International opinions: USA on science!

I guess for a Deist, God created an atom and then He rested..... and then He rested some more..... and now He's in hibernation.... heck, He hasn't done squat since then. No, I'm aware that theistic evolutionists exist, but they are misinformed, both scientifically and theologically. Design is a logical inference, not a logical fallacy as presuppose.Here's a good website to help understand what the design inference entails.http://www.carm.org/atheism/purpose.htm How am I comparing portions of a highly educated sector of the populace with the rest of the population? Heh, read link above, again. A Creator's role is null and void if evolution were true, and evolutionists know this. Why everyone is playing stupid is only to create the illusion of objectivity.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

(You misspelled "universe.")Well, what else would he have to do? Subsequent action would mean one of three things:1) God couldn't get it right the first time, in which case he's incompetent;
2) God changed his mind along the way, in which case he's capricious; or
3) Somebody else messed it up, in which case he's powerless. Why are you playing stupid and assuming that Christianity is no wider than your view of it?

That's some of the more skillful mental masturbation I've seen in quite a while. That's why I avoid apologetics sites every chance I get.

Yes, another fundamentalist trying to explain how atheists must think and feel. Without, it seems, even speaking with an atheist (or, at least, not listening to what she has to say).

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

Religion is not a cause of religious wars, like the 30 years war in Europe that originally was between Catholics and Protestants? Religion was not the cause of the mass suicides in Guyana? It was just people who up and decided to kill themselves or others?If the reason behind those examples has nothing to do with religion, then for what reason did these historical events occur? All the world's historians are awaiting your answer as to why their interpretations of history are all wrong.Or, are you arguing that people just kill others at random without causes or reasons? If that is so, then you are against the concept of history as a field of study. Also, the justice system would have to be completely rebuilt, since under your scenario of causeless murder, there would be no premeditated acts. I'm not the one who is arguing against the conceptual framework of entire fields of knowledge like history and science.

Half right. The assertion that evolution has nothing to do with the biosciences or geosciences will be news to them.

No, no, no! This is exactly what I am disagreeing with. I thought at first you might've just broken your analogy by accident in the white heat of composition but you continue to insist on de-valuing the tacos. Dude, tacos are good!Here, let me break it down into pieces. No problem so far! That statement, unqualified by more information, is totally useless. The person saying it could mean virtually anything! From an actual person who might be responsible for some of these folk-sayings we found in this book all the way up through to a genuine transcendental Lamb Slain Before The Foundation Of The Earth whose story is biologically imprinted into the living brain of every human being. It could have been a space alien!The use of a being verb with a synonym for being ("is real") is indicative of the very low to nil meaning even to the casual logician. This statement very very clearly requires more statements in order to make clear what the point will be. This is the key right here. I'm expecting another example that is about as meaningless as a random profession of faith in some name from long ago. This next statement needs to also require qualifiers in a big way, in other words. But doesn't cut it! People really do like tacos, it means a lot to them!Some people work all day to pay for a diet consisting primarily of tacos.Some people walk an extra mile to get to the Taco Bell because the McDonald's doesn't have what they want.Some people land their jet suddenly in Houston ($13,400) so they can luncheon on genuine "Texas Two-Step" nachos instead of those sissy whole-corn jobs they make in California and then spend the next 45 minutes in the air again sitting in their top-of-the-line in-flight executive toilet facility ($517,000) enjoying the lovely warm feeling as the tacos cleanse all their chakras straight down one after the other from the palate to the porch before arriving to take a huge dump on the citizens of the Western United States from high overhead.So don't try to tell me tacos aren't important! I think what you need to be saying is that if the people who say they love their Author would put as much effort into living the Word as the people who say they love tacos put into, getting the tacos, then maybe people might take them more seriously. And I think the key person you need to be saying it to is you. I don't see a lot in the Book there about how thou shalt sass thy science teachers and call them liars and wish the govment would let thee spank them.It seems to be all about walking the extra mile, agreeing with your enemies, turning the other cheek, being respectful of authority, not lying, not lying in court, not lying in court about your neighbor, not lying in court about your good friend and neighbor you theoretically love and particularly in the sense of suggesting that they might be the person who was responsible for an action that the judge might be getting ready to consider a crime, the which act was actually specifically intentionally knowingly committed by you,a lot more generally stuff about telling the truth, not lying, not using two measures, not being pious whitewashed hypocrites who know darned well that what they are trying to do is specifically what the lawful government ordained over them specifically insists that they not do, the same wonderful popular government that is so blessed as to let them have their own schools and teach any retarded misleading cant-ever-be-an-astronaut crap they want to their own kids, just not on money specifically extorted from millions of unbelievers through what would certainly at this late date be a clear establishment of religion and thereby serve to encourage the very enemies we are engaged with on the field of war right now in their claims of moral parity between our free system and their way of running things.An interesting thing about the scribes and pharisees in that terribly mangled double-paraphrase of the actual living word that you dared to use for filler there is that they believed a lot of things that were very useful for us but not particularly true. I will always be grateful to the scribes who maintained the exact wording of the Hebrew through the dark ages even though I myself don't believe that letting anyone who finds a misprint give ten lashes to the person who made the misprint would be a good modern law to live by nowadays.And that's the whole point of having a Personal Savior in the first place! The big organized everyone-believe-all-this kind of system you think you would like is exactly what faith is provided to save us from! Those laws you see so clearly, those inspired truths being revealed to you, they're for you! Who says they are for other people ?!? They are places where you are actually falling short and you are in denial about it. The real word never says They oughta or Thou should have, it's always very clear: Thou shalt not

You gotta love the casual insult from the arrogance of considering all other religions "misinformed" at best. Excuse me while I turn the other cheek.The Deist position is, as Crash noted, much superior than your implication (strawman fallacy) of it -- that there is no need for further interference because it was done right the first time.Nor are theists necessarily christians so your implication of (christian) theology being applicable to their belief is a logical fallacy. Take off the blinders. ... what the CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS & RESEARCH MINISTRY wants YOU to think atheism and evolution mean. If I wanted to know what atheists thought I would ask them and not some fundy fancy misinformation front organisation. You are comparing the proportion of atheists with PhDs in Evolution to the proportion of atheists in the general population of America - where over half have barely finished High School (you can get a diploma with a D?).U.S. Census Bureau: Page not found You're down to 27% with A college degree (so the number with a Masters is less and the number with a PhD is even less).That makes the education level of someone with a PhD significantly higher than the education level of the general population.You then make the logically false conclusion that it is due to athiests {taking control of} or {infiltrating} biology\evolution for some nefarious purpose or some such nonesense.My comment is that you will find a similar disparity in any other science -- it isn't related to what the science is so much as it is related to the degree of education.Purhaps atheists like to pursue education more than the general public because they are less content to wallow in ingnorance. What you need to show is proportion of atheists is higher in evolution versus in {biology, chemistry and physics} and until you do any comment like this is false and invalid because it doesn't control for education.Your claim of an alliance between atheists and evolutionists is logically false in addition to being insulting to all non-atheists that are evolutionists. Just because you want it to be a conspiracy doesn't make it one.And of course, if you NEED it to be a conspriracy to maintain your position then your position is intellectually weak at the start. Oh.My. Now you are telling the creator what HIS purpose is?Aside from the ignorant prideful arrogance of this comment it is logically false.In my (personal) world view god created the universe to expand and become as diverse and varied as possible, to provide as many unique habitats (not necessarily planets) as possible, and {he\her\it} primed the universe for the abiogenesis of life, and {his\her\its} last words before departing (or alternately becoming the universe) were "surprise me" -- this makes evolution part of the purpose of the creation, a necessary part.This is but ONE example of how a "creator's role" ISN'T "null and void if evolution were true" -- there are others. ONE is all that is necessary to show that you position is logically false and invalidated. THAT has been done.Other evolutionists know this, and they are insulted by what they see as obstinate closed minded arrogant prideful ignorance to claim that an OBVIOUSLY false position is true. It isn't - you are just wrong.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I think you can add yourself to the list of people who don't understand evolution. It is obvious by your attempt to start a threqad on the evolution of the wheel.Maybe you should study a little about bacterium flagellum, and you will see that the designer has not only designed a wheel, but a highly effcient electric motor.It seems to me, like you are just talking smack, and want to get on the good side of those that do not think that ID is possible.Do I think it's possible? I don't care. If I really cared about it, I would have to devote my life to it.As far as the media is concerned, if they really wanted to, they could make terrorism look like the right thing to do, just edit and cut, and you have a whole new truth. "F" the media.

A flagellum is not a wheel. It might be a describable as kind of propeller, but that's not the same thing as a wheel.

I know exactly what it is.His point was that because there are "no wheels" in creation, that our designer must be dumb. But when we look at a flagellum, we can see that biological rotating masses do exist.Not to mention that just about everything in life is made up of small rotating masses.

That proposed topic was withdrawn. It is not the current topic. Discussion is inappropriate here. The way you used it in Message 69 comes close to a violation of rule 10.Stay focussed on the current topic.

---

Isn't this entrappment?I am disappointed.

I tried to gently persuade you not to follow this line with an ordinary member post in Message 70. You persisted, so I gave a clearer warning in Message 72. Note that it was only a warning, not a suspension.I see no entrapment.If you have a disagreement with moderator action, take it to the moderation thread. It is off topic to discuss it here.

---

Interaction does not equal incompetence. What would God have changed His mind for? All I alluded to was that in Deist belief, God is virtualy non-existent, which makes me wonder how anyone could have come to the conclusion of there being a God in the first place. People mess up all the time, but I wouldn't call God 'powerless,' I'd call Him patient and intimately acquainted with the past, present, and future. The only basis of my view is contained within the Bible. That's the significance of the Bible. Anything beyond that would ultimately be a construct of my own mind. Isn't that the only legitimate source to my views, spiritually, philosophically, and theologically? Now, you can question the integrity of the Scriptures all you want, but if you want to know the basis for my "view," it comes directly from His Word. Unless of course you want me to just make stuff up so I can broaden my view of Christianity in the hopes that I can dumb it down just in time for the "new tolerance."

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15