PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Religon Debates
     god versus God
       The darkness of evolutionists

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
serp

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is an overriding debate between evolutionists and intelligists (I coin the word "intelligists" versus "creationists" because the term "creationists" unfairly limits the role of God to acts of creation rather than the totality of invisible and visible intelligent processes which not only create but also uphold life).

The more sophisticated evolutionists like to stay in the dark (because they are, after all, of the darkness) concerning their deeper beliefs in the role of a supervisory intelligence that upholds and creates life.  They view the potential role of an invisible intelligence or spirit as relative.  They view such an intelligence as serving mechanistic laws and entropic forces, and thus incurring an overall entropic degradation of power.  They dislike the belief that God is absolute, above (yet also in complete control of) the differentiated dimensionalities of time and space, and of total power.  Instead, if they give any credence to "god," they view him as needing to invest his remaining intelligence in more and more articulate instruments of hidden and visible technologies while his greater substance grows more entropic through time.  In essence, hard core evolutionists with a taste for the supernatural transform Christ into the beast and Satan who "sacrifice" part of themselves to the darkness so a remnant can be "saved."  The true Christ, on the other hand, sacrificed nothing of himself to the darkness on the cross.  Instead, Christ offered up his physical body to momentary suffering which the Father accounted of infinite worth.  His sacrifice was of infinite worth because infinite righteousness subjected to such lowly treatment is worth infinite value.

Which scenario is true - the evolutionists or the intelligists - can be found out only by supernatural revelation: Either Christ Jesus will physically return in the clouds with great power to judge the world or he won't.  Yet by faith not by physical proof, those who love this truth may now dwell in the goodness of his nature which is light, love, rest, meekness, and abundant life.  The evolutionists through manifest self-will visibly hold on to their ludicrous theories of grand natural selection because they have nothing better.  But in the darkness they fortify and hedge their purely mechanistic beliefs with a possible belief in an entropic god, i.e. Satan transformed into Christ, who continually sacrifices himself to the darkness in order to expand his world of darkness, restlessness, and hard unforgiving technology.

(Edited by serp 2/25/2007 at 12:25 PM).


-------
All truth is found within the
healthy soul.
 


Posts: 48 | Posted: 10:35 PM on February 24, 2007 | IP
Unriggable

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am a 'Darwinist'. But I am not a satanist. I think you should read a bit more online before trying to make a connection between people who get tattoos of the pentagram and people who think that the strongest survive.


-------
"Without Judgment"
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 5:20 PM on May 7, 2007 | IP
serp

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you think the worship of Satan involves just the worship of the name and image of Satan, I don't know what I can say.  The worship of Satan takes many forms, the basest and crudest being the worship of his name and image.  Yet by no means is it the most effective tool in his arsenal.


-------
All truth is found within the
healthy soul.
 


Posts: 48 | Posted: 2:06 PM on May 15, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is an overriding debate between evolutionists and intelligists (I coin the word "intelligists" versus "creationists" because the term "creationists" unfairly limits the role of God to acts of creation rather than the totality of invisible and visible intelligent processes which not only create but also uphold life).


Right. You're the dude who advocates invisible untestable immeasurable forces that science is foolish reject.


The more sophisticated evolutionists like to stay in the dark (because they are, after all, of the darkness) concerning their deeper beliefs in the role of a supervisory intelligence that upholds and creates life.  They view the potential role of an invisible intelligence or spirit as relative.  They view such an intelligence as serving mechanistic laws and entropic forces, and thus incurring an overall entropic degradation of power.


Who is "they"? Supernatural is supernatural--that means it does not conform with the laws of nature. Which evolutionists claim supernatural phenomena like an overarching intelligence are impossible unless subject to "entropic degradation of power"?

Certainly not the majority.

They dislike the belief that God is absolute, above (yet also in complete control of) the differentiated dimensionalities of time and space, and of total power.  Instead, if they give any credence to "god," they view him as needing to invest his remaining intelligence in more and more articulate instruments of hidden and visible technologies while his greater substance grows more entropic through time.


Where in the world do you get this crap? The argument has always been "God is of course a possibility... but there is no evidence to support His existence." I haven't even heard of someone claiming that God as a supernatural deity has finite abilities.

In essence, hard core evolutionists with a taste for the supernatural transform Christ into the beast and Satan who "sacrifice" part of themselves to the darkness so a remnant can be "saved."  The true Christ, on the other hand, sacrificed nothing of himself to the darkness on the cross.  Instead, Christ offered up his physical body to momentary suffering which the Father accounted of infinite worth.  His sacrifice was of infinite worth because infinite righteousness subjected to such lowly treatment is worth infinite value.


