Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent. Full Story

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#157047 Feb 27, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you afraid of?
Kids might actually reject evolution?
If evolution canít stand on itís own merit and science then it can stand at all.
In that case you should be worried.
Since it's the framework theory for the field of biology, I'd say it stands pretty well. Now, when you come up with another theory to replace it, you may have a leg to stand on. I won't hold my breath though.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#157048 Feb 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
But what you know is wrong.
I have found no person on these threads who knows anything about ID except for the packaged, stacked, and stocked cliche's and putdowns found on your average liberal or atheist blog.
I spent 2 weeks trying to get IAnus to admit a book on ID in 1984 predates the Aguillard decision of 1987.
He would not admit 1984 came before 1987.
You ever seen an asshole doctor admit he was wrong? I haven't. And I've had more than average contact with them - given my electroshock and anti-psychotic therapy.
Yep.

You spent 2 weeks in a pedantic exercise about irrelevant details.

We saw it.

But this doesn't give "intelligent design" any validity.

It's still a hoax even if one book came before the other or whatever it is.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#157049 Feb 27, 2013
So stupid. You sure fight hard for the campfire tales of ancient desert nomadic sheep farmers who sacrificed goats while chanting to their dark god to be accepted as science.

Remember Michael Behe has said at the DI they always start each day with prayer. Very scientific.

Lol!
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution theory relies on the origin of life being spontaneous abiogenesis. Darwin admitted that himself. To admit otherwise is to admit the non-necessity of the purely material sequence of events.
And evolution may or may not require belief, depending on which definition of "evolution" you are referring to.
There are about 9 definitions in scientific literature. The simplest is "fact". The more elaborate ones are speculative.
The elasticity of the term is what you are utilizing when you present it in black and white terms.
In other fields, that is called "propaganda".

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#157050 Feb 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Intelligent Design theorists are not Creationists.
Which one are you against? Make up your mind.
If you don't know the difference, shut your stupid mouth about it.
Yes, they are the same culprits.

They're in disguise, that's all.

C'mon Buck, don't kid the kidder.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#157051 Feb 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy for you to say.

Sorry Buck , at least you wont try to control everyone with tyrannical laws. He/She/it is like the Bloomburg liberal
that wants to say I can't have a 32 oz coke if I want one.
I'm like the guy in this ........



I like a big fat cigar why?
I might suddenly decide I want one.^^
She/he it wants government to control everything.
It was about time

Redding, CA

#157052 Feb 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You're an idiot.
1. ID was being presented BEFORE the court ruling you allude to, which is Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987. Namely, the 1984 book The Mystery of Lifeís Origin by Charles Thaxton (Ph.D., Physical Chemistry, Iowa State University), Walter Bradley (Ph.D., Materials Science, University of Texas, Austin), and Roger Olsen (Ph.D., Geochemistry, Colorado School of
Mines).
2. ID is NOT ILLEGAL to teach. One judge ruled it unconstitutional in one school district in Pennsylvania. Judge John Jones III, who ruled in the case admitted his opinion "has
no precedential value outside the Middle District of Pennsylvania".
3. ID has no hypothesis about divine creation, and is inconsistent with Creationism, and is rejected by the largest organizations in the world who promote Creationism. Some of the leading scientific advocates of ID, including Michael Behe who has written 2 books on the subject, publicly accept human/ape common ancestry, which is a contradiction of the teachings of Creationism.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Good to see you back..Buck

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#157053 Feb 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Last time I witnessed you elaborate on the subject, you did not.
I don't know if you've educated yourself since.
Specifically, you could not understand, or chose not to understand, that the Intelligent Design hypothesis does not postulate, nor needs to postulate, nor implies, nor alludes to, nor needs to allude to, a deity.
Deity, schmeity.

Intelligent design is a hoax, deliberately perpetrated.

Take it from the Catcher.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157054 Feb 27, 2013
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
Since it's the framework theory for the field of biology, I'd say it stands pretty well. Now, when you come up with another theory to replace it, you may have a leg to stand on. I won't hold my breath though.
Every scientist who works on Intelligent Design accepts evolution.

Their sin is scientific dissent on a few details.

To stalk and destroy dissenters is not the way science should be done.

The Darwinists' problem with ID is not because they see a threat to science. It's a worldview thing.
It was about time

Redding, CA

#157055 Feb 27, 2013
Didn't take long for them to pile on the attacks to discreedit you personally. I still doubt we see any of them respond to your arguments...Buck

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#157056 Feb 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution theory relies on the origin of life being spontaneous abiogenesis. Darwin admitted that himself. To admit otherwise is to admit the non-necessity of the purely material sequence of events.
And evolution may or may not require belief, depending on which definition of "evolution" you are referring to.
There are about 9 definitions in scientific literature. The simplest is "fact". The more elaborate ones are speculative.
The elasticity of the term is what you are utilizing when you present it in black and white terms.
In other fields, that is called "propaganda".

No evolutionary biologist thinks life was spontaneous.
Darwin was right about one thing, the theory grew since him.
the evidence points that he was right about common descent.
No one is sure life began from just one LUCA though.
The latest cutting edge thought is that there may have been 3 that shared DNA/RNA in development. No one is sure there was no exterior intervention. We just can't pin it down yet.
ID maybe true, but nothing has been presented to validate it.
But it is fringe science , unless it can come up with real evidence it will remain so.Personally I haven't ruled out the possibility. Life could be a construct, but without something that points to it. It is like speculation into what was before time.
Fortunately if life is a construct, we should eventually be able to find something that points to it. I have my doubts about that and ever understanding "before time".

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#157057 Feb 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Every scientist who works on Intelligent Design accepts evolution.
Their sin is scientific dissent on a few details.
To stalk and destroy dissenters is not the way science should be done.
The Darwinists' problem with ID is not because they see a threat to science. It's a worldview thing.
"A few details."

Yeah, like a god, behind the whole thing.

Dude, it's transparent.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157058 Feb 27, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they are the same culprits.
They're in disguise, that's all.
C'mon Buck, don't kid the kidder.
Are they?

The two largest Creationist groups in the world, Answers in Genesis and The Institute for Creation Research....

REJECT INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

John Morris, President, Institute for Creation Research:

ďThe differences between Biblical creationism and the ID movement should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them."

Creationist crusader, Ken Hamm: "Intelligent Design is dangerous".

Same culprits? What are you suggesting - mass schizophrenia? Most ID papers and several of their books are DEVASTATING to Christian creationism.

I hope you are more logical in court. I will allow you to go on losing this case for as long as you like.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#157059 Feb 27, 2013
And god is what it's really all about. Trying to mix observable science with the transcendental argument.
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"A few details."
Yeah, like a god, behind the whole thing.
Dude, it's transparent.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#157060 Feb 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Are they?
The two largest Creationist groups in the world, Answers in Genesis and The Institute for Creation Research....
REJECT INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
John Morris, President, Institute for Creation Research:
ďThe differences between Biblical creationism and the ID movement should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them."
Creationist crusader, Ken Hamm: "Intelligent Design is dangerous".
Same culprits? What are you suggesting - mass schizophrenia? Most ID papers and several of their books are DEVASTATING to Christian creationism.
I hope you are more logical in court. I will allow you to go on losing this case for as long as you like.
OK, OK.

Partial schizophrenia.

The conservative creationists do pooh pooh intelligent design.

They're like the Tea Party Christians.

But the "big tent" Christians endorse it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157061 Feb 27, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"A few details."
Yeah, like a god, behind the whole thing.
Dude, it's transparent.
There is no such hypothesis in ID.

Counselor is assuming facts not in evidence, Your Honor.

Does Big Bang Theory have a god "behind the whole thing"?

