Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Edit: Deletion of unnecessary post.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Enough Time for Evolution?
- Thread starter Shermana
- Start date
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.
Last edited:
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Message to Shermana: What existed before the Big Bang? If God existed before the Big Bang, where was he? If he was outside of time and space, why should anyone exclude a reasonable possibility that naturalistic, eternally existing energy existed outside of time and space, caused time and space to originate, and caused the Big Bang? Such energy might have eternally existing attributes just like God supposedly has.
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.
Last edited:
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Message to Shermana: Do you oppose common descent? If you do not oppose it, then there is nothing more for us to discuss since I do not have any problems with theistic evolution. If you do oppose common descent, please provide reasonable evidence that irreducible complexity is true, and that the flagellum is an example of irreducible complexity.
Last edited:
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Shermana said:
Judge Jones did not ignore Scott Minnich. Judge Jones said:
"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.......ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community......."
Judge Jones also said:
"A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.......The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.......The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.......Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not 'teaching' ID but instead is merely 'making students aware of it.' In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree.......an educator reading the disclaimer is engaged in teaching, even if it is colossally bad teaching.......Defendants' argument is a red herring because the Establishment Clause forbids not just 'teaching' religion, but any governmental action that endorses or has the primary purpose or effect of advancing religion."
The same Wikipedia article says:
"After the trial, there were calls for the defendants accused of not presenting their case honestly to be put on trial for committing perjury. "Witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions," Jones wrote. "The inescapable truth is that both [Alan] Bonsell and [William] Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions. ... Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner. ... Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony." An editorial in the York Daily Record described their behaviour as both ironic and sinful, saying that the "unintelligent designers of this fiasco should not walk away unscathed."
Apparently, to some Christians, the ends justify the means, even if the means include lying. Another example of a Christian lying as a means of justifying the means to an end is Alan Chambers, the founder, and past president of the recently disbanded ex-gay organization Exodus International. Chambers admitted that he had lied about his change of sexual identity, and apologized to gay people for all of the harm that he and his organization had caused to homosexuals, and said that 99.9% of all homosexuals who came to his organization for help did not change their sexual identity. A major difference between Chambers, and some Christians at the Dover trial is that he admitted that he lied, and apologized to gay people.
There is no doubt that the Dover trial was a disgrace, and an embarrassment for the intelligent design movement.
You cannot claim that Judge Jones is unfairly biased since he is a Christian, and a Republican, and was appointed by a Republican president, and said that "ID arguments may be true."
Since lots of theistic evolutionists reject intelligent design, and irreducible complexity, the issue of how the flagellum evolved is not exclusively an issue of naturalism versus theism. You have said that your are only opposing naturalistic evolution, but apparently, you are also opposing theistic evolution since you have objected to "unlikely coincidences." According to theistic evolution, there are not any unlikely coincidences.
Would you like to have a public Internet debate with an expert on evolution? If so, how could laymen adequately judge who won the debate?
Last edited:
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Agnostic75 said:
Shermana said:
The universe is vast, and full of possibilities. Who can say whether or not life exists on other planets?
I asked you about the possibility that aliens brought life to earth, and you said:
Shermana said:
At that time, you did not object to the aliens theory, but now you do. Why is that?
Aliens are not really an issue since even if the only life in the universe was on earth, most experts reject intelligent design, and irreducible complexity, and even the majority of Christian biologists accept common descent. Only a relative handful of experts accept creationism, and many of them accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory, both of which have been widely rejected by scientists.
Alceste
Vagabond
Ah. I see - "has", not "is". Many accredited universities offer religious studies. Maybe even most. The scholarly pursuit of studying religion at university level does not involve learning that the Bible stories are literally true. It's more about learning the history of the religion, the Bible and the people who wrote its many different books. It's rigorous scholarship on the subject of religion, not religious indoctrination.
Alceste
Vagabond
We don't think it's lucky. We know it evolved. Evolution is not random, chance, or coincidence. The universe is not entirely chaos. We know water always flows downhill without anybody pushing it along - gravity is the cause. We know the earth spins with nobody turning the crank - conservation of momentum is the cause. And we know reproductively isolated populations change until they become new species without anybody poofing them into existence - evolution is the cause. The beauty of the whole big picture is not reduced by thinking of your god as the programmer who wrote the rules the natural universe obeys, rather than a hack who cobbled together a bunch of animals once on a single planet and has had to play puppeteer ever since.
This is way way off topic but here you are. 2 Thessalonians 3:2 says not all is faith. Causing you to have faith is the only way to prove faith is true. Life needs to be caused. Faith cannot be caused.
Just like the Genie in the bottle says "sorry, I cannot make someone love you".
