Creationists

[emilynghiem]

Really?! What proof was this?!!!

I've witnessed lives that were changed immediatly after accepting Jesus as their Savior. Mine included. I would not be where I'm at now if not for the grace of God.

how did I know you'd say that...people changing their behavior is no proof that Jesus had any thing to do with it.

it has far more to do with with early indoctrination to a belief system and the individual personality of the "acceptor".
studies have shown that nearly all "the saved" are undereducated and highly sugestable.
there are also the conditions called suspension of disbelief and crowd psychology

Hi Daws: don't mean to bust the stereotype on this, but I can cite at least 2-3 neurosurgeons that changed their minds when they saw proof, even incorporating healing prayer into their practice. One doctor found it so much more effective, he no longer practices neurosurgery as he did for over 12 years before discovering that spiritual healing was real (see Dr. Phillip Goldfedder, Healing Is Yours). Another well known psychiatrist and author Dr. Scott Peck wrote a book about "how he changed his mind" about exorcism and deliverance methods of diagnosis and treatment, after he observed this process himself with a team that work with two "incureable" schizophrenic patients and saw them regain their minds and wills back from being hijacked by demonic obsessions beyond their control. So this is a growing field, and you will see more scientists and medical research backing up what Christians have been saying about the power of forgiveness prayer and therapy on healing the mind and body.

Sources: "Healing" by Dr. Francis MacNutt Christian Healing Ministries
"Glimpses of the Devil" by Dr. Scott M. Peck
Dr. Phillip Goldfedder Healing Is Yours
My friend Olivia Reiner who works with children and families in the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX, and has 30 years of successful testimonies and cases 713-829-0899

This can be proven by science, so there is no need to judge anyone by IQ or education level.
It's as natural as the laws of gravity, once you understand how spiritual healing works, then people can work with these methods ALONG WITH science and medicine to heal the whole person, body mind and spirit, instead of leaving out steps where healing is obstructed. The point of spiritual healing is to identify and remove issues or conflicts of "unforgiveness" keeping people stuck and blocking their minds and bodies from healing by natural design.

 

[pjnlsn]

Answer my question please.

By the definition of 'begin' and 'origin,' if the other terms coincide, a question asking if the origin of A is the beginning of B will have an affirmative answer.

"When did * begin if not at the origin of *?" or: "* began when it originated"

But, if by chance you thought that an answer to your question would be of some great value, it's merely true by definition.

Also, if you meant to link this with other things you have written or quoted:


Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is, and defining something a certain way doesn't mean anyone you communicate with defines it similarly.

You could define evolutionary theory as the change from when there was no cellular matter to when there was, you could say evolutionary theory is the study of strawberry cultivation, it's still not, if I know what he means, what he is talking about, in the posts which precede the above by a few pages. What has been referenced is that section of biology.

If perhaps your question bolded at the top stands alone, and you associate it with nothing, then so be it. But the answer is unsurprising, if you expected otherwise.

Definiton of "origin":

1: ancestry, parentage
2(a) : rise, beginning, or derivation from a source (b) : the point at which something begins or rises or from which it derives <the origin of the custom>; also : something that creates, causes, or gives rise to another <a spring is the origin of the brook>

If "origin" was meant as something significantly different than "beginning," then what? Otherwise, and, again:

If perhaps your question [...] at the top stands alone, and you associate it with nothing, then so be it. But the answer is unsurprising, if you expected otherwise.

 

[Hollie]

What are gawds? Humanity hasn't been wiped from the planet.

6,000 years old is a number you keep bringing up. Not me.

It's clear that you cannot have an honest debate. You have done nothing but pettifog, insult and ridicule that which you don't believe nor know anything about.

You cannot even muster a defensible argument to support your position without cut and pasting.

I'll take your inability to discuss manners in a rational manner as a concession.

Class dismissed.

Bailing out when the questions are difficult, as usual. That's a common tactic of fundies. It's a simple matter to make grandiose claims and cut and paste alleged bible prophesies but when you're pressed to defend such silliness, you head for the exits in panic.

I will admit to an inability to discuss supernaturalism, your alleged spirit world, magic and a litany of creationist claims to magic in a rational fashion when creationists are unable to themselves discuss such silliness in a rational manner.

What is rational about supermagicalism?

I've answered your questions. And I haven't bailed out on or dodged any of them with the exception of the strawmen arguments you created. Those are not worth my time.

You haven't challenged any prophecies for me to have to defend. Oh but that's just yet another strawman of your creation.

Supermagicalism isn't even a word. Just another creation of your own delusional thinking.

I think to be fair, what you have answered was more a matter of posting creationist boilerplate.

I think that only zealots and/or the foolish would make the claim that they're partisan religious beliefs alone possess some ultimate "truth" that derives from belief in the supernatural. When someone has 100% conviction in a belief system supported by 0% facts, we have very valid reasons to suspect fraud. Blind and unthinking devotion to ancient myths may be acceptable when it's internal but as we’re aware, such unquestioning and literal acceptances of ancient myths can too often be used as a bloody truncheon to force that belief on others.

I think that the problem most people have with rationality is that they perceive that it doesn't address human intangible issues such as emotions; hence they feel reason and rationality is somehow inadequate. It's this lack of reason that causes zealots to maintain that the entire body of knowledge regarding the physical sciences is a grand conspiracy. Since there is no quantifiable way to prove when one's faith is "true" or not, then you have no way of knowing your faith is not totally false.

Faith is dangerous when it insists against evidence that shows it contrary. Then it tends to be blind fanaticism, wherein unsupported claims take on immutable law. In human beings, in the extreme, this leads to flying airplanes full of innocent people into buildings full of other innocent people or it can lead to fundie christian zealots believing in worldwide conspiracies..

 

[Hollie]

I've witnessed lives that were changed immediatly after accepting Jesus as their Savior. Mine included. I would not be where I'm at now if not for the grace of God.

how did I know you'd say that...people changing their behavior is no proof that Jesus had any thing to do with it.

it has far more to do with with early indoctrination to a belief system and the individual personality of the "acceptor".
studies have shown that nearly all "the saved" are undereducated and highly sugestable.
there are also the conditions called suspension of disbelief and crowd psychology

Hi Daws: don't mean to bust the stereotype on this, but I can cite at least 2-3 neurosurgeons that changed their minds when they saw proof, even incorporating healing prayer into their practice. One doctor found it so much more effective, he no longer practices neurosurgery as he did for over 12 years before discovering that spiritual healing was real (see Dr. Phillip Goldfedder, Healing Is Yours). Another well known psychiatrist and author Dr. Scott Peck wrote a book about "how he changed his mind" about exorcism and deliverance methods of diagnosis and treatment, after he observed this process himself with a team that work with two "incureable" schizophrenic patients and saw them regain their minds and wills back from being hijacked by demonic obsessions beyond their control. So this is a growing field, and you will see more scientists and medical research backing up what Christians have been saying about the power of forgiveness prayer and therapy on healing the mind and body.

Sources: "Healing" by Dr. Francis MacNutt Christian Healing Ministries
"Glimpses of the Devil" by Dr. Scott M. Peck
Dr. Phillip Goldfedder Healing Is Yours
My friend Olivia Reiner who works with children and families in the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX, and has 30 years of successful testimonies and cases 713-829-0899

This can be proven by science, so there is no need to judge anyone by IQ or education level.
It's as natural as the laws of gravity, once you understand how spiritual healing works, then people can work with these methods ALONG WITH science and medicine to heal the whole person, body mind and spirit, instead of leaving out steps where healing is obstructed. The point of spiritual healing is to identify and remove issues or conflicts of "unforgiveness" keeping people stuck and blocking their minds and bodies from healing by natural design.

Sorry, but there is no such thing as "spiritual healing". If you are suggesting that prayers to one or more of the gods is going to heal broken bones or cure disease, you will need to provide some verified case studies.

One certainly can read tea leaves, rattle bones, light smelly incense or pray in an attempt to cure disease, there's just no reason to believe that it will work. In fact, if you, as a parent, chose to deny competent medical care to a child in favor of reading tea leaves, rattling bones, lighting smelly incense or praying, you can be arrested and charged with a criminal offense.

The fact is, there is no evidence to indicate that reading tea leaves, rattling bones, lighting smelly incense or praying has ever cured disease. If you know otherwise, please demonstrate your evidence.

