Garth: U said its getting old, agreed this is my last post on the topic.
It really doesnt matter for people like Richard Dawkins anyway, the root of his real problem is that he got hit bya lightning bolt in his a s suption at age 17.
Keep in mind, Wordwolf, that Darwin's version/understanding of evolution has (if you'll pardon the term) evolved to what we have now, ... and will continue to evolve as more information becomes available.
One thing for sure, is that, for whatever amount of blind faith is individually exhibited in Darwinism/evolution, it doesn't come anywhere near the systematic level of blind faith involved in religion, a concept itself that is based upon that kind of faith, the kind of faith that demands belief w/o scrutiny or open challenge. As the biblical verse itself which plainly states, "For we walk by faith, not by sight." And sorry, but you can't tag that one onto evolution, no matter how hard you try, because science requires 'sight', ie., evidence.
And there is more to evolutionary science than even the examples that you posted, Wordwolf. I seriously don't think that the giraffe's neck simply came about by generation after generation of neck-stretching. I'm not a biologist myself, but I think that there is more to it than that.
You know, I wonder how much force of argument would be a part of Creationist thought if you take away the Bible from being treated like it was some scientific authority. What would they have left? Because for all their protestations to the contrary about claiming to rely upon science to prove Creationism, it all seems to come back to keeping the content of Genesis sacrosanct from two things: 1) scrutiny and challenge, and 2) treating its contents as less than The Final Authoritative Word of God. Almost like its a line that shalt not be crossed under any circumstances. (Keep in mind that I was once a Bible believer myself, so I have some familiarity of the landscape, as it were. ;) )
Ie., loyalty to the 'integrity' of the Scriptures makes for a very poor argument/basis for challenging what has been shown to be a valid theory (evolution), particularly if you are going to come at it from the scientific angle.
Keep in mind, Wordwolf, that Darwin's version/understanding of evolution has (if you'll pardon the term) evolved to what we have now, ... and will continue to evolve as more information becomes available.
I'm concerned that there's preconceived notions that haven't been reconsidered.
One thing for sure, is that, for whatever amount of blind faith is individually exhibited in Darwinism/evolution, it doesn't come anywhere near the systematic level of blind faith involved in religion, a concept itself that is based upon that kind of faith, the kind of faith that demands belief w/o scrutiny or open challenge. As the biblical verse itself which plainly states, "For we walk by faith, not by sight." And sorry, but you can't tag that one onto evolution, no matter how hard you try, because science requires 'sight', ie., evidence.
"SCIENCE" may require evidence, but there's a significant number of hardcore fundamentalist atheists that consider
cold, bloodless analysis of the EVIDENCE to be secondary to their "gospel"-
mainly, that religion is a blight on society, and is nothing but destructive.
I'm thinking of extremists like Richard Dawkins, who broke from more reasonable scientists like Stephen Jay Gould
in that Gould may disagree with Christians but respect that they are capable of independent, intelligent thought.
Dawkins even tried to make up a term for atheists to say they're more intelligent than people of faith.
And there is more to evolutionary science than even the examples that you posted, Wordwolf. I seriously don't think that the giraffe's neck simply came about by generation after generation of neck-stretching. I'm not a biologist myself, but I think that there is more to it than that.
Unless your name is "Charles Darwin", I didn't see anyone suggesting you were a Lamarckian.
I didn't even consider it possible you were one. Mind you, if you insist you ARE one, I'd have to accept it,
although I'd be shocked.
Since Lamarckianism WAS discredited, obviously, the current thinking doesn't go in that direction.
You know, I wonder how much force of argument would be a part of Creationist thought if you take away the Bible from being treated like it was some scientific authority. What would they have left? Because for all their protestations to the contrary about claiming to rely upon science to prove Creationism, it all seems to come back to keeping the content of Genesis sacrosanct from two things: 1) scrutiny and challenge, and 2) treating its contents as less than The Final Authoritative Word of God. Almost like its a line that shalt not be crossed under any circumstances. (Keep in mind that I was once a Bible believer myself, so I have some familiarity of the landscape, as it were. ;) )
Ie., loyalty to the 'integrity' of the Scriptures makes for a very poor argument/basis for challenging what has been shown to be a valid theory (evolution), particularly if you are going to come at it from the scientific angle.
I know that there ARE some people that do that, but there's plenty of educated people of faith who DON'T do that with their
Bibles or other books.
I'm a LOT more comfortable with discussions of evolution when all the parties can focus on evidence, lack of evidence,
and what both mean than dogmatism AND making caricatures of the opposing points of view.
Please note that means I'm disinterested in digging into the subject here.
I'm fairly confident that all my preferences would be selected against.
Dawkins even tried to make up a term for atheists to say they're more intelligent than people of faith.
I've heard of that term. It's called 'Brights', and Dawkins didn't make it up. I for one, think that its a totally ridiculous term for many reasons, (one being that it makes us unbelievers sound like a freekin' laundry detergent ). And there are many atheists who think the same thing I do.
Since Lamarckianism WAS discredited, obviously, the current thinking doesn't go in that direction.
I'm glad of that too. Even on its face, it looks to be a very early line of thinking as per the evolutionary theory. The term 'Lamarckianism' itself sounds soo ... 19th century.
"SCIENCE" may require evidence, but there's a significant number of hardcore fundamentalist atheists that consider
cold, bloodless analysis of the EVIDENCE to be secondary to their "gospel"- mainly, that religion is a blight on society, and is nothing but destructive.
... which of course has nothing to do with evolution.
I'm thinking of extremists like Richard Dawkins, who broke from more reasonable scientists like Stephen Jay Gould
in that Gould may disagree with Christians but respect that they are capable of independent, intelligent thought.
I'd agree that Dawkins goes to the 'extreme' edge from time to time, but (if you can get past his somewhat derisive adjectives about religion that he does include, derisive comments that doesn't even begin to approach the derisive comments used by many religious believers to describe us atheists <_< ) he does bring up valid points re: religion. Especially in regards to the fact that largely in society, one is not allowed to criticize religion or its teachings. Criticize, openly challenge and hold up to scrutiny, condemn specific concepts/teachings that one holds to be harmful, ... that sort of thing. Oh we do that when it comes to 'cults' and like small, fringe groups, but not when it comes to mainstream, socially accepted beliefs, ... and I can bring up at least a dozen concepts that are in sore need of criticizing. Even taking their over-the-top comments into account, that is one big thing that Dawkins and Sam Harris rightfully point out, often that 'more polite' (read: afraid) atheists (like Gould perhaps?) are more hesitant to do.
And yes, Gould is right in that religious people are capable of, and do exhibit independent, intelligent thought. However, I think Dawkins maintains that it is the religious concepts, in and of themselves, that run counter to that. (I mean, when you are told to believe in something without any supporting evidence, especially from an authoritive "Obey the Word of the Lord!" standpoint, you tell me how in the dickens can that be considered compatable with independent, intelligent thought, hmmmm?)
And frankly, I have to wonder if its the non-ad hominum parts that focus on the validity (or not) of religious concepts of Dawkins' presentation that really is part of what a lot of people consider to be 'extreme', hmmm? ;)
I'm fairly confident that all my preferences would be selected against.
I'm fairly confident of the same thing directed against me for the same reason. And its part and parcel of any debate, my friend (even the polite ones), a factor that anybody who posts what they believe on any public board needs to be prepared for. If you don't want to go "digging into the subject here", fine by me. But I hope you know that there is no deliberate discrimination against you simply because points are raised that 'select against your preference'.
<snip> What would they have left? Because for all their protestations to the contrary about claiming to rely upon science to prove Creationism <snip>
Actually Garth, I think you have that incorrect. The "scientists" that I'm aware of, are trying to "prove" intelligent design. Yes, they are (for the most part) religious but they don't necessarily point to God (as the Bible depicts Him) as being the Intelligent Designer. It very well good be "aliens" from another Universe.
Actually Garth, I think you have that incorrect. The "scientists" that I'm aware of, are trying to "prove" intelligent design. Yes, they are (for the most part) religious but they don't necessarily point to God (as the Bible depicts Him) as being the Intelligent Designer. It very well good be "aliens" from another Universe.
Oh please. I have _yet_ to encounter any ID people who utilize the 'aliens from another universe' premise as the intelligent creators of our universe. And all the ID folks I've ever ran into, read about, or seen invariably come back to, or have slip out, their Judeao-Christian (or closely related) origins and beliefs. ... They just hide it better.
Oh please. I have _yet_ to encounter any ID people who utilize the 'aliens from another universe' premise as the intelligent creators of our universe. And all the ID folks I've ever ran into, read about, or seen invariably come back to, or have slip out, their Judeao-Christian (or closely related) origins and beliefs. ... They just hide it better..
With all due respect Garth -- perhaps that's just because you need to get out a bit more. ;) I'll see if I can rustle up some scientists who subscribe to the ID pov who don't subscribe to the God pov. I'm sure I must have something in my files written about them. It might be a little difficult to locate them among the hundreds that I have on the subject.
Garth said: Keep in mind, Wordwolf, that Darwin's version/understanding of evolution has (if you'll pardon the term) evolved to what we have now, ... and will continue to evolve as more information becomes available.
Yeah, maybe in another billion years they will figure out all they ever did was pee on there own foot.
How some people at GS really view Darwin, I dunno, but here is kind of how the Darwinian hard core evolutionists mind really works:
The things with Darwin/Dawkin people when you make an intelligent arguement, like Behe, (or as I do) they don't dont talk about the words you used or have resources to cite for proof, equating something that is bad with Darwin or Dawkins, well you just insulted the state religion and you must be stupid by default. Darwinian evolutionists are intelligent by "unintelligent design", the rest of us apparently can't even lift Darwin's "we Darwinian evolutionist men we really wish we owned a bra" thesis, which thought is Dawinian in nature. (Can I make a logic arguement of that, in fact I can)
Then, when they are discussing your straw arguement, they label it "libelous" even tho, light mental weights like Dawkins can have diatribes and rants basically blashpheming God, but that's just good sport. The fact they have to throw libel into the picture shows just how inept they really are. If there were adequate resources to disuade the arguement they wouldn't have to get so emotional about it. In fact, people like Richard Weikert, Michael Behe and Ann Coulter, when they do recitations and have 100's and 100's of resources that they spellout, it makes the libel arguement look like just what it is; the hocus pocus psudoscience is under assault, so it must be "Libelous".
