Skip to comments.
The Religious Cult of Evolution Fights Back
PostItNews.com ^
Posted on 12/21/2004 7:59:02 PM PST by postitnews.com
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 1,401-1,419 next last
To: Texas Songwriter
Merry Christmas Merry Christams to you as well.
To: Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...
Aside from the laughable assertion that one must first disprove something that was never proved in the first place
Nothing in science is ever proven. Your statement is laughable, for something that is truly "proven" cannot be "disproven".
You're attempting to duck the issue because you don't like the standards set by the scientific method, which is not an uncommon occurence amongst creationists.
242
posted on
12/22/2004 10:11:09 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
To: durasell
Yes, exactly. Under some circumstances:If their faith is that shaky, they have more problems that some words or posts on some crevo thread.
To: durasell
Secular humanism is a philosophy that many religious conservatives assert is a religion. The US government has never recognized it as a religion, however, and typically when someone asserts that a certain topic -- like evolution -- is part of the "secular humanist agenda" what it really means is that the topic doesn't happen to go against what a secular humanist might believe, not that it's part and parcel of the philosophy.
It's like claiming that teaching Calculus is akin to teaching Christianity simply because the theorems of Calculus don't contradict the religion.
244
posted on
12/22/2004 10:14:27 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
To: Sola Veritas
It quite logically (and by probability) concludes that some things could not happen by chance ...Chance has little to do with it. The processes assumed by evolution are regular, consistent and lawful. Every process assumed by evolution has been observed. Obviously the entire history of life has not been observed, nor is there any explanation of its beginning. Nor is there any foreseeable point at which every question will be answered.
Speaking of regular processes, perhaps you'd like to tackle a few questions from the perspective of ID.
- Does the process of selection occur?
- Do changes to the genome occur, includation copy errors, insertions, variations in chromosome count?
- How many changes are required to produce an easily observable difference in body structure (for example, number of legs)?
- What exactly is a species?
- What mechanism prevents a series of changes from becoming a new species?
245
posted on
12/22/2004 10:19:01 AM PST
by
js1138
(D*mn, I Missed!)
To: RadioAstronomer; Alamo-Girl; PatrickHenry
ID is not a scientific theory and should not be taught as an alternative to evolution in our schools. I don't think that ID is offering itself as an "alternative" to evolutionary theory. Indeed, I understand it as attempting to fill in the glaring gaps in Darwinist theory -- e.g., the role of information in the evolution of biological life. I know of no ID theorist who is "pushing God."
It is quite clear (to me at least) that life is an evolutionary process. But somewhere along the line, matter had to "get smart" in order for life to evolve. ID seeks to explain the mechanism for this. No more and no less.
The fact that Darwinism (at least neo-Darwinism) refuses to admit that there is any shortcoming in its theory whatsoever suggests to me that it has become a cult, in the strict meaning of that word. As such, it is a victim of "arrested development." FWIW, it seems to me that science is not well served by the Darwinist's relentless closure to ideas being developed in physics, information science, and other fields that purport "fill in the gaps" of the Darwinist account -- which is the method of (the most unfortunately named) Intelligent Design. Had they called this field something else -- anything else! -- it probably wouldn't be encountering all this irrational flak from "true believers."
To: hosepipe
Like a lizard woke up and went DOH! I want some feathers..
See, this is why no one with a brain takes creationists seriously. Even after they've been informed that they're mistaken about evolution, they continue to repeat the same lies over and over again. They show that they're not just ignorant, but they're also shameless liars.
247
posted on
12/22/2004 10:20:09 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
To: sasportas
The atheists didn't like the cultist charge thrown back at 'em I see. I see they deny their faith in evolution.
What about the theists who accept evolution? Or are you dishonestly asserting (as many creationists do) that all who accept evolution are atheists?
248
posted on
12/22/2004 10:21:34 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
To: Texas Songwriter
Scientifically speaking please tell me how love and justice evolved. Ever had a dog? Ever observe a wolf pack? Are you suggesting that love is not useful?
249
posted on
12/22/2004 10:21:50 AM PST
by
js1138
(D*mn, I Missed!)