You're starting to bore me. The first DNA was very lucky. OK? Imagine the many building blocks of DNA floating around in the (thick-it had to be thick) soup. How many blocks does it have? OMG I don't know means I shouldn't be talking about it. Haha
Why did the soup have to be thick? Well, if it was very fluid those feisty blocks of matter would have kept on floating away from each other. Unless DNA is made from metal and magnets. I wonder if magnetism works just as well under water? Do you know? This is such a fun circus!
Well they were not really feisty. Water is feisty. They were in it.
As I said, you raise questions & issues.
But you haven't shown any probability calculations.
In the field of probabilistic systems analysis, we examine all the response/failure modes of the system over time.
You & the first article I read don't do this at all. I've asked if the other articles do.
(I don't want to bother reading them if they're as lame as the first.)
FranklinMichaelV.3
Well-Known Member
Water is a really good solvent...it allows things to dissolve that normally wouldn't dissolve and generally will let things that aren't hydrophilic group together.
Interesting. I think you are making that up. I have never heard a description of Genesis 6:1-4 that isn't literal. Do you have a link please? I feel very lonely believing it isn't literal.
I do not know, like you know, what they teach at Harvard (my husband says Yale might have a Divinity school too), but he went to Chatholic High School (accredited) called Boston Latin and the Jesuits there teach the Bible as The Word Of God. But that is neither here nor there. It just proves to me your making stuff up.
Yes the hydrophilic matter settles to the bottom. Like sea glass! You do know how sea glass gets nice and smooth, don't you?
Whatever. So you are saying the architect is the same person who causes the building to go up and function? Wow. You have an amazing imagination.
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Message to Shermana: I will number my arguments for easy reference.
Argument #1
I told you that maybe aliens brought life to earth. You replied:
What do you believe is the case?
Argument #2
Your video of the evolutionist will not do. It looks contrived. The woman at the beginning was a babbling idiot. The man's name was not stated. He did not look professional at all. He did not talk spontaneously like an expert would. He had a strange, and suspicious demeanor.
Videos are not useful in debates since written texts are far easier to assess, and discuss. What you need is some written texts that state what you were trying to show with the video, and the name of whoever you are quoting.
Few serious debaters would ever use a brief video by an unknown person as evidence in a debate.
Argument #3
It is quite comical that little old you are trying to overturn over 150 years of advances in evolutionary theory, and the overwhelming support of over 99% of experts, including the majority of Christian experts.
Argument #4
Would you like to have a public Internet debate on common descent with an expert? If so, how would laymen be able to adequately judge the debate?
Argument #5
What existed before the Big Bang? If God existed before the Big Bang, where was he? If he was outside of time and space, why should anyone exclude a reasonable possibility that naturalistic, eternally existing energy existed outside of time and space, caused time and space to originate, and caused the Big Bang? Such energy might have eternally existing attributes just like God supposedly has.
Argument #6
Judge Jones did not ignore Scott Minnich. Judge Jones said:
"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.......ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community......."
Argument #7
Judge Jones also said:
"A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.......The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.......The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.......Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not 'teaching' ID but instead is merely 'making students aware of it.' In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree.......an educator reading the disclaimer is engaged in teaching, even if it is colossally bad teaching.......Defendants' argument is a red herring because the Establishment Clause forbids not just 'teaching' religion, but any governmental action that endorses or has the primary purpose or effect of advancing religion."
The same Wikipedia article says:
"After the trial, there were calls for the defendants accused of not presenting their case honestly to be put on trial for committing perjury. "Witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions," Jones wrote. "The inescapable truth is that both [Alan] Bonsell and [William] Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions. ... Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner. ... Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony." An editorial in the York Daily Record described their behaviour as both ironic and sinful, saying that the "unintelligent designers of this fiasco should not walk away unscathed."
Apparently, to some Christians, the ends justify the means, even if the means include lying. Another example of a Christian lying as a means of justifying the means to an end is Alan Chambers, the founder, and past president of the recently disbanded ex-gay organization Exodus International. Chambers admitted that he had lied about his change of sexual identity, and apologized to gay people for all of the harm that he and his organization had caused to homosexuals, and said that 99.9% of all homosexuals who came to his organization for help did not change their sexual identity. A major difference between Chambers, and some Christians at the Dover trial is that he admitted that he lied, and apologized to gay people.
There is no doubt that the Dover trial was a disgrace, and an embarrassment for the intelligent design movement.
Argument #8
You cannot claim that Judge Jones is unfairly biased since he is a Christian, and a Republican, and was appointed by a Republican president, and said that "ID arguments may be true."
Argument #9
Since lots of theistic evolutionists reject intelligent design, and irreducible complexity, the issue of how the flagellum evolved is not exclusively an issue of naturalism versus theism. You have said that your are only opposing naturalistic evolution, but apparently you are also opposing theistic evolution since you have objected to "unlikely coincidences." According to theistic evolution, there are not any unlikely coincidences.
