Skip to comments.
--> The Cult of Evolution – the Opiate of the Atheists
NoDNC.com - STOP Democrat Corruption ^
| NoDNC.com Staff
Posted on 08/16/2005 11:23:20 AM PDT by woodb01
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400, 401-420, 421-440 ... 761-780 next last
To: GSHastings
"Since intelligent design can be PROVEN to occur."
How?
401
posted on
08/16/2005 7:57:01 PM PDT
by
pending
To: CarolinaGuitarman
Think of it like this, evolution believe that if you have a deck of 52 cards and two jokers, and then shuffle the deck thoroughly, and throw the entire deck up in the air as high as you can, that eventually all of the cards will land, in perfect order, and perfectly aligned. The probability of this even happening one time in a billion years approaches zero. Then, to believe evolutionary "theory," you have to accept on blind faith that this same miracle of perfect order from total chaos has repeated itself millions of times to account for each of the plants, animals, and life on earth.
" Good article. I would like to see an evolutionist answer this."
Ok, it's crap. The *probabilities* were pulled out of the ass of the author. It has no relation whatsoever with any known physical process. It is desperate wishful thinking.
I like your very scientific analysis here. The illustration above is called an analogous syllogism, a literary technique of comparison to real world examples that people can relate to. I'm sorry that was lost on you, however, as a devout adherent to the secular fundamentalist religious belief of evolution, it doesn't surprise me that this analogy was lost on you.
However, I am quite pleased that the wondeful evolutionists that have participated in this discussion have clearly demonstrated just how fervently zealous they are over their secular fundamental religious beliefs.
The ad hoc attacks rather than addressing the underlying criticisms of evolution show nothing but just how much of a zealous fundamentalist movement evolution truly is.
My favorite was the response to the article that HARVARD, that "conservative" and God-loving bastion of support for all things conservative (tongue in cheek of course), notes clearly that evolution includes the origination or "genesis" of life itself. So much so that it is dedicating initially a million dollars to its study.
How interesting that the evolution fundies simply attack even the source of the article, another "conservative" bastion of God-loving reporters at the USA Today...
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-08-14-harvard-evolution_x.htm?POE=TECISVA ANTI-DNC Web Portal at --->
http://www.noDNC.com
402
posted on
08/16/2005 7:57:48 PM PDT
by
woodb01
(ANTI-DNC Web Portal at ---> http://www.noDNC.com)
To: furball4paws
Are you implying non-existence is preferable? You know, there's always an easy out if you think that. I not implying anything. I am asking. Specifically, I am asking why an atheist and evolutionist would prefer one over the other. I have yet to get a satisfactory answer.
403
posted on
08/16/2005 7:58:02 PM PDT
by
Pete
To: Dataman
Evolution is the only "scientific" theory that needs legal protection. How pathetic. Anti=Evolution is the only "scientific" theory that needs affirmative action legalislation. How pathetic.
404
posted on
08/16/2005 8:00:45 PM PDT
by
Oztrich Boy
(Has anyone elase noticed the crazy women in the road outside blaming you for something or other?)
To: woodb01
Think of it like this, evolution believe that if you have a deck of 52 cards and two jokers, and then shuffle the deck thoroughly, and throw the entire deck up in the air as high as you can, that eventually all of the cards will land, in perfect order, and perfectly aligned. So ID is based on playing cards.
To: bobdsmith
How about this one: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html#examples:electrical A field-programmable gate array, or FPGA ..... I won't bother to reprint your whole post. Just read it again yourself and you will clearly see that nothing more happened here other than the creation of a devise by INTELLIGENT DESIGN. The engineer had a goal in mind. He programmed the code to select with a GOAL in mind. Anything which did not advance toward the GOAL was deselected. Anything which advanced toward the GOAL, was selected. Intelligent Design, through and through! Design, Intent, Goal, Intervention, all directed by INTELLIGENCE. Next?
To: LoneRangerMassachusetts
Yes, ID uses Natural Selection. There is nothing incompatible with the principles of ID or Creationism.
407
posted on
08/16/2005 8:05:18 PM PDT
by
LiteKeeper
(The radical secularization of America is happening)
To: muir_redwoods
Now now, let's post what you actually said to avoid the disingenous evasiveness that you posit now...
Natural selection is an established fact and can be readily observed in nature over as little as a few generations.
"Sounds a lot like National Socialism to me... "
Ahhh, no. What I said was that it is inaccurate to try to tag evolution with ANY statements about how things began. It speaks only to the development of species(On the Origin of Species) and the human species in particular(The Descent of Man). You read the rest into it. If you want to compare the behaviour of the animal and plant kingdoms with National Socialism you are advised that I will not be participating in that exercise.
All I was doing was taking your "natural selection as fact" statement and attributing it most correctly to the REAL philosophy that it supports. The philosophy of "might makes right," or "survival of the fittest," the "uber-man," the law of the jungle, and all of the other names of tyranny and oppression that "natural selection" goes by.
The fact is, if you are uncomfortable with what "natural selection" truly stands for, then that discomfort is your problem. Lunatics like Hitler who made a form of "natural selection" a centerpiece of National SOCIALISM and used the "superiority" of the Aryan race as an excuse for human extermination.
ANTI-DNC Web Portal at --->
http://www.noDNC.com
408
posted on
08/16/2005 8:07:24 PM PDT
by
woodb01
(ANTI-DNC Web Portal at ---> http://www.noDNC.com)
To: Sir Francis Dashwood
"Sure it is. In order to determine how change has occurred, if any at all, there has to be an origin. "
Nope, the origin of life has never been a part of the theory of evolution. But thanks for showing your ignorance! :)
"Humans did not evolve from apes; this much is a certainty in human evolutionary study."
