Author Topic: Public Charter Schools Teaching Creationism And Right-Wing Propaganda In Texas  (Read 16265 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
In my opinion, ID is precisely a religion pretending to not be a religion.

Not quite AFAIC, it is a sciencey sounding blanket theists throw over their religion in order to sneak it into schools and crowd out actual science.

You are correct, it is a "sciencey" sounding blanket that theists throw over their religion in order to sneak it into schools.

What I mean is that ID is what is left when you strip away all the typical religious aspects of a religion (ie prayer, worship, sacred/nonsacred objects and beings etc).  All that is left is the agent which can't be discussed.  ID has its own dogma about not discussing the nature of the designer.  ID isn't falsifiable either which is troubling.  Intentionally not having interest in the nature of the designer is IMO what makes ID a religion pretending not to be a religion.

If ID were to offer hypotheses and predictions about the designer then maybe my opinion might be different.  I'd be interested in the 'how' questions that are usually asked of any hypothesis.
 
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
BibleStudent,

Why don't you explain why a naturalistic explanation is less plausible than ID, because I'm at a loss as to how a god can cause life to arise without affecting nature. It's like expecting Matt Groening to be able to manipulate the movements of Homer Simpson without drawing him.

Makes no sense. Nature exists because of the intelligence and creative power of God.

You see what I mean!? You take god to be the intelligent designer behind nature and then claim that nature does not appear adeqaute to create and evolve life:

The natural processes do not appear adequate to create and evolve life.

Do you not understand what you are saying here? - that the nature you believe your intelligent designer created needs the same intelligent designer to bypass it in order for life to exist? You are claiming that ID is a more plausible explanation than ID!

Then you go on to say:

As for me, the designer is God and according to the knowledge given in the Bible,He is capable of creating life as He sees fit by the power he possesses.

So god can create life via the any process he sees fit, but somehow that doesn't include any natural process that this god created in the first place. You really do have one helluva convoluted view of your god.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Online RED_ApeTHEIST

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 77
  • Darwins +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Hyperintelligent Orangutan
I completely agree with you here. My position is that I can examine all of the scientific evidence we have, including Intelligent Design Theory, and conclude that it substantially compliments other arguments and evidence (including Biblical) for the existence of God which then collectively forms a strong basis for my belief in God.

Likewise, you could substitute the theory of evolution (or some other word or phrase that adequately identifies your worldview) for God in a paragraph similar to mine above and state that you are claiming a comparable or superior basis for your beliefs.

The point is, you cannot invalidate my claim (or belief) based on your belief or the manner in which you went about forming that belief. In other words, you cannot eliminate the possible existence of an Intelligent Designer based soley on the evidence you use to form your belief.

I am convinced that my belief in God is correct and I can feel confident in that belief because it is based on a strong rational argument.

I'm still waiting on you actually answering my first question. Explain how ID is in conflict with evolution/abiogenesis and provide alternate mechanisms that explain the world as observed.

Evolutionary theory provides those mechanisms, but you discard it because you cant understand how those natural processes created what we have now. What I want to know is how you can accept a creator based hypothesis without understanding how his "processes" created what we have now.

PS: Evolution is not a worldview, neither is abiogenesis, or atheism or intelligent design. Don't switch terms in the middle of a conversation. That's rank sophistry.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2014, 08:32:45 AM by RED_ApeTHEIST »
The relevant equation is: Knowledge = power = energy = matter = mass; a good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows how to read." - Terry Pratchet

Online wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2534
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
I don't know if this is going anywhere but I'll add my thoughts anyway.

Biblestudent,

The ID that we have proposed seems, and I'm sure you are going to correct me, to be

1. An idea (it's not a theory in science until there is a vast bank of evidence to back it up) that some things are designed as they could not have happened by evolution.

2. That the question of whether or not something is designed to a large extent depends on the observer. (I find this not only puzzling but would have thought a designer would do whole job and design who organisms rather than play with tiny pieces inside cells)

3. To back it up, the people who invented ID look around at what we know and claim that they find things that match their ID idea - something that you claim is prediction.

