Posted on 02/12/2006 10:32:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry
fundamental placemarker
A billion and half Hindus would think you were simply deluded. And a billion and a half Muslims might decide to behead you for that lie misstatement.
?
??
Those who have been flamed should turn the other cheek rather than respond in kind since both sides are on notice to stop the personal attacks.
LOL, there's a tagline in there somewhere!
With evolutionary theologian Michael Dowd’s ‘Darwin Day Sermons’
Or explore the roots of ‘Darwin Day’ with (and by) the Secular Student Alliance.
Or merely see what Darwin Day represents in ‘Their Wedge Document’:
*Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations
*Darwinism refutes typology; i.e., that the world is stable and invariant
*Darwin's theory of natural selection made any invocation of teleology unnecessary
*Darwin accepted the universality of randomness and chance throughout the process of natural selection
*Darwin developed a new view of humanity and in turn, a new anthropocentrism
*Darwin provided a scientific foundation for ethics
‘Darwin Day’
Or do you believe this scientist is correct with his assertion?
If it weren't all about political feasibility and huge democratic pressures, I'd say, "make my day!" Let's bring intelligent design into biology, and take the vague theory and refine it into mutually exclusive families of clearer hypotheses. Each of which we analyze for explanatory power, corroborating and disconfirming evidence, and so on.You refer to the bible and chastise Christians, but unless you are willing to plainly state your beliefs - this quite simply comes off as BS…And in the process, we will show that the Christian concept of God is scientifically false---we can say with a fair degree of scientific confidence that there is no god much like the God they want.
But of course, that will never happen. They'd accuse us of violating their boundary between "science" and "religion," and taking a "religious" stance. (Well, anti-religious, and in a sense they'd be right on that.) If we said the truth, which is that scientists know orthodox Christianity to be scientifically false, we'd be lynched.
a scientist…
The liar is inescapably concerned with truth-values. In order to invent a lie at all, he must think he knows what is the truth. And in order to invent an effective lie, he must design his falsehood under the guidance of truth…The word sh*t does, to be sure, suggest this. Excrement is not designed or crafted at all; it is merely emitted or dumped. It may have a more or less coherent shape, or it may not, but it is in any case not wrought.
-On Bullshit by Harry G. Frankfurt
IMHO, these two simple quotes sum up this whole debate. Sh*t is not designed – and I do not think anyone would look for truth from sh*t. But for anyone to demand that no ‘design’ was required for intelligence, they must rely on something to form their truth to counter accusations that contradict their philosophy from… basically sh*t.
So come on JS1138, let us all hear what ‘you’ base your worldview upon… Or you can simply criticize me for not being ‘Christian’ enough for your ‘belief’. As a Christian; I do not claim to know all truth, I love science, and keep an open mind - but I do believe I know where truth ’ultimately’ comes from… Where do you ‘believe’ your philosophical worldview ‘ultimately’ comes from?
I qualify as a Christian by attempting to lead my life according to the criterion Jesus set out in Matthew 19:16- and Luke 10:25-. I interpret this as requiring proactive steps to improve the world and not just avoiding bad behavior. If I am required to believe Genesis is literal history, I fail.
I think all images of the afterlife are BS. I don't worry about it. Existence is beyond my comprehension. I find it unlikely that God is the malicious trickster portrayed in creationist ramblings.
What does this mean to you?
Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
-1 Corinthians 12:3
Don't know. I tend to ignore things that sound like preachers trying to rally the congregation. I admit I am deficient in caring about legalisms.
Fine… Than actually answer the questions in my previous post. If you want to criticize others for not responding to your questions you might consider answering questions.
Imagine a pair of Brontosaurus on board.
“I do think its true that cosmologists are slightly more likely to be theists than biologists. In earlier times biology was the thing that provided the most powerful apparent evidence for the existence of a Creator – Darwin solved all that. I think, in a way, cosmology is waiting for its Darwin. However, I would add this, that biology is supremely complicated. Complexity is the really difficult thing that you might think you need a designer for – Darwin solved that. The universe actually, is not very complicated.”
-Dawkins
--->Placemarker<---
Actually Noah and his family must have been scared sh*tless with a bunch of T Rex running around the boat for 40 days. They must have kept those guys well fed.
Reminds me of an old joke. To file off the serial numbers:
What's worse than getting a pregnant Brontosaurus into an ark?
Getting a Brontosaurus pregnant in an ark!