The reason why the point of view that evolution leads to nazism/racism is libelous is because the premise itself is _indeed_ an out and out LIE. Neither Darwin nor evolution is responsible, no not even in part, for Hitler's madness and bigotry, no matter how many of your '100s and 100s of sources' say so. History has documented that Hitler's main motivations were 1) his near rabid loyalty to Germany, and 2) his insane hatred of the Jewish people. ... Period. ... That's it. Whatever evolutionary arguments that he utilized was subservient to that, and totally irrelevent to what evolution itself is all about. ... you want to get irate about that dismissal of your evolution = nazism/racism rant, ... tough!
And if evolution is indeed directly responsible for/relates to Nazism/racism, then it would be a logical requirement that most, if not all, evolutionists would be Neo-nazis and/or racists. ... But reality dicates that they are not. Ergo, the flaw in your (and Richard Weikert's, and Michael Behe's, and Ann Coultergeist's, and even Dr. Kennedy's) rendering of evolution. Ie., all they have is a desperate and malevolent diatribe tantrum against evolution, and for no better reason than that it has the mitigated gaul of saying that the Genesis account isn't scientific nor accurate.
Deal with it. Oh, and as to your point about Dawkins' 'blasphemy against God' (which shows that you are getting upset about this), the very fact that he states that he doesn't believe in God does amount to blasphemy I wager. And yes it IS 'all right', because there is always going to be someone who doesn't believe in your God. Ie., which amounts to blasphemy against your religion. And that IS part and parcel of the freedom of religion that you and I enjoy. ... And it has nothing to do with libel/slander, which is the blatant and deliberate lying/mischaracterization about someone else, ... which is NOT an integral part of our freedoms.
Keep in mind, Wordwolf, that Darwin's version/understanding of evolution has (if you'll pardon the term) evolved to what we have now, ... and will continue to evolve as more information becomes available.
Due to the evolution posts there is an add at the top of the screen for "The Upright Ape". I guess the author's idea follows some of what Islam teaches where apes are thought to be "devolved" humans.
u said you were tiring of the subject and I agreed , but I must digress one more time because of your insistence.
To say that people like Ernst Haeckel, and Fritz Krupp and there cronies had nothing to do with the Holocaust is absurd. For the sake of argument lets put that one on the shelf for: I think your knowledge of Weikart is probably right up there with my knowledge of Wicans. Furthermore, since they are not here to defend themselves, I think leaving it with God who is the Righteous judge is the right place for it to be at this time. So lets let that one go for now. As far as my blaspheme statement goes, the definition extends more to calling lies the truth in particular; reference to when some religious types called things that were clean , unclean, so Dawkins may have not met the definition in a technical sense. Thus, lets let that one go for now too. (So, no don’t make inferences that everyone who doesn’t see things as I do is a blasphemer, which in fact you were saying that I did.) (Which in fact, I resent I might add) Because it WASN’T the fact Dawkins doesn’t believe in God that I made the statement; which is what you said I did. It was in fact how Dawkins described God. Now here is what you did: You put words in my mouth about what blaspheme is; which was WRONG of you, for which you own me an APOLOGY and if you don’t want to: take some of your own advice and DEAL WITH IT. GET IT?
Usaid: reality dictates that they are not. Ergo, the flaw in your (and Richard Weikert's, and Michael Behe's, and Ann Coultergeist's, and even Dr. Kennedy's) rendering of evolution.
Oh so now you want to talk about Miss Ann Coulter? Well we are just way beyond some people’s bedtimes now aren’t we Garth. Wasn’t it Keith Olbermann who called her the Poltergeist thing? But that’s not a libel or slanderous slur is it? Why? Because it suits your's or Olbermans purpose. I mean are you going to get a Miss Ann Colther (pun intended) doll and slam it on your desk like left wing Olbermann too? Or is there clown who wants to run on stage and throw pies at her like some joker did? Because that’s kind of where Ann makes her arguments about where the ax falls in her book “Slander.” about people whose IQ’s are so low they refuse to communicate in a reasonable fashion. (Notice I did not say this was you Garth)
So you want to talk a little Coulter eh? While it certainly wouldn’t matter to you, but I gave one of Miss Colther’s books to someone who has there masters degree, and it took them a few hours to get through one Chapter. (Does Miss Colther have an emotional outburst at times? Well, yes, she does; but even when she does she is more intelligent than the left wingers who attack her for it. Gee, have a sense of humor today, and they pile on.) By the way, Garth, the media at times tells lies about her, and I will prove it to you in another post if you want. Miss Ann Colter, is brilliant intellectually, in fact she is so intelligent that people like Dawkins couldn’t possibly even read her or understand her. But that’s not what bugs them the most Garth. What bugs them is that she’s is good looking and has a terrific sense of humor. Her humor is so fine, they only wish. Want to know what Dawkins real problem is? Dawkins has been talking about bats and squirrels and seals for so long, he doesn’t even know what a beaver is anymore. (Pun intended) Then he looks at a stunner like Miss Ann, and he just can’t deal with it.