Now, to me, this is the sort of thing one might devise while have a few drinks at the pub (or maybe after prayers in church!). It is not the result of years of lab and field work, it is not the result of accumulating lots of evidence. No, it is a 'back or and envelope' idea that's been trying to make the mainstream, at least in schools without the need to waste time on 'doing the science' so it is trying to skip from idea to theory with nothing in the middle. That's precisely why mainstream science rejects it - it hasn't done the work.

Now, Biblestudent, I know you have others to answer but try this when you have answered them.

Do you think that ID is the explanation because it matches your bible? You see there is nothing in ID that talks about the designer or that links the designer to god (any god of course.) So the jump from ID to bible is either a huge leap of faith or it's a jump from bible to something that supports the bible, ID. Which is it, Biblestudent?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2105
  • Darwins +376/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
The point is, you cannot invalidate my claim (or belief) based on your belief or the manner in which you went about forming that belief. In other words, you cannot eliminate the possible existence of an Intelligent Designer based soley on the evidence you use to form your belief.

Can you explain how you eliminated the possibility of many designers?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
BibleStudent,

Why don't you explain why a naturalistic explanation is less plausible than ID, because I'm at a loss as to how a god can cause life to arise without affecting nature. It's like expecting Matt Groening to be able to manipulate the movements of Homer Simpson without drawing him.

Makes no sense. Nature exists because of the intelligence and creative power of God.

You see what I mean!? You take god to be the intelligent designer behind nature and then claim that nature does not appear adeqaute to create and evolve life:

The natural processes do not appear adequate to create and evolve life.

Do you not understand what you are saying here? - that the nature you believe your intelligent designer created needs the same intelligent designer to bypass it in order for life to exist? You are claiming that ID is a more plausible explanation than ID!

Then you go on to say:

As for me, the designer is God and according to the knowledge given in the Bible,He is capable of creating life as He sees fit by the power he possesses.

So god can create life via the any process he sees fit, but somehow that doesn't include any natural process that this god created in the first place. You really do have one helluva convoluted view of your god.

This is some pretty twisted logic. We are addressing the origin of life. Some *thing* had to be the cause of the various component particles and some *thing* then had to assemble them into a structure that produced the life we observe.

The nature that the Designer created would not exist in the first place without the designer.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12298
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
^^ What is the evidence that nature in general was designed?

What would an undesigned nature look like, by comparison?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Do you think that ID is the explanation because it matches your bible? You see there is nothing in ID that talks about the designer or that links the designer to god (any god of course.) So the jump from ID to bible is either a huge leap of faith or it's a jump from bible to something that supports the bible, ID. Which is it, Biblestudent?

How many times do I need to state that the Bible is not the exclusive source of my belief? There seems to be this unfounded compulsion to think that I am trying to work backwards from the Bible to ID.

You are correct. There is nothing in ID that identifies a specific designer. I have already mentioned that. However, that does not preclude me from taking the evidence for ID and interlocking it with other evidence from other sources to form a rational argument for my belief that God of the Bible is that Intelligent Designer.

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
BibleStudent,

Why don't you explain why a naturalistic explanation is less plausible than ID, because I'm at a loss as to how a god can cause life to arise without affecting nature. It's like expecting Matt Groening to be able to manipulate the movements of Homer Simpson without drawing him.

Makes no sense. Nature exists because of the intelligence and creative power of God.

You see what I mean!? You take god to be the intelligent designer behind nature and then claim that nature does not appear adeqaute to create and evolve life:

The natural processes do not appear adequate to create and evolve life.

Do you not understand what you are saying here? - that the nature you believe your intelligent designer created needs the same intelligent designer to bypass it in order for life to exist? You are claiming that ID is a more plausible explanation than ID!

Then you go on to say:

As for me, the designer is God and according to the knowledge given in the Bible,He is capable of creating life as He sees fit by the power he possesses.

So god can create life via the any process he sees fit, but somehow that doesn't include any natural process that this god created in the first place. You really do have one helluva convoluted view of your god.

This is some pretty twisted logic.

Correct, the "logic" of yours that I have exposed is twisted.

Quote
We are addressing the origin of life. Some *thing* had to be the cause of the various component particles and some *thing* then had to assemble them into a structure that produced the life we observe.