Never, ever, has anyone who has had a missing limb suddenly grown one back in alllll the millions of people who trek to Lourdes or Fatima or other such places. Never. It's always "unseen" diseases -- no one has ever had their spine regenerated. Never. No one has ever been healed by gods. At best, it's their own belief they were healed which healed them, which is called "psychosomatic" -- cancer and other diseases are known to go into spontaneous remission, and even we atheists are known to self cure. gods have nothing to do with it, as evidenced by our life span-- the farther back you go, the less medicine there was, the quicker people croaked. At Jesus' time, the life expectancy was about 40 years. Today it's 65. The difference? Rational medicine and science. So, since people died much earlier back in those days, again we can blame god for not getting his lazy butt up and healing them. People died of toothaches. But, typically, the believer attributes all the good to gods, and nothing whatsoever to man. Next time you need surgery-- go to god. I'll go to a doctor. We'll see who lives and who dies.

 

[UltimateReality]

I can only take your inability to post a legitimate question as an admission regarding the failure of your argument.

Your lack of study and knowledge regarding science is not made less bankrupt by failed attempts at defending a sectarian religious viewpoint.

Manipulitive post aimed at baiting the other poster into an educational credentials discussion. Please try to keep your posts on topic. Thanks.

You poor, dear.

Can you entertain us with your relentless stalking and posting of gargantuan fonts?

Try to follow the discussion and entertain us with more bible thumping.

The term "Bible thumping" should be considered an offensive and bigoted remark. Please stick to the discussion.

 

[UltimateReality]

hey slapdick you already did (Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona)

I've posted my educational background several times...no needed to post it again.

Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona (7 words)

I've posted my educational background several times...no needed to post it again. (13 words)

Wouldn't it have been easier just to post it again?

Be honest, dear. You actually attended the class of Friday afternoon, graduating from the Jimmy Swaggert school of "Pants Down Around the Ankles, right?

These types of remarks really don't add anything to the discussion. Please try to keep it on an adult level.

 

[UltimateReality]

That's interesting. So, can you confirm for us that Noah brought provisions to sustain carnivorous animals for many months after the flood? Was there competition for food between the more modern carnivores and dinosaurs? I'd be curious to know if the carnivorous dinosaurs could similarly survive on a vegetarian diet as you claim to know lions and tigers could do.

I can no more confirm the events on the Ark as you can confirm the beginning of evolution. But I do know that many canivores can manage on a vegetarian diet. I'll concede that they cannot maintain such a diet for a great length of time.

But the Ark had many animals that could multiply in a matter of days. For instance a rabbits gestation period is 28 to 30 days. The Opposum 12 to 13 days.

The dinosaur bit is just more pettifogging on your part.

You don't know your creationist history. Ken Ham's museum clearly depicts humans frollicking with dinosaurs. Could that have been before Noah's cruise?

I'm sure I am not the only one that has noticed you never address the valid ID Theory arguments. You keep picking the same two or three Creationist arguments that only one person posting her believes and continue to poke fun at them in a feeble attempt to make yourself look more intelligent. Just FYI, it's not working.

 

[UltimateReality]

I've witnessed lives that were changed immediatly after accepting Jesus as their Savior. Mine included. I would not be where I'm at now if not for the grace of God.

how did I know you'd say that...people changing their behavior is no proof that Jesus had any thing to do with it.

it has far more to do with with early indoctrination to a belief system and the individual personality of the "acceptor".
studies have shown that nearly all "the saved" are undereducated and highly sugestable.
there are also the conditions called suspension of disbelief and crowd psychology

People have changed their lives after accepting David Koresh as a prophet. Charismatic figures like Jim Jones can persuade the gullible to end their lives. People sacrificed animals to appease your gawds.

There are always rubes ripe to be fleeced.

Again, if you want to discuss all the horrific things that have been done in the name of atheism, please let me know. Otherwise, your attacks on a few fringe lunatics are not representative of the large group you are attempting a bigoted attack against. You wouldn't last a week as an employer, because in case you weren't aware of it, discrimination based on religion is against the law. For now it is obvious you enjoy the freedom internet forums provide for you to engage in bigoted behavior and hate speech. But to whose detriment? Certainly not the people you are attacking. I can assure you that no one here is losing sleep over your racist behavior and old fashioned ignorance that spurs your attacks on others that don't think exactly like you. In the end, only your mental health will suffer from all the seething hate in you. I actually feel compassion for you. You are so lost and apparently longing for human interaction.

 

[UltimateReality]

How can a 2000 year old dead guy that might not even have existed save you today? That makes no sense.

