1. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    30 Jul '13 01:00
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    I agree. Evolution and information theory belong here in the Spirituality forum, not in the science forum. Everyone knows evolution is not a real science, it's only held up to be one to justify the spiritually corrupt non-beliefs of atheists.

    [b]Edit:
    This deserves clarification, because I wasn't just being a smartgluteusmaximus*. I am suggesting a ...[text shortened]... where it can automatically enjoy freedom from any real (scientific) examination and criticism.[/b]
    Evolution is neither controversial nor favorable to any religion. It's just that a splinter group of petulant theists think it contrary to their hyper-literalist interpretation of their holy book, and are desperately doing anything they can to discredit it, including posing as 'scientist' with a theory (creationism/ID) that explains nothing.
  2. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    30 Jul '13 01:231 edit
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    Evolution is neither controversial nor favorable to any religion. It's just that a splinter group of petulant theists think it contrary to their hyper-literalist interpretation of their holy book, and are desperately doing anything they can to discredit it, including posing as 'scientist' with a theory (creationism/ID) that explains nothing.
    Well, that all depends on what you define as evolution. If you don't include what I call evilution, then I think most Christians are probably fine with it. I think most of us would prefer to just call it variations within species, which is more clear and does not contradict our Holy Bible.

    I don't believe that people spend years of training to get a Phd in a science and work in the science just so they can pose as a scientist for the purpose of putting forth the theory of Intelligent Design or to promote creationism. That does not seem logical to me.

    Intelligent Design explains why some things look like they are designed. 😏

    The Instructor
  3. Standard memberlemon lime
    itiswhatitis
    oLd ScHoOl
    Joined
    31 May '13
    Moves
    5577
    30 Jul '13 04:042 edits
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    Evolution is neither controversial nor favorable to any religion. It's just that a splinter group of petulant theists think it contrary to their hyper-literalist interpretation of their holy book, and are desperately doing anything they can to discredit it, including posing as 'scientist' with a theory (creationism/ID) that explains nothing.
    That pretty much sums up the present day atheist position, except for the part where you say it's not controversial to any religion. The only religions that do not dispute it either have no doctrine to explain beginnings or will ignore the doctrines they have that do. It's also not true that most atheists think evolution has nothing to do with what they believe.

    Evolution supporting atheism was openly acknowledged by atheists when I was a young man, and it wasn't uncommon to hear someone joyfully proclaiming God is dead. I believe the only thing that has changed since then is most atheists today will deny that, and I honestly can't say why that is. There appears to more animosity toward religion today than there was then, so I don't understand why atheists today would take more of a passive position in regard to evolution. I was an atheist long enough to understand how evolution worked to strengthen my position as an atheist, so I don't understand why so few of them today will acknowledge that.

    I know you did not specifically say atheism does not depend on evolution, nor did you definine atheism as a relilgion. However, atheism can be defined as anti-religion, which pretty much places it in the same ball park. Some people here get a little touchy when you read between the lines but sometimes it can't be avoided:

    Evolution is neither controversial nor favorable to any religion.
  4. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    30 Jul '13 04:37
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    That pretty much sums up the present day atheist position, except for the part where you say it's not controversial to any religion. The only religions that do not dispute it either have no doctrine to explain beginnings or ignore the doctrines they have that do. It's also not true that most atheists think evolution has nothing to do with what they believ ...[text shortened]... no relationship between evolution and atheism... so I guess there is nothing more to say.
    Evolution only allows for rejection of a specific version of a god (the young-earth creationist's god). It does not even get you to full rejection of one god.

    A Christian can easily take the position that the Genesis creation account is not literal. This is not ignoring the doctrine of their religion. It's interpreting it differently.
  5. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    30 Jul '13 05:23
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    Evolution only allows for rejection of a specific version of a god (the young-earth creationist's god). It does not even get you to full rejection of one god.

    A Christian can easily take the position that the Genesis creation account is not literal. This is not ignoring the doctrine of their religion. It's interpreting it differently.
    A Christian can NOT easily take the position that the Genesis creation account is not literal. God said it, so it has to be taken literal, because God is not a liar. It is not an easy thing for a Christian to call God a liar, now is it?

    The Instructor
  6. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    30 Jul '13 08:07
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    A Christian can NOT easily take the position that the Genesis creation account is not literal. God said it, so it has to be taken literal, because God is not a liar. It is not an easy thing for a Christian to call God a liar, now is it?

