Skip to comments.Using Religion to Suppress Debate on Evolution
Posted on 03/30/2009 8:31:35 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
click here to read article
“Zelots are often not willing to accept any contrary evidence as it threatens their religion.”
Don’t be so hard on yourself!
==Im not supprised. Zelots are often not willing to accept any contrary evidence as it threatens their religion.
Speaking of zeolots!
Charles Darwin zealots have made science a substitute religion
Christopher Booker is troubled by the fervour surrounding the 200-year anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth.
Can you believe it. They are actually asking students to weight the evidence for and against. How unscientific of them!
Welcome to FR....
“Faith is outside the domain of scientific inquiry. Science does not analyze the mind of God. Why does a minority of Christians persist in this line of attack on reason?”
Because evolutionists continue to insist that faith in Christ and evolution are perfectly compatible. Tell me that you believe in evolution and that you have faith as a separate issue and I might be able to purchase that plot of land... but compatible? Come on. Only insomuch as evolution is a religion for the secularist believer.
“Because evolutionists continue to insist that faith in Christ and evolution are perfectly compatible.”
They are. Evolution may not be compatible with a literal reading of the bible, however. So, a minority of Christian literalists establish a Christian litmus test, and the first item on the checklist regards one’s position on the bible. If you’re not a literalist, then you’re not a Christian, so they believe.
Where are the millions of transitionary species? [excerpt]
This is just another version of "Could God create a rock so big that he couldn't lift it?"
The answers are "no" because they are both nonsense statements.
“your soulmate GGG”
Lordy, lordy, Buck. You’re such a dork.
Anyway... I’m not so interested in the various musings of “scientific” minds with grant money to spend. I get what evolution is supposed to be. But it does strain your faith if you look at it from a logical standpoint, doesn’t it? Just take the time to think in your mind what transitions there would be or explain to me in your own words how they could possibly NOT exist. I haven’t followed this stuff enough to know the colors of fowl folks toss around. It’s just plain common sense... I don’t trust in faith when it comes to the natural world as you have been taught to do. I use my eyes, ears and the evidence that is there.
You have learned to only trust science as it is sold to you, not as it in fact exists. Buy the line if you want or maybe take the time to think it through. As you said, “Bottom line: I really dont care.”
==Im not supprised. Zelots are often not willing to accept any contrary evidence as it threatens their religion.
Speaking of zealots (pt 2)!!!
In 2005 online magazine Edge The World Question Centre posed the following question to a number of scientific intellectuals: What do you believe is true even though
you cannot prove it? Dawkins revealingly answered: I believe that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all design anywhere in the universe, is the direct or
indirect product of Darwinian natural selection.’
Good catch... I missed this was a newbie.
Indeed, welcome Phileleutherus Franciscus!
You here to discuss conservative politics too or are you just hanging out here to play tag with the “creationists”?
I answer your questions, you brush my answers away with a red-faced wave of the hand, and then you call me a name. I’ll let the moderators decide if they want to let that stand.
You’re a model creationist.
==Bottom line: I really dont care.
I noticed that too. I could have titled that quote “Zealot Pt. 3”!
“They are. Evolution may not be compatible with a literal reading of the bible, however. So, a minority of Christian literalists establish a Christian litmus test, and the first item on the checklist regards ones position on the bible. If youre not a literalist, then youre not a Christian, so they believe.
I’m sorry... were you talking? I dozed off.
Good night you all sound alike! That’s uncanny (”without can” for those laymen out there without an evolutionary dictionary).
There's a Nobel Prize waiting for you as soon as you find that fossil rabbit in the Cambrian. [excerpt]Anyone who found hard evidence that contradicted the established dogma would be immediately vilified and discredited by any and all means.
THAT WAS IT!!!
Hey, I’m a believer now...
Oh please, don't argue from the "who's a bigot" line because you'll lose.
More people have suffered at the hands of evolutionary atheists than all the Christian, Jewish, Bhuddist and yes Muslim religionists combined (admittedly many nasty examples among them).
