It’s the need to proclaim Darwinism, by any means necessary that is remarkable.
"The Wise and God". A dialogue. A reflection...
- Thread starter teroko
- Start date
No, not at all...Darwinism and the theory of evolution are fact, and will still be fact next year, and the next decade, and the decade after that. Some small modifications regarding dates etc as new discoveries are made, but essentially the same.
And you'll still need to lie, misinterpret, redefine and apply dishonesty in great gollops of shit to get anyone to listen to you.
Jan's religion has been making mistakes and pushing fraud for centuries, 24/7/365, nonstop and unabated.
If it weren't for the loud mouthed, obnoxious, arrogant creationists bleating from atop their soap boxes, you wouldn't hear a word about "Darwinism"
Jan Ardena:
Remember, we're discussing this because you said that the human body is perfect or "complete" because it does a good enough job in your opinion. I saw the human body has some obvious flaws, aspects that would show poor design if an intelligent designer was involved.
It's like you trying to argue that my phone is perfect or "complete" despite its lack of a replaceable battery. I see the lack of the replaceable battery as a design flaw. On the other hand, the makers of the phone deliberately designed-in that particular flaw, so maybe your argument is that your God deliberately designed in lots of flaws when he made all his biological "creations" (including human beings). Is that what you're saying?
Your unwarranted assumptions are what lead you astray on this stuff, time and time again.
Just because something has a function, it doesn't mean it is designed to have that function, or even that it is designed to have any particular function at all.
If I find that I can use a sharp piece of flint as a knife, that doesn't mean I can infer the existence of a designer of that piece of flint, or that any designer had in mind that it would be used as a knife.
If I use my phone to club you over the head, it would be wrong to infer that this is a function of the phone that was intended by the designers.
I think you've been fed another piece of Creationist propaganda there, Jan, though I can't recall coming across this before. I'm pretty sure that if I searched Answers In Genesis, though, something would pop up in the search results.
Piltdown Man was a fraud designed to gain some fame for the fraudster(s). I'm not sure if there was also a monetary motive for the fraud. If the "remains" were sold for study, then probably there was, but I haven't checked.
Do you really think that a couple of fossils would convince "the public" of evolution, Jan? We have a lot more fossils today, Jan, and clearly a lot of people remain unconvinced.
Like I said, it's a matter of perspective. From the makers' perspective, my phone is not "supposed to" have a removable battery. From my perspective, I'd say that a phone whose batteries are bound to degrade after a few years' usage is "supposed to" have a removable battery.
Remember, we're discussing this because you said that the human body is perfect or "complete" because it does a good enough job in your opinion. I saw the human body has some obvious flaws, aspects that would show poor design if an intelligent designer was involved.
It's like you trying to argue that my phone is perfect or "complete" despite its lack of a replaceable battery. I see the lack of the replaceable battery as a design flaw. On the other hand, the makers of the phone deliberately designed-in that particular flaw, so maybe your argument is that your God deliberately designed in lots of flaws when he made all his biological "creations" (including human beings). Is that what you're saying?
That's not the same as establishing that there is a somebody with a purpose in mind, though, is it?
Your unwarranted assumptions are what lead you astray on this stuff, time and time again.
No!
Just because something has a function, it doesn't mean it is designed to have that function, or even that it is designed to have any particular function at all.
If I find that I can use a sharp piece of flint as a knife, that doesn't mean I can infer the existence of a designer of that piece of flint, or that any designer had in mind that it would be used as a knife.
If I use my phone to club you over the head, it would be wrong to infer that this is a function of the phone that was intended by the designers.
Oh, I get it. That's why you're bringing it up. That's what you think. It makes sense now.
I think you've been fed another piece of Creationist propaganda there, Jan, though I can't recall coming across this before. I'm pretty sure that if I searched Answers In Genesis, though, something would pop up in the search results.
Piltdown Man was a fraud designed to gain some fame for the fraudster(s). I'm not sure if there was also a monetary motive for the fraud. If the "remains" were sold for study, then probably there was, but I haven't checked.
Do you really think that a couple of fossils would convince "the public" of evolution, Jan? We have a lot more fossils today, Jan, and clearly a lot of people remain unconvinced.
Put yourself in the shoes of the fraudsters. Think about what you could possibly gain by perpetrating the fraud. It's not that hard, Jan.
Which "they" are you talking about now? Previously you said the fraudster(s) were desperate. Is it now scientists in general who are supposed to be desperate?
Bingo! I mean how often do you hear any student of science, or scientist, walk into a church service, and start banging on about Darwinism, the theory of evolution, the BB etc etc etc
I see probably with people like Jan, that they are essentially overwhelmed by the evidence for such scientific discoveries and what even makes some like Darwinism fact. He then probably feeling all guilty and remorseful of ever doubting their myth, then decide as penance, to walk into the Lion's den [science forum] and hope that their stubborn denial of science then, will see them back in good stead with their god/s
just saying