Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

#1,476
#1,476
Nowhere in anyones post, in history, have they explained how natural selection or divergent evolution brought life from "goo" to "you". Ns and DE bring about only death. Life only comes from a Creator. See how I did that? Doesn't add much to the debate though IMO.
 
#1,477
#1,477
marcusluvsvols said:
Nowhere in anyones post, in history, have they explained how natural selection or divergent evolution brought life from "goo" to "you". Ns and DE bring about only death. Life only comes from a Creator. See how I did that? Doesn't add much to the debate though IMO.
Click to expand...

Try the River out of Eden.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0465069908/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/186-7685431-9651058
 
#1,478
#1,478
#1,479
#1,479
BigOrangeTrain said:
Get used to it with him. It is ironic. He along with other atheists bash believers in God for using faith. Yet they employ it with evolution and its fine. Another gem, the burden of proof. When a theist makes a claim the burden of proof is squarely on them. However when an atheist makes a claim, the burden of proof does not apply. They are the worlds best deflection artists.
Click to expand...

Brick-Tamland.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,480
#1,480
Vol8188 said:
Nowhere in your post did you state why ID is a scientific theory.
Click to expand...

Sure I did. But the problem with your initial question demonstrates that you don't even know what you are asking. You asked what "evidence?"
Do you realize that all theories are ideas, not things? What 'evidence' do you have that Darwinism is a valid theory? You would state NS, mutation, etc. But these are all evidences compatible with ID. NS is an evidence. We all have the SAME evidence and facts. Darwinian evolution is a theory (idea) to explain the effects we see in nature, and search for a cause.
Are you saying that we don't observe the apprearance of design in nature. Are you saying that DNA is not a code that we can observe?

The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
Click to expand...

All of the major pro-intelligent design organizations oppose any efforts to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education........Instead of mandating intelligent design, the major pro-ID organizations seek to increase the coverage of evolution in textbooks by teaching students about both scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolution. Most school districts today teach only a one-sided version of evolution which presents only the facts which supposedly support the theory. But most pro-ID organizations think evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned.
Click to expand...
Source: Intelligent Design and Science Education
 
#1,481
#1,481
Septic said:
Brick-Tamland.jpg
Click to expand...

To believe, or place your "faith" in (I know that word scares you), anything that you cannot see or touch requires faith. Run from it...it doesnt make it not true. There are huge holes in your belief system. Huge. It completely abandons the scientific method when it makes suppositions and inferences. Post Gifs...make smug remarks...bury your head in the sand. There is no concrete evidence for what you believe in. You don't worship God...you worship the Almighty Self...the pagan God of Humanists. Darwins babblings are your bible and manifesto. Keep fooling yourself that your beliefs are scientific facts. The problem is it won't fool God. He sees all my sin..and there are plenty. He sees yours as well.
 
Last edited:
#1,482
#1,482
marcusluvsvols said:
To believe, or place your "faith" in (I know that word scares you), anything that you cannot see or touch requires faith. Run from it...it doesnt make it not true. There are huge holes in your belief system. Huge. It completely abandons the scientific method when it makes suppositions and inferences. Post Gifs...make smug remarks...bury your head in the sand. There is no concrete evidence for what you believe in. You don't worship God...you worship the Almighty Self...the pagan God of Humanists. Darwins babblings are your bible and manifesto. Keep fooling yourself that your beliefs are scientific facts. The problem is it won't fool God. He sees all my sin..and there are plenty. He sees yours as well.
Click to expand...

You have a very abstract concept of faith. Using your logic, would you also consider not playing golf a sport?
 
#1,483
#1,483
marcusluvsvols said:
I enjoy fiction as well as nonfiction. The difference is we freely admit our belief system requires faith. To those who share yours or a similar one "faith" is a dirty word. Disingenuous at best. To be completely honest I detest the word "disingenuous". Its a politically correct way of tiptoeing around a lie. A lie is a lie. A liar is a liar.
Click to expand...

EVERY belief system requires faith. Belief is a synonym of faith.
Darwinist believe that the observable changes we see such as NS, genetic drift, random mutation, given enough time will result in molecules to man evolution. That is a BELIEF. Do they have evidence? Yes, they claim that those things mentioned above are evidence that supports their belief. However, a creationist like myself accepts all these things as evidences that fit within a much different system. And, we see ID as theory that supports our worldview and challenges a competing BELIEF system.

Do not fall pray to the erronious logic being employed. Science is NOT a thing. Science is a process.
 
#1,484
#1,484
Roustabout said:
EVERY belief system requires faith. Belief is a synonym of faith.
Darwinist believe that the observable changes we see such as NS, genetic drift, random mutation, given enough time will result in molecules to man evolution. That is a BELIEF. Do they have evidence? Yes, they claim that those things mentioned above are evidence that supports their belief. However, a creationist like myself accepts all these things as evidences that fit within a much different system. And, we see ID as theory that supports our worldview and challenges a competing BELIEF system.

