| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bill" |
| Date: |
16 Jan 2006 01:11:53 PM |
| Object: |
EVOLUTION VERUS ID |
The arguments of Evolution versus Intelligent design are specious because
they are
based on totally different concepts. It is the equivalent of arguing that
air is better for
you than a poem. They are two different and unrelated things.
Evolution Theory is supported by a huge volume of 'objective physical
scientific evidence'.
Intelligent design is based on pure opinion with NO objective physical
scientific evidence.
Stating that life is too complex to have just 'evolved' does not make this
'opinion'
scientific fact, evidence or a scientific theory.
The first is science and the second is just opinion. Science only should be
taught in
science classes. Opinions can be taught in any class that is based on
'opinions' but
not in science classes.
.
|
|
| User: "Legion" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION VERUS ID |
16 Jan 2006 01:40:42 PM |
|
|
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:nbSyf.71062$Lb1.70283@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The arguments of Evolution versus Intelligent design are specious because
they are
based on totally different concepts. It is the equivalent of arguing that
air is better for
you than a poem. They are two different and unrelated things.
Evolution Theory is supported by a huge volume of 'objective physical
scientific evidence'.
Intelligent design is based on pure opinion with NO objective physical
scientific evidence.
But this only makes them different because it seems to be your opinion that
one has greater value than the other.
I happen to agree with you but they are both valid as explanations for the
existance of the current state of the Universe.
Just because there is no empirical evidence for something does not mean it
is 'wrong'
Stating that life is too complex to have just 'evolved' does not make this
'opinion'
scientific fact, evidence or a scientific theory.
The first is science and the second is just opinion. Science only should
be
taught in
science classes. Opinions can be taught in any class that is based on
'opinions' but
not in science classes.
I disagree Bill, opinion is the starting point of Scientific enquiry,
without those who are willing to identfy alternative paths by stating them
as opinions (even if they later prove to be wrong) there would be no
advancement in science.
We observe, opine, theorise, test and (if we are really lucky) prove.
Though it is worth noting that even a formal scientific "proof" cannot
account for every situation that has been or will be. There is only the
balance of evidence, liklihood and (ultimately) consensus (which is
basically only a common *opinion* shared by many or even all observers).
Legion
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION VERUS ID |
16 Jan 2006 07:52:30 PM |
|
|
"Legion" <cj.mccormack@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:dqgsrq$ap0$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:nbSyf.71062$Lb1.70283@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The arguments of Evolution versus Intelligent design are specious because
they are
based on totally different concepts. It is the equivalent of arguing that
air is better for
you than a poem. They are two different and unrelated things.
Evolution Theory is supported by a huge volume of 'objective physical
scientific evidence'.
Intelligent design is based on pure opinion with NO objective physical
scientific evidence.
But this only makes them different because it seems to be your opinion
that
one has greater value than the other.
?????????
Why wouldn't the one supported by valid facts and evidence be better than
nothing more than one of hundreds of religous opinions?
I happen to agree with you but they are both valid as explanations for the
existance of the current state of the Universe.
No - one is valid, the other merely bellowing.
Just because there is no empirical evidence for something does not mean it
is 'wrong'
Then there is also NO reason to treat it as being RIGHT!
Stating that life is too complex to have just 'evolved' does not make
this
'opinion'
scientific fact, evidence or a scientific theory.
The first is science and the second is just opinion. Science only should
be
taught in
science classes. Opinions can be taught in any class that is based on
'opinions' but
not in science classes.
I disagree Bill, opinion is the starting point of Scientific enquiry,
without those who are willing to identfy alternative paths by stating them
as opinions (even if they later prove to be wrong) there would be no
advancement in science.
Cuiriosity, experiments, collecting of data etc. are MORE important, and
more common, that starting out with "just an opinion".
You give "opinion" one hell of a lot more weight than science ever would!
The claim of a "creator" has been around for eons - yet claimants have never
provided EVEN ONE fact or piece of evidence to support that claim.
It is their burden to prove it right, not our to prove it wrong.
We observe, opine, theorise, test and (if we are really lucky) prove.
Though it is worth noting that even a formal scientific "proof" cannot
account for every situation that has been or will be. There is only the
balance of evidence, liklihood and (ultimately) consensus (which is
basically only a common *opinion* shared by many or even all observers).
That's why tere are few, if any, scientific "proofs" - and many theories
(still supported by facts and evidence).
There is not, nor has there ever been ANY evidence to support ANY of the
thousands of gods man has invented.
Claiming "an intelligence", i.e., making it generic is nothing more than an
attempt to confuse the issue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Legion" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION VERUS ID |
17 Jan 2006 09:51:47 AM |
|
|
"ZenIsWhen" <here'slooking@youkid.com> wrote in message
news:11sojjom3ppi53d@corp.supernews.com...
"Legion" <cj.mccormack@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:dqgsrq$ap0$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:nbSyf.71062$Lb1.70283@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The arguments of Evolution versus Intelligent design are specious
because
they are
based on totally different concepts. It is the equivalent of arguing
that
air is better for
you than a poem. They are two different and unrelated things.
Evolution Theory is supported by a huge volume of 'objective physical
scientific evidence'.
Intelligent design is based on pure opinion with NO objective physical
scientific evidence.
But this only makes them different because it seems to be your opinion
that
one has greater value than the other.
?????????
Why wouldn't the one supported by valid facts and evidence be better than
nothing more than one of hundreds of religous opinions?
Being supported by many valid, observable facts does not constitute a solid
proof when we are talking about something as complex as the Universe. If it
did, we would already have a GUT in place.
The fact is the weight of liklihood *IS* on the side of Evolution, but that
does not mean we can completely rule out everything else.
I happen to agree with you but they are both valid as explanations for
the
existance of the current state of the Universe.
No - one is valid, the other merely bellowing.
Maybe, but this cannot be proved or disproved at present
Just because there is no empirical evidence for something does not mean
it
is 'wrong'
Then there is also NO reason to treat it as being RIGHT!
I agree entirely. As I said above, the great weight of liklihood is on
Evolution.....
Stating that life is too complex to have just 'evolved' does not make
this
'opinion'
scientific fact, evidence or a scientific theory.
The first is science and the second is just opinion. Science only
should
be
taught in
science classes. Opinions can be taught in any class that is based on
'opinions' but
not in science classes.
I disagree Bill, opinion is the starting point of Scientific enquiry,
without those who are willing to identfy alternative paths by stating
them
as opinions (even if they later prove to be wrong) there would be no
advancement in science.
Cuiriosity, experiments, collecting of data etc. are MORE important, and
more common, that starting out with "just an opinion".
You give "opinion" one hell of a lot more weight than science ever would!
The claim of a "creator" has been around for eons - yet claimants have
never
provided EVEN ONE fact or piece of evidence to support that claim.
It is their burden to prove it right, not our to prove it wrong.
We observe, opine, theorise, test and (if we are really lucky) prove.
