Evolution and Religion

[dusken]

And please people, stop resurrecting this thread. I am sorry I ever started it. It is the most boring one to date.

[dusken]

The difference is that a painting shows the intent of making a painting. A book shows the intent of making a book. Et cetera. Read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins or "The Creation" by Paul Atkins or "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification" by Michael Martin.

[sleuth]

How is proclaiming intelligent design supreme treating all theories the same? I have already posted numerous examples of evidence against intelligent design. You have failed to address even one of them.

The idea that nonliving material could come to life by chance,by some haphazard accident,is so remote as to be impossible.
I illustrate the matter in this way....

when we see a painting,we accept it as evidence that a painter exist.When we read a book,we accept that an author exist.When we see a traffic light,we know that a law_making body exist.All those things were made with purpose by those who made them.And while we may not understand everything about the ppl who designed them,we don't doubt that the ppl exist.Similarly the evidence of the existance of supreme designer can be seen in the design,order,and comlexity of living things on earth.they all bear the marks of suprime intelligence.
DR. wernher von braun stated:""The natural laws of the univers are so precise that we have no difficulties building a space ship to fly to the moon and can time the flight with the precision of fraction of a second.These laws must have been set by somebody"".
my question to you loser...Can there be law without a lawmaker????

[Anonymouse]

By confirming that you believe in evolution you have only validated the religious essence to it. Evolution shouldn't even be considered a scientific hypothesis since there is no way it can be tested, thus it remains a belief. Science should be knowledge, not something one believes, as loser so adamantly has stated in other threads, most notably the God and Soul threads, yet now he seems to contradict himself.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname The available evidence pretty much completely discredits traditional creationism,

I find it funny that you're an evolutionist and you say that.

[loseyourname]

I don't care what you believe, Mousy. I care that you answer my questions completely, all of them. I have addressed everything you've given me, and you are not paying me the same courtesy. You have either ignored or outright dismissed half of what I've presented. And look at what you've sucked me in to. Somehow you always manage to turn the intellectual discussions into arguments about who is being meaner to who. Do you always whine this much?

You say treat all theories the same, but I will shortly that you are not doing so. The available evidence pretty much completely discredits traditional creationism, and the intervention you suggest from outside intelligence is still evolution, just not by the mechanism of natural selection, which is exactly what Arvy said when he started this thread. Evolution happened. How it happened, and whether or not it was directed, we don't know.

Okay, I'm getting ahead of myself here. I'll be back shortly.

[Anonymouse]

Loser, name calling is name calling. You just always get frustrated when someone doesn't adhere to evolutionary dogma. I have already answered, I will not quote for you being inept.

[loseyourname]

Obtuse is an adjective, not a name. Now quit whining and answer the damn question. What would you accept as negative evidence? If you think you have already answered, then just quote your answer. It isn't that difficult to do.

Heck, you still never gave me a competing theory that doesn't postulate pre-existing complexity.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname No, you didn't. You said what you would accept as proof of evolution, not as evidence, nor did you say what you would accept as negative evidence toward your own hypotheses. Now quit being obtuse. If your hypothesis is so strong, tell me what would count against it, and why everything outlined in that skeptical inquirer article does not.

I answered the question and now you resort to name calling. Typical behavior of the Fadixian Loserian Evolutionist School of Dogma.

[loseyourname]

No, you didn't. You said what you would accept as proof of evolution, not as evidence, nor did you say what you would accept as negative evidence toward your own hypotheses. Now quit being obtuse. If your hypothesis is so strong, tell me what would count against it, and why everything outlined in that skeptical inquirer article does not.