The Evolutionists' Fundamentalist Preacher

GostHacked · May 10, 2009

Religious science has certainly an opinion of its object of research.

Then you truely do not understand what science really is. And that is all you have, a religious opinion. True science has no opinion on religion. Science is not testing religion. This is where many fail to understand the real difference.

What else you got?

betsy · May 10, 2009

Betsy It may look that way for now, but what if the evidence ends up to show different? How wavering would you be on your faith when faced against insurmountable evidence to prove otherwiese?

What if. So far, the evidence is moving in the direction that shows the possibility of "Design." Enough evidence to make notable people of science to consider and become convinced of that possibility.

From Darwin (from a century ago)....to the present!

And the present had brought forth even more robust and compelling argument and evidence that support the ID theory...so much more so that made a hardcore long-time legendary atheist to renounce evolution and endorse ID.

Assuming - and I stress the word, assuming - that the theory of evolution is proved to be true, why should that affect my faith? Will it prove that there is no God? No.

However, the proof of the existence of Intelligent Design (which is being proven and not just an assumption - but in fact, shows compelling evidence), that suggest the existence of God....will surely put into dilemma the faith of those who want to insist to believe that there is no God.

Anyway, let's not get into these assumptions. Let's focus on what's really happening. ID theory - Intelligent Design or Designer or a god or God - is giving insurmountable evidence to prove itself convincing.

You are correct, at least he considered other theories. You simply have not. You do not have the capacity to even fancy the other evidence.

You see, no offense but here is where you don't get it.

What is the point for me - a regular joe, not even a "layman" in the realm of science - to consider and weigh all the arguments of the fundametalist evolutionists? Just imagine how I will have to wade through all that....sorting out through all the muck.

As DogonPorch said in one of the threads here, children build sandcastles and others will always want to knock it down.

Even if I attempt to follow and understand all the various arguments and rebuttals by evolutionist-scientists (and there are many and on-going)....how do I surely know that fundamentalist evolutionists - also meaning, atheists - are not distorting facts to support their arguments and discredit the other theory?

Some of the arguments here by some non-religious people are already attempting to distort the discussion by throwing in arguments that really have nothing to do with what we're trying to discuss.

Some resort to downright insults, some don't even contribute any to the discussion but just simply throw insults. They seem to act more like "sore-losers" than try to engage in honest and lively debate. Which only lend support to my reason below.

The way I see it, fundamentalist evolutionists are fighting to keep their FAITH - not scientific truth - alive! That alone, is reason enough to question the credibility of their arguments since they have a very real motive: they're fighting for the survival of their faith.

Why do I need to "consider" evolution....again, what's the point?

Darwin himself, questioned this theory....AND lent support to the ID theory! His letters confirmed that. EVEN NEAR THE TIME OF HIS DEATH!

The present-day scientists who not only broke off from the theory of evolution, but also abandoned atheism and set out to prove the theory of ID to be true. Just the fact that they renounced their faith in atheism is a strong proof how compelling the evidence for ID is!

Then, there's the Philosopher Antony Flew....being a philosopher, I imagine he weighed all reasons and evidence and made his decision based on rational thinking. Again, his renouncement of atheism and conversion to deism, criticism of evolution, and endorsement of ID...all together, present strong proof how convincing ID theory is compared to evolution.

And now, Dawkins himself....admits to considering the possibility of Design!

That these men of science - who play key roles in the theory of evolution - should admit to the possibility of ID is definite proof that ID is far more convincing. Spanning a century.

The key players in evolution - the movers and shakers - they all admitted to that possibility.

What more evidence do I need?

Perhaps you should consider and take a long hard look at ID. After all the onus is on you to find out what made leading men from your side of the fence to find it convincing enough that they considered and admitted to its possibility.

Edited May 10, 2009 by betsy

betsy · May 10, 2009

If you don't believe in ID, then come up with another theory. Blind faith is keeping you clinging to an ancient theory that is proved to be wrong. Otherwise why don't you see the clear evidence?

GostHacked · May 10, 2009

If you don't believe in ID, then come up with another theory. Blind faith is keeping you clinging to an ancient theory that is proved to be wrong. Otherwise why don't you see the clear evidence?