Stalin--40 milion dead
Mao Tse-Tung--40 million dead
Pol Pot --2 million dead
Kim Il Sung ---5 million dead
Plus the work of 20 other lesser lights.
Please add up the numbers on the other side
............Where's the list???
If I get zotted for calling you a dork so be it. I’m tired of you guys (look at the company you keep) calling us simpletons, morons and every other name in the book. You paint us with a broad brush and lump us together in the same mold while you all talk out of the same evolutionist handbook.
There ain’t no red-face on this side, but I do have an argument if you’d be so kind as to use the grey-matter God gave you.
And you have to admit... the soul-mate comment was dorky. So report me. I love the site, but I’ll stand for what’s right.
“In these times of Obamanation, I should hope that finding a way to promote freedom, the Constitution, and patriotism would be far more important than the silly disagreements with people who lack even a basic understanding of biology, geology, astrophysics, physics, and chemistry.”
You just got my vote. Discussion on... (after I go sleep for a while)
A minority of Chrisitian literalists? Where have you been?
|Belief system>||Creationist view||Theistic evolution||Naturalistic Evolution|
|God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.||Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.||Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.|
“Besides, I don’t know anyone in their right mind who would want a prize from the same crooks who gave Al Gore a prize.
I thought you said good night...
And reading your sweeping generalizations about “the company I keep”, you’re on awfully thin ice when you take offense at the “broad brush”.
A fine Christian.
If I get zotted for calling you a dork so be it. [excerpt]You probably won't get zotted for that, but I wouldn't make a habit of that sort of thing.
I’m sorry—is that from New Scientist?
What’s the underlying correlation between literalists and belief in the sample? That was, after all, my point.
Finally, I refer you to your own thread, and my post therein:
I know, I know... I’m not a Christian because I disagree with you and the other folks like you. My apologies for not being asleep yet.
My point, though you’re probably too bruised to get it is that the other people who believe like you do slam those who believe like I do on a site that is run by Christian conservatives. The people who run the site let us have our little debates with little interference and that lends itself to abuse by folks who just want to stir the creation crowd up here. I decided not to play nice anymore with those people that do just stir it. If you got caught in the crossfire, I apologize. There are some honest evolutionists here who try to have good discussion and you seem to be one of them.
I’m not going to stop adamantly defending what I believe though. And as soon as you claim to know and follow the scripture in any part I take the gloves off. I’m not the smartest guy in the world but for the most part I know what I believe and I will fight for it.
In my humble opinion Christianity is under attack from all sides in this country today... if there are those who would declare war on it, I will stand against them. If there are those who don’t like my brand of fighting I’m really sorry there... I’ll pray God will show me if I’m doing it wrong.
I won’t take advice from those who call the Word of God in its entirety allegory, though. If you fall into that category... oh well.
No it’s a compilation of national polls. The number goes way up when you just count people who regularly attend church.
Still fairly new... I appreciate the word.
You’re not claiming that those despots were driven to genocide because they believed in evoloution are you?
You might equally reasonably conclude that they did so because they were male, or had dark hair.
You’re right. Any decent “creation science” curriculum has to include at least a week on the “evolutionists are nazi-commie-murderers” theme. As you think of more, let me know.
Don’t worry, you’ll do fine.
It is at best an approximation, but any dating of fossils or artifacts beyond about 45,000 years had to be done by some method other than carbon dating. Other elements have radio isotopes with much long half-lives that are more reliable for dating older samples. Carbon-14 is useful in dating organic samples within that 45,000 year range, since all organic samples contain carbon. There are cases where it has produced odd results, but hopefully you can see why we find those inconsistencies. You have to decide if it's really warranted to say that those few samples in the thousands or millions of instances of carbon dating that have been done really warrant disallowing it as a method of estimating the age of fossils or artifacts.
Earth age estimates are made based on examination of Uranium samples. Uranium goes through a process that takes billions of years on it's way to becoming lead.