And if that *thing* is abiogenesis/evolution, then it doesn't stop your intelligent designer god using it as a mechanism because they are part of the nature you believe your god created.

Quote
The nature that the Designer created would not exist in the first place without the designer.

....therefore abiogenesis and evolution would not exist in the first place without the designer! All you do is push ID back a step for no valid reason whatsoever.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
The point is, you cannot invalidate my claim (or belief) based on your belief or the manner in which you went about forming that belief. In other words, you cannot eliminate the possible existence of an Intelligent Designer based soley on the evidence you use to form your belief.

Can you explain how you eliminated the possibility of many designers?

From a scientific ID standpoint, that would be difficult to do....unless it were possible to observe and conclude that patterns (for lack of a better word) in nature could have only originated from a single source.

If IDT demonstrated that multiple sources were at work in the design of living structures then I would have to give that finding some very careful thought.

Good question.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
The point is, you cannot invalidate my claim (or belief) based on your belief or the manner in which you went about forming that belief. In other words, you cannot eliminate the possible existence of an Intelligent Designer based soley on the evidence you use to form your belief.

Can you explain how you eliminated the possibility of many designers?

I'm curious about this as well.  Based on how we know things are designed it can't be easily dismissed that there was/are many designers. 

Maybe there was a team leader?
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
And if that *thing* is abiogenesis/evolution, then it doesn't stop your intelligent designer god using it as a mechanism because they are part of the nature you believe your god created.

So what? You are still placing God in the designer role.

For the sake of argument, I will concede the plausibility of abiogenesis but, based on your analogy, we are still back to *who* created the intelligence and the pre-biotic soup and the instructions that allowed for the assembly of matter into life.

Online wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2534
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
Do you think that ID is the explanation because it matches your bible? You see there is nothing in ID that talks about the designer or that links the designer to god (any god of course.) So the jump from ID to bible is either a huge leap of faith or it's a jump from bible to something that supports the bible, ID. Which is it, Biblestudent?

How many times do I need to state that the Bible is not the exclusive source of my belief?

So, what are the other sources?

Quote
There seems to be this unfounded compulsion to think that I am trying to work backwards from the Bible to ID.

Yet while this might be the case for you it is certainly not the case for the inventors of the idea. 'Of Pandas and People', the creationist school textbook became an ID textbook by a simple 'find and replace' job to change 'god' to designer'. This was just trying to get creationism into the classroom with a respectable looking front. I'll admit you might not have been aware of that and may have decided ID on its merits was a good enough case. It does seem particularly handy, though, that you have found an idea that matches so well with your religion that you conflate the two. ID might indicate a completely different designer, Thor perhaps, so it is only from religious belief that you claim your bible shows the designer is your god.

Quote
You are correct. There is nothing in ID that identifies a specific designer. I have already mentioned that. However, that does not preclude me from taking the evidence for ID and interlocking it with other evidence from other sources to form a rational argument for my belief that God of the Bible is that Intelligent Designer.

No it doesn't - if you aren't too bothered about following evidence. There is nothing in ID about the designer and I am wondering if this is by design (pun intended) to try and make it not look like creationism. However, while that is the case it is jumping the god to say the designer is your god - it could be Krishna, Thor, Zeus.... juts pick a god and it could be that one. ID has to get off its backside and research the evidence back to the designer - even if you think you can manage without evidence.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
^^ What is the evidence that nature in general was designed?

This question makes me wonder if you have reviewed any of the claims of ID. You are going all the way back to square one and that seems ridiculous at this point in the thread.

Quote
What would an undesigned nature look like, by comparison?

An undesigned nature is inconceivable to me. We cannot get something from nothing without a cause. God is the most plausible explanation for something from nothing.

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
And if that *thing* is abiogenesis/evolution, then it doesn't stop your intelligent designer god using it as a mechanism because they are part of the nature you believe your god created.

So what? You are still placing God in the designer role.

That is the whole point. This is why ID is not an alternative to any natural process you can come up with - whether it's abiogenesis, evolution or gravity. ID is still believed to be the cause of all of these natural processes, which is why it is outside the purview of science.

Quote
For the sake of argument, I will concede the plausibility of abiogenesis but, based on your analogy, we are still back to *who* created the intelligence and the pre-biotic soup and the instructions that allowed for the assembly of matter into life.

It doesn't matter how plausible you think abiogenesis is. What matters is how plausible you think abiogenesis is without it being used as a mechanism by god. The problem you have is the strawman contention you have built that thinks science is there to show that a natural process such as abiogenesis can emanate without god designing it. Science does not deal with the issue of whether or not abiogenesis, or any other discipline, is fundementally at the mercy of a god to initiate it. You require a different method for that, which is what I and others have been saying all along.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
An undesigned nature is inconceivable to me. We cannot get something from nothing without a cause. God is the most plausible explanation for something from nothing.

Except god, of course. I thought I'd get that case of special pleading in for you first.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2105
  • Darwins +376/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Can you explain how you eliminated the possibility of many designers?

From a scientific ID standpoint, that would be difficult to do....unless it were possible to observe and conclude that patterns (for lack of a better word) in nature could have only originated from a single source.

If IDT demonstrated that multiple sources were at work in the design of living structures then I would have to give that finding some very careful thought.

Good question.

Perhaps you wish to amend and/or correct the following then:

The answer to that is quite simple. Intelligent Design Theory does an excellent job of scientifically demonstrating how a Designer could be the cause of the beginning of life.

Why would individuals who have written off any hope of discovering a Creator be interested in supporting it?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Online wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2534
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
An undesigned nature is inconceivable to me. We cannot get something from nothing without a cause. God is the most plausible explanation for something from nothing.

If we cannot get something from nothing, how come god? He can't be magicked into existence to suit religion. He must have a cause - what or who is it?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
So, what are the other sources?

See post #152 for a partial list.


Yet while this might be the case for you it is certainly not the case for the inventors of the idea. 'Of Pandas and People', the creationist school textbook became an ID textbook by a simple 'find and replace' job to change 'god' to designer'. This was just trying to get creationism into the classroom with a respectable looking front. I'll admit you might not have been aware of that and may have decided ID on its merits was a good enough case.


So, you are going to take the ruling of a single judge in a single case to form the basis for your claim that IDT is not science? That is pretty shallow, man.

Perhaps you may want to spend a few hours examining some of arguments that have been raised explain the judge's errors. If you need links, please just let me know. Judges are not perfect beings incapable of making mistakes....in fact, legal decisions are frequently found to be in conflict with the law.


Quote
No it doesn't - if you aren't too bothered about following evidence. There is nothing in ID about the designer and I am wondering if this is by design (pun intended) to try and make it not look like creationism.

You are entitled to your suspicions.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
That is the whole point. This is why ID is not an alternative to any natural process you can come up with - whether it's abiogenesis, evolution or gravity. ID is still believed to be the cause of all of these natural processes, which is why it is outside the purview of science.


Then, once again, I will ask:

How does science employ the scientific method as a mean for discovering the validity of an hypothesis for abiogenesis?

And please don't think that I am looking for an extensive answer here. I realize a thorough answer to that question would require a large amount of text but I believe you can answer it adequately enough in an abbreviated form.



Online wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2534
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
So, what are the other sources?

See post #152 for a partial list.

Please at least link to that post - we shouldn't have to go through pages to find it


Quote
Yet while this might be the case for you it is certainly not the case for the inventors of the idea. 'Of Pandas and People', the creationist school textbook became an ID textbook by a simple 'find and replace' job to change 'god' to designer'. This was just trying to get creationism into the classroom with a respectable looking front. I'll admit you might not have been aware of that and may have decided ID on its merits was a good enough case.


So, you are going to take the ruling of a single judge in a single case to form the basis for your claim that IDT is not science? That is pretty shallow, man.

Perhaps you may want to spend a few hours examining some of arguments that have been raised explain the judge's errors. If you need links, please just let me know. Judges are not perfect beings incapable of making mistakes....in fact, legal decisions are frequently found to be in conflict with the law.

Now you are talking rubbish. This was evidence presented to he trial not the judge's opinion. The investigators found a complete line of paper from the original book, through various re-writes to the final book and it was clear for all to see. The ID side had no answer for it. You must surely know this.