Though it is worth noting that even a formal scientific "proof" cannot
account for every situation that has been or will be. There is only the
balance of evidence, liklihood and (ultimately) consensus (which is
basically only a common *opinion* shared by many or even all observers).
That's why tere are few, if any, scientific "proofs" - and many theories
(still supported by facts and evidence).
Indeed so.
There is not, nor has there ever been ANY evidence to support ANY of the
thousands of gods man has invented.
Claiming "an intelligence", i.e., making it generic is nothing more than
an
attempt to confuse the issue.
The proof issue is absolutely right, these concepts of creationism are
simply left overs from a bygone age of intellectual immaturity.
That is not to say that we should not try and change them, just that maybe
saying "you are wrong wrong wrong" and stamping our feet is not the best way
to do that.
Legion
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION VERUS ID |
16 Jan 2006 07:19:39 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:40:42 +0000 (UTC), in alt.atheism , "Legion"
<cj.mccormack@btinternet.com> in
<dqgsrq$ap0$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com> wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:nbSyf.71062$Lb1.70283@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The arguments of Evolution versus Intelligent design are specious because
they are
based on totally different concepts. It is the equivalent of arguing that
air is better for
you than a poem. They are two different and unrelated things.
Evolution Theory is supported by a huge volume of 'objective physical
scientific evidence'.
Intelligent design is based on pure opinion with NO objective physical
scientific evidence.
But this only makes them different because it seems to be your opinion that
one has greater value than the other.
I happen to agree with you but they are both valid as explanations for the
existance of the current state of the Universe.
Just because there is no empirical evidence for something does not mean it
is 'wrong'
The only way to support ID as valid is to argue, as you do, that no
knowledge at all is possible.
Stating that life is too complex to have just 'evolved' does not make this
'opinion'
scientific fact, evidence or a scientific theory.
The first is science and the second is just opinion. Science only should
be
taught in
science classes. Opinions can be taught in any class that is based on
'opinions' but
not in science classes.
I disagree Bill, opinion is the starting point of Scientific enquiry,
without those who are willing to identfy alternative paths by stating them
as opinions (even if they later prove to be wrong) there would be no
advancement in science.
We observe, opine, theorise, test and (if we are really lucky) prove.
Though it is worth noting that even a formal scientific "proof" cannot
account for every situation that has been or will be. There is only the
balance of evidence, liklihood and (ultimately) consensus (which is
basically only a common *opinion* shared by many or even all observers).
There is, however, no point in presenting every nonsensical idea just
because it is possible to use them as a basis for learning. If you
think ID is the best way to teach science then say so.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Legion" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION VERUS ID |
17 Jan 2006 09:36:59 AM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:tdhos15bq8sm6g7ddeupsjodgnpg29p5dl@4ax.com...
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:40:42 +0000 (UTC), in alt.atheism , "Legion"
<cj.mccormack@btinternet.com> in
<dqgsrq$ap0$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com> wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:nbSyf.71062$Lb1.70283@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The arguments of Evolution versus Intelligent design are specious
because
they are
based on totally different concepts. It is the equivalent of arguing
that
air is better for
you than a poem. They are two different and unrelated things.
Evolution Theory is supported by a huge volume of 'objective physical
scientific evidence'.
Intelligent design is based on pure opinion with NO objective physical
scientific evidence.
But this only makes them different because it seems to be your opinion
that
one has greater value than the other.
I happen to agree with you but they are both valid as explanations for
the
existance of the current state of the Universe.
Just because there is no empirical evidence for something does not mean
it
is 'wrong'
The only way to support ID as valid is to argue, as you do, that no
knowledge at all is possible.
snippity snip
There is, however, no point in presenting every nonsensical idea just
because it is possible to use them as a basis for learning. If you
think ID is the best way to teach science then say so.
Let's be totally clear about this I do *not* support the idea of Intelligent
Design. I am firmly of the opinion that the Universe is the result of a
naturally occuring propensity for matter to combine in infinitely
interesting and complex ways.
I am a firm beiliever in the power of complexity theory.
I am simply playing Devil's advocate that although I agree that ID is so
unlikely as to be almost ludicrous, there always remains that tiniest of
possibilities that there is in fact a great white haired 'God' who is
responsible for the Universe's creation.
Even Stephen Hawking once stated that at the time he could think of no
better reason for the Universe springing into existence than because it was
'started' by God.
Legion
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION VERUS ID |
17 Jan 2006 02:58:20 PM |
|
|
"Legion" <cj.mccormack@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:dqj2ur$noi$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:tdhos15bq8sm6g7ddeupsjodgnpg29p5dl@4ax.com...
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:40:42 +0000 (UTC), in alt.atheism , "Legion"
<cj.mccormack@btinternet.com> in
<dqgsrq$ap0$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com> wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:nbSyf.71062$Lb1.70283@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The arguments of Evolution versus Intelligent design are specious
because
they are
based on totally different concepts. It is the equivalent of arguing
that
air is better for
you than a poem. They are two different and unrelated things.
Evolution Theory is supported by a huge volume of 'objective physical
scientific evidence'.
Intelligent design is based on pure opinion with NO objective physical
scientific evidence.
But this only makes them different because it seems to be your opinion
that
one has greater value than the other.
I happen to agree with you but they are both valid as explanations for
the
existance of the current state of the Universe.
Just because there is no empirical evidence for something does not mean
it
is 'wrong'
The only way to support ID as valid is to argue, as you do, that no
knowledge at all is possible.
snippity snip
There is, however, no point in presenting every nonsensical idea just
because it is possible to use them as a basis for learning. If you
think ID is the best way to teach science then say so.
Let's be totally clear about this I do *not* support the idea of
Intelligent
Design. I am firmly of the opinion that the Universe is the result of a
naturally occuring propensity for matter to combine in infinitely
interesting and complex ways.
I am a firm beiliever in the power of complexity theory.
I am simply playing Devil's advocate that although I agree that ID is so
unlikely as to be almost ludicrous, there always remains that tiniest of
possibilities that there is in fact a great white haired 'God' who is
responsible for the Universe's creation.
Even Stephen Hawking once stated that at the time he could think of no
better reason for the Universe springing into existence than because it
was
'started' by God.
Legion
What was the purpose of your prior silly arguments against evolution???
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION VERUS ID |
22 Jan 2006 06:11:18 AM |
|
|
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:aRczf.74961$Lb1.2399@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
"Legion" <cj.mccormack@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:dqj2ur$noi$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:tdhos15bq8sm6g7ddeupsjodgnpg29p5dl@4ax.com...
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:40:42 +0000 (UTC), in alt.atheism , "Legion"
<cj.mccormack@btinternet.com> in
<dqgsrq$ap0$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com> wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:nbSyf.71062$Lb1.70283@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The arguments of Evolution versus Intelligent design are specious
because
they are
based on totally different concepts. It is the equivalent of arguing
that
air is better for
you than a poem. They are two different and unrelated things.
Evolution Theory is supported by a huge volume of 'objective physical
scientific evidence'.
