Evolution (and abiongenesis, Cosmology, etc) vs ID, again

[Securitan]

The only reason we don't believe in that is because we aren't enlightened.

Dude, I'm joking. I'm not an atheist. I'm an uber-Catholic. You haven't noticed?

I wasn't including you in the "we". I was referencing the atheist community.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Securitan, *** Warned for Trolling. ***

[Securitan]

Isn't that the one that has the 5 dead ends of Thomas Aquinas?

There are literally no other bases for a belief in God other than philosophy, meditation, and divine revelation besides ridiculous superstitions. Please refute these "dead ends of Thomas Aquinas".

Honestly I don't want to make a wall of text, so see here.

[Securitan]

I suppose light satire is now considered malicious trolling.

[Geilinor]

It starts by assuming that God must exist.

How euphoric are you, may I ask?

It seems that the existence of God is self-evident.

If someone asked you why God existed, you'd say, "2 + 2 = 4, therefore God exists"?

[Benuty]

I suppose light satire is now considered malicious trolling.

Given they banned me for three days for a joke about Catholic guilt, for your satire you might want to link to something funny (mask it using the url code).

It avoid a rather stupid accumulation of warnings. Of-course emoticons, and or italicizing helps, if the mods still cannot tell put [/sarcasm or satire] in tiny font besides the ending of your posts.

I suppose however I should head back to the topic at hand.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I suppose light satire is now considered malicious trolling.

No, light satire is not considered trolling. You're trolling.

[Securitan]

I suppose light satire is now considered malicious trolling.

No, light satire is not considered trolling. You're trolling.

I will assume that getting in an argument with you over the definition of a term will result in me being banned, so I will go with your definition of trolling.

[Godular]

No, light satire is not considered trolling. You're trolling.

I will assume that getting in an argument with you over the definition of a term will result in me being banned, so I will go with your definition of trolling.

I believe the response is "You can submit an appeal to moderation."

[Lunatic Goofballs]

No, light satire is not considered trolling. You're trolling.

I will assume that getting in an argument with you over the definition of a term will result in me being banned, so I will go with your definition of trolling.

It will if you engage in it here. However, you are welcome to request an appeal in the Moderation forum. Another moderator will review my decision and make their own.

[Godular]

Nailed it

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I will assume that getting in an argument with you over the definition of a term will result in me being banned, so I will go with your definition of trolling.

I believe the response is "You can submit an appeal to moderation."

Ding, Ding, Ding! *hands you a taco*

[Godular]

I believe the response is "You can submit an appeal to moderation."

Ding, Ding, Ding! *hands you a taco*

Oo! A taco!

*munches enthusiastically*

Nice... destroyed-dream flavor.

[Securitan]

Now that that fun issue has used up half the page, does anyone have any more arguments?

[Godular]

Now that that fun issue has used up half the page, does anyone have any more arguments?

I'm pretty sure this thread was rather impressively doomed to one-sidedness.

[The New Sea Territory]

A friend of mine said they had this debate in the biology class today, to which I responded "One side has all of modern science, mountains of evidence and decades of observation on it's side, and the other is simply wrong".

There isn't a debate to be had. That's like debating the Sexual Theory of Reproduction (that people have sex to make babies) or the Stork Theory (where storks make babies in a factory and deliver them). One is correct, factual and true, and the other is made up nonsensical bullshit.

[Securitan]

Well I'll posit something out of curiosity. Any person that believes in ID and is on this thread will probably have heard of most of these arguments before, so I want to know how someone that believes in ID justifies still believing in it.

For example, how do you justify what is seemingly "unintelligent design"? This includes our third eyelid, wisdom teeth, the coccyx, the appendix, and male nipples. Surely an intelligent designer wouldn't design useless things? Would he?

[The Risen Jaguar Warriors]

Intelligent design is just Creationism dressed in a lab coat.

[Utceforp]

Intelligent design is just Creationism dressed in a lab coat.

And creationism is just fundamentalist Christianity dressed in a lab coat.

[Utceforp]

It starts by assuming that God must exist.

How euphoric are you, may I ask?

Really? You're going to go the "all atheists are neckbeards" route?

[Securitan]

Intelligent design is just Creationism dressed in a lab coat.

And creationism is just fundamentalist Christianity dressed in a lab coat.

And fundamentalist Christianity is just ignorance dressed in a pastor's outfit.

[Utceforp]

And creationism is just fundamentalist Christianity dressed in a lab coat.

And fundamentalist Christianity is just ignorance dressed in a pastor's outfit.

That's quite a lot of clothing for ignorance to wear. Must be cold.

[Margno]

Where in the bible does it say that the events of genesis are to be understood as occurring in this universe and not a tangent universe, and that this universe has only one timeline, and that this timeline has never changed?
I don't think this is a matter of accepting or rejecting biblical literalism. I think this is a matter of some guys like Ham reading their presuppositions about how time works into the text.

[Benuty]

And fundamentalist Christianity is just ignorance dressed in a pastor's outfit.

That's quite a lot of clothing for ignorance to wear. Must be cold.

Not exactly ignorance, considering this subject exists in full volume compared to say the amount of knowledge available in the library's of the Ottomans at the height of their rule. If anything they are uneducated since they either willingly or have been taught to ignore such evidence.

[Utceforp]

Where in the bible does it say that the events of genesis are to be understood as occurring in this universe, which has only one timeline, which has never changed?

It's implied, to be fair. I don't think there's much discussion of multiverse theory in the bible.