Ending the Evolutionary War

Mackinac Center for Public Policy ^ | Jan. 6, 2005 | Andrew J. Coulson

[general_re]

Ah, so he's an undercover double-agent, seeking to cast religion in general, and Christianity in particular, in a bad light by behaving badly in public, thereby driving people to atheism.

Well, it would explain a lot, anyway.

[js1138]

Burning heretics has always been more fun than burning bad people.

[general_re]

Easier to find 'em, too.

[js1138]

Just look for the ones holding the matches.

[Dimensio]

I'll even give him some help.

I am an atheist.

There, that's one that he has.

You know, I recall a certain now-banned FReeper claiming that Junior was an admitted atheist, despite the fact that Junior has always claimed to be Catholic and has occasionally referred to "the Almighty" as though it were an entity that he believes exists. It seems that for some creationists, a lack of facts in their favor is no barrier to their claims.

[js1138]

One is an infinite order of magnitude greater than zero, so the trend is obvious.

[js1138]

On the other hand, if you have not previously made this declaration, it is irrelevant to the discussion. We are not discussing whether you are or are not an athiest, but whether you made such an open declaration prior to post #43.

[Dimensio]

Just wait. Soon they'll claim that they've found 1⁷²⁰ atheists, and we all know how large that number is.

[Dimensio]

Guess I should point to a previous posting of mine, because I've made it known before, but I don't want to do any more work for Dataman.

Still, I can only think of two other FReepers who have made such a statement in the past, and I'm entirely sure that I'm recalling one of them correctly.

[Oztrich Boy]

One thing an evolutionist cannot answer is if their idea of a "big bang" theory is really an admission the universe is an Immaculate Conception...

They can, but it's not a scientific answer, because there's no way of testing it. So Fergitaboutit!

What a lot of people forget when they promote such NONSENSE is the Aristotelian categorical model and scientific method...

Harry may have been a really smart chap and known everything, but understanding and knowledge moves on (tempted to say evolves) in 2000 years

I often remind the eco-fascist veggie nazis who say humans weren't "designed" or "meant" to eat meat,

That is at least a scientific statement in that it can be examined and tested.

that inherent in their statement is the premise there is a designer or some sacred meaning to human existence.

That is not.

1. humans weren't "designed" or "meant" to eat meat
2. humans didn't evolve to eat meat
What's the difference? We don't know. So Fergitaboutit!
Someone, even an evolutionist using the form 1. rather than 2. has no more import in "proving" a Designer than an astronomer saying "the sun rose" proving Heliocentrism.

It comes back to your initial debating trick "One thing an evolutionist cannot answer... ". Just because someone else doesn't know the answer, doesn't establish that you do.

[Dimensio]

One thing an evolutionist cannot answer is if their idea of a "big bang" theory is really an admission the universe is an Immaculate Conception...

What does the Big Bang have to do with evolution?

[Nightshift]

Or: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (within a church); or abridging the freedom of speech (unless religious), or of the press (unless religious); or the right of the people peaceably to assemble (for nonreligious reasons), and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

please expand upon the part "within a church", "unless religious", and "for nonreligious reasons".
I do not understand their meaning in the context given.
Thanks

[PatrickHenry]

You are one of the "3 or 4" that I had in mind. I point this out just in case someone might think that the number is swelling.

[contemplator]

"It is equally true that the underlying belief systems of the atheistic evolutionists contradict our Founders and conservatism in general."

- I generally try to shy away from people who seem to enjoy arguing and getting under someone elses skin, but the comment above made me wonder where you were coming from.

Which contradictions do you mean? The founders were influenced by many things, Benjamin Franklin was an avid scientist as was Thomas Jefferson and several of the others. I don't see how atheism is incompatible with conservatism. Conservatism does not equal evangelism - atheism does not equal liberalism or am I mistaken? (FYI so you won't jump to conclusions, I am not an atheist)

[beavus]

One thing an evolutionist cannot answer is if their idea of a "big bang" theory is really an admission the universe is an Immaculate Conception...

Maybe an evolutionist can't answer it because the "big bang" is a theory in cosmology and has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary science.

However, it sounds as though you may not have a good understanding of expansion theory.

DNA is the singularity that evolutionists rely upon by belief to support their theory. This is no different than the Big Bang - - just another Immaculate Conception...

I think there is a metaphor in there somewhere, but I'll be damned if I can tease it out.

I often remind the eco-fascist veggie nazis who say humans weren't "designed" or "meant" to eat meat, that inherent in their statement is the premise there is a designer or some sacred meaning to human existence. Logic often diffuses theory into a foundation of belief...

Are you saying "eco-fascist veggie nazis" are Creationists, or that the statements of "eco-fascist veggie nazis" proves Creationism?

[beavus]

Ah, so he's an undercover double-agent, seeking to cast religion in general, and Christianity in particular, in a bad light by behaving badly in public, thereby driving people to atheism. Well, it would explain a lot, anyway.

LOL! You are right. Dataman could drive the Pope to atheism!

[beavus]

Just wait. Soon they'll claim that they've found 1720 atheists, and we all know how large that number is.

1^777 or 1^666 has more magic.

[so_real]

> Isn't this a "republic"? If the majority in the community ...
That would be pure democracy. Mob rule.

Only if you remove the representatives elected by the people whom they've delegated their authority to, and fail to protect other communities establishing contrary standards (assuming those standards do not adversely affect the health of the entire state or nation).

[balrog666]

Ah, so he's an undercover double-agent, seeking to cast religion in general, and Christianity in particular, in a bad light by behaving badly in public, thereby driving people to atheism.

He wouldn't be the first one here for that purpose.

[PatrickHenry]

100