Intelligent design is based on pure opinion with NO objective
physical
scientific evidence.
But this only makes them different because it seems to be your opinion
that
one has greater value than the other.
I happen to agree with you but they are both valid as explanations for
the
existance of the current state of the Universe.
Just because there is no empirical evidence for something does not mean
it
is 'wrong'
The only way to support ID as valid is to argue, as you do, that no
knowledge at all is possible.
snippity snip
There is, however, no point in presenting every nonsensical idea just
because it is possible to use them as a basis for learning. If you
think ID is the best way to teach science then say so.
Let's be totally clear about this I do *not* support the idea of
Intelligent
Design. I am firmly of the opinion that the Universe is the result of a
naturally occuring propensity for matter to combine in infinitely
interesting and complex ways.
I am a firm beiliever in the power of complexity theory.
I am simply playing Devil's advocate that although I agree that ID is so
unlikely as to be almost ludicrous, there always remains that tiniest of
possibilities that there is in fact a great white haired 'God' who is
responsible for the Universe's creation.
Even Stephen Hawking once stated that at the time he could think of no
better reason for the Universe springing into existence than because it
was 'started' by God.
Legion
Sorry to disappoint you, but the invisible "white-haired god" of your
imagination doesn't exit. Our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16)
becoming fully manifested in Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary.
It is far more likely that intelligence is part and parcel of the
Universe. An interesting experiment might prove that hypothesis. Rats were
timed going through a maze to find food. It was noted, that the length of
time the rats took decreased over time, even when taking new rats. The
experiment was relocated to Australia and Australian rats were used. To
everyone's amazement, those rats did the maze in about the same time the
American rats did and their time kept improving at about the same rate. In
fact no rats worldwide could be found anymore who would do the maze in the
same slow time of the earliest experiments. It appeared as if there exists a
rat-consciousness, which is able to learn and which is shared by all rats.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aaron" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION VERUS ID |
23 Jan 2006 11:02:24 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 20:11:18 +0800, "Pastor Frank"
<PF@christfirst.com> wrote:
***SNIP***
Sorry to disappoint you, but the invisible "white-haired god" of your
imagination doesn't exit.
Since God is spiritual and thus not physically visable, the "white
hair part is obviously a myth. However, God Does exist. Frank you
keep saying that God (YHVH/Jesus) does not exist, then you claim to be
a Christian. Obviously REAL Christians will not be fooled by you, but
people who are questioning about religion might be tricked into your
brand of Atheism.
Our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16)
Yes, YHVH/Jesus is loving, but He also punishes evil.
becoming fully manifested in Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary.
Frank, you really need to read a Bible!
Jesus was not fully manifested at his execution by the Romans. He
will not be fully manifested until after He sents Hios angels to
destroy the Christians who reject the 613 Commandmants (Matthew 13)
and returns to rule as King if Israel in The Temple presiding over the
Temple Services (Isaiah 66).
It is far more likely that intelligence is part and parcel of the
Universe.
So now you are preaching some sort of Budhist drivel about a universe
with no God but which has the inteligence to decide who will no longer
be reincarnated.
An interesting experiment might prove that hypothesis. Rats were
timed going through a maze to find food. It was noted, that the length of
time the rats took decreased over time, even when taking new rats. The
experiment was relocated to Australia and Australian rats were used. To
everyone's amazement, those rats did the maze in about the same time the
American rats did and their time kept improving at about the same rate. In
fact no rats worldwide could be found anymore who would do the maze in the
same slow time of the earliest experiments. It appeared as if there exists a
rat-consciousness, which is able to learn and which is shared by all rats.
Frank that is just silly.
The rats could smell the path to the food. It was left in the body
odor of previous rats running the maze and leaning the path. Rats may
be stupid, but they have a keen sense of smell.
/////// WARNING////////
A person posing as a Christian keeps posting bizarre statement and
insulting Atheists without cause. He (I am assuming here) Calls
himself "Pastor Frank;" this despite the fact that he is not a Pastor.
He also calls anyone who disagrees with Him an "Atheist" as if he
thought that this was a vile thing. I say "...as if..." because This
"frank" person has denounced the existence of God. He has also made
wild accusations about other people being on drugs, committing immoral
sexual acts, being in league with Satan, and other things.
Frank's bizarre posts have the effect of pushing people away from
seeking God because Frank commits so many immoral actions in his posts
alone. He has supported Nazi propaganda in various News groups and
makes unfounded accusations against Israel. He has posted
anti-Semitic slurs as if they were Christian theology, as if blind
Hatred was something that the Messiah taught.
On the surface these may appear to be the actions of a fanatical,
uneducated, mentally impaired person, or maybe a person with severe
psychological problems. However, from time to time Frank has let his
guard down and let his real beliefs slip out. Or maybe, it is all
part of his plan to make Christians look foolish? It appears That
Frank either does not believe in God or that he is a knowing devotee
of Satan. Why would I say that? Because Frank has denounced the
existence of God. Even the most ignorant of Christians would never
denounce God's existence!
Here are the quotes with references:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl416064742d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=7kf6ub%24ele%249%40nntp1.uunet.ca
Pastor Frank wrote:
"Satan is the personification or anthropomorphization of evil.
How is it you can't understand such a simple literary device?
Or do you really believe that evil does NOT exist?"
If Satan does not exist, what about God?
But even worse, if Frank can convince people that Satan does not exist
they will not be on their guard against the evil one. Hmm...
but more to the point:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl416064742d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=7kmcph%24kuu%244%40nntp2.uunet.ca
Pastor Frank wrote:
"The NT describes both God and Satan as a spirit, meaning
something like a particular attitude, a holy (wholesome,
healthy) and an un-holy attitude, which however both only
come into reality if that attitude is translated into
action by a person. Hence seeing both God and Satan as
persons.
If you look at the NT closely, you will find many
extraordinary treasures of great beauty and wisdom.
And forget about the "mythological creatures" already,
they don't exist."
So, Frank says that God is a "mythological creature."
No Christian could possibly say that!
..... and how about this exchange:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=god+literary+device+author:pastor+author:frank&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=7jcrmp%24oop%241%40goblin.uunet.ca&rnum=12
Pastor Frank wrote:
Tiglath wrote:
You can stretch the word god as a figure of speech,
but that is an occasional literary device
which does not change the primary definition of the
word, but it is used only to add power to a particular
sentence. But that is not what you are after; you want
to legitimize that god is "what we like to do best."
This is not word power, but a power outage.
Don't blame me bud, it's the NT and the expert on God
the Father, his Son Jesus Christ which describe the
word "God" to mean a spirit (not a ghost nor divine
sentient entity) (John 4:24), the spirit of love etc.
as describes as the "fruits of the spirit" above.
So, the "divine entity" of your imagination you don't
want to believe in is strictly a strawman.
So, Frank tries to win over an Atheist by claiming that
God does not exist? Is that a valid reason for an Atheist
to convert to Christianity? Or maybe Frank thinks that
tricking the Atheists into thinking that Christianity is
a form of Atheism is a valid way to save souls?
