[_ Old Earth _] Darwinists go ape over new education bill

[BobRyan]

Hmmm, I think I touched a nerve there, Bob. Was I wrong about the tax-free status many churches enjoy, then?

Just a logical fallacy to argue that the community services provided through churches -- that are also provided by government should be taxed.

Is this a roundabout way of agreeing, then, that many taxes do in fact enjoy tax free status?

It is a roundabout way of stating that tax PAYERS are paying for social services not all of which are provided by the Government. In some cases the same guys PAYING the government to provide that service also VOLUNTEER to do it for free through their own local churches.

I am sure the atheists and agnostics on this board would find some way to object -- but just fyi.

Bob said -
Also a fallacy to argue that the atheist darwinist doctrines of evolutionism should be forced into churches.

In what way do you define it as a fallacy. Do you regard it as a formal fallacy or an informal fallacy, for instance? Verbal fallacy or material fallacy?

Material since I already pointed out the obvious argument that Christians have no more right to insert the bible into the Atheist religionist's assemblies and institutions.

Obviously.

By the way, why do you persist in the unsupported contention that '[D]arwinist doctrines of evolutionism' are 'atheist'?

Because their attack on ID is "distinctively atheist".

That some, many or even most of those who accept the theory of evolution as widely supported by multiple lines of evidence is not proof that evolutionary theory says anything about the existence of God. That there are many Christians, Christian ministers and Christian scientists who agree that evolutionary theory stands aside from the question of God's existence suggests that your continued identification as 'atheist' is simply a Goebbels-style propaganda

You are trying to justify your own method of glossing over the details.

1. I never dispute the fact that some Christians unwittingly follow atheist darwinists into attacking ID even though ID falls far short of the level of ID Romans 1 says is clearly evident to all pagans -- those with no Bible at all.

2. My argument is not that the reason atheist darwinism IS ATHEIST is that it HAS atheists and agnostics -- my argument is that in the attack on ID it has exposed itself as DISTINCTIVELY ATHEIST.

If one glosses over the details "sufficiently" I think they get to your conclusion above.

L.K.
[quote:626d0]Bob said -
But you do argue good atheism... good agnosticism probably.

I can't work out whether this is meant as a compliment or not.[/quote:626d0]

I guess it depends on your point of view. You have stated the text of the Bible is corrupt, can not be known and based on your comments on the ID threads never showing support for an ID far below Romans 1 statements that all pagans would clearly see -- well I think you see the point.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Unless youre in the camp that evolution some how = atheism, you inquisition is entirely irrelevant to this thread.
.

EvolutionISM (Patterson's word for it) has exposed itself as a distinctively atheist movement in it's condemnation of ID scientists ( some of whom are themselves evolutionists as the Discovery Institute points out).

Bob

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I have a question Bob. What are your beliefs on these:

1. Approx age of the universe

Don't know -- might not be millions of years though.

2. Approx age of the earth

Don't know (if speaking about earth rocks) could be the same age as the Universe.

[quote:f2d0a]
3. Man created fully formed, evolved guided by super natural being, or unguided by super natural being.

Genesis is right -- 7 evenings and mornings "SIX days you shall labor.. for IN SIX days the LORD MADE..." Ex 20:8-11.

All life on earth "originated" 6000 years ago in 6 evenings and mornings. The sun and moon also were functioning shining moving orbiting at once on day 4.

4.size of the universe approx

Current "estimates" 78-94 BLY - but that is not the size of the visible universe and it is just an estimate. Earlier estimates THIS DECADE were about twice that.

I thought I remembered you being in favor of the young earth and no evo view,

That is correct.

but I am confused now because you seem to be behind ID. Just wanted to clarify your position.

Thanks

I have stated repeatedly that ID IS NOT YEC creationism. Some of the coolaid that atheist toss out is that they are the same thing -- but that is just because to atheist darwinism ID is as threatening as the YEC position -- they "fear it all".

What is facinating is the way darwinist then take the fears of those promoting atheist darwinism and then pretend that the YEC guys are claiming that ID IS YEC.

It is not!

But is MERELY "ADMITTIG" to Design in a case where they find it... it is one study -- one example at a time. Showing scientifically that "rocks can not do this given enough time mass and access to an energy source". My EM wave form argument shows how that same practice gave us scanning radios.

ID is not compatible with some forms of atheism -- but it is also not the YEC argument either.

Bob[/quote:f2d0a]

Thanks for answering, it helps me to get more of a referance in these discussions.

I am still unsure about your belief for the age of the universe. If you had to take a position of billions versus thousands of years, which one would you be more inclined to take?

Also, the size. You gave me figures for different estimates, but I am more curious as to what you believe.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Unless youre in the camp that evolution some how = atheism, you inquisition is entirely irrelevant to this thread.
.

EvolutionISM (Patterson's word for it) has exposed itself as a distinctively atheist movement in it's condemnation of ID scientists ( some of whom are themselves evolutionists as the Discovery Institute points out).

Bob

Anyone condemning ID has nothing to do with the workings of evolution. My point was that there is nothing intrinsictly atheistic regarding evolutionary theory. Whatever Patterson did or didn't say, the scientific community condeming or praising ID, or anything else has nothing to do with ToE.

 

[Snidey]

Bob, if some ID scientists are evolutionists, you don't believe ID and evolution are in conflict at all?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

You sure are in an inquisitive mood VaultZero4Me.
I have one:
What is a moderator from "Ethical Atheist" doing on a Christian site?

My question to Bob is to clarify his position in debates regarding evolution so that I may understand his stance on the issues at hand. My question is relevant to the discussion.

Unless youre in the camp that evolution some how = atheism, you inquisition is entirely irrelevant to this thread.

To answer your question, I enjoy conversation with Christians and non-christians alike, and if you look over my threads, you will not find any hidden agenda that you posed questions seems to suggest. In fact I commonly post in threads that have nothing to do with Christianity, because I enjoy the conversation of many on this particular site.

Also, you can search my threads here and find numerous occasions that I pointed out that I am a non-believer. In fact, I did it on my very first post to this site.

I grew up in a Christian home, study the bible quite regularly, and am very well versed on theology imo. I like studying and understanding religion. That is the reason I am here, as well as enjoying many of your posters.

I also may point out that your very question, and the manner it was posed would be the type that you pointed out early in the TOS should be a pm. Or am I wrong in that assumption?

If you would like to know the other sites in addition to ethicalatheist.com I post on http://www.nonconforums.com (a site dedicated to great, constructive conversations between the whole range of believers and non believers), http://www.techguys.com (computer help), http://www.audiforums.com (for car help), forums.worldofwarcraft.com (I am a bit of a video game nerd)

Thats all of the ones I can think of right now, but feel free to ask me anything about those as well.

btw, I am only a mod on ethicalatheist.com because we had a run of pornographic spam bot attacks, and the websites software was out of date. They made many of the regular posters there mods so we could delete the dozens of posts that were being spammed per hour, until the actual moderators could find a resolution. I am not a moderator in the true sense, as I am not actually affiliated with the site other than a poster.

Now, with that being said, since this question is coming from a moderator on this board, I am inclined to ask if there is a problem with me posting here. If you meant to suggest that I have no business posting here than I wish for you say it in a more specified manner, otherwise I will continue to post. You can pm me or we can just continue this conversation on the board.

oh yeah, I also post on http://www.richarddawkins.net as well from time to time

 

[Rick W]

I've read many of your posts at EthicalAtheist. You inquired of Bob's beliefs. I've inquired of your intentions. Bob answered your question and you answered mine. You'll hold Bob to his reply/replies and I'll hold you to yours. I believe that's a fair deal.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I've read many of your posts at EthicalAtheist. You inquired of Bob's beliefs. I've inquired of your intentions. Bob answered your question and you answered mine. You'll hold Bob to his reply/replies and I'll hold you to yours. I believe that's a fair deal.

