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.
Well what about my question then? Should churches preach that in addition to the Biblical account of creation there is also the possibility that aliens created life on Earth, or maybe the FSM did, or maybe the scientists are right and life evolved according mutation and natural selection? After all, they are all possible. If not why not? If so, then there should be no debate because scientists simply prefer the possible explanation that is most likely based on the available evidence.
If I didn't know better, I'd think you were a Christian plant. I'm more than willing to bet that one or more of your buds in your camp were hoping I'd miss this.
So, sorry guys, you know where I'm heading.
OK, Lucidus, I'll concede and agree with you as long as you will continue that logic and play by the same rules.
OK? You game?
Good.
Now that you're willing to admit that the things taught regarding Darwinism are as much faith-based as the things from a pulpit, where should we go from here?
Ya know, I think you miss the portions of my posts that aren't convenient for you. The part where I say I teach my kids about evolution and tell them to never say that evolution isn't true.
You know where I stop believing in Evolution?
Exactly where science runs out of answers.
Go back and read my posts, you'll see.
See, I can see moths changing from tan to brown and back again. What I can't see is evidence of 'mud to Bud'. I can't see any proof of 'ooze that needs shoes' or 'goo to you' as it's commonly called.
So yeah, I say preach Darwinism from the pulpit as long as there's a faith disclaimer on Origin of the Species.
Comparing a pulpit to a science class is usually only a mistake believers make, I appreciate you leveling the playing field.
Oh but Alpha, you neglected to mention that it is none other than Richard Dawkins who has spoken about this theory.
This is from the "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed" website:
"One highlight among many is Stein’s one-on-one interview with Richard Dawkins, the dashing Brit who has made a small fortune as the world’s most visible neo-Darwinist.
To his credit, and to the utter discomfort of the public education establishment, Dawkins does not shy from discussing the atheistic implications of Darwinism.
Indeed, Dawkin’s anti-deity call to arms, The God Delusion, has sold more than a million copies worldwide. Where Dawkins wanders into a black hole of his own making is in his discussion of the origins of life on earth.
To Stein’s astonishment, Dawkins concedes that life might indeed have a designer but that designer almost assuredly was a more highly evolved being from another planet, not “God.”
Stein does not respond. He does not need to. For the past hour of the film, the audience has met one scientist after another whose academic careers have been derailed for daring to suggest the possibility of intelligent design.
If only they had thought to put the designer on another planet!"
Location: Midessa, Texas Home Yangzhou, Jiangsu temporarily
1,506 posts, read 4,280,755 times
Reputation: 992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha8207
If I didn't know better, I'd think you were a Christian plant. I'm more than willing to bet that one or more of your buds in your camp were hoping I'd miss this.
So, sorry guys, you know where I'm heading.
OK, Lucidus, I'll concede and agree with you as long as you will continue that logic and play by the same rules.
OK? You game?
Good.
Now that you're willing to admit that the things taught regarding Darwinism are as much faith-based as the things from a pulpit, where should we go from here?
No, evolution is based on physical evidence, not on faith. But you have demonstrated that you believe ID, as one of the things from a pulpit, is faith-based which why it should be preached in church.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha8207
Ya know, I think you miss the portions of my posts that aren't convenient for you. The part where I say I teach my kids about evolution and tell them to never say that evolution isn't true.
You know where I stop believing in Evolution?
Exactly where science runs out of answers.
But that does not explain why you would propose ID as the correct alternative to evolution. Even if evolution is wrong that would not make ID right. There would still be no physical evidence to support it. Your entire argument has been based on negative proof. If we can't prove that ID is wrong then it must be an acceptable alternative theory. That is a logical fallacy. The only way to gain scientific acceptance of ID is to produce positive evidence to back it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha8207
Go back and read my posts, you'll see.
See, I can see moths changing from tan to brown and back again. What I can't see is evidence of 'mud to Bud'. I can't see any proof of 'ooze that needs shoes' or 'goo to you' as it's commonly called.
So yeah, I say preach Darwinism from the pulpit as long as there's a faith disclaimer on Origin of the Species.
This is also a logical fallacy. Just because you can't understand it does not mean it is false. The theory must stand on its own merits and you admit to adequate evidence for part of the theory, maybe you just need to examine more evidence of the other part. I commend you for your skepticism about evolution. Why don't you apply that same skepticism to ID?
You need no faith disclaimer on The Origin of Species because it is not an article of faith as anyone can evaluate the evidence on their own. In the case of ID, the absence of evidence means that it does require faith. This is why it is not a accepted scientific theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha8207
Comparing a pulpit to a science class is usually only a mistake believers make, I appreciate you leveling the playing field.
Good to see that you agree then that believers make this mistake and that an article of faith like ID has no place in the classroom. I actually did not make this mistake but just used it to demonstrate a point. I believe that churches should preach the creation story as found in the Bible as a religious belief based on faith in the Gospel. They need not preach evolution because it is not a religious belief. Classrooms, in turn, should stick to actual scientific theories not religious beliefs dressed up (poorly) as science.
I heard an atheist here in CD say one time "If there's a god Richard Dawkins is his name and Christopher Hitchens is his son."
I need a post it on my desktop that says "Richard Dawkins considers ID a viable answer."
Because he does, right?
Thank you Deb!!
Thank you very, very much.
Once again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding for how science works. Because we have not yet been able to create life in the laboratory, the exact origins of the first virus or bacteria has not been proven. This does leave a question. All Dawkins said is that there is a possibility that it might have originated off the earth. That is a far different postulation than ID.
A good scientist has an open mind but follows the trail of not only possibilities but also the likelihood that a possibility could be right. A possibility is not a likelihood and the possibility that some sort of bacteria might have arrived inside an asteroid does not mean it actually did.
