Why do you believe in the evolution theory? (2)

[Loudmouth]

You always think that evolution is just evolution and not a process in creation. It is not evolution = no God or no God = evolution.

You are the one who has stated quite clearly that evolution would disprove design.

Why is IC supposed evidence of design? Because IC systems can not evolve? Isn't that what you are pushing?

 

[Oncedeceived]

My husband never laughed at Christians he just shook his head from side to side, he felt genuinely sorry for anyone religious, how do you feel about Muslims? do you laugh at them or feel sorry for them?

His wife is a Christian.

 

[Davian]

How does your wife feel about you and your children laughing at Christians for their faith? I am sincerely asking, not judging just sincerely wondering how that would make her feel.

Where have I laughed at Christians for their faith?

 

[Davian]

Oh, I've never taken it as him laughing at Christians for our faith, but finding the lulz in anti-evolution, science-deniailism tilting at windmills.

Thank you - that was stated quite eloquently.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Where have I laughed at Christians for their faith?

In this context, what do you mean by faith?

 

[Davian]

In this context, what do you mean by faith?

Faith
fāTH
noun:
- strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Thank you - that was stated quite eloquently.

You're very welcome.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Where have I laughed at Christians for their faith?

It was probably improper to ask you that. I know that you love your wife and kids, that they are the most important thing in your life and I shouldn't have asked. Sorry. I was putting myself in her place but of course no one can really do that anyway.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

,

Faith
fāTH
noun:
- strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

The blanket is too big for the bed, or the bed is too small for the blanket.
Strong belief/beliefs does not = the proper understanding of the relationship between sentient beings and everything. ( reality and eternity etc. )
English is so wooden, so inadequate to the task.

Shall we pray now, Davian?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are the one who has stated quite clearly that evolution would disprove design.

Why is IC supposed evidence of design? Because IC systems can not evolve? Isn't that what you are pushing?

No not at all. I am "pushing" that evolution is not a mindless, unguided, unplanned process with no goals or purpose.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It is evolution = no need of Gods.

Prove it.

 

[Loudmouth]

No not at all. I am "pushing" that evolution is not a mindless, unguided, unplanned process with no goals or purpose.

You have quite clearly stated that IC systems can not evolve, therefore they had to be designed.

Are you now saying that IC systems can evolve. Are you saying that the bacterial flagellum can evolve?

 

[Loudmouth]

Prove it.

You are the one claiming that God is part of evolution. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[bhsmte]

You are the one claiming that God is part of evolution. The burden of proof is on you.

You are asking for far too much.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

No not at all. I am "pushing" that evolution is not a mindless, unguided, unplanned process with no goals or purpose.

Good luck with that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You have quite clearly stated that IC systems can not evolve, therefore they had to be designed.

Are you now saying that IC systems can evolve. Are you saying that the bacterial flagellum can evolve?

I am saying that it hasn't been shown to have evolved, although I have been reading up on Matzke's research and it seems perhaps plausible. I haven't made any conclusions from it as of yet.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are the one claiming that God is part of evolution. The burden of proof is on you.

If you feel that any science specifically out to do that is pseudo-science. So on one hand you want proof and no secular scientist will go about doing that (at least by intent) and the other you dismiss as unscientific.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am saying that it hasn't been shown to have evolved, although I have been reading up on Matzke's research and it seems perhaps plausible. I haven't made any conclusions from it as of yet.

Then why do you cite IC systems as evidence for design?

 

[Loudmouth]

If you feel that any science specifically out to do that is pseudo-science. So on one hand you want proof and no secular scientist will go about doing that (at least by intent) and the other you dismiss as unscientific.

Then show me how it isn't pseudo-science.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then why do you cite IC systems as evidence for design?

The most important reason is that I don't think evolution is a process devoid of intelligence. I am not convinced that IC systems could evolve without the aid of intelligence. However, if it can be shown in a testable, verifiable way that they were evolved they would not provide evidence for Design because it could still be a process capability that would not show the need for design as spelled out in the ID camp.