To: RadioAstronomer; sasportas
I think that he is resorting to the common creationist lie that all who accept evolution are atheists. When creationists can't win by lying about evolution, they try lying about those who accept it.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'd sooner believe Michael Moore than many of the creationists around here.
250
posted on
12/22/2004 10:23:52 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
To: Sola Veritas
And atheistic evolutionists presuppose their is no God or supernatural created force.
And theistic evolutionists typically believe that a God or supernatural force is behind the process of evolution.
You might have more credibility if you'd stop tossing in the red herring of atheism vs. theism.
251
posted on
12/22/2004 10:25:41 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
To: Bellflower
And yet another creationists dishonestly asserts that evolution = atheism.
252
posted on
12/22/2004 10:26:15 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
To: Dimensio
#####I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'd sooner believe Michael Moore than many of the creationists around here.#####
Why shouldn't you? He's surely an evolutionist! :-)
To: betty boop
I don't think that ID is offering itself as an "alternative" to evolutionary theory.IMHO, it is trying to.
Indeed, I understand it as attempting to fill in the glaring gaps in Darwinist theory -- e.g., the role of information in the evolution of biological life. I know of no ID theorist who is "pushing God."
Gaps yes, but such is science. Some are being filled in a we speak, other may never be. Welcome to a scientific theory. :-) And yes "ID" by the very nature of the wording posits a diety. Thusly ID is "pushing" God.
It is quite clear (to me at least) that life is an evolutionary process.
For me as well! :-)
But somewhere along the line, matter had to "get smart" in order for life to evolve. ID seeks to explain the mechanism for this. No more and no less.
Why?
The fact that Darwinism (at least neo-Darwinism) refuses to admit that there is any shortcoming in its theory whatsoever suggests to me that it has become a cult, in the strict meaning of that word. As such, it is a victim of "arrested development." FWIW, it seems to me that science is not well served by the Darwinist's relentless closure to ideas being developed in physics, information science, and other fields that purport "fill in the gaps" of the Darwinist account -- which is the method of (the most unfortunately named) Intelligent Design. Had they called this field something else -- anything else! -- it probably wouldn't be encountering all this irrational flak from "true believers."
As far as I know, there is no theory called "Darwinism". However, the theory of evolution is being tested every day.
To: Doctor Stochastic
And, of course, the most infamous one of all
255
posted on
12/22/2004 10:30:00 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
To: RadioAstronomer
RadioAstronomer, I would tend to agree with you that Intelligent Design implies a Creator. We surely disagree on the theory that accumulated mutations can account for the diversity of life on earth.
However, agree or disagree, let me also wish you a Merry Christmas and say thanks to you for your polite demeanor in discussing issues here.
To: Sola Veritas
I think you are way too hung up on semantics. However, if it would make you feel better, call ID an alternative explanation.
"Last Thursdayism" is also an "alternative explanation". Should that also be given equal time?
257
posted on
12/22/2004 10:34:14 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
To: sasportas
In reading this thread I can say we have met the real enemy of our Republic. Refusal to allow opposing viewpoints into one's political party is liberal trait.
If you are looking for mindless adherence to the party line, go to DU.
I guess these atheist poster consider themselves some sort of a Republican, or more likely, Libertarian, else they wouldn't be posting on Free Republic. The whole lot of you are no better than the demonrats, marxists, abortionists, queers, ACLU, anti-Christmas warriors, and those who tear down the ten commandments, in my opinion
Well, you know what they say about opinions and buttholes....
258
posted on
12/22/2004 10:35:20 AM PST
by
Modernman
(Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. --Benjamin Franklin)
To: betty boop
But somewhere along the line, matter had to "get smart" in order for life to evolve.How about "In the beginning?" I keep wondering we are made from "dust" if dust isn't capable of being alive.
Personally, I think matter has been given a bum rap, a baseless assumption that matter does not merge seamlessly with the spiritual (the spritual being our designation for what we currently don't understand).
259
posted on
12/22/2004 10:37:26 AM PST
by
js1138
(D*mn, I Missed!)
To: puroresu
However, agree or disagree, let me also wish you a Merry Christmas and say thanks to you for your polite demeanor in discussing issues here.You are most welcome. I try not to step on a persons faith. Heck, I sure don't have all the answers.
Merry Chrismas! :-)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 1,401-1,419 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson