--> The Cult of Evolution – the Opiate of the Atheists

NoDNC.com - STOP Democrat Corruption ^ | NoDNC.com Staff

[Hendrix]

"I also believe that God exists and that evolution is his (or its) way of doing things."

That sounds like another version of ID to me.

[Hendrix]

If it is so different, then post it. Theory is not fact. Theory is a best guess based on imperfect knowledge.

[CarrotAndStick]

For an atheist(more rather an agnostic), the very belief that his life is a result of the cumulative effects of chance happenings through antiquity, that he is extremely lucky to be a being, is reason enough to seek betterment of his life, and those of whom he cares of, so that he may enjoy for a longer while, what luck has befallen him.

To not know of what happens after his death, is reason enough to enjoy life when he is alive.

[Pete]

Yor premise seems to be a bit odd... that if their is no God, there is no purpose or reason to life. There was a long time before the Judeo Christian God came to be perceived, yet in early writings, ad those of cultures that do not include the concept, there seems to be no sign of such depressive attitude.

Not at all. The view I suggest seems to have been quite popular in the first half of the previous century.

Ultimately, for me to believe an atheist when he says his life has meaning and purpose would require a rigorous explanation fo the basis of such meaning and purpose.

[js1138]

OK, to spell it out a bit more clearly. It would seem to me that if scientists create life where none was before and where none exists without intervention, then that is a demonstration that intelligence creates life.

It demonstrates that humans can analyze and mimic a natural process.

The actual interpretation of your scenerio would depend on the specifics. Are the laboratory conditions consistent with known facts about the history of the earth?

Unfortunately, the details of earth's early history are erased by time. We probably cannot reconstruct anything better than a plausible scenerio that is not contradicted by known facts. That is not the same thing as knowing the actual history.

The study of other planets may give us information about what happens in various environments.

What I dislike about ID is that it denies the legitimacy of this kind of curiosity.

[Dinsdale]

It's been posted dozens of times on these forums.

That you have'nt followed a link and read says volumes about you.

[Hendrix]

There is no specific definition for "scientific theory" in the dictionary. If you think scientific theory is something more than an educated guess based on imperfect information, then I don't think you really understand the field of science. Science is a flawed study. It is not perfect, and a lot of its theories are flawed and not true. That is what is being glossed over here in this debate. Science is not perfect and it does not explain everything and a lot of what it has explained (in theories) is wrong, just as history has shown over and over again.

[woodb01]

Most of the arguments from that link seem to be along the lines of “it’s complicated…therefore God did it”. Is it too much to ask for something a little more specific?

---

How about this, ASSUMING that through some miracle of spontaneous accidental "evolution" a one-celled amoeba just "happened" to start existing, how did that amoeba, floating around in the primordial ooze, with no sensory mechanisms suddenly "decide" that it needed a spine? Or any nerve endings. Bumping into other objects with no sensation doesn't cause it...

Okay, the great god "oooze" of the primordial era said "let there be a spine!" and it was so... Or how about smell. A one celled entity does not have any sense of smell, or touch, or any other sense, and "miraculously" from the great god "oooze" of the primordial era all of the senses developed through "accidents."

And this is just the physical realm, it does absolutely NOTHING to address the composition of thought processes, emotional processes, reason, or sentience [sp?].

Amazingly, just as was predicted, none of the substance is being addressed, only the silly religious rants from evolutionists that everyone must bow at the alter of rejecting intelligent design is done...

How about explaining some of the "accidents" that created the senses? Then again, the more I debate evolution, the more convinced I am that it is totally, absolutely, and completely a secular fundamental religious belief. There is no reason and no science to it. It is a theory that can not stand up to scrutiny and only creates fundamentalist backlash from evolutionary zealots.

ANTI-DNC Web Portal at ---> http://www.noDNC.com

[Pete]

For an atheist(more rather an agnostic), the very belief that his life is a result of the cumulative effects of chance happenings through antiquity, that he is extremely lucky to be a being, is reason enough to seek betterment of his life, and those of whom he cares of, so that he may enjoy for a longer while, what luck has befallen him.

Your proposition seems to assume that existence is preferable to non-existence. What is the basis for that preference?

You talk about "those of whom he cares of"? Wouldn't a man of science recognized those feelings of "love" as nothing more than evolutionary mutations.

Also, what is "luck"? Is it satient?

[adorno]

We're talking about events before the Big Bang. "Before the Big Bang" is a meaningless construct - time started with the Big Bang. There is no "before".

It it very pretentious and 'all-knowing' and pure nonsense to state that there was nothing before the big bang. Neither you nor anyone else has seen what was before the big bang to be able to tell us that there actually was nothing. And, there isn't or never has been a scientist that could claim that there wasn't anything before the big bang.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You can spin it all you want, but a theory is not a fact. If you don't know that, then you really don't know much."

Saying something is *just a theory* shows how little you know about science. Theories are as high as it gets. The Theory of Universal Gravity, the Theory of Relativity... no more or less scientific then The Theory of Evolution. Flippantly saying something is *just a theory* means you really don't know much.

NO theories in science have been proved, it isn't about proof, but about evidence and support for a theory.

[From many - one.]

I don't go by what people say; I go by what they do.


Too many of the self-identified Christians I see on these threads are dishonest, use epithets in describing those with different views, and, most shocking to me, one even boasted about shaking the faith of someone else. Yes, I'd ping them if I remembered who. Maybe someone can remind me.

[CarrotAndStick]

Science is, and has been, revised conclusions from observable facts, experiments and hypotheses.

Science is the best tool mankind has and will ever have.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

freepmail

[furball4paws]

"Your proposition seems to assume that existence is preferable to non-existence. What is the basis for that preference? "

Are you implying non-existence is preferable? You know, there's always an easy out if you think that.

[FostersExport]

I think we can only view one universe at a time, as, as I understand it, a different universe can have different laws of physics. I don’t claim to be an expert on this though, so take what I view with a pinch of salt.

Still, I guess there’d be more credence to the idea of big bang followed by big crunch followed by big bang, etc, if our current universe looked like it was heading for a big crunch. That is no longer the view, so beats me what was going on before the big bang. As someone else says, time started with the big bang, so the whole subject starts to give me a headache at this point :o)

[Hendrix]

If it has been posted, it is obvious that it is not any different than what I said or you would have posted it again to refute me. The bottom line is scientific theory is an educated guess based on imperfect knowledge, and no amount of spin form you changes that. Evolution is just a theory or guess from scientists based on imperfect information. That is a FACT.

[woodb01]

"So even the "design" of evolutionary tests requires "intelligent design"..."

You need to read exactly what I wrote a little closer. Notice I mentioned that scientists creating life would disprove the idea that ONLY God could create life. I had outthought your reply before you made it.

---

Touche on positing such a subtle nuance ;-)

On this point we agree :-)

[FostersExport]

But it has a whole lot more evidence than many other scientific theories. The gaps in the theory of evolution are overplayed by creationists and, more to the point, they don’t qualify as evidence for an alternative theory (yet).

[furball4paws]

Narby and Ellsie