PROOF that evolution is FALSE!!!!!

If you are anti-creationism, you are anti- one of the religions.

Nothing wrong with that.
 
No...

If you are anti-creationism, you are anti-literal-interpretation-of-the-Bible. There do exist some sects of Christianity which believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. There are also sects which believe the Earth is flat, and those which believe that snake-handling is an essential part of religious worship. I don't think disagreeing with their one point is anti-religion so much as it is anti-religious-extremist. If you consider "religious extremists" to themselves be separate religions, then yes, I am against those religions. I am also against religions which advocate human sacrifice. I see no conflict.
 
Whodini said:
If you are anti-creationism, you are anti- one of the religions.
Click to expand...

I still fail to see how anti-one specific religion = atheism. Surely there exist/existed religions you don't like (human sacrifice, mass suicide, whatever); are you an atheist?

Nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...

Then why did you bother to post anything at all?
 
Because he feels that anti-creationist thread should be in Religion & Philosophy, not Science.

Any doctrine which wants to have its dogma taught in science class can be debated in the Science forum.
 
Is Darwinism compatible with religion?

TO WHODINI

Did you know that the professor of biology Kenneth Miller is both an orthodox Catholic, and an orthodox Darwinian? I have seen him on TV program here in Sweden; "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" coined by Daniel Dennett, together with both Dennett, and S. J. Gould. He is a very well known critic of the ID' movement!

Finding Darwin's God by professor of biology Kenneth Miller
Yes, the explosive diversification of life on this planet was an unpredictable process. But so were the rise of Western civilization, the collapse of the Roman Empire, and the winning number in last night's lottery. We do not regard the indeterminate nature of any of these events in human history as antithetical to the existence of a Creator; why should we regard similar events in natural history any differently? There is, I would submit, no reason at all. If we can view the contingent events in the families that produced our individual lives as consistent with a Creator, then certainly we can do the same for the chain of circumstances that produced our species. The alternative is a world where all events have predictable outcomes, where the future is open neither to chance nor to independent human action. A world in which we would always evolve is a world in which we would never be free. To a believer, the particular history leading to us shows how truly remarkable we are, how rare is the gift of consciousness, and how precious is the chance to understand.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/index.html
Click to expand...
 
----
I still fail to see how anti-one specific religion = atheism.
----


You are atheistic towards that religion.

This is the atheists' own argument.
("You don't believe in Zeus? You don't believe in Laozi? You don't believe in Athena? You are atheistic towards those gods. I just take it one step further", etc.)


----
Then why did you bother to post anything at all?
----


Because it is my right to and this is a discussion board. Unless you disagree.
 
Whodini said:
If you are anti-creationism, you are anti- one of the religions.

Nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...

I agree with your statement but it's really not a statement that means much since almost every statement you make about the world is "anti-one of the religions".

(As an aside I would point out that the majority Christian view about evolution is that is a scientific theory that may or may not be correct but is in essence not in contradiction with Christian belief.)

But certainly if a "creationist" is making statements about science and the facts that science states then it is totally valid to discuss it in a science forum.
 
Come off it fellas,

Evolution is a hand full of nine inch nails in the coffin of religion.
Did I say "nails"? - make that "screws".

Only Deism survives its onslaught and that's not much.
 
Whodini said:
[B
----
Then why did you bother to post anything at all?
----


Because it is my right to and this is a discussion board. Unless you disagree. [/B]
Click to expand...

You really put the dash in balder, don't you? You criticized somebody for posting a scientific topic in the science forum, and are now madly tap-dancing to defend that indefensible post. Your other posts get even more illogical, though.

The Pope recently shifted Catholic doctrine by decreeing Catholic acceptance of Darwin. Does that make the Pope and all Catholics now atheists? What kind of whacky definition is that?

Cheers,
 
nrcan_counts_prev.ppo_zip = nrcan_counts1.ppo_zip
nrcan_counts_prev.make = nrcan_counts1.make
nrcan_counts_prev.vin_gvw = nrcan_counts1.vin_gvw
nrcan_counts_prev.lite_ind = nrcan_counts1.lite_ind
nrcan_counts_prev.count_all = nrcan_counts1.count_all
Click to expand...
Oh damn. Wrong cut & paste.

Here's the one I wantd:
Evolution is a hand full of nine inch nails in the coffin of religion.
Did I say "nails"? - make that "screws".
Click to expand...
I disagree. Religion is compatible with pretty much everything (except a pure rational scientific method philosophy.)
 
Whodini said:

You are atheistic towards that religion.

This is the atheists' own argument.
("You don't believe in Zeus? You don't believe in Laozi? You don't believe in Athena? You are atheistic towards those gods. I just take it one step further", etc.)
Click to expand...

Not my argument. Seems pretty foolish to use atheism that way; it's far from the common usage, and defines everyone to be an atheist.

Because it is my right to and this is a discussion board. Unless you disagree.
Click to expand...

I was merely curious about the purpose of your original post. You certainly have the right to post; I was wondering if you intended to defend your accusation that c4ts' post is not science-related. Or demonstrate that debunking Jack Chick is not a reasonable exercise in skepticism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom