Creationists

[UltimateReality]

And once again, you seem to be projecting beliefs onto people without a valid reason to do so. Are you really suggesting that belief in the theory of evolution equates to materialism? That no one with religious or supernatural beliefs accepts evolution?

Further, I wonder just how wide a definition you are using for religion. Just what falls within whatever definition you are using?

Religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. If the shoe fits...

Ah. So of course, you use the widest, least meaningful definition in order to shoehorn evolution into the definition. By that definition, pretty much anything can be religion. It does not, however, mean that evolution is the same as Christianity, or Hinduism, or Judaism, etc.

So you're the definition Nazi now??? The TOE is baseless in any real science. It is a religion and you know it and it is full of intellectual dishonesty at every level, just like Loki.

 

[UltimateReality]

Why are Darwinists so angry?? I know from law enforcement people get really upset and angry when they feel threatened. ... things that make you go "hmm".

Loki and others assertions that there is no scientific evidence for a designer is an ABSOLUTE lie. Do we Theists believe that God is the designer? Yes. Can we scientifically prove that God is the origin of the design we find in nature? No. Can we prove that an intelligent agent is responsible for the design in nature? We can present a valid scientific argument in the same way Materialists present current evidence as rationale for events that happen in the distant past and call it scientific theory. It is so preposterous to me that people call ID Creationism when the ID proponents do everything they can to keep God out of the arguments. By strictly keeping to a scientific argument, they are called sneaky or accused of having an agenda or being called "intellectually dishonest" (puke). We are damned if we do and damned if we don't. Yes, we believe the designer is God. But no, identifying the designer has no place in a scientific argument.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFhMxAsMDvk]Eugenie Scott vs Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Youwerecreated]

There was nothing intellectually dishonest about my rebuttal.

However ...

I did not respond to what Provine said. I clearly responded to what you said. You made NO citation of Povine in the post I responded to, nor any post prior.

Nor have you disavowed your post since (except, perhaps now). So Jackass, you indeed said all that you clearly said, and it is still 100% made-up-nonsense ... including your notions of material high priesthood.

You are delusional if you don't think that the science community is not affected greatly by the likes of Provine, Dawkins and Douglas Theobald. These are your high priests of your religion.

So, are you now expanding things to say that not only is evolution a religion, all of science is religion? That the seeming implication of this post.

No,only the parts that say we are and everything we see is a product of a non-intelligent natural process,and of course all the dating methods. Let's not forget all the speulations that can't be backed evidence as well.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Because people allow themselves to be blinded. Just like they allow themselves to be possessed and or lead down the wrong road.

How exactly people allow themselves to be blinded? By giving an explicit permission to satan? Or just by watching Discovery channel?

By warping their conscience as to what's right and wrong. If people can't see the design around them they are just simply blind.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

My belief:

We are belief-run creatures. It is simply a matter of what information reaches a developing brain first: fact or fiction.

If it were that simple there would be no atheists out there Many people with religious upbringing eventually become atheists once they get to know this world. Unfortunately, it works both ways -- many people that were raised atheists become religious.

I think people become atheists simply because they are better at building a consistent model of the world around them.

That is not true there has always been atheists. People become atheists because they chose to many because they don't like religion, but the alternative is religion as well they just don't get it. It's built on faith.

 

[Youwerecreated]

My belief:

We are belief-run creatures. It is simply a matter of what information reaches a developing brain first: fact or fiction.

If it were that simple there would be no atheists out there Many people with religious upbringing eventually become atheists once they get to know this world. Unfortunately, it works both ways -- many people that were raised atheists become religious.

I think people become atheists simply because they are better at building a consistent model of the world around them.

you're going straight to hell! blasphemer!

Now if you only understood what hell really is.

 

[newpolitics]

My belief:

We are belief-run creatures. It is simply a matter of what information reaches a developing brain first: fact or fiction.

If it were that simple there would be no atheists out there Many people with religious upbringing eventually become atheists once they get to know this world. Unfortunately, it works both ways -- many people that were raised atheists become religious.

I think people become atheists simply because they are better at building a consistent model of the world around them.

That is not true there has always been atheists. People become atheists because they chose to many because they don't like religion, but the alternative is religion as well they just don't get it. It's built on faith.

