Started By
Message
re: Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution
Posted on 4/8/14 at 1:42 am to Kentucker
Posted on 4/8/14 at 1:42 am to Kentucker
quote:
The threat to science, especially evolution, is very real in some parts of the US.
Yeah, I mean I guess what I'm try to say is that as an evolutionist... I feel no threat from religion. I.e. it doesn't threaten my beliefs the way evolution threatens religious beliefs...
However, I would agree that my evolutionary beliefs were more easily founded on 2 things... my parents allowing me to explore my own beliefs... and the presence of evolutionary knowledge that was available...
But I see what you are saying... the spread of the idea of evolution is greatly threatened by religion... but I don't think evolutionists feel that their now formed beliefs are threatened by religion... whereas I feel many religious people feel they are having a harder and harder time with their inner beliefs(I.E. they have to keep coming up with wild ideas to contradict evolution and support creationism), not just the spread of religion.
While evolutionists are only fighting the spread of the theory of evolution, religious people are having to fight evolution preventing the spread of religion along with it threatening their own personal beliefs... they have to change the way the view scripture, or change when the universe began, or change this and that... while a evolutionist has no problem with change.
An evolutionist is looking at research and coming up with a idea, theory, or conclusion.... while a religious person is looking at what they believe is fact (I.E. the bible) and having to mold it to work with all the research being presenting by evolutionists...
Which leads many to the old fall back... "don't question it, just believe it, you have to have faith,... blah, blah, blah"
This post was edited on 4/8/14 at 1:44 am
0
Posted on 4/8/14 at 7:41 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Don't tell me you believe in the ark as well, to where literally the whole world was flooded
Yup. Shouldn't be shocking.
Then if you're over the age of 20 and still believe that, then there's no point in arguing with you. There is infinite evidence that didn't happen, but that's not enough for you.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 7:45 am to MontyFranklyn
Evolution what the frick
Posted on 4/8/14 at 7:55 am to DirtyDawg
Learn the definition of the word evidence. Just because something seems so complicated that you disregard all explanations for its existence other than a deity does not mean there is evidence for the deity.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 7:56 am to Ross
More like UNintelligent design.
You know what i'm saying.
You know what i'm saying.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 7:58 am to LukeSidewalker
quote:
If you really think about all the miracles of life. It's almost impossible not to believe in a higher power.
Amen to that
Posted on 4/8/14 at 8:36 am to MontyFranklyn
I believe in both. I believe that to start something god gave the world the spark of life, but over time, everything evolved from there
Posted on 4/8/14 at 9:31 am to OMLandshark
quote:I'm sorry you feel that way.
Then if you're over the age of 20 and still believe that, then there's no point in arguing with you. There is infinite evidence that didn't happen, but that's not enough for you.
I'll just repeat what I've said several times already: evidence must be interpreted, facts are not brute, and just because you are convinced it did not happen does not mean it did not happen. If you'd like to continue the discussion, I'd be more than happy to do so.
I'm not very interested in discussing the minutiae of each evidence, since, again, each one can be interpreted differently, and there are just too many to discuss adequately. But if you'd like to discuss the bigger picture, I'd like to do that.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 9:48 am to FooManChoo
There are so many issues with the idea that a worldwide flood caused all the geographical phenomena we see in this day and age, much less getting into the issue that every single species we observe today could be gathered by a single man and dispersed across the globe in a way consistent with what we observe now.
For starters, if there was a singular flood event, you wouldn't see the sediments layer as they do, and you wouldn't see different groups of fossils (which are known through radiometric dating to be of different time periods) appear with the younger fossils appearing in higher, separate layers. You would see a mixing of fossils with no discernible, consistent layers. This isn't what we observe, so the global flood hypothesis isn't a viable model.
For starters, if there was a singular flood event, you wouldn't see the sediments layer as they do, and you wouldn't see different groups of fossils (which are known through radiometric dating to be of different time periods) appear with the younger fossils appearing in higher, separate layers. You would see a mixing of fossils with no discernible, consistent layers. This isn't what we observe, so the global flood hypothesis isn't a viable model.
This post was edited on 4/8/14 at 9:49 am
Posted on 4/8/14 at 9:53 am to Ross
quote:
For starters, if there was a singular flood event, you wouldn't see the sediments layer as they do, and you wouldn't see different groups of fossils (which are known through radiometric dating to be of different time periods) appear with the younger fossils appearing in higher, separate layers.
Nice try, Jesus who wrote the Bible told me that Satan planted those fossils there to give the illusion of an older universe. He just wants to corrupt your mind, your disbelief makes certain another soul is in hell!
Posted on 4/8/14 at 9:58 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
Early in the thread. I showed that none of the authors of Mark, Luke, John or Matthew could even be named and all are "assumed". All were written at least 20 years and at most 90 years after Jesus had died.
No, you didn't. Because that evidence doesn't exist. Excellent effort, I'm sure.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 10:43 am to the808bass
quote:
No, you didn't. Because that evidence doesn't exist. Excellent effort, I'm sure.
None of the authors can be named, they're all anonymous or assumed.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 11:13 am to FooManChoo
quote:
I'm sorry you feel that way.
Please, don't be. I like being intelligent and understanding basic reasoning.
quote:
just because you are convinced it did not happen does not mean it did not happen.
Actually, that does mean it didn't happen. It's called reasoning. Whenever I have textbooks and textbooks of evidence that the Flood didn't happen, and your only bit of evidence is 5 pages from a 3000 year old book, then I win that argument.
This post was edited on 4/8/14 at 11:22 am
Posted on 4/8/14 at 11:18 am to Ross
quote:
There are so many issues with the idea that a worldwide flood caused all the geographical phenomena we see in this day and age, much less getting into the issue that every single species we observe today could be gathered by a single man and dispersed across the globe in a way consistent with what we observe now.
For starters, if there was a singular flood event, you wouldn't see the sediments layer as they do, and you wouldn't see different groups of fossils (which are known through radiometric dating to be of different time periods) appear with the younger fossils appearing in higher, separate layers. You would see a mixing of fossils with no discernible, consistent layers. This isn't what we observe, so the global flood hypothesis isn't a viable model.
Not to mention the gene pool of every animal on the planet would be completely fricked (even to this day), every single piece of land would be salted, and the fact that the Ark would not have been able to carry that number of animals.
This post was edited on 4/8/14 at 11:20 am
Posted on 4/8/14 at 1:28 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
None of the authors can be named, they're all anonymous or assumed.
So exactly the same as every other text from that time period. Amazeballs.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 2:36 pm to the808bass
quote:
Emphatically no. Philosophical education has been ignored to the detriment of our whole educational process. It is the underpinning of all learning. There is no science without philosophy.
Kinda missed the part about philosophy classes did ya?
Posted on 4/8/14 at 3:27 pm to Prof
I think I did misread you. We end up teaching more facts and rudiments because, well, people are stupid.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 3:40 pm to MontyFranklyn
People stress on evolutionary links, but maybe we're transplants from other galaxies/dimensions.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 4:36 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
If you here voices in your head, I recommend I psychiatrist.
This post was edited on 4/8/14 at 4:41 pm
Posted on 4/8/14 at 5:34 pm to the808bass
quote:
So exactly the same as every other text from that time period. Amazeballs.
That's untrue. Just look at Plato's works and you've been soundly defeated, those were written centuries before the New Testament, too.
Page 14 of 49
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News