Darwinism is made up

[LegendarySandwich]

yes,

but it still makes no sense

Evolution makes perfect sense.

[LegendarySandwich]

i guess some questions can never be answered:

where life came from?  for what purpose?  always only answer is god... science never will answer it...ever

atheists always say these are not relevant questions, but they are--just as much as any question

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.

guys we are not just some piece of shit floating around in outer space

If you say so.

[JoeBobSmith]

[Recusant]

I can accept evolution as a concept but not as a purpose.
It seems to me as a means but with no end
so even though i get it, I don't know what to make of it

... so, does this mean you accept that evolution occurs?

yes,

but it still makes no sense

If by this you mean that you can find no transcendental significance in the process of evolution, then you're probably right.  I don't think that there is any.  It's a natural process; it doesn't have to have any particular greater meaning, or any meaning at all, as "meaning" is generally understood by people.  i don't see this as a deficiency, though it seems that you do.

i guess some questions can never be answered:

where life came from?  for what purpose?  always only answer is god... science never will answer it...ever

atheists always say these are not relevant questions, but they are--just as much as any question

guys we are not just some piece of shit floating around in outer space

You seem awfully sure of yourself here.  Science may very well eventually discover the process by which life originated.  As for "where," that question doesn't really even make sense.  Life most likely came from right here.  There is a possibility that the "panspermia" idea is valid, in which case life came from "out there."  Why must the only answer be "god?"  Perhaps that's the case for you, if you insist that only a deity can give your life meaning.  That doesn't mean that your favorite answer is actually correct.  If it makes you happier to believe that it is the correct answer, then by all means go ahead.

As for your final sentence, I'd say that you've constructed a particular caricature of the naturalistic  view of reality.  I for one don't view this planet as a "piece of shit."

do you know that abstract reasoning developes a lot between 14 and adulthood?

Give me a break.  This has nothing to do with the conversation, and smacks of desperation to score some sort of point.  I will come right out and call this a lame post.

[JoeBobSmith]

[JoeBobSmith]

[hackenslash]

i guess some questions can never be answered:

where life came from?  for what purpose?

Well, the problem with those questions is that they are fallacious, because they commit the fallacy of the complex question. The hidden assumptions, almost certainly erroneous, are that life cam from 'somewhere' and actually 'has a purpose'.

always only answer is god... science never will answer it...ever

Problem is that god doesn't actually answer the questions, he just pushes them back a step. Where did god come from? For what purpose? The problem, of course, is the same, because the question was fallacious in the first place and is still fallacious when applied to a made-up entity. Indeed, some would argue that it's even more fallacious at this point.

atheists always say these are not relevant questions, but they are--just as much as any question

No, because fallacious questions are never relevant. If you can actually demonstrate the existence of 'purpose', as you put it, then the questions become relevant, because they are no longer fallacious, the hidden assumption having been addressed.

guys we are not just some piece of shit floating around in outer space

All evidence points to the contrary.

[JoeBobSmith]

[JoeBobSmith]

 

[hackenslash]

You must have me confused with somebody else. I've never been a believer of any kind.

Thanks for that, though. It gave me quite a laugh to be confused with a Muslim.

my username and 'god' and you should find out why. I'm probably the last person who should be confused with a believer.

[Whitney]

evolution and creationism are both plausible ideas, but I think this is also the estrangement between theistic and deistic philosophies.  

When you say that a being could have created the universe in the order of a Theistic or Deistic God, you are assuming that time is a creation, for time is at the onset of the universe in motion.  So when you have an all-powerful being existing outside of time 'orchestrating the infinite', you have to make the case that the way evolution works in principles, is the way this deity has created it to be.

The reason antibiotics quit working is because evolution is happening. The reason new flu strains come around every year is because evolution is happening.

So looking at these statements, you have orchestrated the arguments for reasons or purpose.  The reason or purpose of... is because of... pointing to the initial cause of evolution.  So if we are going to make a claim that an all-powerful God designed these natural processes to occur, it is not because of evolution, it is because the designer created it that way.  So the reason antibiotics quit working is because that is the way the creator designed it to be.  This changes the understanding of science and how it is to be perceived, thus the principles of evolution and creationism are incompatible in philosophy, but compatible within the premise of God. Evolution states itself as a principle of why outside of God, but only how within the premise of a God.  So it can be compatible but the premise of a God has to be established to further understand the purpose of evolution.

I frankly don't care if you can shove god in as an explanation (that doesn't make it true)....you didn't even address my comments which was that it is, quite frankly, stupid to claim that there is little evidence for evolution and that there is no battle between creation and evolution except between those who promote Young Earth Creationism (and they lie).

Please let me know when you have decided to approach this topic seriously.

[Whitney]

I'm too tired to make sense of all this tonight, but weren't you a Muslim earlier???

Between the other posts in this thread from last night and this one....Let me remind you that it is against the forum rules to post while drunk.

[Tank]

I'm too tired to make sense of all this tonight, but weren't you a Muslim earlier???

Between the other posts in this thread from last night and this one....Let me remind you that it is against the forum rules to post while drunk.

 Subtle!

[JoeBobSmith]

[defendor]

Science will readily agree that energy is neither created nor destroyed, yet no one seems to ask where it comes from, or at least there's not a whole lot of hubbub about it and most of everybody seems fine not knowing it.  I've used this argument before on another thread and there is a great disdain between what science will give to itself versus what science will allow to theology.

I never disagreed with evolution, I just said that there is conflict in its premise outside the mantle of a designer.  I guess I don't really understand what your trying to say.