Quote:
Originally Posted by marc9000
Because the word "evolution" has so many different meanings. Sometimes (usually) it's used as a weapon against Christianity, but it can be toned down to mean "change over time" in just about any capacity, any time atheists need to retreat, or use it for any other purpose.
|
No. It does not have "so many different meanings".
It's a scientific theory. Not something that morphs around just cause other people look at it.
The only "weapon against Christianity" regards anybody who takes an extreme literal interpretation of the bible. And even then, other scientific tools like carbon dating easily prove Christianity wrong.
To put it another way, it's like saying "Mark didn't break that vase", and then complaining because evidence is provided showing he did in fact break the vase.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marc9000
This ridiculous statement is common in the scientific community, and they've invested a lot of time trying to back it up. But that doesn't make it any less laughable to much of the general population.
|
I can't help but think this is a clear demonstration of the absurdity of your position.
It is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, but you try to contradict SCIENTISTS who tell you something about its application.
The hubris of you trying to tell science how science is, contradicting scientists, is amazing!
Might as well be a hair-dresser trying to lecture a mechanic on how a car runs.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marc9000
Yes, it does have huge gaps. But the most famous evolutionists present it with an atheistic point of view. Other avenues of exploration are shouted down, and the general public notices. Younger members of the general public can be more easily swayed by it.
|
"gaps" declared by people who typically have no real rational understanding of the theory, pretending to tell scientists what they see in the scientific theory...
I might as well be telling a Christian that "communion" is about cannibalism! And then insisting he is wrong when he protests the assessment.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marc9000
But the Catholic church is not in control of how it is presented scientifically.
|
Is that what this is really about to you?
CONTROL ????
I'm sorry, but RELIGION can control RELIGION.
Religion does NOT get to control science. Such attempts stunt science and prove counter-productive for societal good.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marc9000
They proclaim that the atheistic application of evolution isn’t possible, then they’re accused of proclaiming that plants cannot grow. As I said, definitions of the word evolution vary widely.
|
Sounds like there are a variety of arguments in favor of evolution which you just plain do not understand...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marc9000
And the percentage of biological scientists that excludes a possibility of God’s presence in evolution is 99.86%, according to your link below.
|
Is this an absurd lie, or are you not reading correctly?
My link showed the following positions from scientists:
* 05% God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.
* 40% Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.
*
55% Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life.
God had no part in this process.
There is no "99.86%" in my link.
ABOVE is what it ACTUALLY says.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marc9000
They’re largely in control of what goes on in public science classrooms. Yet it’s Christianity’s fault that its belief is slipping among young people?
|
Yes, it is Christians fault.
And no. It is TEACHERS who teach in the classrooms.
When people like you insist that it has to be evolution, which has a basis, or the bible, whereby a literal translation is disproven by science in SOOOO many ways, then it is your fault.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marc9000
Evolution has been around a lot longer than the 1990's, but an intense marketing of atheism has only been around since the 1990's.
|
Oh great.
More conspiracy theories?
I'm sorry, but your claim is absurd.
There is no "intense marketing of atheism".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marc9000
Activist Atheist websites have been created on the internet since then - plenty of influence on the general public never seen before. Discrimination against Christianity in U.S. universities has been on the rise in the last few decades. Books such as “The God Delusion”, “How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist”, and "Letter To A Christian Nation" and many other similar ones have been best sellers only recently. Yet when new statistics show that Christianity has weakened somewhat in the last few decades, atheists want to blame ONLY their perceived weaknesses within Christianity for it!! Why not give yourselves some credit?
|
1) I'm not an atheist.
You repeatedly miscategorize things, which is consistent with your failure to recognize the real problem with Christianity's decline.
2) Do you seriously think a book like "The God Delusion" can convince people that God does not exist?
If the religion had any true strength, it could stand to a challenge.
In a lot of ways, your approach is like blaming the "winner" for winning, while ignoring how the loser fumbles the ball.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marc9000
Not necessarily the evolutionist catagory, but the militant atheist catagory. The internet is a very influential tool.
|
First you want to blame "evolution".
Now, when that has been proven, you change your tactic and try to blame "militant atheists" instead.
And quite frankly, "militant atheists" are few and far between.
I will admit Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher are decidedly in that category.
But they are the exception and not the rule.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marc9000
But it’s not solid proof about just where those perceptions came from. Christianity’s “intolerance” hasn’t changed in the last few decades, but strawmen accusations and intolerance of Christianity has been made public more than ever, in recently formed places like the websites and books I named above.
|
The real problem is that today's kids ARE QUESTIONING the claims of religion more, and found them wanting.
The youth KNOW gay people, and realize that they aren't the boogeyman.
In the past, people LIED (or told their delusional accounts) about gays and people didn't know any better.
Anita Bryant is a perfect example with her campaign against gays in teaching positions.
But today, kids are questioning the justness of Christianity. It's not atheisms fault that Christianity isn't competitive unless you already believe...
It isn't atheism's fault that Christianity gives itself a bad name, behaving badly.
"intolerance of Christianity"? NO religion should be taught in school. That's not "intolerance of Christianity".
Why do I suspect your remedy to this would be to FAVOR Christianity.
"strawmen accusations"? Any elaboration on this one?