Jump to content

In God We Teach - documentary excerpt


Guest Guest

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest

You offer as proof the fact that throughout the thousands of years of history, various cultures have believed in a supreme being ?? Flawed logic at least, ignorance at best.

Actually, it makes perfect sense.

1. According to you, the Norse gods, Roman gods, Greek gods, Pagan gods and all the rest are not real. They don’t really exist. They are just stories.

2. These stories about gods are told and believed all over the world. There has to be a reason. Based on that, we know that people are inclined to believe in gods even if they are not real and do not exist.

3. Therefore, the Christian god is suspect for exactly the same reasons.

There is no flaw whatsoever in this logic and the facts to back it up are present in the histories of cultures from all over the world for thousands of years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u

Actually, it makes perfect sense.

1. According to you, the Norse gods, Roman gods, Greek gods, Pagan gods and all the rest are not real. They don’t really exist. They are just stories.

2. These stories about gods are told and believed all over the world. There has to be a reason. Based on that, we know that people are inclined to believe in gods even if they are not real and do not exist.

3. Therefore, the Christian god is suspect for exactly the same reasons.

There is no flaw whatsoever in this logic and the facts to back it up are present in the histories of cultures from all over the world for thousands of years.

I always have to laugh at these pseudo intellectuals who think they're too sophisticated to believe in God. Too sophisticated until something in their life causes them stress or grief, then they pray for God to help them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

Actually, it makes perfect sense.

1. According to you, the Norse gods, Roman gods, Greek gods, Pagan gods and all the rest are not real. They don’t really exist. They are just stories.

2. These stories about gods are told and believed all over the world. There has to be a reason. Based on that, we know that people are inclined to believe in gods even if they are not real and do not exist.

3. Therefore, the Christian god is suspect for exactly the same reasons.

There is no flaw whatsoever in this logic and the facts to back it up are present in the histories of cultures from all over the world for thousands of years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Ezekiel

Actually, it makes perfect sense.

1. According to you, the Norse gods, Roman gods, Greek gods, Pagan gods and all the rest are not real. They don’t really exist. They are just stories.

2. These stories about gods are told and believed all over the world. There has to be a reason. Based on that, we know that people are inclined to believe in gods even if they are not real and do not exist.

3. Therefore, the Christian god is suspect for exactly the same reasons.

There is no flaw whatsoever in this logic and the facts to back it up are present in the histories of cultures from all over the world for thousands of years.

With regard to the above points:

1. The pagan gods are in fact mythical. There is no archaeological evidence to support their existence and there is no legitimate prophecy confirming the veracity of any text written about them.

2. You are correct to say that people all over the world are inclined to believe in gods and there are reasons for it. Man is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). Part of what that entails is that he has the capacity to think and ponder. Man is also unique among the created order in that he has a conscience. It doesn't matter where you go on the planet, or how primitive or advanced the culture is, there is some sense of a greater being out there responsible for the created order. Among the arrogant atheistic types, like Dawkins, that being is a space Alien who inseminated the earth with the "seeds" of life. Dawkins, however, offers no hypothesis for where that space alien came from. Perhaps his planet was inseminated with life by some greater space alien on an even more distant planet. For others, it is a god or gods. The assumption is the same, the evidence of design, as well as man's conscience (Ecclesiastes 3:11; Romans 2:15)compels him to believe that there is something greater than himself out there.

3. Christianity is not suspect for the same reasons because it is a "reasoned" faith. The Christian is not expected to believe blindly. There are hundreds of biblical prophecies which came to pass and they can very easily be "cut and pasted" like all the other intellectually lazy arguments posted by pseudo theologians, lawyers and historians on this forum. Nevertheless, suffice it to say, Jesus himself predicted the exact time, place and means of his death and that he would rise on the third day (Mathew 16:21). Each of the 27 New Testament books (all considered primary source documents) attest to this (including the Roman soldiers who actually guarded the tomb in Mathew 28:11-15). In short, Jesus does not expect the believer to believe "blindly." He provided evidence of his deity by predicting His death, burial and resurrection. Afterwards, he in fact accomplished his claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

With regard to the above points:

1. The pagan gods are in fact mythical. There is no archaeological evidence to support their existence and there is no legitimate prophecy confirming the veracity of any text written about them.