But yet the God that spat stars out of his mouth humbled himself and became human. And not a human born to royalty, but born to the poorest and most humble family, so much so that he was born in a stable and laid in a feeding trough. You may have heard of this story. It is actually a national holiday and it's called Christmas.

another biblical fiction .
christmas is a usurped holiday : The History of Christmas and Its Pagan Origins
Christmas from a Non-Christian Perspective
Jennifer Claerr, Yahoo! Contributor Network
Nov 10, 2007 "Share your voice on Yahoo! websites. Start Here."
.More:Christmas.Christmas Cakes.tweet27PrintFlagCloseMany people suffer from the misconception that Christmas is a Christian holiday. The earliest history of Christmas is composed of "pagan" (non-Christian) fertility rites and practices which predate Jesus by centuries. The truth is, in short, the real history of Christmas has nothing to do with Christianity. Many of the traditions which we hold dear, such as decorating Christmas trees, singing Christmas carols, and giving Christmas gifts, are rooted in the traditions of non-Christian religions.
We do not observe Christmas on December 25th because it was the date in history when Jesus was born. Nobody knows exactly what that date was, but references in the Bible show it most likely did not take place in winter. Rather it is because this was the date that the Romans historically celebrated the winter solstice. This celebration was about dies natalis solis invicti: the day of the birth of the unconquerable sun, which took place on December 22nd. The winter solstice held the promise of the return of springtime and earthly renewal. In Roman history, this was the time of Saturnalia, honoring the God of Agriculture, for the week before the solstice, and Juvenalia, a feast in honor of the children of Rome, around the same time. On the 25th of the month they celebrated the birth of the sun-god Mithra. Masters and servants traded places temporarily, and everybody had a rollicking good time. It was during Saturnalia that the tradition of exchanging gifts was established. They gave one another Stenae or fruits which were intended to bring good luck. The Romans placed an enormous amount of pressure on the early Christians to rejoice along with them, and around the time of the fourth century, they began to celebrate Christmas around the same time. It was inevitable that Christians should make a connection between the rebirth of the sun and the birth of the Son.

In the Middle Ages, Christmas was a raucous, drunken celebration which resembled a carnival. Poor people would go on a Christmas"trick or treat" around the richer neighborhoods, causing them misery if they didn't get what they wanted.

Many other pagan traditions have been incorporated into Christmas. Yule was celebrated by the Norse in Scandanavia around the time of the winter solstice by bringing in large logs for the fire, in recognition of the eventual return of the sun. It could take as much as twelve days for the log to burn down. Meanwhile, the Norse would feast. The holiday usually lasted through January.

The Germans did not so much celebrate as honor the winter solstice. They believed that their god, Oden, flew through the sky at night passing judgment on his people. Generally, they would stay indoors during this season. When the Germanic people were converted to Christianity, their winter festival was naturally adopted as a celebration of the birth of Christ.

To the pagans, evergreens served as a symbol of winter's inability to stop the cycle of renewal. They were important fertility symbols which were highly revered by many cultures, including the Germans and the Celts. They helped to soothe the pagans' fears that the sun would never return, and that winter would reign eternal.

Contrary to popular belief, the tradition of cutting down a Christmas tree, bringing it into the home and decorating it is not pagan in origin, and did not appear until centuries after Christ's broth. The Romans decorated their homes and temples with evergreen clippings, but allowed the trees to remain intact, often decorating live trees with religious icons. The Druids tied fruit to the branches of live trees, and baked cakes in the shape of fish, birds and other animals, to offer to their god, Woden. We also inherited the tradition of kissing under the mistletoe from the Druids. The Christmas tree tradition we currently practice had its origins in 16th century Western Germany. "Paradise trees" were cut down to commemorate the Feast of Adam and Eve, which took place on Christmas eve every year.

Many Christians were opposed to the merrymaking and pagan origins of the Christmas festivities, especially the more solemn Christians such as the Puritans. In England in 1645, Christmas was actually canceled. In Boston between 1659 and 1681 Christmas was outlawed, and merrymakers incurred fines for their mirth.

Early carols were sung in a circle dance by European Celts in medieval times, as a part of their fertility rituals, and were later adopted as a way to celebrate Christmas. As a result they became unpopular among Christian authority. Over the ages multiple attempts have been made to ban Christmas carols. Christmas carols enjoyed a revival when St. Francis of Assisi began to favor a more joyous celebration of the Christmas season. Another pagan custom called wassailing, or singing from door to door, also became very popular among Christmas celebrants.

