I have discovered the true identiy of zzzzzzzzzzzz. zzz is really dr. d. they think alike:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNZCcTcOPV0&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNZCcTcOPV0&mode=related&search=
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
If a child is asked what is 1+1, and the child says "2" the child has been indoctrinated, just as much as if a child had said all answers come from "Jesus."Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Oh, I quite agree that certain premises must be taken on faith.
The proofs and/or conclusions though, should not be taken on faith, they should be taken as speculative and not worthy of dogmatically indoctrinating children into them.
Again, if a child is asked who their ancestors are, and the child says "apes" the child has been indoctrinated, just as much as if a child had said he came from "Jesus."
The correct response actually is "I don't know" but so and so believes __________ and I have accepted that on faith.
We don't need children to be indoctrinated into a faith in schools, we need to have them learn critical thinking, then derive their own faith, be it agnostic faith, theistic faith, or atheistic faith.
The parents of children have the right to offer their faith to children, but not the school systems funded by public money.
The correct response actually is "I don't know" but so and so believes ___it is 2_______ and I have accepted that on faith.
We don't need children to be indoctrinated into math in schools, we need to have them learn critical thinking, then derive their own math, be it agnostic math, theistic math, or atheistic math.
The parents of children have the right to offer their math to children, but not the school systems funded by public money.
Obviously there are premises of Holy Scripture contrary to the math faith, for one example (or is that 2 )
I Chronicles 3:22....
"The sons of Shemaiah: Huttush, Igal, Bariah, Neriah, and Shaphat, six.".. Here God is telling us that 1+1+1+1+1 = 6. Of course close minded secular mathists will say the answer is supposed to be 5.
But when all is said and done, those dyed in the wool mathematitionists have to admit the science of math is in crisis and actually the word "math" is a secular acknowledgement that "Goddiditall".
There is but one God which are in fact 3: Their names is Jesus.
Please show the mathematical formula that shows ignorant chance is the origin of man...
You comparing the field of mathematics, full of precision, to guesswork of Darwinists is quite humorous.
You comparing the field of mathematics, full of precision, to guesswork of Darwinists is quite humorous.
Quote from stu:
If a child is asked what is 1+1, and the child says "2" the child has been indoctrinated, just as much as if a child had said all answers come from "Jesus."
The correct response actually is "I don't know" but so and so believes ___it is 2_______ and I have accepted that on faith.
We don't need children to be indoctrinated into math in schools, we need to have them learn critical thinking, then derive their own math, be it agnostic math, theistic math, or atheistic math.
The parents of children have the right to offer their math to children, but not the school systems funded by public money.
Obviously there are premises of Holy Scripture contrary to the math faith, for one example (or is that 2 )
I Chronicles 3:22....
"The sons of Shemaiah: Huttush, Igal, Bariah, Neriah, and Shaphat, six.".. Here God is telling us that 1+1+1+1+1 = 6. Of course close minded secular mathists will say the answer is supposed to be 5.
But when all is said and done, those dyed in the wool mathematitionists have to admit the science of math is in crisis and actually the word "math" is a secular acknowledgement that "Goddiditall".
There is but one God which are in fact 3: Their names is Jesus.
I too am anti dogma, which is why it needs to be understood that repeated claims that the origin of man is from ignorant chance is just that...dogma. Were it repeated by theists, or atheists, or scientists, or artists, would make it no less of a dogma.
Main Entry: dog·ma
Pronunciation: 'dog-m&, 'däg-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural dogmas also dog·ma·ta /-m&-t&/
Etymology: Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem -- more at DECENT
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet
No test to rule out ID, no test to prove non-ID, leaves dogmatically believing in the basic and essential foundation of non-ID as fully resting on a guess, nothing less...
It becomes even more clear when the so called proponents of science run away from critical thinking, shudder at the thought that ID, not non ID should be at the heart of their belief systems.
Aren't the theists supposed to be the irrational, emotional ones?
In fact, without the constant pounding of ignorant chance, ignorant chance, ignorant chance...the mind naturally goes to what it sees, which is design.
This is not like some discovery of the sun not actually revolving around the earth which put the flat earthers back into silence. There is no discover, no observation, that actually yields any fact of ignorant chance...it is just a dogma, a belief system that is projected onto nature.
Why is it then when the very heart of their origin of man theory, which is derived from a concept of ignorant chance....when this belief system is challenged that they all go so apeshit?
