Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Not surprisingly, you have only one option - cut and paste from creationist websites.

You poor thumpy bible beater.

A cut and paste which totally proved you wrong.

Why do you bother wasting your time by posting such cut and paste nonsense.

Science and Archaeopteryx Overcome Creationism in South Korea: Scientific American

It seems that in actuality, the South Korean government in conjunction with forward looking scientists have blunted the efforts of fundie Christians to dumb-down the school system.

As we see, the ID movement is simply nothing more than promotion of fundie Christian polemics.

The school system is dumb-downed by thought of a designer,how is that ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh you poor, angry fundie creationist. Naturalism is not a religion. You may be told differently at Harun Yahya. I also find it comical to be lectured about logic from someone who trembles in fear before s host of ancient superstitions.

Oh you poor mental midget. As usual you didn't address the argument!!! In addition to being incredibly evil, you're response, or lack thereof, reveals some deep, psychological disorders. That would explain you being on disability and using taxpayer dollars to sit home eating Oreo's, watching Oprah, and attacking folks of all religions via your computer. It's pretty obvious you don't have a job.

Please back your statement that nature doesn't produce extreme precision-precision that can launch a spacecraft perfectly timed to reach the moon or mars. Are you saying this precision in items homo sapien creates come from something other than nature? Instead of just making attacks, why not attempt a thoughtful response of your own that you can't cut and paste from an atheist website?

The real result of your response if you are truthful will reveal that even you, in all your glorious ignorance, can recognize design when you see it. Because after all, we know that spaceships, music, consciousness, and computers just come from natural selection acting on random mutations.

once again UR makes shit up .

What did ur make up ? technology and science were the products of what ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Are there really people posting and trying to convince us that Intelligent Design is NOT an attempt to shoehorn Christian Creationism into public schools? The Discovery Institute, that promulgates Intelligent Design, have clear Christian, theistic intent. Is that a coincidence?

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with anybody challenging the assumptions and theories of any scientist. I also have no problem with approaching Intelligent Design through the branch of philosophy known as metaphysics. That is far more appropriate.

Both creationism and ID infer a designer but the science community have no evidence showing a designer was not needed.

Therefore because there is no evidence proving this designer I believe in naturalism why do you place a higher standard for God and creation then you do naturalism ?

Anyone who looks at the evidence knows complexity is the result of intelligence.

 

[Hollie]

Your glory speaks in every language
Across the sky to every nation
You are beauty
Unimagined
This is who you are
You are the Lord of my salvation
You are the one who lights my way
Through the dark night
You will lead me
This is who you are


You hear the cry of every broken heart
You give the hopeless soul a brand new start
You lead the captive in Your freedom song
This is who you are
And in the night when all our hope is lost
You are the one who won’t give up on us
You hold the orphan in your loving arms
This is who you are

And yet the fundie will represent that ID is somehow different than creationism. They are obviously the same worldview. The court system has repeatedly held that ID is simply rebranded Christian creationism which is why ID has been disallowed in public schools.

This fundie can't prove anything she believes nor can she demonstrate that a designer was not needed. Her beliefs are based on vivid imaginations and nothing more.

Still waiting for a viable explanation that nonlife produced life. I am still waiting for a viable explanation that the first cell came into existence through natural processes.

Now listen to the crickets chirp or watch them try and change the subject.

The fundie chooses to maintain a position that he cannot defend, thus the absurd requirement that others must prove a negative: "prove the gods are not needed".

What the fundie chooses to ignore is that I have already proven the gods are not needed.

The fundie has not disproved my disproof.

As we can see, the "standard" offered by the fundie is completely ridiculous and simply reinforces the true poverty of his alleged argument.

The fundie proceeds under the assumption that his takes and fables are true and then expects others to accept accept his unfounded "because I say so" claims.

 

[Hollie]

Are there really people posting and trying to convince us that Intelligent Design is NOT an attempt to shoehorn Christian Creationism into public schools? The Discovery Institute, that promulgates Intelligent Design, have clear Christian, theistic intent. Is that a coincidence?

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with anybody challenging the assumptions and theories of any scientist. I also have no problem with approaching Intelligent Design through the branch of philosophy known as metaphysics. That is far more appropriate.

Both creationism and ID infer a designer but the science community have no evidence showing a designer was not needed.

Therefore because there is no evidence proving this designer I believe in naturalism why do you place a higher standard for God and creation then you do naturalism ?

Anyone who looks at the evidence knows complexity is the result of intelligence.

False. The science community has proven that your gawds are not a requirement for life.

You have not disproven that.

 

[Youwerecreated]

And yet the fundie will represent that ID is somehow different than creationism. They are obviously the same worldview. The court system has repeatedly held that ID is simply rebranded Christian creationism which is why ID has been disallowed in public schools.

This fundie can't prove anything she believes nor can she demonstrate that a designer was not needed. Her beliefs are based on vivid imaginations and nothing more.

Still waiting for a viable explanation that nonlife produced life. I am still waiting for a viable explanation that the first cell came into existence through natural processes.

Now listen to the crickets chirp or watch them try and change the subject.

The fundie chooses to maintain a position that he cannot defend, thus the absurd requirement that others must prove a negative: "prove the gods are not needed".

What the fundie chooses to ignore is that I have already proven the gods are not needed.

The fundie has not disproved my disproof.

As we can see, the "standard" offered by the fundie is completely ridiculous and simply reinforces the true poverty of his alleged argument.

The fundie proceeds under the assumption that his takes and fables are true and then expects others to accept accept his unfounded "because I say so" claims.

Speak for yourself, I presented questions that add credibility to my beliefs but what can you offer to support your views ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Are there really people posting and trying to convince us that Intelligent Design is NOT an attempt to shoehorn Christian Creationism into public schools? The Discovery Institute, that promulgates Intelligent Design, have clear Christian, theistic intent. Is that a coincidence?

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with anybody challenging the assumptions and theories of any scientist. I also have no problem with approaching Intelligent Design through the branch of philosophy known as metaphysics. That is far more appropriate.

Both creationism and ID infer a designer but the science community have no evidence showing a designer was not needed.

Therefore because there is no evidence proving this designer I believe in naturalism why do you place a higher standard for God and creation then you do naturalism ?

Anyone who looks at the evidence knows complexity is the result of intelligence.

False. The science community has proven that your gawds are not a requirement for life.

You have not disproven that.

Then back your claim with evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hollie are you once again avoiding my questions ?

 

[Hollie]

A cut and paste which totally proved you wrong.

Why do you bother wasting your time by posting such cut and paste nonsense.

Science and Archaeopteryx Overcome Creationism in South Korea: Scientific American

It seems that in actuality, the South Korean government in conjunction with forward looking scientists have blunted the efforts of fundie Christians to dumb-down the school system.

As we see, the ID movement is simply nothing more than promotion of fundie Christian polemics.

The school system is dumb-downed by thought of a designer,how is that ?

Clueless. The courts have protected the school system from science loathing fundie Christians attempting to force Christianity into public education.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie are you once again avoiding my questions ?

Quite clearly, it is you (as usual), who is sidestepping and avoiding.

 

[Hollie]

Both creationism and ID infer a designer but the science community have no evidence showing a designer was not needed.

Therefore because there is no evidence proving this designer I believe in naturalism why do you place a higher standard for God and creation then you do naturalism ?

Anyone who looks at the evidence knows complexity is the result of intelligence.

False. The science community has proven that your gawds are not a requirement for life.

You have not disproven that.

Then back your claim with evidence.

Already did. You can't disprove it.

 

[Hollie]

This fundie can't prove anything she believes nor can she demonstrate that a designer was not needed. Her beliefs are based on vivid imaginations and nothing more.

Still waiting for a viable explanation that nonlife produced life. I am still waiting for a viable explanation that the first cell came into existence through natural processes.

Now listen to the crickets chirp or watch them try and change the subject.

The fundie chooses to maintain a position that he cannot defend, thus the absurd requirement that others must prove a negative: "prove the gods are not needed".

What the fundie chooses to ignore is that I have already proven the gods are not needed.

The fundie has not disproved my disproof.

As we can see, the "standard" offered by the fundie is completely ridiculous and simply reinforces the true poverty of his alleged argument.

The fundie proceeds under the assumption that his takes and fables are true and then expects others to accept accept his unfounded "because I say so" claims.

Speak for yourself, I presented questions that add credibility to my beliefs but what can you offer to support your views ?

How do questions add credibility to your beliefs?

Do you spend every hour of your day in such a stupor?

Did you notice I asked a question? That adds credibility to my claim that you are, in fact, in a stupor.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hollie are you once again avoiding my questions ?

Quite clearly, it is you (as usual), who is sidestepping and avoiding.

Go back and look at the questions asked this morning you are avoiding.

 

[Youwerecreated]

False. The science community has proven that your gawds are not a requirement for life.

You have not disproven that.

Then back your claim with evidence.

Already did. You can't disprove it.

Why do you choose to be dishonest hollie ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

The fundie chooses to maintain a position that he cannot defend, thus the absurd requirement that others must prove a negative: "prove the gods are not needed".

What the fundie chooses to ignore is that I have already proven the gods are not needed.

The fundie has not disproved my disproof.

As we can see, the "standard" offered by the fundie is completely ridiculous and simply reinforces the true poverty of his alleged argument.

The fundie proceeds under the assumption that his takes and fables are true and then expects others to accept accept his unfounded "because I say so" claims.

Speak for yourself, I presented questions that add credibility to my beliefs but what can you offer to support your views ?

How do questions add credibility to your beliefs?

Do you spend every hour of your day in such a stupor?

Did you notice I asked a question? That adds credibility to my claim that you are, in fact, in a stupor.

You avoiding answering questions honestly are revealing.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie are you once again avoiding my questions ?

Quite clearly, it is you (as usual), who is sidestepping and avoiding.

Go back and look at the questions asked this morning you are avoiding.

Why are you sidestepping and avoiding?

 

[Hollie]

Speak for yourself, I presented questions that add credibility to my beliefs but what can you offer to support your views ?

How do questions add credibility to your beliefs?

Do you spend every hour of your day in such a stupor?

Did you notice I asked a question? That adds credibility to my claim that you are, in fact, in a stupor.

You avoiding answering questions honestly are revealing.

Your sidestepping and avoiding is expected.

 

[Hollie]

Then back your claim with evidence.

Already did. You can't disprove it.

Why do you choose to be dishonest hollie ?

Why do you choose to sidestep and avoid?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Are there really people posting and trying to convince us that Intelligent Design is NOT an attempt to shoehorn Christian Creationism into public schools? The Discovery Institute, that promulgates Intelligent Design, have clear Christian, theistic intent. Is that a coincidence?

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with anybody challenging the assumptions and theories of any scientist. I also have no problem with approaching Intelligent Design through the branch of philosophy known as metaphysics.

Oh I get it, you mean the same branch that the materialistic Darwinist myth should be taught under.

You can make whatever assumption about my views that you wish. I'm actually little fascinated with Intelligent Design.

I simply said that The Discovery Institute pushed Intelligent Design, that they have a Christian theistic agenda, and I am correct in that assertion. It was in response to the notion somebody in the thread presented that Creationism and Intelligent Design are two different things. Not really. Prove me wrong.

So, because Intelligent Design has a theistic agenda, then it should be discussed accordingly, within a theistic, or in the case I presented a philosophical/metaphysical context.

 

[UltimateReality]

Are there really people posting and trying to convince us that Intelligent Design is NOT an attempt to shoehorn Christian Creationism into public schools? The Discovery Institute, that promulgates Intelligent Design, have clear Christian, theistic intent. Is that a coincidence?

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with anybody challenging the assumptions and theories of any scientist. I also have no problem with approaching Intelligent Design through the branch of philosophy known as metaphysics.

Oh I get it, you mean the same branch that the materialistic Darwinist myth should be taught under.

Evolution is a fact...