I am flattered that someone has had such interest in my posts that they are searching them at another forum. In fact, while your going through my posts there, I would highly recommend searching my posts at http://www.nonconforums.com as well.

There are many great discussions on that forums as well, and we welcome new posters.

I would submit that your question to me was of a personal nature and not sticking to the issue of this thread, and as such, as you have pointed out in other posts, would be more relevant in a pm.

I honestly feel singled out, as if your post was some how presented as an "expose" of me as some moderator from an atheist site trying to create discord on a Christian site. Thats how I read that, and how I am afraid other people could view it.

Maybe I am just being too sensitive.

Now, if I had a post that was questioning someone's faith on here in regards to religion or God, than I would feel that to be more relevant. What business would I have doing that? I do not believe you will find a post from me questioning someone's belief in Christ or YHWH, or trying to "win" someone to my unbelief on this forum.

I found that question to me very irrelevant to this thread, while my questions to Bob were entirely relevant, and I welcome any more such personal questions as a pm.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I've read many of your posts at EthicalAtheist. You inquired of Bob's beliefs. I've inquired of your intentions. Bob answered your question and you answered mine. You'll hold Bob to his reply/replies and I'll hold you to yours. I believe that's a fair deal.

I re-read this and I just can't shake the allusion you give from the opening sentence I bolded. There is a broken train of thought there, which emphasises the opening sentence.

"I've read many of your posts at ethicalatheist."

Somehow if I picture you face to face saying this, I see you raising an eye brow.

Is there something that you would like to convey to me? I prefer that you say what you feel about me personally in a pm, but seeing how you asked the original question in an open forum, I get the feeling you want to discuss this in front of the other posters.

 

[Rick W]

If your intent is "understanding religion" while here then there will be no problems. There has been far too much ridicule in this particular forum toward Christianity and believers participating here.

Maybe I am just being too sensitive.

And maybe I'm guilty of the same.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

My intent is not to ridicule anyone on this forum. I try my best to adhere to the ToS for this site, and if I do not, I welcome the warning so I can correct my actions.

I also realize that the terms "atheist darwinism" are likely objectionable to any of the many believers you have who also understand evolution, and ridicule them as being atheistic.

 

[lordkalvan]

I agree that we are just getting the information from the victim.

Who else should we be asking?

Well, I would quite like to see any reasons Auriol Stevens gave for rejecting the article. It would also be instructive to access the full text of any letters or articles Richard Dawkins wrote. I do not know where or how to access these, or even if they exist in the public domain. Everything readily available seems to be pretty much hearsay.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

any time he posts just ask him to show us where the data for ID leads. Show us some of the theories.

He usually ignores you or goes to a new thread at that point. Though once he went on a vague ramble about Electromag waves, without ever fully explaining it. Just vague allusions.

once??!!! I think I have about 50 posts on that so far.

Read.

Bob

First of all, I apologize for the tone and wording of my op. It was not constructive, and serves to detract more from me than anything.

I am though still confused as to the question of what the falsifiable, testable, predictive theories are that come from ID are.

Would you mind making a new thread and as concisely as possible enumerating them so that I can easily refer to them when needed?

 

[Snidey]

ID is very clearly not falsifiable - maybe the biggest hurdle its supporters face in trying to show that it is a science. The idea that "this looks designed" coupled with (poor) attempts to show that evolution has holes does not make a theory. It barely even makes a coherent idea. Like our ancestors assuming rain must emanate from a deity, or that any number of the things we couldn't explain yet were the work of the hands of god, it is built upon on a lack of knowledge. The difference is that this time they are frequently citing phenomena we CAN explain.

For some reason, the idea that the diversity of species could be explained by a natural process that is not evolution is never explored by those who believe evolution is a weak theory. Could it be because they knew what their conclusion was before setting out to prove it?