Evidence that they are actually descended from apes, not so far removed....perhaps.
How about we do this:
How about suspending pushing any belief systems onto our children in the public school systems until such time that they are wise enough to determine for themselves though a process of critical thinking and their own life experience, what it is that they want to believe.
Leave the dogma to the churches, politicians, sports fanatics et. al and let the public schools for children to teach what we can actually prove, okay?
Main Entry: dog·ma
Pronunciation: 'dog-m&, 'däg-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural dogmas also dog·ma·ta /-m&-t&/
Etymology: Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem -- more at DECENT
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet
No test to rule out ID, no test to prove non-ID, leaves dogmatically believing in the basic and essential foundation of non-ID as fully resting on a guess, nothing less...
It becomes even more clear when the so called proponents of science run away from critical thinking, shudder at the thought that ID, not non ID should be at the heart of their belief systems.
Aren't the theists supposed to be the irrational, emotional ones?
In fact, without the constant pounding of ignorant chance, ignorant chance, ignorant chance...the mind naturally goes to what it sees, which is design.
This is not like some discovery of the sun not actually revolving around the earth which put the flat earthers back into silence. There is no discover, no observation, that actually yields any fact of ignorant chance...it is just a dogma, a belief system that is projected onto nature.
Why is it then when the very heart of their origin of man theory, which is derived from a concept of ignorant chance....when this belief system is challenged that they all go so apeshit?
Evidence that they are actually descended from apes, not so far removed....perhaps.
How about we do this:
How about suspending pushing any belief systems onto our children in the public school systems until such time that they are wise enough to determine for themselves though a process of critical thinking and their own life experience, what it is that they want to believe.
Leave the dogma to the churches, politicians, sports fanatics et. al and let the public schools for children to teach what we can actually prove, okay?
Quote from Grant:
This is an impressive post â will run and run.
My apologies if I break the flow but if I may, I would like to add a few thoughts.
Appeals to authority are generally shitty rhetorical devices. In the current context, why should it be assumed that a scientist, eg physicist, has superior knowledge and thus credibility beyond his own field? Intellectual legitimacy is one thing but it doesnât follow its all encompassing (omniscient? Joke). Religion is metaphysics.
The fatuous counter-argument to a statement of non-belief â âCan you prove God doesnât exist?â â should not arise. The first question for proâs and antiâs should be, Is there a rational basis for this belief?
Re ID/Creationism vs Evolution. Iâm not sure why there is this dichotomy. Is it a question of which has the greater credibility? Is it a question of If one, then not the other? Does one disprove the other?
Letâs assume that evolutionary theory was suddenly declared rubbish, based on falsified and fraudulent data. Would that suddenly prove creationism is true? No, it wouldnât. Its status would remain - a belief system based on fantasy, myth and mis-information, with a political undercurrent.
By the way, Iâm not ant-religious, just anti-dogma.
Grant.
Quote from Grant:
The fatuous counter-argument to a statement of non-belief â âCan you prove God doesnât exist?â â should not arise. The first question for proâs and antiâs should be, Is there a rational basis for this belief?
...
Letâs assume that evolutionary theory was suddenly declared rubbish, based on falsified and fraudulent data. Would that suddenly prove creationism is true? No, it wouldnât. Its status would remain - a belief system based on fantasy, myth and mis-information, with a political undercurrent.
By the way, Iâm not ant-religious, just anti-dogma.
Grant.
First you state a "rational basis" should underlie debates, then you declare creationism "a belief system based on fantasy, myth and mis-information, with a political undercurrent" without establishing a rational basis for the assertion.
That hardly seems "anti-dogma" to me.
While we are on the subject of fantasy...
How about a theory that from non life, life suddenly and mysteriously appears...as if by magic.
So we have nothing but non life, i.e. rocks, atmosphere, water, earth, gravity, light, day, night, etc....but no living things.
Then suddenly, what exactly is it that mutates into the first form of life? Why? A form that is entirely different than what it came from, i.e. having life, a living thing, a survival instinct, needing materials external to itself to survive, a well defined lifespan, etc. suddenly appears from matter which has no such properties.
LMAO...
Do we even see examples of non life spontaneously randomly mutating at all? See any rocks producing life? Any life coming from 100% pure H20? From the sky? From fire? From any element, or combination of elements just sitting in a corner?
LOL...