Let’s just talk about your Poltergeist statement. Remember in the Bible where Jesus said He who has ears to hear let him hear. Sounds a little like an insult doesn’t it? I mean obviously if people have ears that’s what they use them for. At a minimum maybe he just knew they weren’t listening at all. Which is about where you and I are. You haven’t heard one word I said. Period. Even if the term “Coultergeist” thing isn’t slander or libel, lets say it’s good natured ribbing. Well then a guy like you certainly wouldn’t mind (because I know someone such as yourself would never stoop to slander/slurs/or libel) if I called you from now on “The Earless One”, in reference of course to the fact you never heard one word I said. It's a better place for someone like you too and here's the reason: I mean if you don't have any ears, then you have a good excuse that you never heard anything, instead of trotting out Darwin/Dawkins as though you never heard anything else. Get it?
Now here’s the skinny, "O earless one” , I asked you, if you could get me some historical facts on Calvin’s sex life. I will be praying for you too that you have one of those things you may or may not think ever occur, as in a miracle, and you come up with it. I would like to think the better of you, that if you found such stuff, you might actually enjoy posting it. Unless of course your historical facts might actually serve to make the Bible look good, would that mean you would not post it? I do however think better of you “O earless one”, because on my dislike meter Calvin scores a perfect 10, where evolutionary atheists are between 3 and 9. (Gee does this mean we are friends?)
First off, my 'Coultergeist' comment was indeed a jab in Ann's direction, and for a good number of valid reasons which I don't particularly feel like going into at the moment. Suffice it to say that to interpret it as 'slander' is the sign of someone who takes our good Ms. Coulter far more seriously than she deserves. And there are a lot of people (both Democrat and Republican) who agree with me on this than you might initially be aware, and they have even more good reasons for doing so than you might want to admit to w/o getting upset about it (like you're apparently doing now). For further sources on our own Greasespot on this, feel free to drop by the Politicks and Tacks section. (Oh by the way, no, I haven't wasted my money on an Ann Coultergeist (oopsie! there I go again) doll)
In any event, you can go right ahead believing that evolution was responsible for Hitler and the holocaust all you wish. I gave you reasons why it doesn't, and you continue to zoom right past them w/o so much as a considering glance. ((shrugs)) What-ev-ah.
Meanwhile, the original question to Oak has been buried, and I imagine that he has now lost all interest in it. ....... Ain't Greasespot grande?
Yeah well ok, Garth, you want to let it go at that well fine by me. If Democrats and (some) Republicans view of the fine and beautiful, Miss Colther, does it for you, that's your business, not mine. Their view of her does not move me one bit. Does this mean Garth that I don’t get an apology? Because if not well then as I said follow your own advice and Deal with it. BTW, I will be waiting for my prayer on the stuff on Calvin in that thread. I like you a little more than you think. So bring me the bad’s on Calvin’s sex life (if you can find them and they exist); if my prayer is answered.
But if your not going to apologize(for your misuse of my blaspheme statement) allow me to digress one more time:
“Oh Earless One”(Oh come on Garth its all in good fun)
Just so you know, that there is a concept of blaspheme of God and there is a probability for a guy like Dawkins commiting it, here is one for the show:
Mark 3:28,29, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men and blasphemes wherewith soever they shall blaspheme, but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness; but is in danger of eternal damnation.
Well, looks like Dawkins could commit blaspheme against God, and possibly be forgiven. (It depends) Furthermore, I think that the diatribe he launched out against God was exactly that. Perhaps it suits your purpose more to think of it as libel/slander or a slur of great magnitude. BTW blaspheme means to revile or execrate; To declare to be hateful or abhorrent; denounce. So lets not get so spiritual about it ok Ok Garth?
Mark 3:30 BECAUSE THEY SAID HE HATH AN UNCLEAN SPIRIT.
Meaning what Garth? Meaning that because they(the scribes) said he (Jesus) hath an unclean spirit.
In his diatribe against God, did Dawkins attribute to him an unclean spirit? Gee, I better NOT answer that one. What do you think Garth?
Need some more? Look up blaspheme against God in the Book of Revelation.
NOW WHERE IN THIS DID I SAY IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD, THAT IS BLASPHEME, OH EARLESS ONE?
Peace BTW, I can take someone hacking on Rush and O Reilly somewhat, but on sweetheart like Ann ? That's a little to much for me, oh earless one . Why? Because I just don't bleed Republican much; thats why. And Ann doesn't click, ( I believe) to the Republicans to the extent people think.
So bring me the bad’s on Calvin’s sex life (if you can find them and they exist);
What is it with you and Calvin's sex life? :unsure: In any event, as far as I know, Calvin married once but his wife died during childbirth. After that (I think) he never married again. Yeah, yeah, I know. Not the tittilating stuff you were looking for perhaps. ((shrugs))
I do know what I'm gonna get you for Christmas tho'. And that's this:
;)
P.S., no, I don't believe an apology is due for my (supposed) 'misusage' of your blasphemy statement. Not worth an apology anyway, as it was just a disagreement of definition, and that ain't nuthin' to get worked up about anyway. ... Just move on to the next thing in life.
Well ok then Garth, time to move on to better and greener pastures.
Lovely, Miss Ann Doll, sweet nectar of life!
Maybe I will sharpen up on my Dawkins later this week, and put "cummulative selection" under the microscope and identify the missing isotopes on this thread.
BTW, Garth, it was not a disagreement of the definition of the word "blashpheme" that was the problem. The problem was that you thought that as Dawkins said the things he did, somehow that related to you that anyone who didn't have belief in God was the same thing. The problem was Garth, that you overgeneralized what I said. (Thats putting it politely) This problem occurs Garth, because you didn't listen to what I said. ie( Your mind is already fixed right? so why should you?) I think, as in its my opinion, you have talked to many Christians so you push aside what is said (out of habit) because you already think that all have the same thing to say.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
47
26
11
16
Popular Days
Sep 8
52
Sep 9
21
Sep 10
18
Sep 14
10
Top Posters In This Topic
sky4it 47 posts
GarthP2000 26 posts
Bramble 11 posts
Larry N Moore 16 posts
Popular Days
Sep 8 2007
52 posts
Sep 9 2007
21 posts
Sep 10 2007
18 posts
Sep 14 2007
10 posts
sky4it
Ab
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Time to fess up, Abigail! How many banks do you own? Movie production companies? Diamond mines? Politicians???
Confession is good for the soul.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Abigail & Garth
Abi hope you didnt miss my last post to you.
Garth: U said its getting old, agreed this is my last post on the topic.
It really doesnt matter for people like Richard Dawkins anyway, the root of his real problem is that he got hit bya lightning bolt in his a s suption at age 17.
Well, talk to you later on another thread.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
:P
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I have more of a problem with Darwin being a Lamarckian than Darwin being a racist swine.
It's easier to spot a racist swine than a Lamarckian.
For those in the cheap seats,
Lamarckianism is a thoroughly-discredited side-alley of evolutionary theory.
It's an attempt-and frankly, IMHO, one of the best attempts- to explain how evolution works.
The idea is that evolution is directed-but not by an outside hand. It is directed by the
actual members of the species. Each member will perform actions that will affect the
genetic structure of their offspring. The most obvious example given is the giraffe.
Under Lamarckianism, the giraffe finds itself stretching its neck to reach higher leaves in
higher branches. Thus, its offspring will have slightly longer necks as a result, and they
will do the same, and THEIR offspring will have slightly longer necks...eventually, over
many generations, we get long-necked giraffes.
However, the thinking at the time of Darwin speculated that the cell was a relatively
uncomplicated thing that could be directed with relative ease to alter genetics.
That has since been thoroughly discredited. Personally, I think ALL of Darwin's
theories merit RE-EXAMINATION, if for no other reason but that they were based on
assumptions that have since been proven incorrect by molecular biologists.
However, I expect most of them will remain sacrosanct-as matters of RELIGION and
not matters of SCIENCE that are subject to proof, hypothesis, experimentation
and verification. Don't blame that on me....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Keep in mind, Wordwolf, that Darwin's version/understanding of evolution has (if you'll pardon the term) evolved to what we have now, ... and will continue to evolve as more information becomes available.
One thing for sure, is that, for whatever amount of blind faith is individually exhibited in Darwinism/evolution, it doesn't come anywhere near the systematic level of blind faith involved in religion, a concept itself that is based upon that kind of faith, the kind of faith that demands belief w/o scrutiny or open challenge. As the biblical verse itself which plainly states, "For we walk by faith, not by sight." And sorry, but you can't tag that one onto evolution, no matter how hard you try, because science requires 'sight', ie., evidence.
And there is more to evolutionary science than even the examples that you posted, Wordwolf. I seriously don't think that the giraffe's neck simply came about by generation after generation of neck-stretching. I'm not a biologist myself, but I think that there is more to it than that.
You know, I wonder how much force of argument would be a part of Creationist thought if you take away the Bible from being treated like it was some scientific authority. What would they have left? Because for all their protestations to the contrary about claiming to rely upon science to prove Creationism, it all seems to come back to keeping the content of Genesis sacrosanct from two things: 1) scrutiny and challenge, and 2) treating its contents as less than The Final Authoritative Word of God. Almost like its a line that shalt not be crossed under any circumstances. (Keep in mind that I was once a Bible believer myself, so I have some familiarity of the landscape, as it were. ;) )
Ie., loyalty to the 'integrity' of the Scriptures makes for a very poor argument/basis for challenging what has been shown to be a valid theory (evolution), particularly if you are going to come at it from the scientific angle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'm concerned that there's preconceived notions that haven't been reconsidered.
"SCIENCE" may require evidence, but there's a significant number of hardcore fundamentalist atheists that consider
cold, bloodless analysis of the EVIDENCE to be secondary to their "gospel"-
mainly, that religion is a blight on society, and is nothing but destructive.
I'm thinking of extremists like Richard Dawkins, who broke from more reasonable scientists like Stephen Jay Gould
in that Gould may disagree with Christians but respect that they are capable of independent, intelligent thought.
Dawkins even tried to make up a term for atheists to say they're more intelligent than people of faith.
Unless your name is "Charles Darwin", I didn't see anyone suggesting you were a Lamarckian.I didn't even consider it possible you were one. Mind you, if you insist you ARE one, I'd have to accept it,
although I'd be shocked.
Since Lamarckianism WAS discredited, obviously, the current thinking doesn't go in that direction.
I know that there ARE some people that do that, but there's plenty of educated people of faith who DON'T do that with their
Bibles or other books.
I'm a LOT more comfortable with discussions of evolution when all the parties can focus on evidence, lack of evidence,
and what both mean than dogmatism AND making caricatures of the opposing points of view.
Please note that means I'm disinterested in digging into the subject here.
I'm fairly confident that all my preferences would be selected against.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Wordwolf,
I've heard of that term. It's called 'Brights', and Dawkins didn't make it up. I for one, think that its a totally ridiculous term for many reasons, (one being that it makes us unbelievers sound like a freekin' laundry detergentI'm glad of that too. Even on its face, it looks to be a very early line of thinking as per the evolutionary theory. The term 'Lamarckianism' itself sounds soo ... 19th century.
... which of course has nothing to do with evolution.I'd agree that Dawkins goes to the 'extreme' edge from time to time, but (if you can get past his somewhat derisive adjectives about religion that he does include, derisive comments that doesn't even begin to approach the derisive comments used by many religious believers to describe us atheists <_< ) he does bring up valid points re: religion. Especially in regards to the fact that largely in society, one is not allowed to criticize religion or its teachings. Criticize, openly challenge and hold up to scrutiny, condemn specific concepts/teachings that one holds to be harmful, ... that sort of thing. Oh we do that when it comes to 'cults' and like small, fringe groups, but not when it comes to mainstream, socially accepted beliefs, ... and I can bring up at least a dozen concepts that are in sore need of criticizing. Even taking their over-the-top comments into account, that is one big thing that Dawkins and Sam Harris rightfully point out, often that 'more polite' (read: afraid) atheists (like Gould perhaps?) are more hesitant to do.
And yes, Gould is right in that religious people are capable of, and do exhibit independent, intelligent thought. However, I think Dawkins maintains that it is the religious concepts, in and of themselves, that run counter to that. (I mean, when you are told to believe in something without any supporting evidence, especially from an authoritive "Obey the Word of the Lord!" standpoint, you tell me how in the dickens can that be considered compatable with independent, intelligent thought, hmmmm?)
And frankly, I have to wonder if its the non-ad hominum parts that focus on the validity (or not) of religious concepts of Dawkins' presentation that really is part of what a lot of people consider to be 'extreme', hmmm? ;)
I'm fairly confident of the same thing directed against me for the same reason. And its part and parcel of any debate, my friend (even the polite ones), a factor that anybody who posts what they believe on any public board needs to be prepared for. If you don't want to go "digging into the subject here", fine by me. But I hope you know that there is no deliberate discrimination against you simply because points are raised that 'select against your preference'.
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Actually Garth, I think you have that incorrect. The "scientists" that I'm aware of, are trying to "prove" intelligent design. Yes, they are (for the most part) religious but they don't necessarily point to God (as the Bible depicts Him) as being the Intelligent Designer. It very well good be "aliens" from another Universe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Oh please. I have _yet_ to encounter any ID people who utilize the 'aliens from another universe' premise as the intelligent creators of our universe. And all the ID folks I've ever ran into, read about, or seen invariably come back to, or have slip out, their Judeao-Christian (or closely related) origins and beliefs. ... They just hide it better.
Which is dishonest IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
With all due respect Garth -- perhaps that's just because you need to get out a bit more. ;) I'll see if I can rustle up some scientists who subscribe to the ID pov who don't subscribe to the God pov. I'm sure I must have something in my files written about them. It might be a little difficult to locate them among the hundreds that I have on the subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
... I await your sources.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
You left out ". . . with great eagerness." ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
I'm even drooling, ... fer crying out loud!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Well, I certainly hope that doesn't mean you're going to slobber all over me if I rustle up some sources. I only take a shower on Saturday nights. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Garth said: Keep in mind, Wordwolf, that Darwin's version/understanding of evolution has (if you'll pardon the term) evolved to what we have now, ... and will continue to evolve as more information becomes available.
Yeah, maybe in another billion years they will figure out all they ever did was pee on there own foot.
How some people at GS really view Darwin, I dunno, but here is kind of how the Darwinian hard core evolutionists mind really works:
The things with Darwin/Dawkin people when you make an intelligent arguement, like Behe, (or as I do) they don't dont talk about the words you used or have resources to cite for proof, equating something that is bad with Darwin or Dawkins, well you just insulted the state religion and you must be stupid by default. Darwinian evolutionists are intelligent by "unintelligent design", the rest of us apparently can't even lift Darwin's "we Darwinian evolutionist men we really wish we owned a bra" thesis, which thought is Dawinian in nature. (Can I make a logic arguement of that, in fact I can)
Then, when they are discussing your straw arguement, they label it "libelous" even tho, light mental weights like Dawkins can have diatribes and rants basically blashpheming God, but that's just good sport. The fact they have to throw libel into the picture shows just how inept they really are. If there were adequate resources to disuade the arguement they wouldn't have to get so emotional about it. In fact, people like Richard Weikert, Michael Behe and Ann Coulter, when they do recitations and have 100's and 100's of resources that they spellout, it makes the libel arguement look like just what it is; the hocus pocus psudoscience is under assault, so it must be "Libelous".
