Refuting Darwinism, point by point

WorldNetDaily,com ^ | 1-11-03 | Interview of James Perloff

[balrog666]

he's not going to spell it out, he's trying to change the subject. Just like he did when he called us immoral etc etc ad nauseum.

Oh, well, you were right.

[Voice in your head]

To those who say that there are no "intermediate structures" :

James Carville is the missing link.

Consider yourselves to be refuted.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[bondserv]

I would like to clear up a few ideas regarding the Christian life that seem to be confusing. This relates to this thread because we believe that Darwin's theory was the final straw that enabled intelligent people to "logically" reject the concept of God.



1.) When we KNOW that we are imperfect, and understand this imperfection causes us to be spiritually dead and unable to have a relationship (communicate) with God, but are willing to put the entire weight of our trust in Jesus, we become spiritually alive. (Born Again)
2.) By putting the entire weight of our trust in Jesus, His perfection is attributed to us, which enables us to have an intimate relationship with God. (Forgiven)
3.) Jesus spiritually "cloaks" us with His perfection so that when God spiritually looks at us he sees perfection, therefore acceptability. But he does not remove our non-spiritual imperfection yet. Therefore we have the capacity to continue failing in this world. (Christians still sin)
4.) Forgiveness does not exclude a Christian from the consequences of their failures, even though God only spiritually sees Christ's perfection "cloaking" us. (Still forgiven, but if we steal and are caught we still go to jail)
5.) God created us with free will, which he will not violate. (force a person to believe He is God) Each and every individual needs to use their own free will to choose to align themselves with God. (Those who become less and less aligned with God perpetrate Evil in this world)

Many people have been transformed by their realization of God's love towards them.

Drug addicts no longer addicted.

Greedy people becoming generous.

Selfish people becoming unselfish.

Murderers becoming disgusted with what they did, then showing pure love towards others.

Uncommitted type people becoming committed type people.

Men who only thought they loved their children, becoming men who really love their children.

Wives who disrespect their husbands becoming wives who truly respect their husbands. (This one usually changes the husband as much as the wife)

Husbands who are unloving to their wives becoming husbands who cherish their wives. (This one usually changes the wife as much as the husband)


Bitter, angry, resentful people becoming sweet, gentle, forgiving people.

None of these people are perfect, but they consistently exhibit these new characteristics in their lives.

These people have experienced a spiritual transformation. Unexplainable by science (psychology, genetics, natural maturing, lottery winning etc...) These changes are real because we are spiritual beings in need of a relationship with God. Science has no explanation for the radical transformations that Christ has done in billions of lives for thousands of years. That is a lot of observable evidence!!

Only Jesus can turn your spiritual light on. The void in your life will become full only by Gods love and friendship. Stop looking for this through your physical eyes; which cannot see the truth.

[Aric2000]

bondserv,

as I said before, if christianity gives you solice, "turns your spiritual light on" more power to you.

If being "born again" is what gives you a moral foundation, WONDERFUL, more power to you.

But Christianity is not for me, sorry, it's great for you, but it does not contain my answer.

As a matter of fact, it never asks the question.

Enjoy your christianity, but please, no more sermons to me, they are heard, but they don't mean anything.

Thanks anyway, but I do not need "saving".

[Aric2000]

I seem to have misunderstood your post, but again, evolution as a theory is not evil.

Believe it or not, you CAN believe in the scientific theory of evolution and believe in creationism as well, take Alamo-girl as an excellent expample. Actually I make an excellent example as well, but I will not, and cannot claim that my personal beliefs are at all scientific. and of course, neither does she, that's why I respect her.

My beliefs CANNOT be proven scientifically, therefore I will not try to force people to believe that they are somehow scientific, because they're not.

Evolution as a theory is harmless, it is what people do with it, not the theory itself.

To come up with a hybrid of creationism and evolution, this of course is ID and try to call it scientific, is not only silly but desperate.

My advice to creationists is to ignore evolution, teach your moral foundation instead, and if it is as strong as you claim it is, then we shouldn't have a problem.

[PatrickHenry]

Dead thread placemarker.

[LogicWings]

My response: Think again. Reality and refusal to belive are not equivocated.

I don't have to think again, I was correct the first time. This is why I don't bother with this anymore. If you refuse to see the fallacy, I can't help you.

There is, despite your denial, evidence for the existence of another realm.

