'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed' (Ben Stein monkeys with evo...

[Wayne]

TerryBond wrote:

<quoted text>
Okay, how about Webster:
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity
So you focused on the archaic definition. That's about equal to you level of scientific knowledge.
Again, where's your PROOF that atheism equals immorality? Are you ready to retract your statement yet?

heh heh heh That was in the definition I supplied, go after THEM. Plus your morals you claim to have? Christian morals have been absorbed by the atheists because,, really,, what use do atheists have with morals? IF there were no God then there are no need for morals.

[Wayne]

TerryBond wrote:

<quoted text>
Nettiebelle - I am definitely not including you in this statement. You have always shown up as open-minded and able to entertain other concepts without necessarily accepting them. No one could ask for more in an intelligent conversation!

Yeah, ain't she a hoot?

[Wayne]

TerryBond wrote:

<quoted text>
So it would seem by the posts here that all theists have the unmitigated gall to continually tell me what I think and then drone on telling me how wrong I am for thinking it.
You just made a general statement that atheists are liars. Where's your proof?
Again, you have no idea of what atheism is. You claim that you answer to a higher authority and that somehow makes you morally superior.
Well, here's some news for you -- I (and most atheists, humanists, freethinkers, etc.) also answer to a higher authority -- the society in which we live. I am responsible for how I show up to everybody I come in contract with and how ethically I deal with everybody.
Atheism does not now or ever equal callous disregard for others. Nor does it allow for any sense of moral or ethical superiority. These concepts are rooted in the divisiveness created by religion (my god's better than your god) and are an anathema to everything atheists, humanists, and freethinkers are committed to.

That is laugh out loud funny because you don't give a shit about nobody but yourself. That is Sooooo obvious from your posts.

[Matt from Akron]

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
Matt, Hitler proclaimed HIMSELF God. Don't make me do your homework.

Hitler used a twisted and foul version of Christianity to spread his vile message. He wasn't a real Christian, for sure, although he pretended to be at times, when it suited his agenda. Hitler believed in God though, no doubt about it.

And Wayne, the only time I'll let you do my homework is when I feel like intentionally flunking a class.

[The Dude]

Alan

>>>"Read Darwin on Trial FREE, for more holes in Darwinism than you can bear."

Phil Johnson of the DI? BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

Okay sure, just forget the fact he's only qualified as a lawyer, not a scientist, and to top it all off he's a DI fellow as well as an AIDS denier. Yeah, there's a respectable source.

(snicker, giggle)

Once again, people, I apologise on behalf of my fellow countryman.

And Wayne, why are you still here?

[Darwins Stepchild]

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
To be honest, I have no idea what the ID movement entails. I believe what God says. And I DO believe He is intelligent. So, just what DO the IDer's say?

And here we have an admission of Wayne's utter arrogance. He is completely ignorant of the position he is supporting, yet vehemently supports it anyway.

[Matt from Akron]

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
That is laugh out loud funny because you don't give a shit about nobody but yourself. That is Sooooo obvious from your posts.

Actually, atheist or not, TerryBond is much more of a decent and compassionate person than you are, judging by the posts you have both written. Christianity has not taught you anything about being a decent human being, Wayne. You're too busy worshiping the Bible to actually learn anything that might make you a decent person.

[Alan]

TerryBond wrote:

<quoted text>
1. Atheism and evolution are not related concepts. Notre Dame and Baylor University have both stated unwavering support for evolutionary biology.

Your right Terry, but Atheism and DARWINISM are practically inseperable according to Richard Dawkins.

TerryBond wrote:

<quoted text>
2. Modern evolutionary concepts are not referred to as "Darwinism", although "Neo-Darwinism" is marginally acceptable.

Tell Richard Dawkins to stop using it then! Darwinism refers specifically to Darwins outdated theory of evolution by natural selection. Darwinism is used to avoid confusion with the much broader term “evolution”. Darwinist encourage confusion over these terms in order to claim as much support for their theory of evolution as possible.

One of the problems with criticising Darwinism nowadays is that there are as many versions of Darwinism as there are Darwinists. On the up sie, this is one of the classic signs of a paradigm in crisis.

TerryBond wrote:

<quoted text>
3. Stuart Weinstein is right, Mutation is random. Selection is not. PLEASE read some actual scientific information on evolution and quite trying to parrot creationist's web sites.

Neo-Darwinist Richard Dawkins recognized the purposelessness of such a system:

“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”

[Alan]

The Dude wrote:

DI? BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

The standard of debate from Darwinist is plummeting fast. Well, if the ships sinking then party on!

[chipfle]

Alan wrote:

<quoted text>
The standard of debate from Darwinist is plummeting fast. Well, if the ships sinking then party on!

creIDiot - since you seem to have missed this the first time, I'll repost it - and keep doing so until you show some intellectual integrity (I know thats asking a lot from a creIDiot).

Read it - it really is rubbish. Johnson isn't even a competent lawyer, his science is laughable. As theolegalism its sort of coherent, even kind of clever once you weed through the really noxious quote mines. The science doesn't rise to the level of bad, its simply incoherent. His eye "argument" is illustrative. Classic creIDiot irreduceable complexity, completely ignoring the many intermediate vision systems we know about and understand the development of. Tell you what, suggest just one of these holes youre so sure of, otherwise you are demonstrated to be just another deluded fleecie lier for Jesus.

How about it Al, are you just another ignorant deluded fleecie liar-for-Jesus?

[ZekeCDN]

Forum Cruiser wrote:

Then you wonder why I see danger inherent in atheism??

No, not at all--I know exactly where your fears come from.

What it DID make me wonder, was why you read cannibas.com .

[Darwins Stepchild]

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
And don't use the weak argument that the bible is written by man. Of COURSE it is, EVERY BOOK in the WORLD is written by man. Or woman. The difference is, the bible is God Breathed, The Spirit of God INSPIRED man what to write in the pages of the bible.

Definitely a terminal case of God-infection.

[Wayne]

Matt from Akron wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, atheist or not, TerryBond is much more of a decent and compassionate person than you are, judging by the posts you have both written. Christianity has not taught you anything about being a decent human being, Wayne. You're too busy worshiping the Bible to actually learn anything that might make you a decent person.

And now you're defending an atheist who could care less about YOU or your Christianity. Wake up and smell the coffee Matt.

[Matt from Akron]

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
And now you're defending an atheist who could care less about YOU or your Christianity. Wake up and smell the coffee Matt.

Terry has been nothing but pleasant to me in the posts we've exchanged, even though he does not share my beliefs. Ironically, he acts much more like a Christian SHOULD act than YOU do. Terry may not be a Christian but he's a better person than you will ever be.

Love thy neighbor...

Or have you forgotten that?

[Stuart Weinstein]

Alan wrote:

<quoted text>
The standard of debate from Darwinist is plummeting fast. Well, if the ships sinking then party on!

Alan I tore your posts which claimed Stalin and Hitler practiced "darwinism" to shreds.

You have offered no response. In fact you have totally ignored my last few posts which had no rancor or insults to you at all.

Why is it that you don't respond to posts that present evidence and scientific reasoning to show that your claims are flawed?

It seems the only thing you do here is goad people into insulting you, and then you write things as shown above.

It seems you're not really up for a serious discussion.

[Drew Smith]

I wrote: "Darwinism" (if by that you are referring to the the theory of evolution by natural selection) is a scientific theory about how *natural* processes result in the evolution of species, including the human species. Like any other scientific theory, it is an explanation to account for what we actually observe. Like any other scientific theory, it makes no claim as to what humans 'should' do. It can be used as a moral justification to engage in any particular act no more so than the theory of gravity can be."

Alan wrote:

If that is the case Drew then why does Darwin keep doing just that? "NOR COULD WE CHECK OUR SYMPATHY, IF SO URGED BY HARD REASON, WITHOUT DETERIORATION IN THE NOBLEST PART OF OUR NATURE."

