- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 2/27/24 at 9:41 pm to Prodigal Son
I think Dawkins use of the word “illusion” and yours isn’t the same. He’s using it as the standard definition - a perception based on a false belief or premise. He isn’t meaning that things genuinely look designed, rather that many people perceive design based on a false understanding or lack of understanding of the reality of evidently true biological theory, such as evolution of species based on natural selection, such as genetics, and such as paleontology and geology.
I don’t believe he is. I think for a lot of people, reading his excellent material would go a long way to aiding in understanding.
Let’s replace the word “illusion” with the definition to see if it makes more sense.
Very good, straight from The Blind Watchmaker. But let’s see what the book really says:
quote:
Well, you might want to tell him that he is giving off the wrong impression then.
I don’t believe he is. I think for a lot of people, reading his excellent material would go a long way to aiding in understanding.
quote:
Because, it definitely seems like he admits to at least the illusion of design
Let’s replace the word “illusion” with the definition to see if it makes more sense.
quote:
Because, it definitely seems like he admits to at least the (perception based on a false belief or premise) of design
quote:
“I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.” — Richard Dawkins
Very good, straight from The Blind Watchmaker. But let’s see what the book really says:
Posted on 2/27/24 at 10:32 pm to Prodigal Son
I forgot to comment on the wolf evolution.
Do you trust that DNA is real? That DNA proved OJ did it? Are maternity tests and paternity tests real? How the heck does 23andMe know who my cousins are and alert me when a new family member shares their DNA profile? They can tell if a new member is my second cousin once removed or my uncle. Crazy, but not crazy once you understand DNA and how it is analyzed. It is an observable testable scientific fact that biological relatives share DNA sequences.
Scientists can do the same thing for different species to understand their relationships. They can tell that wolves are cousins to coyotes and dingos and further cousins from African painted dogs. And further cousins from bears, skunks, cats, etc.
Analyses are performed that estimate how many millions of years ago common ancestors must’ve existed based on typical rates of genetic change over time. Paleontologists can find rock layers (ages specified by geologists) and find fossils that look like morphological intermediates between species that we’d expect to find simply based on genetics.
Currently, all known life forms are confirmed to be related genetically. People are closer to chimpanzees, but further from orangutans, still further from bears, further from kangaroos, further from platypuses, further from lizards, further from amphibians, etc.
There’s an ever loving shitload of transitional fossils. Not many missing links. You want fish with lungs and legs? Whales with fingers and toes? Dinosaurs with feathers? Snakes with little nubs where the legs used to be? Upright walking apes with the body of a near modern human but with the cranium and face akin to a chimpanzee? Where do you want to start?
Do you trust that DNA is real? That DNA proved OJ did it? Are maternity tests and paternity tests real? How the heck does 23andMe know who my cousins are and alert me when a new family member shares their DNA profile? They can tell if a new member is my second cousin once removed or my uncle. Crazy, but not crazy once you understand DNA and how it is analyzed. It is an observable testable scientific fact that biological relatives share DNA sequences.
Scientists can do the same thing for different species to understand their relationships. They can tell that wolves are cousins to coyotes and dingos and further cousins from African painted dogs. And further cousins from bears, skunks, cats, etc.
Analyses are performed that estimate how many millions of years ago common ancestors must’ve existed based on typical rates of genetic change over time. Paleontologists can find rock layers (ages specified by geologists) and find fossils that look like morphological intermediates between species that we’d expect to find simply based on genetics.
Currently, all known life forms are confirmed to be related genetically. People are closer to chimpanzees, but further from orangutans, still further from bears, further from kangaroos, further from platypuses, further from lizards, further from amphibians, etc.
quote:
Where are the transitional fossils? Where is the missing link?
There’s an ever loving shitload of transitional fossils. Not many missing links. You want fish with lungs and legs? Whales with fingers and toes? Dinosaurs with feathers? Snakes with little nubs where the legs used to be? Upright walking apes with the body of a near modern human but with the cranium and face akin to a chimpanzee? Where do you want to start?
Posted on 2/27/24 at 10:52 pm to Stitches
quote:That wasn't my point. My point was that when the Scriptures existed, they were authoritative even if they were lost to the people of Israel for nearly 60 years, or if not everyone in Christendom had all books available to them for a few hundred years, though they were widely available much earlier than the 300's.
They weren't though. Trent pointed this out as well. The Revelation of God through Moses didn't suddenly only become authoritative if it was written down at some point in the future. It was authoritative as soon as it was orally taught.
I agree that Moses' words from God were authoritative even prior to being written down, but that reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of sola scriptura by Catholics. We are not arguing that only the written word of God is ever authoritative. We are arguing that the written word--after being written--became the authoritative standard that all future revelation would be judged by. Miracles accompanied the ministry of Jesus and the Apostles to confirm their God-given authority, so that when they spoke in teaching, it was to be believed as the very word of God.
