Why I Don't Believe In Evolution

[hatsoff]

As for Antony Flew - he is a theist, ergo, he believes in ID.

He is a philosopher, and I have yet to see any evidence he supports ID. Not that it matters, anyway. The claims do not rise and fall with the opinions of a handful of adademics.

[apothanein kerdos]

As for Antony Flew - he is a theist, ergo, he believes in ID.

He is a philosopher, and I have yet to see any evidence he supports ID. Not that it matters, anyway. The claims do not rise and fall with the opinions of a handful of adademics.

This merely shows how inadequate your study on this issue has been. To deny materialism, to say that a deity of any kind created the universe or even ignited the creation of the universe, is to embrace ID. Any view that includes intelligence and a designer, i.e. almost any believe that isn't materialistic or naturalistic, falls into the ID category. Thus, by Antony Flew saying that naturalistic evolution could not account for the universe, he fell into the ID camp.

I'm not pursuing this to say, "Oh look, even the most famous atheist of this century couldn't justify his beliefs." I'm merely pursuing it to show that you have no earthly idea what you are talking about on this issue.

It's kind of like saying that the Gospel of Barnabas was around prior to the 7th century (maybe you mean the Epistle of Barnabas?).

Oh, and:

In 2004, the distinguished philosopher Antony Flew of the University of Reading made worldwide news when he repudiated a lifelong commitment to atheism and affirmed the reality of some kind of a creator. Flew cited evidence of intelligent design in DNA and the arguments of "American [intelligent] design theorists" as important reasons for this shift. Telegraph. Took me 30 seconds to find it.

And more:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/01/title.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6688917/

[hatsoff]

Intelligent Design, as I mean it in context, refers to the IC concepts advanced by Dr. M. Behe. I'm not talking about general teleological arguments.

By the way, you can stop telling me how little I've studied this. I will freely admit that. I don't usually waste my time with such nonsense.

EDIT: Since my thread about the canon was pretty much dead before it got off the ground, I no longer mind pursuing the tangent you and I had gotten into. Creation-evolution is not my cup of tea, but I'd love you to explain just why you think the Gospel of Thomas and Didache were written in the latter half of century III.

Edited February 15, 2007 by hatsoff

[apothanein kerdos]

Intelligent Design, as I mean it in context, refers to the IC concepts advanced by Dr. M. Behe. I'm not talking about general teleological arguments.

By the way, you can stop telling me how little I've studied this. I will freely admit that. I don't usually waste my time with such nonsense.

EDIT: Since my thread about the canon was pretty much dead before it got off the ground, I no longer mind pursuing the tangent you and I had gotten into. Creation-evolution is not my cup of tea, but I'd love you to explain just why you think the Gospel of Thomas and Didache were written in the century III.

You should if you're going to speak on it.

Such as, the statement you said about Behe...you can't specify Intelligent Evolution...you're trying to play a word game. Behe's view is ultimately that there is a Designer - this is what all theists believe. Even if they disagree on the extent of the Designer, they still believe that he/she/it exists.

As for your edit - I'll rely on my professional studies, thank you.

[hatsoff]

You should if you're going to speak on it.

Such as, the statement you said about Behe...you can't specify Intelligent Evolution...you're trying to play a word game. Behe's view is ultimately that there is a Designer - this is what all theists believe. Even if they disagree on the extent of the Designer, they still believe that he/she/it exists.

As for your edit - I'll rely on my professional studies, thank you.

Should what? And what word game?

I am well aware that many scientists hold to some kind of creation myth, but they don't often advance it as scientific theory. Behe and others do, but they have not withstood peer review.

If your professional studies have led you to believe those ridiculous claims, I would seriously question your progress.

Edited February 15, 2007 by hatsoff

[apothanein kerdos]

I am well aware that many scientists hold to some kind of creation myth, but they don't often advance it as scientific theory. Behe and others do, but they have not withstood peer review.

Oh please, don't tell me you aren't bringing up the myth that there are no peer reviewed articles.

If your professional studies have led you to believe those ridiculous claims, I would seriously question your progress.

Yeah, I guess relying on the experts really got me in trouble. At least when I enter into a topic, I've studied it.

[hatsoff]

Oh please, don't tell me you aren't bringing up the myth that there are no peer reviewed articles.

Sure there are. There are probably even a few articles in support of some facet of ID which have actually passed peer review. However, the scientific community has not taken seriously the larger conclusions. It is, for all practical purposes, a closed issue in the academia.

Yeah, I guess relying on the experts really got me in trouble. At least when I enter into a topic, I've studied it.

I'm sorry, but your claims in the other thread were simply false. There's absolutely no question of it. I explained in detail the reasons why, but you do not listen.

Edited February 15, 2007 by hatsoff

[apothanein kerdos]

Sure there are. There are probably even a few articles in support of some facet of ID which have actually passed peer review. However, the scientific community has not taken seriously the larger conclusions. It is, for all practical purposes, a closed issue in the academic community.

Which means that materialistic evolution is no longer falsifiable. Also, if it wasn't such a big deal, why all the persecution?

I'm sorry, but your claims in the other thread were simply false. There's absolutely no question of it. I explained in detail the reasons why, but you do not listen.

Mate, you didn't even know the difference between the Gospel of Barnabas and the Epistle of Barnabas until you looked it up on Wikipedia. You're out of your league, so for own interest you should probably drop it.

[hatsoff]

Mate, you didn't even know the difference between the Gospel of Barnabas and the Epistle of Barnabas until you looked it up on Wikipedia. You're out of your league, so for own interest you should probably drop it.

Don't assume you're clairvoyant. It was a simple miscommunication, of which you were primarily to blame (how you could think a non-Muslim would have been considering the Gospel of Barnabas to be authentic is beyond me). You make ridiculous and plainly false claims, and then when you're challenged with proof that you're wrong, you tell me I'm not educated enough to be worth your time.

You know, I wouldn't be rubbing all this in if you would just admit your mistakes.

[apothanein kerdos]

Mate, you didn't even know the difference between the Gospel of Barnabas and the Epistle of Barnabas until you looked it up on Wikipedia. You're out of your league, so for own interest you should probably drop it.

Don't assume you're clairvoyant. It was a simple miscommunication, of which you were primarily to blame (how you could think a non-Muslim would have been considering the Gospel of Barnabas to be authentic is beyond me). You make ridiculous and plainly false claims, and then when you're challenged with proof that you're wrong, you tell me I'm not educated enough to be worth your time.

You know, I wouldn't be rubbing all this in if you would just admit your mistakes.

Rubbing it in? Hmmm

WHy would I believe a Muslim would support the Gospel of Barnabas? It was written by them in the 7th century and is used this day as the accurate description of Christ...by Muslim apologists.

Yeah, i really hope you stop rubbing it in.

As it is, you make it to where you're really not worth my time (see the comment above)...people like SaturnV, secondhand, and other atheists are worth my time - they're educated on the issue and willing to listen and debate it. They actually have this weird thing called knowledge of the subject before entering into the debate. I haven't seen that from you (again...reference above).