Argument #10
Do you understand Ken Miller's article on the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun well enough to adequately critique it?
Argument #11
Only a relative handful of experts accept creationism. If we subtracted from that number those who accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory, the number that would be left would barely be able to fill a few buses.
Do you accept the global flood theory, or the young earth theory?
Argument #12
Does the Bible have anything to do with your opinions about intelligent design, or is your interest in intelligent design entirely scientific? When intelligent design advocates changed the term "creationism" to "intelligent design," they obviously had religion in mind since if aliens created life on earth, or brought existing life to earth, there would still be the issue of where the aliens came from.
Many Christians have no problem accepting common descent. Why do you have a problem accepting it?
Argument #1
Shermana said:
I told you that maybe aliens brought life to earth. You replied:
Shermana said:
What do you believe is the case?
Argument #2
Your video of the evolutionist will not do. It looks contrived. The woman at the beginning was a babbling idiot. The man's name was not stated. He did not look professional at all. He did not talk spontaneously like an expert would. He had a strange, and suspicious demeanor.
Videos are not useful in debates since written texts are far easier to assess, and discuss. What you need is some written texts that state what you were trying to show with the video, and the name of whoever you are quoting.
Few serious debaters would ever use a brief video by an unknown person as evidence in a debate.
Argument #3
It is quite comical that little old you are trying to overturn over 150 years of advances in evolutionary theory, and the overwhelming support of over 99% of experts, including the majority of Christian experts.
Argument #4
Would you like to have a public Internet debate on common descent with an expert? If so, how would laymen be able to adequately judge the debate?
Argument #5
What existed before the Big Bang? If God existed before the Big Bang, where was he? If he was outside of time and space, why should anyone exclude a reasonable possibility that naturalistic, eternally existing energy existed outside of time and space, caused time and space to originate, and caused the Big Bang? Such energy might have eternally existing attributes just like God supposedly has.
Argument #6
Shermana said:
Judge Jones did not ignore Scott Minnich. Judge Jones said:
"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.......ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community......."
Argument #7
Judge Jones also said:
"A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.......The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.......The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.......Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not 'teaching' ID but instead is merely 'making students aware of it.' In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree.......an educator reading the disclaimer is engaged in teaching, even if it is colossally bad teaching.......Defendants' argument is a red herring because the Establishment Clause forbids not just 'teaching' religion, but any governmental action that endorses or has the primary purpose or effect of advancing religion."
The same Wikipedia article says:
"After the trial, there were calls for the defendants accused of not presenting their case honestly to be put on trial for committing perjury. "Witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions," Jones wrote. "The inescapable truth is that both [Alan] Bonsell and [William] Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions. ... Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner. ... Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony." An editorial in the York Daily Record described their behaviour as both ironic and sinful, saying that the "unintelligent designers of this fiasco should not walk away unscathed."
Apparently, to some Christians, the ends justify the means, even if the means include lying. Another example of a Christian lying as a means of justifying the means to an end is Alan Chambers, the founder, and past president of the recently disbanded ex-gay organization Exodus International. Chambers admitted that he had lied about his change of sexual identity, and apologized to gay people for all of the harm that he and his organization had caused to homosexuals, and said that 99.9% of all homosexuals who came to his organization for help did not change their sexual identity. A major difference between Chambers, and some Christians at the Dover trial is that he admitted that he lied, and apologized to gay people.
There is no doubt that the Dover trial was a disgrace, and an embarrassment for the intelligent design movement.
Argument #8
You cannot claim that Judge Jones is unfairly biased since he is a Christian, and a Republican, and was appointed by a Republican president, and said that "ID arguments may be true."
Argument #9
Since lots of theistic evolutionists reject intelligent design, and irreducible complexity, the issue of how the flagellum evolved is not exclusively an issue of naturalism versus theism. You have said that your are only opposing naturalistic evolution, but apparently you are also opposing theistic evolution since you have objected to "unlikely coincidences." According to theistic evolution, there are not any unlikely coincidences.
Argument #10
Do you understand Ken Miller's article on the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun well enough to adequately critique it?
Argument #11
Only a relative handful of experts accept creationism. If we subtracted from that number those who accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory, the number that would be left would barely be able to fill a few buses.
Do you accept the global flood theory, or the young earth theory?
Argument #12
Does the Bible have anything to do with your opinions about intelligent design, or is your interest in intelligent design entirely scientific? When intelligent design advocates changed the term "creationism" to "intelligent design," they obviously had religion in mind since if aliens created life on earth, or brought existing life to earth, there would still be the issue of where the aliens came from.
Many Christians have no problem accepting common descent. Why do you have a problem accepting it?
Last edited:
FranklinMichaelV.3
Well-Known Member
Hydrophilic means water loving...why would it settle to the bottom? It would bind with water...