Posted on 11/21/2009 6:28:40 PM PST by USALiberty
Well, based on the way mankind behaves, the creator has to be
an alien life form of some sort....like, maybe transcendant,
perfect, omnipotent, all knowing, merciful, just, etc...
During the Dover trial a prosecution lawyer asked Dr. Padian
(witness for the evolutionists) if it were possible for a
creator to have evolved? Padian chose not to answer cause if he
said YES, the next question would be , then why do you oppose
the concept?, and if he said NO, then it would mean that
evolution didn’t do everything it is supposed to have done(
including evolving man-and man does create stuff y’now)
Just shows how philosophically self-deluded some of the defenders
against ID can be.
“...Darwinism is revealed for what it is.”
And what is it?
And what is it? It is a Satanic fraud masquerading as a legitimate scientific theory.
A satanic fraud? How so? Virtually all Christian denominations recognize that evolution is a legitimate theory for the progression of the development of life on earth. Even the Catholic Church, the premier Christian organization in the world, acknowledges that evolution may very well be God’s way of getting us here.
Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible. Don’t you agree?
Gee, really? I just did a search of all of Padian's testimony during the Dover trial (using a full transcript of the entire trial), and I can't find this question being asked. Perhaps you could quote it for us.
Or perhaps it didn't happen.
Padian chose not to answer
Really? Feel free to cite the actual trial transcript.
If I don't hear back from you, I'll be glad to email Dr. Padian and let you know what *he* has to say about your claims, and the... unique argument you're trying to make on his behalf.
cause if he said YES, the next question would be , then why do you oppose the concept?,
He doesn't "oppose the concept". He opposes several of the false claims and fallacious arguments made on behalf of "ID", and rightly so. Faulty propaganda should indeed be opposed. This remains the case even if "a creator" could evolve.
and if he said NO, then it would mean that evolution didn’t do everything it is supposed to have done( including evolving man-and man does create stuff y’now)
Depends on what exactly you mean by "a creator". But yes, evolution can and has produced organisms (us) capable of making things. This does not mean, however, that arguments against "ID" are invalid, as they are not based on such a premise, nor does it support "ID", especially since "ID" posits that such creativity can *not* evolve or otherwise arise [i]de novo[/i] but must be "endowed" by a prior creator (even though such a claim requires "creators for each creator", thus "creators all the way down". Yeah, right.
Just shows how philosophically self-deluded some of the defenders against ID can be.
Actually, your attempted "argument" shows how "philophically confused" some defenders of ID can be, given how your attempt at a point includes a false dichotomy, a straw man, an ad hominem, sloppy reasoning, and perhaps a false assertion (unless you can produce the portion of the trial transcript in which this alleged exchange took place).
That seems more of an "own goal" than any kind of actual strike against those who recognize that "ID" is mostly all hat and no cattle.
Also, why do you imagine that "the prosecution" would ask such a question? You do realize which side was the prosecution, don't you? Or do you have trouble getting even the easy stuff right?
By whose definition?
As BuckW pointed out, the Catholic Church doesn't seem to believe "Evolution = atheism."
For which version of Christianity do you presume to speak, and why should that one be binding on everyone?
Some people are still doing it. And they're proud of themselves! Book Burning 2990
As BuckW pointed out, the Catholic Church doesn't seem to believe "Evolution = atheism."
I guess everybody's entitled to his own opinion. I stand on scripture, that's all.
So you're now backing off your previous statement, "That's a joke, right? By definition, a real Christian is a Bible-believer. Evolution = atheism."
I'm sure the Catholics will breathe much easier knowing you're willing to allow them to be Christians.
“That’s a joke, right? By definition, a real Christian is a Bible-believer. Evolution = atheism. The answers are in Genesis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/";
Not at all, and who gives you the authority to decide who is Christian and who is not? Catholics are free to believe that evolution is God’s method for getting us here. Surely you believe that Catholics are Christian, don’t you?
“You either believe the Bible or you don’t — and I do.”
Do you believe that such literal belief in the bible is necessary to be a Christian?
“That is not for me to say. God will judge. But I follow His Holy Word.”
Fair enough. In an earlier post, you equated belif in evolution with athiesm. Given your first sentence above, I assume that you no longer feel that way.
Some people may be confused and misled. But the main goal of Darwinists has been and always will be the promotion of an atheistic worldview that leads people away from God.
Do you distinguish between a scientific theory and those who misuse it for their own ends?
First of all, what is a “Darwinist”? Surely you are aware that the ToE has changed so much since his original formulation that even Darwin would not recognize it today.
Furthermore, you are wrong about the main goal of evolution: it is a scientific theory constructed in accordance with data and observation. Most Christians believe it. Most practitioners are themselves Christian.
You are aware that ToE does not address origins, aren’t you?
Your belief is a vanishingly small minority opinion.
You are aware that Dawkins believes in “seeding” and “magic cyrstals” right?
So what?
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.