Disregarding the non-sequiturious conclusion at the end there, you're flat out wrong. I haven't much of a clue who you're attacking here because your argument is so non-nonsensical, so you'll have to forgive me when I go out a limb and assume you're talking about theistic evolutionists. With that said...

It's already known that you claim God sustains life and the universe as we know it, and that without Him the universe would cease to exist as we know it. However, this idea is not contradictory to the ideas of the "dark ones" who accept both supernatural and natural explanations. It's truly this simple: God is so powerful that He simply designed a universe in which life can arise and exist without His involvement. Yes--God really could do that! To claim otherwise is to limit God and commit the same crime you so vigorously accuse others of.

Which scenario is true - the evolutionists or the intelligists - can be found out only by supernatural revelation: Either Christ Jesus will physically return in the clouds with great power to judge the world or he won't.  Yet by faith not by physical proof, those who love this truth may now dwell in the goodness of his nature which is light, love, rest, meekness, and abundant life.  The evolutionists through manifest self-will visibly hold on to their ludicrous theories of grand natural selection because they have nothing better.  But in the darkness they fortify and hedge their purely mechanistic beliefs with a possible belief in an entropic god, i.e. Satan transformed into Christ, who continually sacrifices himself to the darkness in order to expand his world of darkness, restlessness, and hard unforgiving technology.


Ask your doctor about neuroleptics. They should help in suppressing these hallucinations you have of evolutionists who only accept a degenerate god.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 8:04 PM on May 21, 2007 | IP
serp

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What is clear to me is that one has to be blind to the truth of the existence of an invisible intelligence upholding the universe.  Sub-atomic particles/atoms, cells/bodies, planets/solar systems, and galaxies/universe may some day be theorized by science to be upheld by an intelligent being.  For example, there is ample reason to doubt natural selection. I refer you to my original example of a randomly mutating, self-replicating computer. Similar to the production of trash genetic code by purely "natural selection" (and I am referring to the natural selection which assumes random changes), such a computer program will produce trash code.  You might argue, "But what about the one in 10 to the XXX that might produce a usable mutation?"  If such a random mutation is even possible (and I doubt the statistics are favorable enough to make it practically possible), you need many, many useful mutations to produce the many "evolutionary lines" that we see.  You might argue, "Life may be much more expressive, i.e. there are many more possible proteins, than you think."  I guess you can hang onto that hope, but it is a matter of faith.  

I believe that protein sequences must be directed.  Trying to quantify this belief is probably difficult, but may not be impossible.  One of the problems is that evolutionists dominate how the vast majority of research grants are spent.  All I can do at this moment is give you a working analogy of a computer program.  I have experience with computer programming and from an information science standpoint I believe that programming, like protein/DNA creation, must be directed.  Besides this simple example of computer programs, I am convinced that mechanistic laws cannot account for the order that we see in the universe from sub-atomic particles to galaxies.  No doubt you will deny this or say that such a position cannot be supported by science.  If you mean the "science" which is largely controlled by evolutionists and operates on the assumption that invisible intelligent forces do not uphold the universe (an assumption that drives nearly every research grant and proposed theory), I would have to agree with you.  But if you mean a science which seeks to complement and support a belief in an active universal intelligence with observed physical phenomena (a science which does not in practicality exist in the world today), I couldn't disagree with you more.  Please note my conciliatory tone in my discussion of how difficult it is to quantify the expressiveness of life.  My point is that the research money, by and large, flows to those who advocate the fundamental assumption that an invisible intelligence is not needed to uphold the universe.  Such an assumption sets up science not to find evidence and theories pointing to intelligent operation.  I am not convinced that involvement by an invisible intelligence cannot be inferred by science.  If the expressibility of life can be shown to be statistically low enough (in terms of randomly mutated useful protein sequences versus non-useful protein sequences), then the theory of natural selection based on purely random mutations can be shown to be a false theory.  I know science well enough to know that what I am saying is very reasonable.  The expressiveness of protein/DNA sequences is only one area of research among many which could be explored.   There are alternate scientific theories of semi-intelligent operations of sub-atomic particles/atoms, cells/bodies, planets/solar systems, and galaxies/universe.  The same old attempt to make something such as "dark matter" and "dark energy" a mechanical process is par for the course.  The more sophisticated scientists know that something more is needed to describe nature's order, so they give things names which sound mechanistic before they really understand what it is.  Present science depends upon appearances and priestcraft more than many want to admit.  I'm sure they will spew out enough theories to prop up mechanistic theories of "dark energy" until the next observation puts the current theory about how it works into doubt.  Desperate garbage flows out of quantum mechanics and high-energy physics like a sewer system filled with a network of philosophers.

