Why evolution should not be a religious issue

[SteveB28]

Science has absolutely nothing to do with the rejection of logical reasoning when such a rejection is deemed convenient.

You make no sense.


.

 

[Radrook]

You make no sense.


.

Then I guess the discussion is over since we will get nowhere.

 

[Jimmy D]

Well, the question itself clearly indicates a vehement refusal to see or a typical selective blindness that isn't amenable to explanations and makes any attempt at any explanation an exercise in futility..

Bit touchy aren't you? You say it's observed in nature, I'm curious as to where.

 

[Jimmy D]

Science has absolutely nothing to do with the rejection of logical reasoning when such a rejection is deemed convenient.

No need to rely on logic, just share your observations of the natural world.

 

[Radrook]

No need to rely on logic, just share your observations of the natural world.

But you already know what my observations of the natural world has caused me to logically conclude and you have rejected it as nonsense. So why ask me to share?

 

[Jimmy D]

But you already know what my observations of the natural world has caused me to logically conclude and you have rejected it as nonsense. So why ask me to share?

I don't know what your observations are.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is true. However, it isn't applicable to ID since ID is firmly founded on what is observable in nature.

No.
First, I was refering to the christianity bit.

Secondly, nowhere in nature is there an observation of a god (oeps, I mean "designer") monkeying with any values or any dna string or what-have-you.

ID is therefor very much a faith based belief system. Which makes perfect sense, considering that it is just another species of creationism, disguised in a lab coat.

 

[Speedwell]

But you already know what my observations of the natural world has caused me to logically conclude and you have rejected it as nonsense.

What you observe in the natural world is functional organization, from which you conclude intentional organization. But you never quite show us the logic involved, merely assert the conclusion as if it was self-evident, and then cop an attitude with anyone who questions you about it.

What kind of reaction did you expect?

 

[Radrook]

What you observe in the natural world is functional organization, from which you conclude intentional organization. But you never quite show us the logic involved, merely assert the conclusion as if it was self-evident, and then cop an attitude with anyone who questions you about it.

What kind of reaction did you expect?

Functional organization that you would readily classify as evidence of an ID were the discussion about an entirely different subject. What did I expect? I expect the exact reaction as always-disbelief after a declaration of an inability to see.

 

[Speedwell]

Functional organization that you would readily classify as evidence of an ID were the discussion about an entirely different subject.

Under other circumstances that might be merely an egregious assumption, but given the amount of discussion which we have already had on this subject, it can only be an intentional falsehood. What do you think you gain by that sort of behavior? Do you think you will convince others through churlishness?

The bottom line is, that you need to establish the logical relationship you claim exists between functional and intentional organization. Merely asserting it and then making false accusations will not do the job.

I already believe that God is the author of all life, and I find your argument incomplete. What do you suppose an theist would make of it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

My belief isn't based on faith.
That is a misrepresentation of what ID is all about.
Please become familiarized thoroughly with a concept before attempting to describe it.

Then what is it based upon? There is no scientific evidence for ID. It has been shown to be only "creationism in a cheap suit.".

Perhaps you need to be clearer as to what your beliefs are. Do you accept the fact that you are related to chimpanzees and other great apes?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have a weird definition of 'refuting'.

This topic isn't even pertinent to the thread though.

But you brought it up. You made a claim. AV showed that it was not the case. Or did you not understand your failure?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But you already know what my observations of the natural world has caused me to logically conclude and you have rejected it as nonsense. So why ask me to share?

Because you don't seem to understand what evidence is. By sharing others may be able to show you your errors.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I think when Jesus comes back, one of the things He could do is take evolutionists back to the year 4004 BC and let them see for themselves what transpired during the Creation week.

That would be awesome!

On the flip side, an atheist has imagined taking a creationist back 65 million years:

Please watch it. You may not agree with it, but it's very entertaining and though provoking.

 

[Radrook]

Because you don't seem to understand what evidence is. By sharing others may be able to show you your errors.

Well, then I think you will need to find someone else for that particular purpose.

 

[Speedwell]

Well, then I think you will need to find someone else for that particular purpose.

It's a risk you have to take. By sharing you may also show others that you are right.

 

[bhsmte]

It's a risk you have to take. By sharing you may also show others that you are right.

For some, the risk of exposure is far too great.

 

[Speedwell]

Well, then I think you will need to find someone else for that particular purpose.

Right now all we know about the logic which allows you to conclude intentional organization from functional organization is that we are accused by you of willfully denying it. Is that where you are going to leave us?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, then I think you will need to find someone else for that particular purpose.

If you don't wish to learn then people can only make rather general corrections for you. For example you keep trying to claim that you have scientific evidence for ID. But it appears that all that you have is handwaving. An argument that is handwaved in can be refuted with a handwave. I am sure that is not very satisfying for you.

You do realize that one of the main reasons that the ID side lost in the Dover trial was that the ID side could not back up their claims with evidence, don't you?

 

[Radrook]

Right now all we know about the logic which allows you to conclude intentional organization from functional organization is that we are accused by you of willfully denying it. Is that where you are going to leave us?

I think that you are fully familiar with all possible responses and fully prepared with a rebuttal for each one.
So it really would make absolutely no difference in reference to your belief.
But I'm sure some other person would be willing to engage you in a debate.