2. You are correct to say that people all over the world are inclined to believe in gods and there are reasons for it. Man is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). Part of what that entails is that he has the capacity to think and ponder. Man is also unique among the created order in that he has a conscience. It doesn't matter where you go on the planet, or how primitive or advanced the culture is, there is some sense of a greater being out there responsible for the created order. Among the arrogant atheistic types, like Dawkins, that being is a space Alien who inseminated the earth with the "seeds" of life. Dawkins, however, offers no hypothesis for where that space alien came from. Perhaps his planet was inseminated with life by some greater space alien on an even more distant planet. For others, it is a god or gods. The assumption is the same, the evidence of design, as well as man's conscience (Ecclesiastes 3:11; Romans 2:15)compels him to believe that there is something greater than himself out there.

3. Christianity is not suspect for the same reasons because it is a "reasoned" faith. The Christian is not expected to believe blindly. There are hundreds of biblical prophecies which came to pass and they can very easily be "cut and pasted" like all the other intellectually lazy arguments posted by pseudo theologians, lawyers and historians on this forum. Nevertheless, suffice it to say, Jesus himself predicted the exact time, place and means of his death and that he would rise on the third day (Mathew 16:21). Each of the 27 New Testament books (all considered primary source documents) attest to this (including the Roman soldiers who actually guarded the tomb in Mathew 28:11-15). In short, Jesus does not expect the believer to believe "blindly." He provided evidence of his deity by predicting His death, burial and resurrection. Afterwards, he in fact accomplished his claims.

All of the monotheistic religions makes similar claims about its own truthfulness. None of these claims withstands scrutiny.

1. There are no legitimate prophecies, period. All anyone can do is evaluate evidence and assess what is likely to occur. The so-called archaelogical evidence claimed to support Christianity does not withstand scrutiny by reputable archaelogists and historians. In fact, the claims are ridiculous and childish and have been thoroughly debunked. None of the proof matters to self-proclaimed true believers, who insist on believing it anyway, no matter how completely disproved it is. All they do is make claims, call those claims proof and dismiss all the real scientists as biased - because the real scientists don't agree with them based on an examination of the evidence.

2. You have no idea what you're writing about Dawkins. That is something he lampooned, not something he believes. He was making a point, which you obviously do not understand. Your argument is nothing more than a case of special pleading and circular reasoning: those other religions are false, you say, but Christianity, well now, that's different. Only it's not. Other religions make similar claims. Why aren't they true? You simply ignore the fact that people believe in a god or gods because that is what they wish to do. That is a complete and compelling explanation for the whole of theology. You cannot explain it so you just ignore it.

3. There is no proof of any of this. Knowing what the prophecies were, it was a simple matter to write something claiming they had been fulfilled. Any of it could have been written at any time, and in fact nothing in any of the four self-proclaimed gospels was written until forty years and more after Jesus supposedly died. If these things were true, there would have been contemporaneous writings to prove them. There are none. That in itself disproves the claims.

But let's accept your ill-considered assumption as true so that we can follow it to its logical conclusion. Obviously, according to you, Jesus wanted people to believe in him. In fact, John 3:16 says that Jesus' supposed offer of salvation was made to the entire world. According to the Bible, Jesus wanted everyone to believe in him. If God had wanted that, everyone would have heard of Jesus contemporaneous with his resurrection and offer of salvation. Everyone would have had the opportunity to believe. Yet centuries later when explorers from Europe encountered indigenous populations in North America, Africa and other places for the first time, those people had never heard the story! Now how is that possible? As you might say, there is only one way: the story is a wholesale crock.

The usual answer is that Christians were commanded to spread the word but that's no answer. If each person's eternal salvation depended on their believing in Jesus, God would not have left it to chance or allowed anyone to go without the opportunity to believe.

The usual dodge in response to that is that God doesn't punish those who never had the chance to believe. But if that's true, then the whole thing wasn't necessary in the first place. People can be saved without believing in Jesus - and the whole story goes right out the window.

Anderson and the Grimm brothers wrote fairy tales that hold together than this.

You make the mistake of thinking that there's something wrong with people who don't believe these fairy tales. The truth is, we just don't see any point in believing things that aren't true. In fact, it does a lot of harm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

I always have to laugh at these pseudo intellectuals who think they're too sophisticated to believe in God. Too sophisticated until something in their life causes them stress or grief, then they pray for God to help them.

I always have to laugh at these knuckle-draggers who think they understand why people don't believe in their fairy tales.

I always have to laugh at these people who claim to believe in what they call God, and then lie to cover up when they've done wrong - like Paszkiewicz. According to the Bible, the wages of sin is death, in other words, eternal torment in hell. Paszkiewicz still hasn't asked for forgiveness for lying. In fact, he continues to try to justify himself. If he really believed in a god who punishes people with hell for lying and then not asking for forgiveness for it, he wouldn't do that. People don't really believe this stuff but there's something about it that makes them say they do. ko probably is right but we have to keep trying. These belief systems are loony tunes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

With regard to the above points:

1. The pagan gods are in fact mythical. There is no archaeological evidence to support their existence and there is no legitimate prophecy confirming the veracity of any text written about them.

2. You are correct to say that people all over the world are inclined to believe in gods and there are reasons for it. Man is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). Part of what that entails is that he has the capacity to think and ponder. Man is also unique among the created order in that he has a conscience. It doesn't matter where you go on the planet, or how primitive or advanced the culture is, there is some sense of a greater being out there responsible for the created order. Among the arrogant atheistic types, like Dawkins, that being is a space Alien who inseminated the earth with the "seeds" of life. Dawkins, however, offers no hypothesis for where that space alien came from. Perhaps his planet was inseminated with life by some greater space alien on an even more distant planet. For others, it is a god or gods. The assumption is the same, the evidence of design, as well as man's conscience (Ecclesiastes 3:11; Romans 2:15)compels him to believe that there is something greater than himself out there.

3. Christianity is not suspect for the same reasons because it is a "reasoned" faith. The Christian is not expected to believe blindly. There are hundreds of biblical prophecies which came to pass and they can very easily be "cut and pasted" like all the other intellectually lazy arguments posted by pseudo theologians, lawyers and historians on this forum. Nevertheless, suffice it to say, Jesus himself predicted the exact time, place and means of his death and that he would rise on the third day (Mathew 16:21). Each of the 27 New Testament books (all considered primary source documents) attest to this (including the Roman soldiers who actually guarded the tomb in Mathew 28:11-15). In short, Jesus does not expect the believer to believe "blindly." He provided evidence of his deity by predicting His death, burial and resurrection. Afterwards, he in fact accomplished his claims.

Absolutely correct. And I like 2smart4u's comments, how true they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

>>Each of the 27 New Testament books (all considered primary source documents) attest to this (including the Roman soldiers who actually guarded the tomb in Mathew 28:11-15). In short, Jesus does not expect the believer to believe "blindly." He provided evidence of his deity by predicting His death, burial and resurrection. Afterwards, he in fact accomplished his claims.<<

So that's your proof? Each book of the New Testament was written anywhere from 60 to 150 years after Jesus was dead based upon hear say and fable. Of course it predicted everything that happened because it was written LONG after everything happened with nobody arounf to fact check. Pretty easy to predict at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

With regard to the above points:

1. The pagan gods are in fact mythical. There is no archaeological evidence to support their existence and there is no legitimate prophecy confirming the veracity of any text written about them.

2. You are correct to say that people all over the world are inclined to believe in gods and there are reasons for it. Man is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). Part of what that entails is that he has the capacity to think and ponder. Man is also unique among the created order in that he has a conscience. It doesn't matter where you go on the planet, or how primitive or advanced the culture is, there is some sense of a greater being out there responsible for the created order. Among the arrogant atheistic types, like Dawkins, that being is a space Alien who inseminated the earth with the "seeds" of life. Dawkins, however, offers no hypothesis for where that space alien came from. Perhaps his planet was inseminated with life by some greater space alien on an even more distant planet. For others, it is a god or gods. The assumption is the same, the evidence of design, as well as man's conscience (Ecclesiastes 3:11; Romans 2:15)compels him to believe that there is something greater than himself out there.

3. Christianity is not suspect for the same reasons because it is a "reasoned" faith. The Christian is not expected to believe blindly. There are hundreds of biblical prophecies which came to pass and they can very easily be "cut and pasted" like all the other intellectually lazy arguments posted by pseudo theologians, lawyers and historians on this forum. Nevertheless, suffice it to say, Jesus himself predicted the exact time, place and means of his death and that he would rise on the third day (Mathew 16:21). Each of the 27 New Testament books (all considered primary source documents) attest to this (including the Roman soldiers who actually guarded the tomb in Mathew 28:11-15). In short, Jesus does not expect the believer to believe "blindly." He provided evidence of his deity by predicting His death, burial and resurrection. Afterwards, he in fact accomplished his claims.

You can babble that nonsense all you want. What you cannot do it back any of it up with facts from reliable sources.

The so-called biblical prophecies have been thoroughly debunked. See:

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunking_Christians/Contents.htm

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=e81359e8fd6f1819256d8968f0cc9ad3&topic=21928.0

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/09/100-challenge.html

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html

By the way, if Jesus had accomplished his claims, the world would have ended by now and the "saved" would be in heaven. See Matthew 23 and Mark 13. How can you just continually ignore the fact that in the Bible Jesus predicts that the world will end during the lifetimes of people still alive 2,000 years ago? This is an unfulfilled prophecy of the highest order and proof beyond a doubt that the Bible is inaccurate and unreliable.

What is the basis for what you're saying? Nothing, except that Christian apologists have claimed those things to be true. All you've done is prove the point that your belief system is based on nothing except the fact that you choose to believe it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

With regard to the above points:

1. The pagan gods are in fact mythical. There is no archaeological evidence to support their existence and there is no legitimate prophecy confirming the veracity of any text written about them.

2. You are correct to say that people all over the world are inclined to believe in gods and there are reasons for it. Man is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). Part of what that entails is that he has the capacity to think and ponder. Man is also unique among the created order in that he has a conscience. It doesn't matter where you go on the planet, or how primitive or advanced the culture is, there is some sense of a greater being out there responsible for the created order. Among the arrogant atheistic types, like Dawkins, that being is a space Alien who inseminated the earth with the "seeds" of life. Dawkins, however, offers no hypothesis for where that space alien came from. Perhaps his planet was inseminated with life by some greater space alien on an even more distant planet. For others, it is a god or gods. The assumption is the same, the evidence of design, as well as man's conscience (Ecclesiastes 3:11; Romans 2:15)compels him to believe that there is something greater than himself out there.

3. Christianity is not suspect for the same reasons because it is a "reasoned" faith. The Christian is not expected to believe blindly. There are hundreds of biblical prophecies which came to pass and they can very easily be "cut and pasted" like all the other intellectually lazy arguments posted by pseudo theologians, lawyers and historians on this forum. Nevertheless, suffice it to say, Jesus himself predicted the exact time, place and means of his death and that he would rise on the third day (Mathew 16:21). Each of the 27 New Testament books (all considered primary source documents) attest to this (including the Roman soldiers who actually guarded the tomb in Mathew 28:11-15). In short, Jesus does not expect the believer to believe "blindly." He provided evidence of his deity by predicting His death, burial and resurrection. Afterwards, he in fact accomplished his claims.

You Bible-thumpers are funny. If what you're saying was true, archaeologists would just turn to the Bible for their answers on these points. You don't understand how things work, which is why Bible-thumping nutcakes should keep their nut-cakery to themselves if they're going to teach our kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
It doesn't matter where you go on the planet, or how primitive or advanced the culture is, there is some sense of a greater being out there responsible for the created order.

That is incorrect. The Confucians have no god. Neither do several sects of Buddhism. In any case, it doesn't change the essential point, which is that people wish to believe in a god. As we all know people can talk themselves into believing just about anything. That fully explains why people believe in a god or gods. In no way does it suggest that any of the thousands of gods people have believed in is real. The fact that the stories about various gods are so completely different proves the point beyond doubt to anyone who is willing to stop and think about it objectively.

Among the arrogant atheistic types . . .

Arrogance is claiming to know things absolutely when you don't know them at all. There is far more arrogance in claiming to know that there is a god than in pointing out that there is no evidence for one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

But let's accept your ill-considered assumption as true so that we can follow it to its logical conclusion. Obviously, according to you, Jesus wanted people to believe in him. In fact, John 3:16 says that Jesus' supposed offer of salvation was made to the entire world. According to the Bible, Jesus wanted everyone to believe in him. If God had wanted that, everyone would have heard of Jesus contemporaneous with his resurrection and offer of salvation. Everyone would have had the opportunity to believe. Yet centuries later when explorers from Europe encountered indigenous populations in North America, Africa and other places for the first time, those people had never heard the story! Now how is that possible? As you might say, there is only one way: the story is a wholesale crock.

The usual answer is that Christians were commanded to spread the word but that's no answer. If each person's eternal salvation depended on their believing in Jesus, God would not have left it to chance or allowed anyone to go without the opportunity to believe.

The usual dodge in response to that is that God doesn't punish those who never had the chance to believe. But if that's true, then the whole thing wasn't necessary in the first place. People can be saved without believing in Jesus - and the whole story goes right out the window.

Anderson and the Grimm brothers wrote fairy tales that hold together than this.

This is such an important point, and almost no one talks about it, not even the atheists. It’s obvious that the biblical story about Jesus, as generally interpreted in American and many other cultures, is false. The chain of logic is simple and inescapable.

1. The claim is that God wanted to offer salvation to the whole world. “For God so loved the world . . .” John 3:16.

2. Salvation is individual, goes the claim; in other words, each person will be saved or eternally damned, some will depart from the right hand, some from the left.

3. There is only “one way” to salvation: you must accept Jesus as your Lord and savior. Without this, your sins are unforgiven and you must suffer the fires of hell forever. This is God’s idea of justice, according to the claim.

4. So God made sure that everyone heard about Jesus, right? He would have to make sure of it, because you cannot believe in something you have never heard of. Yet when Europeans who generally believed the story began to explore uncharted regions of the world, they encountered native peoples who had never heard the story! If that is true, then God and his supposed Son Jesus failed in their mission. But that can’t happen: they are God. So what is the only possible explanation?

The story is not true. Q.E.D.

And you cannot resurrect the story by saying that God will make exceptions for people who have never heard of Jesus and send them into eternal paradise in heaven anyway: if God can do that, then there is no need to believe in Jesus to be saved, and if that is true then the death and resurrection were unnecessary.

On the other hand, if you hold to the steadfast belief that Jesus is the one and only way to salvation, then billions of people have been condemned to hell because they never heard the story. That’s not their fault. So what is the explanation? You cannot say that God does not care about them, because Jesus supposedly came to offer salvation to the world (John 3:16). And you cannot say that God is powerless to tell them about Jesus. He sent an angel, supposedly, to tell Mary that she was to be the mother of the Messiah, so he could have sent an angel to every remote village all over the world. That would have been an impressive display – only it did not happen.

There is no escape from this dilemma. Either God does not care about people in Africa, the Americas and other regions of the world or God was powerless to tell them about Jesus or the story is not true. If you believe the claim, then you cannot say that God does not care about his children because he sent Jesus to die for them (John 3:16). Yet if you believe the claim, you have no explanation why entire regions of the world and billions of people who have lived there never heard the story for many centuries after Jesus supposedly was resurrected. You are left with only one true belief:

The story is not true. Q.E.D.

Not maybe. Definitely. It’s not true, and it never was. It’s a story, just like all the other stories you don’t believe. You reject them out of hand and even laugh at them. You're not afraid to laugh at those stories, which aren't true. There's no reason to be afraid of this story, which isn't true either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u

That is incorrect. The Confucians have no god. Neither do several sects of Buddhism. In any case, it doesn't change the essential point, which is that people wish to believe in a god. As we all know people can talk themselves into believing just about anything. That fully explains why people believe in a god or gods. In no way does it suggest that any of the thousands of gods people have believed in is real. The fact that the stories about various gods are so completely different proves the point beyond doubt to anyone who is willing to stop and think about it objectively.

Arrogance is claiming to know things absolutely when you don't know them at all. There is far more arrogance in claiming to know that there is a god than in pointing out that there is no evidence for one.

Atheists like yourself that need to believe that evolution is blind, that pond scum can evolve into brain surgeons, that DNA chains, the complexities of the cell, eye, brain can evolve without Intelligent Design are the ones that need to stop and think about it objectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Atheists like yourself that need to believe that evolution is blind, that pond scum can evolve into brain surgeons, that DNA chains, the complexities of the cell, eye, brain can evolve without Intelligent Design are the ones that need to stop and think about it objectively.

Are you really that stupid as to think you said anything?

If you would think about it, which obviously you don't do, you would realize that not accepting your unsubstantiated claims of a god does not arise from a need. We would love to believe that someone is watching out for us so that we can live forever. But that is just not the way things appear to be. This is very hard for people to accept, so they believe in a god or gods. That is where the emotional need is. We are the ones who take the responsible path, resist the temptation and go with the truth.

As for your ignorance on evolution, I could offer you a reading list but you wouldn't even bother to read the list, much less the mountain of books and scholarly papers that answer all your objections. But maybe some people would watch this excellent video with Ken Miller, who spoke at Kearny High to counteract proselytizing Paszkiewicz's ignorance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Atheists like yourself that need to believe that evolution is blind, that pond scum can evolve into brain surgeons, that DNA chains, the complexities of the cell, eye, brain can evolve without Intelligent Design are the ones that need to stop and think about it objectively.

Believing in these things doesn't serve any need. We believe them because they are true. You don't think about what you write. You just string words together because you think they sound good. People feel like they need to believe in a god. No one believes in evolution because they want to think we evolved from other species. People lived for thousands of years without anyone inventing a story about how we evolved from other species. There's no need to want to believe that. We believe it because the evidence supports it. In contrast, people have been making up stories about gods for thousands of years - why? - because they wanted an explanation and that was an easy explanation to get people to agree with. After all, if we are created in the image of a loving god, then everything is going to be fine and we get to see Grandma again. Think about what you write, for once.

150 years ago, before we could sample DNA, Darwin predicted that the fossil record would confirm his theory. Sure enough, it does. He put his theory on the line and the evidence supported it. Then scientists learned how to mark DNA, and that confirmed the theory too. Then scientists started applying the theory, and it worked. Time after time, evolutionary theory has made accurate predictions, to such an extent that evolutionary theory is part of the school curriculum - why? - because it is an established part of science. In fact, it is the core principle of modern biology. Not once in the millions of opportunities for falsification has the theory failed. The evolutionary principle is so powerful that social scientists are applying it to arms negotiations, marketing strategies and other social systems. And you would throw that all out - or just ignore it - because it doesn't support what you made up your mind in advance to believe, without examining the evidence.

You can't throw out the foundation of modern biology with a few ignorant mischaracterizations. The costs to society would be tremendous. You or someone you care about has already benefited from medical treatments that were developed as a result of evolutionary theory. If you really think evolutionary theory isn't true, then refuse the medical treatments that it has made possible.

You're a moron. It's not just that you say ignorant things. You never back up anything you say with facts and you barely even think about what you're writing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Atheists like yourself that need to believe that evolution is blind, that pond scum can evolve into brain surgeons, that DNA chains, the complexities of the cell, eye, brain can evolve without Intelligent Design are the ones that need to stop and think about it objectively.

