Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When religion can posit a theory for who (or what) created the creator, then I will take the proposition a bit more seriously.
My boss is one of those religious types (too much time in seminary) who thinks its absolutely insane to believe that creation as we know it was accidental or without intelligent design.... but is freely willing to believe that an always-existing, anthropomorphic, humanly flawed with emotions of jealousy and rage (yet somehow also omnipotent) creator just "appeared" on scene.
One is INFINITELY more difficult to fathom than the other, IMO.
As is so typical of èvolutionist mindset, it seems that the desire to bash religion is much too strong to actually bother examining the fatal flaws in their own irrational position which relies just as much on blind faith as that of the opposite side they incessantly attack.
This can be seen even more clearly by the dogged refusal to acknowledge the differences between purely religion based creation ideologies, and the scientifically centered theory of intelligent design, which does not propose the nature of that designer.
The two concepts are simply too close for the comfort of the religion-god haters to admit any difference. Yet there is a huge difference between those going on religious faith, and those relying on common sense in determining that a living cell capable of self replication, that possesses the complex DNA structure which contains literal instructions in a coded form of language for said reproduction is itself prima facie evidence of not just intelligent design, but of intelligence far exceeding that of anything modern science has been able to duplicate, in spite of decades of trying, with an existing blueprint to use as a guide.
To those who have maintained the capacity for rational analysis, whose minds are not trapped in philosophical quicksand, the unmistakable signs of complex design with intent is too obvious to deny.
Such denial of the obvious is a product of beliefs getting in the way of elementary common sense ... and akin to believing that a swiss watch is a result of metals forming tiny wheels and levers and dials and hands and bezels and crystals, all by themselves, and without help from a skilled watch maker who set out to construct a watch.
This can be seen even more clearly by the dogged refusal to acknowledge the differences between purely religion based creation ideologies, and the scientifically centered theory of intelligent design, which does not propose the nature of that designer.
That single sentence establishes the complete falsehood that underlies your entire post.
There is no "scientifically centered theory of intelligent design."
As is so typical of èvolutionist mindset, it seems that the desire to bash religion is much too strong to actually bother examining the fatal flaws in their own irrational position which relies just as much on blind faith as that of the opposite side they incessantly attack.
There seems to be a strong desire to keep the discussion revolving around the posters and their faith as opposed to the topic. It is classic deflection.
Too funny..... I was wondering when one of you would use the old, tired self refuting watch makers argument....I agree man made things are indeed designed, but do not occur naturally.....But then I suppose that sort of thing is the only ammunition you have....
Also you accuse atheists of hating god....Think about that for a minute, and you will realize how ridiculous that statement is. By the way intelligent design is not a theory, nor is it scientific, and has been thoroughly debunked...
I still patiently await your presentation of any scrap of evidence for creation...
There seems to be a strong desire to keep the discussion revolving around the posters and their faith as opposed to the topic. It is classic deflection.
Actually I keep encouraging you creationists to present your evidence, but you keep failing to do so.
I am sorry you fail to comprehend and discuss the point, and again resort to childish personal stabs.
Interestinly the defenders of Darwin also tried to ridicule and get personal with Alfred Wallace. It is a typical reaction of people who arent' quite sure if their are able to defend their points. It is called deflection. You, Sanepeur and Historian Dude are masters of it.
Why don't YOU defend your point, instead of attacking me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Did nature accidentally give us a brain so big
that we can utilize only 10% of its capacity?
Please defend this gibberish.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