What sola scriptura teaches is that once the Prophets (in the OT) and the Apostles (in the NT) passed away, their words from God remained only in the written Scriptures that they left behind, and therefore we look to the Scriptures as the final authority for faith and life, being the only infallible rule for the church.
Catholics misunderstand the doctrine to mean that only written words are ever authoritative, but that isn't the claim. Jesus' words were authoritative but His teachings outside of Scripture have not been preserved for the Church, and therefore all that is necessary to be believed for faith and life are authoritatively preserved in the Scriptures alone, since only the Scriptures are God-breathed, carrying the ultimate authority of God.
quote:Yes, but the point is that there was disagreement in Catholicism until disagreement was forbidden. Good, faithful Catholics for centuries didn't view the apocryphal writings as authoritative Scripture all the way up until the Council of Trent, when they weren't allowed to disagree any longer.
He also pointed out, rightfully so, that most things are not infallibly defined until someone starts a movement that goes against the orthodox view, and as a result, pulls many people into heresy. The canon is no exception. It wasn't infallibly defined until it needed to be.
quote:Again, this displays a fundamental misunderstanding of sola scriptura and even the argument I'm presenting.
He also held the teachings of the Pharisees as authoritative, since they sit on the seat of Moses. Funny enough, what constitutes the seat of Moses isn't taught in scripture, yet the 1st century Jews presumably understood the reference since nobody questioned it.
I'm not denying that tradition can be helpful or that leaders of the Church have authority. Jesus followed the traditions of men so long as they didn't conflict with the commands of God. He respected the authority of the leaders of Israel so long as they were exercising their authority in accordance with the Word of God. The existence of tradition was never the issue. The issue was that tradition was always subservient to the Scriptures, and the authority of the leaders of Israel was subservient to the Scriptures, and that's what Jesus and His disciples condemned: the traditions of men or the authority of men being placed above the Scriptures, since only the Scriptures were the very Word of God as an infallible rule. It was the Scriptures as the revelation of God that was the ultimate and only infallible authority even over the authority of the leaders or their traditions, and that's what sola scriptura is all about.
quote:Their reception of the Word of God was directly tied to their examination of that Word with the Scriptures (the OT). Their reception in Berea was immediately contrasted with Paul's preaching from the Scriptures in Thessalonica, where a few believed, but the others drove Paul and Silas out of the city. So it wasn't just the reception, but the eagerness to receive because they believed the Scriptures and validated Paul's message from them.
And then they accepted the apostolic authority and oral preaching of Paul, and were considered more righteous than the scripture studying Jews in Thessalonica as a result.
And yes, they received Paul's oral teaching precisely because they believed it conformed to the written Word of God, which was their ultimate standard for truth, and Paul's teaching would only be received so long as it was supported by Scripture.
quote:"Useful"? The Greek indicates that "profitable" is a better translation due to how the word is used elsewhere. That's important because Catholics unfortunately see "useful" and think it merely means that it is of some use, but could also not be useful, either (like it's optional). It's a way of downplaying what the Scriptures do for the man of God. In actuality, the word "profitable" is better (not just because that's how it's used elsewhere), but because it speaks to the benefits the Scriptures provide, not just how they can possibly be used, as you are using it. It's a word that speaks to a positive use, not a downplaying or minimizing.
No. He told Timothy that the scriptures were USEFUL in teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. It is the teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness that MAY make a man complete, but scripture is never described as being solely and completely sufficient at doing that.
Likewise for "may". The word is in the subjunctive and indicates a positive contingency of action. In this case, if the man of God uses the Scriptures, he will be complete. It contributes to a theoretical or even promissory if-then expression, such as Matt. 6:4, where the word indicates that if you give in secret, the Lord will reward you.
But that word isn't even the focal point of the verse. The word "perfect" or "complete" (artios) is used to describe what the Scriptures are good for. They--by themselves--are sufficient to make a man complete, and complete for what? "Every good work". The Scriptures are sufficient to make the man of God equipped and complete for every good work or all good works.
So you see, what Paul is telling Timothy to do is go to the Scriptures, which alone have the characteristic of being "God-breathed", to be equipped for all that is needed for teaching and correction.
Posted on 2/27/24 at 11:06 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
I think Dawkins use of the word “illusion” and yours isn’t the same. He’s using it as the standard definition - a perception based on a false belief or premise. He isn’t meaning that things genuinely look designed, rather that many people perceive design based on a false understanding or lack of understanding of the reality of evidently true biological theory, such as evolution of species based on natural selection, such as genetics, and such as paleontology and geology.
Yes. I agree with you. What someone like me calls design, he calls an illusion. We are describing the same thing, in different ways.
quote:
Let’s replace the word “illusion” with the definition to see if it makes more sense. quote: Because, it definitely seems like he admits to at least the (perception based on a false belief or premise) of design
This doesn’t change anything. I accept the definition of illusion. It is sufficient to just use the word.