Atheism became much more popular during the Enlightenment because for the first time, there was another explanation for things other than that being handed down by the church, the bible, and religion.

We don't need religion to explain the physical universe. We have science. It is far more logical, and lacks any superstition. Unfortunately, it requires a lot of study, and those who don't understand it, think they can easily deny it. But to those who understand the basic workings of science, it is a beautiful system of natural explanations for a natural world. It is simple in its attempt at explaining things, and utterly apolitical. the same can not be said for intelligent design.

 

[newpolitics]

Looks like tomorrows science is irrelevant today, and yesterday's science is still relevant.

It is amusing to watch people trying their best to discredit science, simply because it is a threat to their own belief structures, which I assume are based on the bible. It is actually really pathetic, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Is that directed at me? Do you think I am anti science? I'm not. I love science and think it compliments the Bible very well. And thank God for research. It makes us better, less sick, less stupid, faster, cleaner, prettier. Now my make-up makes me look better without having to use whale sperm. Science is a good thing.

So do you disagree with my belief that science is only as relevant as it's next discovery or are you still pouring gunpowder in your wounds, and charting your path, as the sun circles the earth?

Yes, I did think you were anti-science, and realize now that I was mistaken.

 

[newpolitics]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

My belief:

We are belief-run creatures. It is simply a matter of what information reaches a developing brain first: fact or fiction. Once beliefs are set in stone at an early age, they are very difficult to remove, and no amount of logic or actual real-world empirical truth can budge them, because they become a part of the identity structure, and once that happens, its all over. This is especially true with religious beliefs, because they inform identity and perform a social purpose (church). With so many important functions being serviced by such identity and core-beliefs, they become impossible to remove unless through something traumatic. It is tragic that we are so susceptible to our own minds, and capable of being so oblivious to the world around, but such is the way it was throughout our evolution. There was no incentive to be scientific, because there was no science yet until only recently. The only incentive we had was to learn to get along with eachother in our hunter-gather group, in other words: to cooperate. This was the ultimate end, and so beliefs that facilitate this are rewarded. This includes the unifying function of spiritual beliefs, which brought people together on a deep level, easily, regardless of whether those beliefs corresponded with the physical reality and history of the universe. So, this is where we are today. Run by false beliefs, and defending them to the death. Beliefs and our affinity for them cause all of the problems we have as humans. If we were simply more humble, and not so convinced of our own righteousness in terms of religion and politics, we could all get along a lot better.

I think that within the mind of a person holding young earth creation beliefs, they think that following a literal interpretation of the bible will score them points with Jesus, basically. It is a test of faith to not question anything, or take a less literal interpretation of the book. They think therefore, that they will be 'preferred' over other Christians who do not hold such a literal view.

No difference from the Ideologues of macro-evolution.

SO? I believe in macro-evolution, %100. Science can and will explain everything. Religion is mad-made. You are essentially worshipping men when you worship god, or worshipping yourself rather, because it is your mind that craves such a higher power, like a drug, to explain away the chaos. Don't act so high and mighty christian. You're reliance on something so outdated to explain the natural universe is merely comical.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There was nothing intellectually dishonest about my rebuttal.

However ...

I did not respond to what Provine said. I clearly responded to what you said. You made NO citation of Povine in the post I responded to, nor any post prior.

Nor have you disavowed your post since (except, perhaps now). So Jackass, you indeed said all that you clearly said, and it is still 100% made-up-nonsense ... including your notions of material high priesthood.

You are delusional if you don't think that the science community is not affected greatly by the likes of Provine, Dawkins and Douglas Theobald.

So what if Provine, Dawkins and Douglas Theobald have a great effect upon "the science community"?

These are your high priests of your religion.

It's disingenuous to assert that science is a religion with high priests. It is nothing but a lame attempt to assert that science has no greater relevance to reality than superstition.

Because they are severe Ideologues when it comes to macro-evolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Modern medicine= chemotherapy
Tomorrow's medicine= cancer vacine

Looks like tomorrows science is irrelevant today, and yesterday's science is still relevant.

