by Perry 70 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
The 'horrors of Creation' argument against a personal God goes way back to Darwin (and even Mark Twain!).
You Creation types never seem to have any answer. It makes dino blood and anomalous footprints irrelevant. They don't matter if "God" creates monsters.
metatron
(Perry - if in fact there is intelligent design behind life, why does it automatically follow that this intelligence must be worshipped or you must die? Or that this intelligence still exists even?)
Perhaps I need to expand on this question to get an answer. Believing in intelligent design is one thing, believing that the intelligence responsible is the god of the bible is another. The only evidence you're coming up with loops back to the bible and Jesus and the devil, which kinda means that you're not really arguing for intelligent design, you're arguing that the god of the bible is the big kahuna in the universe and that not believing in him will end in death because his craving of adulation is bottomless and infinite.
Sigh...
THIS IS THE EXACT TOXIC ENVIRONMENT I GREW UP IN AS A JW.
Incorrect, cut from the same mold, yes, but dramatically different. The Creationist stance is not invalid, but it's not obviously the only way to think or believe either, it might be time to accept that. You seem to have taken a firm stance on your beleifs and your beliefs just so happen to damn atheists as well as many others, right? Should you be surprised or appalled by such opposition? Doesn't the Bible say that you are going to take in the behind for your faith?
-Sab
I am forced to ask again: "born again Christians" means they get to know their origins twice?
Isn't anyone going to attempt to explain irreducible complexity? One "simple" single-cell has multi-billions of parts. How'd they all get there at the same time? I've gone toe to toe with numerous folks here over the years on different subjects. It is only fair to ask opponents on this issue to defend their stand. I'm all ears.
First of all, I have to say IC is one of the better arguments against evolution. But notice how I didn't say it was evidence for creationism? That's because problems with evolution (where they exist) are NOT evidence for creationism. They are simply problems for evolution, just like problems with literalist creationism aren't necessarily proof of evolution. Let's play a logic game:
Someone's gonna surprise me with an ice cream cone. I think he's gonna get me vanilla (evolution), based on the evidence for it. He knows I like vanilla and it's pretty damn likely that they're serving vanilla today. You say "chocolate" because you assume everyone loves chocolate (everyone knows the Bible's the only source for truth, right?). You also heard from a guy who claims to know another guy who says chocolate ice cream is the only true way to satisfy hunger (salvation, or something). He says some sciency-sounding stuff to "back it up." Now, someone informs me that there's no more vanilla, so I know the vanilla theory is not true. But I'm not going to assume that I'm getting chocolate. You are NOT automatically right because I am wrong. I could be getting strawberry (aliens created us), cookies and creme (Zeus created us), spumoni (day-age Islamic creationism) or pistachio (any alternative scientific theory). Origin/creation/evolution theories are like those flavors of ice cream. The universe has many possible arguments to offer besides creation and evolution and flavors of ice cream beside vanilla and chocolate.
Okay, back to IC systems. Those things might not even exist, Perry. Single-celled organisms are "simple" in relative terms. You know, compared to organisms made of billions of cells. And what do you mean mult-billion parts? Are you talking about the number of molecules or something? 'Cause they don't have that many organelles. And all those things do not appear all at once. That is the #1 major misconception people make when refuting evolution. No scientists believe that such a thing just popped out of nowhere. And, just so you know, Richard Dawkins doesn't expect a chimpanzee to give birth to a human baby any day now. Darwin didn't believe that back then, and no one believes that now.
What IC systems are you thinking about Perry? The blood clotting cascade? The bacterial flagellum? Surely not.
Irrational belief in Creation, even when it has a short-skirt and a g-string on and is called ID, is either linked to lack of awareness and understanding of the valid scientific arguments supporting evolution, or cognitive dissonance where a person accepts science when it doesn't impact their religious worldview, but refuse when it does (so the you can use a computer and will, given eternity in the bossom of your lord eventually write Shakespeare all by yourself, but refuse to accept evolution which is just as dependent on the same rules of evidence. They do this so they can sanctify themselves by claiming they conform to god's rules better and or understand the Bible or Qu''ran better and or are members of some elect group. Minute they stop taking things literally their entire houde of cards crumples, thus the obsession with a literal Creation account.
I've not posted regularly for three years and Perry is doing exactly what he did back then. I am pretty sure that he is asking the very same questions he did three years ago, and likely will be doing so in three years.
Creating even if in their own minds the impression that there is some sort of controvesy is part of the way these people operate, as is making much of perceived faults or areas with developing knowledge, all normally from a postion of ignorance, having no real knowledge of the they discuss, and of course not being able to provide any proof of any of the beliefs they hold.
Of course if you point this out they will cry evasion, use CTRL C CTRL V more, and whine like a cat that wants feeding. Except the cat shuts up for a while when you feed it.
Perry, the minute you want to have a serious scientific debate, let me know... As you've cited if, please explain the faults with the refutations of Behe, in your own words.
'God interacts with those that have made peace with him'........ explain that to the Jesus loving Baptist children who died when their church bus went in the ditch.
Throw water on the Molten God, appease appease!!!
Somebody has been reading Rule for Radicals by Saul Alinsky.
1. Step one: Disorganize the opponent's information. Attack it. Ridicule it on every front. Ignore rebuttal and attack on successive fronts.
2.Step two: Bait the opponent into reacting. Hold them to a higher standard. Goad them into spiralling arguments of frustration. The greater the frustration you provoke the more effective you become in disorganizing them.
3.Step three: The end justifies the means. Whatever it takes to achieve your goals is what must be done.
The purpose of the above is never to PERSUADE an opponent with facts.
The goal is a collateral effect on the people in the middle who are disaffected, uncommitted to a point of view, vulnerable to influence.
Provoking an opponent into bad manners, temper tantrums, insults, overkill is highly effective because the neutral bystander sees this behavior
as INDICATING WEAKNESS and a non-civility!
There is no debate unless a methodical, point by point discussion proceeds on ONE FRONT AT A TIME.
If you have dozens of small fires raging you will be running about crazily, ineffectively and exposing yourself to ridicule.
Just a word to the wise.
Perry, your not pulling information from biased religious groups are you ?
No, I think he's pulling it from somewhere else.