Where in that statement is Darwin saying what humans *should* do?(He is referring instead to what humans are *actually* observed to do, that is, to express sympathy to their fellow human beings.)
***

Alan wrote:

"HENCE WE MUST BEAR WITHOUT COMPLAINING THE UNDOUBTEDLY BAD EFFECTS OF THE WEAK SURVIVING AND PROPAGATING THEIR KIND"

Which is a continuation of the same idea, namely, that humans are regularly observed to behave in a *naturally* sympathetic way.
***

Alan wrote:

He is telling us what we should and should not read into his theory and how to behave in response to it

Nope, he is not telling us how we "should" behave. He is telling us how humans *do* behave, based upon observations.
***

Alan wrote:

because he is plainly aware of it's harmful ideological implications.

Nope again, he is countering any potential refutation of his theory where someone might say "Well, humans tend to take care of the weak, yet your theory seems to suggest that the weak would tend to die out...how do you explain that?". Darwin's explanation amounts to "it's human nature", because he lacked the evidence provided by many following decades of studies of social species.
***

Alan wrote:

as you stated, these claims are unscientific.

I'm claiming that statements made as to what humans "should" do are non-scientific, but Darwin's words above don't amount to that type of statement.
***

Alan wrote:

You are entirely wrong to say that theories do not have metaphysical implications. Newtonian physics has metaphysical implications. Quantum mechanics has metaphysical implications and Darwinism has metaphysical implications.

Support your claims.
***

Alan wrote:

Darwinism, however, is the only one with metaphysical implications which cast the extermination of the weak in a positive light.

There are no such implications in the theory of evolution by *natural* selection. You keep missing that.
***

[Drew Smith]

Alan wrote:

Yes, a theory should be abandoned principally because it is full of holes - like Darwinism.

Let us know when you find even *one* "hole". Got one to share?
***

Alan wrote:

I have given you an entire BOOK full of reasons to doubt Darwinism.

And I've provided you a link to a site that demolishes the contents of that book. Now, are you going to engage in an actual debate *here* by asserting a specific claim as to a "hole", or are you going to continue to merely wave your book around and pretend that you've met the challenge?
***

Alan wrote:

I predicted in advance, that rather than study it personally, you would go running to some Atheist website

I didn't run to an "atheist" website. Note that you failed to address even a single one of the negative reviews. I guess you have no interest in "studying it personally", either, eh? Geez, Alan, have the smallest amount of integrity and actually engage in a discussion *here* of the science, why don't you? If you're not going to bother *reading* and *addressing* the contents at the link I provided, on what possible grounds can you whine about someone here not reading the book you wave about?
***

Alan wrote:

To make matters worse, the reviews therein were not even relevant to the subject matter in Darwin on Trial, but of course, you wouldn't know, would you.

And as you've provided *zero* evidence that they aren't relevant, of course, we're supposed to merely take your word on that? I know you're afraid to debate the science *here*, Alan, and for good reason...you can't get away with your unsubstantiated claims.
***

Alan wrote:

I have read “Darwin on Trial” personally

Then you should be in a position to discuss the relevant *science* here, to present at least *one* claim, and to deal in an adult manner with the refutations that you'll get. Have at it. Otherwise, you're merely blowing smoke.

[Demos]

Don't bother. The christian right has won. The other day when Bush went begging the Saudis to increase oil production and was denied because "the US is not our only customer and our other customers aren't having any difficulty paying current prices" (paraphrased) was a turning point in US history. Someday our grandchildren will be taught in history class about how the US was once the most powerful nation on earth and they will point at this time in our history as the turning point. If the christian right gets its way and science is no longer truly taught in the US then our progeny will not be able to compete with the rest of the world further facilitating our decline.

[Dr Sausage]

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
There IS a God and He reveals Himself in Scripture. ANYONE can read it for themselves. And believe it or not. And don't take mans word for it.

But Wayne, MAN WROTE THE BIBLE!

[Dr Sausage]

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
IF there were no God then there are no need for morals.

That's the lamest argument against Atheism. Obviously morals help a society become secure and successful which benefits all within that society. Morals help Man, not God.