 

[lordkalvan]

ID is very clearly not falsifiable - maybe the biggest hurdle its supporters face in trying to show that it is a science. The idea that "this looks designed" coupled with (poor) attempts to show that evolution has holes does not make a theory. It barely even makes a coherent idea. Like our ancestors assuming rain must emanate from a deity, or that any number of the things we couldn't explain yet were the work of the hands of god, it is built upon on a lack of knowledge. The difference is that this time they are frequently citing phenomena we CAN explain.

I think this is an important distinction to make between ID and, say, the ToE and you make it well. As far as I am aware nothing has yet been proposed by the advocates of the ID theory that would falsify it. Indeed, any falsification of existing ID claims can be short-circuited by simply moving the ID/irreducible complexity claim one stage further back in the process, until ultimately the act of universal creation is reached. On the other hand, there are many potential falsifications for ToE that are recognized and openly discussed; however, none has yet been discovered.

 

[lordkalvan]

It is a roundabout way of stating that tax PAYERS are paying for social services not all of which are provided by the Government. In some cases the same guys PAYING the government to provide that service also VOLUNTEER to do it for free through their own local churches.

Well, having agreed (I think) that churches are subsidised by the taxpayer, we can disregard all the irrelevant points about the value of the benefit that society derives from the, I am sure, wholly disinterested and non-discriminatory services that churches provide, and return to the question of whether or not, if a church is subsidised by tax payers those tax payers are entitled to lobby for legislation requiring churches to ensure that, where questions of science are addressed in, say, Sunday schools, all sides of the debate are properly presented. If one believes that institutions that are supported financially by government should be the subject of taxpayer interest, this applies as equally to churches as it does to schools.

Bob said -Material since I already pointed out the obvious argument that Christians have no more right to insert the bible into the Atheist religionist's assemblies and institutions.

Fair enough. Are you arguing, therefore, that the Bible should only be 'insert[ed]' into religious assemblies and institutions that can be identified as Christian?

[quote:753ea]
By the way, why do you persist in the unsupported contention that '[D]arwinist doctrines of evolutionism' are 'atheist'?

Because their attack on ID is "distinctively atheist".[/quote:753ea]
Surely criticism of ID can only be deemed 'distinctively atheist' if its stated premise is something like ID must be wrong because there is no God. Much of the criticism I have read of ID is that it is a theory lacking grounds for falsification, has no directly observed evidence to support it and is no more than an argument based around the mistaken belief that because we may not understand exactly how X can occur by natural means, we can never understand such a thing and so therefore there must be a designer of X. None of these criticisms is 'distinctively atheist'. Presumably you believe that Christian scientists who criticize ID have been duped by the atheist conspiracy?

You are trying to justify your own method of glossing over the details.

1. I never dispute the fact that some Christians unwittingly follow atheist darwinists into attacking ID even though ID falls far short of the level of ID Romans 1 says is clearly evident to all pagans -- those with no Bible at all.

How do you know they are unwitting? Because they criticize ID? This is a circular argument. Do you think it possible they may have considered the evidence given their understanding of the subject matter and reached a conclusion based on their knowledge alone?

2. My argument is not that the reason atheist darwinism IS ATHEIST is that it HAS atheists and agnostics -- my argument is that in the attack on ID it has exposed itself as DISTINCTIVELY ATHEIST.

If one glosses over the details "sufficiently" I think they get to your conclusion above.

I fail to see how this follows solely from the criticisms of ID. ID can be wholly wrong as presently formulated and evolutionary theory wholly right as presently understood, without this impacting on the existence or otherwise of God. My understanding of ID theory as it is put forward is that it is supposed to claim nothing whatsoever about the existence of God, hence its 'right' to be taught in US state/public schools. Indeed, as far as I am aware the advocates of ID would be entirely unfazed to discover that the Intelligent Designer was an advanced alien civilization millions of light years distant from Earth. Thus, if ID purports to make no religious claims in its theorising, how can any criticism of it be deemed 'distinctively atheist'? Your argument does not logically follow.