Creationists

[Gadawg73]

If someone's faith is so strong why worry about evolution?
If it is on such flimsy ground as some claim here why make a stink about it?
Because those that do have little to no faith in their own beliefs.

 

[Hollie]

If someone's faith is so strong why worry about evolution?
If it is on such flimsy ground as some claim here why make a stink about it?
Because those that do have little to no faith in their own beliefs.

Those are good observations and I think there are two issues facing the fundies in this thread. Christianity is a proselytizing religion and there are no "takers", especially considering (as much as "because of") the fundies who are proselytizing and secondly, biblical literalists reel at the discipline of science and the knowledge it brings.

If you step back and objectively observe the behavior of the fundies, you will see that they will reject the natural explanations over and over in favor of the supernatural assertions (they are hardly explanations), and they will always apply special pleadings when doing so. It's done in this thread-- despite clear evidence of various religions building themselves up on fraudulent terms (think about it: every religion other than your particular religion you must consider fraudulent else why aren't you a believer in them?), despite clear examples of such religion building by chicanery with people who are alive today who are doing it and culling the gullible, people exempt their particular religion from it as "being untrue".

Fundies do this because they desire to believe in it, and will not apply the strictures of true knowledge to the claims. So every piece of evidence that comes along that truly dismantles their belief system, they must reject and escape into the special pleading loophole.
And candidly, the mantra of virtually every single Theist I've ever debated with generally resolves to: "I don't care what evidence you got, I ain't believin' in it".

 

[Youwerecreated]

Thinking about tonight, I bet I am right about one thing: Hollie, Daws, Loki and NP are for four more years of handouts, entitlements, excessive spending, free money for failed alternative energy companies, DOJ gun running schemes, and wealth redistribution.

Yes,they think obama is gonna pay for their internet connection and give them free health care.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If someone's faith is so strong why worry about evolution?
If it is on such flimsy ground as some claim here why make a stink about it?
Because those that do have little to no faith in their own beliefs.

Those questions apply to your side as well.

 

[Youwerecreated]

again no proof of purpose or design.

get it?

There is plenty of evidence of purposeful design.

Can you imagine life absent of any of these.

1.DNA
2. Amino acids
3. Proteins
4. Heart
5. Lungs
6. Blood
7. Veins
8. Bones
9. Liver
10. Red an White blood cells
11. A nervous system
12. A brain that runs the nervous system
13. Oxygen
14. Water

Yes if you hold on to your views you believe in miracles.

since I don't "believe" your insistence that I do is just more desperate ignorance..
as to your list, none of it is proof of conjecture or purposeful design.
BTW, how long are we going to have to put up with your soup of the day buzz words,
(purposeful design.and miracles.) before you have an epiphany and realize we're not buying the bullshit?

Does everything I listed serve a purpose ? Now a lesson in design.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eJIZgQ8jB4]Intelligent Design: Evidence from Molecular Biology 9-8-2012 by Paul Giem - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Hollie]

Oh god(s), the neo-Harun Yahya'ist is back with his goofy videos.

 

[Hollie]

If someone's faith is so strong why worry about evolution?
If it is on such flimsy ground as some claim here why make a stink about it?
Because those that do have little to no faith in their own beliefs.

Those questions apply to your side as well.

Actually, that is false. There is clearly an issue where facts about science are important to be presented to counter and correct the falsified "quotes" and outright misrepresentations that you have posted

 

[ima]

Intelligent design points to an intelligent being that was created itself since IDers don't believe in unexplained creation and that everything was created by someone with intent. But by whom?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

sorry but no . faith in science is not at all like faith in religion as that article CLEARLY SHOWS.
THE REST IS A STEAMING PILE OF CREATIONIST SHIT..
1. DEFINE RECORDED HISTORY .
Humans have been creating non alphabetical recorded events (history)(glyphs and cave painting ) for 100,000 years or more.
making your false question moot.
the evolution of language is far better proof of evolution then assumed creation.
did god intentionally leave out a common language gene or did he just fuck up?
BTW the 7000 languages do have one thing in common vowels, A,E,O,U sometimes Y.
Also saying that the "source" we evolved from was primitive is extremely bias and ethnocentric.
since no life existed on earth for billions of years any "life source" that could take hold and thrive is anything but primitive.

Shall I define "faith" for you?

You say these drawings are 100,000 years or older but yet you have really no proof. You have faith that the science that told you how old these drawings are, are correct.

If you read the Bible, especially the part about the Tower of Babel, you will see that God was responsible for the different languages.

If not primitive then what? Developed? Modern? Sophisticated?

Which adjective would you rather I use?

It's interesting that fundies are quick to selectively condemn those evil scientists and their inaccurate methods... until they're sick and in need of a diagnostic medical expert. At that time, will they "pray" for a cure or will they seek competent medical advise?

I condemn no one. I just don't place any faith on their supposed findings because as I've said before they seek a desired outcome and throw out all experiments that do not conform.

I do not not confuse medical science with evolutionary science and you shouldn't either.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

If someone's faith is so strong why worry about evolution?
If it is on such flimsy ground as some claim here why make a stink about it?
Because those that do have little to no faith in their own beliefs.

Who is worried?

You can nore more prove the theory of evolution than I can prove God.

The difference is, I do not need proof in my beliefs. Evolutionist will spend the rest of eternity seeking to prove the unprovable.

 

[Gadawg73]

If someone's faith is so strong why worry about evolution?
If it is on such flimsy ground as some claim here why make a stink about it?
Because those that do have little to no faith in their own beliefs.

Those questions apply to your side as well.

Bull shit. You can believe and teach whatever you want in your religion classes.

 

[Gadawg73]

If someone's faith is so strong why worry about evolution?
If it is on such flimsy ground as some claim here why make a stink about it?
Because those that do have little to no faith in their own beliefs.

Who is worried?

You can nore more prove the theory of evolution than I can prove God.

The difference is, I do not need proof in my beliefs. Evolutionist will spend the rest of eternity seeking to prove the unprovable.

Take a look at yourself and see. I have arrowheads and other 4500 year old artifacts collected on my grandfathers property in Clintondale NY in the Hudson River valley.
Tell me you are the same human now as what those folks looked like.
YOU and us are constantly evolving.
That is the process. Take a look at cell structure from sharks and the wing structure of birds and the tree of evolution.
Have you taken Biology 101 in college?
Why is it that 9998 colleges and universities worldwide teach evolutionary theory as fact and only a handful do not?
"I do not care what they teach" is your answer.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

If someone's faith is so strong why worry about evolution?
If it is on such flimsy ground as some claim here why make a stink about it?
Because those that do have little to no faith in their own beliefs.

Who is worried?

You can nore more prove the theory of evolution than I can prove God.

The difference is, I do not need proof in my beliefs. Evolutionist will spend the rest of eternity seeking to prove the unprovable.

Take a look at yourself and see. I have arrowheads and other 4500 year old artifacts collected on my grandfathers property in Clintondale NY in the Hudson River valley.
Tell me you are the same human now as what those folks looked like.
YOU and us are constantly evolving.
That is the process. Take a look at cell structure from sharks and the wing structure of birds and the tree of evolution.
Have you taken Biology 101 in college?
Why is it that 9998 colleges and universities worldwide teach evolutionary theory as fact and only a handful do not?
"I do not care what they teach" is your answer.

How do you know how old those artifacts are?

Because a scientist told you and you have faith it's the truth?

They can teach anything they want. Isn't that what you said about religious teachings?

Nice try at answering for me. Just goes to show how little you know about me or the subject at hand.

Oh and finding similarities in different species doesn't provide evidence for evolution.

 

[pjnlsn]

Give us the miracle you believe that cause the beginning of life. I believe the creator did not use miracles like any other designer.

Unfortunately, perhaps, there is no proof of God, or even the possibility of such, given the most common definition of a god. Regardless of what else is or is not known.

 

[Hollie]

Shall I define "faith" for you?

You say these drawings are 100,000 years or older but yet you have really no proof. You have faith that the science that told you how old these drawings are, are correct.

If you read the Bible, especially the part about the Tower of Babel, you will see that God was responsible for the different languages.

If not primitive then what? Developed? Modern? Sophisticated?

Which adjective would you rather I use?

It's interesting that fundies are quick to selectively condemn those evil scientists and their inaccurate methods... until they're sick and in need of a diagnostic medical expert. At that time, will they "pray" for a cure or will they seek competent medical advise?

I condemn no one. I just don't place any faith on their supposed findings because as I've said before they seek a desired outcome and throw out all experiments that do not conform.

I do not not confuse medical science with evolutionary science and you shouldn't either.

Your use of the phrase "supposed findings" speaks volumes about the denial syndrome that sends fundies screaming into the night. Do you consider the cures for disease as the result of medical science nothing mire than "supposed findings"? How about biology, paleontology, earth history? Are those disciplines nothing more than "supposed findings" Or, do you selectively dismiss those science discoveries that conflict with a literal rendering of Genesis.