It is amusing to watch people trying their best to discredit science, simply because it is a threat to their own belief structures, which I assume are based on the bible. It is actually really pathetic, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

No ones trying to discredit real science, just pseudoscience.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Thanks newpolitics. I am a Christian, but not at the expense of science. I don't think that either can be ignored, so as to propel the other into the winner's circle. Personally, I think the smarter we get, the closer we get to the design of God. That's all.

 

[ilia25]

I love science and think it compliments the Bible very well

Everything compliments the Bible very well, even things like murder -- and that is why it remains ever popular. So science does not disprove the Bible (it is impossible), what science does is making the Bible irrelevant. It is not needed anymore to explain what we see around us, where we came form. And we certainly don't need it to make this world a better place to live for all people.

 

[ilia25]

Because people allow themselves to be blinded. Just like they allow themselves to be possessed and or lead down the wrong road.

How exactly people allow themselves to be blinded? By giving an explicit permission to satan? Or just by watching Discovery channel?

By warping their conscience as to what's right and wrong.

What does it mean? What one has to do in order to "wrap his conscience", and why would one do it?

If people can't see the design around them they are just simply blind.

You can repeat that "people are blind" all you want, but you are not answering question -- who's fault it that people are blind? What went wrong and why?

 

[ilia25]

People become atheists because they chose to many because they don't like religion, but the alternative is religion as well they just don't get it. It's built on faith.

Faith in what exactly? I honestly don't know what is that thing that you think I have a faith in. Why don't you tell me?

 

[UltimateReality]

How exactly people allow themselves to be blinded? By giving an explicit permission to satan? Or just by watching Discovery channel?

By warping their conscience as to what's right and wrong.

What does it mean? What one has to do in order to "wrap his conscience", and why would one do it?

If people can't see the design around them they are just simply blind.

You can repeat that "people are blind" all you want, but you are not answering question -- who's fault it that people are blind? What went wrong and why?

I can't help noticing you didn't respond to the probability argument video by Stephen Meyer.

 

[The Irish Ram]

People become atheists because they chose to many because they don't like religion, but the alternative is religion as well they just don't get it. It's built on faith.

Faith in what exactly? I honestly don't know what is that thing that you think I have a faith in. Why don't you tell me?

I have faith that air exists. I can't see it, but I believe that it exists and is keeping me alive.
I know there is a breeze today. The leaves are moving.
I can't see the wind, but I have faith it is there. I can see it's effect.

 

[ilia25]

People become atheists because they chose to many because they don't like religion, but the alternative is religion as well they just don't get it. It's built on faith.

Faith in what exactly? I honestly don't know what is that thing that you think I have a faith in. Why don't you tell me?

I have faith that air exists.

Well, I don't And neither should you.

The existence of air is a theory (a notion that was popularized by "The Matrix" movie -- "You think that's air you're breathing now?"). We are assuming that that theory is correct for the lack of a better alternative, not because we are certain that it is true.

 

[ilia25]

I can't help noticing you didn't respond to the probability argument video by Stephen Meyer.

Meyer pretends that he does not understand how the evolution works. According to him, TOE claims that complex proteins appear by chance. Whereas TOE postulates that complex things evolve from simple ones.

The honest attempt to come up with the probability of life appearing on its own should asses the probability of random formation of a simplest molecules capable of replicating itself. And those molecules are NOT proteins at all, much less the complex ones, which Meyer calls "minimally functional".

And Meyer knows that -- he consciously lies because he is either paid to do so, or he thinks that the goal justifies the means.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Faith in what exactly? I honestly don't know what is that thing that you think I have a faith in. Why don't you tell me?

I have faith that air exists.

Well, I don't And neither should you.

The existence of air is a theory (a notion that was popularized by "The Matrix" movie -- "You think that's air you're breathing now?"). We are assuming that that theory is correct for the lack of a better alternative, not because we are certain that it is true.

[Well, I don't And neither should you.]
To achieve faith, hold your breath.
I'm pretty sure air left the field of theory, to become law as soon as someone denied air, died. And was proven when someone theorized that they could swim underwater without air, died.
A theory is a hypothesis put to the test. If a theory can be proven in separate tests with the same results, then the tested theory becomes law. I have faith that air exists even though I can't see it. I can see its effect on my lungs.
There I go again, breathing.... If you will now do the same, then we have proven the theory of air into law. We're good together, don't ya think?

Hebrews 11:1 Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.