Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by TheBlackPearl, Sep 24, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Gatewood

    Gatewood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2013
    Messages:
    47,624
    Likes Received:
    48,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Who said I believe? In my lifetime I have gone from ardent believer [as I grew up in the faith] to confused and uncomfortable agnostic to outright but defiant atheist, then back to a comfortable agnostic, and I have been a comfortable atheist for many years now. As I am in the foothills of old age, one can assume that I am serious about being an atheist. On the other hand, philosophically I am something of a Taoist.
     
  2. Stagnant

    Stagnant Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    5,214
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Whoops. Me and my stupid assumptions. My bad. ^^
     
  3. Gatewood

    Gatewood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2013
    Messages:
    47,624
    Likes Received:
    48,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No harm done. I am not sensitive about the subject one way or the other. :thumbsup:
     
  4. thebrucebeat

    thebrucebeat Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    10,807
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your very confident, but I don't think as accurate as you believe yourself to be.
    An atheist doesn't believe in a deity. No absolute to it.
    An agnostic may or may not believe in one, but doesn't think the truth can be known one way or the other. The root, of course, being gnosis. To know.
    Hope that's helpful.
     
  5. Gatewood

    Gatewood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2013
    Messages:
    47,624
    Likes Received:
    48,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh I always believe as a matter of faith that I can be wrong about very nearly everything; which is why I very nearly never get angry as a poster. As I stated, I can understand if there never was a period of believing how a born to atheism atheist could simply bypass the stages I listed, but then again there is the corundum that a born to the perspective atheist is a from birth blind man or woman struggling with the concept of sight. You have to once have believed in something as a matter of faith to grasp on an intrinsic fashion the concepts of belief and faith.
     
  6. thebrucebeat

    thebrucebeat Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    10,807
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That really doesn't address what I said though.
    A/Theism is about what one believes.
    A/Gnosticism is about what one can know.
    You can be an agnostic theist or a gnostic atheist.

    I think you meant conundrum.
     
  7. Gatewood

    Gatewood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2013
    Messages:
    47,624
    Likes Received:
    48,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes I did mean conundrum. Thanks. As for your definitions I agree with them under the conditions I listed. As a philosophical Taoist [not a matter of faith] I have no problem if you use a different set of definitions. All it means is that there can be no meeting of the minds between us on this topic, and that's hardly any sort of a tragedy.
     
  8. thebrucebeat

    thebrucebeat Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    10,807
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not a tragedy, but not necessary either. You just have to continue the conversation.
    Do you think definitions of words exist? That they actually mean certain things?
     
  9. Paul7

    Paul7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    Messages:
    15,854
    Likes Received:
    11,608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, just that first comes the God rejection, then the acceptance of naturalistic evolution, despite the weak evidence.

    A better answer than "Nothing did it". The fact the founders of Western science were Christians kind of blows your theory.
     
  10. Paul7

    Paul7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    Messages:
    15,854
    Likes Received:
    11,608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That I'm allegedly trying to smear people. Can't you people get it that some can interpret evidence differently without resorting to using the 'liar', 'dishonest', and 'smear' cards? Real debators don't have to do that.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Pot, meet kettle. I wish I had a quarter for every time you've called someone a liar around here. You seem incapable of debate.
     
  11. Paul7

    Paul7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    Messages:
    15,854
    Likes Received:
    11,608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not really. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4210369.stm You guys like peer-reviewed science, right? It is very possible the patched part that was tested was from the Middle Ages.

    Those medieval 'forgers' sure were smart to include pollen from the Holy Land and the same blood type as the Sudarium, before those things were even known.
     
  12. Burzmali

    Burzmali Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    6,335
    Likes Received:
    2,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would hardly call that an insult. Otherwise you claiming that he was insulting you could be equally construed to be an insult. And that's just silly.

