The Applications of LUCA

[AV1611VET]

Teach it in religion studies class (secular school) or religious ed (church school).

Or history class.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Or history class.

Religion hasn't been consigned to history, yet.

 

[Shemjaza]

Well, insane, probably not in most cases. I prefer the term deluded. Stupid? Ignorant more like it. When the evolution myth is promoted exclusively in all educational facilities and the Creation account dismissed as "religion", I expect little else. You think that the quoted interview is the only reason? There is vastly more.

Evidence is in the eye of the beholder when it comes to evolution. I see the incredible creative power of God in everything that I see. Evolutionists see nothing but a random number of molecules that somehow assemble themselves into amazing complex creatures that is far beyond anything that mankind can create.

If you evolved, then your life is meaningless. Your thoughts are completely programmed and you have no choice. You are entirely at the mercy of forces beyond your control.

Your claim is that the evidence is in the eye of the beholder, but you don't address the evidence, you just repeatedly claim the contrary.

Why don't you actually deal with the evidence? Your secretive "Sam" doesn't and neither have you... if the evidence can be understood with a different logical analysis then describe the logic.


Of course the Creation account is labelled religion, because the only source for it is a particular religious dogma.

I disagree that evolution makes life meaningless, but that's also a completely irrelevant point. Things aren't true because they make you happy or you feel better about the structure of the universe. The most reasonable metric for truth is that which can be demonstrated.

I also find it strange that a believer in a universe in the ultimate control of an omnipotent, omniscient being who planned everything down to a sparrow's fall would be concerned about being at the mercy of anything.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Your claim is that the evidence is in the eye of the beholder, but you don't address the evidence, you just repeatedly claim the contrary.

Why don't you actually deal with the evidence? Your secretive "Sam" doesn't and neither have you... if the evidence can be understood with a different logical analysis then describe the logic.


Of course the Creation account is labelled religion, because the only source for it is a particular religious dogma.

I disagree that evolution makes life meaningless, but that's also a completely irrelevant point. Things aren't true because they make you happy or you feel better about the structure of the universe. The most reasonable metric for truth is that which can be demonstrated.

I also find it strange that a believer in a universe in the ultimate control of an omnipotent, omniscient being who planned everything down to a sparrow's fall would be concerned about being at the mercy of anything.

CEH – Creation Evolution Headlines
Science Against Evolution Official Home Page

I've never come across an evolutionist who would accept any of the implausibility of evolution theory. I've put a lot of effort into making a case in the past. Pointless. The primary argument from evolutionists is that it happened because it happened. Sorry, I don't buy that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Religion hasn't been consigned to history, yet.

Okay.

 

[Shemjaza]

CEH – Creation Evolution Headlines
Science Against Evolution Official Home Page

I've never come across an evolutionist who would accept any of the implausibility of evolution theory. I've put a lot of effort into making a case in the past. Pointless. The primary argument from evolutionists is that it happened because it happened. Sorry, I don't buy that.

That's simply and blatantly false.

People have put forward more detailed arguments in this very thread... and your response was: "Nup, don't buy any of it."

You are still just asserting that you are right and are shocked that people don't just believe you without coherent evidence or even an internally consistent logic.

 

[Astrid]

CEH – Creation Evolution Headlines
Science Against Evolution Official Home Page

I've never come across an evolutionist who would accept any of the implausibility of evolution theory. I've put a lot of effort into making a case in the past. Pointless. The primary argument from evolutionists is that it happened because it happened. Sorry, I don't buy that.

I dont buy it that you ever once heard anyone
say it happened because it happened.
If anyone did he is an idiot.
For you to represent that as universal, typical
or common is blatantly dishonest.

Another thing nobody but you buys is the clearly
implied assertion that you know more than any
scientist or mathematician in the world.

 

[ruthiesea]

I’m still trying to figure out what an ‘evolutionist’ is.

 

[AV1611VET]

I’m still trying to figure out what an ‘evolutionist’ is.

Dictionary.com = a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, especially in biology

Vocabulary.com = an evolutionist is someone who believes that all organic life evolves from generation to generation through a process called natural selection

Collins dictionary = an evolutionist is someone who accepts the scientific theory that all living things evolved from a few simple life forms

Merriam-Webster = a student of or adherent to a theory of evolution

The Free Dictionary = a person who believes in a theory of evolution, esp Darwin's theory of the evolution of plant and animal species

Lexico.com = a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection

Macmillan Dictionary = someone who believes in and supports the scientific theory of evolution

Jeremiah 2:26 As the thief is ashamed when he is found, so is the house of Israel ashamed; they, their kings, their princes, and their priests, and their prophets,
27 Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us.

 

[Astrid]

I’m still trying to figure out what an ‘evolutionist’ is.

Besides a pejorative that describes a foolish person
who is a Believer in the religion of evolitionism?

 

[AV1611VET]

Besides a pejorative that describes a foolish person
who is a Believer in the religion of evolutionism?

I quoted seven sources; none of which referred to it as a "pejorative."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What are evolutionists afraid of? Truth? What does it matter? If you take evolution to its logical conclusion, I can no more not believe in creationism than I can change the colour of my eyes. I can no more accept evolution than change the colour of my skin.

Determinism doesn't mean you're fixed in some particular state of belief or worldview - people change their beliefs and worldviews all the time. What it means is that the beliefs and worldview you have now are the product of the interactions between the predispositions you inherited from your parents (i.e. your genetics) and your life experiences. It's entirely possible that you may have new life experiences that will change your beliefs or worldview in the future.

 

[Astrid]

Determinism doesn't mean you're fixed in some particular state of belief or worldview - people change their beliefs and worldviews all the time. What it means is that the beliefs and worldview you have now are the product of the interactions between the predispositions you inherited from your parents (i.e. your genetics) and your life experiences. It's entirely possible that you may have new life experiences that will change your beliefs or worldview in the future.

I expect a lot of people have an epiphany struggling to emerge.

 

[Shemjaza]

Besides a pejorative that describes a foolish person
who is a Believer in the religion of evolitionism?

I quoted seven sources; none of which referred to it as a "pejorative."

Interestingly I first heard it used as a self descriptor by Richard Dawkins.

And for all my issues with Dawkins, when it comes to evolutionary biology he's normally both sensible and correct.

 

[Bradskii]

I’m still trying to figure out what an ‘evolutionist’ is.

I think Pete is against the position that people take when they believe that evolution has happened. Which he might describe as 'evolutionism' so he's an anti-evolutionismist. So his position would be (deep breath): anti-evolutionismistism.

I'm against that position. So I'm an anti-anti-evolutionismistismist.

Thank you. Thanks a lot. I'm here all week. Try the veal. It's delicious.

 

[Astrid]

Interestingly I first heard it used as a self descriptor by Richard Dawkins.

And for all my issues with Dawkins, when it comes to evolutionary biology he's normally both sensible and correct.

I doubt he called it a religion.

 

[Shemjaza]

I doubt he called it a religion.

I agree.

 

[AV1611VET]

I doubt he called it a religion.

I doubt he called it a pejorative.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I doubt he called it a pejorative.

A word is a pejorative if it is *used* as a pejorative.

 

[AV1611VET]

A word is a pejorative if it is *used* as a pejorative.

I don't think the dictionary uses it as a pejorative.