How do you explain the fact that virtually all biologists accept evolution of species as an established fact?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

How do you explain the existence of an intelligent designer? All you can say is "that's just how it is" but (a) there is no evidence of that and (B) that is not an explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

How do you explain the fact that virtually all biologists accept evolution of species as an established fact?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

How do you explain the existence of an intelligent designer? All you can say is "that's just how it is" but (a) there is no evidence of that and (B) that is not an explanation.

I always thought some of the programming on the Discovery channel didn't belong there. After reading the Wikipedia article and checking some of the links, now I know why. The Discovery Institute is trying to promote religion and call it science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u

Believing in these things doesn't serve any need. We believe them because they are true. You don't think about what you write. You just string words together because you think they sound good. People feel like they need to believe in a god. No one believes in evolution because they want to think we evolved from other species. People lived for thousands of years without anyone inventing a story about how we evolved from other species. There's no need to want to believe that. We believe it because the evidence supports it. In contrast, people have been making up stories about gods for thousands of years - why? - because they wanted an explanation and that was an easy explanation to get people to agree with. After all, if we are created in the image of a loving god, then everything is going to be fine and we get to see Grandma again. Think about what you write, for once.

150 years ago, before we could sample DNA, Darwin predicted that the fossil record would confirm his theory. Sure enough, it does. He put his theory on the line and the evidence supported it. Then scientists learned how to mark DNA, and that confirmed the theory too. Then scientists started applying the theory, and it worked. Time after time, evolutionary theory has made accurate predictions, to such an extent that evolutionary theory is part of the school curriculum - why? - because it is an established part of science. In fact, it is the core principle of modern biology. Not once in the millions of opportunities for falsification has the theory failed. The evolutionary principle is so powerful that social scientists are applying it to arms negotiations, marketing strategies and other social systems. And you would throw that all out - or just ignore it - because it doesn't support what you made up your mind in advance to believe, without examining the evidence.

You can't throw out the foundation of modern biology with a few ignorant mischaracterizations. The costs to society would be tremendous. You or someone you care about has already benefited from medical treatments that were developed as a result of evolutionary theory. If you really think evolutionary theory isn't true, then refuse the medical treatments that it has made possible.

You're a moron. It's not just that you say ignorant things. You never back up anything you say with facts and you barely even think about what you're writing.

Reading comprehension a problem?? Evolution is valid, it's just not "blind" as atheists would like to believe. Evolution guided by the hand of God, "Intelligent Design" makes far more sense considering the complexities of the human body and all life in general. In the case of Loonies like yourself, you got shorted on the intelligence part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Reading comprehension a problem?? Evolution is valid, it's just not "blind" as atheists would like to believe. Evolution guided by the hand of God, "Intelligent Design" makes far more sense considering the complexities of the human body and all life in general. In the case of Loonies like yourself, you got shorted on the intelligence part.

That is a ridiculous argument. If there was a God, he would have to be more complex than a single cell. Yet you have no problem at all believing that such a god exists, without any explanation at all. If all that complexity is impossible without a designer, then how do you explain how God could exist? You can't do it without contradicting yourself.

You didn't bother watching Ken Miller's lecture, did you? (OK, then, read this.) If you had watched it, you would see that your objections are not valid. Take the evolution of the eye, for example. People who argue for "irreducible complexity" as part of an argument for so-called intelligent design have argued that the eye is too complex to have evolved without conscious guidance. That claim has been thoroughly debunked. The evolution of the eye began with simple mechanisms that can sense light, such as a plant's photosynthesis, and gradually evolved into what we would recognize as an eye. In the Kitzmiller case, Behe's argument was defeated and the judge (a Republican and a Bush appointee) essentially called him a liar.

You guys keep making stuff up and getting shot down. It's time for you to face the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Reading comprehension a problem?? Evolution is valid, it's just not "blind" as atheists would like to believe. Evolution guided by the hand of God, "Intelligent Design" makes far more sense considering the complexities of the human body and all life in general. In the case of Loonies like yourself, you got shorted on the intelligence part.

