|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
It's the person that desires to change the views of others that has the burden of proof. The issue is justification of belief...which entails evidence. Creationists/theists are trying to 'spread the message' and get others to believe. Science doesn't care what you believe, especially if you can't demonstrate the truth of your belief, which takes evidence. The evidence to evolution is more than sufficient to prove the reality of evolution. So if someone 'chooses' to disregard the facts, that is their problem. If evolutionary science does not care what you believe, why is Intelligent Design being banned from being taught in the public school system? Why do the proponents of atheistic evolution have such a prejudice against it when the many of the greatest scientists believed in Theism and intelligent design? Evolution is state supported propaganda that uses a liberal court system to suppress all scientific debate in the public school system. The country was founded on Theism. Why are we banning the very foundational principles that made us great?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
Atheistic evolutionary science proponents and their legal liberal socialist lackeys are the ones who trying to shut down free speech and intelligent scientific discussion by using legal suppression. They are trying to suppress it on the basis of a constitution that was written by theists. The constitution says there should be no prohibition on the free exercise of religion and yet atheistic evolutionary proponents says that we cannot allow theism to influence our understanding of science, but yet it is perfectly acceptable for atheism to control our understanding of science. How illogical is that? If the arguments of evolution are reasonably incontrovertible, then all reasonable people will believe them. If all reasonable people will not believe them, why not have a reasonable debate?
Last edited by Thunderstick; 08/12/19.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354 |
And it lacks the explanation of how or why it started spontaneously and how it brought all the right conditions into play when needed in order for the most simple cell to survive--all within a random context of random processes. Please explain how that occurred and the mathematical probability of it occurring. The logic being used to defend this proposition also has random strains which are not tying in with logic.
That has been done multiple times on this thread. Were you not paying attention?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
Are you sure that isn't the most comical assertion of all times in the history of the internet? :-)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354 |
Atheistic evolutionary science proponents and their legal liberal socialist lackeys are the ones who trying to shut down free speech and intelligent scientific discussion by using legal suppression. They are trying to suppress it on the basis of a constitution that was written by theists. The constitution says there should be no prohibition on the free exercise of religion and yet atheistic evolutionary proponents says that we cannot allow theism to influence our understanding of science, but yet it is perfectly acceptable for atheism to control our understanding of science. How illogical is that? If the arguments of evolution are reasonably incontrovertible, then all reasonable people will believe them. If all reasonable people will not believe them, why not have a reasonable debate? Because ID is not science. The reasonable debate has been done. ID lost - by a landside. Time to move on.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
This is a typical liberal response lacking the essence of the real facts of what happened in my area. It never truly was a scientific debate--because that would not happen in a court--it was a legal case. This case establishes the point I was making that evolution is propped up by the Federal government in various ways.
The federal courts first addressed intelligent design in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in 2005. A local school board in Dover, Pennsylvania voted to require teachers to read a statement about intelligent design prior to discussions of evolution in high school biology classes. The judge found that the practice violated the Establishment clause, concluding that intelligent design is not a science because it fails to seek a natural cause for observed phenomenon, among other reasons.
And on the same logical grounds we could indite atheistic evolution because it does not seek to identify a theistic cause for observed phenomenon, among other reasons.
There is no doubt that the drive from the federal funding aspect is to keep evolution taught as the main scientific curriculum without acknowledging theistic options as science which is a denial of a founding principle of our country - which is theism.
Last edited by Thunderstick; 08/12/19.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,864
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,864 |
Not talking about near death experiences. Try Googling "terminal lucidity". Fascinating phenomena. You need to explain how ""terminal lucidity" helps with whatever you are trying to argue. It's not clear what your argument is. You just throw this out as if it's obvious. You should provide an actual argument. It appears you didn't do as he suggested and check it out on google.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,864
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,864 |
It's not known whether time had a beginning or not, the BB may be cyclic, brane collision, a patchwork multiverse or any number of other possibilities...or something not yet imagined. If a God, whatever that is, created the universe there is no evidence for it. Stars, galaxies and solar systems form on the basis of physics, they are not created, they form under gravity and matter/energy interaction, so it is not necessary to propose the existence of a Creator yet alone be convinced that this is fact true. Apparently you have not read much literature about time. From what I read most accept time had a beginning just as matter and energy had a beginning. The idea gravity caused "stars, galaxies and solar systems" is ludicrous. The gas pressure is at least fifty times stronger pushing the particles apart rather than gravity bringing them together. So your conclusion of not needing a Creator is built on a flawed premise.
Last edited by Ringman; 08/12/19.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,916
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,916 |
And the Earth was flooded with fresh water about 4000 yrs ago,
1: Where did all the salt water fishes come from?
2: How did all of the millions of terrestrial species of mammals, reptiles, and birds survive the flood?
3: Why are not all humans still black? It's a theory, not a myth. Take it for what it's worth.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
NEA's position in this debate has been firm. Most recently, our 1982 Representative Assembly made clear that NEA opposes all efforts to alter the science curricula in any way that would place the teaching of scientific creationism on an equal footing with the teaching of evolution.
While the National Education Association believes that educational materials should accurately portray the influence of religion in our nation and throughout the world, we also believe that for American education to flourish, religious dogma must neither guide nor hamper the pursuit of knowledge by students and teachers in our public schools. The public teacher's union has a firm position that discounts scientific creationism as being on equal footing with atheistic evolutionary science. It believes that religious dogma should not guide or hamper the pursuit of knowledge. Well, what about irreligious dogma guiding or hampering the pursuit of knowledge? We are asked to pay taxes to support teachers' salaries whose union is firmly opposed to any theistic understanding of science and yet if they teach science they will need to mention famous scientists who were theists. This statement itself should be considered unconstitutional because we have state and public supported teachers whose agenda is atheism and evolution and who are firmly opposed to any theistic possibility.
Last edited by Thunderstick; 08/12/19.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 95,717 Likes: 2
Campfire Oracle
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 95,717 Likes: 2 |
It's the person that desires to change the views of others that has the burden of proof. The issue is justification of belief...which entails evidence. Creationists/theists are trying to 'spread the message' and get others to believe. Science doesn't care what you believe, especially if you can't demonstrate the truth of your belief, which takes evidence. The evidence to evolution is more than sufficient to prove the reality of evolution. So if someone 'chooses' to disregard the facts, that is their problem. If evolutionary science does not care what you believe, why is Intelligent Design being banned from being taught in the public school system? Why do the proponents of atheistic evolution have such a prejudice against it when the many of the greatest scientists believed in Theism and intelligent design? Evolution is state supported propaganda that uses a liberal court system to suppress all scientific debate in the public school system. The country was founded on Theism. Why are we banning the very foundational principles that made us great? Uh, because Satan rules on earth (and the flesh degenerates as does civilization as it is overcome by bable). Or, because unbelievers are blinded and look for answers from creation rather than from the creator.
Last edited by jaguartx; 08/12/19.
Ecc 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but that of a fool to the left.
A Nation which leaves God behind is soon left behind.
"The Lord never asked anyone to be a tax collector, lowyer, or Redskins fan".
I Dindo Nuffin
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 26,337
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 26,337 |
Uh, because Satan rules on earth (and the flesh degenerates as does civilization as it is overcome by bable). Or, because unbelievers are blinded and look for answers from creation rather than from the creator.
just as an expression of principle, i'd never capitalize the name of an avowed enemy. i'd choose to demonize them in any way possible? i figure the experiment that is happening before the very eyes of some 7 plus billions peoples eyes is that we're seeing a frenzy development? a frenzy? what could that be? we have tornadoes & hurricanes as an act of nature. the heat from fossil fuel combustion gets exhausted into the atmosphere. it's purpose is to hold back the advent of another ice age. der satan don't like cold weather. ya know?
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554 |
You mean AOC got it wrong, it's not cow farts?
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
Which explains a lot.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 46,098 Likes: 6
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 46,098 Likes: 6 |
As I said, you still don't get it. What "claim" have I made on here?
I was referring to creationist claims, obviously. I am talking about the issue of creationism versus natural evolution and justification through evidence or the absence of it. It being the creationist who makes the claim of creation when the evidence supports natural evolution. This is not a person thing between you and me...at least not for me. You were responding to me, obviously. And it's curious that you keep bringing up creationism and arguing against it when you respond to my posts, because way back about 70 or 80 pages I pretty clearly stated I''m not a creationist. If you want to argue against creationism you should probably do that with a creationist, it'll be more productive for you. Nice diversion with the "it's not personal" comment though. You side step so well, you should've been a Motown singer.
A wise man is frequently humbled.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
Another assertion of obfuscation. It is the problems of asserting 'God did it' that are being pointed out. 'God' cannot be explained or detected or tested, hence it is not an explanation for anything. It is just a word being offered as an explanation. Yes you can call the mover Charlie or whatever name you please but in the end that Being will need to have the attributes of eternal self-existence, omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-presence that are properly termed God. So why not use the proper terminology that is common to all mankind rather than introducing something that is meaningless to try to prove something that is pointless. Benevolence, love, holiness, etc are not the attributes in question when discussing intelligent design so why even introduce them unless the intent is to obfuscate? The God who needs to exist as the Uncaused First Cause would not be weak Deism, because He would need to be omnipotent. How can Big Bang be the prime mover when it needs certain pre-conditions?
There is no logic in this argument at all.
The attributes and features, 'eternal self-existence, omniscience,' etc, are simply being tacked onto the word 'God' - these also not being verifiable or testable. It can just as easily said - the universe is cyclic eternal and self-existent - for what it's worth.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
If you're about to protest that infinite goodness, by definition, wouldn't allow evil to exist, you're not alone. Classic non-sequitur. The key being ''infinite goodness'' - the presence of evil means that goodness is not infinite. The presence of evil means that God is part good, part evil Infinite goodness does not presuppose infinite evil because evil can be created--therefore the argument fails. If God creates Evil out of His so called infinite goodness, He cannot be infinitely Good, hence the argument stands
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
[quote=DBT]
Where does the gravity and matter/energy interaction come from?
It doesn't come from anywhere, matter/energy/gravity exists, something rather than nothing, cyclic, quantum fluctuations, multiverse.....nobody knows...not even those who assert 'God did it'
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
It's the person that desires to change the views of others that has the burden of proof. The issue is justification of belief...which entails evidence. Creationists/theists are trying to 'spread the message' and get others to believe. Science doesn't care what you believe, especially if you can't demonstrate the truth of your belief, which takes evidence. The evidence to evolution is more than sufficient to prove the reality of evolution. So if someone 'chooses' to disregard the facts, that is their problem. If evolutionary science does not care what you believe, why is Intelligent Design being banned from being taught in the public school system? Why do the proponents of atheistic evolution have such a prejudice against it when the many of the greatest scientists believed in Theism and intelligent design? Evolution is state supported propaganda that uses a liberal court system to suppress all scientific debate in the public school system. The country was founded on Theism. Why are we banning the very foundational principles that made us great? I don't know the full details of US law, but I assume that it is banned from being taught in science classes because it is not science (tried in court and failed). It is religion, so I guess that it is not banned in religious study classrooms.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 26,337
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 26,337 |
[quote=DBT]
Where does the gravity and matter/energy interaction come from?
It doesn't come from anywhere, matter/energy/gravity exists, something rather than nothing, cyclic, quantum fluctuations, multiverse.....nobody knows...not even those who assert 'God did it' if we're willing to first assume a god, then that gives us a ladder to climb up out of the hole in the ground. usually, i've depended upon monetary theorists, and macro economists to supply the ladder. but, probably god could do the job just as well. maybe better. i don't know.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554 |
if we're willing to first assume a god, then that gives us a ladder to climb up out of the hole in the ground. Jeez, someone finally got it!
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
Which explains a lot.
|
|
|
|
472 members (1lesfox, 160user, 17CalFan, 12344mag, 10gaugeman, 10ring1, 42 invisible),
2,174
guests, and
1,162
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,377
Posts18,488,476
Members73,970
|
Most Online11,491 Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|