Intelligent Design is Self-refuting

  • Thread starter Thread starter rossum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
o_mlly said:
I think we’ve seen this playbook before. They’re just following orders:

Richard Dawkins, the evolutionist of Oxford University, put it this way: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked , but I’d rather not consider that).”
Click to expand...
He missed out ‘religious fundamentalist’. But then again he probably thought that was a given.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
niceatheist:
talkorigins.org is your friend.

But I’m curious as to why you are so critical of evolution, and yet seem so very unfamiliar with the topic. Can you tell me how many books by biologists you’ve actually read?
Click to expand...
It is more your friend than mine.

Around a hundred books and hundreds if not a thousand of peer reviewed research. I have a pretty vast library.
Click to expand...
Clearly you haven’t studied evolution sufficiently because you don’t agree with the atheistic interpretation of the subject yet.
 
Lion_IRC said:
40.png
buffalo:
40.png
niceatheist:
talkorigins.org is your friend.

But I’m curious as to why you are so critical of evolution, and yet seem so very unfamiliar with the topic. Can you tell me how many books by biologists you’ve actually read?
Click to expand...
It is more your friend than mine.

Around a hundred books and hundreds if not a thousand of peer reviewed research. I have a pretty vast library.
Click to expand...
Clearly you haven’t studied evolution sufficiently because you don’t agree with the atheistic interpretation of the subject yet.
Click to expand...
I didn’t know there was one. Even Bradskii, your friendly neighbourhood atheist will gladly accept the view that evolution is divinely controlled.
 
buffalo said:
So the dating is wrong? Interesting. You really want to go there?
Click to expand...
No, the dating is not wrong. The dating is not relevant to Tiktaalik’s status as a transitional between Sarcopterygian fish and land tetrapods.
 
Bradskii said:
40.png
Lion_IRC:
40.png
buffalo:
40.png
niceatheist:
talkorigins.org is your friend.

But I’m curious as to why you are so critical of evolution, and yet seem so very unfamiliar with the topic. Can you tell me how many books by biologists you’ve actually read?
Click to expand...
It is more your friend than mine.

Around a hundred books and hundreds if not a thousand of peer reviewed research. I have a pretty vast library.
Click to expand...
Clearly you haven’t studied evolution sufficiently because you don’t agree with the atheistic interpretation of the subject yet.
Click to expand...
I didn’t know there was one. Even Bradskii, your friendly neighbourhood atheist will gladly accept the view that evolution is divinely controlled.
Click to expand...
Well good!
God (teleology) is a much better explanation than placeholder words like chance, random, spontaneous, filters, genetic ‘drift’. etc. Blind Watchmaker. LMAO
 
Last edited:
“While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.”
  • Catholic Answers
 
buffalo said:
40.png
niceatheist:
talkorigins.org is your friend.

But I’m curious as to why you are so critical of evolution, and yet seem so very unfamiliar with the topic. Can you tell me how many books by biologists you’ve actually read?
Click to expand...
It is more your friend than mine.

Around a hundred books and hundreds if not a thousand of peer reviewed research. I have a pretty vast library.
Click to expand...
Good, then please tell me how evolution works. I find it useful at these junctures to test knowledge of the theory, even if you don’t agree with it.
 
Evolution, like all science, is agnostic on God. Buffalo is rejecting every aspect of evolution except the artificial “microevolution”.
 
Last edited:
I should probably bow out of these topics entirely. The last time I got into an evolution debate, I got punted for two weeks.
 
Indeed, I had told many people about the faulty potassium-argon date on 6 y.o. mount St. Helen’s rocks for years!

qccsa.org

THE END of LONG AGE RADIOMETRIC DATING - QCCSA.org

A Summary of the Million Dollar RATE Research Project (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) Introduction: Rocks and fossils do not come with dates on them. In fact, the very concept of strata representing long ages does not come from the rock strata themselves. That concept began with...
qccsa.org

Now I finally saw a rebuttal:

skeptoid.com

How Old Is the Mount St. Helens Lava Dome?

Young Earthers point to an infamous dating error as evidence that the Earth is only as old as the Bible says.
skeptoid.com

Makes you think though, am I smart enough to use these dating methods appropriately I think you just have to have “faith” that your assumptions and expertise are on point such as this sedimentary layer is from 15 million years ago with the miocene era since I found this and this there, yada yada yada, check check check… Yep these results are scientific fact I’m sure the rocks are 250 million years old. Wow, I love science now I know for sure that those rocks didn’t come from no volcano! Lol
 
edwest211 said:
“While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.”
  • Catholic Answers
Click to expand...
Straw man. No-one is promoting that.
 
On the contrary, Catholic Answers is telling us that that is exactly what is being promoted here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top