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

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

[js1138]

:)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You speak of evolution as if it is a proven fact. It is not a fact. It is merely a scientific theory (or guess with a lot of flaws). The fact that you treat it as fact makes you look very ignorant to those of us that know it is not."

And everything you have posted has made you look very ignorant to those of us who know anything about what a scientific theory is.

[malakhi]

If you bothered to read, you would have seen that the IDers could care less if their theory is taught in public school.

They want the growing evidence against Darwinism to be presented

So there is no positive "theory" of ID (but we knew that already), only alleged "evidence" against "Darwinism".

So what is this evidence of which you speak?

[Hendrix]

They were the gases that existed before any life was created. There was some scientist at Berkley that tried to prove that the gases could have formed the basis for human life. I don't remember the specifics, but that was what science was claiming at the time. It may be nonsense now (I thought it was then), but that is what was being taught in public schools.

[bobhoskins]

Wouldn't it be fascinating to hear what Steven Jay Gould or Julian Huxley or even ol' Charles Darwin have to say about evolution now?

"Braaaaaaiiiiiiiinnnnnnnns!"

[ConservativeDude]

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. Your rebut is not on point.

"If we create silk in the laboratory, does that mean it isn't made by spiders? If we model the workings of a volcano in supercomputers, does that mean volcanos are designed?"

[FostersExport]

*Sigh* It’s not Just a guess. It is a theory backed by evidence. There’s plenty out there, you know.

Science never claims to be perfect, but it does have methods for filtering out much of the real garbage.

[general_re]

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".

[Hendrix]

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.

[Ben Chad]

The title alone makes me sigh good grief.

[furball4paws]

"In the long run, if people of faith are wrong, they are no worse off than the evolutionists. If, however, the atheistic evolutionists are wrong, they have a hell to pay."

This of course, is total BS. If the Creationists manage to theocratize the nation's schools, they will ruin the lives of millions of children and set back humanity hundreds of years. I'd say that that is a much more disastrous outcome than the "hell to pay" punishment of the immortal souls of a few evolutionists.

[From many - one.]

I know a few agnostics and an athiest. They are among thefinest, most idealistic folk I know.

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.

[CarrotAndStick]

One of the theories was precisely that- an essentially cyclic universe- the Big Bang followed by the Big Crunch- followed by the Big Bang- and so on. Something to do with String Theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillatory_universe

The theory has been revived in brane cosmology as the cyclic model, which evades most of arguments levelled against the oscillatory universe in the sixties. Despite some success, the theory is still controversial, largely because there is no satisfactory string theoretic description of the bounce in this model.

Look, I am not a physicist, and am in no way capable of defending what I don't know. I am of the opinion that Creationists are envious of the scientists, and are all out to prove them wrong, especially in subjects where they have no scratching knowledge of the proposed scientific explanations and arguments. Outright rejection without proper study is their motto, and it was popular in the Dark Ages too. I'd believe a creationist who can explain to me what the 'String Theory' is all about, and how gravity attracts mass, and how mass develops gravity.

[Pete]

But I see no evidence from actual atheists that atheism = nihilism. Their lives seem no less full of meaning and purpose than do those of theists.

Have they ever communicated to you the basis of their meaning and purpose? I am asking this question sincerely.

Don't you see that if we are merely products of evolution, then emotions (love, hate, envy, etc) as well as our efforts to improve our condition and our chance for survival are merely evolutionary processes and nothing more. To assign any meaning to loving someone or striving to invent a vaccine or even working to develop a food source to feed millions is nothing but folly. At that point, we are no different than that lion on the African plain who acts as if it actually makes a difference whether it procreates or not.

You say atheism does not equal nihilism. How can it not? Further, I would make the claim that any atheist who claims to have meaning and purpose in his or her life would, upon self-inspection, find an inconsistancy in his or her worldview.

[Hendrix]

The bottom line that it is a guess based on some evidence (I never said it was a blind guess; you inferred that to try to discredit me). Evolution is a scientific guess based on some evidence, but it has a lot of flaws. It is still not a fact, and when you speak of it as a proven fact, it makes you look ignorant. My dictionary defines "theory" as "an assumption or guess based on limited information or knowledge." That is what evolution is: a guess based on limited knowledge and information.

[furball4paws]

I agree. Some of my best friends live in horse manure. Nothing could live in this thread.

[WestVirginiaRebel]

I personally think these particular creationists in the article are a bunch of whackos. I also believe that God exists and that evolution is his (or its) way of doing things. If that makes me some kind of a heretic, then so be it. ID is the right's version of junk science.

[From many - one.]

Can you recall the evolutionary mechanism that involved gases?

I've never heard of such a thing and can't imagine how it would word.

Did a pre-ape inhale some kind of change-gas or what?

[adorno]

The Big Bang only really accounts for our 'current' universe.

Then you and I may be in agreement that the universe didn't begin with the Big Bang. There was definetely something there before the 'current universe'. But then, shouldn't everything that ever was, including time and the current and previous iterations and versions of the universe be called 'the universe'?

[Dinsdale]

You might want to look up 'scientific theory' in your dictionary.

It has a different meaning.