Maybe the disconnect between us is that I said that he believes in the illusion of design. In retrospect, perhaps that was poorly worded. What I am trying to convey is that what most would call design, he calls an illusion. Does that make sense?
quote:
Very good, straight from The Blind Watchmaker. But let’s see what the book really says:
Yes, thank you for posting this. I especially find the latter part of this quote to be quite illuminating-
quote:
although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
I think that statement perfectly explains the academic establishment’s death grip on neo Darwinism; even in the wake of a growing number of scientists who now question the validity of its claims to adequately account for the complexity of life. Check out dissent from Darwin.org. This a purely scientific matter. What I see, is that from Dawkins’ quote, to challenge Darwin is to challenge atheism. This shouldn’t be. Real scientists should be able to separate the theological implications from the science- and follow the evidence wherever it leads. I encourage you to watch Expelled: No intelligence allowed. Yes, it’s about intelligent design.
But, more importantly, it shows how anyone who questions Darwinian evolution is completely destroyed. Mocked. Blackballed. Fired. Why? If DE is the superior theory- if it is the truth, then why does it not welcome all challenges? Posted on 2/28/24 at 6:24 am to FooManChoo
quote:
My point was that when the Scriptures existed, they were authoritative even if they were lost to the people of Israel for nearly 60 years, or if not everyone in Christendom had all books available to them for a few hundred years, though they were widely available much earlier than the 300's.
quote:
I agree that Moses' words from God were authoritative even prior to being written down, but that reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of sola scriptura by Catholics. We are not arguing that only the written word of God is ever authoritative. We are arguing that the written word--after being written--became the authoritative standard that all future revelation would be judged by.
I understand what you mean by sola scriptura. What I'm saying is that scripture ALONE is neither explicitly taught nor implied in scripture, which according to the original definitions in the most ancient Protestant confessions, makes it a false doctrine.
We both agree it is authoritative. What it is not, however, is taught as the ultimate authority, nor does scripture ever say or imply it would become the standard by which all future revelation is judged, which it must do in order to be true according to the ancient Protestant confessions.
quote:
What sola scriptura teaches is that once the Prophets (in the OT) and the Apostles (in the NT) passed away, their words from God remained only in the written Scriptures that they left behind, and therefore we look to the Scriptures as the final authority for faith and life, being the only infallible rule for the church.
No it doesn't. What it teaches (originally) is that all doctrines of the faith must be found in scripture. I do understand that sola scriptura gets redefined every few years to make it a smaller target though.
Paul told Timothy in 2 Tim 2 to entrust things he heard Paul say in the presence of many witnesses to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.
Paul never told Timothy to make copies of the written word only and distribute that, since that would shift to be the ultimate authority in the future.
quote:
Yes, but the point is that there was disagreement in Catholicism until disagreement was forbidden. Good, faithful Catholics for centuries didn't view the apocryphal writings as authoritative Scripture
A very small minority of men, who were not infallible, had personal opinions that these books shouldn't have been included, yes. Almost all of these relented to defending them as scripture though, since the church recognized them as inspired. These same people also didn't believe in sola scriptura, sola fide, eternal security, and a whole host of other things that you believe in, so are we to take their word on those things as well? Or do we only side with these men when they support our view, and reject them as misguided when they don't?
quote:
The issue was that tradition was always subservient to the Scriptures, and the authority of the leaders of Israel was subservient to the Scriptures, and that's what Jesus and His disciples condemned: the traditions of men or the authority of men being placed above the Scriptures, since only the Scriptures were the very Word of God as an infallible rule.
No. Tradition (from God) was never once described as such in Scripture, which it must be according to the original definition of sola scriptura. Traditions of men, specifically the pharisees subjecting the common man to the purification laws of the priesthood, along with Corban, were something Christ rebelled against.
But he never once stated that tradition in general was subservient to the written word. It would be insane to tell someone during a time of public revelation that only what a prophet writes down would become ultimate authority.
The jews were not sola scriptura, and had an entire host of binding Traditions which were only passed down orally. These were eventually written down in the Mishnah. That is pretty telling.
quote:
It was the Scriptures as the revelation of God that was the ultimate and only infallible authority
It wasn't though. There isn't a single passage in scripture that even implies this, which according to the WCF, scripture must do in order for it to be true.
An example of this is the Acts 15 council. This was authoritative and binding on Christians as soon as the council discerned an outcome in 50AD, not only when it was written down in the book of Acts 40 years later. If the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 were never inscripturated, it would still be binding and the ultimate authority on the matter of circumsion not being a prerequisite to Christianity.
quote:
Useful"? The Greek indicates that "profitable" is a better translation due to how the word is used elsewhere.