Many people mistakenly state that "Jesus is the reason for the season." They do so, because they believe people have lost sight of the true meaning of Christmas. It simply isn't true. Christmas can be celebrated as completely secular because ultimately it is not a Christian holiday. Christmas goes beyond religious and cultural differences, and addresses something universal in all of us. For this reason it has become popular in non-Christian countries such as Japan. The truth is that Christian and pagan traditions have a great deal in common. The real need behind all of these traditions was to find a source of joy, happiness, hope, goodwill and generosity. There was a need to find ways to cope with our fears about the darkness and cold of wintertime, and to celebrate the return of the sun and the longer days of spring.

In fact, Christianity and pre-Christian pagan religion have a great deal in common. Various pagan religions shared the Christian practice of worshiping a god-man who could offer salvation in the form of heaven or condemnation in the form of hell. The concept that a son of God could be born of a mortal woman is seen in many different religions spanning the globe. These concepts are universal, except to those who are extremely divisive and have a tendency to pick nits.

The pagans were smart people who had quite a few good ideas. They respected the earth, and we have benefited greatly from their practices. There is no reason for Christians to fear "pagan" universal and earth-centered traditions. At Christmas, rather than fretting that non-Christians have forgotten about Jesus we should focus on the deeper purpose of the holiday. The main problem is that Christmas has become far too commercial and this has gotten us away from the pagan tradition of connecting with the earth. Instead, we spend the whole holiday trashing the planet with excessive buying, and cutting down millions of Christmas trees which must then be discarded less than a month later. Environmental destruction and consumerism has passed for merrymaking for many years now, but it's an empty tradition. Celebrating the fertility of the earth is better by far. There is a strong need for a return to the family- and society-centered traditions which were established in Roman times and reestablished in the 19th century. Washington Irving's writings helped Americans to establish Christmas as a time of giving to those who are most in need, and bridging the gap between the rich and the poor. These traditions had their roots in the practices of the real St. Nicholas, who lived in Myra in the fourth century A.D. He was born rich and inherited a great deal of money on the death of his parents, all of which he gave away. St. Nicholas is said to have thrown bags of gold into the windows of dowerless girls to save them from lives of prostitution or slavery. He was also well know for his love and protection of children. St. Nicholas is the figure behind our modern day Santa Claus myth of a generous man who delivered hand-made toys to children all over the world.

So rather than viewing Christmas as a time to break the bank, we can take advantage of it as a time to help the less fortunate. Many people ask that their friends and loved ones give to charity rather than buy them a gift. This sort of gift giving is popular among yogis who see Christmas as a way to extend their practice.

Fortunately there are many ways to reconnect with the original purpose and meaning of Christmas. Small traditions, such as placing apples or cookies on the tree, or decorating a live tree instead of a cut one, are a good way to get in touch with the way that our ancestors celebrated Christmas. Respecting the planet and understanding its powers and its limitations are important. The pagans were aware of the changing seasons and found earth-centered and social ways to cope with them. They were aware and appreciative of the sun. They exchanged gifts, but their gift exchange was not commercialized. Instead the focus was on bringing good fortune. Giving gifts of fruit has been a common practice throughout history, and is still popular today.

The Christmas holiday season is about unity, not divisiveness. At the holiday season we should forget about our religious differences, abandon commercialism and think about what is best for the planet and for humanity.

The History of Christmas and Its Pagan Origins - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

Daws, I'm not sure what your point is. Everything you have posted is fairly accurate and fulfills the words Christ spoke in the Bible. Christ claimed during his ministry on earth that the pagans would eventually become the Christian Church. The fact that many pagan rituals became Christian holidays is exactly what Christ stated would happen. So you have just presented evidence for another prophecy that was fulfilled.

 

[UltimateReality]

Why do you think such little detail is devoted to the gawds wiping humanity from the planet? That seems like an important detail.

Any thoughts as to why the gawds would litter the planet with fosill relics that depict an ancient earth when the planet is only 6,000 years old?

Have the gawds played a cruel joke on you?

What are gawds? Humanity hasn't been wiped from the planet.

6,000 years old is a number you keep bringing up. Not me.