Answer me why there are so many differences in religions about god, and why are there so many different types of creationism?

betsy · May 10, 2009

Answer me why there are so many differences in religions about god, and why are there so many different types of creationism?

What's this got to do with the discussion????

cybercoma · May 10, 2009

I'm sorry, what theory has proved to be wrong?

BubberMiley · May 10, 2009

Not proved wrong scientifically; proved wrong in that creationists want it to be proved wrong and they feel if they say it is so, those who also want it proved wrong will be happy to take their word for it.

GostHacked · May 10, 2009

What's this got to do with the discussion????

Because there are so many types of 'blind faith' as you like to call it. Even Christianity has so many sub groups. That makes it hilarious when a bunch of you get together to attack evolution.

Besty, do you believe in the theory of gravity?

BubberMiley · May 10, 2009

Besty, do you believe in the theory of gravity?

It is just a theory, after all, and "top minds" have questioned it.

Molly · May 10, 2009

There are several things that you aren't getting here, Betsy.

First among those is your insistence that evolutionary theory has somehow been proved wrong. That is a falsehood-- a rediculous falsehood. An absurdity beyond response... even beyond the scope of the sneering 'flying spagetti monster' ridicule. It... is ..an... asinine.... statement, that undermines any other thing that you have to say, to the point of outright dismissal.

Second is your assumption that the theory of evolution, and religious belief are antithetical. For the most part, they aren't in conflict at all. They ARE in conflict only if those religious beliefs are so very restricted that they cannot be reconciled with observable phenomena. (If that's your situation, then that's your problem, not Darwin's, not Dawkins' and not ours. Observable phenomena will not be changed to reconcile with your religious beliefs.) Atheism and evolution are the answers to two entirely unrelated questions.

Thirdly, entertaining the speculative notion of a designer, or even taking note of patterns is NOT acknowledgement of validity for the demoninationally motivated, politically manipulative deceit that titles itself ID. To propose it is to make a logical leap equivalent to taking an offhand reference to the possible existence of dogs as evidence that the speaker owns a three-legged Schnauzer named Pete.

Edited May 10, 2009 by Molly

benny · May 10, 2009

Then you truely do not understand what science really is. And that is all you have, a religious opinion. True science has no opinion on religion. Science is not testing religion. This is where many fail to understand the real difference.
What else you got?

As a branch of the social sciences, religious science is a confrontation of views about everything surrounding religion.

GostHacked · May 10, 2009

As a branch of the social sciences, religious science is a confrontation of views about everything surrounding religion.

And religion has S.F.A to do with science. And vice versa.

Blubbermiley

It is just a theory, after all, and "top minds" have questioned it.

Agreed, and this is just unfortunate. I do not have any confidence betsy can address this in an unbiased objectional matter.

betsy · May 10, 2009

Because there are so many types of 'blind faith' as you like to call it. Even Christianity has so many sub groups.

But we're not talking about Christian religion. We're talking about the theory of ID vs the theory of evolution.

That makes it hilarious when a bunch of you get together to attack evolution.

It is indeed sort of hilarious, I must say....the way you use the word "attack" in this particular discussion....and the way you try to bring in Christianity - and all its sub groups - into this. This gives an image of a drowning man. :lol:

All I did was state some facts about Darwin, Dawkins and Flew....all backed by sources, which I've provided.

And that's where the blind faith I was talking about comes in: the evidence is right there in front of you.

You refuse to look at it in an objective way. You refuse to look at it and study how come these men came up to the point of admission. Aren't you at least curious???

These three men - key players in evolution - all admitted to the possibility of ID! Several scientists have abandoned atheism and offered other theories. Flew abandoned atheism, criticized evolution, embraced deism and endorsed the theory of ID! So therefore, the theory of ID is far more convincing.

Edited May 10, 2009 by betsy

GostHacked · May 10, 2009

But we're not talking about Christian religion. We're talking about the theory of ID vs the theory of evolution.