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Sky4it,
The reason why the point of view that evolution leads to nazism/racism is libelous is because the premise itself is _indeed_ an out and out LIE. Neither Darwin nor evolution is responsible, no not even in part, for Hitler's madness and bigotry, no matter how many of your '100s and 100s of sources' say so. History has documented that Hitler's main motivations were 1) his near rabid loyalty to Germany, and 2) his insane hatred of the Jewish people. ... Period. ... That's it. Whatever evolutionary arguments that he utilized was subservient to that, and totally irrelevent to what evolution itself is all about. ... you want to get irate about that dismissal of your evolution = nazism/racism rant, ... tough!
And if evolution is indeed directly responsible for/relates to Nazism/racism, then it would be a logical requirement that most, if not all, evolutionists would be Neo-nazis and/or racists. ... But reality dicates that they are not. Ergo, the flaw in your (and Richard Weikert's, and Michael Behe's, and Ann Coultergeist's, and even Dr. Kennedy's) rendering of evolution. Ie., all they have is a desperate and malevolent diatribe tantrum against evolution, and for no better reason than that it has the mitigated gaul of saying that the Genesis account isn't scientific nor accurate.
Deal with it. Oh, and as to your point about Dawkins' 'blasphemy against God' (which shows that you are getting upset about this), the very fact that he states that he doesn't believe in God does amount to blasphemy I wager. And yes it IS 'all right', because there is always going to be someone who doesn't believe in your God. Ie., which amounts to blasphemy against your religion. And that IS part and parcel of the freedom of religion that you and I enjoy. ... And it has nothing to do with libel/slander, which is the blatant and deliberate lying/mischaracterization about someone else, ... which is NOT an integral part of our freedoms.
Cheers!
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
It is evolving into non-Darwinian evolution.
Frogs however, still only give rise to frogs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Due to the evolution posts there is an add at the top of the screen for "The Upright Ape". I guess the author's idea follows some of what Islam teaches where apes are thought to be "devolved" humans.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Garth:
u said you were tiring of the subject and I agreed , but I must digress one more time because of your insistence.
To say that people like Ernst Haeckel, and Fritz Krupp and there cronies had nothing to do with the Holocaust is absurd. For the sake of argument lets put that one on the shelf for: I think your knowledge of Weikart is probably right up there with my knowledge of Wicans. Furthermore, since they are not here to defend themselves, I think leaving it with God who is the Righteous judge is the right place for it to be at this time. So lets let that one go for now. As far as my blaspheme statement goes, the definition extends more to calling lies the truth in particular; reference to when some religious types called things that were clean , unclean, so Dawkins may have not met the definition in a technical sense. Thus, lets let that one go for now too. (So, no don’t make inferences that everyone who doesn’t see things as I do is a blasphemer, which in fact you were saying that I did.) (Which in fact, I resent I might add) Because it WASN’T the fact Dawkins doesn’t believe in God that I made the statement; which is what you said I did. It was in fact how Dawkins described God. Now here is what you did: You put words in my mouth about what blaspheme is; which was WRONG of you, for which you own me an APOLOGY and if you don’t want to: take some of your own advice and DEAL WITH IT. GET IT?
Usaid: reality dictates that they are not. Ergo, the flaw in your (and Richard Weikert's, and Michael Behe's, and Ann Coultergeist's, and even Dr. Kennedy's) rendering of evolution.
Oh so now you want to talk about Miss Ann Coulter? Well we are just way beyond some people’s bedtimes now aren’t we Garth. Wasn’t it Keith Olbermann who called her the Poltergeist thing? But that’s not a libel or slanderous slur is it? Why? Because it suits your's or Olbermans purpose. I mean are you going to get a Miss Ann Colther (pun intended) doll and slam it on your desk like left wing Olbermann too? Or is there clown who wants to run on stage and throw pies at her like some joker did? Because that’s kind of where Ann makes her arguments about where the ax falls in her book “Slander.” about people whose IQ’s are so low they refuse to communicate in a reasonable fashion. (Notice I did not say this was you Garth)
So you want to talk a little Coulter eh? While it certainly wouldn’t matter to you, but I gave one of Miss Colther’s books to someone who has there masters degree, and it took them a few hours to get through one Chapter. (Does Miss Colther have an emotional outburst at times? Well, yes, she does; but even when she does she is more intelligent than the left wingers who attack her for it. Gee, have a sense of humor today, and they pile on.) By the way, Garth, the media at times tells lies about her, and I will prove it to you in another post if you want. Miss Ann Colter, is brilliant intellectually, in fact she is so intelligent that people like Dawkins couldn’t possibly even read her or understand her. But that’s not what bugs them the most Garth. What bugs them is that she’s is good looking and has a terrific sense of humor. Her humor is so fine, they only wish. Want to know what Dawkins real problem is? Dawkins has been talking about bats and squirrels and seals for so long, he doesn’t even know what a beaver is anymore. (Pun intended) Then he looks at a stunner like Miss Ann, and he just can’t deal with it.
