Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
Written by: Patriarch917
Just because they don’t want the Bible to be true?
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Written by: jeff(fake)Written by: Patriarch917
Just because they don’t want the Bible to be true?
Yeah, eternal bliss would just suck big time, captain logic.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Written by: answers in genesis
Smoke and mirrors are generally what you will get on skeptics’ and old-earther web sites. They shun peer review and publication. Instead they rely on the naiveté of most of their readers to protect their bad science from exposure. Anybody can say anything on a website, and they do.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Written by: jeff(fake)
This made me laugh...Written by: answers in genesis
Smoke and mirrors are generally what you will get on skeptics’ and old-earther web sites. They shun peer review and publication. Instead they rely on the naiveté of most of their readers to protect their bad science from exposure. Anybody can say anything on a website, and they do.
Oh the sheer irony of it.
Written by:
Just because they don’t want the Bible to be true?
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
Written by: Patriarch917
It used to be thought that mice would spontaneously generate from grain and old rags left in the corner of a barn, or that maggots would spontaneously generate from rotting meat. This was a “simple” explanation, and no doubt you could appeal to occams razor in favor of it. Experiments were done to “prove” this theory. You could leave meat out to rot, and maggots would grow in it… simple cause and affect.
Of course, we know now that the correct explanation was more complex.
The insults of your enemy are a tribute to your bravery
"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade
I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.
Written by: Patriarch917
Of course, I don't recall anyone arguing in this discussion that Creationism is correct "because the Bible says so." The arguments have been based on interpretations of physical evidence, logic, and subjective reasonability.
"Moo," said the happy cow.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Written by: mcp
So I've yet to have to make a proper reply, but: Why don't you assume that a process we see around us, natural selection, could have been going on, on earth, throughout it's history, without any other godly influences?
Written by: mcp
I still don't think you've proved that natural selection couldn't have created life, all you have done is shown an absence of evidence.
Written by: mcp
Basically I don't understand why you seem so keen to try and back up your beliefs on evidence, when the entire 'argument' of ID and creationism is based on belief and that needs no evidence.
Written by:
If God created the Universe then persumably God created the laws of physics and so on as well as revealing the words of the Bible. I'm still left to wonder if it that is the case then why did he create the Universe in such a way as to make the Bible look completely wrong.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Written by: Patriarch917Written by: mcp
So I've yet to have to make a proper reply, but: Why don't you assume that a process we see around us, natural selection, could have been going on, on earth, throughout it's history, without any other godly influences?
Natural selection has been going on since the begining. However, if God created everything, this itself could correctly be called a "godly influence."
Written by: mcp
I still don't think you've proved that natural selection couldn't have created life, all you have done is shown an absence of evidence.
Written by: Patriarch917
You can choose to have faith in natural selection if you want, but while you do you have no standing to criticize people who have faith in different explanations.
Written by: Patriarch917
That is not true. If incontrovertible evidence could be found that evolution were true, I would certainly believe at least in theistic evolution. However, the physical evidence we find does not show this to be the only, or even a likely possibility.
Written by: Patriarch917
Naturalistic evolution is completely unconvincing, because it contradicts observable principles of the universe, and demands what I see as an unreasonable amount of coincidences.
Written by: Patriarch917
Science is not solely the process of trying to find theories for explanations that fit a prior commitment to a naturalistic philosophy. If the truth is that life did not arise from chance, there is nothing unscientific about accepting that truth.
"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade
I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.
Written by:
Of course, I don't recall anyone arguing in this discussion that Creationism is correct "because the Bible says so”
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade
I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.
"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade
I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
Written by: i8beefy2
The ID is creationism in disguise. How can you possibly argue otherwise? If there had to be SOME INTELLIGENT BEING that DESIGNED us, you then pass the buck to that being. How did IT come into being. All of ID's arguments about evolution's impossibility in the given time-frame seems to say that this couldn't have made life spontaneously evolve ANYWHERE in the universe, which leaves only one POSSIBLE explanation, and that is a supernatural force, which by definition is beyond scientific inquirey and thus is NOT scientific.
Written by: i8beefy2
To say that "Oh it's not necessarily God" is just trying to throw a tissue over the giant pink elephant so the rest of us can't see it for what it is. It's absurd and it insults the intelligence of rational thinking individuals. By your (and I mean ID's by your) arguments there is only one possible explanation and it will always be God or at least something which exists outside of nature (the realm of science), for the simple reason that those arguments say that any "natural method" can not account for life beginning in the first place.
Written by: i8beefy2
Science is the study of natural phenomenon to find the natural causes of what we observe. There is nothing natural about ID because by it's own tennents it points at an unnatural explanation. It isn't scientific, and has no place in a classroom unless we're talking about Philosophy, in which case, go for it.
Written by: i8beefy2
Here's another one. Explain the differentiation of species over time. What I mean is, for evolution to be completely incorrect, that is the macroevolution which you must reject on principle, where do new species come from? They have to all be here from the beginning and not change from something else into what they are today. This just isn't so. Humans didn't exist when dinosaurs did. ID fails to explain something that evolution DOES explain. This is why it is a weaker theory as such and was (rightfully) overthrown by the more naturalistic, and more encompassing, theory of evolution.
Written by: i8beefy2
The simple problem remains that ID just passes the buck. If aliens seeded the planet then where did THEY come from to design us? Oh THEY evolved but somehow evolution can't explain speciation here? Simple bacteria from a comet have the same effect of "seeding" and requires no intelligence at all either if life evolved elsewhere.
Written by: i8beefy2
If you are saying that evolution was responsable for the intelligent designers, but not for us your contradicting your own premises.
Written by: i8beefy2
Until I can see ID giving a NON-self-defeating argument (life evolving elsewhere is still evolution), I can't take it seriously...
Written by: Patriarch917
All of the data and experiments to date suggests that the conditions needed for life to occur by chance never existed on Earth.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Written by: i8beefy2
The ID is creationism in disguise. How can you possibly argue otherwise? If there had to be SOME INTELLIGENT BEING that DESIGNED us, you then pass the buck to that being. How did IT come into being. All of ID's arguments about evolution's impossibility in the given time-frame seems to say that this couldn't have made life spontaneously evolve ANYWHERE in the universe, which leaves only one POSSIBLE explanation, and that is a supernatural force, which by definition is beyond scientific inquirey and thus is NOT scientific.
To say that "Oh it's not necessarily God" is just trying to throw a tissue over the giant pink elephant so the rest of us can't see it for what it is. It's absurd and it insults the intelligence of rational thinking individuals. By your (and I mean ID's by your) arguments there is only one possible explanation and it will always be God or at least something which exists outside of nature (the realm of science), for the simple reason that those arguments say that any "natural method" can not account for life beginning in the first place.
Science is the study of natural phenomenon to find the natural causes of what we observe. There is nothing natural about ID because by it's own tennents it points at an unnatural explanation. It isn't scientific, and has no place in a classroom unless we're talking about Philosophy, in which case, go for it.
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Written by: jeff(fake)Written by: Patriarch917
All of the data and experiments to date suggests that the conditions needed for life to occur by chance never existed on Earth.
Rubbish.
What you meant to say is that all the data suggests that specific proteins and DNA are too complex to have emerged by chance.
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Using the keywords [intelligent design v * evolution] we found the following existing topics.