Atheism in decline? (debate likely)

[KristaTX]

Someone beat me to the mute/moot thing, but I still just have to say, "Hi, Jason" . I love it when you join in on these conversations .

Okay - back to your debating, people.

 

[chadfromdallas]

There are several laws of physics that make evolution as an origin of life impossible.

Point these out.

 

[treesinger]

jenfur, what other reason could anyone have for being against homosexuality besides religious reasons?

I can see a non-religious argument for the other two but not for homosexuality so please enlighten me.

I'm feeling agreeable tonight!
I agree with you. Homosexuality is definitely a moral/religious issue. Outside of religion, the problem with HS is mostly other people's levels of uncomfortability about it.

 

[treesinger]

Someone beat me to the mute/moot thing, but I still just have to say, "Hi, Jason" . I love it when you join in on these conversations .

Okay - back to your debating, people.

Hi there! Good to see you. I'm a busy beaver and quite glad to participate when I can.

 

[treesinger]

Point these out.

Yeah. Not saying you're wrong Jen. But could you clarify that for me?

 

[chadfromdallas]

Again, I agree that evolution is a biological process that has been observed in our world. But to extend it back to the beginning of life?

Alright, I had a great post all lined up for this, but the servers went down or something. So, I will just post up a simple, to the point reply.

Evolutionary theory was not proposed to account for the origins of living beings, only the process of change once life exists.

Abiogenesis is what you are confusing with it, I'm sure.

More can be read on it at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html

 

[jenfur]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, also known as the Law of Entropy, states that every system left to its own devices will always move from a condition of order to disorder.

Even published evolutionists cannot prove or give even modest evidence for macroevolution. All evidence ever given is for microevolution which NO ONE refutes. They have to make new theories to cover for this lack of proof. First it takes millions of years for macroevolution to take place so we can't see evidence of it now. SO- we should be able to see fossil evidence right? Wrong- it doesn't exist, so then we have the the concept of rapid evolution, or "punctuated equilibrium"—proposing that small isolated portions of a larger population evolved rapidly, which brings us back to why can't we see the evidence of such changes taking place now? Where is the evidence that these evolved beings were ever anything other than what they are? This best evidence evolutionist have is "this animal looks like this, is similiar to this and could have evolved into this because of this."

There is also alot of evidence for a young Earth rather than the 100s of billions of years evolutionist usually rely on.

Neither can be absolutely proven, but I believe evolution as it stands has been disproven and intelligent design stands to be as highly probable scenario. The research is really astounding! Read and cross reference, don't accept it because you want to hear it. I used to and then it all just stopped making sense. Ask a professional dog breeder if her prized pooch evolved from wolves or was intelligently designed.

 

[Cheap-n-Dale]

SO- we should be able to see fossil evidence right? Wrong- it doesn't exist, .... Where is the evidence that these evolved beings were ever anything other than what they are?....

I think they built a Starbuck's on top of it.

 

[chadfromdallas]

Neither can be absolutely proven, but I believe evolution as it stands has been disproven and intelligent design stands to be as highly probable scenario.

Unbelievable. In fact, laughable

I'm sorry, I just don't feel like giving you an entire lesson of biology after that statement.

The fact that you brought up the young Earth argument makes me cringe.

 

[jenfur]

Alright, I had a great post all lined up for this, but the servers went down or something. So, I will just post up a simple, to the point reply.





Abiogenesis is what you are confusing with it, I'm sure.

More can be read on it at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html

Had the same server probs. I read a few articles and it was very interesting stuff. Not very much I disagree with in some of it so far. I have no problems with changes within species, its the idea of the creation of new species through evolution I see no evidence for. Even some of the descriptions of so-called macroevolution read more like micro.

BUT... its late..must sleep....

 

[jenfur]

Unbelievable. In fact, laughable

I'm sorry, I just don't feel like giving you an entire lesson of biology after that statement.

The fact that you brought up the young Earth argument makes me cringe.

I have tried to be somewhat respectful of your arguements thus far, I assure you that I need no biology lessons. A few textbooks and a link or two does not an expert make. The idea of a young Earth would seem foreign to someone who doesn't believe in a higher being, though there is evidence that supports it.

 

[chadfromdallas]

though there is evidence that supports it.

Young Earth creationists love to twist things around and make them seem like evidence

 

[Viking]

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050301-123015-2069r.htm

With all of the talk of the decline of Atheism, the increase of even general spirituality, the many holes in the theory of evolution and the increasing evidence for intelligent design (even if you do not believe in the "christian" god) how long will it take for effects of the humanist agendas to reflect the beliefs of the majority?

At the moment, I see anything that is considered a "religious" argument to be scorned by people who consider themselves highly intelligent or speaking for the majority. Examples;1) Jerry Falwell- wrong when he said 9-11 was possibly God's rebuke for sin (not agreeing with this statement) Ward Churchill- okay when he calls the victims nazis, alot of other okay when they say US had it coming for foreign policy reasons. 2) Anything "liberal" that is considered morally wrong must be done so for religious reasons alone such as abortion, homosexuality, premarital sex. 3) There is definate discrimination against the teaching of intelligent design in public schools even though it has far more evidence supporting it than evolution.

I personally think intelligent design should be taught along side evolution and that no specific religion should be taught but all religions should not be avoided like the plague. What is so wrong with believing in something higher than man?



(wondering what I am getting myself into as I hit submit )

What's this thread intended for? Do you really believe that crap about intelligent design or are just trying to be funny?

 

[Bobbles]

...
There is also alot of evidence for a young Earth rather than the 100s of billions of years evolutionist usually rely on.
...

I have never heard "100s of billions of years" used by anyone. I have always been under the impression that the "accepted" age of the earth was about 4.55 billion +/- 1 %. Is this the number you refer to as the "young Earth" number?

 

[totalia]

What's this thread intended for? Do you really believe that crap about intelligent design or are just trying to be funny?

I have to agree.

Oh and Chad, I so much agree with you. That's all I'm going to say on this subject because the last two times I've gotten involved in a religious discussion on here, it's gotten messy.

 

[mickman1962]

Chad, never thought I'd say this but I agree with you. Good Luck teaching Jenfur

 

[tlgoblue]

Just my .02
Beside everything Chad said, with which I agree, there is a much simpler explanation for the rise in general spirituality. Things are messy for the inhabitants of Planet Earth at present, specifically for The U.S.A. (*have you checked the rise of general spirituality world wide?) This is a time honored phenomenon.

1. People tend to follow their civic leaders belief systems in times of crisis.

2. People tend to look for Divine intervention, so they don't neet to face ugly truths, nor take responsiblity for the state of thier communities.

*The link you provided, really doesn't count as it was written by and cites only theologians.

 

[swilphil]

Let's leave what is taught in the science classroom up to the science teachers and the scientists, shall we? I don't think churches would like it if scientists came in and told them what they should be preaching from the pulpit.

Intelligent design has no place in the science curriculum. Now that doesn't mean that religious topics can't be taught in public schools--contrary to popular belief it already is. I taught high school literature, and our textbooks included many Bible passages, as well as those from the Koran and other religious writings.

 

[swilphil]

I have tried to be somewhat respectful of your arguements thus far, I assure you that I need no biology lessons. A few textbooks and a link or two does not an expert make. The idea of a young Earth would seem foreign to someone who doesn't believe in a higher being, though there is evidence that supports it.

You should apply this argument to yourself. I don't know where you are getting your information, but it is not what scientists are telling us our kids need to be learning in science class. I do believe in a higher being, but I want my children to get their spiritual guidance from our family and from our church.

 

[simpilotswife]

jenfur I would appreciate an answer to my question...

what other reason could anyone have for being against homosexuality besides religious reasons?

Just wanted to add the question.....

If homosexuals are not legally allowed to get married how can their morals be faulted any more than a heterosexual's?