Ophelimos can also translate to profitable, yes. What it means though (dynamic equivalence) is useful, serviceable, helpful, advantageous.
What it does not mean is solely and completely sufficient. You're reading that definition into the text to force a presupposition to be true.
quote:
Likewise for "may". The word is in the subjunctive and indicates a positive contingency of action. In this case, if the man of God uses the Scriptures, he will be complete. It contributes to a theoretical or even promissory if-then expression, such as Matt. 6:4, where the word indicates that if you give in secret, the Lord will reward you.
Yeah but the problem is that a subjunctive only indicates what might be, not what will occur. In the Matthew 6:4 passage, the will reward piece comes from the Greek apodosei, which is missing from the Timothy passage. Apples and oranges.
quote:
But that word isn't even the focal point of the verse. The word "perfect" or "complete" (artios) is used to describe what the Scriptures are good for.
Nope. teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness is what is possibly completely equipping the man of God for every good work. And scripture is described as being useful, helpful, advantageous, etc for those things, but not solely and completely sufficient. You're rearranging the sentence structure to try and force your theology into the passage.
This post was edited on 2/28/24 at 7:33 am
Posted on 2/28/24 at 6:47 am to Prodigal Son
quote:
Maybe the disconnect between us is that I said that he believes in the illusion of design. In retrospect, perhaps that was poorly worded. What I am trying to convey is that what most would call design, he calls an illusion. Does that make sense?
No, that doesn’t make sense at all.
Posted on 2/29/24 at 9:00 am to Prodigal Son
quote:
even in the wake of a growing number of scientists who now question the validity of its claims to adequately account for the complexity of life
Good morning PS,
I know of no such “growing number of scientists”. At least not legitimate biologists, geneticists, geologists, paleontologists, chemists - even biomedical engineers and farmers. Without doxing myself, I’ll say I know several quite well, and I consider myself decently well educated on the subject, surrounding myself with these kinds of people my entire life and reading books on the subject matter. Honestly, to claim that a growing number of scientists are questioning the validity or veracity of the modern scientific theory of evolution - what you refer to as Neo-Darwinism - is just preposterous.
quote:
What I see, is that from Dawkins’ quote, to challenge Darwin is to challenge atheism. This shouldn’t be.
I don’t see the same thing. Remember, modern evolutionary theory is not based on one or two guys. Neither Darwin or Dawkins is worshipped, and they are not our Pope or King. No offense, but to challenge “Darwin” at this point in our level of knowledge in the subject is only coming from the uneducated, the ignorant, or the experiencing cognitive dissonance.
Acknowledging biological evolution of species as being scientific fact, it does not mean that is proof of there being no supreme higher power or god. It doesn’t answer how the universe began or how life started, or the cause of such things. It does however mean that the Bible is completely made up. Maybe there is a god, though on which I have no evidence to base any kind of belief, just not necessarily the one particular god your religion has dreamed up.
quote:
Real scientists should be able to separate the theological implications from the science- and follow the evidence wherever it leads.
We are 100% in agreement.
quote:
Yes, it’s about intelligent design. But, more importantly, it shows how anyone who questions Darwinian evolution is completely destroyed. Mocked. Blackballed. Fired. Why? If DE is the superior theory- if it is the truth, then why does it not welcome all challenges?
That is a problem. We have to allow dissenting views and freedom of thought. I think mockery is also freedom of thought that should be allowed. Blackballing and firing and discrimination is where I draw the line.
I think it is possible also that some news reports you might see of evolution being “challenged” by legitimate scientists is not what you or the creation websites think it is or portray it to be. Just like the creation website you used took the Dawkins quote out of context on purpose…
ETA:
A headline such as this:
quote:
Discovery of "Dragon Man" skull challenges theories of human evolution
Could be used by creationists to say “ahah! Even scientists are challenging human neo-Darwinian evolution!” But when you read the article, the theory of evolution is not being challenged. What is being challenged are the fine details of taxonomy and what population or species evolved from which other population.
Human evolution challenged
Just when I was a kid, it was thought that Australopithecus Afarensis gave rise to Homo Habilis which gave rise to Homo Erectus which gave rise to Homo Neanderthalensis which gave rise to modern Homo Sapiens. We now know that such a claim is not correct, that there are many “missing links” and “branches” we’ve since found (e.g. Homo Rudolphensis, Homo Ergaster, Homo Naledi, Homo Heidelbergensis, Homo Denisova, Homo Floriensis, and many other Australopithecus and Paranthropus species that are now extinct. What we know about all that is probably also to be “challenged” and they will find more branches and links especially as some of these remains contain DNA that could be sequenced.
This post was edited on 2/29/24 at 12:25 pm
Posted on 3/2/24 at 1:45 pm to Squirrelmeister
Good morning. It’s been a very demanding week. An entire week of Mondays.
The list
Well, the list started with about 100 signatures in 2001. It’s at around 1,200 signatures now- and growing. Moreover, this is just a list of those who are willing to publicly admit this… the tip of the iceberg.
Worshipped? Sure they are. Let’s use the dictionary definition of worship, and see how it applies- bearing in mind a few synonyms (adoration, adulation, exaltation, glorification, homage, idolization, praise, regard, respect, reverence, veneration)
-verb (used with object)
to render religious reverence and homage to.
This happens all over the world, every year on February 12. (Darwin Day) Just check out the events portion of this Wiki page. It’s quite the religious event.
-to feel an adoring reverence or regard for (any person or thing).
Dawkins’ quote regarding Darwin most certainly reflects this sentiment; as well as many of your comments regarding Dawkins.
No. They’re not. Satan is your king. Darwin is more like your Moses, and Dawkins more like your current High Priest.
No offense taken. Though sometimes each of us may say something that can be perceived as offensive, I believe that we are both more concerned with the truth as we see it, than with cheap thrill of hurling insults. I’m not offended that you find my position(s) humorously misguided. It doesn’t bother me when you crack jokes about my beliefs. I only ask that you grant me the same courtesy.
Well, if you’d explore the links I have provided instead of dismissing them out of hand, I think you will find your statement here to be patently false. These are highly intelligent, highly educated and trained professionals in all fields relevant to the topic in question. To continue to maintain the position that only the uneducated and ignorant are questioning Darwin’s theory is ignorant in and of itself, and calls into question your motivation for doing so.
Moreover, was this not the exact same sentiment held by Darwin’s contemporary opposition? The irony.
Absolutely correct. While I disagree with the position, there are many theistic evolutionists who hold the belief that evolution and Christianity are both true, and not in conflict with each other. Again, I find this position untenable, but it does not necessarily preclude me from fellowship with believers who hold it.
Not to a theistic evolutionist. They hold to a very allegorical hermeneutic when exegeting Genesis. Talk about some mental gymnastics!
Francis Collins is one notable example.
There’s plenty of evidence. You just refuse to acknowledge it as such. Maybe you really can’t see it. Maybe you can, and just refuse. Only you know that answer.
We are the n agreement. Did you watch the documentary? The affected parties were not intellectually impaired sloths. These were not loudmouth street preachers; trying to force their beliefs on others. These were some of the brightest minds in their respective fields, who were professionally dismantled for the grave infraction of merely hypothesizing that there may be holes in Darwin’s theory, and suggesting that competing theories should be evaluated. Seriously, watch it.
I agree with that. Much like how some Trump supporters give all Trump supporters a bad name. There are good and bad actors/proponents on both sides of any contentious issue. But, as with any belief, it should not be judged by those who misrepresent and/or misapply it. It should be judged on its own merits. The bottom line is that there is merit to the dissent from Darwinism. But instead of welcoming all challenges (which is what you would expect from the truth), dissenters are crushed and crucified by the authoritarian regimes that exist both in academia and government- in an effort to protect their apparently fragile theory of evolution. Again, the truth does not fear the lie. This behavior is consistent with someone who has something to hide.
I’ll leave you with this: The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution
I hope you engage this material. The article explains these bullet points in greater detail.
-Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup
-Problem 2: Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code
-Problem 3: Random Mutations Cannot Generate the Genetic Information Required for Irreducibly Complex Structures
-Problem 4: Natural Selection Struggles to Fix Advantageous Traits into Populations
-Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution
-Problem 6: Molecular Biology has Failed to Yield a Grand “Tree of Life”
-Problem 7: Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common Ancestry
-Problem 8: Differences between Vertebrate Embryos Contradict the Predictions of Common Ancestry
-Problem 9: Neo-Darwinism Struggles to Explain the Biogeographical Distribution of many Species
-Problem 10: Neo-Darwinism has a Long History of Inaccurate Darwinian Predictions about Vestigial Organs and “Junk DNA”
Bonus Problem: Humans Display Many Behavioral and Cognitive Abilities that Offer No Apparent Survival Advantage
quote:
I know of no such “growing number of scientists”. At least not legitimate biologists, geneticists, geologists, paleontologists, chemists - even biomedical engineers and farmers
The list
quote:
Honestly, to claim that a growing number of scientists are questioning the validity or veracity of the modern scientific theory of evolution - what you refer to as Neo-Darwinism - is just preposterous.
Well, the list started with about 100 signatures in 2001. It’s at around 1,200 signatures now- and growing. Moreover, this is just a list of those who are willing to publicly admit this… the tip of the iceberg.
quote:
Neither Darwin or Dawkins is worshipped
Worshipped? Sure they are. Let’s use the dictionary definition of worship, and see how it applies- bearing in mind a few synonyms (adoration, adulation, exaltation, glorification, homage, idolization, praise, regard, respect, reverence, veneration)
-verb (used with object)
to render religious reverence and homage to.