    The Instructor
    When the whole story was just made up by men, sure, it's VERY easy to call your man made god a liar.
  7. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Quiz Master
    RHP Arms
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    48793
    30 Jul '13 08:11
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    A Christian can NOT easily take the position that the Genesis creation account is not literal. God said it, so it has to be taken literal, because God is not a liar. It is not an easy thing for a Christian to call God a liar, now is it?

    The Instructor
    I thought your god could do anything and work in
    mysterious and illogical ways? Surely lying would be easy!
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    30 Jul '13 08:23
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    I thought your god could do anything [b]and work in
    mysterious and illogical ways? Surely lying would be easy![/b]
    The Holy Bible says God is not a liar. Satan is the Liar.

    The Instructor
  9. Joined
    11 Oct '04
    Moves
    5344
    30 Jul '13 08:29
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    A Christian can NOT easily take the position that the Genesis creation account is not literal. God said it, so it has to be taken literal, because God is not a liar. It is not an easy thing for a Christian to call God a liar, now is it?

    The Instructor
    So if God says something, you must take it literally, or else God is a liar.

    So Jesus is a liar, as his parables are not literally true.
  10. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    30 Jul '13 12:06
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The problem with that is that evolution, including, evilution, is taught as science in the science textbooks. If it is an hypothesis or theory and not established as a scientific law, then there should be no reason that another hypothesis or theory, like Intellegent Design, should not be allowed to be taught. Neither one of these theories have been estab ...[text shortened]... on, including evilution, is a scientific belief called a theory and not a law.

    The Instructor
    See now this is why nobody who knows anything whatsoever at all about science
    is prepared to take you even slightly seriously.

    THEORIES DO NOT GET PROMOTED UP TO BEING LAWS.

    THEORIES CONTAIN LAWS.

    A SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS AS GOOD AS IT GETS, THERE IS NOTHING ABOVE IT.


    And you have been told this over and over and over and over and over again.

    ID is NOT a theory as it has not been confirmed and verified to be true.
    It also fails to make accurate predictions.

    Unlike evolution, which IS a scientific theory, does make accurate predictions, and
    is supported and proven by masses and masses of evidence, and is contradicted by none.


    Laws are observations (and may not actually be true).

    Newtons LAW of gravity is known to be inaccurate, and was replaced by the THEORY of
    General Relativity.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation

    Newtons LAW of gravity is so called because it states that "every point mass in the
    universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the
    product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between
    them"
    ...
    In other words it applies everywhere to everything (with mass) without exception in all situations.
    It doesn't say why, or how, it just says that it does.
    And it's based on empirical observation.

    And it's false.

    General Relativity is a THEORY.
    It not only provides equations for calculating gravitational fields (incredibly accurately)...
    But it also gives an explanation for how and why these fields are generated.

    A theory is an explanation of WHY and HOW something works.

    A law is simply a rule, with no explanation for how or why it exists. And it may not even be true.

    A theory on the other-hand MUST have BEEN proven, or it is known as a hypothesis.



    Evolution is a theory.
  11. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    30 Jul '13 13:00
    Originally posted by Rank outsider
    So if God says something, you must take it literally, or else God is a liar.

    So Jesus is a liar, as his parables are not literally true.
    How do you know that the parables of Jesus are not literally true?

    The Instructor
  12. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    30 Jul '13 13:06
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    See now this is why nobody who knows anything whatsoever at all about science
    is prepared to take you even slightly seriously.

    THEORIES DO NOT GET PROMOTED UP TO BEING LAWS.

    THEORIES CONTAIN LAWS.

    A SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS AS GOOD AS IT GETS, THERE IS NOTHING ABOVE IT.


    And you have been told this over and over and over and over and over agai ...[text shortened]... r-hand MUST have BEEN proven, or it is known as a hypothesis.



    Evolution is a theory.
    For Evilution, a theory is as good as it gets. However, a law is as good as it gets for real science.

    The Instructor
  13. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    30 Jul '13 14:03
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    For Evilution, a theory is as good as it gets. However, a law is as good as it gets for real science.

    The Instructor
    And this is how everyone knows you know nothing whatsoever about science.
  14. Joined
    11 Oct '04
    Moves
    5344
    30 Jul '13 15:10
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    How do you know that the parables of Jesus are not literally true?

    The Instructor
    So the parable of the barren fig tree is a historical account of someone's lack of horticultural expertise?
  15. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    30 Jul '13 18:10
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    How do you know that the parables of Jesus are not literally true?

    The Instructor
    Well then, your god must be actively pruning the human population, introducing tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and so forth and sowing the seeds of Aids, Ebola, tuberculosis, Cystic fibrosis and so on. Nice god you have there. Nothing else explains it.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree