M
Michaelo
Guest
reggieM
Is your silence an indication of your concession?
Is your silence an indication of your concession?
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
Maybe he is still in the bathroom.
E
edwest2
Guest
Maybe he doesn’t like tag team events. (Announcer) A win by default?
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
M
M0nkey
Guest
Well, that is the spin science puts on it, is it not? To claim evolution does not delve into the notion that we are products of a misguided process is to misunderstand this theory. Vis-a-vis that God guided some “evolutionary process” is not evolution at all, but ID. Do you think science should attempt to understand the work of the Creator? Or instead strive to understand better creation itself? Because Darwin’s theory attempts at the former not the latter.
R
reggieM
Guest
No, not concession. It’s an indication that you put me to sleep.
M
Michaelo
Guest
Oh, okay. Well now that you are awake I eagerly await your response to my recent posts.
R
reggieM
Guest
That means I have to find them and read them …
If I get the chance and inclination I will do so. Otherwise, I will assume that you’re taking a materialist position on virtually every point here and therefore adding nothing more than any number of atheists would. If you have a real insight about how you detect the design that you claim to see in nature, then I’d love to hear it.
If you’re going to deny that you actually observe design and intelligent causes at work in the universe or nature – or claim that you’re hallucinating when you do so – then I’m not really interested in hearing the rest of that story.
Thanks anyway.
M
Michaelo
Guest
I’ll make it easy for you: check out posts #787 and #802
I invite you to refute my recent revelations if they’re so inadmissible.
So those who don’t hold the same views as you are simply denying reality or experiencing hallucinations when they express opposing viewpoints? Gee thanks!
R
RACJ
Guest
Discussions on God designing creation should be reserved for theology class, but this doesn’t diminish the significance of the topic.
Code:
Separating the spheres may not diminish the topic's importance in *your* mind, but adolescents can't help but see a schism between REAL (science) and UNREAL (theology). The fact is that science simply cannot prove the lineage between paramecia and humans. And speculations as to how it may have occurred are laughable.
It *does* seem *plausible* that some form of ape may have been transformed into humans over millions of years, but honesty requires that the case should be made not for ape to man, but for paramecia to man. But, this MUST have transpired if *anything* of macro-evolution is true. The problem is that even a child's mind would discern the macro-evolution hoax if the latter was taught, no matter how it was presented, nor by whom. The naturalist propagandists can't risk such an attempt. Am I calling them intellectual cowards and frauds? Absolutely! Rob :cool:
M
Michaelo
Guest
It’s surprising and unfortunate that you characterize theology as “unreal.” There exists an important distinction between the two (which students should learn) in that they explore different realms of reality (physical and metaphysical).
Even if your accusations held any water, the alternative you appear to endorse (ID) is even less substantiated by science.The fact is that science simply cannot prove the lineage between paramecia and humans. And speculations as to how it may have occurred are laughable.
It does seem plausible that some form of ape may have been transformed into humans over millions of years, but honesty requires that the case should be made not for ape to man, but for paramecia to man. But, this MUST have transpired if anything of macro-evolution is true. The problem is that even a child’s mind would discern the macro-evolution hoax if the latter was taught, no matter how it was presented, nor by whom. The naturalist propagandists can’t risk such an attempt. Am I calling them intellectual cowards and frauds? Absolutely! Rob
R
reggieM
Guest
Michaelo - your comment here is a very good example of why I’ve concluded that it’s a waste of time to answer your questions. I gave you a proposal – tell me how you are able to recognize design in nature, since you claim to do so. You just avoided that problem entirely. Then you completely misunderstood the point about hallucinations. If you see design that is not really there – then you’re hallucinating, imagining things, or lying to yourself.
Additionally, I wouldn’t say that you’ve offered a “viewpoint” other than the standard Darwinist nonsense.
M
Michaelo
Guest
Define “design” again before I agree with you that I have claimed to be able to recognize design in nature.
pot calling the kettle black
R
reggieM
Guest
The choice is yours. You either recognize intelligent design in nature or you don’t. Design - plan, order, symmetry, harmony, purpose – the function of intelligence. Only intelligence plans something and orders it for a purpose. Intelligence is the organizing principle behind design. The presence of an immaterial intelligence - as opposed to blind, unintelligent, unpurposiveful, unconsious physical laws.
So again, do you claim to recognize intelligent design in nature or not?
M
Michaelo
Guest
No, for reasons already stated (yet I suppose we may revisit them if you wish) I don’t recognize intelligent design in nature. However, as I’ve said before, God is still the most important factor since I believe He is responsible for the physical laws that govern processes like evolution.
R
reggieM
Guest
Interesting, you see no evidence of God’s intelligence at work in nature at all. When did you decide to reject St. Thomas’ 5th way, the teaching of St. Paul, and the infallible definition from Vatican Council I on this matter? Are there other Catholic teachings that you’ve discarded?
On what basis do you believe that this is true?
M
Michaelo
Guest
Throughout this discussion you have used ID to refer to God’s abrupt creation of various natural phenomena (since you don’t think evolution is responsible), and I have expressed disagreement by revealing the various flaws in your argument (specifically regarding irreducible complexity and specified complexity). Now you claim that I am discarding Church teaching by rejecting your flawed theory, despite the fact that I have qualified my opposition in a way that still upholds these teachings.
That’s quite duplicitous of you.
It’s faith based.
A
Arandur
Guest
Reggie, I still find it amazing that you can behave as if the people you’re talking with have never said a word. How you can accuse Michaelo of materialism and atheism despite his clear position to the contrary I can’t fathom. How you can consider yourself honest in doing so is also a mystery to me.
Since you seem to want to go back to square one, let me try a different tact.
RACJ, M0nkey, Reggie, Ed, Buffalo, I asked questions long ago about what you actually think happened in nature to bring about all the various species. There are many variations of creationism, and I haven’t heard any of you explicitly own up to any one of them. You also seem to have differing ideas of what Intelligent Design is, and ideas much in opposition to what the ID-ers say for themselves (such as how the Center for Science & Culture explains that ID doesn’t really talk about God intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php).
So please, for the purpose of the discussion, let us know where you stand. What version do you believe about how species diversity, adaptation, and ecosystems developed?
And what scientific support (evidence observed in nature) for it do you think there is that leans more in favor of your belief than evolution?
In other words, if not evolution, then what do we really observe in nature?
Please include your concept of the age of the universe/earth in the answer, as that is relevant.
M
Michaelo
Guest
reggieM
I would also like you to clarify your exact position as perhaps much of our discourse has simply resulted from gross misunderstanding.
I would also like you to clarify your exact position as perhaps much of our discourse has simply resulted from gross misunderstanding.
R
reggieM
Guest
You have openly discarded Church teaching right here on a public forum. I’ll quote:
That’s a flat, clear statement. You don’t recognize any presence of intelligence in the design of nature. You see no evidence of God’s power at work at all – everything shows only naturalistic, materialistic causes. This, of course, is a contradiction of what you claimed earlier – but I agree that it’s more true to your belief which is essentially atheistic with a “God frosting” on top. Additional proof? When asked what evidence you have for God’s involvement in the creation of natural laws (intelligently designed laws - another contradiction), you state:
Again, that’s the heresy of fideism, which I already proved once. But more importantly, it confirms that you do not recognize intelligent design anywhere in nature. Your follow-up shows this clearly. You claim that God designed the laws of nature, but you have no evidence for this. Your faith is blind - since it is not based on any empirical evidence at all (again, fideism). So, when I questioned whether you were hallucinating or not, that was accurate. You claim to see something that isn’t there - and you explain it as “faith based”. Why not worship a pink elephant in the sky? There is no more evidence for that then there is for your verison of God. With no observable evidence of the intelligent power of God working in nature, you’ve reduced God’s world to a materialistic-machine of some kind. The atheists are correct in this matter – there is no reason to believe in a God that gives zero indication of his presence and work in the world – since the entire world can be perfectly well-explained without ever referencing God.
Now you did stumble a bit regarding the soul – but now you’ve flatly rejected that the soul was intelligently designed, or that the effects of the soul can be observed.
I’ll take the next post to show where you’ve departed radically from the Catholic faith. I had assumed that you were a believing Catholic, but considering that your main source of information (you’ve posted several links from them) on all of these matters is Talk Origins, an atheistic-evolutionary newsgroup, I’m not suprised by your response.
One good thing we’ve achieved is that the “tag-team” of you and Arandur has been broken up now since you’ve actually departed from his affirmation that intelligent design is evident in nature. For some reason, you never bothered to argue with him about that and didn’t even admit it until I questioned you.
Your views are a mass of contradictions and falsehoods. Now you will try to deny what you clearly stated. I exposed the truth about what your underlying belief-system really is. It’s a materialistic-philosophy, weakly covered over by some semblance of Catholicism.
As Ed West wisely pointed out on these discussions – Our Lord has called us to evangelize the world, and to remain faithful to Him through His Church.
R
reggieM
Guest
When questioned, Arandur stated:
I questioned again:
Arandur replied again:
Now I’m glad I questioned him repeatedly – because I know how slippery evolutionists are. After all of that, with you reading and taking his part – you have flatly, clearly and obviously rejected this argument.Yes, I believe that. I thought that’s what I’ve been saying in almost every post for several pages now.
It doesn’t get much more obvious than that. Either you’re lying now (and I do not want to believe that), or you’re so confused that you don’t know what you’re saying. You’re on here arguing in favor of atheistic theories, and now you even prove that your philosophical structure is, Deist, at best (built on atheistic-materialism).
This is all quite obvious as I see it. This is precisely why I repeated the same points and sought to understand what you were saying. In essence, you’re denying the Catholic Faith and seeking to undercut its foundations.
In my next post, I’ll revisit those foundations which you have openly denied.
- Status