nothing from nothing - Page 5

We already HAVE the epic of Gilgamesh, cuniform script or not,
and it is recognised as one of the 'creation myths'.  The 'world' isn't
going wild for it, wanting to believe in it, or, indeed, is mostly unaware
of it.  So what's your point again ?

Sorry - double posted.

My point? From the beginning I started to preach here with this phrase about atheists "Evolution is unproven and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable."

Shtal you simply are retarded lets assume that evolution is a hoax. that does not leave the old testament creation myth the only alternative, there are literally tens of thousands of other religions that millions of people other than jews and christians follow. then there are the thousands of new age versions and the thousands of indiginous/native accounts and then there is the thousands of cults, there is pagan, witchcraft, voodoo all the asian beliefs systems then there is all the science fiction type alien stuff etc, etc surely you are aware of all this??


Your ignorance is profound, no wonder you are oblivious to the comprehensive, vast, compelling and meticulous literature surrounding the 150 years of actual evidence. supporting evolution.

i like to have a joke with you but i am starting to think you really are a bit slow, retarded or mentally ill.

Shtal yr court of law analogy sucked, if there is no evidence there is no conviction the main reason we separated church and state so religous fanatics would stop burning innocent people st the stake and torturing people into a confession and then killing them like your religion has done to thousands of people in fairly recent times eg the inquisitions, boy you dumb.

Sorry vk4 but I am taking beetree advice. Bye, bye vk4. I bless you.

Shtal - your post screams of epistemological study, specifically epistemic justification. Whether they realize it or not, everyone subscribes to one school of thought or another here. Hume and Descartes for instance, were strict foundationlists who were skeptic of anything which could not be absolutely proven, with the intent of developing a system and method upon which an "ideal" philosophy could be formed. The problem one runs into there is called the infinite regress argument. Personally, I think coherentism is more reasonable. In terms of the creation vs evolution discussion (or any other for that matter), what I think ends up being important is that you are consistent in your epistemic positions. We have to be careful we're not employing a foundationalist approach when confronted the evidences of evolution, all the while enjoying the freedoms of thought inherent to an irresponsible or overly ambitious coherentism when forwarding our own beliefs.

The death of OT is well on its way.