Got another Frank quote:
news:cbadfc8f.0209251516.7ba4babb@posting.google.com...
Are you having problems with ancient philosophical
symbolism and metaphor? Looks like you anthropomorphise
the word "god" into some invisible powerful space
creature / warrior a la Zeus or Odin, and Satan in that
funny looking guy in the red body stocking, sporting a
tail, two little horns and a pitch fork. LOL And no,
those do indeed not exist.
Here Frank claims that God does not exist at all.
Frank, you keep lying, denouncing what is actually in the Bible.
You lie about being a Pastor.
You lie and make false accusations against anyone who disagrees with
you.
You lie about being saved after committing Blasphemy against the Holy
Spirit in this NG on several occasions.
You are, in the words of Jesus, one of the "Bnai B'liya`al," children
of Satan (The name that Messiah used here denotes the personality of
Satan as rebellious, lawless and worthless.). It seems that you are
also "Ben HaSatan." since you are actively opposing God and thus His
enemy, and "Ben Armillus" (Son of the Anti-Christ) because you are
working so hard to prevent people from being saved.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Aaron" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION VERUS ID |
23 Jan 2006 01:37:22 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 20:11:18 +0800, "Pastor Frank"
<PF@christfirst.com> wrote:
***SNIP***
The Title of this thread does not make sense.
Inteligent Disign (ID) does not exclude Evolution. ID just requires
that no matter what science discovers that God be given credit for
doing it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION VERUS ID |
23 Jan 2006 11:17:48 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 02:37:22 -0500, in alt.atheism , Aaron
<anon@home.net> in <3o19t1t4air8svfss77nvvo1m4fmpa28bp@4ax.com> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 20:11:18 +0800, "Pastor Frank"
<PF@christfirst.com> wrote:
***SNIP***
The Title of this thread does not make sense.
Inteligent Disign (ID) does not exclude Evolution. ID just requires
that no matter what science discovers that God be given credit for
doing it.
Actually "Intelligent Design" seems to mean about a thousand different
things. To some extent this is deliberate. ID is, first and foremost,
a political maneuver, not a scientific or philosophical proposal. When
the U.S. Supreme Court slammed the door in teaching creationism many
people decided that dishonesty in the furtherance of morality (that
is, religion) was acceptable. So they made some superficial changes to
the creationist material and called in Intelligent Design. As part of
the political movement they removed enough detail (that is,
significance and meaning) that people with wildly different views
(6,000 years, 14,000,000,000 years, what's the difference) could
pretend to support ID. So we have people arguing in court that ID is
not religion, then going home and complaining that their religion was
attacked. We have people claiming ID is valid science refuting
evolution and people claiming it does not conflict with science or
evolution. The end result is that you have people lying, others
believing the lies, and no one saying anything with meaning. But, no,
theistic evolution is not Intelligent Design.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aaron" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION VERUS ID |
24 Jan 2006 11:23:38 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 05:17:48 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 02:37:22 -0500, in alt.atheism , Aaron
<anon@home.net> in <3o19t1t4air8svfss77nvvo1m4fmpa28bp@4ax.com> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 20:11:18 +0800, "Pastor Frank"
<PF@christfirst.com> wrote:
***SNIP***
The Title of this thread does not make sense.
Inteligent Disign (ID) does not exclude Evolution. ID just requires
that no matter what science discovers that God be given credit for
doing it.
Actually "Intelligent Design" seems to mean about a thousand different
things.
Well, what it actually means and how Christians are not trying to use
it are two different things.
To some extent this is deliberate. ID is, first and foremost,
a political maneuver, not a scientific or philosophical proposal.
True. It is all about people who doubt their religion feeling better
about themselves if they can force their religion on others.
BTW: Sorry for the cross-post to alt.atheism. I did not notice until
I saw your reply that the original that I responded to was
cross-posted by the guy (hypocrite Frank) who keeps saying that
Atheists should never post to Christian new groups.
When
the U.S. Supreme Court slammed the door in teaching creationism many
people decided that dishonesty in the furtherance of morality (that
is, religion) was acceptable.
It is a sad state of affairs when Christians are more evil than
Atheists, even by the biblical definition.
So they made some superficial changes to
the creationist material and called in Intelligent Design. As part of
the political movement they removed enough detail (that is,
significance and meaning) that people with wildly different views
(6,000 years, 14,000,000,000 years, what's the difference) could
pretend to support ID.
Technically, ID also means that if the Theory of Evolution is taught,
that it must also be taught that an intelligent, supernatural,
all-powerful, Godlike being caused it to happen.
While I personally believe that God created the universe using methods
that are not specified in the Bible, I do NOT believe that these
beliefs should be forced upon others. I also think that the ID
movement is dishonest and in violation of the Bible's mandate for
Freedom of Religion, and the biblical example of "Separation of
Temple/synagogue and State." After all, if God created a one religion
country and still sparated the Temple (Tribe of Levi) from the Throne
(Tribe of Judah), and Jesus Himself taught religion but rejected His
right to act within politics, then it must be a VERY bad idea for us
to mix religion and politics - an ANTI-BIBLICAL idea. The more
Christians meddle in politics, the more evil Christianity becomes.
In the last US election, Christians voted to elect/re-elect the
politicians (Republican) who are enforcing FORCED abortions and FORCED
prostitution inflicted upon US citizens in the US Protectorate of Sai
Pan. So, abortion and prostitution are both okay with Christianity if
the girls (Yes, many are under age) have no choice in the matter, now
that thr Republican Party has declared itself to be the "Christian
Party."
So we have people arguing in court that ID is
not religion, then going home and complaining that their religion was
attacked.
ID takes the most objectionable part of creationism (violating the
religious freedoms of others) and purifies it by striping out and
excuse of scientific validity.
We have people claiming ID is valid science refuting
evolution and people claiming it does not conflict with science or
evolution.
ID does not need to conflict with Science, except to add in God, which
is not part of a science class anyways.
Maybe these people should teach their religions in their Churches.
The end result is that you have people lying, others
believing the lies, and no one saying anything with meaning.
True.
But, no,
theistic evolution is not Intelligent Design.
I disagree with you.
When the concept was first introduced years ago, the possibility of
God using evolution to create the lifeforms on Earth was included in
the concept. That is why the name stresses the intent of an outside
(divine) intelligence guiding creation not the methodology. This was
supposed to give Christians the option of accepting science without
undermining their faith. However, from some of the posts that I have
seen, it seems that Christians in their ususal averice are trying to
hijack the term to serve their political goals rather than use it
honestly to say that Christians do not need to debate against science.
Of course, only Christians whose faith is weak will bother trying to
prove creationism. The Bible is very vague on how God created life.
