Posted on 07/08/2008 5:56:27 AM PDT by Soliton
The flaw in Charles Darwin's pre-eminent theory is its failure to explain why some humans de-evolve to infant primates when debating the existence of God.
Put atheists in the same room as the devout and, well, it's back to the sandbox. (There is a God; no there isn't -- is/isn't, is/isn't, is/isn't.)
(Excerpt) Read more at canada.com ...
Evo's take it to another level entirely one on which creationist and religious fanaticts would be proud. The current evolutionary theory has been turn into nothing more than a religious cult, but is infact more dangerous because you have credible educators pushing it's precepts not based on fact, but faith...
Do you have any sources, links, references or citations to support any of your statements?
Dude, don’t you know?
NO REAL SCIENTISTS doubt evolution!
...because if anyone doubts evolution, he’s NOT a REAL SCIENTIST!
Because NO REAL SCIENTISTS doubt evolution!
Now get that through your head!
< /s >
Dude, don’t you know?
NO REAL SCIENTISTS thinks the earth is flat!
...because if anyone thinks the earth is flat, he’s NOT a REAL SCIENTIST!
Because NO REAL SCIENTISTS thinks the earth is flat!
Now get that through your head!
Fixed it.
“The current evolutionary theory has been turn into nothing more than a religious cult...”
Current evolutionary theory is rarely understood by those attacking it, and they find it easier to attack if they present its adherents as being the same as nonthinking acceptors of religious doctrine. They are, after all, very familiar with those sorts of people.
“Fixed it.”
Yes, that you did.
If by “fixed it” you mean “made an ass of yourself.”
It’s been 150 years. You lost. Get over it. Only wimps and Al Gore ask for endless do overs.
The Grand High Inquisitor speaks.
Interesting that you should bring up Inquisitions.
Talking with religious fanatics like you always tends to bring up that subject.
It just supports my statement that I’ve never communicated with an atheist who wasn’t a condescending arrogant ass.
I guess it goes with the territory - how can you claim with absolute certainty that there is no God and NOT be arrogant.
Conversely, of those atheists turned believers, not one of them has stated any reasons for being an atheist other than as a justification for a narcissistic lifestyle.
Well, there y’go. I invariably wonder what cherished aspect of lifestyle would have to change if God’s reality were admitted. Often it’s sexual. At root, it’s simply autonomy. If there is a God, the atheist isn’t him, and that’s a problem.
Just look on this thread and other evo/cre threads I'm sure you'll find enough "source" to build a mountain.
“If” God is real,
they are intellectually honest enough to understand that there are some HUGE implications requiring changing certain aspects of life or facing some big consequences.
So, better to deny His existance and go on being god yourself.
Same bones, different stories...
“Intelligent Design” is just Creationism (of the Judeo-Christian Bible) in new clothes. This wardrobe change is the result of U.S. courts’ hostility to Judeo-Christianity, and their “establishment” through judicial fiat, of Secularism/Evolution as the “established” religion of the government (in total defiance of the First Amendment).
All the Ben Stein movie did, was point this out... and expose bottom line, evoluton really has no answers... only speculations. Speculations that book no dissent! (now we wait for evolutionists to stomp their feet and say “does too”!)
Did you know that according to the US (leftist) court system,
that Secular Humanism IS a religion for free exercise purposes,
but NOT a religion for establishment purposes
???
Talk about having it both ways.
Well yes. Being burned for heresy hurts a lot more than being denied tenure.
This is a good point you make. I'm not attacking evolution other than I don't believe the way it's currently taught out of textbooks and by extremist is correct.
I'm just saying it's been turned into a religious cult by fanatics.
The simple fact is one "species" evolving into another "species" has never happened as defined by the religious fanatics of evolution.
I see you have a PhD in non-sequitur.
The topic is the movie, Expelled, in case you didn't notice. Explain the non-sequitur.
What have to do with burning anyone?
(This, btw, is your last chance to indicate any ability to hold an adult conversation on an actual topic.)
Imagine my surprise that you would wander into a thread completely ignorant of the topic and begin bloviating.
Failed.
Is there anyone who (in contrast to js1138) knows something of the issues, can process thoughts and facts; can keep hold of a line of reasoning; and can stick to the topic?
If you want to be taken seriously on FR, you will have to be willing to support your own "facts" with sources.
You are the one who brought the Inquisition into the discussion. If you can’t follow that to the topic of the Movie, Expelled, no one can help you.
Fixed it for you.
You think I'm kidding? Look on other FR, maybe not this one quite yet, evo/cre threads and see what pro-evos write. I'll admit I'm not anywhere near scientifically trained, but I know enough to understand no species has ever been observed evolving into another entirely different species.
Do you deny that is the going theory, "scientific" I might add.
What's the point in believing a certain religion if it's not the universal truth?
Ring species are observed diverging. One species becoming two in front of our eyes.
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Ring_species.asp
Pure ignorance. Good luck with that.
Yes, but are frogs seen turning into sparrows?
Are we not men?
We are DEVO!
Suppose it shouldn’t surprise me that the best you have to offer is not thought, but “aping” thought.
A perfect example of an infantile response. If anything your statemnt should prove to you that us humans didn’t know jack, and we still don’t know jack. Learn your history. It is a primary example why the church should not be entwined wiht the government.
What you guys are so afraid of is a loss of your strangle hold on science. No critical thinking allowed! Get in lockstep! You fail again and again as you mock to realize that most all of our scientific discoveries have been made by believers in God. The recent developement of athiest rule in science is just that, a recent developemnt.
So recent that it is only in the head of Creationists who don’t like Science and ascribe atheism to any whose findings contradict that which they hold because of their interpretation of Scripture.
