If 'Intelligent Design" Is True, Why So Many Lies?

by Nate Merit 47 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  DanTheMan

  Nate, it is sobering. I don't know how much any of us can really do to stop the fundies, at least short term. The public is being strong-armed by an intense and bitterly determined true-believer movement. Memo to 1930's Germany, we've forgotten your lessons already.

  200 or 500 or however many years from now though, if humans are still around, they'll laugh at the brief retreat into the dark ages that humanity took around the time of the new millenium. Then in 800 or 1000 years they'll do it again. LOL

  Dan, ultra-fatalist class
• 

  Room 215

  Creationists have no monopoly on dishonesty-- remember the Pilt-Down man? As solid as the evidence may be for the progression of life on this plante it still fails to address the crucial question of life's origins,
• 

  Shining One

  >The public is being strong-armed by an intense and bitterly determined true-believer movement. Memo to 1930's Germany, we've forgotten your lessons already.
  
  Hogwash. All the 'public' wants is for competing theories to be taught in science classes, not just the dogmatic assertions of the atheistic natualists. They are teaching a philosophy which is masquerading as science. IF EVOLUTION IS TRUE THEN WHY DO THEY HOWL WHEN A COMPETING THEORY IS ADVANCED? You asked that of the WBTS, so why not ask it of the 'scholars' protecting their beliefs?
  Rex
• 

  Shining One

  Nate,
  You really cannot see the wisdom of teaching differing theories? If evolution is true then what does the one believing it have to fear? Michal Behe blew up evolution with his work, 'Darwin's Black Box'. No one has answered it successfully.
  Rex
• 

  DanTheMan

  Hogwash.

  No it's not.

  All the 'public' wants is for competing theories to be taught in science classes, not just the dogmatic assertions of the atheistic natualists. They are teaching a philosophy which is masquerading as science.

  Curious, coming from a person who never posts *anything but* dogmatic assertions.

  IF EVOLUTION IS TRUE THEN WHY DO THEY HOWL WHEN A COMPETING THEORY IS ADVANCED?

  ID is a hypothesis. It is not a theory. It is not empirical, it is not testable, it is not falsifiable, it is not science.

  You asked that of the WBTS, so why not ask it of the 'scholars' protecting their beliefs?

  Equating the scientific community with a religious cult is typical of your slash-and-burn smear tactics. The bully-boy pastors of the religious right are doing a swell job of vitriolizing the minds of their followers, which I find very sad. Memo to 1930's Germany, we've forgotten your lessons already.

  It seems to me that it's the ID hypothesists that are the ones that would very much like you to only read their books.
• 

  Shining One

  >Equating the scientific community with a religious cult is typical of your slash-and-burn smear tactics. The bully-boy pastors of the religious right are doing a swell job of vitriolizing the minds of their followers, which I find very sad. Memo to 1930's Germany, we've forgotten your lessons already.
  The scientific community came up with survival of the fittest. The Germans embraced it and put it to a test. The results are well known.
  >It seems to me that it's the ID hypothesists that are the ones that would very much like you to only read their books.
  Stack the two 'hypothesis' side by side and see the actual results of a true comparison. 'God' is no longer 'in the dock' as science has learned too much that refutes MACRO-evolution. It has learned that the simplest of life forms are unimaginable complex and it keeps getting worse year by year. The present shrinking majority hang onto their philosophy like the Catholic Church did to its assertions in the middle ages. The difference now is that people are not buying it!
  Rex
• 

  DanTheMan

  The Nazis were drunk on mythology, same as fundy Christians.

  science has learned too much that refutes MACRO-evolution

  That's news to me.
• 

  Shining One

  >ID is a hypothesis. It is not a theory. It is not empirical, it is not testable, it is not falsifiable, it is not science.
  
  Evolution is falsifiable all right, many times over its promoters have falsified the evidence!
  Rex