The terminology is very poetic. So, a Chrisatian must be very
ignorant of the Bible and lack personal conviction in the Bible's
truth to attack science. these are the same people who feel that they
must attack Atheists because the freedom of Atheists to believe as
they choose threatens "our Christian values." I am not sure what
these values might be, but they are NOT biblical.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "xeno" |
|
| Title: Theocracy sucks, dude |
22 Jan 2006 05:47:31 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006, Pastor Frank wrote:
Sorry to disappoint you, but the invisible "white-haired god" of your
imagination doesn't exit. Our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16)
becoming fully manifested in Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary.
Anybody can get crucified. What's the big deal, dude?
Rats were timed going through a maze to find food. It was noted, that
the length of time the rats took decreased over time, even when taking
new rats. The experiment was relocated to Australia and Australian rats
were used. To everyone's amazement, those rats did the maze in about the
same time the American rats did and their time kept improving at about
the same rate. In fact no rats worldwide could be found anymore who
would do the maze in the same slow time of the earliest experiments. It
appeared as if there exists a rat-consciousness, which is able to learn
and which is shared by all rats.
Dude, there's no way for them to know how fast all the rats on the planet
would do the maze prior to this alleged experiment & afterward. Either you
can't smell the rat here or you're hoping some people will get lost in
your maze of confusion looking for that elusive cheese.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION VERUS ID |
22 Jan 2006 05:05:38 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and "Pastor Frank"
<PF@christfirst.com> posting the following on Sun, 22 Jan 2006
20:11:18 +0800 iin alt.atheism?
Sorry to disappoint you, but the invisible "white-haired god" of your
imagination doesn't exit. Our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16)
becoming fully manifested in Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary.
So all those Old Testament passages where God has a physical body are
lies?
Gen.12:7
"And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I
give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who
appeared unto him."
Gen.17:1
"And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared
to Abram, and said unto him...."
Gen.18:1
"And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre."
Gen.26:2
"And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt;
dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of.
Gen.26:24
"And the LORD appeared unto him the same night, and said, I am the
God of Abraham thy father: fear not."
Gen.32:30
"And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen
God face to face, and my life is preserved."
Gen.35:9
"And God appeared unto Jacob again, when he came out of Padanaram,
and blessed him."
Gen.48:3
"And Jacob said unto Joseph, God Almighty appeared unto me at Luz
in the land of Canaan."
Ex.3:16
"The LORD God ... appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited
you."
Ex.4:5
"That they may believe that the LORD God ... hath appeared unto
thee."
Ex.6:3
"And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob...."
Ex.24:9-11
"Then went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the
elders of Israel. And they saw the God of Israel ... They saw God, and
did eat and drink."
Ex.33:11
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to
his friend."
Ex.33:23
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts."
Num.14:14
"For they have heard that thou Lord art among this people, that
thou Lord art seen face to face."
Dt.5:4
"The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount out of the
midst of the fire."
Dt.34:10
"And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses,
whom the Lord knew face to face."
Jg.13:22
"And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we
have seen God."
1 Kg.22:19
"I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven
standing by him on his right hand and on his left."
Job 42:5
"I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye
seeth thee."
Ps.63.2
"To see thy power and they glory, so as I have seen thee in the
sanctuary."
Is.6:1
"In the year that King Ussiah died, I saw, also, the Lord sitting
upon a throne, high and lifted up."
Is.6:5
"Mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts."
Ezek.1:27
"And saw ... the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the
appearance of his loins even downward...."
"For mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts."
Ezek.20:35
"And I will bring you into the wilderness of the people, and there
will I plead with you face to face."
Am.7:7
"The LORD stood upon a wall made by a plumbline, with a plumbline
in his hand."
Am.9:1
"I saw the Lord standing upon the altar: and he said, smite the
lintel of the door, that the posts may shake."
Hab.3:3-5
"God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran .... He
had horns coming out of his hand."
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION VERUS ID |
23 Jan 2006 11:20:01 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mh for you?at is good enough for us. Is it good
enougindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:fl38t117jvfejl4b0gjg9cpg31fdinc5ur@4ax.com...
What's so funny about peace, love and "Pastor Frank"
<PF@christfirst.com> posting the following on Sun, 22 Jan 2006
20:11:18 +0800 iin alt.atheism?
Sorry to disappoint you, but the invisible "white-haired god" of your
imagination doesn't exit. Our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16)
becoming fully manifested in Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary.
So all those Old Testament passages where God has a physical body are
lies?
I don't know about the Torah, you should take that up with believers in
Judaism. Our God incarnate Jesus Christ had a "physical body" and that is
good enough for us. But is it good enough for you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aaron" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION VERUS ID |
24 Jan 2006 11:32:11 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:20:01 +0800, "Pastor Frank"
<PF@christfirst.com> wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mh for you?at is good enough for us. Is it good
enougindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:fl38t117jvfejl4b0gjg9cpg31fdinc5ur@4ax.com...
What's so funny about peace, love and "Pastor Frank"
<PF@christfirst.com> posting the following on Sun, 22 Jan 2006
20:11:18 +0800 iin alt.atheism?
Sorry to disappoint you, but the invisible "white-haired god" of your
imagination doesn't exit. Our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16)
becoming fully manifested in Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary.
So all those Old Testament passages where God has a physical body are
lies?
I don't know about the Torah, you should take that up with believers in
Judaism. Our God incarnate Jesus Christ had a "physical body" and that is
good enough for us. But is it good enough for you?
Frank, the Torah is part of the Christian Bible (Genesis, Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy).
Jesus said that the Torah is in full effect until Heaven and earth are
destroyed (Matthew 5:17-19).
Paul wrote that the Tanakh (The Jewish Scriptures that had been
compiled at the time of his writing - aka "the Old Testament") was all
correct and usable by followers of Messiah (Second Timothy 3:16).
God/Jesus assuming a physical form temprarily does not mean that He
was limited to that form.
Frank, what do you mean by "we"???
YOU denounced God, not the rest of us.
YOU denounced the words of Jesus (see above), not the rest of us.
Frank, you are all alone in your attempt to pretend that Jesus is not
YHVH(God) or that the Christian Bible is wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION VERUS ID |
24 Jan 2006 01:08:53 PM |
|
|
Pastor Frank wrote:
I don't know about the Torah, you should take that up with
believers in
Judaism. Our God incarnate Jesus Christ had a "physical body" and that
is good enough for us. But is it good enough for you.
Ignorant *****.
Ex 24
9 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the
elders of Israel:
10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it
were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven
in his clearness.
11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand:
also they saw God, and did eat and drink.
--
It's all coming down! It's all coming down!
IT'S ALL COMING DOWN!
- Texas Chainsaw Massacre II
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robin" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION VERUS ID |
17 Jan 2006 12:20:05 AM |
|
|
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:nbSyf.71062$Lb1.70283@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The arguments of Evolution versus Intelligent design are specious because
they are
based on totally different concepts. It is the equivalent of arguing that
air is better for
you than a poem. They are two different and unrelated things.
Evolution Theory is supported by a huge volume of 'objective physical
scientific evidence'.
Intelligent design is based on pure opinion with NO objective physical
scientific evidence.
Stating that life is too complex to have just 'evolved' does not make this
'opinion'
scientific fact, evidence or a scientific theory.