That was the question. Provide one wet iota of evidence. anything, anywhere, that can be verified (truthed) by an objective observer. There is none or we would all agree, like we agree there is gravity.

You'd have to know what an ad hominem was before you could say it was ugly. Your particular fallacy is called ignoratic elenchi which, I'm sure, you'll have to look up.

You don't even begin to fathom what I know, bra. I look up over 100 items a day, I'm not too proud to research what I don't know. I committed no fallacy and yours was an ugly attack.

you state that nothing can exist outside the universe because you have defined it so (thus giving an excellent example of petitio principii).

I said that, BY DEFINITION, nothing can exist outside the universe, not my definition; common, everyday, dictionary, scientific definition. Typical disingenuious arguments.

So let's get this straight (your screen name implies you know logic): You say "by definition" nothing exists outside the universe, supporting your claim via fallacy.

Burden of Proof. Prove something exists outside what we can prove exists.(reality - universe [now i sound like fchristian!])

I say that your kind refuse to consider arguments contrary to your reality.

There is no 'my reality' or 'your reality' there is only 'reality' and those that accept it as it is, or not. There is no 'my kind.' I am of a kind you have never met before and it is only your arrogance that presumes that you already know what 'kind' i am.

[LogicWings]

Another example of petitio principii. The conclusion is included in the first term.

At this point I doubt your understanding of logic. What I did was restate your sloppy syllogism in a form that proved that the premises were invalid. You cannot prove the second premise because it is not possible to prove, BY DEFINITION, that something exists that, BY DEFINITION, is beyond your ability to experience and THEREFORE, verify.

For a guy who habitually claims ad hominem! there sure were a lot of personal digs in your last post.

I am always very careful to only analyze the content of arguments and only criticize those when debating on such forums. I invariably find that weak egos mistake these analyses as person attacks since they are so emotionally invested in their views. When I am then personally attacked the gloves come off and I cease to restrain myself. You have been warned. Confine yourself to analysis of content and you will be fine. Attack me and the game is over. I have said nothing about you personally. Go back and look. If you can't handle an analysis of your words, don't post.

[PatrickHenry]

If you can't handle an analysis of your words, don't post.

Permit me to expand upon your wise precept:
If you can't handle -- or comprehend -- an analysis of your words, don't post.

[beavus]

I said that, BY DEFINITION, nothing can exist outside the universe

Why do you bother? Do you really think there is any reasoning with someone who believes there is an existence outside existence, a universe outside the universe, a something outside of everything, an X outside of X?

At some point you have to realize the mind you are dealing with is hopelessly broken, and just move on.

[f.Christian]

Evolution is just an aberrant theory of creation science . . .

sortov of a woigjee divining board // starting kit for kiddees - - -

amateurs // beginners ! ! !

Show and tell // anemic // veal science ! ! !

[f.Christian]

Healthy normal people and children from good homes and families have an immunity to this nonsense // disease but there seems to be a permanent growing underclass dependent on the govt and their overlords who are feeding on this diet // formula and living and preying on the rest of us!

[beavus]

Sigh.

[f.Christian]

The liberal statist school ALL day // night // year // life - - - breakfast school plan!


The infantile BABY material belief // 'mind set' of the the evolution theory cargo cult formula V 'science' DIET . . .

puffed // rolled science...

(( "where's the milk // fruit" ))

dry powderded science // cereal - - - gi pablum surplus science !

"V rations"---Only // Total // flakes - - -

[balrog666]

I think you're dancing on this dead thread all by yourself.

[f.Christian]

yeah . . . evolution is a dead branch of science - - - artificial fruit // flowers // candy ! ! !

[Voice in your head]

"This relates to this thread because we believe that Darwin's theory was the final straw that enabled intelligent people to 'logically' reject the concept of God."

Could you explain this? To test your statement, I tried to create an argument that would enable intelligent people to "logically" reject the concept of God. Below are a couple of my unsuccessful attempts:
The genetic makeup of a population changes over time, therefore there is no God?
Random mutations may sometimes result in greater fitness, therefore there is no God?

[balrog666]

It's nothing more profound than the simple idea that simple people look for simple explanations that fit their simple predispositions. The idiotic responses of "simple" people, like Phaedrus and Kevin Curry, who refuse to participate in any real discussions but show up occasionally to metaphorically p!ss on the thread from time to time just reinforces their desparation.

[PatrickHenry]

Could you explain this?

No, he can't, considering how long atheism has been around. History of atheism.