Oh, dude. You didn't. Come on.
I know the context of this, and its your worst example so far. I'll explain when I get home.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
funny that the wikipedia states some believed hoyle was an "athiest for ID"
thanks, I didn't know that I will add it to my list of athiests who support ID.
(btw- he believed some things came from space on asteroids and introduced themselves, but He also invented the steady state theory)
besides what if dawkins allowed for the possibility of aliens as apposed to ID? would you still read his works?
Richard Dawkins believes extraterrestrials created man! - YouTube
Isn't aliens basically the same as ID? I believe Behe once said the ID could be a time traveling biochemist. The problem with ID remains the same, there's no evidence of the existence of any designer.funny that the wikipedia states some believed hoyle was an "athiest for ID"
thanks, I didn't know that I will add it to my list of athiests who support ID.
(btw- he believed some things came from space on asteroids and introduced themselves, but He also invented the steady state theory)
besides what if dawkins allowed for the possibility of aliens as apposed to ID? would you still read his works?
Which word is confusing you? intelligent or design?The problem with the term "I.D." is that it is largely undefined.
"Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. Despite the many changes that have taken place in American society and culture over the past 30 years, including new discoveries in biological and social science, there has been virtually no sustained change in Americans' views of the origin of the human species since 1982. The 46% of Americans who today believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years is little changed from the 44% who believed this 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question."
This was quoted from the site I gave.
Does this not go against what was said earlier that evolution is the supreme belief? I know nothing about "Gallup Polls", or their accuracies. I do know that Dr. Andrew Newberg is more publicized then some of the wanna be someone here.
But, it is noted that this information did not come from the Great Science Journal of Empirical wisdom.
Which word is confusing you? intelligent or design?
I'm of the opposite persuasion.For my money it's the word "design" that is the most poorly defined but the word "intelligent" is not without its issues.
funny that the wikipedia states some believed hoyle was an "athiest for ID"
thanks, I didn't know that I will add it to my list of athiests who support ID.
(btw- he believed some things came from space on asteroids and introduced themselves, but He also invented the steady state theory)
besides what if dawkins allowed for the possibility of aliens as apposed to ID? would you still read his works?
Richard Dawkins believes extraterrestrials created man! - YouTube
I'm of the opposite persuasion.
These guys are whip-smart in worldly things, but as far as theology is concerned, they don't know embedded age from omphalos, miracles from magic, or creatio ex nihilo from creatio ex materia.
And it gets worse from there -- much worse.
The problem with the term "I.D." is that it is largely undefined. Originally it meant creationism in disguise, today it can mean that to even the first cell coming from God.
So until our creationists define I.D. I will be asking them which version they believe in. I suppose the easiest way is to find if they think we share a common ancestor with other apes. If they don't they clearly believe in the creationism in sheep's clothing version.
Basically it's the new upgrade to evolution theory. The only reason someone may not like it is that it represents possibly something supernatural.
You don't seem to have a problem with all the different varieties of the word "evolution".
Posts: 2,752,176Yet you have never been able to show any difference between those things yourself.
Posts: 2,752,176
I'm of the opposite persuasion.
These guys are whip-smart in worldly things, but as far as theology is concerned, they don't know embedded age from omphalos, miracles from magic, or creatio ex nihilo from creatio ex materia.
And it gets worse from there -- much worse.
Basically it's the new upgrade to evolution theory.
The only reason someone may not like it is that it represents possibly something supernatural.
You don't seem to have a problem with all the different varieties of the word "evolution".
These guys are whip-smart in worldly things, but as far as theology is concerned, they don't know embedded age from omphalos, miracles from magic, or creatio ex nihilo from creatio ex materia.
And it gets worse from there -- much worse.
First off, I haven't read any of Dawkin's books, and I don't even care that much for the man. The greath thing about atheism is that I don't have to worship anybody blindly.
Now, for the story behind this.
Short story: Ben Stein is a lying skidmark.
Long story:
Potholer54: "Golden Crocoduck nominees 2012 (Part 3)" - YouTube
If you don't feel like watching the video - you should, though; Potholer is a real funny guy, very genteel - basically, Ben Stein asked him if there were any circumstances where he could imagine that intelligent design was possiblle, and Dawkins responded with what you hear. The dishonesty comes in with how Stein edited the video - the question Stein asked was cut, so it looks like Dawkins is advocating for intelligent design by aliens. He's not. Stein gave him a hypothetical, and he answered it.
So, no, I hate to ruin that bulge in your pants, but Ben Stein doesn't believe that aliens seeded life on Earth, and he's not allowing for the possibility. Ben Stein edited the video to make him look like he's taking a position he doesn't hold.
But hey, I'm sure that's not a problem for you. What does it matter if you're misrepresenting someone's position, so long as it helps your cause, right? After all, it's not like you believe you're being watched by an all-powerful, omnibenevolent diety who warned you not to bear false witness.
Oh. Wait.
so you've just said that you'd have to see it, meaning that unless it fits your particular taste, it's either a quote mine, or an illegitimate source....you don't at all feel guilty of dishonesty here?
"It is extremely improbably that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Ye it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glace, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means." - Orgel, Leslie E., "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American, Vol 271 October 1994
"Recent photochemical calculations by atmospheric researchers at Langley were presented at an international scientific conference last fall. They state that, at the time complex organic molecules (the precursors of living systems) were first formed from atmospheric gases the earth's atmosphere was not composed primarily of methane, ammonia and hydrogen as was previously supposed. Instead it was composed of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor, all resulting from volcanic activity."
"Ultraviolet radiation on the earth from the young sun hay have been up to 100,000 times greater than today."
"How could life have formed and evolved in such a hostile environment? According to our calculation, there was virtually no ozone in the early atmosphere to protect against ultraviolet radiation levels that were much greater than they are today. It clearly should have affected the evolution of life on earth."
above from "New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life," Bulletin of the American meteorological society, vol. 63 (November 1982, pp 1328-1330
so he said it, and your doc proves it. Right? Thats all we need to know thanks. I don't care about removing pats of the interview, as the movie is not an interview of dawkins, it's about ID. I am sure things would get edited the same way to save money the ohter way around, so thats no big thing.
needless to say I only watched 2 minutes.
I don't care about removing pats of the interview, as the movie is not an interview of dawkins, it's about ID.
I am sure things would get edited the same way to save money the ohter way around, so thats no big thing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?