RichardT
Contributor
It's atheists like you who give your entire movement a bad name.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/aug06.html#part2
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.
Congrats on getting out btw. Now hopefully you'll force yourself out of religion, like you almost managed to before.
It's atheists like you who give your entire movement a bad name.
That's seriously how it works? Huh. That is a rather interesting way of doing things, but also ingenious.Muslim children go the mosque and are taught about Islam until they are 16 years old,
they are then asked if they would like to become Muslims.
What do you think their answer ALWAYS is?
This way they can genuinely say they were not forced, but chose to be Muslims.
And they honestly believe they did.
How sad is that???
Congrats on getting out btw. Now hopefully you'll force yourself out of religion, like you almost managed to before.
It's atheists like you who give your entire movement a bad name.
I couldn't care less about another atheist's defence of religion, as consol said I speak for only myself.It's atheists like you who give your entire movement a bad name.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/aug06.html#part2
I simply wished that he would remove the shackles that bind him. He declared himself an atheist before, he can do it again. Here is one person who actually has a chance to escape dogma.
It sounds like this person did escape religious dogma.
What else do you call the parroted tautology of evolution?
</IMG>
It sounds like this person did escape religious dogma.
What else do you call the parroted tautology of evolution?
</IMG>
One day, all creationists are going to sit around a big table and finally decide what it is about the theory of evolution they hate more:
- That it's dogmatic, like you're claiming here, or
- That it keeps changing, as AV1611VET is always complaining about.
Also, would you care to explain why evolution is a tautology?
but I Like my faithI couldn't care less about another atheist's defence of religion, as consol said I speak for only myself.
What exactly was wrong with what I said? I simply wished that he would remove the shackles that bind him. He declared himself an atheist before, he can do it again. Here is one person who actually has a chance to escape dogma.
Oh I get it, because my view is that getting out of religion is a good thing, and I don't hide it, then I must be offensive.
I'm of the persuasion that there is no such thing as a non-creationist.
Muslim children go the mosque and are taught about Islam until they are 16 years old,
they are then asked if they would like to become Muslims.
What do you think their answer ALWAYS is?
This way they can genuinely say they were not forced, but chose to be Muslims.
And they honestly believe they did.
How sad is that???
IMO it's both.One day, all creationists are going to sit around a big table and finally decide what it is about the theory of evolution they hate more:
Also, would you care to explain why evolution is a tautology?
- That it's dogmatic, like you're claiming here, or
- That it keeps changing, as AV1611VET is always complaining about.
I was using tautology to describe a statement that was true merely by virtue of saying the same thing twice.
- That it's dogmatic, like you're claiming here, or
- That it keeps changing, as AV1611VET is always complaining about.
Can you prove evolution true?
Blind mechanisms like Darwinian evolution cannot explain life.
Are there many textbook frauds still in our current study materials today?
Do science professors/teachers get fired or denied tenure for discussing or teaching alternatives to the strictly enforced dogma known as evolution?
Are the enforcers of the evolution dogma scared to have truthful discussions of the weakness in the theory itself?
Do we still have a truthful discussion about evolution today or is it brainwashing?
Is there Irreducible Complexity or Specified Complexity?
Are we allowed by the higher authorities to question the icons or theories weakness of said religious dogma.of natural selection or chance mutation as all there is?
Is there a Law and order to a snowflake?
Chance and necessity cannot generate Specified Complexity, or information.
What's wrong with truthful science?
When I saw this was when.What age were you when you decided to be a creationist?
and what convinced you that creationism was right for you?
IMO it's both.
I was using tautology to describe a statement that was true merely by virtue of saying the same thing twice.
- That it's dogmatic, like you're claiming here, or
- That it keeps changing, as AV1611VET is always complaining about.
Can you prove evolution true?
Blind mechanisms like Darwinian evolution cannot explain life.
Are there many textbook frauds still in our current study materials today?
Do science professors/teachers get fired or denied tenure for discussing or teaching alternatives to the strictly enforced dogma known as evolution?
