Dissent From Darwin

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

[censored] I hate this [censored] argument


[/ QUOTE ]

It's a stupid distinction if you can't see the difference between a black moth becoming a white moth vs. an amoeba becoming Richard Dawkins.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Every post you make about "no meaning without God, no truth without God" is an insanely arrogant presupposition that you have a useful definition of "truth" and "meaning."


[/ QUOTE ]

Funny. I look on it as a humble admission that humans on their own know nothing truly.

If we can't discuss anything without an exhaustive definition how is it possible to discuss anything at all?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

This isn't how scientific theories work at all


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with any of this. What I have a problem with is statements by scientists like "The cosmos is all there is" or "God is unnecessary". Science is a totally inflexible dogma concerning certain issues in the view of certain scientists.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

. You think all scientists grasped enthusiastically at the theory of evolution because of some desire to maintain god's non-existance.

nuff said


[/ QUOTE ]

Not all. Natural selection was looked on by many Christians as God's method for biological diversification. It still is by many. But name another scientific theory that was accepted so quickly and so completely without any real evidence at all. Consider how quickly atheists like Huxley and Spenser jumped on the evolution bandwagon. "Darwin has given atheism an intellectual justification" - somewhat paraphrased I think.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

That's why the Catholic Church itself


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not Catholic. Remember Ptolemy and Galileo.

[ QUOTE ]

I again repeat that understanding the overwhelming evidence for macroevolution and common descent has nothing whatsoever to do with God.


[/ QUOTE ]

Only when atheists insist that it does.

[ QUOTE ]

The post you made here (and others) are about how Darwin's theory of natural selection is unproven and disagreed with


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with natural selection per se.

[ QUOTE ]

if you had any respect for your God you'd admit that.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have, many times. What I question, as do the signers of the Dissent, is the adequacy of NS to fully explain biological diversity. I also think your assertion that OCA is proven is very questionable. I don't see how it can be given the earliest known fossils must be, what, millions of years up the evolutionary chain?

I'm no expert on this but from what I understand the similarities of DNA among all life-forms can just as easily be explained by creation - just as the similarity of all matter can be. God made all things from very simple building blocks.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
Funny. I look on it as a humble admission that humans on their own know nothing truly.

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry if this is old news, but are you certain that god exists?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

sorry if this is old news, but are you certain that god exists?


[/ QUOTE ]

At times I have subjective certainty and at times I don't. My faith waxes and wanes.

But the certainty I'm referring to is objective, demonstrable certainty. When Dawkins says "God is unnecessary" I am sure he is subjectively certain. But he can't demonstrate that proposition with objective certainty. In other words, he can't prove it. And I can't prove God exists. I can logcially show certain consequences if He doesn't. But that doesn't mean He does.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

sorry if this is old news, but are you certain that god exists?


[/ QUOTE ]

At times I have subjective certainty and at times I don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

do you ever have subjective certainty that jesus died for your sins? (sorry for the tangent)

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

do you ever have subjective certainty that jesus died for your sins? (sorry for the tangent)


[/ QUOTE ]


Yes.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

do you ever have subjective certainty that jesus died for your sins? (sorry for the tangent)


[/ QUOTE ]


Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

would you say that god is powerful enough to completely fool you about pretty much anything?