    The particular issue here is not that evidence is being interpreted differently. It's that the source you cited deliberately removed words from a quote to make the speaker seem to say the exact opposite of what he said. He didn't even put an ellipsis in to indicate that words had been removed. The only more dishonest thing that he could have done would have been to insert words that weren't there in the first place, or make something up completely. How do you not see the dishonesty in that?
     
  13. Paul7

    Paul7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    Messages:
    15,854
    Likes Received:
    11,608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're probably right on 'smear', I must have been thinking of all the times Taikoo calls people 'liars'.

    If you're talking about the Lewontin quote, why don't you post the entire one so I know what you're talking about? If it doesn't say what was presented, I will retract it. But then you still have to deal with the other quotes from scientists pointing out the holes in ToE.
     
  14. Burzmali

    Burzmali Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    6,335
    Likes Received:
    2,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your link there says nothing of pollen or the same blood type as the Sudarium. Where is that info coming from?
     
  15. Paul7

    Paul7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    Messages:
    15,854
    Likes Received:
    11,608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you're saying Tacitus got the part on Jesus' death wrong, the burden is yours to show why you think that. What have you got?
     
  16. Burzmali

    Burzmali Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    6,335
    Likes Received:
    2,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Stagnant already did that here, and bolded the parts from your source showing exactly which words were removed. Here is the most egregious part again:

    The bold part is what was in Morris' quotation. He removed the unbolded words, and in one case didn't include an ellipsis to indicate the omission (the "just-so stories" part).

    As to your other quotes, I'll echo Stagnant and ask how many of the dozen or so quotes you posted would have to be demonstrated to be bull(*)(*)(*)(*) for you to accept that whatever site you got them from is garbage? And please tell me you did not get them from the Discovery Institute. I know they have a list of scientists and quotations that they claim shows dissent within the scientific community regarding evolution, but a number of the people on those lists have criticized the institute for being dishonest and taking their words out of context.
     
  17. thebrucebeat

    thebrucebeat Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    10,807
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When people lie, as you have been shown to do, what else can be done but to reveal them and show the person for who they are?
    What is the proper form of debate in that instance? Ignore it? Let it slide?
    What do you expect people to do?
    What do they do on the other site you referenced where we all wouldn't last a week? Do they let you smear people and applaud it?
     
  18. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Weak Evidence for Evolution???!!!!?????

    I don't even think it is possible to show one single VIABLE AND PROVABLE example that would disprove the REALITY of both Quantum Evolution and Biological Evolution....but by all means....go ahead and try.

    AboveAlpha
     
  19. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,756
    Likes Received:
    3,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Christians believe in a Creator who created the Universe out of nothing but they have absolutely no proof he exists.

    Scientists believe in a Theory of the Universe being created out of nothing but have absolutely no idea and thus no proof of what caused the Big Bang.

    There seems to be little difference between the two.

    I find it quite amusing that the scientists have come to the same conclusions as the Bible.

    Remember the Big Bang Theory is only several decades old. They are basing their conclusions based upon observations over those few decades when the Universe according to them is what, 13 billion years old? That is like writing a review of "Gone with the Wind" based upon the last two frames of the movie.
     
  20. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    We can actually see the Background Microwave Radiation that exists all around us that was caused by the Big Bang. The amount of evidence that the Big Bang occurred is overwhelming.

    AboveAlpha
     
  21. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,756
    Likes Received:
    3,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  22. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
     
  23. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,756
    Likes Received:
    3,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is theorized that the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation was caused by the Big Bang. It has not been proven that the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation was caused by the Big Bang.

    Again, we are talking about observations that have been made over the past few decades. Einstein did not believe in the Big Bang (did he ever come around to it?) at first and thought the Universe was eternal and static.

    The Big Bang is just the best most plausible explanation we have at the time being. I am not saying it is right or wrong. But I am saying that if it is right, then maybe what the scientists are proving is that God does exist, because the Creation story matches so well with the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution.
     
  24. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,756
    Likes Received:
    3,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  25. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The scientific proofs and realities and theories we know to exist are not in conflict with ones belief in a GOD.

    AboveAlpha
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page