We've heard that line before, retread.
All that evos would do would reclassify that rabbit as a living fossil and announce to the world that mammal evolution has been pushed back several million years because now there's evidence that it happened earlier than we thought.
That's because evos worship science and intellectualism above all. They seem to honestly believe that any objection to the ToE is due to a deficiency of intellectual ability.
You hear comments of *go back to school and learn what you're talking about*. The implication is that the evidence for the ToE is so overwhelming that if you simply knew it, then of course you'd believe as they do; you couldn't help yourself.
They don't understand that there are people who can think out of the little materialistic naturalist box that they've crammed themselves into and don't buy the brainwashing necessary to think that all of this could have just happened on its own.
So, to them the greatest insult going is to insult one's intelligence, hence the pejorative of "cretard" and such affectionate terms.
What does "wildly inaccurate" mean? If I give you a list of 50 examples of particular medical test producing results that resulted in a misdiagnosis, would it be reasonable to conclude from that the test is "wildly inaccurate", or would you want to know how many times the test was done and produced an accurate diagnosis for comparison before you started drawing conclusions?
My faith is verifiable and not falsifiable. Of course I don’t think you’d understand how since your faith appears not to be strong nor true. Science appears to be above faith in your mind.
One of the myriad reasons that my faith is verfiable and not falsifiable is the uniqueness and truthfulness of God’s Word - The Holy Bible. Just study some of the prophecy that has already been fulfilled and was written beforehand - say Psalm 22 - and try to use your scientific process to refute it.
YOU CAN’T, if you are truthful and accurate in your analysis. The supernatural trumps the natural order of things anytime God so desires.
“My faith is verifiable and not falsifiable.”
Then the conclusions that you draw from faith cannot be called science. Faith and science, though, coexist. Evolution and Christianity are prefectly compatible.
Only science should and will continue to be taught in science class.
On the Darwinist view, what's wrong with any of that?
Small changes, generation after generation, become large changes, except when they don't.
Good then lets get the religion/s of darwinsm, evolutionism, et al out of the science class room
Evolution is science. It is falsifiable. Can you say the same about creationism?
Evolution is fantasy, its evidences are conjectural, inferred, assumptions on top of assumptions, and thus are ephemeral.
More baloney. Communism comes from the Bible Communists of the 18th and 19th centuries. They simply followed Saint Thomas More's blueprint in Utopia.
Also evolution is a philosophy only to creationists. To people who actually studied it, it's simply the best description of what's lying around on the planet.
I see. And creationism is not?
First, I want to thank you for one of the first well thought out, intelligent, reasoned, non-confrontational answers I have received from an evolutionist on one of these threads.
Secondly, if we have those “few” examples of carbon dating gone wrong, how can the rest stand up to science? Are most of them not too old to have any verification of their age? What standard could scientists possibly use to prove the other “thousands of millions” are correct.
And last, “Uranium goes through a process that takes billions of years on it’s way to becoming lead.”
So now are we saying the earth is billions of years old? That’s the first I heard of that.
I believe when I confront them they get the mistaken impression I am offended, angry or somehow wounded... I have too much of a life for any of those emotions based on their opinions. I am just amazed at their arrogance and relentless attacks on Christianity.
I ran into a guy just like these folks the other day. I went to have a piece of glass cut and the owner was so vocal about politics I couldn’t keep my opinion to myself. He was red-faced and all but screaming at me because I disagreed with him. His sweet little wife just sat and listened. I did feel sorry for her. I finally had to tell the guy, “Look... I just came in here to buy a piece of glass from you not to be yelled at. I’m the customer here.”
His virulent anger made me wonder if it’s not something in the genes of a liberal atheist. It appeared he couldn’t help himself. But I believe we have the ability to control ourselves with God’s help.
About the dork comment... strangely enough I had to laugh a bit when I typed that. I said it very light-heartedly because that’s what he sounded like calling GGG and I soulmates. Like finding folks you agree with is a bad thing.
Isn’t that what FR is about?