This happens all over the world, every year on February 12. (Darwin Day) Just check out the events portion of this Wiki page. It’s quite the religious event.
-to feel an adoring reverence or regard for (any person or thing).
Dawkins’ quote regarding Darwin most certainly reflects this sentiment; as well as many of your comments regarding Dawkins.
quote:
they are not our Pope or King
No. They’re not. Satan is your king. Darwin is more like your Moses, and Dawkins more like your current High Priest.
quote:
No offense
No offense taken. Though sometimes each of us may say something that can be perceived as offensive, I believe that we are both more concerned with the truth as we see it, than with cheap thrill of hurling insults. I’m not offended that you find my position(s) humorously misguided. It doesn’t bother me when you crack jokes about my beliefs. I only ask that you grant me the same courtesy.
quote:
to challenge “Darwin” at this point in our level of knowledge in the subject is only coming from the uneducated, the ignorant, or the experiencing cognitive dissonance.
Well, if you’d explore the links I have provided instead of dismissing them out of hand, I think you will find your statement here to be patently false. These are highly intelligent, highly educated and trained professionals in all fields relevant to the topic in question. To continue to maintain the position that only the uneducated and ignorant are questioning Darwin’s theory is ignorant in and of itself, and calls into question your motivation for doing so.
Moreover, was this not the exact same sentiment held by Darwin’s contemporary opposition? The irony.
quote:
Acknowledging biological evolution of species as being scientific fact, it does not mean that is proof of there being no supreme higher power or god.
Absolutely correct. While I disagree with the position, there are many theistic evolutionists who hold the belief that evolution and Christianity are both true, and not in conflict with each other. Again, I find this position untenable, but it does not necessarily preclude me from fellowship with believers who hold it.
quote:
It does however mean that the Bible is completely made up.
Not to a theistic evolutionist.
They hold to a very allegorical hermeneutic when exegeting Genesis. Talk about some mental gymnastics! Francis Collins is one notable example.
quote:
Maybe there is a god, though on which I have no evidence to base any kind of belief, just not necessarily the one particular god your religion has dreamed up.
There’s plenty of evidence. You just refuse to acknowledge it as such. Maybe you really can’t see it. Maybe you can, and just refuse. Only you know that answer.
quote:
That is a problem. We have to allow dissenting views and freedom of thought. I think mockery is also freedom of thought that should be allowed. Blackballing and firing and discrimination is where I draw the line.
We are the n agreement. Did you watch the documentary? The affected parties were not intellectually impaired sloths. These were not loudmouth street preachers; trying to force their beliefs on others. These were some of the brightest minds in their respective fields, who were professionally dismantled for the grave infraction of merely hypothesizing that there may be holes in Darwin’s theory, and suggesting that competing theories should be evaluated. Seriously, watch it.
quote:
I think it is possible also that some news reports you might see of evolution being “challenged” by legitimate scientists is not what you or the creation websites think it is or portray it to be
I agree with that. Much like how some Trump supporters give all Trump supporters a bad name. There are good and bad actors/proponents on both sides of any contentious issue. But, as with any belief, it should not be judged by those who misrepresent and/or misapply it. It should be judged on its own merits. The bottom line is that there is merit to the dissent from Darwinism. But instead of welcoming all challenges (which is what you would expect from the truth), dissenters are crushed and crucified by the authoritarian regimes that exist both in academia and government- in an effort to protect their apparently fragile theory of evolution. Again, the truth does not fear the lie. This behavior is consistent with someone who has something to hide.
I’ll leave you with this: The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution
I hope you engage this material. The article explains these bullet points in greater detail.
-Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup
-Problem 2: Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code
-Problem 3: Random Mutations Cannot Generate the Genetic Information Required for Irreducibly Complex Structures
-Problem 4: Natural Selection Struggles to Fix Advantageous Traits into Populations
-Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution
-Problem 6: Molecular Biology has Failed to Yield a Grand “Tree of Life”
-Problem 7: Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common Ancestry
-Problem 8: Differences between Vertebrate Embryos Contradict the Predictions of Common Ancestry
-Problem 9: Neo-Darwinism Struggles to Explain the Biogeographical Distribution of many Species
-Problem 10: Neo-Darwinism has a Long History of Inaccurate Darwinian Predictions about Vestigial Organs and “Junk DNA”
Bonus Problem: Humans Display Many Behavioral and Cognitive Abilities that Offer No Apparent Survival Advantage
Posted on 3/2/24 at 8:09 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
Well, the list started with about 100 signatures in 2001. It’s at around 1,200 signatures now- and growing. Moreover, this is just a list of those who are willing to publicly admit this… the tip of the iceberg.
1200 signatures. Cool. Not very many evolutionary biologists on that list. What’s the opinion of the other millions of people with advanced STEM degrees?
quote:
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.
Pure idiocy and/or lies.
