Creationists

[UltimateReality]

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

You have not disproven that.

You are delusional. They have proven no such thing.

Your appalling lack of education in the biological and natural sciences is your own failing.

Omigosh! I just about fell out of my chair laughing at this comment. And just what is your background manhand (rugged touch)???

Cue Loki's cricket chirping picture doublesized!!!

 

[UltimateReality]

That's so silly. Christian creationists (under the different titles they have used in attempts to force their religion on others), have consistently been thwarted in their attempts to put religion into the public school system because religion is not science. You are desperately trying to dumb-down the education system. You have no viable alternative to the fact of evolutionary science yet you insist on thumping people with ancient fears and Dark Ages superstitions.

I think you mean "put it back in" pumpkin.

Pay attention DarK Ager and you may learn something.

Judge rules against ‘intelligent design’

‘Religious alternative’ to evolution barred from public-school science classes

Judge rules against

HARRISBURG, Pa. — In one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district Tuesday from teaching “intelligent design” in biology class, saying the concept is creationism in disguise.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in October 2004 to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

The above is just one of many instances where ancient fears and superstitions promoted by fundie christians under the guise and false label of ID have been exposed as fraud.

Newsflash manhands!!! There is a long record of English and American History that still exists even though like everything else, you choose to ignore it. Hey, if it doesn't exist in Hollie's world, then it doesn't exist, right cupcake?

 

[UltimateReality]

Under Christian thought, humans have free will, which made it possible for them to choose sin, not God. Under evolutionary philosophy, there is no free will for humans.

That doesn't make any sense. I'm guessing the logic is that if life evolves then it doesn't have free will? You lost me.

I don't support evolutionary philosophy. You will have to look elsewhere to substantiate the logical outcome of darwinian thought. You can start here...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9W1Y_PmhSI]Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy (5 of 11) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[LOki]

Both creationism and ID infer a designer...

Correction: "Both creationism and ID PRESUME a designer..."

Sure they do. It's not CONCLUSIVE evidence, but there is indeed evidence that a designer was not needed.

First, "proof" is NOT the standard applied--verifiable evidence and/or valid logic is the standard applied.

Secondly, there is no evidence, that is validated with even BASIC intellectual rigor, that petitions for the existence of this designer that creationism and intelligent-design PRESUMES.

We don't! We apply the exact same standard for both! EXACTLY the same.

In contrast, no evidence (of an intellectually rigorous nature) OR "proof" was required for you to hold your belief in the existence of this "designer" you posit--yet you demand "proof" (i.e.; conclusive and irrefutable evidence) for refuting your assertion of this "designer"--as if it should be considered valid in the first place. You (as typical of creationists and intelligent-design promoters) hold "materialism" or "naturalism" or "Darwinism" to an ENTIRELY different standard than you hold your own PREASSUMPTION.

Why is that? Why do YOU require a higher standard from "naturalism" than you do for this "designer" of yours and creationism?

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

This is just presumptive nonsense. It is a point that has been refuted a thousand times.

For the same reasons you've refused to address where the "life" of your "creator" came from, I predict that you'll just as resolutely refuse to address where the intelligence that accounts for the "complexity" of your designer came from.

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"--Douglas Adams​

The whole theory of evolution is based on a faulty preASSumption.

I note that you fail to identify it though. Why is that cupcake?

The known outcome of evolution determines which data in so called experiments is kept and which is thrown out.

Nice follow-up with a bullshit unsubstantiated accusation. BRAVO! RETARD!

 

[UltimateReality]

Correction: "Both creationism and ID PRESUME a designer..."

Sure they do. It's not CONCLUSIVE evidence, but there is indeed evidence that a designer was not needed.

First, "proof" is NOT the standard applied--verifiable evidence and/or valid logic is the standard applied.

Secondly, there is no evidence, that is validated with even BASIC intellectual rigor, that petitions for the existence of this designer that creationism and intelligent-design PRESUMES.

We don't! We apply the exact same standard for both! EXACTLY the same.

In contrast, no evidence (of an intellectually rigorous nature) OR "proof" was required for you to hold your belief in the existence of this "designer" you posit--yet you demand "proof" (i.e.; conclusive and irrefutable evidence) for refuting your assertion of this "designer"--as if it should be considered valid in the first place. You (as typical of creationists and intelligent-design promoters) hold "materialism" or "naturalism" or "Darwinism" to an ENTIRELY different standard than you hold your own PREASSUMPTION.

Why is that? Why do YOU require a higher standard from "naturalism" than you do for this "designer" of yours and creationism?

This is just presumptive nonsense. It is a point that has been refuted a thousand times.

For the same reasons you've refused to address where the "life" of your "creator" came from, I predict that you'll just as resolutely refuse to address where the intelligence that accounts for the "complexity" of your designer came from.

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"--Douglas Adams​

The whole theory of evolution is based on a faulty preASSumption.

I note that you fail to identify it though. Why is that cupcake?

The known outcome of evolution determines which data in so called experiments is kept and which is thrown out.

Nice follow-up with a bullshit unsubstantiated accusation. BRAVO! RETARD!

And yours was substantiated??? Loki, you're a legend in your own mind.

 

[LOki]

The whole theory of evolution is based on a faulty preASSumption.

I note that you fail to identify it though. Why is that cupcake?

The known outcome of evolution determines which data in so called experiments is kept and which is thrown out.

Nice follow-up with a bullshit unsubstantiated accusation. BRAVO! RETARD!

And yours was substantiated???

Yes. I note that mine is also not contested.

Loki, you're a legend in your own mind.

What are you talking about?

I also note that you continue to fail to identify the faulty preassumption that you allege evolution is based upon. Why is that cupcake?

 

[Hollie]

You are delusional. They have proven no such thing.

Your appalling lack of education in the biological and natural sciences is your own failing.

Omigosh! I just about fell out of my chair laughing at this comment. And just what is your background manhand (rugged touch)???

Cue Loki's cricket chirping picture doublesized!!!

It is difficult to help you learn that there is a vast library of science to explore and discover. One of the difficulties shared by fundie creationists is their inability and unwillingness to see anything beyond their angry gods.

There is really no countering argument to be made that the best tools we have to explore our natural world are evidence and reason. And starting with evidence, we have direct observational evidence that there are such things as natural forces in the universe, chemical and biological mechanisms and methods available to demonstrate and examine those elements. In contrast, we have absolutely no direct observational evidence that there is such a thing as "gods." And this is how we begin to separate fact from fundie religious claims.

Biological evolution (Darwinian or otherwise) presumes the existence of life, and it does not matter what the source of that life might be. It could be abiogenesis or some other biological mechanism we don't yet understand. Evolution studies what has occurred to life in the subsequent 3+ billion years of its existence. It explains the origin and diversity of species, not the origin of life. To pretend that evolution's status as a rigorous science depends on a prior solution to the problem of abiogenesis is the equivalent of insisting that orbital mechanics is not scientific until we have a prior solution to the issues regarding quantum mechanics. Planets still orbit their respective suns in a way that is rigorously understood, even though we do not yet fully understand the behavior of subatomic particles. And humans still evolved from a common ancestor, even though we do not fully understand the origin of the first organism.

 

[Hollie]

I think you mean "put it back in" pumpkin.

Pay attention DarK Ager and you may learn something.

Judge rules against ‘intelligent design’

‘Religious alternative’ to evolution barred from public-school science classes

Judge rules against

HARRISBURG, Pa. — In one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district Tuesday from teaching “intelligent design” in biology class, saying the concept is creationism in disguise.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in October 2004 to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

The above is just one of many instances where ancient fears and superstitions promoted by fundie christians under the guise and false label of ID have been exposed as fraud.

Newsflash manhands!!! There is a long record of English and American History that still exists even though like everything else, you choose to ignore it. Hey, if it doesn't exist in Hollie's world, then it doesn't exist, right cupcake?

What you're having difficulty with is being held accountable for Christian creationist lies. Courts have consistently held that Christian creationism is nothing more than an attempt by zealots such as yourself to impose Christian theology into the school system. Your flailing about with silly claims that your religious beliefs meet the same standards of evidence that science meets is pointless. No one is saying you're prevented from believing in a 6000 year old earth, or that humans roamed around with dinosaurs, or that gods and demons inhabit your lurid fantasy world. You're just prevented from imposing those Dark Age superstitions on public school kids.

It's just a fact that separation of church and state is a founding tenet of this nation. Christian theology has no place in the public school system. And in spite of your lies to the contrary, Christian creationism is nothing more than an attempt to force christianity on the school system.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Where will those judges be when the Almighty returns ? Satans pawns is what the judges are.

 

[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.

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.

What is the agenda of the ones pushing theories in schools that were not developed by the scientific method ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

You are so clueless about the history of our education system in the US and in England prior to that. It is the fundie evo's that are continually trying to force God out. Not the other way around bonehead.

Actually, religion and science were not always as mutually exclusive as they are today. Darwin played some role in the schism, as did religions general tendency to be uncomfortable with any idea that rocks the boat.

Over time, Christianity accepts some aspects of science that it initially rejected or suppressed, which is exactly why you have some Creationists that have abandoned the idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old, simply because there comes a point when you can only cover you eyes for so long. Now you have Creationists that still believe in creation but acknowledge that the earth cannot only be 6,000 years old.

Be that as it may, as many problems as I have with religion, I am not ignorant to its importance either. Some could argue reasonably that religion was in some respect responsible for science, because religious thought, or the contemplation of a force larger than one's immediate surroundings, brought humanity out of simply focusing on immediate survival and thinking about bigger things. Also, I've come the conclusion after careful consideration that many people need religion in order to have principles and at least behave somewhat like a decent human being. I don't need it for that, but many do. In other words, after many years of hating religion, I've come to terms with it.

Not Christians that trust the data and the ones that actually read the bible.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

You have not disproven that.

You are delusional. They have proven no such thing.

Of course they have.

No gawds are required for the existence of life.

Tell us why there was no designer needed ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

once again UR makes shit up .

How can you be so sure? Of course, what would one expect from someone who believes fairytales are facts.

this coming from a spewer of the worst kind of nonsense!

Do you know how life began daws ?

 

[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.

asked and answered...if you say it has not, then you're changing the subject .
you have answered it yourself.

Daws you lost credibility when you tried answering the question with the Abiogenesis theory

 

[Youwerecreated]

You sweeping miss the point when you propose that Christian creationism even remotely approaches any principle of science. I

It has been explained to you more times than I can count that religion is not science. Religious (Christian) creationism relies on supernatural intervention of specific sectarian gods which are, by definition, unseen, unknowable and absent any proofs.

How many more times does this need to be explained to you?

How is that ? language,technology,science was developed how ?

that's were not was...speaking of dumb downed

Simple question daws which you and the fundie refuse to awnswer ,why ?

 

[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 ?

you presented shit. the non questions you've foisted efinition of FOIST
1a : to introduce or insert surreptitiously or without warrant b : to force another to accept especially by stealth or deceit
2: to pass off as genuine or worthy <foist costly and valueless products on the public
on us have no credibility
: Definition of CREDIBILITY
1: the quality or power of inspiring belief <an account lacking in credibility>

due to an enormous lack of quantifiable proof.
what has been presented to you as support for "our" view is evidence, that you reject because it runs counter to your willful ignorance.

I am a critical thinker that is what separates you and I. I am willing to test my beliefs against reality are you ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Both creationism and ID infer a designer...

Correction: "Both creationism and ID PRESUME a designer..."

... but the science community have no evidence showing a designer was not needed.

Sure they do. It's not CONCLUSIVE evidence, but there is indeed evidence that a designer was not needed.

First, "proof" is NOT the standard applied--verifiable evidence and/or valid logic is the standard applied.

Secondly, there is no evidence, that is validated with even BASIC intellectual rigor, that petitions for the existence of this designer that creationism and intelligent-design PRESUMES.

why do you place a higher standard for God and creation then you do naturalism ?

We don't! We apply the exact same standard for both! EXACTLY the same.

In contrast, no evidence (of an intellectually rigorous nature) OR "proof" was required for you to hold your belief in the existence of this "designer" you posit--yet you demand "proof" (i.e.; conclusive and irrefutable evidence) for refuting your assertion of this "designer"--as if it should be considered valid in the first place. You (as typical of creationists and intelligent-design promoters) hold "materialism" or "naturalism" or "Darwinism" to an ENTIRELY different standard than you hold your own PREASSUMPTION.

Why is that? Why do YOU require a higher standard from "naturalism" than you do for this "designer" of yours and creationism?

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

This is just presumptive nonsense. It is a point that has been refuted a thousand times.

For the same reasons you've refused to address where the "life" of your "creator" came from, I predict that you'll just as resolutely refuse to address where the intelligence that accounts for the "complexity" of your designer came from.

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"--Douglas Adams​

Right,evolutionist infer natural processes are responsible for life but they lack evidence, The rest of your post is not worthy of a response.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

You have not disproven that.

You are delusional. They have proven no such thing.

Your appalling lack of education in the biological and natural sciences is your own failing.

You can't be serious

 

[Youwerecreated]

Under Christian thought, humans have free will, which made it possible for them to choose sin, not God. Under evolutionary philosophy, there is no free will for humans.

That doesn't make any sense. I'm guessing the logic is that if life evolves then it doesn't have free will? You lost me.

I don't support evolutionary philosophy. You will have to look elsewhere to substantiate the logical outcome of darwinian thought. You can start here...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9W1Y_PmhSI]Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy (5 of 11) - YouTube[/ame]

That my friends is blind faith in the speakers own words. He does not want to believe in a creator made it very clear.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Where will those judges be when the Almighty returns ? Satans pawns is what the judges are.

Coercion and intimidation by way of empty threats is precisely what humanity does not need.

There really is a certain pathology shared among you and the other fundie wherein you use your angry gods in flaccid attempts to frighten people. Your desire to do that underlies an illness.

You may be able frighten children and the gullible with your threats but they are clearly not going to be a part of the school system.