Started By
Message
re: Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:02 pm to Roger Klarvin
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:02 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Care to refute the evidence?
What evidence?
1
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:03 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Cause and effect is a result of our senses conditioning us. Quantum mechanics is very, very different to our sensory input abilities. Effect without cause is counter-intuitive for us but completely applicable at the quantum level. Other counter-intuitive observations at the quantum level: the idea of distance between particles is meaningless; objects such as photons and electrons can exist bot as waves and particles.
Amazing and interesting stuff. God sure is amazing!!
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:04 pm to beejon
quote:
That's no more than evidence of common building blocks.
I'm seeing the use of the "building blocks" term more and more in discussions with right wing theists. Is this one of the buzzwords from ID?
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:08 pm to beejon
quote:
Amazing and interesting stuff. God sure is amazing!!
You can accept this as amazing but not evolution? All of my religious left and moderate friends are as in awe of evolution as I am. They have no trouble at all believing evolution is the way God created life. The why is much more mysterious.
This post was edited on 4/12/14 at 11:09 pm
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:09 pm to Kentucker
quote:
I'm seeing the use of the "building blocks" term more and more in discussions with right wing theists. Is this one of the buzzwords from ID?
I dunno. I'm not in the inner circle.
But, nevertheless, DNA is a building block for life and a very very very complex one.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:12 pm to Kentucker
quote:
You can accept this as amazing but not evolution? All of my religious left and moderate friends are as in awe of evolution as I am. They have no trouble at all believing evolution is the way God created life. The why is much more mysterious.
No, I cannot accept the theory, unproven and unobserved, that the tremendous complexity and variety of life was by Darwinian means, i.e., a series of undirected random meaningless events resulting in the creation we observe today.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:15 pm to beejon
quote:
No, I cannot accept the theory, unproven and unobserved, that the tremendous complexity and variety of life was by Darwinian means, i.e., a series of undirected random meaningless events resulting in the creation we observe today.
So how do you think He did it? A la David Copperfield or David Blaine?
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:16 pm to Kentucker
The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.....However, Darwinian evolution has become more a philosophy, than a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is what lies behind much of the strident rhetoric opposing any critical analysis.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:19 pm to mattloc
quote:
The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.....However, Darwinian evolution has become more a philosophy, than a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is what lies behind much of the strident rhetoric opposing any critical analysis.
Actually, and it has been discussed in detail in earlier parts of this thread, the strident opposition to Intelligent Design has come from scientists, the religious left and moderates who don't want a veiled creationism taught as science in public schools.
In my opinion, religion should be concerned with and centered upon the why of existence. Science is centered upon the how.. For most people, there are those two realms. I think it helps religion to know the natural how in learning the why.
This post was edited on 4/12/14 at 11:26 pm
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:23 pm to beejon
The evidence I listed
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:25 pm to Kentucker
quote:
So how do you think He did it? A la David Copperfield or David Blaine?
I don't know how He did it. Your mocking doesn't make any sort of point though, except to reveal your inability or unwillingness for a cordial discussion.
Time to bring in the flying spaghetti monster? Or pink unicorns?
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:26 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
The evidence I listed
I guess I missed it. Thought I'd responded to everything.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:29 pm to beejon
quote:
I don't know how He did it. Your mocking doesn't make any sort of point though, except to reveal your inability or unwillingness for a cordial discussion.
Sorry, I didn't offer the suggestion with a mocking intent. I meant to ask if there is a right wing interest in knowing how God created life? I forgot to add that question.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:32 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Actually, and it has been discussed in detail in earlier parts of this thread, the strident opposition to Intelligent Design has come from scientists, the religious left and moderates who don't want a veiled creationism taught as science in public schools.
There is also interest in opposition to not so veiled atheism being taught in schools and cloaked in Darwinism. The conclusion of Darwinism is that all creation is a series of accidents and that individuals are nothing more than the result of billions of years of Godless (very much implied) events. Individuals are ultimately meaningless in Darwinism, except as a means to promulgate the species.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:34 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Sorry, I didn't offer the suggestion with a mocking intent. I meant to ask if there is a right wing interest in knowing how God created life? I forgot to add that question.
"A la David Copperfield or David Blaine?" isn't mocking? Really?
I'm not sure what you mean by "right wing interest".
This post was edited on 4/12/14 at 11:35 pm
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:39 pm to beejon
quote:
There is also interest in opposition to not so veiled atheism being taught in schools and cloaked in Darwinism. The conclusion of Darwinism is that all creation is a series of accidents and that individuals are nothing more than the result of billions of years of Godless (very much implied) events. Individuals are ultimately meaningless in Darwinism, except as a means to promulgate the species.
Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
Our Constitution mandates atheism in the public sector to preserve the freedom of religion in the private sector. As mentioned earlier tonight, if Darwin had structured his theory around a God-centered cause, it would have become just another religion instead of the fascinating scientific subject taught in biology classes.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:42 pm to beejon
I would love to know where the Bible says the world is 5-6 billion years old.... That would help me a lot in discussions with people like you.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:44 pm to beejon
quote:
"A la David Copperfield or David Blaine?" isn't mocking? Really?
I said it was not offered as mocking. You took it as mocking and that's why I apologized and modified my post for you.
quote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "right wing interest".
I think there are leftists, moderates and right wingers in religion just as there are the divisions in politics. It is the religious right wing that I see opposing the teaching of evolution. Religious leftists and moderates universally approve of evolution.
This post was edited on 4/12/14 at 11:48 pm
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:47 pm to Kentucker
I call right wingers Jesus Krispies.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 11:51 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system.
I disagree, it is a belief system. It's a philosophy of belief which shapes one's values and outlook on life.
quote:
Our Constitution mandates atheism in the public sector to preserve the freedom of religion in the private sector.
Our constitution doesn't guarantee the freedom to promote a atheistic philosophy in education, i.e., Darwinism.
quote:
As mentioned earlier tonight, if Darwin had structured his theory around a God-centered cause, it would have become just another religion instead of the fascinating scientific subject taught in biology classes.
No doubt it's fascinating, but full of fail.
Page 36 of 49
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News