Do not fall pray to the erronious logic being employed. Science is NOT a thing. Science is a process.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that marcus rejects any concept of evolution. I'm guessing he's a YEC.
 
#1,485
#1,485
Septic said:
You have a very abstract concept of faith. Using your logic, would you also consider not playing golf a sport?
Click to expand...

Do you use faulty logic on purpose, or just because you can't help it? Seriously.

He did not say: You have faith in God.

Thus, he did not say: You play golf.

He did not say: Your lack of faith in God is faith.

Thus, he did not say: Your lack of playing golf is a sport.

He said: Lacking a faith in God, you put faith in other things.

Thus: A correct analogy would be: "Would not playing golf, but playing softball, be considered playing a sport?"

Now, you are left to defend, deny or accept that you are putting faith in DE claims, the scientific process, and the naturalistic philosophy that science is currently built upon. To be logically sound, you are not at liberty to make faulty analogies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,486
#1,486
Orange_Crush said:
Do you use faulty logic on purpose, or just because you can't help it? Seriously.

He did not say: You have faith in God.

Thus, he did not say: You play golf.

He did not say: Your lack of faith in God is faith.

Thus, he did not say: Your lack of playing golf is a sport.

He said: Lacking a faith in God, you put faith in other things.

Thus: A correct analogy would be: "Would not playing golf, but playing softball, be considered playing a sport?"

Now, you are left to defend, deny or accept that you are putting faith in DE claims, the scientific process, and the naturalistic philosophy that science is currently built upon. To be logically sound, you are not at liberty to make faulty analogies.
Click to expand...

Great points. This is what we fail to point out all too many times. We aren't arguing the process of science. We are arguing the philospohical claims. "Science proves, or science 'says' your faith isn't valid." This is exactly what many on this forum are stating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,488
#1,488
Orange_Crush said:
Do you use faulty logic on purpose, or just because you can't help it? Seriously.

He did not say: You have faith in God.

Thus, he did not say: You play golf.

He did not say: Your lack of faith in God is faith.

Thus, he did not say: Your lack of playing golf is a sport.

He said: Lacking a faith in God, you put faith in other things.

Thus: A correct analogy would be: "Would not playing golf, but playing softball, be considered playing a sport?"

Now, you are left to defend, deny or accept that you are putting faith in DE claims, the scientific process, and the naturalistic philosophy that science is currently built upon. To be logically sound, you are not at liberty to make faulty analogies.
Click to expand...

My comment was in response to his claims that atheists must have faith. His inference (of God) was clear. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods e.g rejection the concept of deities. Atheism makes no claims beyond that.

DE wasn't contemplated in my response, you've 'smuggled' in a retort to a non existent argument.
 
#1,489
#1,489
Roustabout said:
Great points. This is what we fail to point out all too many times. We aren't arguing the process of science. We are arguing the philospohical claims. "Science proves, or science 'says' your faith isn't valid." This is exactly what many on this forum are stating.
Click to expand...

Just for posterity's sake, here was the point of which Septic was seeking to make analogy. Notice the bold.

marcusluvsvols said:
I enjoy fiction as well as nonfiction. The difference is we freely admit our belief system requires faith. To those who share yours or a similar one "faith" is a dirty word. Disingenuous at best. To be completely honest I detest the word "disingenuous". Its a politically correct way of tiptoeing around a lie. A lie is a lie. A liar is a liar.
Click to expand...

I'll wait to be properly chastised for using and expecting proper logic.
 
#1,490
#1,490
marcusluvsvols said:
I enjoy fiction as well as nonfiction. The difference is we freely admit our belief system requires faith. To those who share yours or a similar one "faith" is a dirty word. Disingenuous at best. To be completely honest I detest the word "disingenuous". Its a politically correct way of tiptoeing around a lie. A lie is a lie. A liar is a liar.
Click to expand...

Edit: I forgot to add this mlv quote for posterity:

To believe, or place your "faith" in (I know that word scares you), anything that you cannot see or touch requires faith. Run from it...it doesnt make it not true. There are huge holes in your belief system. Huge. It completely abandons the scientific method when it makes suppositions and inferences. Post Gifs...make smug remarks...bury your head in the sand. There is no concrete evidence for what you believe in. You don't worship God...you worship the Almighty Self...the pagan God of Humanists. Darwins babblings are your bible and manifesto. Keep fooling yourself that your beliefs are scientific facts. The problem is it won't fool God. He sees all my sin..and there are plenty. He sees yours as well.
Click to expand...

/Edit

Septic said:
You have a very abstract concept of faith. Using your logic, would you also consider not playing golf a sport?
Click to expand...

Orange_Crush said:
Do you use faulty logic on purpose, or just because you can't help it? Seriously.

He did not say: You have faith in God.

Thus, he did not say: You play golf.

