Massive "proof" Website - Godandscience

[L.B.]

http://www.godandscience.org

 

This is a staggering, massive amount of bullshit presuppositional crap all at once.

 

Anyone been there? I can't fucking be bothered. I've heard the elementary-school condensed versions of some of this shit from

people I know who aren't even smart enough to spell correctly or use proper grammar.

 

Your experience with it, if any?

[Shinzon]

Read some of this stuff before, its variations on yec stuff and crap you would find on carm.

[sdelsolray]

It's actually put together quite well, as far as faith-based emotionalism and empty theism goes.  Quite a bit of effort has been put into that website.  It certainly rings the bell on most of the irrational and refuted Christian canards and PRATTs.  The authors must be proud of themselves.

[LogicalFallacy]

Well after reading a few portions I must conclude it's full of holes.

 

Apparently Noah's flood was local (We know this already... the writer is conforming to science and making the bible fit, not going solely by what the bible says, contrary to the writers claim.)

Apparently the Epic of Gilgamesh is silly, but the Genesis flood story logical

And apparently ALL humans lived in one spot 4000 years ago which is why the bible stated that "All flesh was destroyed"

 

 

It seems that the writer is forced to conform to what science has found, but at the same time completely ignores science when it doesn't fit in the narrative. So the write admits that the universe is 13.... whatever billion years old... but humans lived in one spot 4000 years ago and were destroyed by a local flood.... but there is scientific evidence of humans all over the globe 4000 years ago invalidating the entire reason for the flood.

 

Right and that's a very small portion of the flood section of the site. Haven't had time to look at the rest.

[bornagainathiest]

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bigbang.html

 

http://www.godandscience.org/slideshow/sld016.html

 

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/beginning.html

 

I performed a search for the words, 'Copernican Principle' in this site and nothing relevant came up.

This is a fatal problem when describing or discussing the origin of the universe.  Failing to factor this principle into your understanding of the Big Bang (which relies on Inflationary cosmology) inevitably leads you to make the following mistake.  You conflate the origin of our observable universe with the origin of the Inflationary process.  But the two are not the same.  While Inflation ceased in our local region of the universe, 13.7 billion years ago, it is still going on elsewhere, far, far beyond the limits of what we can observe.  Since the Copernican principle explicitly states that no observer can claim a special or unique status for themselves, it follows that we cannot claim that the Inflationary process began in our region of the wider universe.  

 

Sadly it appears that Rich Deem gets his understanding of cosmology from this site... http://www.reasons.org/

Since the Bible-believing scientists at Reasons also make strenuous efforts to downplay the importance of the Copernican principle in the context of Inflation and the Big Bang, I'm not really surprised that poor Mr. Deem has been mislead  After all, that is the intention of the shysters, over at Reasons.  Get them to believe first and then, if they later find out something awkward, they'll see it thru the eyes of faith and not reason.  And if, like Deem, they already believe, then they'll see whatever scientific disinformation you post thru the eyes of faith too.  So much the better!

 

The calculated usage of the word 'reason' to fool people into thinking that reason supports faith is such a cynical ploy that I'm disgusted and sickened.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Storm]

 

A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles: 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated.

I checked my "Atheism Participation Handbook" and I don't see this in there anywhere. Can someone point me to what page its on? I signed the contract, but I don't want to get kicked out of the group because I didn't see something...

[florduh]

 

 

A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles: 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated.

I checked my "Atheism Participation Handbook" and I don't see this in there anywhere. Can someone point me to what page its on? I signed the contract, but I don't want to get kicked out of the group because I didn't see something...

 

It's on Page 666 in the Handbook.

 

It seems to me that the most vocal True Believers lack any experience whatsoever as atheists, haven't talked at length with any atheists, but still pretend they understand how our minds work and even our motives.

 

Conversely, having been enmeshed in their camp, having studied their scriptures, having actively participated in that community, I can say with confidence that I understand them better than they understand me.

[♦ Fuego ♦]

A rewrite of that could be that all reasonable conclusions must be supported by observational evidence, as opposed to beliefs which are based on superstition and the writings of pre-science people-groups.