The first is science and the second is just opinion. Science only should
be taught in
science classes. Opinions can be taught in any class that is based on
'opinions' but
not in science classes.
I am still looking into the subject but I wanted to share this. I was in a
church class, and this subject came up, and the pastor came close to foaming
at the mouth. He was making claims that with his educational background I am
not sure he can back up. They hear a video tape put out by a creation outfit
that makes its statements, and they spout it off as gospel.
I said that well, if you really want to teach "intelligent design" and its
not a cover for biblical creationism, then you will I am sure need to teach
the ideas that some people have on Alien seeding, and stuff like that. He
went off and said that there is no what that could happen, and that the
evidence was on their side. But the he would rather nothing be taught at all
as its to hot a subject.
It was a rather interesting meeting.
Robin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION VERUS ID |
18 Jan 2006 05:23:05 PM |
|
|
"Robin" <ace62@winNOJUNK.net> wrote in message
news:c19$43cc8c9f$d8180b4c$27917@WIN.NET...
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:nbSyf.71062$Lb1.70283@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The arguments of Evolution versus Intelligent design are specious because
they are
based on totally different concepts. It is the equivalent of arguing that
air is better for
you than a poem. They are two different and unrelated things.
Evolution Theory is supported by a huge volume of 'objective physical
scientific evidence'.
Intelligent design is based on pure opinion with NO objective physical
scientific evidence.
Stating that life is too complex to have just 'evolved' does not make
this 'opinion'
scientific fact, evidence or a scientific theory.
The first is science and the second is just opinion. Science only should
be taught in
science classes. Opinions can be taught in any class that is based on
'opinions' but
not in science classes.
I am still looking into the subject but I wanted to share this. I was in a
church class, and this subject came up, and the pastor came close to
foaming at the mouth. He was making claims that with his educational
background I am not sure he can back up. They hear a video tape put out by
a creation outfit that makes its statements, and they spout it off as
gospel.
I said that well, if you really want to teach "intelligent design" and its
not a cover for biblical creationism, then you will I am sure need to
teach the ideas that some people have on Alien seeding, and stuff like
that. He went off and said that there is no what that could happen, and
that the evidence was on their side. But the he would rather nothing be
taught at all as its to hot a subject.
It was a rather interesting meeting.
I seems there are lots of true-believers who would have evolution
enshrined in law, declaring it to be the truth and nothing but the truth,
that no one dare question. LOL
Any true scientist, will follow the evidence, and when the evidence
points to creative design, then he will not let his atheist persuasion
ignore the evidence, no matter how loud and persistent atheists screech in
protest.
In the mean time, let evolutionists explain objections to their
conclusion, instead of going apoplectic. That's what class rooms are for.
People want those statistical objections to evolutionary abiogenesis and
speciation answered. The more evolutionists scream in protest and foam at
the mouth, the more people smell a rat on the scale of the Piltdown man.
Anyway, who says scientists never feather their own nests?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION VERUS ID |
22 Jan 2006 09:28:35 AM |
|
|
And this is objective verifiable scientific evidence???
This is nothing more than evasive bull *****!
"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.com> wrote in message
news:43cf1900$0$31366$6d36acad@roc.nntpserver.com...
"Robin" <ace62@winNOJUNK.net> wrote in message
news:c19$43cc8c9f$d8180b4c$27917@WIN.NET...
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:nbSyf.71062$Lb1.70283@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The arguments of Evolution versus Intelligent design are specious
because they are
based on totally different concepts. It is the equivalent of arguing
that air is better for
you than a poem. They are two different and unrelated things.
Evolution Theory is supported by a huge volume of 'objective physical
scientific evidence'.
Intelligent design is based on pure opinion with NO objective physical
scientific evidence.
Stating that life is too complex to have just 'evolved' does not make
this 'opinion'
scientific fact, evidence or a scientific theory.
The first is science and the second is just opinion. Science only should
be taught in
science classes. Opinions can be taught in any class that is based on
'opinions' but
not in science classes.
I am still looking into the subject but I wanted to share this. I was in
a church class, and this subject came up, and the pastor came close to
foaming at the mouth. He was making claims that with his educational
background I am not sure he can back up. They hear a video tape put out
by a creation outfit that makes its statements, and they spout it off as
gospel.
I said that well, if you really want to teach "intelligent design" and
its not a cover for biblical creationism, then you will I am sure need to
teach the ideas that some people have on Alien seeding, and stuff like
that. He went off and said that there is no what that could happen, and
that the evidence was on their side. But the he would rather nothing be
taught at all as its to hot a subject.
It was a rather interesting meeting.
I seems there are lots of true-believers who would have evolution
enshrined in law, declaring it to be the truth and nothing but the truth,
that no one dare question. LOL
Any true scientist, will follow the evidence, and when the evidence
points to creative design, then he will not let his atheist persuasion
ignore the evidence, no matter how loud and persistent atheists screech in
protest.
In the mean time, let evolutionists explain objections to their
conclusion, instead of going apoplectic. That's what class rooms are for.
People want those statistical objections to evolutionary abiogenesis and
speciation answered. The more evolutionists scream in protest and foam at
the mouth, the more people smell a rat on the scale of the Piltdown man.
Anyway, who says scientists never feather their own nests?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION VERUS ID |
18 Jan 2006 10:59:40 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 07:23:05 +0800, in alt.atheism
"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.com> wrote in
<43cf1900$0$31366$6d36acad@roc.nntpserver.com>:
"Robin" <ace62@winNOJUNK.net> wrote in message
news:c19$43cc8c9f$d8180b4c$27917@WIN.NET...
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:nbSyf.71062$Lb1.70283@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The arguments of Evolution versus Intelligent design are specious because
they are
based on totally different concepts. It is the equivalent of arguing that
air is better for
you than a poem. They are two different and unrelated things.
Evolution Theory is supported by a huge volume of 'objective physical
scientific evidence'.
Intelligent design is based on pure opinion with NO objective physical
scientific evidence.
Stating that life is too complex to have just 'evolved' does not make
this 'opinion'
scientific fact, evidence or a scientific theory.
The first is science and the second is just opinion. Science only should
be taught in
science classes. Opinions can be taught in any class that is based on
'opinions' but
not in science classes.
I am still looking into the subject but I wanted to share this. I was in a
church class, and this subject came up, and the pastor came close to
foaming at the mouth. He was making claims that with his educational
background I am not sure he can back up. They hear a video tape put out by
a creation outfit that makes its statements, and they spout it off as
gospel.
I said that well, if you really want to teach "intelligent design" and its
not a cover for biblical creationism, then you will I am sure need to
teach the ideas that some people have on Alien seeding, and stuff like
that. He went off and said that there is no what that could happen, and
that the evidence was on their side. But the he would rather nothing be
taught at all as its to hot a subject.
It was a rather interesting meeting.
I seems there are lots of true-believers who would have evolution
enshrined in law, declaring it to be the truth and nothing but the truth,
that no one dare question. LOL
Yes, I am laughing at your nonsense as well.