Humans and apes share a common ancestor; this much is certain from all the available evidence. Thanks for showing your ignorance! :)
"If evolution is concerned with human origin, it also is interested in life's origin. "
No, only YOU and other creationists have that fetish :)
409
posted on
08/16/2005 8:08:37 PM PDT
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
To: GSHastings
It was an evolutionary process. That is exactly what you asked for. An evolutionary process producing a complex design. I kind of knew you wouldn't accept it but don't lie that you haven't been provided with one.
It was an evolutionary algorithm. The researcher did not directly do the selection - the algorithm did that. More explaination is found here: http://www.netscrap.com/netscrap_detail.cfm?scrap_id=73
It is unremarkable that a microprocessor can perform such a task--except in this case. Even though the circuit consists of only a small number of basic components, the researcher, Adrian Thompson, does not know how it works. He can't ask the designer because there wasn't one. Instead, the circuit evolved from a "primordial soup" of silicon components guided by the principles of genetic variation and survival of the fittest.
So no it wasn't intelligent design. The end solution was not known, and in fact is not understood. How can an intelligent designer not understand their own design huh?
This is exactly a design generated by an evolutionary process.
To: pending
"Since intelligent design can be PROVEN to occur." How? Pay all my expenses, and I'll take you on a field trip to the factory that created the computer you are reading this message on, plus the facilities of the firm that created the software, designed and fabricatd the integrated circuits contained within, etc., etc.. All highly complex strucures and mechanisms. None of them even comes close to the complexity of the simplest structures in living organisms.
So, give me something that compare in complexity to the humble desktop computer, which can be demonstrated to have come about purely by chance, plus time, plus whatever other random ingedient you wish.
Then and only then will Evolution have the logical standing as an explanation that Intelligent Design has.
To: GSHastings
Here is some more from the article:
"Thompson's work is not aimless tinkering. His brand of evolution managed to construct a working circuit with fewer than one-tenth of the components that a human designer would have used."
To: woodb01
"Call me weak minded ..."
Ok.
413
posted on
08/16/2005 8:11:53 PM PDT
by
WildTurkey
(When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
To: GSHastings
Design, Intent, Goal, Intervention, all directed by INTELLIGENCE.That still does not negate the fact that an infinite combination of matter over an indefinite period of time could reasonably produce the proverbial monkey at typewriter striking the number 4-0-6.
To: GSHastings
One time, many thought that angels held planes in the air. Now just a few dumb creos think that.
415
posted on
08/16/2005 8:14:32 PM PDT
by
WildTurkey
(When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
To: woodb01
Evolution is not science, because it can not be tested, verified, and there are no false results. The only false result to evolution is Intelligent Design (ID) because the theory of ID proves that evolution is false and therefore evolution adherents attack ID proposals with zealous fundamentalism.Another blatant left-wing lie. All someone has to do is produce a genuine billion-year-old human fossil. Evolution would be toast.
At this point we're still waiting to hear what the "scientific theory of ID" is. It's certainly not proven, if it can't even be described.
To: doc30
the meaning of science What meaning would that be?
417
posted on
08/16/2005 8:15:45 PM PDT
by
LiteKeeper
(The radical secularization of America is happening)
To: woodb01
"adherent to the secular fundamentalist religious belief of evolution,..."
You throw this
1) as an insult?
2) to create an equivalency between ID, as faith, and evolutioin as faith.
This is common from the evangelical "ID be science" crowd.
You degrade your faith,religion and fundamentalism and science all in one ill considered statement.
It is your faith that is in crisis.
If the existance of a 90 million year old fossil threatens the existance of God in your mind, you have some work to do.
The conclusion of ID is based on a leap of faith.
Science can be faith to a materialist.
ID can only be faith to science.
This is not a debate over the existance of God.
It is a debate over the continued existance of science.
418
posted on
08/16/2005 8:18:01 PM PDT
by
pending
To: wallcrawlr
I asked if you know what the Book of Malachi says. Of course I do.
you gotta try harder with your flame bait...that was a pretty amateur attempt.
Flame bait? Hardly. When asked to provide evidence to support your assertion, you declined to do so. I graciously accept your surrender.
419
posted on
08/16/2005 8:22:02 PM PDT
by
malakhi
To: bobdsmith
and science will eventually hit a brick wall because there are no ethics underpinning it
woodb01 tells us that science is building a little wall around evolution to protect it, and you tell us that science is going to hit a brick wall. Could this be the same wall?
Now now, do not misrepresent anything that I've said. It's been pretty clear in everything I've written that REAL science is NOT what the evolutionary secular fundamentalists are all about. Real science accepts both the criticisms and the challenges and evaluates and addresses them. Evolotionary fundies do not, they simply spout their zealous blind faith and insist that when you don't agree with them somehow you're nuts or a democrat.
Democrats believe in an intelligent designer? When did THAT MIRACLE happen? We're talking about the party that has baby killing (abortion) as its central platform (you know, another form of "natural selection")...
Science does not build the walls, the intellectually dishonest build these walls and refuse to address the challenges to their zealous blind faith in evolution...
420
posted on
08/16/2005 8:22:20 PM PDT
by
woodb01
(ANTI-DNC Web Portal at ---> http://www.noDNC.com)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400, 401-420, 421-440 ... 761-780 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