Skip to comments.Intelligent Design Scientists Will Showcase Evidence Challenging Evolution
Posted on 03/13/2007 12:35:30 PM PDT by truthfinder9
click here to read article
So you are just a troll?
LOL! Good one! It just shows the problems of the pioneerng days, when educated clergy were in short supply and lay people picked up a Bible and just went nuts.
No, he was against the book of Genesis... the eugenic breeding programs are evidence of this all in themselves. Der Fuhrer was a Teutonic pagan...
Evolution is open to scientific debate. And, as in any scientific dscipline, the cutting edge is where the debate is concentrated. The problem are scientifically illeterate creationists who want to question evolution, but can't get the basic science right first. The same can be said of any theory. The theory of gravity, quantum theory, general and special relativity, atomic theory, etc., are all unproven and open for discussion.
More accurately, heHitler warped science and religion to fit his own insanity. But his arguements were based in that twisted religion he synthesized from elements of Christianity and paganism.
More accurate... yes... thank-you...
The big question is that with all of his hyped superiority, why didn't der Fuhrer ever produce children?
Ditto for evolution. What's your falsifiable hypothesis for the theory that you were vomited from muck?
Believers in compassion, charity, brotherhood and love must also understand that these attributes are most possible and most practiced and appreciated in Western monocultural societies, not muticultural ones.
We Christian Eropean-Americans are in a struggle for our heritage, culture, freedom and very existence, and the anti-Christians are our enemies. Evolution is anti-Christian.
Do you happen to shave your head?
The irony, lost on you I'm sure, is that the anti-evolution screed du jour is that those who accept the legitimacy of the theory of evolution are racists. Well, thanks anyway for providing a nice counter-point to that specious argument.
He was a socialist. Therefore it's another do as I say, not as I do excuse?
I haven't posted on a creationist thread in eons because they all end up being the same after a while and descend into name calling. There are two logical positions one can take in this debate:
1) The Atheist approach, where evolution is correct because it is the best explanation without invoking a creator.
2) The Theist approach where you believe that the creator set everything up as it is, and we are just learning some of the workings of the creation, and evolution is a part of that.
Unfortunately, on these threads, you often get people in untenable logical positions, largely based on ignorance of science, evidence, peer review, and a host of other things. So, you get people in these positions:
3) Earth is 6000 years old because the bible says so. Pretty hard to support your position on this one unless all known scientific data is wrong.
4) Evolution is a conspiracy to wipe out Christianity. Why is it never a conspiracy to wipe out Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism, or Islam, or Taoism, or Shintoism? Could it be that not all these religions are incompatible with evolution?
5) Evolution is a religion, and has priests and acolytes. Religion has stifled science at the point of a spear for centuries(witness the dark ages). You can't have it both ways and laud the achievements of science in technology, medicine, geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, but then say on the other hand that all of that is based on a false belief, and therefore that airplanes can't possibly fly because evolution is false, can you? Some people do. They somehow seem to think that evolution is not supported by geology, astrophysics, biology, chemistry, archeology, paleontology, oceanography, anthropology, or any other branch of science and somehow stands on its own as a belief system. Does that mean that all those other disciplines, and any advances they have made, are all wrong or based on falsehoods? Or does it mean that Evolution is a better religion than Creationism, since it is based on ideas that have saved millions of lives and made our day to day living easier?
6)One of Evolution or Religion has to be wrong. Why? why can't they coexist, and have religion be about the stuff we don't know(the afterlife, the creation, etc.) and have science be about what we do know(what can see, find, or discover about the world we live in)? Yet, some people are apparently so thinly attached to their religion that if evolution was proved beyond a doubt, than to them, their religion would become invalid. So, evolution is a threat to them personally, and they get mad and hostile whenever a religiously believed item is even remotely questioned.
I'm sure there are others, but these are the main ones I always see. The other thing I don't like a creationists in general(not to pick on anyone specific) is the loose use of terminology to buck up their position. The people at this presentation being referred to as "scientists" for instance. Only Behe is a scientist(when he's researching and publishing in peer reviewed journals), the rest are philosophers and theologists, and that's only going by their degrees. I don't believe a doctor of Philosophy and Theology has any real background in science, only rhetoric and colorful arguments.
Anyway, that's just where I stand.
In most cases that is because the layman who opposes uses "theory" as almost the opposite of "fact" or "proved."
We have seen many on these threads who say, "Evolution is just a theory" as if to say, "There is no evidence for it; now if it was was a proven fact then you'd have something!"
This is why I post my list of definitions periodically.
"By the church, correct?! To support religious doctrine, the church and true believers attacked the scientists talking about observed fact."
What 'observed fact' is that and what is the observation that proves it?
You obviously do not know the difference between a scientist and a clergyman.
Looks like they've got one scientist anyway.
But Dr. Behe has already admitted that he believes in evolution and said, under oath, that ID requires no facts.
What's falsifiable about evolution?
Fallacy of Composition, but it was a nice one.
I don't care how He made us....whether through evolution or otherwise...but I always wonder what evolutionists think about how everything started. What or Who "created" or "evolved" out of nothingness? How does something come from nothing? What was the genesis of the chemicals in the "primordial soup" (pre-big bang and before that)? Evolution does not explain the beginning of everything and that is why I believe it does not explain away God or is "anti-Christian".
Fallacy of the biased sample, but another good one.