The thing is, it is only Christians that are bringing this whole thing up to begin with. Catholics and many other religions have no problem with evolution at all. And this seems to be a thing restricted to North Amercia. You simply do not find this debate in other parts of the world. I find that quite odd.

And that's where the blind faith I was talking about comes in: the evidence is right there in front of you.
You refuse to look at it in an objective way. You refuse to look at it and study how come these men came up to the point of admission. Aren't you at least curious???

Actually because of you, I have watched and read quite a bit about ID and creationism and evolution. I know more about both sides than I did a couple weeks ago.

These three men - key players in evolution - all admitted to the possibility of ID!

One last time Betsy. It is a possibility. That does not make it an absolute. Get this through your skull.

betsy · May 10, 2009

There are several things that you aren't getting here, Betsy.
First among those is your insistence that evolutionary theory has somehow been proved wrong. That is a falsehood-- a rediculous falsehood. An absurdity beyond response... even beyond the scope of the sneering 'flying spagetti monster' ridicule. It... is ..an... asinine.... statement, that undermines any other thing that you have to say, to the point of outright dismissal.

Holy Molly....if this is an example of an outright dismissal, I'm curious to see the length of your post when you actually have something to say. :lol:

Second is your assumption that the theory of evolution, and religious belief are antithetical. For the most part, they aren't in conflict at all. They ARE in conflict only if those religious beliefs are so very restricted that they cannot be reconciled with observable phenomena.

That very sounds like you're supporting ID....or theo-evolution.

(If that's your situation, then that's your problem, not Darwin's, not Dawkins' and not ours. Observable phenomena will not be changed to reconcile with your religious beliefs.)

Darwin, Dawkins and Flew....admitted to the possibility of Design. So what problem are you talking about?

Atheism and evolution are the answers to two entirely unrelated questions.

And what unrelated questions are those?

Thirdly, entertaining the speculative notion of a designer, or even taking note of patterns is NOT acknowledgement of validity for the demoninationally motivated, politically manipulative deceit that titles itself ID. To propose it is to make a logical leap equivalent to taking an offhand reference to the possible existence of dogs as evidence that the speaker owns a three-legged Schnauzer named Pete.

Darn, all I did was show some evidence that these three men admitted to the possibility of ID.

I know, I know, this is bad news. Well...

Rant at Darwin for his admission ...and for leaving a long trail of evidence through his letters.

Curse at Antony Flew for his damning criticism of evolution, for turning his back on atheism and for his traitorous public endorsement of ID.

Burn the effigy of Dawkins for that blasted debate blooper....and public admission in a recorded interview.

But please....don't lynch the poor messenger. :lol:

Hey Moll, who do you think is more credible.....you? Or Antony Flew?

betsy · May 10, 2009

The thing is, it is only Christians that are bringing this whole thing up to begin with.

Oh! You mean the debates with scientists? Darwin's pal, Asa Gray?

But aren't questions, arguments and rebuttals a big part of science? If these don't serve any purpose at all....why would scientists waste their time indulging?

If these scientists ended up getting influenced by their debate opponents, some of whom ended up converting to Christianity or abandoning atheism for deism.....then the arguments of their opponents must be overwhelmingly convincing to have them act upon life-changing decisions.

Actually because of you, I have watched and read quite a bit about ID and creationism and evolution. I know more about both sides than I did a couple weeks ago.
One last time Betsy. It is a possibility. That does not make it an absolute. Get this through your skull.

I cannot agree with you that creationism is only a possibility. But I can assure you that Darwinism isn't a possibility.

Edited May 10, 2009 by betsy

DogOnPorch · May 10, 2009

But I can assure you that Darwinism isn't a possibility.

That'll be the day.

benny · May 10, 2009

And religion has S.F.A to do with science. And vice versa.

S.F.A.?

WIP · May 11, 2009

Now I hope you're not trying to take my message out of context. I said, "depending on where you live."
Our values here were derived from the Christian values - from Christian settlers.

Those "Christian settlers" also believed in slavery, the inferiority of the natives, and the need to either marginalize them, banish them, or even exterminate them if nothing else worked. Are you going to take credit for these viewpoints that the Christian settlers also possessed?

