Welcome to PatsFans.com

Expelled Exposed

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by All_Around_Brown, Apr 15, 2008.

  1. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

  2. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,878
    Likes Received:
    35
    Ratings:
    +46 / 12 / -2

    This about sums it up:

    It's infuriating when people who don't know anything about science start arguing about the validity of real scientific theory and use ridiculous examples to try and "debunk" it. Lifer likes to say "Pluto was a planet last week, what is it this week?" As if the reclassification of a planet to satellite is somehow meant to invalidate science.
     
  3. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Exactly, and you know Lifer has a solid background in science. :singing:
     
  4. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,162
    Likes Received:
    121
    Ratings:
    +303 / 9 / -12

    The narrative is mroe about censorship and dogma that proving ID...There is a difference you know.
     
  5. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    That's how I understood it anyway.
     
  6. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    I think you're right about the intent...but the intent itself is based on the silly notion that ID "theory" is scientific in any way.
     
  7. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,162
    Likes Received:
    121
    Ratings:
    +303 / 9 / -12

    IF there is a 'creator' then the intent could be inferred in the same way we 'see' quarks and gluons...

    I would think using information theory.

    If I see writing in Chinese I can infer intellengence even if I can't read it. DNA has a great deal of embedded information. I don't know of any mechanism that could produce it through a random non intelligence process andmore than a cat oculd write the origin of species randomly without any errors.
     
  8. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    Just the mere contemplation of how many "random" events would be necessary for even ONE plant or animal to come into existence is so far out of the range of probability that any credible scientist would never consider it meaningful; then go and multiply those "chance occurrences" times the hundreds of BILLIONS of living things in existence, and it becomes laughable, utterly ridiculous to imagine it is all "accidental".

    Even in a simple animal like an ant or a mouse has specialized organs for carrying blood (a food, oxygen, and waste transport organ itself), respiration, food ingestion, mobility, defense, and so forth. To argue that even ONE of these highly specialized organs is the result of an "accident" is like saying a TRILLION monkeys at type-writers could create a book like ... well, take your pick: from Harry Potter to the Bible, no matter what it is. No amount of random whacking on a keyboard could produce anything like those books. Or, someone could prove me wrong and produce such a book!!! :D

    No,it's so far-fetched, it's impossible.

    We and all creation is here because someone wanted us to be here. Now we need to deal with it as the original being intended us and all things to be.


    //
     
  9. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    42,273
    Likes Received:
    222
    Ratings:
    +511 / 14 / -28

    Have never heard the term "accidental" used and that is not usually the basis of this argument.. but I suspect in the way you think, i.e. you are always right and everyone is always wrong, it makes sense.. evolution and god's plan are not mutually exclusive terms.
     
  10. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    Really? How so? Everything I see about evolution theory is about how there is "no creator", everything "just happened by accident", so how can there be a "God's plan" in the same breath as evolution theory?? You can't have it both ways. Either there is God or there is not God -- everyone needs to decide where they stand. Including you.


    //
     
  11. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    42,273
    Likes Received:
    222
    Ratings:
    +511 / 14 / -28

    Unfortunately the way your brain works there is nothing else that makes sense, that is our basic difference.. Evolution can be part of God's Plan.. that is the way the world works for me and the way I was taught by the good Christian Brothers .. but of course I am not an avowed religious extremist..
     
  12. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    Ha-ha. Nice try but you don't want to answer the question: how can you reconcile the commonly accepted use of modern evolution theory, which absolutely REJECTS a Creator, and your muddled attempt to include a God of creation???

    If you cannot answer, it's OK. Everyone can see that you are trying (though failing) to have it both ways. Unfortunate for that approach is that all life in the universe follows ONE set of rules, not two, three, or more. There is one and only one set of laws that govern everything and everybody. And I have it on good authority that the "other world" is even more strict with the way things are. Kind of like the digital age: either on or off; nothing in-between.


    :singing:

    //
     
  13. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    42,273
    Likes Received:
    222
    Ratings:
    +511 / 14 / -28

    Said before and will say it again, in your limited and myopic view of how the world works, there is little sense of discussion as you cannot even consider another point of view, btw this post makes no sense to the average reader.. gotta go..
     
  14. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    Don't let the door hit you.

    Once again, when asked to explain your statements for the sake of meaningful exchange, you simply fall back into ad hominem, "the way my mind works". Strange way to act in what is supposed to be a discussion group. Some -- many, I would guess -- would say you are acting merely the coward, hiding behind your status quo comfort while feeling "untouchable" for slinging mud at anything you do not understand.

    But, again, it's what you do. RI boy being RI boy. YOUR mind on display for all to see.


    //
     
  15. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    42,273
    Likes Received:
    222
    Ratings:
    +511 / 14 / -28

    Quite simply, evolution is part of God's plan, it does not leave god out it does not espouse atheism, it is what it is.. God allowed it to happen.. don't ever talk about "ad hominen" attacks, you are the king of that. For me there is a whole lot of gray area...
     
  16. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    OK, so how exactly did God "allow" it to happen?? Do you mean that there is an a priori plan behind evolution? If you say, "yes", you are contradicting what many say is "evolution"; such people say it is all "accidental", "just happened"; ie, there is NO God behind evolution. If you say no, God is not behind evolution then you don't believe in a God of creation; and, if so, I have no idea of what "god" you may be referring to. The only God I know is the God who is Creator.


    //
     
  17. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Aren't you the one that was hopping around like this was your own personal bell tower the other day, ranting and raving about how God was powerless and he gave free will? So why does God have to have control over evolution?
     
  18. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,379
    Likes Received:
    224
    Ratings:
    +342 / 12 / -11

    Fog, evolution does not reject the possibility of a creator. For instance, it has nothing to say about how the ball got rolling that resulted in life or resulted in evolution. It doesn't address why the design of life allows for evolution. It doesn't go fully into the philosophical issues, such as, What are consciousness and spirituality? There is room for a creator in the theory of evolution, but the creator's role is much different than those who take the Bible literally.
     
  19. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    Well, Pat, if the argument is simply over a literal interpretation of the Bible creation account or whether the Bible may be used as an allegorical guide -- the latter position being one of the mainstream "evolutionist" -- then I could be that kind of "evolutionist" because I certainly don't hold with any literal interpretation of "6000" years, or Noah taking "all" species of animals and plants onto his ark, etc. But I do believe that there is a very large segment of people who call themselves "evolutionists" who flat out reject any Creator. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that.

    Dr. Jon Wells, who has worked on "ID" for a long time, is someone I know. His motivation for getting involved with ID in the first place (many years ago) was because he knew there were many in the scientific community who wanted no reference to a creator, God, or anything resembling a "higher power"; these folks want to posit that all is random, all is an accident that "just happened" one fine day. Which is ridiculous.


    //
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2008
  20. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,162
    Likes Received:
    121
    Ratings:
    +303 / 9 / -12


    The science behind Darwinism (or neo Darwinism if you prefer, is explicitly materialistic and says that life is explained without a creator, indeed many of the leading proponents are also Athiest (R Dawkins forexample). This should please you since you say you are an athiest.

    Let's be honest here..
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>