Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Got to love it when those who haven't devoted themselves to the study of God's creation imply that those of us who have are somehow deluded about the issue.
Ballsy.
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
We all have the right to our opinions however misinformed they may be.
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
At any rate, Darwinism cannot be removed from scientific thought based on scientific research. Darwinism is not science it's metaphysics and spans legal, political and social philosophies ad infinitum ad nasuem. Darwinism does not qualify even as a theory in any way that makes sense. He simply presented the naturalists of his day with a naturalistic assumption applied uniformly across the entire history of life on this planet.
How is it that one can entertain two notions in the same brain or institution: 1. intelligent design is a basis for dismissal and censure; 2. snowflakes and DNA self organize?
Yes, it is metaphysics. Like voodoo is metaphysics, because voodoo is the art of doing serious damage to your enemy by metaphysical means. An email to the Dean: "Professor Wallace is a thestic, hegemonistic embarrassment to science, since he has published against Darwin in the name of Intelligent Design." Not exactly pins in a effigy, but the effect is the same.
The words these people use are funny. Ben Stein nailed them. Dawkins is "hostile" to a "rival doctrine." Watch the clip at about 3/4 through.
Imagine that, hostility to competing ideas.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations") To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;
By actually knowing what self-organization is as a scientific concept, instead of waving it around like a wooden sword in a school play ...
Darwin may be like a long tail cat in a room full of rockers, but so what? As for your "wooden sword", why does that have any content? I find none. Enough with the freakin' metaphors, like "self-organizing."
What the h e double hockey sticks are you people talking about?
Try talking about ID without talking about the (presumed) character or politics of the people involved. It is a very simple concept, like "self-organizing." Both are a bit vague in similar ways.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations") To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;
Last edited by busterdog; 26th March 2008 at 11:08 AM.
Not a renunciation. Not a dismantling. And no, not a relapse either. Definitely not a retreat.
A revision. Maybe a major revision. Could be quite interesting. But haven't we all been expecting a revision sooner or later?
Hang on a second, I was over in the creationist forum before viewing the clip of the film 'Expelled', according to Ben Stein though not in as many words, evolutionary biologists are rigid, inflexible with regards to the toE, and fiercely opposed to any criticism of it, a revision would suggest that the ToE isn't perfect something Darwinian scientists can not stand to hear apparently
Seems to me the creationists want to have their cake and eat it too.
Hang on a second, I was over in the creationist forum before viewing the clip of the film 'Expelled', according to Ben Stein though not in as many words, evolutionary biologists are rigid, inflexible with regards to the toE, and fiercely opposed to any criticism of it, a revision would suggest that the ToE isn't perfect something Darwinian scientists can not stand to hear apparently
Seems to me the creationists want to have their cake and eat it too.
Since we are the persecuted minority, how can you tell? Are you implying that we are intolerant? How do you get to that, because we argue?
I have no problem having my cake and eating it too, by the way.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations") To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;
Since we are the persecuted minority, how can you tell? Are you implying that we are intolerant? How do you get to that, because we argue?
I have no problem having my cake and eating it too, by the way.
No, I'm saying you want to pick fault with evolutionary biologists revising the ToE as new data and new techniques become available, but at the same time you want to paint evolutionary biologists as a bunch of people who don't take kindly to new ideas or any kind of criticism that the ToE isn't perfect. Two mutually incompatible things.
If the latter were true there would be no revisions of the ToE don't you see, and as the former is true then the portrayal of scientists as this close bunch who gang up and ridicule all those who dare criticise the almighty ToE is ridiculous. The ToE is constantly being revised and updated, that is what science is all about, not confirming what is already known, New ideas are welcome and accepted. The reason creationism isn't accepted is because it is not science, not even in it's tarted up alter ego of Intelligent Design.
Last edited by MinervaMac; 26th March 2008 at 02:26 PM.
What explanation do you have for me, a Darwinist Biblical theist? I am either a flagrant liar, hopelessly deluded, or simply nonexistent, and I am waiting impatiently for you to tell me which I am.
I think you are dishonest but I don't consider you a liar. I don't think for a minute you are deluded, I think you are just taken in by the spirit of the age.
I keep trying to tell you that I'm not the enemy but our philosophical moorings keep us from actually agreeing. If you were going to be honest with yourself you would have to ask yourself some fundamental questions with regards to our origins. The most important being why this stubborn refusal to accept Creationism as an alternative to Darwinism.
We can do this one of two ways, you can accept the propositional truth of the common ancestor or you can face the possibility that God did indeed act and consider the implications of a special creation event.
Your choice.
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
How is it that one can entertain two notions in the same brain or institution: 1. intelligent design is a basis for dismissal and censure; 2. snowflakes and DNA self organize?
You can entertain as many possibilities as you like but you can only understand the truth. The truth is that evolution has very little to do with Biology.
Yes, it is metaphysics. Like voodoo is metaphysics, because voodoo is the art of doing serious damage to your enemy by metaphysical means. An email to the Dean: "Professor Wallace is a thestic, hegemonistic embarrassment to science, since he has published against Darwin in the name of Intelligent Design." Not exactly pins in a effigy, but the effect is the same.
I'll check out the link later but Metaphysics is a theory of everything. Science is a very bad place to start when building a Metaphysical philosophy and fails to define very important central terms. It's all built on a false assumption that they refuse to accept alternatives to their assumption.
The words these people use are funny. Ben Stein nailed them. Dawkins is "hostile" to a "rival doctrine." Watch the clip at about 3/4 through.
Imagine that, hostility to competing ideas.
I'll be back and check the clip, I'll let you know what my thoughts are then.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Edited to add:
Ben Stein has nailed the hypocrisy of Darwinians down but he is not the first and won't be the last. It's the status quo and they won't go quietly.
That is the most important film I will see this year. Ben Stein is my hero. Thanks BD, it's refreshing to see people wake up to the ongoing conspiracy that is Darwinism.
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
Linear Mode