The majority of Scientists in the US are people of faith; yesterday, today and tomorrow.
It's been 27 years since a creationist was asked, under oath to cite a research paper written by a creationist, submitted to a peer reviewed publication, and rejected. We're still waiting for someone who does research in creation science or ID to show a research paper that was submitted and rejected. There are several ID friendly on-line journals that have requested submissions, but so far, none have published papers.
Worth repeating in big red letters.
Is it possible that someone could be an atheist because he doesn't see any evidence for the supernatural?
Only possible if you willfully do not look.
If you're honest, you'd look into some of the research done by Lee Stroebel, but I doubt that you want to. The consequences would be that you'd have to give up something that you really don't want to, like some guy who surrounds himself with fellow "intellectual atheists". He wouldn't seek to find out if there was a Creator, because the implications would be devastating to his comfort zone.
I went to www.leestroebel.com and watched his video on debating the existance of God. His "proof" is that "All cultures have religions" and that "we search for God; have a need for God"; and "life would have no meaning without God"
Obviously, these are simply unsupported opinions. He doesn't even consider an alternative explanation. Intelligent animals have a drive for knowledge called curiosity. Like hunger and thirst, our bodies require knowlege for us to be content. It is what you would expect from evolution. A powerful mind would be wasted without curiosity. Those without curiosity would not learn and would die off. Those with curiosity would thrive and reproduce.
Religion is a primitive way of understanding the universe, and before science, it worked pretty well. A priest would notice that people got sick when eating pork. Being a priest, he would think it was because God gets angry when you eat pork, so he say' "Thou shalt not eat pork!. It worked!
Unfortunately, it doesn't always work. During the middle ages, 1/3 to 1/2 of Europe died from the Black Death. Priests and popes considered that God was obviously angry so they declared war on heretics. As a result thousands more died in the crusades and the inquisition. People still died from the plague however. Imagine how different the world would be if they had science. Antibiotics cures plague.
All cultures have religions simply because cultures without religions (before science) broke apart and faded away. It is cultural evolution at work
Is life meaningless without God? No, life is what it is either way. Do religious people not eat, drink, have sex, strive for status in life? Sure they do, because they are animals just like all of the other animals. Finding meaning is foolish anyway. Strobel says that the meaning of life is to worship God. So God created us to worship Him? God has needs? God needs worship? What meaning does God's life have then? His life must be horrible.
Attempting to understanding evolution requires study. Actually comprehending evolution requires a certain minimum level of knowledge-base and intelligence. Some people are simply not equipped for the task. For them, religion is the answer. Believing in God is easy because everyone is allowed to define what God is in their own minds. God can be anything you want Him to be. Like liberals need soldiers to exist. The religious need scientists to survive. The Pope didn't sit on the sidewalk and pray to be healed when he was shot. He went to the hospital.
Everything can be explained through natural selection and evolution. This includes, your hunger for God, the existance of religion, and your need for meaning in life.
One video...
Suppose there’s more to his argument than is in the one video.
For some reason, he felt compelled to do the work necessary to write several books. And fortunately, these are also on CD.
Case for a Creator
Case for Faith
Case for Christ
On thing to remember, he started out as an atheist reporter seeking to justify his belief system. His opinions, in a short video, could be dismissed as “unsupported”, but he interviews numerous scholars on both sides of the issue that give detailed support for the positions that he espouses.
You might choose not to pursue the topic further, and that’s your choice (you have Free Will to choose God or not), and your long winded post, to me, is simply trying to justify your belief system. As one of the interviewees stated - often the surface arguments and objections to Faith are simply a cover for a bigger, harder reason to reject following God.
You dismiss religion and faith as less intellectual than evolution, as evolution requires study. Do you think understanding the Creator requires less study? I have found out that it does not, and rightly so.
Do a though experiment, like Einstein did to come to his conclusions.
Ask yourself the question, “what would I have to give up in my life if I choose to believe in the Christian God of Creation?”.
You might find where your real resistance is, if you really want to determine that... again, free will - choose or reject - He gives you that choice.
Actually the inqusisition was a response to Martin Luther, and the Crusades were a response to the Islamic expansions and occupation of the Holy Lands. I've never read that the Crusades were fought to combat the plague.
Intellectual integrity
If I approach the quest honestly looking for truth, not comfort, why would I choose "Christian" solutions? There are many religions and many creation myths. Without scientific evidence, I would probably choose the religion of my parents true or not.
I see no evidence of the supernatural. Gods, saints, miracles, ghosts and angels are supernatural. I do not see why reading Stroebel further would help. His methodology is flawed; he appeals to emotion, not critical thinking. All of his arguments get down to "I believe so you believe".
I assert that you are not approaching the quest honestly looking for the truth if you refuse to pursue the reasoning in the backup material.
You’re judging from a 20 minute or less video. The backup material is not there, we both know it. Why not look at the backup material?
You’re still blocking - the “intellectual integrity” argument is a smokescreen.
Would you lose friends? Would you be ridiculed? Are you engaging in some behavior you’d have to give up?
Good luck to you in your choice to actually honestly pursue the truth, or to willfully reject that pursuit - it’s your free will.
To clarify, the backup material is “not there” - in the video.
But it is in his books. Historical evidence, archeological evidence, cosmological evidence, fullfilled prophecies, etc.
Other religions don’t hold up under this evidence, so the existance of other religions doesn’t negate the truth of one of the religions, as you seem to be implying.
But, you can refuse to look at it. That would protect your intellectual integrity - or something else, as it were.
Plague’s Contribution to the Spanish Inquisition
http://entomology.montana.edu/historybug/YersiniaEssays/Doherty.htm
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.