[Hey, quit rocking the ark, Noah's trying to sleep up here.]
DAWKINS: (snip)"…But yet we have this gathering together of genes into individual organisms. And that reminds me of the illusion of one mind, when actually there are lots of little mindlets in there, and the illusion of the soul of the white ant in the termite mound, where you have lots of little entities all pulling together to create an illusion of one. Am I right to think that the feeling that I have that I'm a single entity, who makes decisions, and loves and hates and has political views and things, that this is a kind of illusion that has come about because Darwinian selection found it expedient to create that illusion of unitariness rather than let us be a kind of society of mind?"PINKER: "It's a very interesting question. Yes, there is a sense in which the whole brain has interests in common in the way that say a whole body composed of genes with their own selfish motives has a single agenda. In the case of the genes the fact that their fates all depend on the survival of the body forces them to cooperate. In the case of the different parts of the brain, the fact that the brain ultimately controls a body that has to be in one place at one time may impose the need for some kind of circuit, presumably in the frontal lobes, that coordinates the different agendas of the different parts of the brain to ensure that the whole body goes in one direction. In How the Mind Works I alluded to a scene in the comedy movie All of Me in which Lily Tomlin's soul inhabits the left half of Steve Martin's body and he takes a few steps in one direction under his own control and then lurches in another direction with his pinkie extended while under the control of Lily Tomlin's spirit. That is what would happen if you had nothing but completely autonomous modules of the brain, each with its own goal. Since the body has to be in one place at one time, there might be a circuit that suppresses the conflicting motives…"(end snip)
Materialist Evolutionist-a non-teleological position that affirms that only apparent, not real design, exists in the abiotic and biotic realms. Causes for the creation and subsequent development of these realms are attributed only to natural processes."Weak" Deistic Evolution-a teleological position that affirms recognition, but not empirical detectability of real design in the abiotic realm by a transcendent, Deistic Being who has causally acted only during its initial formation. Natural processes are the only factors that have brought about and shaped biological complexity during the past 4.5 billion years.
"Weak" Theistic Evolution-a teleological position that affirms the recognition, but not empirical detectability of real design in the abiotic and biotic realms by a transcendent, Theistic Being who has causally acted both during and after its initial formation, having designed biological complexity via universal common ancestry during the past 4.5 billion years.
Corporeal Design-a teleological position that affirms recognition and detectability of real design in the biotic realm by a being(s) with physical bodies, having designed biological complexity at some point during the past 4.5 billion years, with or without using universal common ancestry (e.g., panspermia and Raelianism, respectively).
Intrinsic Design-a teleological position that affirms recognition and detectability of real design in the abiotic and/or biotic realm by a Being who is wedded to/one with the universe, and who has causally acted since its initial formation, having designed biological complexity via universal common ancestry during the past 4.5 billion years.
"Strong" Deistic Evolution-a teleological position that affirms recognition and detectability of real design in the abiotic realm by a transcendent, Deistic Being who has causally acted only during its initial formation. Natural processes are the only factors that have brought about and shaped biological complexity during the past 4.5 billion years.
"Strong" Theistic Evolution-a teleological position that affirms recognition and detectability of real design in the abiotic and biotic realms by a transcendent, Theistic Being who has causally acted both during and after its initial formation, having designed biological complexity via universal common ancestry during the past 4.5 billion years.
Old-Earth Creationism-a teleological position that affirms recognition and detectability of real design in the abiotic and biotic realms by a transcendent, Theistic Being who has causally acted both during and after its initial formation, having designed discontinuous biological complexity during the past 4.5 billion years.
Young-Earth Creationism-a teleological position that affirms recognition and detectability of real design in the abiotic and biotic realms by a transcendent, Theistic Being who has causally acted both during and after its initial formation, having designed discontinuous biological complexity approximately 6,000 years ago. As mentioned above, ID is not included among the teleological positions in Table 1 or Figure 2. Its definition is given here, followed by a rationale for its location on the Nested Hierarchy of Design
Intelligent Design-a teleological position that affirms recognition and empirical detectability of real design in the abiotic and/or biotic realms.
I've given you the answers that come from my heart. I don't understand theology, and I don't understand your question. Some brain cells missing I assume.
I can understand trying to be a kind, honest and useful person, but I cannot understand the necessity of saying I believe something that I believe to be untrue.
Where do you ‘believe’ your philosophical worldview ‘ultimately’ comes from?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.