Give us some hard evidence of ID that isn't easily refutable and scientists will start to consider it. That is the part that this whole discussion fails to address.
What happens to the ID dogma if someone successfully creates a bacterium in a laboratory that then reproduces itself? And this technique is repeatable by others?
Do you then all bow down to these scientists as gods since they will have created life?
Microbiology 101 demonstrates evolution in bacteria in about a week.
But that does not explain why you would propose ID as the correct alternative to evolution.
Please show me where I suggested this.
I never said teach anything instead of anything else.
All I have said is that it's intellectually irresponsible to close doors if we don't know what's behind them.
As for the rest of your post, I believe my posts in this thread have accurately conveyed my beliefs and opinions. Those with the desire and adequate discernment skills can see what from your posts are accurate and what are inaccurate.
Give us some hard evidence of ID that isn't easily refutable and scientists will start to consider it. That is the part that this whole discussion fails to address.
What happens to the ID dogma if someone successfully creates a bacterium in a laboratory that then reproduces itself? And this technique is repeatable by others?
Do you then all bow down to these scientists as gods since they will have created life?
Microbiology 101 demonstrates evolution in bacteria in about a week.
Hmmm. I know I read somewhere about scientists creating a synthetic genome, but not a full blown bacterium. I'd like to see your source on this. I'm always open to new science and what it teaches us.
And no, your sarcastic insult about bowing to scientists doesn't happen, don't let your eyes roll out of your head. k?
And for your last sentence, you again just perpetuate the inability to read my posts and grasp what I am saying. So in light of that sentence, here's a simple question that I trust doesn't distract you from your lab for too long:
Since Microbiology 101 demonstrates evolution in bacteria in about a week, you must mean that that evolution (which I have embraced throughout this thread) somehow solidifies and proves Darwinism. As such, please provide me with the evidence that the bacteria evolved into something other than bacteria.
So, unlike one of the recently proposed theories that are in the scientific community, both of you are 100% sure life on this planet is not the result of aliens visiting?
Is that what you're saying?
I didn't write anything about aliens in the post you quoted. Why are you trying to change the subject instead of answering the post you're replying to?
Quote:
Because if it is, cool, you've made your points.
But if it isn't, then you are both embracing ID and condemning it in the same breath.
Creationism/ID isn't about aliens. It's about the Christian god creating man via divine intervention.
Hmmm. I know I read somewhere about scientists creating a synthetic genome, but not a full blown bacterium. I'd like to see your source on this. I'm always open to new science and what it teaches us.
And no, your sarcastic insult about bowing to scientists doesn't happen, don't let your eyes roll out of your head. k?
And for your last sentence, you again just perpetuate the inability to read my posts and grasp what I am saying. So in light of that sentence, here's a simple question that I trust doesn't distract you from your lab for too long:
Since Microbiology 101 demonstrates evolution in bacteria in about a week, you must mean that that evolution (which I have embraced throughout this thread) somehow solidifies and proves Darwinism. As such, please provide me with the evidence that the bacteria evolved into something other than bacteria.
Thanks, doc!
The bowing down to scientists question was not sarcastic and not an insult. If humans can create life, it is a real question to theists since much of the argument hinges on the creator of life. If not, then why not? (This has been a goal of some scientists for decades - not news. Some of the biochemical molecules have been created, but so far, not actual life. And there is an open question of what constitutes life - viruses? Or does it have to be a bacterium? Is it life if it can replicate itself or does it need more than that?) It is a valid philosophical/theological question. If man succeeds in creating life in a laboratory, what happens to the god/creation theology? (Try reading and answering the question instead of throwing your own sarcasm around.)
I never said I could create something besides bacteria in a lab in a week. What I can do is easily get the bacteria to evolve into a different strain of bacteria by introducing a weak killer, then growing the survivors who are then completely resistant to the killer at any strength. That is a simple form of evolution and a demonstration of natural selection.
I never said I could create something besides bacteria in a lab in a week. What I can do is easily get the bacteria to evolve into a different strain of bacteria by introducing a weak killer, then growing the survivors who are then completely resistant to the killer at any strength. That is a simple form of evolution and a demonstration of natural selection.
And natural selection is something I've agreed with all along.
It's quite clear that evolution and Darwinism are two different things.
I've embraced evolution but I completely reject Darwinism.
You even say in this very post that your bacteria is still bacteria just like Darwin's finches are, always have been, and always will be finches.
Animals adapt....they don't become new animals. Becoming a new animal means that evolution leads to extinction. Why do you guys fight those kinds of statements?
The bowing down to scientists question was not sarcastic and not an insult. If humans can create life, it is a real question to theists since much of the argument hinges on the creator of life. If not, then why not? (This has been a goal of some scientists for decades - not news. Some of the biochemical molecules have been created, but so far, not actual life. And there is an open question of what constitutes life - viruses? Or does it have to be a bacterium? Is it life if it can replicate itself or does it need more than that?) It is a valid philosophical/theological question. If man succeeds in creating life in a laboratory, what happens to the god/creationtheology? (Try reading and answering the question instead of throwing your own sarcasm around.)
I never said I could create something besides bacteria in a lab in a week. What I can do is easily get the bacteria to evolve into a different strain of bacteria by introducing a weak killer, then growing the survivors who are then completely resistant to the killer at any strength. That is a simple form of evolution and a demonstration of natural selection.
Well I'm not Alpha but I don't think he'll mind if I jump in here and give my 2 cents worth. Let's just say that I'm not staying up nights worried about what will happen if scientists suddenly are able to create life in a petri dish. As a Christian I believe there is more to us than our bodies....let's see science create a soul, then we'll have something to talk about.
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.
