An atheists world

Status
Not open for further replies.

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
After having 5 or 6 people directly explain that the content in Of Pandas and People never changed beyond the name of the concepts, Gradyll still doesn't understand that the book contained, and still contains, religious content. What is so hard to understand?

It doesn't magically make content non-religious just because you call it something else.

And that's exactly what the judge ruled: ID is an inherently religious concept because it is a mere rebranding of creationism.

Why don't you understand that?

you obviously have not read the content, I posted a link 2 times stating that the content is not religious. So much in fact that ken ham is opposed to the movement. Why speak out agaist ID? Unless they were doing just that, taking the Bible out of it.

secondly and more importantly, pandas and people is not being actively sought out to be taught in schools anymore. I don't think. I think they have a specific curiculum for teaching the controversy, only. Pandas and people are from dover, and thats sort of outdated.

update: Ken ham not completely against it, just critical of it's limitations...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/10/18/president-bush-deeper-issues
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
State law is hardly the same as the constitution.

My state just passed law that says all government documents and nouns have to be sexually neutral. That means no more "manhole covers". Seriously, it is a bit too much. States mess up on this order quite often. The Constitution of the U.S. is protected a bit better than that.

true, true.
 
Upvote 0

biggles53

Junior Member
Mar 5, 2008
2,819
63
70
Pottsville, NSW, Australia
✟10,841.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
AU-Greens
I am sorry but whatever you want to call it (non explosion), what caused it?

That was my question and you know it.

You simply have no answer and that is fine, but don't trot around like you are answering questions when all you are doing is asking them.

No, I don't believe you are "sorry".......you display the all-too-frequent arrogance of those who have convinced themselves that they possess The Truth.......

Now...it has (once again) been patiently explained to you that the purpose of science is to seek out new information and to frame new explanations for that information. So, the answer to many, many questions about our world is a very honest and humble "We don't know........yet"...

Why is that so hard for you to accept....?

And, as has also been pointed out to you, the corollary to "We don't know" is NOT "therefore a god.."....!

There have been a number of tentative hypotheses concerning the mechanisms surrounding the singularity known as the Big Bang.....but that's all they are at this stage. They are nowhere near the level of confidence that is expressed in a scientific theory....

But, THAT'S HOW SCIENCE WORKS...!!
 
Upvote 0

biggles53

Junior Member
Mar 5, 2008
2,819
63
70
Pottsville, NSW, Australia
✟10,841.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
AU-Greens
ID, isn't trying to be taught in schools right now as people can't do it right and it needs special training. But teach the controversy is in 8 states.


Why do you feel it necessary to blatantly lie for your faith...?

That ID is just a substitute term for creationism has been clearly revealed...even by the creationists themselves...!
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Why do you feel it necessary to blatantly lie for your faith...?

That ID is just a substitute term for creationism has been clearly revealed...even by the creationists themselves...!

I would just read a book like "signature of the cell" by stephen meyers and get back to me on this one, because I disagree entirely. They are two camps, no lying here. There are even athiests trying to get on board with "athiest supports intelligent design" book.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No, I don't believe you are "sorry".......you display the all-too-frequent arrogance of those who have convinced themselves that they possess The Truth.......

Now...it has (once again) been patiently explained to you that the purpose of science is to seek out new information and to frame new explanations for that information. So, the answer to many, many questions about our world is a very honest and humble "We don't know........yet"...

Why is that so hard for you to accept....?

And, as has also been pointed out to you, the corollary to "We don't know" is NOT "therefore a god.."....!

There have been a number of tentative hypotheses concerning the mechanisms surrounding the singularity known as the Big Bang.....but that's all they are at this stage. They are nowhere near the level of confidence that is expressed in a scientific theory....

But, THAT'S HOW SCIENCE WORKS...!!

please excuse any arrogance I may have. I appologize and do not want to sound that way. But an explosion from nothing doesnt' hold water. (back to explosion since no one has explained what it is in their own words)
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
you obviously have not read the content, I posted a link 2 times stating that the content is not religious. So much in fact that ken ham is opposed to the movement. Why speak out agaist ID? Unless they were doing just that, taking the Bible out of it.

secondly and more importantly, pandas and people is not being actively sought out to be taught in schools anymore. I don't think. I think they have a specific curiculum for teaching the controversy, only. Pandas and people are from dover, and thats sort of outdated.

update: Ken ham not completely against it, just critical of it's limitations...

ID and President Bush—The Deeper Issues - Answers in Genesis

this is a clip from the link I posted above:

"Many IDers are not even opposed to biological evolution, but only to naturalistic/atheistic biological evolution. Most of them accept geological and astronomical evolution over the course of millions of years. Evolutionists wrongly suppose that ID is YEC in disguise. "

this is a critic of ID (Ken Ham a BC, YEC adherer)
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
please excuse any arrogance I may have. I appologize and do not want to sound that way. But an explosion from nothing doesnt' hold water. (back to explosion since no one has explained what it is in their own words)


It was not an explosion. It was an expansion of space itself.

Here is a way to picture it. Think of a balloon. Put two dots on the surface and inflate it. The dots will retreat from each other. The space between them expanded.

I will find a simple video for you to watch. I am sure it was offered before.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
this is a clip from the link I posted above:

"Many IDers are not even opposed to biological evolution, but only to naturalistic/atheistic biological evolution. Most of them accept geological and astronomical evolution over the course of millions of years. Evolutionists wrongly suppose that ID is YEC in disguise. "

this is a critic of ID (Ken Ham a BC, YEC adherer)


Yes, that is because right now ID is a very poorly defined term. It can mean anything from God guided evolution to evolution in disguise. The term was invented by creationists and it was first used for creationism in disguise. You need to read up on the history of the Dover trial where the anti-creationist side proved that claim.
 
Upvote 0

biggles53

Junior Member
Mar 5, 2008
2,819
63
70
Pottsville, NSW, Australia
✟10,841.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
AU-Greens
please excuse any arrogance I may have. I appologize and do not want to sound that way.

Apology accepted. I can only guess that you are reasonably young (looking at your photo icon) - one thing that I have learnt in my time on this planet - that Socrates was right.......the only thing that we can 'know' is how little we know....

But an explosion from nothing doesnt' hold water. (back to explosion since no one has explained what it is in their own words)

Still flogging that strawman...? Only you are continuing to demand that the Big Bang must have been an explosion...

Any number of people here have explained that WE JUST DON'T KNOW exactly how the singularity played out.....how many times does that have to be stated before it sinks in...??
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
please excuse any arrogance I may have. I appologize and do not want to sound that way. But an explosion from nothing doesnt' hold water. (back to explosion since no one has explained what it is in their own words)

Here is the short video I promised to provide:

Science, Religion, and the Big Bang - YouTube

And this is not a short video, but it shows how you are wrong about an explosion from nothing "not holding water". It is not the definitive answer. It is a possible answer:

Krauss '09: "A Universe From Nothing" - YouTube
 
Upvote 0

biggles53

Junior Member
Mar 5, 2008
2,819
63
70
Pottsville, NSW, Australia
✟10,841.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
AU-Greens
"Many IDers are not even opposed to biological evolution, but only to naturalistic/atheistic biological evolution.

Can you not see that that is a religious statement in itself......!??
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Why do you feel it necessary to blatantly lie for your faith...?

That ID is just a substitute term for creationism has been clearly revealed...even by the creationists themselves...!
Are scientists lying when they use the term Big Bang, when it is actually more of an isotropic expansion?

Which is more misleading, in your opinion: Intelligent Design or Big Bang?
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Are scientists lying when they use the term Big Bang, when it is actually more of an isotropic expansion?

Which is more misleading, in your opinion: Intelligent Design or Big Bang?

No, it is simply short hand for a much longer term that everybody, at least every scientists understands.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yes, that is because right now ID is a very poorly defined term. It can mean anything from God guided evolution to evolution in disguise. The term was invented by creationists and it was first used for creationism in disguise. You need to read up on the history of the Dover trial where the anti-creationist side proved that claim.

I can say the same thing for evolution, or atheism for that matter (being poorly defined terms that everyone agrees on )
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single


Why do you claim that?

Originally the "Big Bang theory" is the name that antagonists to the theory used for it. It stuck. If the antagonists were still around, actually I am pretty sure they are all dead, it would be a bit of a slap in the face to hit them back with their own insult.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Can you not see that that is a religious statement in itself......!??

KEN Ham would use religious wording because He is a BC , or YEC er. Point being that even the opposite party is suggesting that YEC is not the same as ID
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I can say the same thing for evolution, or atheism for that matter (being poorly defined terms that everyone agrees on )


Evolution is a very well defined and understood concept in the scientific world. It is not scientists fault if ignorant people have their own definition of it.

And if atheism is a bad term then so is Christianity. In atheism most are not "fundamentalists". In other words most do not believe in gods simply because there is no evidence for gods. If evidence was found they would probably quickly change their minds. Very few are deniers of god because they hate the idea of god.

In other words when Christians accuse atheists of "hating God" they are usually, but not always, wrong.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
KEN Ham would use religious wording because He is a BC , or YEC er. Point being that even the opposite party is suggesting that YEC is not the same as ID

Again, it depends upon which sort of ID you believe in. ID originally was creationism in sheep's clothing. Check on the history of it. Now ID means everything from guided evolution to straight YECism.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.