WIP · May 11, 2009

I cannot agree with you that creationism is only a possibility. But I can assure you that Darwinism isn't a possibility.

All of these creationist threads you've started should be rolled into one to prevent this common tactic that others use of starting multiple threads on the same subject, whether it's Jew-baiting or denying global warming, to try to leave some propaganda hanging out there that doesn't get responded to.

Now, since I put enough time in this thread, I'll wait for your responses there, rather than dealing with the same subject here.

betsy · May 11, 2009

All of these creationist threads you've started should be rolled into one to prevent this common tactic that others use of starting multiple threads on the same subject, whether it's Jew-baiting or denying global warming, to try to leave some propaganda hanging out there that doesn't get responded to.
Now, since I put enough time in this thread, I'll wait for your responses there, rather than dealing with the same subject here.

Hah! I'll put my response where it's appropriate.....if I'll respond at all. :angry:

You're losing your coooooool. :lol:

WIP · May 11, 2009

We expect that cause and effect are a fundamental law that the universe is built upon.

Not since the peculiarities of Quantum Mechanics were discovered, that add uncertainty to subatomic particle interactions and provides probabilities rather than a causal chain of events taking a particle from one state to another. Cause and effect works fine in the world of everyday experience we deal with, but why should we assume that the universe was an event with a causal chain, if it began as a tiny singularity that would have been subject to the rules of Quantum Physics?

Einstein showed us that time is simply another dimension, implying that higher order dimensions could exist where time is represented in one plane, space on another. Modern cosmologists who study the origin of the universe ie. Big Bang now believe that this universe was created when an 11-dimensional object collapsed. This is part of what string theory is about.

Keep in mind that String Theory is not an actual working scientific theory (at least at the present time). It is more properly called an hypothesis, since its predictions cannot be tested at the present time. The 11 dimensional multiverse is one of the predictions of the M-Theory proposed by physicist Ed Witten, to harmonize the five existing string theory models that did not previously work together. So Witten's idea has gathered a lot of enthusiasm as a possible way towards a grand unified theory of physics -- but it is still in the speculation stage, so 11 dimensions cannot be taken as a fact of nature.

The point is its possible for things to exist outside of the time dimension that we can't easily understand, but mathematics shows they could logically exist. People often ask, what was before the big bang, the conventional answer so far is that time itself did not exist before the big bang. There was no "before".

Things that exist outside of space and time (like the proposed intelligent designer) need some pathway to interact with time and space. If a God is timeless, then it would be aware of anything and everything that had ever occurred in the universe, but it would also have no capacity of awareness of causal events that occur in the passage of time. In other words, this conception of God denies him the capacity for personhood, since he cannot act with deliberation and decide between different options as we do in our day to day lives. He cannot intervene and change the course of events in our universe. That could be harmonized with a deistic, uninvolved god, but the transcendent, personal god of Christianity cannot exist if he is outside of space and time.

betsy · May 11, 2009

Those "Christian settlers" also believed in slavery, the inferiority of the natives, and the need to either marginalize them, banish them, or even exterminate them if nothing else worked. Are you going to take credit for these viewpoints that the Christian settlers also possessed?

Oh boy, here comes the archeologist in you...dig, dig,dig, dig all those dirt! :lol:

You sound like a broken record already.

So the "Christian settlers" had some blemish. Did that have anything to do with our discussion???

We're still stuck with the same law, aren't we? It's still a crime to kill, to steal, commit perjury, and to swindle your neighbor!

BubberMiley · May 11, 2009

We're still stuck with the same law, aren't we? It's still a crime to kill, to steal, commit perjury, and to swindle your neighbor!

Huh? Half of the 10 commandments are centred around an insecure god making sure no one dares date any other gods. If our legal system were really based on christianity, blasphemy would certainly have been made a crime.

benny · May 11, 2009

Huh? Half of the 10 commandments are centred around an insecure god making sure no one dares date any other gods. If our legal system were really based on christianity, blasphemy would certainly have been made a crime.

Polytheism (mythologies) hesitates between creation and evolution by between full of monster-like gods who create the world by raping mortals.