Any true scientist, will follow the evidence, and when the evidence
points to creative design, then he will not let his atheist persuasion
ignore the evidence, no matter how loud and persistent atheists screech in
protest.
But no scientist has run into this alleged design.
In the mean time, let evolutionists explain objections to their
conclusion, instead of going apoplectic. That's what class rooms are for.
People want those statistical objections to evolutionary abiogenesis and
speciation answered. The more evolutionists scream in protest and foam at
the mouth, the more people smell a rat on the scale of the Piltdown man.
Anyway, who says scientists never feather their own nests?
Scientists answer questions. Of course, they can tell when the
'question' is argumentative misstatement of the facts, too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION VERUS ID |
19 Jan 2006 05:19:06 PM |
|
|
David Jensen wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 07:23:05 +0800, in alt.atheism
"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.com> wrote in
<43cf1900$0$31366$6d36acad@roc.nntpserver.com>:
"Robin" <ace62@winNOJUNK.net> wrote in message
news:c19$43cc8c9f$d8180b4c$27917@WIN.NET...
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:nbSyf.71062$Lb1.70283@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The arguments of Evolution versus Intelligent design are specious because
they are
based on totally different concepts. It is the equivalent of arguing that
air is better for
you than a poem. They are two different and unrelated things.
Evolution Theory is supported by a huge volume of 'objective physical
scientific evidence'.
Intelligent design is based on pure opinion with NO objective physical
scientific evidence.
Stating that life is too complex to have just 'evolved' does not make
this 'opinion'
scientific fact, evidence or a scientific theory.
The first is science and the second is just opinion. Science only should
be taught in
science classes. Opinions can be taught in any class that is based on
'opinions' but
not in science classes.
I am still looking into the subject but I wanted to share this. I was in a
church class, and this subject came up, and the pastor came close to
foaming at the mouth. He was making claims that with his educational
background I am not sure he can back up. They hear a video tape put out by
a creation outfit that makes its statements, and they spout it off as
gospel.
I said that well, if you really want to teach "intelligent design" and its
not a cover for biblical creationism, then you will I am sure need to
teach the ideas that some people have on Alien seeding, and stuff like
that. He went off and said that there is no what that could happen, and
that the evidence was on their side. But the he would rather nothing be
taught at all as its to hot a subject.
It was a rather interesting meeting.
I seems there are lots of true-believers who would have evolution
enshrined in law, declaring it to be the truth and nothing but the truth,
that no one dare question. LOL
Yes, I am laughing at your nonsense as well.
Any true scientist, will follow the evidence, and when the evidence
points to creative design, then he will not let his atheist persuasion
ignore the evidence, no matter how loud and persistent atheists screech in
protest.
But no scientist has run into this alleged design.
===>Every little snow flake has a beautiful design.
The Creator dispatches billions of angels to shape each one
before it falls to Earth. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Conspiracy of Doves" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION VERUS ID |
16 Jan 2006 03:11:24 PM |
|
|
Bill wrote:
The arguments of Evolution versus Intelligent design are specious because
they are
based on totally different concepts. It is the equivalent of arguing that
air is better for
you than a poem. They are two different and unrelated things.
Evolution Theory is supported by a huge volume of 'objective physical
scientific evidence'.
Intelligent design is based on pure opinion with NO objective physical
scientific evidence.
Stating that life is too complex to have just 'evolved' does not make this
'opinion'
scientific fact, evidence or a scientific theory.
The first is science and the second is just opinion. Science only should be
taught in
science classes. Opinions can be taught in any class that is based on
'opinions' but
not in science classes.
I have to disagree with one thing. Both air and poems are good and
useful. There are no practical benefits at all, scientific or
otherwise, to intelligent design.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fiona Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION VERUS ID |
16 Jan 2006 03:22:58 PM |
|
|
I have to disagree with one thing. Both air and poems are good and
useful. There are no practical benefits at all, scientific or
otherwise, to intelligent design.
Interesting point of view. Whilst I agree there is masses of evidence for
evolution I think there is about as much chance of a hurricane blowing
through a junk yard and ending up constructing a Boeing 747 as there is of
intelligent life evolving from random cells/chemicals. What I'm trying to
say is: I don't know. The origin of lifeis , on my opinion, is still a
mystery.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION VERUS ID |
16 Jan 2006 11:11:58 PM |
|
|
"Fiona Roberts" <fr99@excite.com> wrote in message
news:43cc0f2d_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
I have to disagree with one thing. Both air and poems are good and
useful. There are no practical benefits at all, scientific or
otherwise, to intelligent design.
Interesting point of view. Whilst I agree there is masses of evidence for
evolution I think there is about as much chance of a hurricane blowing
through a junk yard and ending up constructing a Boeing 747 as there is of
intelligent life evolving from random cells/chemicals. What I'm trying to
say is: I don't know. The origin of lifeis , on my opinion, is still a
mystery.
I think there is about as much chance of a hurricane blowing through a the
empty recesses of your mind and ending up with a rational thought as there
of ID providing any testable hypothesis.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fiona Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION VERUS ID |
17 Jan 2006 11:24:36 AM |
|
|
"Geoff" <gebobs@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:adydne3Xn4cC4VHeRVn-qQ@comcast.com...
"Fiona Roberts" <fr99@excite.com> wrote in message
news:43cc0f2d_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
I have to disagree with one thing. Both air and poems are good and
useful. There are no practical benefits at all, scientific or
otherwise, to intelligent design.
Interesting point of view. Whilst I agree there is masses of evidence
for evolution I think there is about as much chance of a hurricane
blowing through a junk yard and ending up constructing a Boeing 747 as
there is of intelligent life evolving from random cells/chemicals. What
I'm trying to say is: I don't know. The origin of lifeis , on my
opinion, is still a mystery.
I think there is about as much chance of a hurricane blowing through a the
empty recesses of your mind and ending up with a rational thought as there
of ID providing any testable hypothesis.
And perhaps a hurricane going through your mind would have allowed you to
compile a post with correct grammar.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION VERUS ID |
17 Jan 2006 12:03:51 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:24:36 -0000, "Fiona Roberts" <fr99@excite.com>
wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:adydne3Xn4cC4VHeRVn-qQ@comcast.com...
"Fiona Roberts" <fr99@excite.com> wrote in message
news:43cc0f2d_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
I have to disagree with one thing. Both air and poems are good and
useful. There are no practical benefits at all, scientific or
otherwise, to intelligent design.
Interesting point of view. Whilst I agree there is masses of evidence
for evolution I think there is about as much chance of a hurricane
blowing through a junk yard and ending up constructing a Boeing 747 as
there is of intelligent life evolving from random cells/chemicals. What
I'm trying to say is: I don't know. The origin of lifeis , on my
opinion, is still a mystery.
I think there is about as much chance of a hurricane blowing through a the
empty recesses of your mind and ending up with a rational thought as there
of ID providing any testable hypothesis.