It's clear that you cannot have an honest debate. You have done nothing but pettifog, insult and ridicule that which you don't believe nor know anything about.

You cannot even muster a defensible argument to support your position without cut and pasting.

I'll take your inability to discuss manners in a rational manner as a concession.

Class dismissed.

Bailing out when the questions are difficult, as usual. That's a common tactic of fundies. It's a simple matter to make grandiose claims and cut and paste alleged bible prophesies but when you're pressed to defend such silliness, you head for the exits in panic.

I will admit to an inability to discuss supernaturalism, your alleged spirit world, magic and a litany of creationist claims to magic in a rational fashion when creationists are unable to themselves discuss such silliness in a rational manner.

What is rational about supermagicalism?

Hollie, why is that you never discuss the evidence presented from ID Theory? You continue to attack religious beliefs as a substitute for a scientific discussion. Is it because you don't feel comfortable debating the matter on its scientific merit?

 

[UltimateReality]

hey slapdick you already did (Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona)

I've posted my educational background several times...no needed to post it again.

Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona (7 words)

I've posted my educational background several times...no needed to post it again. (13 words)

Wouldn't it have been easier just to post it again?

no.. why? funny that you would get all anal about the number of words as you've used ten of thousands to describe A steaming pile of shit (5) words.

Wow. That went right over your head. It only took me 7 words to post my educational background. I was commenting that instead of dodging the question with 13 words, wouldn't have been easier just to post up what you studied and where you went to school?

 

[newpolitics]

What are gawds? Humanity hasn't been wiped from the planet.

6,000 years old is a number you keep bringing up. Not me.

It's clear that you cannot have an honest debate. You have done nothing but pettifog, insult and ridicule that which you don't believe nor know anything about.

You cannot even muster a defensible argument to support your position without cut and pasting.

I'll take your inability to discuss manners in a rational manner as a concession.

Class dismissed.

Bailing out when the questions are difficult, as usual. That's a common tactic of fundies. It's a simple matter to make grandiose claims and cut and paste alleged bible prophesies but when you're pressed to defend such silliness, you head for the exits in panic.

I will admit to an inability to discuss supernaturalism, your alleged spirit world, magic and a litany of creationist claims to magic in a rational fashion when creationists are unable to themselves discuss such silliness in a rational manner.

What is rational about supermagicalism?

Hollie, why is that you never discuss the evidence presented from ID Theory? You continue to attack religious beliefs as a substitute for a scientific discussion. Is it because you don't feel comfortable debating the matter on its scientific merit?

If I may step in here and venture to guess: it is probably because there is no evidence for the ID hypothesis. It is not a theory. It is an argument from ignorance.

 

[UltimateReality]

Bailing out when the questions are difficult, as usual. That's a common tactic of fundies. It's a simple matter to make grandiose claims and cut and paste alleged bible prophesies but when you're pressed to defend such silliness, you head for the exits in panic.

I will admit to an inability to discuss supernaturalism, your alleged spirit world, magic and a litany of creationist claims to magic in a rational fashion when creationists are unable to themselves discuss such silliness in a rational manner.

What is rational about supermagicalism?

I've answered your questions. And I haven't bailed out on or dodged any of them with the exception of the strawmen arguments you created. Those are not worth my time.

You haven't challenged any prophecies for me to have to defend. Oh but that's just yet another strawman of your creation.

Supermagicalism isn't even a word. Just another creation of your own delusional thinking.

I think to be fair, what you have answered was more a matter of posting creationist boilerplate.

I think that only zealots and/or the foolish would make the claim that they're partisan religious beliefs alone possess some ultimate "truth" that derives from belief in the supernatural. When someone has 100% conviction in a belief system supported by 0% facts, we have very valid reasons to suspect fraud. Blind and unthinking devotion to ancient myths may be acceptable when it's internal but as we’re aware, such unquestioning and literal acceptances of ancient myths can too often be used as a bloody truncheon to force that belief on others. ...

Please clarify. Are you describing the Darwin Myth and the fact that atheist use it to force their beliefs on others?

 

[UltimateReality]

Bailing out when the questions are difficult, as usual. That's a common tactic of fundies. It's a simple matter to make grandiose claims and cut and paste alleged bible prophesies but when you're pressed to defend such silliness, you head for the exits in panic.

