Less Republicans believe in Evolution today than in 2009

PostmodernProphet said:
anyone who believed in theistic evolution would by definition believe in an intelligent designer......so would anyone who believed the world was created in six days......
Click to expand...

Depends on what kind of intelligent designer. I guess you could call the ancient Greeks ID people for their beliefs in the role of gods...or perhaps it was Thor. There is almost no Intelligent way to slip some sort of intelligent designer into say genetics or fossil studies. And the intelligent designer must be pretty fucking stupid to watch ninety nine percent of his designs go extinct....
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
It is what Ham argues, it is what is presented by his Creation Museum, AnswersInGenesis and creationist educational resources. You want a link to that test of his again? Why do you insist on telling lies that are so easily refuted?
Click to expand...

???....are there people who believe in Creation who do not believe the same things as Ham?........for you to insist that what he believes is true about all who believe in Creation is the obvious and refutable lie.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
perhaps not exclusively, but I think there is a great deal of overlap between those stupid enough to think all life evolved from a single celled organism and those stupid enough to be liberals......
Click to expand...
...or those assininely idiotic enough to misunderstand and deliberately misrepresent the way science works and those who vote republican.
 
1966stang said:
Depends on what kind of intelligent designer.
Click to expand...

not really.....I suppose you could contrast it with an unintelligent designer.....once you say there is no designer, however, you are left with nothing but random chance

There is almost no Intelligent way to slip some sort of intelligent designer into say genetics or fossil studies
Click to expand...

seriously?......there wouldn't even BE genetics without intelligent design.....you think DNA just randomly happened?......and fossils are nothing more than the remains of what the intelligent designer designed......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???....are there people who believe in Creation who do not believe the same things as Ham?........for you to insist that what he believes is true about all who believe in Creation is the obvious and refutable lie.......
Click to expand...
there were people who believed that the cosmos was the result of a supernatural turtle taking a shit. Which is exactly why creationism and ID are a dead end. Men Ham, radical Muslims, pantheists, whatever....ID is a meaningless concept because it can mean anything.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
not really.....I suppose you could contrast it with an unintelligent designer.....once you say there is no designer, however, you are left with nothing but random chance



seriously?......there wouldn't even BE genetics without intelligent design.....you think DNA just randomly happened?......and fossils are nothing more than the remains of what the intelligent designer designed......
Click to expand...
Pretty much bullshit, actually. One can believe that the cosmos always existed or that god or gods always existed. Each is a real possibility, although each is non falsifyable. And your begging the question saying that fossils would not exist without an intelligent designer. Sloppy thinking even for a creationist.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I don't think its out of line to consider them more in the category of random shit happening than in the category of an intelligent designer.....
Click to expand...

I really don't care where they fall in the pecking order of fanciful creation legends. Believe in an intelligent designer if you wish. But ID is not science, and really does not add much to factual discussions about things like genetics or paleontology.
 
Damocles said:
Whether it is rejected as guided or unguided doesn't change what I said of the three basic types of ID. Some who believe in ID believe that God understood that if he began life "now" that it would end with the result that he wanted. Basically he set into motion the "natural" evolution that you say they "reject". Nor does it take into account the last of the three main types of ID listed in my post. You didn't read, Dung, you assumed and took off on a misrepresented and disingenuous tangent.
Click to expand...

Your description of this, is one that I wish I would have been able to put into words.
I also believe that WE (our current form of human beings) may not be the "FINAL" design.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
only if you can disprove the Big Bang.......



not nearly so much as arguing that fossils prove there was no creation....both Prof Baxter and Mott have used that argument here.....
Click to expand...
Who is saying that there was no big bang? Essentially one is changing the cosmos from one state to another in the form of the big bang. Nothing cannot cause something. For something to exist now, something somewhere always had to exist...as mind blowing as that is. And it is not a logical fallacy to say that thing is god or a higher power. I find no fault with that line of thinking.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
anyone who believed in theistic evolution would by definition believe in an intelligent designer......so would anyone who believed the world was created in six days......
Click to expand...

You are lying again by using fuzzy language to broaden the definition of what is meant by intelligent design. Belief in an "intelligent designer" is not the summation of intelligent design. If it were then there would be no reason to separate them from the general collection of theists.

Francis Collins rejects intelligent design because he rejects their main premise that biology, evolution and natural selection are insufficient to explain the diversity and complexity of life. In other words, he does not seem to believe that God handled any detail of design or even of the first life but rather seems content to accept that God set the evolutionary processes in motion.

Why don't you try playing this one honestly. Do you have the honesty and intellect to handle that or does the cognitive dissonance force you to lie?
 
1966stang said:
I really don't care where they fall in the pecking order of fanciful creation legends. Believe in an intelligent designer if you wish. But ID is not science, and really does not add much to factual discussions about things like genetics or paleontology.
Click to expand...

/shrugs.....discussing genetics without it is like discussing ice cream without ice......
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
You are lying again by using fuzzy language to broaden the definition of what is meant by intelligent design. Belief in an "intelligent designer" is not the summation of intelligent design. If it were then there would be no reason to separate them from the general collection of theists.

Francis Collins rejects intelligent design because he rejects their main premise that biology, evolution and natural selection are insufficient to explain the diversity and complexity of life. In other words, he does not seem to believe that God handled any detail of design or even of the first life but rather seems content to accept that God set the evolutionary processes in motion.

Why don't you try playing this one honestly. Do you have the honesty and intellect to handle that or does the cognitive dissonance force you to lie?
Click to expand...

Pretty much this. People in the legal and philosophical fields often become so adept at lying to themselves that they don't even realize that they are doing it. This is a case in point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top