Started By
Message
re: Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution
Posted on 4/13/14 at 10:18 pm to beejon
Posted on 4/13/14 at 10:18 pm to beejon
quote:
I say that Darwinism which teaches creation by the mechanism of a series of random events is atheistic by nature.
Well I say you don't know what you are talking about. And there is more evidence to prove you don't know what you are talking about than there is evidence to prove evolution is atheistic by nature. Does it it's theory go against many religions views of the way God created life in those religions beliefs? Sure. Does it in any way say, state, prove, or even hint at that there is no God? No not at all. Like I said before YOU make it Godless.
1
Posted on 4/13/14 at 10:29 pm to beejon
quote:
I say that Darwinism which teaches creation by the mechanism of a series of random events is atheistic by nature.
All of science is atheistic by nature. Not your connotation of atheistic, for sure, but atheistic in that God is neither implied or denied, prohibited or exhibited. This is true for every single science subject. Science is not the realm for questions about God. That's the realm of religion.
Posted on 4/13/14 at 11:31 pm to beejon
quote:
I say that Darwinism which teaches creation by the mechanism of a series of random events is atheistic by nature.
I say that this is a sign of your necessity of wishful thinking.
It's pleasant to think that there's some kind of plan, that we're here for a reason but I need you to brace yourself: There may be no reason.
We may not be the iconic focal point of the entire universe, or multiverse for that matter. In fact, there's an even better chance, almost a certainty, that we'll die in a cosmic blink and leave nothing behind. The Earth will swallow us whole, then the sun will burn everything and the Andromeda Galaxy will merge with our own and it'll be over.
Just like that.
The fact of the matter is: There's no need for Apophenia in these parts, the model can exist without it.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 3:54 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Since most of us are all jerking off to Cosmos... what do y'all think about Peter Griffin being the guy that made the new Cosmos happen? 
Seth McFarlane is pretty amazing.... props to that guy.
Seth McFarlane is pretty amazing.... props to that guy. 
Posted on 4/14/14 at 7:43 am to MontyFranklyn
As an episcopalian, I believe in both
Posted on 4/14/14 at 8:19 am to Kentucker
quote:
All of science is atheistic by nature. Not your connotation of atheistic, for sure, but atheistic in that God is neither implied or denied, prohibited or exhibited. This is true for every single science subject. Science is not the realm for questions about God. That's the realm of religion.
This is a good point.
There's a difference between atheism and antitheism. Atheism means "without god" whereas antitheism is an "active opposition to theism."
Posted on 4/14/14 at 9:10 am to NATidefan
Lol at these idiots that are willing to swallow the Darwinistic model without critical analysis and then call the rest of us idiots...I am ambivilant toward evolution, but dont pretend there are not plenty of holes in the Darwinian model....for example the fossil record is scientifically untestable and replete with conjecture and speculation....and yet some of you are in awe over a snake oil salesman of a scientist lining up a few old bones and claiming that they represent a line of descent....Really....and then you want the rest of us to foister it off on children as fact. Darwinism is the bottom rung of the scientific ladder.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 9:18 am to mattloc
quote:
Lol at these idiots that are willing to swallow the Darwinistic model without critical analysis and then call the rest of us idiots...I am ambivilant toward evolution, but dont pretend there are not plenty of holes in the Darwinian model....for example the fossil record is scientifically untestable and replete with conjecture and speculation....and yet some of you are in awe over a snake oil salesman of a scientist lining up a few old bones and claiming that they represent a line of descent....Really....and then you want the rest of us to foister it off on children as fact. Darwinism is the bottom rung of the scientific ladder.
Spoken like a true layman, could you even define evolution, let alone critique it?
Posted on 4/14/14 at 9:23 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
lets hear your definition ... since you apparently claim to be the "expert"
eta: Your particular variety of evolution appears to have nothing to do with science, but a philosophy to justify your atheism.
eta: Your particular variety of evolution appears to have nothing to do with science, but a philosophy to justify your atheism.
This post was edited on 4/14/14 at 9:30 am
Posted on 4/14/14 at 9:28 am to mattloc
quote:
Lol at these idiots that are willing to swallow the Darwinistic model without critical analysis
The Darwinian model is the product of critical analysis.
quote:
but dont pretend there are not plenty of holes in the Darwinian model.
Nobody pretends there aren't holes in our understanding of evolution. If there weren't, we wouldn't have scientists who are today actively conducting research on evolution.
The thing you need to understand is that, just because there are holes in the theory doesn't itself disprove it.
quote:
for example the fossil record is scientifically untestable and replete with conjecture and speculation
How so?
quote:
Darwinism is the bottom rung of the scientific ladder
I prefer the term "foundation," as in Darwinism is the foundation for our modern understanding of biology and other related fields. Without it, many of our understandings of genetics, medicine, ecology, anthropology, etc., would all fall apart. The fact that so many scientific disciplines rely on Darwin's work in some sense does, in a way, validate the theory.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 9:34 am to mattloc
"Poe's law, named after its author Nathan Poe, is an Internet adage reflecting the idea that without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism."
I'm going to call this guy a Poe right now and be done with it.
