Atheists 1st claim there is no evidence for creation. Then when you give them evidence they say the evidence is biased. There is no such thing as unbiased humans since every human has emotions. Do atheists stop watching big media news since they are liberal biased?
If they are truly in the pursuit of truth they will test the evidence or examine it themselves. Didn't science once say the world was flat and pseudo science say it was round? Just because a science is not accepted by the majority doesn't make it automaticly error.
When I found out the catholic church was withholding truth I left the catholic church, but that doesn't mean I reject everything the catholic church says. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
As a christian I have decided I will not pigeon hole my beliefs to one denomination, but I look for truth in every denomination.
2007-10-08 11:36:54 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
If an atheist really wants truth he may have to look beyond what the majority accepts. Especially if the truth claims there are forces out there to decieve. The powers that be may very well be stacking the deck.
2007-10-08 11:37:08 · update #1
Folks are asking for the evidence, I listed some in my question yesterday here:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtCfJf0YHiYTaJFoXoFceSXty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071007184203AAMeKob
2007-10-08 11:46:11 · update #2
yup, everyone is biased to some extent. atheists are biased against gods, they don't believe in them. scientists are biased against wooly thinking and unsupported claims. they would argue that these biases are useful, i think... now remind me, how does this simple fact help at all to demonstrate that your claims are true?
one explanation for the fact that your evidence is not accepted is that people are prejudiced against it, and wouldn't even consider it. another explanation, which you seem to discount, is that people considered it (despite, perhaps, being biased against it) and found it lacking in the qualities usually posessed by scientific evidence, such as testability, repeatability, decisiveness with respect to different theories, and consistency with other evidence they may be aware of.
2007-10-08 11:50:07 · answer #1 · answered by vorenhutz 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The accepted scientific method is to collate data, analyse it and then draw conclusions or formulate a theory to explain the data in terms of natural processes. Creationists start by making a statement about supernatural occurrences and then look for any evidence supporting the statement and disregard any other evidence. That is why "creation science" is not accepted as science by the scientific community.
2007-10-08 18:44:31 · answer #2 · answered by qxzqxzqxz 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Trouble is, whenever someone claims to have evidence which supports creationism and you investigate said evidence, it evaporates in the harsh glare of honest and reasoned thought.
Anyone seeking to dispute evolution has a formidable task, since there is such a vast amount of evidence which is *exactly* as it would *have* to be if evolution were true. Basically, every conceivable bit of evidence from many different fields of investigation is consistent with common descent - i.e. all life on Earth having a common origin and being the product of evolution. The chance of that happening if evolution were *not* true is effectively zero.
2007-10-08 18:42:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
"Atheists 1st claim there is no evidence for creation. Then when you give them evidence they say the evidence is biased."
And that's where I stopped reading.
There is NO evidence for creation, biased or otherwise.
If you have some, present it. You'd be the first person in history to do so you know.
2007-10-08 18:49:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Since when was "atheism" the same as accepting the science of evolution?
>>Didn't science once say the world was flat and pseudo
>>science say it was round?
Yes, but then the earth's shape was discovered by scientists using the scientific method, NOT armchair theologians using verbal debate, or by taking a vote.
>>Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
And creationists are saying that a broken clock is more useful than a working clock that's one minute off.
2007-10-08 18:40:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
exactly what evidence do you refer to? I'd love to see it. I'm an atheist and I'm always open minded to hear evidence that I could be wrong but so far I have been presented no evidence.
2007-10-08 18:46:42 · answer #6 · answered by discombobulated 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No one gave me that evidence, Dogma.
Science said it was round, then the church cried 'blasphemy' and nailed people down by their tongues and burned them alive on piles of their writings.
2007-10-08 18:44:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
lol!
wow, how you unashamedly twist things.
religion said the world was flat, bubba, not science, and scientists were intimidated and killed for not following your crappy fairy tale version of reality.
Do try to keep your rants confined to actual history, if thats possible for you, rather than blatantly lying, ok?
2007-10-08 18:55:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If one starts with the a priori assumption of a supernatural being, one can convince oneself of nearly anything.
2007-10-08 18:57:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I stopped watching all news except the BBC which actually does try to present the news impartially.
2007-10-08 18:41:09 · answer #10 · answered by genaddt 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