The lunacy of the Darwinists

Quote from kjkent1:

Yeah, it's just business. I'm bored, and Z is exactly like so many real world witnesses who think that they can avoid the truth by evading direct questioning. But, the more that he evades, the more he destroys his own credibility.

Not arguing the merits of one's position on the facts, is, in the end, a concession that one's position is unmeritorious.
More...

We now seem to have drifted into 'Natural' and 'Truth' argumentation.
That's OK, but few seem to understand that such things exist, independently of one being aware of it or not.
 
You compare chit chat to "real world witnesses."

More ROTFLMAO.....

Quote from kjkent1:

Yeah, it's just business. I'm bored, and Z is exactly like so many real world witnesses who think that they can avoid the truth by evading direct questioning. But, the more that he evades, the more he destroys his own credibility.

Not arguing the merits of one's position on the facts, is, in the end, a concession that one's position is unmeritorious.
More...
 
Glad you have conceded that you did not create the rules under which the universe operates.

By the way, do you know all the rules under which the universe operates?

Anyway....

There is this concept of God, that God is omnipresent.

Do you know what that means?

It means that God is everywhere. There is no place that God does not exist. God doesn't go anywhere, He is there. He doesn't need to get energy from somewhere else, He is unlimited energy himself.

He created the entire Universe out of Himself, yet He lacks the ability to create some finite energy at a finite point in finite time and finite space?

So does God have to go from waaaaaay over there to get to here?

Does God need to go to where the power is, grab this power, then drag it waaaaay over to the lab?

Exactly where is there a power shortage that you think God suffers from, that being omnipresent and omnipotent, God couldn't just influence the behavior of anything with His power?

Exactly where in the universe do we not have atomic structure? Where do we not have sub atomic structure? Where would we not have more and more subtle energy...you know, that thingy when sub atomic particles collide. That energy that binds these sub atomic particles together.

Oh, so God would need a sub atomic particle generator to unlock the power and secrets of atomic structure?

Sure He would......because of God's limitations, right?

All your arguments about God are from your own ignornance of God, and the limits you impose on God.

Quote from kjkent1:

The logical understandings are not mine -- they are God's, assuming that God is God.

I didn't create the rules under which the universe operates. If God chooses to break his own rules, then he does so by the application of magic, because he set up the conditions of what is and is not natural.

You can call magic natural, if you want to use semantics to escape the unescapable conclusion that defeats your argument. But it's just semantics so you haven't escaped.

Well, unless we're talking about the gas, that is. We all know where that's escaping from.
More...
 
Quote from archimedes:

If such is true, why can't someone believe in God and believe in evolution at the same time.
More...
I don't see your difficulty.
Most people indeed appear to believe in God.
In order to get through a typical day in a man's life, he also has to believe in a lot of other things.

The furious argumentation about belief in evolution is that this is (one of) the spearpoints in the attack of atheism on God. Since the last three centuries, these forces of darkness hide fraudulently underneath a cloak of 'science' and 'humanism'.

In truth, the question is not whether evolution is proper to biological processes - it likely is - but whether God created all, living and non-living. This knowledge does not pertain to science but to religion.
 
Quote from nononsense:

I don't see your difficulty.
Most people indeed appear to believe in God.
In order to get through a typical day in a man's life, he also has to believe in a lot of other things.

The furious argumentation about belief in evolution is that this is (one of) the spearpoints in the attack of atheism on God. Since the last three centuries, these forces of darkness hide fraudulently underneath a cloak of 'science' and 'humanism'.

In truth, the question is not whether evolution is proper to biological processes - it likely is - but whether God created all, living and non-living. This knowledge does not pertain to science but to religion.
More...
That is quite simply wrong. There is no need for belief in evolution, as it is a fact, a biological fact and a scientific fact, For any atheist to use a belief in evolution as an attack on anything would be just as flawed at the outset in the same way creationists and theists who do use that argument are incorrect.
Science and humanism can stand on their own merits without the need of bolt on ..."ists", such as theists creationists or even atheists.
 
Everyone's throwing around the word "fact" here like its meaning is granted. But it's not. Creationists and their ilk do not require of "fact" what a good scientist requires of it. In one sense Z is correct, ultimately, in that the foundation of science rests on a faith. It's a well founded faith in my view, utilitarianism is best, since it's pretty hard to argue with people wanting to live. They'll kill you to do it, for example.

But all this hustle and bustle to keep oneself alive is, inevitably, lost in death. The feeling this knowledge creates cannot be dealt with by science, so it is dismissed, primarily as useless or a waste of time. Utilitarianism again.

Good religion has a different purpose behind it, and it makes sense that it would not adopt principles that ultimately undermine it.

So, is evolutionary theory true or false? Is intelligent design true or false? Well, what is the test of truth? What is a fact? And most importantly, what end do we wish to serve? If I want to keep this sack of goop upright and moving for a long life, long enough to make more sacks of goop, then I'd like science's help with that. If I want to understand this feeling I get periodically about how very odd it is, this universe, or understand the feeling I get when I realize the ultimate futility of goop maintenance and replication, I turn to religion.
 
"Science and humanism can stand on their own merits without the need of bolt on ..."ists", such as theists creationists or even atheists."

The clear expression of so many Darwinists Humanists and Scientists.....

Quote from stu:

That is quite simply wrong. There is no need for belief in evolution, as it is a fact, a biological fact and a scientific fact, For any atheist to use a belief in evolution as an attack on anything would be just as flawed at the outset in the same way creationists and theists who do use that argument are incorrect.
Science and humanism can stand on their own merits without the need of bolt on ..."ists", such as theists creationists or even atheists.
More...
 
Back in the day when the only scientific observation available was that the sun revolved around the earth, it was quite utilitarian for those early scientists (observers of natural phenomena) to make sun dials and plan their work around the regularity of the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

Yes indeedee, the practical application of science is usually all about utilitarianism, but such claims that science reveals the "truth" demonstrates the fallacy of such claims.

Quote from Ricter:

Everyone's throwing around the word "fact" here like its meaning is granted. But it's not. Creationists and their ilk do not require of "fact" what a good scientist requires of it. In one sense Z is correct, ultimately, in that the foundation of science rests on a faith. It's a well founded faith in my view, utilitarianism is best, since it's pretty hard to argue with people wanting to live. They'll kill you to do it, for example.

But all this hustle and bustle to keep oneself alive is, inevitably, lost in death. The feeling this knowledge creates cannot be dealt with by science, so it is dismissed, primarily as useless or a waste of time. Utilitarianism again.

Good religion has a different purpose behind it, and it makes sense that it would not adopt principles that ultimately undermine it.

So, is evolutionary theory true or false? Is intelligent design true or false? Well, what is the test of truth? What is a fact? And most importantly, what end do we wish to serve? If I want to keep this sack of goop upright and moving for a long life, long enough to make more sacks of goop, then I'd like science's help with that. If I want to understand this feeling I get periodically about how very odd it is, this universe, or understand the feeling I get when I realize the ultimate futility of goop maintenance and replication, I turn to religion.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top