And perhaps a hurricane going through your mind would have allowed you to
compile a post with correct grammar.
Spelling/grammar flames are a sure sign you can't refute the claim.
<wink>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rockett Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION VERUS ID |
16 Jan 2006 04:04:28 PM |
|
|
"Fiona Roberts" <fr99@excite.com> wrote in message
news:43cc0f2d_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
I have to disagree with one thing. Both air and poems are good and
useful. There are no practical benefits at all, scientific or
otherwise, to intelligent design.
Interesting point of view. Whilst I agree there is masses of evidence for
evolution I think there is about as much chance of a hurricane blowing
through a junk yard and ending up constructing a Boeing 747 as there is of
intelligent life evolving from random cells/chemicals. What I'm trying to
say is: I don't know. The origin of lifeis , on my opinion, is still a
mystery.
Natural selection doesn't operate randomnly so the tornado/hurricane
producing a 747 isn't a fair analogy.
Capella a.a #5
150 Bible problems including Bible atrocities, Bible errors, Bible
contradictions, failed Bible prophecies, Greek origins of Christianity, why
Christians believe, etc...
http://www.goatstar.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fiona Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION VERUS ID |
16 Jan 2006 04:42:11 PM |
|
|
"Rockett Crawford" <capella@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:11so63bbgea3gd0@corp.supernews.com...
"Fiona Roberts" <fr99@excite.com> wrote in message
news:43cc0f2d_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
I have to disagree with one thing. Both air and poems are good and
useful. There are no practical benefits at all, scientific or
otherwise, to intelligent design.
Interesting point of view. Whilst I agree there is masses of evidence
for evolution I think there is about as much chance of a hurricane
blowing through a junk yard and ending up constructing a Boeing 747 as
there is of intelligent life evolving from random cells/chemicals. What
I'm trying to say is: I don't know. The origin of lifeis , on my
opinion, is still a mystery.
Natural selection doesn't operate randomnly so the tornado/hurricane
producing a 747 isn't a fair analogy.
Ok, but when life really started to develop during the Cambrian explosion,
surely the initial chemical reactions and cell mutations must have been
chaotic and random ... and then over a period of millions of years the first
fish vertebrates are swimming around. I think there MUST have been a large
element of chance, noteably in the initial stages - i.e. if one single cell
or chemical had been just a fraction out mankind would not exist today. I
still think the 747 analogy is about right but that's just my opinion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION VERUS ID |
16 Jan 2006 06:41:42 PM |
|
|
"Fiona Roberts" <fr99@excite.com> wrote in
news:43cc2151_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com:
"Rockett Crawford" <capella@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:11so63bbgea3gd0@corp.supernews.com...
"Fiona Roberts" <fr99@excite.com> wrote in message
news:43cc0f2d_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
I have to disagree with one thing. Both air and poems are good and
useful. There are no practical benefits at all, scientific or
otherwise, to intelligent design.
Interesting point of view. Whilst I agree there is masses of evidence
for evolution I think there is about as much chance of a hurricane
blowing through a junk yard and ending up constructing a Boeing 747 as
there is of intelligent life evolving from random cells/chemicals.
What I'm trying to say is: I don't know. The origin of lifeis , on my
opinion, is still a mystery.
Natural selection doesn't operate randomnly so the tornado/hurricane
producing a 747 isn't a fair analogy.
Ok, but when life really started to develop during the Cambrian
explosion, surely the initial chemical reactions and cell mutations must
have been chaotic and random ...
Life had been around for at least two billion years prior to the Cambrian
explosion. What you see in the so called explosion is a radiation of
metazoans with hard readily fossilizable parts which occured over a period
of many millions of years. This may have come about through a change in
chemical conditions in the ocean because of rising levels of oxygen in the
atmosphere (we may never really know for sure) but metazoans developed a
new ability to produce mineralized parts that eventually lead to such
things as shells and bone. By the time of the Cambrian explosion all of the
most important aspects of modern cellular chemistry was well established.
The Vendian period:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/vendian.html
The Cambrian period:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camb.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
Tree of life project:
http://www.tolweb.org/tree/
A summary of the scientific case for common descent:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
and then over a period of millions of
years the first fish vertebrates are swimming around. I think there
MUST have been a large element of chance, noteably in the initial stages
- i.e. if one single cell or chemical had been just a fraction out
mankind would not exist today.
If the process was rerun there is no reason to suspect that exactly the
same outcome would result. What is the probability that all the lottery
winners in the world over the past hundred years were just those specific
people. Yet some outcome of lottery winners has to result.
I still think the 747 analogy is about
right but that's just my opinion.
Opinion doesn't carry weight unless it is backed up with evidence and
knowledge of the subject at hand.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION VERUS ID |
16 Jan 2006 05:19:43 PM |
|
|
"Fiona Roberts" <fr99@excite.com> wrote in message
news:43cc2151_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
"Rockett Crawford" <capella@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:11so63bbgea3gd0@corp.supernews.com...
"Fiona Roberts" <fr99@excite.com> wrote in message
news:43cc0f2d_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
I have to disagree with one thing. Both air and poems are good and
useful. There are no practical benefits at all, scientific or
otherwise, to intelligent design.
Interesting point of view. Whilst I agree there is masses of evidence
for evolution I think there is about as much chance of a hurricane
blowing through a junk yard and ending up constructing a Boeing 747 as
there is of intelligent life evolving from random cells/chemicals.
What
I'm trying to say is: I don't know. The origin of lifeis , on my
opinion, is still a mystery.
Natural selection doesn't operate randomnly so the tornado/hurricane
producing a 747 isn't a fair analogy.
Ok, but when life really started to develop during the Cambrian explosion,
The "Cambrian explosion" has nothing to do with the origin of life.
It's a major period of many millions of years during which marine
animals became noticeably much more diverse than before.
surely the initial chemical reactions
"Initial chemical reactions" sounds like a reference to abiogenesis,
which would have occurred billions of years before the Cambrian.
and cell mutations must have been
chaotic and random ...
Mutations are indeed "random" with respect to evolutionary trends,
but selection again isn't random.
and then over a period of millions of years the first
fish vertebrates are swimming around.
But their immediate ancestors were already around.
IIRC, "fish" didn't arise until after the Cambrian.
I think there MUST have been a large
element of chance, noteably in the initial stages - i.e. if one single
cell
or chemical had been just a fraction out mankind would not exist today.
If things had turned out very differently and no humans existed, but
some other intelligent nonhuman things did exist, wouldn't they be as
justified in being mystified that everything had happened "just right"
so that they could exist?
It's the "weak anthropic principle" at work: we really shouldn't be
amazed to find ourselves in a universe that permits our existence.
If things were different enough so that we didn't exist, well, then
we wouldn't be here to wonder about it.
I
still think the 747 analogy is about right but that's just my opinion.
It's an old creationist analogy, often made and as often rejected:
http://www.google.com/custom?q=747&sa=Search&sitesearch=www.talkorigins.org
cheers
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
