7 Replies to “Morning coffee!! Put these people in charge of explaining away design in nature

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Too Funny! Reminds me of when Darwinists were denying that the law of non-contradiction was valid:

    Arrington Stifling Dissent?
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-at-ud/

    Ravi Zacharias on the Law of Non-Contradiction – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pDs1wlmshg

    Presuppositional Apologetics (1 of 5) – An atheist in a debate denying the law of non-contradiction to his own peril – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=056zh7VPxDc

    ===============

    “Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause! ”
    Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down (New York: Basic Books, 2005), 168-69)

    “We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence ‘is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;’ but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists.”
    Smith, Wolfgang (1988)
    Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

    Darwinism as a Cult?
    Excerpt: People have a remarkable capacity to hold bizarre beliefs. Don’t misunderstand me, I am not referring to beliefs that are not provable or don’t adhere to some logical formula. I’m referring to beliefs that are downright false. The cultist I spoke with was sure and it is this unjustified certainty that revealed the problem, not the beliefs themselves.,,,
    But as with the cultist, the chasm between evolution’s confidence and certainty and reality is immense. The problem here with evolution is not minor. We’re not dealing with a few missing blanks. It is not the difference between a fact and a truth, or however else evolutionists want to describe their certainty.
    The problem here is that it is not even close. It is not even controversial that the scientific facts of the matter do not support evolution’s claim of certainty. Any objective analysis of the science, unsullied by evolution’s religious mandates, would conclude not only that evolution is not a scientific fact, but that there are non trivial scientific problems with evolution. Evolution is nowhere close to being a fact.,,,
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....nists.html

  2. 2
    mahuna says:

    This is WAY too scary. I’ve been in WAY too many meetings like this. I think this may be a management training film.

  3. 3
    Moose Dr says:

    BA, I listened to your “atheist in a debate” link. Oi that was painful. But I did listen all of the way through.

    Mostly I heard two people talking over each other unbearably (like conversation around here all too often.) But I did find one niblet of truth — the issue of whether the laws of logic are man made or “just is”. This question, of course comes out with all mathematics — of which logic is a subset.

    If atheism cannot stomach the idea that mathematics is truly independant of man, if atheism cannot stand that man discovers, and does not create, mathematics — then atheism is wrong.

    Mathematics is independent of man, independent of space, independent of time. If there is anything that is truly outside of, or external to, the universe than mathematics is. (The question remains, of course, if anything else is also.)

  4. 4
    Moose Dr says:

    Oh, um, on the feature video — it is possible to draw three straight lines that are each perpendicular to the other two. Just draw them on a ball — two at the north pole extend out at a 90 degree angle (as viewed from the top.) They extend to the equator. The third line connects them around the equator.

    As string theories often hypothesize that there are many dimensions — 11 is popular — it may actually be possible to meet the 7 perpendicular lines requirement.

  5. 5
    logically_speaking says:

    By Jove Moose Dr, I think you’ve cracked it. All we need to do now is change the definition of “straight”.

  6. 6
    Me_Think says:

    Moose Dr @ 4,

    As string theories often hypothesize that there are many dimensions — 11 is popular — it may actually be possible to meet the 7 perpendicular lines requirement.

    No wonder you are an IDist. Only IDist can think along those lines.

  7. 7

Leave a Reply