I think the terms "feeling, intuition, spirituality", adequately convey metaphysical concepts that are within the realm of supernaturalism. In the realm of the rational, natural world, we would replace those terms with such expressions as peer reviewed data, falsify, test and verify.

I thing you need to come to terms with and understand that reason and rationality operate in a realm separated from supernaturalism. As for establishing whether or not you believe the complexity in nature is the result of supernatural creation depends on whether you believe in metaphysics, creationism or some form of "intelligent design", typically modeled on a benevolent creator. It is possible that all living species and all of life as we know it --even all of the universe--could have been created by a cosmic, supernatural designer/creator who deceived us by giving all of our physical world the appearance of natural processes, adaptation over time and immense time spans. And of course, that deception could have been performed by any of the gods because as we know, your god(s) is only one conception of god(s). I've found that creationists recoil at this argument because if true, it means their preference for "intelligent designer" would be quite obviously lying about creation and that would not do for their arguments. So, creationists persist in using metaphysics as the core of their argument or they hope to show that the appearance of natural processes, adaptation over time and the immense time spans we see in nature reveals supernatural design if only the evidence is correctly interpreted by the methods they propose, (i.e., pseudoscience).

 

[ima]

Why are people who believe in Intelligent Design so stupid?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It's interesting that fundies are quick to selectively condemn those evil scientists and their inaccurate methods... until they're sick and in need of a diagnostic medical expert. At that time, will they "pray" for a cure or will they seek competent medical advise?

I condemn no one. I just don't place any faith on their supposed findings because as I've said before they seek a desired outcome and throw out all experiments that do not conform.

I do not not confuse medical science with evolutionary science and you shouldn't either.

Your use of the phrase "supposed findings" speaks volumes about the denial syndrome that sends fundies screaming into the night. Do you consider the cures for disease as the result of medical science nothing mire than "supposed findings"? How about biology, paleontology, earth history? Are those disciplines nothing more than "supposed findings" Or, do you selectively dismiss those science discoveries that conflict with a literal rendering of Genesis.

I think the terms "feeling, intuition, spirituality", adequately convey metaphysical concepts that are within the realm of supernaturalism. In the realm of the rational, natural world, we would replace those terms with such expressions as peer reviewed data, falsify, test and verify.

I thing you need to come to terms with and understand that reason and rationality operate in a realm separated from supernaturalism. As for establishing whether or not you believe the complexity in nature is the result of supernatural creation depends on whether you believe in metaphysics, creationism or some form of "intelligent design", typically modeled on a benevolent creator. It is possible that all living species and all of life as we know it --even all of the universe--could have been created by a cosmic, supernatural designer/creator who deceived us by giving all of our physical world the appearance of natural processes, adaptation over time and immense time spans. And of course, that deception could have been performed by any of the gods because as we know, your god(s) is only one conception of god(s). I've found that creationists recoil at this argument because if true, it means their preference for "intelligent designer" would be quite obviously lying about creation and that would not do for their arguments. So, creationists persist in using metaphysics as the core of their argument or they hope to show that the appearance of natural processes, adaptation over time and the immense time spans we see in nature reveals supernatural design if only the evidence is correctly interpreted by the methods they propose, (i.e., pseudoscience).

Denial? I don' tdeny the fact they think they can tell how old a rock is.

As I've stated before. Do not confuse medical science with evolutionary theory. It makes you look foolish and desperate.

 

[Hollie]

I condemn no one. I just don't place any faith on their supposed findings because as I've said before they seek a desired outcome and throw out all experiments that do not conform.

I do not not confuse medical science with evolutionary science and you shouldn't either.

Your use of the phrase "supposed findings" speaks volumes about the denial syndrome that sends fundies screaming into the night. Do you consider the cures for disease as the result of medical science nothing mire than "supposed findings"? How about biology, paleontology, earth history? Are those disciplines nothing more than "supposed findings" Or, do you selectively dismiss those science discoveries that conflict with a literal rendering of Genesis.

I think the terms "feeling, intuition, spirituality", adequately convey metaphysical concepts that are within the realm of supernaturalism. In the realm of the rational, natural world, we would replace those terms with such expressions as peer reviewed data, falsify, test and verify.

