The God Poll

[72doug2,2S]

Originally posted by IROC
Give it up. You're wasting your time on this one. No one (that has a dog in the fight) takes ID seriously. ID brings nothing to the table other than a thinly veiled attempt to re-badge creationism. It's not even worthy of discussion.

Ah, the classic avoidance tactic. If I casually dismiss my opponents argument I can make it disappear.

Two can play. You give it up, Modernism has become the dinosaur. To have faith in test tubes as the end of all knowledge is truly going the way of the dodo bird. Modernity, therefore is no longer relevant.

[sjf911]

To have faith in test tubes as the end of all knowledge is truly going the way of the dodo bird.

So far, science has a pretty decent track record for defining the natural world. The last time I looked, religion/bible/etc. has completely struck out on its record for the same.

[IROC]

Originally posted by 72doug2,2S
Ah, the classic avoidance tactic. If I casually dismiss my opponents argument I can make it disappear.

Well, if you'd prefer not to "give it up", then you must bring something to the table. Explain why the theory of evolution is false. That is your challenge. No one has been able to do that yet (it is still a valid theory), but if you've got the smoking gun, by all means share it with us.

I'm not using an avoidance tactic. I'm not dismissing your argument as you HAVE NOT MADE ONE. If people continually claim something is false, but never specifically state why, then it is merely a lot of handwaving with no substance. I think you either need to "give up" the handwaving or share with us your insights.

[Turbo_pro]

It is not an either /or question.

In order for anything to evolve there must be a beginning.
Evolution does not explain the beginning to our satisfaction.

All things that exist were created. We call that creator God.
You call it "the big POP".

After their creation, things evolve. Explain where this is wrong.


BTW: Try not to get hung up on the 7 days things. If you like, examine to possibility that the first few days weren't 24 hr. but a few billion hr.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by Turbo_pro

All things that exist were created. We call that creator God.
You call it "the big POP".

After their creation, things evolve. Explain where this is wrong.

Who created god?

[sjf911]

Evolution does not explain the beginning to our satisfaction.

Evolution is not about the beginning of life. Many scientific hypothesis exist about how life began from the chemical soup that was the early earth and then evolved.
I think you are being disingenuous. Your world view is very closed and intolerant to scientific challenge. No amount of evidence is ever going to sway you.

[IROC]

Originally posted by Turbo_pro
After their creation, things evolve. Explain where this is wrong.

Like Steve says, I am not talking about creation. The theory of evolution says nothing about that. The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life *after it began*. My point is that ID does not do this and to simply come in and state that the theory of evolution is wrong without pointing out why it is wrong isn't furthering the conversation.

[trekkor]

Why does the subject of evolution always come up?

I thought this was a "poll".

Hijackers!!


KT

[kang]

Originally posted by IROC
I'm not using an avoidance tactic. I'm not dismissing your argument as you HAVE NOT MADE ONE. If people continually claim something is false, but never specifically state why, then it is merely a lot of handwaving with no substance. I think you either need to "give up" the handwaving or share with us your insights.

Nor have they made an argument for the existence of god other than “I really, really believe god exists, therefore he does.” When we finally get them to share their thoughts on this one, the only answer is “hand waving with no substance”: “god has chosen me to believe and not you.” Note that is a circular definition: “god exists because god has chosen me.”

[Turbo_pro]

Originally posted by stuartj
Who created god?

As I have stated before, I am at peace with my creator having a creator.
It only seems fair.


Just like my ants in the ant farm, I created there existence and although they can not identify me (from their perspective there is no evidence of my existence) or my parents both still exist.

[sjf911]

Just like my ants in the ant farm, I created there existence and although they can not identify me (from their perspective there is no evidence of my existence) or my parents both still exist.

Oh, so you created the sub-atomic particles and directed the quantum energy interactions that define their environment?

[72doug2,2S]

Originally posted by IROC
Well, if you'd prefer not to "give it up", then you must bring something to the table. Explain why the theory of evolution is false. That is your challenge. No one has been able to do that yet (it is still a valid theory), but if you've got the smoking gun, by all means share it with us.

I'm not using an avoidance tactic. I'm not dismissing your argument as you HAVE NOT MADE ONE. If people continually claim something is false, but never specifically state why, then it is merely a lot of handwaving with no substance. I think you either need to "give up" the handwaving or share with us your insights.

Tell me this, how does variation happen by chance or design?

[Turbo_pro]

Originally posted by sjf911
Oh, so you created the sub-atomic particles and directed the quantum energy interactions that define their environment?

The simple answer is no. I don't claim to be God, I was just offering a simple analogy.

Perhaps you would enlighten us on the creation of sub-atomic particles and how quantum energy interacts with any environment.

Take your time, those who believe have an eternity to learn. Those who don't better learn quickly.

[IROC]

Originally posted by 72doug2,2S
Tell me this, how does variation happen by chance or design?

Neither. You apparently do not understand the basic tenets of the theory. If you'd like to learn more:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

and also a more advanced look:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/

[sjf911]

Perhaps you would enlighten us on the creation of sub-atomic particles and how quantum energy interacts with any environment.

Who was the one using themselves as a "god analogy"?

[Turbo_pro]

So Steve aka sjf911, that would be a resounding "no"? You can not enlighten us on the creation of sub-atomic particles. You won't even suggest a big pop?

Why do you care who claims to be God? You obviously don't believe there is one.
For you it must be like some one claiming to be Santa.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by Turbo_pro


Take your time, those who believe have an eternity to learn. Those who don't better learn quickly.

Turbo, a few pages back you attacked my credibility and integrity for suggesting that I implied or stated your belief in an after life. You claimed I misrepreseting your beliefs. You said: "I never said I have any belief in an after life. Once again you're just making ***** up." Iasked you to clarify on your beliefs in this regard, which you have thus far declined to do.

Now you say: "Take your time, those who believe have an eternity to learn. Those who don't better learn quickly."

So.
1. You have stated here and in other threads that you believe in god.
2. You have stated here that believers will have an eternity to learn, non beleivers will not.
3. You believe in god. You believe believers will live for ever.

Now, one of us does have a credibility and integrity problem. Your attack was oustide the spirit of these discussions. I thank you in advance for your apology.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by Turbo_pro
As I have stated before, I am at peace with my creator having a creator.
It only seems fair.


Just like my ants in the ant farm, I created there existence and although they can not identify me (from their perspective there is no evidence of my existence) or my parents both still exist.

And who created the Creator's Creator. And on and on.

Aquinas wrote of the The Unmoved Mover, The Uncaused Cause and the Cosmological Argument (some non physical thing caused physocal things to exist) within his five "proofs."

As Dawkins says "all three of these arguments rely upon the idea of a regress and invoke God to terminate it. They make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress."

[Turbo_pro]

I hope you have a reasonably short drop, because you are grasping at straws. You're correct in your confusion. Or should I just say , you are confused.
It is the communicators job to state things as clearly as possible. I was not very clear. I'll try to explain it to you as if you were a 12 year old.
You can believe in God / the creator and not be convinced of or concerned with an after life. That person can rightly be defined as a believer. small 'b"
It is also possible to believe in God and an after life (religious belief) and still be called a Believer. big "B"
So in conclusion, not all believers subscribe the same set of possibilities.
Therefore my statement offer no hypocracy.
Here my deal to you:
In the future I will try to mind my "B"sssss if
you try to mind the BS.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by Turbo_pro
I hope you have a reasonably short drop, because you are grasping at straws. You're correct in your confusion. Or should I just say , you are confused.
.

I assume you are addressing me.

The idea of everlasting life is absolutely central to the Judeo Christian tradition. It is repeatedly referenced in the bible, it is core to the Christian belief.

Now, you say are a believer. You say beleivers wil live for ever. Are you now saying you dont beleive in afterlife?

You questioned my integrity over this. Whayt exactly do you believe?