I have read enough crap from evolutionists to infer my theory of how they may view the involvement of invisible intelligence in the universe.  If some (like yourself presumably) would never see a proposed god in this way (as suffering a kind of entropic decay through time), my apologies.  When you say "certainly not the majority," you cannot know for sure (any more than I) how many of the more knowledgeable evolutionists may entertain this idea/possibility secretly.  I posted it more as a warning rather than an attempt to single out a specific member of the scientific community.  If you see this as crazy, this is your opinion.  But I suppose it wouldn't be too hard for you to see this possibility given your intelligence level, Entwick.  Making parallels between the mechanistic laws of entropy and a possible higher type of entropy dealing with invisible intelligence isn't really that imaginative.  The fact that you don't "hear" a lot about it just supports my point: it's a theory held in the darkness.  As is the nature of darkness, it doesn't often come to the light.  Such talk disturbs weak people or angers those who want to stay in the darkness.  But I believe now more than ever it needs to be brought out into the light and dealt with.  So if you want to pretend such a theory is so outlandish, I will let you live in your self-deception.  

As far as trying to reconcile a purely mechanistic universe (please note, Entwick, I am not saying there is not a large mechanistic component to nature) with a belief in the God of the Bible, you are flat-out wrong.  I again quote the verse which you have previously denied and swept aside.  "For in him we live, move and have our being." (Acts 17:28)  Or if you prefer: "God ...in these last days he hath spoken unto us by his son, whom he hath made heir of all things: by whom also he made the world...bearing up all things with the word of his power..." (Hebrews 1)  Yes, Entwick, our very life and movements in this universe are upheld by the intelligent operations of God, and the most we can know about God (from his word) testifes to it.  Yes, I am guilty of believing that the universe at every moment needs God's sustaining life to continue.  If you don't believe this, then you do not believe in God.  Period.  Any idea of God existing only and entirely outside of the universe is vain and pointless at best, and useless to even talk about.  It is as good as denying him completely.  I am not going to argue this point with you because it will go nowhere; it's pure philosophical garbage and I'm not going there.  If you want to debate philosophy/rhetoric, do it with someone else.



-------
All truth is found within the
healthy soul.
 


Posts: 48 | Posted: 6:34 PM on May 24, 2007 | IP
Hespero

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The debate is between science and the dark ages.

In countries that are not crippled with moldy old superstitions the way muslim and  christians are we dont have any trouble seeing how things really are.

Your understanding of science is cut and paste from dishonest creationist websites.  You arent remotely qualified to give your own opinion on science.
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 3:20 PM on December 11, 2008 | IP
punksoab

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First off, intelligist? What makes the belief in an invisible creature that knows, understands and foresees everything intellectual? I'm not saying that all people of religious affiliation are unintelligent but you really aren't supporting the overall stereotype.

Secondly, if "god" created the world by snapping his fingers six times and taking a break on the last day, then why is it that scientists have proved that the world is still, and always will, be changing, forming and EVOLVING. The river you see today is not the same river you see tomorrow. The mountain, glacier, land, sand, sea and air of today is different from that of yesterdays and tomorrows. The world is always changing.

Third on my list is the point that there are fossils that date beyond the time of Christ, Romans, and Mesopotamian residents who were possibly the first organized people in terms of architecture, infrastructure and religion. How do you explain the giant mesh of bones that I see every time I go into the Museum? Seems to me that dinosaurs wasn't on god's list last time I read the bible, but do correct me cause last time I picked that book by my own free will up I was about 12.

Aside from that, it seems very logical that things evolve and adapt due to changes. We go through it daily. If you're asleep, your heart rate and breathing changes because of your relaxed state. When a car passes two inches in front of your face at 60 miles per hour, your breathing and heart rate speeds up dramatically. These are all subtle yet noticeable changes we go through in order to adapt to the environment around us.

Everything about creationism or the "intelligent design" is a bunch of post-modern, unscientifically, religious fueled foolishness. We shouldn't be teaching these in our schools simply because it goes against the separation of church and state. I used to go to a Catholic school, although it simply accelerated my turn to atheism, and even my teachers and priests disliked the idea of creationism.  


-------
A strong body with a weak mind is like a fort with no soldiers to protect it. A weak body with a strong mind is like a battalion out in the open. To solve all situations, one must moderate themselves.

Personal quote
 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 11:48 AM on February 4, 2009 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.