He did not say: Your lack of faith in God is faith.

Thus, he did not say: Your lack of playing golf is a sport.

He said: Lacking a faith in God, you put faith in other things.

Thus: A correct analogy would be: "Would not playing golf, but playing softball, be considered playing a sport?"

Now, you are left to defend, deny or accept that you are putting faith in DE claims, the scientific process, and the naturalistic philosophy that science is currently built upon. To be logically sound, you are not at liberty to make faulty analogies.
Click to expand...

Septic said:
My comment was in response to his claims that atheists must have faith. His inference (of God) was clear. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods e.g rejection the concept of deities. Atheism makes no claims beyond that.

DE wasn't contemplated in my response, you've 'smuggled' in a retort to a non existent argument.
Click to expand...

I've smuggled nothing in. I've quoted the point you were making analogy to, and then shown your analogy to be incorrect. He never said: "You don't believe in God so you have faith in God." Thus your "not playing golf == playing a sport" analogy is faulty logic. He said: "You don't have faith in God but have faith in other things", so the correct analogy would be: "You don't play golf but do play softball, so yes you do play a sport".
 
Last edited:
#1,491
#1,491
Septic said:
The problem here is that marcus rejects any concept of evolution. I'm guessing he's a YEC.
Click to expand...
X

I believe in DE as far as variation in species. Nothing more. Do I think all dogs ( as well as wolves etc.) Had a common ancestor? Sure. Guess what? It was a dog. Not a bird. Or a fish...or an asparagus. God said animals would "bring forth according to their kind." They are the same kind of animal.
I believe in microevolution in several different forms. Do strains of bacteria become resistant to antibiotics? Yes. This is verifiable fact. If humans are injected with cowpox do theybuildan immunity to smallpox? Sure. These things are science. Testable repeatable science.
Do I believe I came from a rock? Hell no.. and I think its a lil crazy and mucho illogical to believe you did. I also don't believe that I descended from any kind of primate. Feel free to if you like...I don't care if you go pick flees off of your "distant cousin" at thee zoo.
As far as being YEC I'm not sure. I freely admit that. I don't buy the "gap". Theory...also don't buy the "day/age" theory...not sure how old the Earth is. Thing is its not something that keeps me up at night. I know the God of Isaac and Jacob is real. He answers my prayers and I do my best to live my life for Him instead of me. It really is about "death to self". I fail every single day. Every. Single. Day. But you know what? He knows I'm gonna fail. He loves me anyway. His strength is perfected in my weakness. I know you don't understand. I don't expect you to. Not implying I'm more intelligent...its actually the opposite if that. I know that I don't know it all. I lean not on my own understanding. I know my wisest thoughts are foolishness in the eyes of God. I hope you give it a chance and try to experience it for yourself some day. God is real. Whether you believe in Him or not has no bearing on Him...only on you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,493
#1,493
To whomever may be concerned... I am currently, at this very moment, eating a banana. It did neither disproved DE nor proved ID. Michael Behe and William Dembski couldn't care less.

That is all for now-- except to say that bananas are a very tasty source of potassium.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,494
#1,494
Orange_Crush said:
Edit: I forgot to add this mlv quote for posterity:



/Edit







I've smuggled nothing in. I've quoted the point you were making analogy to, and then shown your analogy to be incorrect. He never said: "You don't believe in God so you have faith in God." Thus your "not playing golf == playing a sport" analogy is faulty logic. He said: "You don't have faith in God but have faith in other things", so the correct analogy would be: "You don't play golf but do play softball, so yes you do play a sport".
Click to expand...

Sigh... Word games aside, his assertion was clear. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,495
#1,495
Septic said:
Sigh... Word games aside, his assertion was clear. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

See, that's what is so trying about these kinds of discussions... You and others get irritated when people such as myself give great import to both meaning and proper logic. I posted and bolded what he said, and it is actually quite clear what he said and meant. When I placed the points and your retort in logical order, it became quite clear that you made an invalid analogy to his point.

It is diversion that is all too common anymore. When the diversion is pointed out, you drop the point by copping out, but refuse to revisit and speak to the point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#1,496
#1,496
Orange_Crush said:
See, that's what is so trying about these kinds of discussions... You and others get irritated when people such as myself give great import to both meaning and proper logic. I posted and bolded what he said, and it is actually quite clear what he said and meant. When I placed the points and your retort in logical order, it became quite clear that you made an invalid analogy to his point.

It is diversion that is all too common anymore. When the diversion is pointed out, you drop the point by copping out, but refuse to revisit and speak to the point.
Click to expand...

Both sides in this debate have been guilty of this.
 
#1,500
#1,500
rjd970 said:
Amazing you guys harp on this, yet are still unable to provide any for ID.
Click to expand...

Really? Are you saying you can't test for function and design?

And are you further saying that macro evolution should be thrown into the same bucket as ID?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top