These fools are welcome to submit evidence-based scientific papers for peer review “debunking” evolution. 
quote:
Satan is your king. Darwin is more like your Moses, and Dawkins more like your current High Priest.
Funny, you figured us atheists out. We worship Satan, and we hate God, and we reject God because we want to sin.
quote:
Well, if you’d explore the links I have provided instead of dismissing them out of hand, I think you will find your statement here to be patently false. These are highly intelligent, highly educated and trained professionals in all fields relevant to the topic in question.
I’ve reviewed your links. If these people are real, and if they are really highly educated, then they are still uneducated and or delusional on the subject matter and would not be given any sort of respect by the scientific community surrounding evolutionary biology. I know how some of these people work, and have personally made PhDs including professors look incompetent and immoral in professional and legal settings as part of my job. Just like there are bad police officers and bad doctors (though most are good), there are bad highly educated STEM degree recipients.
quote:
Again, I find this position untenable
Delusions brought on my cognitive dissonance.
quote:
Did you watch the documentary?
Not yet, but I plan to.
I will go through your list at the bottom of your post and give you a thorough response.
Posted on 3/2/24 at 9:18 pm to GumboPot
quote:
For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."
..... so, premeditated.
The "grave" matter must translate into causing death? Someone ends up in a grave.
Posted on 3/2/24 at 9:52 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup
Not applicable to the subject of evolution of species, which has no explanation about the start of life and does not attempt to explain. The hypothesis of abiogenesis is a separate subject.
quote:
Problem 2: Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code
See response to number 1.
quote:
Problem 3: Random Mutations Cannot Generate the Genetic Information Required for Irreducibly Complex Structures
“We don’t understand evolutionary processes, therefore God did it” is a debunked fallacy. Many peer reviewed papers debunk this creationist argument.
quote:
Problem 4: Natural Selection Struggles to Fix Advantageous Traits into Populations
Natural Selection doesn’t “struggle” to do anything. It is an observable and proven scientific fact.
quote:
Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution
quote:
The fossil record has long-been recognized as a problem for evolutionary theory.
“We don’t understand Geology, therefore God did it!” There are gaps in the fossils. Evolution could be shown to be true without even using fossils as evidence. Evolution of species is easily the most understood of scientific theories including gravity.
quote:
Problem 6: Molecular Biology has Failed to Yield a Grand “Tree of Life”
Utter nonsense. The reality is the exact opposite. Genetics have shown that your father is your father, and that every known organism shares a common ancestor.
quote:
Problem 7: Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common Ancestry
Stupid argument is stupid. A pterodactyl and a bat doesn’t destroy any logic. Neither does a fish and a whale both having similarly functioning propulsion systems.
quote:
Problem 8: Differences between Vertebrate Embryos Contradict the Predictions of Common Ancestry
They do nothing of the sort.
quote:
Problem 9: Neo-Darwinism Struggles to Explain the Biogeographical Distribution of many Species
Such stupid language “struggles”. Biological evolution plus geology and plate tectonics and changing sea level actually do explain and explain it well and accurately and truthfully.
quote:
Neo-Darwinism has a Long History of Inaccurate Darwinian Predictions about Vestigial Organs and “Junk DNA”
No idea what they are talking about and I don’t feel like reading their explanation. They did get some things wrong. 30 years ago they thought Homo Sapiens evolved from Neanderthals. We now know they were a sister species. A previous failed hypothesis doesn’t disprove the greater theory of evolution.
quote:
Humans Display Many Behavioral and Cognitive Abilities that Offer No Apparent Survival Advantage
Patently false. Even if one chooses ignorance and ignores the survival advantages, we still have the god of the gaps fallacy at work here. “we don’t understand the survival advantages of some traits therefore God did it.”
Posted on 3/2/24 at 10:59 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Cool. Not very many evolutionary biologists on that list
Moving the goalposts, again?
The list is full of PhD biologists, microbiologists, molecular biologists, marine biologists, geologists, biochemists, just about every kind of ologist you can imagine, with degrees from well respected universities. You said:
quote:What determines their legitimacy- assent to your dogma?
At least not legitimate biologists, geneticists, geologists, paleontologists, chemists - even biomedical engineers and farmers
quote:
Pure idiocy and/or lies.
You didn’t read any of it, did you?
Where is the idiocy? What are the lies? quote:
These fools are welcome to submit evidence-based scientific papers for peer review “debunking” evolution
Watch the documentary and get back to me on that. Of course, I’m sure you’ll say that it’s all idiocy and lies, too.
quote:
Funny, you figured us atheists out. We worship Satan, and we hate God, and we reject God
I thought my joke was funny. Apart from the king Satan part, I think it accurately describes your religion.
quote:
If these people are real
quote:
and if they are really highly educated, then they are still uneducated and or delusional on the subject matter
Yeah. Ok. And you know this because they disagree with your indoctrination? :lol:
quote:
and would not be given any sort of respect by the scientific community surrounding evolutionary biology
Which is the main point of the documentary. The science is settled- evidence be damned.
quote:
I know how some of these people work, and have personally made PhDs including professors look incompetent and immoral in professional and legal settings as part of my job.
