[_ Old Earth _] The Distinctively "atheist" element of Darwinism

[BobRyan]

There is another thread started by Jay talking about the scientists and data in favor of Intelligent Design and trying to argue against it "on principle" -- that thread is also very helpful in adding "proof" for the arguments made in the first 3 posts here.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31996&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15


Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I have to wonder how you can devoted follow Dawkins like his word is "Gospel" and then not see his point when he "notices" the conflict between the atheist basis for Darwinism and the claims of the Bible.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Provine does a pretty good job of explaining the atheist "essence" in DarwinISM.

So also does Dawkins and P.C Meyers --

http://www.wingclips.com/cart.php?targe ... ory_id=778


Of course this is video SEE-for-yourself data provided in the Movie EXPELLED -- so you have to suppose that there are some who will not "allow themselves to see" the argument.

According to Dawkins -- Biologists are at war with Christians because their belief in Darinian evolutionism is by definition 'atheist' as he claims all educated people "know".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxGMqKCc ... re=related

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

This thread is a cluster of many arguments and assertions, all semi-tied to this phrase you love to use.

I really think we should start over. You can feel free to paste anything from this thread, but I really would like a dialog that doesn't seem completely one sided with 2 pages of you pulling quotes randomly from different threads before I can respond.

Make a thread, and lay out your argument in simple format for me. Allow me to respond before you spam your own thread with even more stuff. I think that's a pretty fair request. If I were to respond to these two pages in the manner you expect, it would become extremely disorganized and impractical to have a discussion that would meaningfully lead anywhere.

 

[BobRyan]

The first four posts on this thread represent the summary of my opening argument for the term "Atheist Darwinism". --

I am happy to start yet another thread with just those 4 posts if that is your preference -- but I am not sure what it accomplishes.

Is that really what you want?

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

The first four posts on this thread represent the summary of my opening argument for the term "Atheist Darwinism". --

I am happy to start yet another thread with just those 4 posts if that is your preference -- but I am not sure what it accomplishes.

Is that really what you want?

Bob

No, if you want to make an argument, I think it's fair to make it one cohesive post and focus on the one conclusion you intend. As long as it focuses on your conclusion that the phrase 'atheist darwinism' is fairly applied, I'm happy to argue with you.

I don't think I need to be responding to 4 posts. If each post is an independent argument, pick your favorite, and I'll argue that one first. I'll address each one in a nice orderly fashion that doesn't involve everyone having to see you repost quotes from Dawkins and things of the sort. That would be pleasant for everyone involved here.

 

[BobRyan]

I prefer to shorten my posts if at all possible because it makes it easy for the unbiased objective reader to get the point easily. Each of the 4 posts highlights it's own point.

If you don't really see much difference in my concatenating them into one lonnnggg post -- then go ahead and just read them here - responding to the point raised in the smaller focused post so that the points are not lost.

bob

 

[Jayls5]

I prefer to shorten my posts if at all possible because it makes it easy for the unbiased objective reader to get the point easily. Each of the 4 posts highlights it's own point.

If you don't really see much difference in my concatenating them into one lonnnggg post -- then go ahead and just read them here - responding to the point raised in the smaller focused post so that the points are not lost.

bob

I didn't say that. I don't think I could have been much clearer actually.

If you can make it concise in a single post, do it.

If each post is a separate argument, let's do it one at at a time.

You must have missed this where I wrote, "I don't think I need to be responding to 4 posts. If each post is an independent argument, pick your favorite, and I'll argue that one first. I'll address each one in a nice orderly fashion that doesn't involve everyone having to see you repost quotes from Dawkins and things of the sort. That would be pleasant for everyone involved here."