What is the causation?

Ohhhh nooooh! Don't try to tell me you are leaving it as an open question!

Hubble and those dudes had a god behind it all!

They didn't say so, but I just know it!

Two standards much, Counselor?

...By the way, David Berlinski is an ID proponent and a member of ...gulp...the dreaded Discovery Institute.

He doesn't believe in god.

Same culprits??

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157062 Feb 27, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, OK.
Partial schizophrenia.
The conservative creationists do pooh pooh intelligent design.
They're like the Tea Party Christians.
But the "big tent" Christians endorse it.
So what?

Some Christians endorse Darwinism. Some science professors in Baptist and Catholic colleges endorse Darwinism.

Is Darwinism creationism, then? No.

All christians believe the universe was designed. Some of them specifically support Intelligent Design Theory; some do not. Some Intelligent Design Theorists are christian; some are not. Some are not even theists. Some Darwinist scientists are christian; some are not.

None of that goes to show ID is creationism.

So far you're batting "0".

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157063 Feb 27, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
And god is what it's really all about. Trying to mix observable science with the transcendental argument.
<quoted text>
There is no transcendental argument in ID.

Who told you that, GiveMeLiverwurst?

If it's there, show it.

If you can, then I'll show you the transcendental argument in the Big Bang Theory.

Is SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) that studies signals from space for elements of design a Creationist organization?

According to your standard, it is, and should not be allowed to be discussed in schools.

(Which would render recruiting researchers problematic)

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#157064 Feb 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
So what?
Some Christians endorse Darwinism. Some science professors in Baptist and Catholic colleges endorse Darwinism.
Is Darwinism creationism, then? No.
All christians believe the universe was designed. Some of them specifically support Intelligent Design Theory; some do not. Some Intelligent Design Theorists are christian; some are not. Some are not even theists. Some Darwinist scientists are christian; some are not.
None of that goes to show ID is creationism.
So far you're batting "0".
Dude, I'm going to have to take off a couple innings.

Off to Mexico tomorrow. Baja. Gotta go pack.

But hey, only a portion of the trip is at taxpayer expense.

The rest, Catcher is pleased to fund.

Welcome back, Buck. This place has been boring.

Scoot over to the Why should Jesus love me thread. It's a gas.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157065 Feb 27, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
No evolutionary biologist thinks life was spontaneous.
Darwin was right about one thing, the theory grew since him.
the evidence points that he was right about common descent.
No one is sure life began from just one LUCA though.
The latest cutting edge thought is that there may have been 3 that shared DNA/RNA in development. No one is sure there was no exterior intervention. We just can't pin it down yet.
ID maybe true, but nothing has been presented to validate it.
But it is fringe science , unless it can come up with real evidence it will remain so.Personally I haven't ruled out the possibility. Life could be a construct, but without something that points to it. It is like speculation into what was before time.
Fortunately if life is a construct, we should eventually be able to find something that points to it. I have my doubts about that and ever understanding "before time".
Darwinian evolution depends on life arising spontaneously.

They have to believe in chemical evolution to life. They work on duplicating it in laboratories every day.

No luck yet.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#157066 Feb 27, 2013
Sure there is but mainly it's all about the argument from ignorance :)
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no transcendental argument in ID.
Who told you that, GiveMeLiverwurst?
If it's there, show it.
If you can, then I'll show you the transcendental argument in the Big Bang Theory.
Is SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) that studies signals from space for elements of design a Creationist organization?
According to your standard, it is, and should not be allowed to be discussed in schools.
(Which would render recruiting researchers problematic)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 3 min _Bad Company 120
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 9 min _Bad Company 23,179
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 54 min Eagle 12 2,268
Islam is the Enemy (Sep '12) 3 hr Thinking 28
God' existence 3 hr Thinking 57
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 5 hr thetruth 1,442
Atheism does not exist at all 5 hr thetruth 4
More from around the web