Let’s just talk about your Poltergeist statement. Remember in the Bible where Jesus said He who has ears to hear let him hear. Sounds a little like an insult doesn’t it? I mean obviously if people have ears that’s what they use them for. At a minimum maybe he just knew they weren’t listening at all. Which is about where you and I are. You haven’t heard one word I said. Period. Even if the term “Coultergeist” thing isn’t slander or libel, lets say it’s good natured ribbing. Well then a guy like you certainly wouldn’t mind (because I know someone such as yourself would never stoop to slander/slurs/or libel) if I called you from now on “The Earless One”, in reference of course to the fact you never heard one word I said. It's a better place for someone like you too and here's the reason: I mean if you don't have any ears, then you have a good excuse that you never heard anything, instead of trotting out Darwin/Dawkins as though you never heard anything else. Get it?
Now here’s the skinny, "O earless one” , I asked you, if you could get me some historical facts on Calvin’s sex life. I will be praying for you too that you have one of those things you may or may not think ever occur, as in a miracle, and you come up with it. I would like to think the better of you, that if you found such stuff, you might actually enjoy posting it. Unless of course your historical facts might actually serve to make the Bible look good, would that mean you would not post it? I do however think better of you “O earless one”, because on my dislike meter Calvin scores a perfect 10, where evolutionary atheists are between 3 and 9. (Gee does this mean we are friends?)
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
sky4it,
First off, my 'Coultergeist' comment was indeed a jab in Ann's direction, and for a good number of valid reasons which I don't particularly feel like going into at the moment. Suffice it to say that to interpret it as 'slander' is the sign of someone who takes our good Ms. Coulter far more seriously than she deserves. And there are a lot of people (both Democrat and Republican) who agree with me on this than you might initially be aware, and they have even more good reasons for doing so than you might want to admit to w/o getting upset about it (like you're apparently doing now). For further sources on our own Greasespot on this, feel free to drop by the Politicks and Tacks section. (Oh by the way, no, I haven't wasted my money on an Ann Coultergeist (oopsie! there I go again) doll)
In any event, you can go right ahead believing that evolution was responsible for Hitler and the holocaust all you wish. I gave you reasons why it doesn't, and you continue to zoom right past them w/o so much as a considering glance. ((shrugs)) What-ev-ah.
Meanwhile, the original question to Oak has been buried, and I imagine that he has now lost all interest in it. ....... Ain't Greasespot grande?
Peace!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Yeah well ok, Garth, you want to let it go at that well fine by me. If Democrats and (some) Republicans view of the fine and beautiful, Miss Colther, does it for you, that's your business, not mine. Their view of her does not move me one bit. Does this mean Garth that I don’t get an apology? Because if not well then as I said follow your own advice and Deal with it. BTW, I will be waiting for my prayer on the stuff on Calvin in that thread. I like you a little more than you think.
So bring me the bad’s on Calvin’s sex life (if you can find them and they exist); if my prayer is answered.
But if your not going to apologize(for your misuse of my blaspheme statement) allow me to digress one more time:
“Oh Earless One”(Oh come on Garth its all in good fun)
Just so you know, that there is a concept of blaspheme of God and there is a probability for a guy like Dawkins commiting it, here is one for the show:
Mark 3:28,29, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men and blasphemes wherewith soever they shall blaspheme, but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness; but is in danger of eternal damnation.
Well, looks like Dawkins could commit blaspheme against God, and possibly be forgiven. (It depends) Furthermore, I think that the diatribe he launched out against God was exactly that. Perhaps it suits your purpose more to think of it as libel/slander or a slur of great magnitude. BTW blaspheme means to revile or execrate; To declare to be hateful or abhorrent; denounce. So lets not get so spiritual about it ok Ok Garth?
Mark 3:30 BECAUSE THEY SAID HE HATH AN UNCLEAN SPIRIT.
Meaning what Garth? Meaning that because they(the scribes) said he (Jesus) hath an unclean spirit.
In his diatribe against God, did Dawkins attribute to him an unclean spirit? Gee, I better NOT answer that one. What do you think Garth?
Need some more? Look up blaspheme against God in the Book of Revelation.
NOW WHERE IN THIS DID I SAY IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD, THAT IS BLASPHEME, OH EARLESS ONE?
+
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
What is it with you and Calvin's sex life? :unsure: In any event, as far as I know, Calvin married once but his wife died during childbirth. After that (I think) he never married again. Yeah, yeah, I know. Not the tittilating stuff you were looking for perhaps. ((shrugs))
I do know what I'm gonna get you for Christmas tho'. And that's this:
;)
P.S., no, I don't believe an apology is due for my (supposed) 'misusage' of your blasphemy statement. Not worth an apology anyway, as it was just a disagreement of definition, and that ain't nuthin' to get worked up about anyway. ... Just move on to the next thing in life.
Peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Well ok then Garth, time to move on to better and greener pastures.
Lovely, Miss Ann Doll, sweet nectar of life!
Maybe I will sharpen up on my Dawkins later this week, and put "cummulative selection" under the microscope and identify the missing isotopes on this thread.
BTW, Garth, it was not a disagreement of the definition of the word "blashpheme" that was the problem.
The problem was that you thought that as Dawkins said the things he did, somehow that related to you that anyone who didn't have belief in God was the same thing. The problem was Garth, that you overgeneralized what I said. (Thats putting it politely) This problem occurs Garth, because you didn't listen to what I said. ie( Your mind is already fixed right? so why should you?) I think, as in its my opinion, you have talked to many Christians so you push aside what is said (out of habit) because you already think that all have the same thing to say.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.