As an aside, and not for further discussion, if the judge was so wrong, why wasn't an appeal made? Ask yourself that.


Quote
No it doesn't - if you aren't too bothered about following evidence. There is nothing in ID about the designer and I am wondering if this is by design (pun intended) to try and make it not look like creationism.

You are entitled to your suspicions.
[/quote]
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
An undesigned nature is inconceivable to me. We cannot get something from nothing without a cause. God is the most plausible explanation for something from nothing.

If we cannot get something from nothing, how come god? He can't be magicked into existence to suit religion. He must have a cause - what or who is it?

He is an Uncaused Cause. Are you familiar with the arguments?

Online wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2534
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
An undesigned nature is inconceivable to me. We cannot get something from nothing without a cause. God is the most plausible explanation for something from nothing.

If we cannot get something from nothing, how come god? He can't be magicked into existence to suit religion. He must have a cause - what or who is it?

He is an Uncaused Cause. Are you familiar with the arguments?

Very familiar but very unconvinced. Anything that can design tiny bits of cells is going to be very complicated - don't give me guff about this not being the case. The only way such a being could exist would have to be...by design
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Can you explain how you eliminated the possibility of many designers?

From a scientific ID standpoint, that would be difficult to do....unless it were possible to observe and conclude that patterns (for lack of a better word) in nature could have only originated from a single source.

If IDT demonstrated that multiple sources were at work in the design of living structures then I would have to give that finding some very careful thought.

Good question.

Perhaps you wish to amend and/or correct the following then:

The answer to that is quite simple. Intelligent Design Theory does an excellent job of scientifically demonstrating how a Designer could be the cause of the beginning of life.

Why would individuals who have written off any hope of discovering a Creator be interested in supporting it?

If you feel there is a contradiction, then please point it out.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12298
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
This question makes me wonder if you have reviewed any of the claims of ID. You are going all the way back to square one and that seems ridiculous at this point in the thread.

I am not referring to organisms.  Have ID'ers uncovered evidence that the universe itself had to have been designed?  That is what I mean by "nature".  It is also how you had used the word "nature" in the post I was responding to.

An undesigned nature is inconceivable to me.

That's an enormous problem for you, then.  Because it means you can't tell the difference between the two.  You are automatically unqualified to say that nature is or is not designed, because there is nothing you can point to about nature that indicates design over undesign.  If there was, then you would be able to conceive of an undesigned nature.

We cannot get something from nothing without a cause. God is the most plausible explanation for something from nothing.

What did "God" come from?  Something, or nothing?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12298
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
He is an Uncaused Cause. Are you familiar with the arguments?

So then, Uncaused Causes are something we can get from nothing, according to you.  It is not from something, it is from nothing.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6471
  • Darwins +771/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
The concept is easy to understand. However, an intelligent designer does not appear to be necessary, and there is no evidence that he exists, so we're gonna go with the the concept that is even easier to understand. That natural processes are adequate to create and evolve life. And that no outside forces were involved.

If you find any evidence to the contrary, I'm sure you'll let us know. But human imagination doesn't count.

This is where I believe you are gravely mistaken. The natural processes do not appear adequate to create and evolve life. It is my opinion that you have been duped into thinking they do. You recognize that science does not posess the answers and rely on faith that it will someday in order to craft a rationale argument for your belief.....similar to my faith that we will someday learn that God was the intelligence, designer, and creator of life.

Okay, I'm fine with sitting around and waiting for more evidence. In the meantime, we shall use one of the suspect methods, science, to do a whole bunch of stuff that is otherwise impossible and make all sorts of improvements in the world. And because ID is equally viable, it too is running up a long list of inventions and patents and improving the world in leaps and bounds as it makes discovery after discovery verifying its basic precepts.

I may have that last part wrong.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
He is an Uncaused Cause. Are you familiar with the arguments?

So then, Uncaused Causes are something we can get from nothing, according to you.  It is not from something, it is from nothing.

So BibleStudent believes undesigned nature is inconceivable yet an uncaused cause is conceivable.  If that isn't a case of doublethink, I don't know what is.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12298
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
"It's faith, Hawkgirl SevenPatch.  You're not supposed to understand it." - Aquaman, JLU
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.