Oh, I see. Science works until you don't understand it, then you sprinkle fairy dust and say "God did it." If anyone doesn't agree with you, that makes them loony. Never mind that's most of the world's scientists who don't agree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u

That is a ridiculous argument. If there was a God, he would have to be more complex than a single cell. Yet you have no problem at all believing that such a god exists, without any explanation at all. If all that complexity is impossible without a designer, then how do you explain how God could exist? You can't do it without contradicting yourself.

You didn't bother watching Ken Miller's lecture, did you? (OK, then, read this.) If you had watched it, you would see that your objections are not valid. Take the evolution of the eye, for example. People who argue for "irreducible complexity" as part of an argument for so-called intelligent design have argued that the eye is too complex to have evolved without conscious guidance. That claim has been thoroughly debunked. The evolution of the eye began with simple mechanisms that can sense light, such as a plant's photosynthesis, and gradually evolved into what we would recognize as an eye. In the Kitzmiller case, Behe's argument was defeated and the judge (a Republican and a Bush appointee) essentially called him a liar.

You guys keep making stuff up and getting shot down. It's time for you to face the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

Irreducible complexity has only been "debunked" by atheists who won't admit it's proof of Intelligent Design (The same way with the Loonies who won't admit Obama is the worst president of all time).

Just to even consider that blind evolution, without even knowing what sight was, without any designs, concepts or ideas, without knowing where it was or where it was going, was able to develop an eye is just ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

That is a ridiculous argument. If there was a God, he would have to be more complex than a single cell. Yet you have no problem at all believing that such a god exists, without any explanation at all. If all that complexity is impossible without a designer, then how do you explain how God could exist? You can't do it without contradicting yourself.

You didn't bother watching Ken Miller's lecture, did you? (OK, then, read this.) If you had watched it, you would see that your objections are not valid. Take the evolution of the eye, for example. People who argue for "irreducible complexity" as part of an argument for so-called intelligent design have argued that the eye is too complex to have evolved without conscious guidance. That claim has been thoroughly debunked. The evolution of the eye began with simple mechanisms that can sense light, such as a plant's photosynthesis, and gradually evolved into what we would recognize as an eye. In the Kitzmiller case, Behe's argument was defeated and the judge (a Republican and a Bush appointee) essentially called him a liar.

You guys keep making stuff up and getting shot down. It's time for you to face the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

Zing! And the idiot didn't even try to explain how he can explain the existence of God, if that much complexity is impossible without a designer. If that's true, then God cannot exist. Game, set and match, and the idiot doesn't even realize it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest KHS Alumnus

Reading comprehension a problem?? Evolution is valid, it's just not "blind" as atheists would like to believe. Evolution guided by the hand of God, "Intelligent Design" makes far more sense considering the complexities of the human body and all life in general. In the case of Loonies like yourself, you got shorted on the intelligence part.

If only you knew just how little sense the idea of an "intelligent designer" makes: http://darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com/2011/06/evolution.html

Either there's no "designer", or there is a stupid/malicious/apathetic one. Those are the only possibilities once you actually gain an understanding of biology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

Irreducible complexity has only been "debunked" by atheists who won't admit it's proof of Intelligent Design (The same way with the Loonies who won't admit Obama is the worst president of all time).

Just to even consider that blind evolution, without even knowing what sight was, without any designs, concepts or ideas, without knowing where it was or where it was going, was able to develop an eye is just ridiculous.

You are dead wrong. Ken Miller is a Catholic, and he has debunked it. Obviously you didn't bother to watch his video. There are many, many others Christians and other believers in a god who say the same thing.

To your "argument" about the eye, you do not understand how evolution works. A simple sensing mechanism conveys an evolutionary advantage to an organism, so it is passed on. Over time, the mechanism changes bit by bit, because each change conveys another advantage. As that happens, the organ, such as the eye becomes increasingly complex. If you think this has to have an intended goal, then you do not understand evolution - at all. But we already knew that. Again, watch Miller's video or better yet, read the leading texts on evolutionary theory. You are in no position to refute the science if you know virtually nothing about it, which you don't.

And you still don't answer the question of how you explain the existence of your imaginary god. If irreducible complexity is true, then your god cannot exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...