I thing you need to come to terms with and understand that reason and rationality operate in a realm separated from supernaturalism. As for establishing whether or not you believe the complexity in nature is the result of supernatural creation depends on whether you believe in metaphysics, creationism or some form of "intelligent design", typically modeled on a benevolent creator. It is possible that all living species and all of life as we know it --even all of the universe--could have been created by a cosmic, supernatural designer/creator who deceived us by giving all of our physical world the appearance of natural processes, adaptation over time and immense time spans. And of course, that deception could have been performed by any of the gods because as we know, your god(s) is only one conception of god(s). I've found that creationists recoil at this argument because if true, it means their preference for "intelligent designer" would be quite obviously lying about creation and that would not do for their arguments. So, creationists persist in using metaphysics as the core of their argument or they hope to show that the appearance of natural processes, adaptation over time and the immense time spans we see in nature reveals supernatural design if only the evidence is correctly interpreted by the methods they propose, (i.e., pseudoscience).

Denial? I don' tdeny the fact they think they can tell how old a rock is.

As I've stated before. Do not confuse medical science with evolutionary theory. It makes you look foolish and desperate.

Have you been convinced by religious authorities that various dating methods accepted by scientists is one huge conspiracy theory? For that to be the case, your conspiracy would necessarily require conspirators from all of the leading teaching universities in all the developed nations.

I think looking foolish and desperate is a function of Christian creationists who selectively accept only the science which they feel is not a direct threat to their religious beliefs. You should also be aware that aside from christianity and islam, there really does not exist an anti-science / anti-evolution movement.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Your use of the phrase "supposed findings" speaks volumes about the denial syndrome that sends fundies screaming into the night. Do you consider the cures for disease as the result of medical science nothing mire than "supposed findings"? How about biology, paleontology, earth history? Are those disciplines nothing more than "supposed findings" Or, do you selectively dismiss those science discoveries that conflict with a literal rendering of Genesis.

I think the terms "feeling, intuition, spirituality", adequately convey metaphysical concepts that are within the realm of supernaturalism. In the realm of the rational, natural world, we would replace those terms with such expressions as peer reviewed data, falsify, test and verify.

I thing you need to come to terms with and understand that reason and rationality operate in a realm separated from supernaturalism. As for establishing whether or not you believe the complexity in nature is the result of supernatural creation depends on whether you believe in metaphysics, creationism or some form of "intelligent design", typically modeled on a benevolent creator. It is possible that all living species and all of life as we know it --even all of the universe--could have been created by a cosmic, supernatural designer/creator who deceived us by giving all of our physical world the appearance of natural processes, adaptation over time and immense time spans. And of course, that deception could have been performed by any of the gods because as we know, your god(s) is only one conception of god(s). I've found that creationists recoil at this argument because if true, it means their preference for "intelligent designer" would be quite obviously lying about creation and that would not do for their arguments. So, creationists persist in using metaphysics as the core of their argument or they hope to show that the appearance of natural processes, adaptation over time and the immense time spans we see in nature reveals supernatural design if only the evidence is correctly interpreted by the methods they propose, (i.e., pseudoscience).

Denial? I don' tdeny the fact they think they can tell how old a rock is.

As I've stated before. Do not confuse medical science with evolutionary theory. It makes you look foolish and desperate.

Have you been convinced by religious authorities that various dating methods accepted by scientists is one huge conspiracy theory? For that to be the case, your conspiracy would necessarily require conspirators from all of the leading teaching universities in all the developed nations.

I think looking foolish and desperate is a function of Christian creationists who selectively accept only the science which they feel is not a direct threat to their religious beliefs. You should also be aware that aside from christianity and islam, there really does not exist an anti-science / anti-evolution movement.

No. No religious authority was needed to convince me that dating methods are flawed.

Your foolishly veiled insult is noted.

 

[Hollie]

Denial? I don' tdeny the fact they think they can tell how old a rock is.

As I've stated before. Do not confuse medical science with evolutionary theory. It makes you look foolish and desperate.

Have you been convinced by religious authorities that various dating methods accepted by scientists is one huge conspiracy theory? For that to be the case, your conspiracy would necessarily require conspirators from all of the leading teaching universities in all the developed nations.

I think looking foolish and desperate is a function of Christian creationists who selectively accept only the science which they feel is not a direct threat to their religious beliefs. You should also be aware that aside from christianity and islam, there really does not exist an anti-science / anti-evolution movement.

No. No religious authority was needed to convince me that dating methods are flawed.

Your foolishly veiled insult is noted.

Why do think dating methods are flawed? Do you believe there is a vast conspiracy among leading universities and scientists across the globe? Have you been convinced of a 6,000 year old earth when experimentation, physical data and evidence depicts a very ancient universe?

Was your earlier insult to be ignored? I've come to expect insults from religious people when challenges to their beliefs are presented. Do you enter a public discussion board and expect others to accept "because I say so claims"?