Answers in Genesis is good at lying for Christ.

That chart is a good example of what happens when you take legend, and try to pretend it's science.

I think he is.  Jae, I recall you having said, in the past, that humans are less than nothing, all deserving of eternal torture by their very nature.  That's not very "valuing of human life" of you, is it?

I hold humans to be better than that, and value them accordingly.  Acceptance of evolution has no impact on this.  Why did you think it would?  Do you think that acceptance of gravity, or rejection of geocentrism, should have the same effects that "evolutionism" supposedly has - that of reducing the value of human life?

" historical event at Babel."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Absolutely.  A bunch of people who believe in a mythical creator and derive their system of values through select verses from an old book, are extremely confident that they know the value system of a bunch of people who don't believe in a mythical creator or that book.  Specifically, they know that atheists place no value on human life.  That atheists make up a disproportionately small percentage of the prison population has, of course, no bearing on this belief at all.

Makes perfect sense.

Jae, just one question:  Is there anything that Creationist groups believe that isn't mind-numbingly stupid?

Human life has great value for me, jae, and I accept evolution as fundamental to existence (I don't like the term evolutionist, because evolution is a scientific theory, not a religion or ideology). I believe the value is inherent, not due to our creation and selection by some supernatural higher power. Evolution points to ALL life having value, not just one species, which is an attitude this world needs more of if we are to survive in the long haul. Creationism tends, in my experience, to place humanity at some kind of pinnacle and to encourage the notion of humans having dominion or at least precedence over other life. Evolution sets us as a part of a broader existence (what we UUs called "the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part") and derives our value from the value that is placed on life itself. So yes, "evolutionists" can and do value human life, but we also appreciate and value the broader context of which it is a part..

Mendalla

And there is the problem in a nutshell. As with our old friend Geo/Snp/etc, you/they believe that if there is no "objective" - read "someone outside to wield the whip of bad and good" - list of "value" that all is malleable.

Unfortunate that you/they must reduce life to such simplistic terms.

Well since every Atheist I have ever sp[oken to values human life, and since prcatically every Atheist  author in the last hundred years has declared so in writing....

Those Creationist groups are not only dead wrong, but they are committing the worst kind of false witness..

Why is it that false witness is only a problem for you people when others do it? Do you not believe that the 10Cs apply to you at all?

Thay don't have an objective  source either, at least none they can show. They believe there is an objective source, but they have no evidence to support such a rather far out notion.

Not to quibble, but you don't usually fall into the chansen habit of limiting "god" to "a being". I agree that it's the kind of "god" that folks like jae envision, and from that perspective agree with your comment.

You are, then, willing to modify your beliefs and accept new concepts into your world and faith view?

Fundies adamanatly maintain the correctness of their position in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary - like thinking the world is 6 thousand years old when it is irrefutably older.

So -

willing to modify beliefs = evangelical

unwilling to modify beleifs = fundy

Which best describes your view jae?

Arm's "Synthesis" does not define God as "a being". Neither, for that matter, does traditional pantheism, which sees god as "in" everything. Hard to agree or disagree with something that does not exist in a separate, objective space.

Panentheism, which does indeed give God a transcendent aspect, also holds that such a "consciousness" must, be definition, be undefinable in human terms, so it would not, to me, qualify as "a being" either. Certainly not one existing in an external "objective" space or in such a way that we could agree or disagree.

David

Rita ...

I glad that someone else is enjoyng too. When I express that feeling though some get angry at my nonsense ... like stoics they believe we shouldn't laugh in church!

I think it is the best place to study the hugh-man tendancy for anti socialism .... and then they wonder why civilization is leaving church behind as an old symbol of what past was like. God said it: "He'd give a sign!" Mankind didn't like it however and literacy reamins mostly on denial! It's sort of like anacronism ... saying something that's not quite what you mean for people wouldn't like to hear it anyway. IT likes the door open for all sorts of crazy ideas ... like lovein in hateful spaces! Wouldn't that just stir the devil's butté? Now if the devil worries God (love) ... does God prefer to not know ... similar to an ignorant man that is un-learned ... strippped of all he knew in the first place? Seems like some kind of weird ladder airs ... higher you are more to fall through as the loupe goes on ... Ire rational heh ... grassy flats, or is that crass in tran scéance ... just a passing shadow!

That's just ESS scents ... a Mir image Kon Jured in space!

Yeah we've been throught that whole "not a fundamentalist if you're an evangelical" fallacy before, but you missed the point.

I didn't say you were a fundamentalist. I said you were a fundie.

Big difference.

I also note you didn't address my point about those "Creationists" committing false witness.....

You better make more. You are attracting a crowd. Move over, LB

WaterBuoy ..... thank you!

"It's sort of like anacronism ... saying something that's not quite what you mean for people wouldn't like to hear it anyway."  ..... priceless! ... I shall treasure that little gem.

I must admit WaterBuoy ..... your posts most often leave me waaaaaay behind and even on this one I got a bit lost near the end.     Would you consider slowing down a bit for a person like me so I can understand you a bit better?    Maybe simplify a bit???    I would appreciate that so very much as I catch glimpses of very interesting viewpoints sometimes but I am not able to follow.

Hugs

Rita

Unless they have come to a different conclusion based on the evidence and their research (I disagree with the majority of what they say, anyhow). I am not saying they are right by any means (and it is very fuzzy science on their part for sure). But to conclude that they are intentionally lying seems to be a judgement call with nothing to support it but conjecture.

If you and I both look at the same evidence for something and come to two different conclusions about it, does that mean one of us is lying?

Fair enough. I will admit, however to not knowing enough about what they have been shown to be false. Whether they are intentionally lying or not is between them and God. I am an Old Earth creationist however and disagree with Ken Ham and AiG pretty much in the majority anyway (as far as creation v. evolution), so their conclusions really have no interest for me. 

Fair enough. Like said though, AiG's conclusions do not interest me too much. I just wanted to challenge the accusation that they are lying. If they are wilfully lying, then they will be answerable to God.

"Free babble wallchart" sounds more appropriate for the entire thread, smirking.

The comment made about the tower of babel being historically true begs the same question of reasoning for me whether Noah's ark is? even though I love the story I read to my kids about it. I just don't explain too much why it happened? the genocidal part anyway! its just fun seeing lions, tigers and bears oh my! hopping on board.

Babel was an explosion of languages that God threw them into confusion because again... they foolishly tried to be close to God by trying to build a beanstalk high enough to reach the giant! That was wrong of them to try to get close to the creator because maybe he was drinking  a smoothie on his high chair and doesn't want to be disturbed or have company.

Kind of like if you went into his holiness presence without being a high priest or "Pharisee" of the time God would strike you dead! and also the fella who foolishly bent down to support the ark while carrying it and God struck him dead. And the guy picking firewood on the sabbath was stoned to murdering death with his family! stoned his children too! 

Enough making fun because I feel a lightning bolt aiming at me!

The words of the bible can have meaning to a weary life on the treadmill every day, just read proverbs or eclesiastes. Job is pretty neat too.

The earth cannot be 6-7 thousand years old only. Cant be. Radio carbon dating, plate tectonics, geological studying of rock age, glaciers, mountain formation, land mass, prehistoric footprints all show an aged earth in the millions range.