Take the moon, it is assumed that no life exists there. Okay. Let's now imagine (imagination is big in the Darwinists way of thinking, absolutely necessary for its very existence and perpetuation) that we place the perfect atmosphere around the moon, that supports life. Exact same atmosphere here on earth, same gravity, same temperature, some basic raw materials...so when exactly does the moon suddenly and mysteriously produce biological organisms out of non living materials?
Oh man...
Are these gargantuan gaps in reason ignored, out of convenience? Or ignored out of ignorance? Or ignored by the design of those who are atheistic...
Hey Darwinists, why not just tell everyone that your ancestors are lifeless rocks...shoot, the way scientists have been deified, the non thinkers will accept anything they say as true...
Rocks in their heads, perhaps...
How about a theory that from non life, life suddenly and mysteriously appears...as if by magic.
So we have nothing but non life, i.e. rocks, atmosphere, water, earth, gravity, light, day, night, etc....but no living things.
Then suddenly, what exactly is it that mutates into the first form of life? Why? A form that is entirely different than what it came from, i.e. having life, a living thing, a survival instinct, needing materials external to itself to survive, a well defined lifespan, etc. suddenly appears from matter which has no such properties.
LMAO...
Do we even see examples of non life spontaneously randomly mutating at all? See any rocks producing life? Any life coming from 100% pure H20? From the sky? From fire? From any element, or combination of elements just sitting in a corner?
LOL...
Take the moon, it is assumed that no life exists there. Okay. Let's now imagine (imagination is big in the Darwinists way of thinking, absolutely necessary for its very existence and perpetuation) that we place the perfect atmosphere around the moon, that supports life. Exact same atmosphere here on earth, same gravity, same temperature, some basic raw materials...so when exactly does the moon suddenly and mysteriously produce biological organisms out of non living materials?
Oh man...
Are these gargantuan gaps in reason ignored, out of convenience? Or ignored out of ignorance? Or ignored by the design of those who are atheistic...
Hey Darwinists, why not just tell everyone that your ancestors are lifeless rocks...shoot, the way scientists have been deified, the non thinkers will accept anything they say as true...
Rocks in their heads, perhaps...
On these last few pages there is a false dichotomy that keeps returning.
The universe can be designed and there still be evolution.
Evolution does not rule out a creator either.
The questions how did this universe arise?
What caused the big bang.
For that answer you have a choice,
1. We do not know.
2. We do not know but it looks designed.
3. well it looks designed but there are really billions of universes so we have no indicatioin that we have a designer.
Only those who do no understand the current state of science pretend that an athiest has a more rational postion than a person who believes in a creator.
The universe can be designed and there still be evolution.
Evolution does not rule out a creator either.
The questions how did this universe arise?
What caused the big bang.
For that answer you have a choice,
1. We do not know.
2. We do not know but it looks designed.
3. well it looks designed but there are really billions of universes so we have no indicatioin that we have a designer.
Only those who do no understand the current state of science pretend that an athiest has a more rational postion than a person who believes in a creator.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Or ignored by the design of those who are atheistic...
This is closest to the truth.
The body itself is a design by that part of the Mind that wishes to see itself as separate from the One. It is designed with eyes that cannot actually see anything...ears that hear but cannot actually hear anything. If it had a purpose, it was to to seek and not find. The body is an effect of a causing belief. Thus, while in a body, you would not expect much seeking except to seek more "proof" of separation from the One. It's seeming existence depends on maintaining an illusion as long as possible...forever if it could. It is part of an identity that "man" is separated from the One, and it is this "man" that cannot see the face of God and "live". Mental gymnastics were used to design such an illusion, and mental gymnastics are used to maintain an illusion. The design originates from the powers of the Mind that is one with the One...in an attempt to use such powers "privately". What a joke!
The body is "ok", since all things are allowed in the Kingdom of God. But it is not the Truth. It is a temporary device in which love is denied, only to find that it can only fail to deny love. There is a certain joy in rediscovering who you are, and all in bodies will remember, eventually. The joy is magnified when the sleep has been so deep. At this stage, there are those who wish to awaken, and those who wish to keep on sleeping for a while "longer"...that is all.
Religions that would maintain the illusion of separation of "man" from the One...are simply another choice for maintaining the illusion. It is vanity to use the word "God" just to maintain separation from such a One. It is but a different choice within the same illusion.
Jesus