Religions > Atheism > ID - does it not implicitly require the existence, also, of a "grand deceiver"?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Uncle Buck" |
| Date: |
05 Sep 2005 07:17:40 PM |
| Object: |
ID - does it not implicitly require the existence, also, of a "grand deceiver"? |
Those who try to pass "ID" off as "not about religion" clearly
have no clue what they're talking about. For ID to be true and
evolution to be false, there would have to be some type of "grand
deceiver" at work. I say this because if you grant Intelligent Design
as true just for the sake of argument, then one has no choice but to
also posit that all the evidence has clearly been "altered" to fit the
theory of evolution, and not the fantasy of the Intelligent Design
speculation. For ID to be true, someone with far more capabilities
than humans could ever have would have to have altered the entire
fossil record as well as the way organisms behave in the lab, making
them appear to evolve when in reality they are being "supernaturally
manipulated".
ID has no choice but to be religious in nature. You cannot in
any way, shape or form separate it from religion, particularly in
light of this aspect of the issue.
Just some thoughts...
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=
http://surrenderingtothefall.blogspot.com
~=O-o_~=O-o_~=O-o_~=O-o_~=O-o_~=O-o_~=O-o
"I absolutely detest it when people quote
themselves." - Me
.
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: ID - does it not implicitly require the existence, also, of a "grand deceiver"? |
05 Sep 2005 06:49:33 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Buck" <UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
news:b86ph1t1foheb07mvrngl5k1dpgbc51qgk@4ax.com...
Those who try to pass "ID" off as "not about religion" clearly
have no clue what they're talking about. For ID to be true and
evolution to be false, there would have to be some type of "grand
deceiver" at work. I say this because if you grant Intelligent Design
as true just for the sake of argument, then one has no choice but to
also posit that all the evidence has clearly been "altered" to fit the
theory of evolution, and not the fantasy of the Intelligent Design
speculation. For ID to be true, someone with far more capabilities
than humans could ever have would have to have altered the entire
fossil record as well as the way organisms behave in the lab, making
them appear to evolve when in reality they are being "supernaturally
manipulated".
ID has no choice but to be religious in nature. You cannot in
any way, shape or form separate it from religion, particularly in
light of this aspect of the issue.
Just some thoughts...
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=
I've actually heard Christians say, basically, that God, that good ole'
imaginary IC we know and love, loves a good
practical joke and that he is just having a field-day with the scientists.
(He's actually 'fooling' them into thinking evolution is a scientific
'fact.')
They'll quote Romans 1:22 ('Professing to be wise, they became fools.')
to back them up. So you see, God is just laughing himself silly about how
foolish evolutionists have been demonstrated to be to those 'in the know.'
BTW, these same people believe that flightless birds are another example
of God's hilarious sense of humor. I've got to go, by sides are just aching
from laughing so hard. That God, I think he's got a future in 'stand-up.'
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: ID - does it not implicitly require the existence, also, of a "grand deceiver"? |
05 Sep 2005 08:47:42 PM |
|
|
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:11hp4q3ltqvrc58@corp.supernews.com...
"Uncle Buck" <UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
news:b86ph1t1foheb07mvrngl5k1dpgbc51qgk@4ax.com...
Those who try to pass "ID" off as "not about religion" clearly
have no clue what they're talking about. For ID to be true and
evolution to be false, there would have to be some type of "grand
deceiver" at work. I say this because if you grant Intelligent Design
as true just for the sake of argument, then one has no choice but to
also posit that all the evidence has clearly been "altered" to fit the
theory of evolution, and not the fantasy of the Intelligent Design
speculation. For ID to be true, someone with far more capabilities
than humans could ever have would have to have altered the entire
fossil record as well as the way organisms behave in the lab, making
them appear to evolve when in reality they are being "supernaturally
manipulated".
ID has no choice but to be religious in nature. You cannot in
any way, shape or form separate it from religion, particularly in
light of this aspect of the issue.
Just some thoughts...
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=
I've actually heard Christians say, basically, that God, that good ole'
imaginary IC we know and love, loves a good
practical joke and that he is just having a field-day with the scientists.
(He's actually 'fooling' them into thinking evolution is a scientific
'fact.')
They'll quote Romans 1:22 ('Professing to be wise, they became fools.')
to back them up. So you see, God is just laughing himself silly about how
foolish evolutionists have been demonstrated to be to those 'in the know.'
BTW, these same people believe that flightless birds are another example
of God's hilarious sense of humor. I've got to go, by sides are just
aching
from laughing so hard. That God, I think he's got a future in 'stand-up.'
Greywolf
One of my friends in school was a big christian, she got really excited
because she read some article that suggested that god put dinosaur bones on
earth as a test. It was like it was something she couldn't explain within
her particular belief and was relieved to have a reason.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robi" |
|
| Title: Re: ID - does it not implicitly require the existence, also, of a "grand deceiver"? |
05 Sep 2005 07:05:28 PM |
|
|
ID has no choice but to be religious in nature. You cannot in
any way, shape or form separate it from religion, particularly in
light of this aspect of the issue.
Clearly thats what they're hoping for. Its just as possible that the
Intelligent Designer could have been alien, Deep Thought or even
possibly the mice.
.
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|