I'm going to call this guy a Poe right now and be done with it.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 10:04 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
I'm going to call this guy a Poe right now and be done with it.
lot of irony in this statement...
lot of irony in this statement...
Posted on 4/14/14 at 10:29 am to mattloc
quote:
I'm going to call this guy a Poe right now and be done with it.
lot of irony in this statement...
Posted on 4/14/14 at 10:38 am to Kentucker
quote:
All of science is atheistic by nature. Not your connotation of atheistic, for sure, but atheistic in that God is neither implied or denied, prohibited or exhibited. This is true for every single science subject. Science is not the realm for questions about God. That's the realm of religion.
There's science and then there's pseudo science. Darwinism is pseudo science. Using the scientific method, there's no support for the complexity and variety of life to arise from the Darwinist model. There's absolutely no evidence or proof, as is demanded by those against a theistic model, that random events, accidents, hit and miss, produced more and more complex, very very complex life forms, with tremendous variety. The Darwinist model which promotes the guesses and suppositions will not allow any view but an atheistic view, i.e., the mechanics underlying the creation of new and complex life is entirely by naturalistic means.
quote:
Not your connotation of atheistic, for sure, but atheistic in that God is neither implied or denied, prohibited or exhibited.
Of course God is denied or prohibited when teaching the guesses and suppositions of Darwinism. But, the issue is intelligent design vs. evolution. Intelligent design vs. no intelligent design. Atheistic Darwinism demands, without discussion or exception, no intelligent design and chooses instead to place blind faith in randomness, increasingly complex creation by non designer means, any mechanism however improbable as long as there's no meaning or thought behind the creation. Darwinism as taught in schools today is pure classic atheism.
The result is the philosophy of atheism being cloaked in pseudo science and presented as real science in order to accuse those who are against atheistic Darwinism to be opposed to science, to reason, to the proven theory of Darwinism. The person who believes the lie of atheistic Darwinism will then have a world view that their life is ultimately nothing more than a random event, meaningless other than to procreate.
So yes, Darwinism is definitely a life philosophy being passed off as science, when in fact it's a religion promoted by the atheistic community.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 10:39 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Atheistic Darwinism isn't science.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 10:44 am to DCRebel
quote:
The thing you need to understand is that, just because there are holes in the theory doesn't itself disprove it.
While I agree with this, It does not jibe with the tenor of the conversation in this thread, which has been largley derogatory toward those who have failed to wholeheartedly endorse Darwinism
Posted on 4/14/14 at 10:51 am to beejon
quote:
Of course God is denied or prohibited when teaching the guesses and suppositions of Darwinism.
This is the stupidest shite I have ever heard. The more you repeat it and try to justify it, the stupider it sounds.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 10:51 am to mattloc
quote:
While I agree with this, It does not jibe with the tenor of the conversation in this thread, which has been largley derogatory toward those who have failed to wholeheartedly endorse Darwinism
The Book of Genesis is a Fairy Tale.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 10:52 am to beejon
quote:
There's science and then there's pseudo science. Darwinism is pseudo science.
Ahh, so you have the answers and the ten or so thousand biologists have it all wrong? Excuse me if I take their word over their own.
quote:
Using the scientific method, there's no support for the complexity and variety of life to arise from the Darwinist model.
There's tons of support. Why do we have tails in the womb? Why do you think animals look alike in the embryonic stage? Look at number one.
quote:
There's absolutely no evidence or proof, as is demanded by those against a theistic model, that random events, accidents, hit and miss, produced more and more complex, very very complex life forms, with tremendous variety.
"Complex" is rather subjective, don't you think? Evolution does support it, however, and you can go through all the transitional fossils you'd like -- just Wiki it as a fast reference and then read the research papers on it. This isn't difficult.
quote:
Of course God is denied or prohibited when teaching the guesses and suppositions of Darwinism.
This is untrue -- the reason that most biologists don't believe in religion is because they know for a fact that Genesis for damn sure isn't true. They are masters, experts in their field.
Your assumption is: That all of them are "in on the gig", that they're all lying. Seriously, go be a biologist yourself and prove Evolution wrong.
You would win a Nobel Prize and never have to work again in your life.
quote:
Atheistic Darwinism demands, without discussion or exception, no intelligent design and chooses instead to place blind faith in randomness, increasingly complex creation by non designer means, any mechanism however improbable as long as there's no meaning or thought behind the creation. Darwinism as taught in schools today is pure classic atheism.
There is evolution and it has nothing to do with God other than Genesis presenting a fallacious view of life. There's no atheistic, deistic, theistic or antitheistic slant to evolution, the theory of evolution is a description on how things changed, it has nothing to do with Abiogenesis.
quote:
So yes, Darwinism is definitely a life philosophy being passed off as science, when in fact it's a religion promoted by the atheistic community
This is by far one of the stupidest comments in this entire conversation -- and that's saying something.
This post was edited on 4/14/14 at 10:55 am
Posted on 4/14/14 at 10:53 am to beejon
quote:
Atheistic Darwinism isn't science.
Evolution is science. Evolution isn't "atheistic Darwinism", or whatever convoluted straw man argument you are using.
Page 44 of 49
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News