Are the enforcers of the evolution dogma scared to have truthful discussions of the weakness in the theory itself?
Do we still have a truthful discussion about evolution today or is it brainwashing?
Is there Irreducible Complexity or Specified Complexity?
Are we allowed by the higher authorities to question the icons or theories weakness of said religious dogma.of natural selection or chance mutation as all there is?
Is there a Law and order to a snowflake?
Chance and necessity cannot generate Specified Complexity, or information.
What's wrong with truthful science?
Why are you just repeating the same old crap???
Darwin never tried to explain life, evolution has nothing to do with how life began, no one knows,
you choose to believe it was poofed into existence by some God, the rest of us don't know how life began.
With all the resources at the disposal of the creationists, (they can build a 27 million dollar museum)
why don't they set up a laboratory, fill it with 'Creation Scientists' and prove evolution wrong once and for all?????
ASK YOURSELF WHY THEY DON'T DO IT??? according to you and many other creationists there is plenty of proof,
WHY? because they can't, if they could, they would have done it years ago.
So stop going on about something you know nothing about and accept it, because it's the truth,
sad but true.
Please don't broad-brush. Most of us non-Creationists consider life to have begun by the spontaneous formation of self-replicating organic molecules, as demonstrated by the Miller-Urey experiments.Darwin never tried to explain life, evolution has nothing to do with how life began, no one knows,
you choose to believe it was poofed into existence by some God, the rest of us don't know how life began.
Yes, without a shadow of a doubt.Can you prove evolution true?
No, it cannot explain how life originated. Only how it reached it current state of development, and give us cope to to speculate on what could potentially happen in the future.Blind mechanisms like Darwinian evolution cannot explain life.
Yes. My children have to attend RE lessons; the base of all the study can be considered fraudulant.Are there many textbook frauds still in our current study materials today?
Would you employ a physics professor who publically considered atomic theory or gravity to be acasemically unsupported by evidence, and preferred to believe in the teachings of the ancient egyptians?Do science professors/teachers get fired or denied tenure for discussing or teaching alternatives to the strictly enforced dogma known as evolution?
Not at all. Have a look at www.richarddawkins.net sometime, the good Professor has made quite a name for himself from books, lectures and debates on evolution. some clips are available online....Are the enforcers of the evolution dogma scared to have truthful discussions of the weakness in the theory itself?
This comment does not deserve an answer.Do we still have a truthful discussion about evolution today or is it brainwashing?
Irriducable complexity is a myth, totally void of evidence or logic. If you would like to discuss this, please start or supply a link to an existing thread on the subject. I will gladly participate and supply plenty of evidence.Is there Irreducible Complexity or Specified Complexity?
Science thrives on being questioned and analysed, but in the end you need to supply a viable alternative to the theory you are trying to debunk. also, you seamed to have accidently inserted the word 'religious' into this sentance. Natural selection has no icons and no deity, so I believe your post was not only incorrect but incoherant.Are we allowed by the higher authorities to question the icons or theories weakness of said religious dogma.of natural selection or chance mutation as all there is?
Do snowflakes reproduce?Is there a Law and order to a snowflake?
And the earth can not be created before the rest of the universe.Chance and necessity cannot generate Specified Complexity, or information.
Nothing whatsoever. If however truthful depends upon your personal definition, I am relieved that you are not a researcher in a pharmacutical lab or a forensic scientist, or even a surgeon. Peoples lives would then be at stake and so the question of truth becomes even more relevant.What's wrong with truthful science?
Actually, sponsors from CRS were needed for Humphreys, Austin, Baumgardner and Snellings experiment, it wasn't cheap.why don't they set up a laboratory, fill it with 'Creation Scientists' and prove evolution wrong once and for all?????
All Miller did was produce some amino acids in an atmosphere that probably never existed.Please don't broad-brush. Most of us non-Creationists consider life to have begun by the spontaneous formation of self-replicating organic molecules, as demonstrated by the Miller-Urey experiments.
why not?I can't take seriously anyone who actually believes that the Miller experiments are "proof" that Abiogenesis could have happened in the distant past.
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?