Evolution Schmevolution
- Started
- Last post
- 164 Responses
- discipler0
inevitably, kuz reverts to the ways of an insulting simpleton spewing emotional vitriol.
- arinya0
Who let the Space Monkeys out!?????!?!? Someone get me a banana quick!
*rolls up sleeves*
- paraselene0
how does a mindless "primordial energy" create itself and maintain it's existance? How do you answer that without arriving at an infinite regression of causes? (which end in an infinite regression of effects).
discipler
(Sep 14 05, 06:55)you don't. and that's okay with me. i guess i'm resigned to the fact that part of my humanity is the inability to know some things.
there are more things in heaven and earth, horatio...
- mrdobolina0
discipler, it must be sick being so right all of the time.
- discipler0
paraselene, I think your notion of a mindless wave of energy as the source of all things, is simply a demonstration of the desperate lengths people will go to, to avoid the clear inference (and accountability) of a cognizant designer. IMO.
- discipler0
you get used to it.
;)
- paraselene0
it's not a notion that i cultivate or even really have. i just brought it up to illustrate the similarity between faith and superstition.
as for a cognizant designer, damn straight i'm avoiding that idea. mostly because it doesn't appeal to me on an aesthetic level.
and you can't but say fair do's to that. it's a personal decision.
- Kuz0
“Fact. You would do well to take some time and study that actual facts on this issue and how the manuscript evidence stands in stark contrast from other writings.”.
You miss the point entirely, as usual, and invent a separate argument just to make ur self feel better. My point about the Abraham example was yes, the bible might have had the hand of real people in a real space of time but many superstitions are based on the similar premises (no matter how relatively more or less actual history is in the bible). The point is, it is still ultimately a question of faith/superstition whether you believe in them. neither science nor archaeology nor history can “prove” that god created adam and eve, and then adam and eve had a son and daugheter, and they fucked, and then their children fucked, and then their childrens children fucked, until the world was populated. These, and samsons magic hair, are all questions of FAITH. Which then leads to the superstition of, there’s all these angels floating around, and when you die your spirit floats away, and there’s this little devil creature stirring shit up.
So to reiterate you believe “Christianity is not superstition cos the bible is really really old.”
Eugh!!!!!
- bk_shankz0
The same way a virus or dna strand or complex protein maintains its existence. Pure chemistry which breaks down into the laws of physics. There are four forces governing everything whether it be biological or physical. At the microsopic level we reduce to the same thing.
- mrdobolina0
it is nice to see that your views on ID and your disdain for gay people jive with the likes of Pat Robertson and James Dobson.
- unfittoprint0
question:
between Adam & Eve
and us,
somewhere down the line
some motherfucking must have happened. literally.
right?
- mrdobolina0
discipler:
you talk about how jesus has changed so many millions of peoples lives. Could that not be said about hundreds of other 'gods' and religions.
I mean the Greek Gods changed millions of lives.
We don't have to respect your superstitions.
- paraselene0
yeah, or what bk_shankz said. i'm really fond of that idea.
- Nairn0
There's no point in arguing with the Religious - they believe their way, and that is their all.
To point to a Creator as the root cause is to undo the sublime majesty and mystery of the entire universe and our little planet in it. They're welcome to their timid vision.
Personally, I rather like not knowing, having a more fluid and, dare I say it, creative outlook on the many possible reasons for our being.
Not to rely on some boring bearded fucker who didn't even have the nous to make 'intelligent' beings outwith His Own Image.
- discipler0
kuz - The problem with your argument is that you hold the presupposition that the stories in the Bible developed the same way that superstitions develop. This is false. And this is exactly what the science of textual criticism demonstrates. Thru careful study of manuscript origins, oral tradition, secular historical record, and archaeology, and an understanding of the types of literature used in the specific books of the bible, one is able to deduce what is allegorical and what is factual narrative. Obviously, it comes down to an issue of faith... but it is a faith based in a bevy of evidence. One must determine if he/she is going to let prejudice against the supernatural impact the decision to embrace or reject it. Another problem to factor in is the consistent caricature of these accounts and stories, through childrens' illustrations and the like. These innacurate depictions do not negate the truth of the occurances.
In a nutshell, I'm simply saying that there is convincing evidence in support of the Biblical account. That's all. Ridicule it as you see fit.
- discipler0
what the???
mrdobs, that's most confusing statement I've read in 3 ice ages.
- bk_shankz0
I think intelligent design is a valid philosophical theory as long as there is no Christian bias in its presentation.
- paraselene0
Ridicule it as you see fit.
discipler
(Sep 14 05, 07:35)okay!
*points and laughs at bible
**throws ripe tomatonow isn't this more fun, kids?
- kyl30
I did a 5k fun walk with christ last weekend
- discipler0
To point to a creator as the root cause, is a logical inference from science. Biological systems broken down to it's core constituents, yields information. Pure and simple, information (as coded in DNA). Mindless, random chance does not, and never has, produced information. Let alone the library volumes worth of information in a single strand of DNA.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... maybe it's a duck.