word is somehow false? Why the double standards? That doesn't sound very fair or scientific to me.
50 comments
Other parts of Conservapedia, like the article on divorce, flatly deny Biblical inerrancy. Yet again, only the parts of the Bible that we like are inerrant, and then only when they suit us.
Ahhh Conservasylum!
Insanity served 24/7!
"If creationism is a logical fallacy because we KNOW that God's Word is infallible..."
Where can I find this "God's Word"? Not in the bible, certainly. The bible has no more of "God's Word" in it than yesterday's newspaper. It's worthless, discredited nonsense, the refuge of the hard-of-thinking and the terminally stupid.
"...Darwinism...Darwinists..."
Exactly why are you fixated with a dead man? Oh, wait, your zombie-worshipping death cult demands it. How silly of me.
I know there are fallacies in it (argument from authority is obvious, begging the question as well), and I know this is worthy of a 4 or better fundy rating. Thats why I posted it.
The only problem I have is trying to understand what point Ashens is trying to make. Apparently Ashen thinks that biologists have to assume that her religious beliefs are false...but Im not sure. Its really hard to understand what point she is trying to make.
Because god's word is fallible, there are numerous conflictions in the bible with modern knowledge
Just their way of thinking they're cute and witty, ya know, how they come up with terms for everything they don't like
Science assumes that everything is false, and it requires substantial evidence and testing for any idea to become accepted. Since Christians have had two thousand years to do that and haven't, science assumes the Bible is false and will continue to do so. Also with every new discovery being made that contradicts the Bible, the likeness of the Bible being true shrinks accordingly. At this point, the veracity of any extraordinary Biblical claim being verified is impossible.
No, the question is, other than it says so, how do we know that the bible is infallible? We know evolutionary theory is true due to lots and lots and lots of observational and experimental evidence. That doesn't require those who accept evolution to assume the whole bible is false. It's too bad you're so insecure that you can't take the bible for what good it is instead of trying to take the whole thing literally.
Evolutionists don't have to assume anything about God's word. Many theist biologists look at the amazing power and versatility of the evolutionary process, turning out "endless forms most beautiful and most wondrous" (as Darwin put it) and think that it is the absolute dog's bollocks!
Life is about the nearest thing to an irresistible force we have on this planet. Nothing short of the literally Earth-shattering will ever extinguish it, and even then there's some doubt. The Earth has been cooked, pummelled, poisoned, frozen and who knows what else and through it all some bit of life has clung on somewhere and gone on to prosper anew.
Evolution rocks! And if you happen to be one of those people who thinks that God arranged it that way, then I do not begrudge you believing that God must rock also!
The CAPITALS of forcing a change on reality.
Well sorry. Capitalising the word 'know' doesn't make your knowledge real or true or accurate or worth a damn.
If you want me to believe the word of god, then it better have his isignature on the the first page and his initials on every subsequent one.
What it comes down to is this, when did god ever come down and tell a properly constituted group of savants that the bible is his infallible word?
Never!
You believe it is god's word because your pastor/parents/teachers have told you so. That is the only reason. You were indoctrinated as a young malleable mind. Time to grow up and face the true reality. There is no evidence that the bible is anything other than fallible and wrong, so that no god could have written or inspired it.
You worship a book, not a deity! Fool!
Your are too fucking thick to be talking about evolution let alone understanding it. What the fuck would you know, you post on conservapedia, so you must be ridiculously stupid and unintelligent.
God is a fucktard according to you retards, so piss off you dull twat.
we KNOW that God's Word is infallible
Really, really believing something isn't the same as knowing it.
Aronra on youtube has a video on the subject. I would link it, but he probably talks way too fast for you to follow.
Actually, there is nothing in "Darwinism" that says "You must assume God's Word is false." There are plenty of people out there who believe the Bible, and still accept scientific advances, such as evolution, medicine, etc. It's only you fundies who seem to think that science somehow invalidates your god, and therefore, science must be wrong.
Even atheists know that God cannot be totally disproved, even if science shows us that the existence of the supernatural of any sort is extremely unlikely.
Herein is the cruz of the problem:
I will also assume that the word of God is in fallible.
However I must also assume that the Bible IS the word of God.
Having assumed that the Bible is the word of God I must also assume that all of the copiers and subsequent translators were infalllible. I must also assume that those hundreds of people who were entrusted with the job of translating were without any agenda in their mission. I must also make an assumption about the political body that chose which books to include in the Bible and which to exclude. I have to assume that they were infallible and without any prior agenda.
Having assumed that the Bible is the word of God and all the copiers and translators were infallible I must also assume that I am infallible in my interpretation of all that has come down to us as the Bible.
And I must further assume that I and those who agree with me are infallible in our interpretations of the numerous places in the Bible where the book describes the world in ways that contradict what we have come to understand about our world in recent centuries. e.g. I must be able to work around the Old testament assertion that the sun can stand still in the sky.
What a fundie is actually referring to in the use of the word "faith" is not faith in God but rather blind and unquestioned faith in his own infallibility. That faith is also extended to the others that agree with him in his beliefs. And he must then extend this assumption of infallibilty to hundreds if not thousands of others who came before.
"If creationism is a logical fallacy because we KNOW that God's Word is infallible, then how on Earth can you possible say that Darwinism is scientific when Darwinists are required to ASSUME that God's Word is somehow false? Why the double standards? That doesn't sound very fair or scientific to me."
Well of course. god's word is the null hypothesis.
We're not assuming God's word is false.
We are assuming that the world we live in is based on a series of relatively simple, consistent rules that are the same from one place to another and from one period of time to another, and that these rules can be learned and understood. We assume that everything that happens has a physical cause that we can understand, describe and measure.
Further, we also assume that Man has within him the capability to understand the world around him through senses he has and using the intellect he possesses. This is a safe assumption, given the tools that this has allowed us to build.
What we reject is the supernatural. What we reject is that reality is ever suspended or changed by an arbitrary act of whim.
God's word has no impact on evolution, one way or another, any more than the word of Allah or the word of Shiva do.
So, after taking the word of all gods out of the mix, let's get down to evidence, OK?
Oh, and we're not nerely fixated enough on one scientific theory to warant the term Darwinists. If it was waranted, then we're also Newtonians and Einsteinians, etc, etc, etc.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