So, do you think you could make Stephen Meyer look incompetent? How about James Tour? Michael Behe? I have a challenge for you. Go to talkaboutdoubts.com and explain your reasons for doubting Christianity. Maybe starting with evolution vs intelligent design. Post your results. I’m genuinely interested to see how it would go.
quote:
Delusions brought on my cognitive dissonance.
Bravo, my friend. I know it’s been a long journey, and I know how hard it was for you to finally admit your delusions. The first step on the road to recovery is admitting that you have a problem. I’m so proud of you right now! :lol:
quote:
I will go through your list at the bottom of your post and give you a thorough response.
I’m looking forward to it. Good night, friend.
Posted on 3/2/24 at 11:04 pm to Squirrelmeister
Well, it’s exactly what I expected; dismissal and mockery- with little to no evidence to back it up. 
If nothing else, you are consistent.
If nothing else, you are consistent.
Posted on 3/2/24 at 11:12 pm to Cheese Grits
Cult
Posted on 3/3/24 at 5:37 am to Prodigal Son
quote:
The list is full of PhD biologists, microbiologists, molecular biologists, marine biologists, geologists, biochemists, just about every kind of ologist you can imagine, with degrees from well respected universities.
And Professors of Philosophy
quote:
What determines their legitimacy- assent to your dogma?
I have no dogma. But rejection of the most understood process in nature is reason for me to reject their legitimacy.
quote:
Which is the main point of the documentary. The science is settled- evidence be damned.
The science is never settled, but the overwhelming preponderance of evidence means evolution is a fact and the theory explains it.
These people, like you, have succumbed to the fallacy of begging the question. You presuppose we are all magically put here based on your book, and use circular logic - and rejection of real data and evidence - to validate your presuppositions.
quote:
So, do you think you could make Stephen Meyer look incompetent? How about James Tour? Michael Behe?
quote:
In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."
quote:
Go to talkaboutdoubts.com and explain your reasons for doubting Christianity. Maybe starting with evolution vs intelligent design. Post your results. I’m genuinely interested to see how it would go.
I’ll leave that to professional debaters like Aron Ra. It really would be a waste of time though because no amount of evidence could convince some people that their magic man in the sky didn’t create us on the 6th day or the 1st day.
ETA:
Rebuttal to your creationist list of quack scientists
You should watch this video. This guy took the first 100 signees on your list, stripped out the philosophy, electrical engineering, and math majors, leaving only 30-something guys with PhDs in a biology or chemistry field. He called them all to see if they would explain themselves. He got responses such as “I don’t reject evolution” to “I’ve asked them to take me off the list and they won’t”. Two guys out of the ones he called vouched for creationism… guess where they work? Jerry Falwell’s “Liberty University”. You can’t even make up shite like this.
YouTube rebuttal of your list of “scientists”
Project Steve
They got 1400 PhDs named “Steve” to sign this letter as a mockery of the quack scientists and their ID.
quote:
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
This post was edited on 3/3/24 at 11:28 am
Posted on 3/3/24 at 5:39 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
All I know is that God isn't a good explanation
Science
Posted on 3/3/24 at 5:44 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
t really would be a waste of time though because no amount of evidence could convince some people that their magic man in the sky didn’t create us on the 6th day or the 1st day.
You want science and reason to base any belief you don't have. Belief is in Faith. It is not based in science as you want. You can throw out there all the facts and evidence you don't see and reason to yourself there is no God. You have no Faith. Logic and reason are mans appeal to his self.
Posted on 3/3/24 at 5:50 am to Prodigal Son
quote:
Well, it’s exactly what I expected; dismissal and mockery
As it should be towards a fallacy masquerading as real science.
quote:
little to no evidence to back it up.
Your guys reject actual scientific evidence and make the assertion - there’s no way it could have happened like that, therefore God did it (without themselves providing evidence, because no evidence of God doing anything or his existence exists). The evidence of evolution is already there.
Do you really think God would intelligently design a whale - an animal that breathes air or will drown, an animal with finger bones underneath a flipper/fin, an animal with hip bones without legs - to live its life 100% in the ocean? And that same God put layers and layers of fossils of intermediate species in the rock for us - showing baleen whales with full legs? Same God made the generic code of whales appear as cousins to us about the same closeness as we are to cats and dogs but further away than monkeys but much closer to us than kangaroos? And he did that all for what? To trick us as a test of faith? Or was it the devil that did it?
Posted on 3/4/24 at 10:17 am to Squirrelmeister
(no message)
This post was edited on 3/4/24 at 10:18 am
Page 13 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News