I will admit to an inability to discuss supernaturalism, your alleged spirit world, magic and a litany of creationist claims to magic in a rational fashion when creationists are unable to themselves discuss such silliness in a rational manner.

What is rational about supermagicalism?

Hollie, why is that you never discuss the evidence presented from ID Theory? You continue to attack religious beliefs as a substitute for a scientific discussion. Is it because you don't feel comfortable debating the matter on its scientific merit?

If I may step in here and venture to guess: it is probably because there is no evidence for the ID hypothesis. It is not a theory. It is an argument from ignorance.

That is your opinion, but it comes from a denial of the science involved. The only ignorance is your unfamiliarity with the merits of the arguments. Please read Signature in the Cell and then get back to me. You will see your ignorant statement above totally exposed for the lie which you've obviously bought hook line and sinker from the atheist websites you frequent. Only a truly ignorant person would attempt to discredit something they have never actually read.

 

[Intense]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

Not all Creationists believe the Earth is 6000 Years old. You might need to get out more.

Trick Question, being that you are into Children's Stories, How long was the first Day?

 

[pjnlsn]

I've answered your questions. And I haven't bailed out on or dodged any of them with the exception of the strawmen arguments you created. Those are not worth my time.

You haven't challenged any prophecies for me to have to defend. Oh but that's just yet another strawman of your creation.

Supermagicalism isn't even a word. Just another creation of your own delusional thinking.

I think to be fair, what you have answered was more a matter of posting creationist boilerplate.

I think that only zealots and/or the foolish would make the claim that they're partisan religious beliefs alone possess some ultimate "truth" that derives from belief in the supernatural. When someone has 100% conviction in a belief system supported by 0% facts, we have very valid reasons to suspect fraud. Blind and unthinking devotion to ancient myths may be acceptable when it's internal but as we’re aware, such unquestioning and literal acceptances of ancient myths can too often be used as a bloody truncheon to force that belief on others. ...

Please clarify. Are you describing the Darwin Myth and the fact that atheist use it to force their beliefs on others?

Reference to phrase; As before:

Whatever you call it, barring differences in what the term is referencing or is defined, and how words in descriptions of it are defined; Whether you say it's a myth, [...] it is, at the very, very least, likely. Assuming you're talking about 'Biological History' as I've written of before.

 

[pjnlsn]

Hollie, why is that you never discuss the evidence presented from ID Theory? You continue to attack religious beliefs as a substitute for a scientific discussion. Is it because you don't feel comfortable debating the matter on its scientific merit?

If I may step in here and venture to guess: it is probably because there is no evidence for the ID hypothesis. It is not a theory. It is an argument from ignorance.

That is your opinion, but it comes from a denial of the science involved. The only ignorance is your unfamiliarity with the merits of the arguments. Please read Signature in the Cell and then get back to me. You will see your ignorant statement above totally exposed for the lie which you've obviously bought hook line and sinker from the atheist websites you frequent. Only a truly ignorant person would attempt to discredit something they have never actually read.

You are being presumptuous.

In any case, regardless of how anyone words this idea, "Signature in the Cell" does not establish that there was a designer, and that it did create or influence the development of certain aspects of what one might call proto-life, which is the issue most would be concerned with regarding the book, and which is what 'newpolitics' is getting at.

This is not to say that the book is simply a long collection of falsified statements, if, in writing something which objects to a statement by the user known as 'newpolitics,' stating that what he has written is in conflict with "the science," you refer to that most of the book takes the form of a history of various aspects of chemistry and biology, in particular the discovery of the various chemical forms through which life is maintained and given anchor, so to speak, and that all these facts are true.

However, the book does not justify that there is an intelligent designer, and to say so is not to contradict the chronological succession of facts contained in the book, even if, as you apparently make reference to, these are facts gathered by scientific means.

 

[UltimateReality]

If I may step in here and venture to guess: it is probably because there is no evidence for the ID hypothesis. It is not a theory. It is an argument from ignorance.

That is your opinion, but it comes from a denial of the science involved. The only ignorance is your unfamiliarity with the merits of the arguments. Please read Signature in the Cell and then get back to me. You will see your ignorant statement above totally exposed for the lie which you've obviously bought hook line and sinker from the atheist websites you frequent. Only a truly ignorant person would attempt to discredit something they have never actually read.

You are being presumptuous.

In any case, regardless of how anyone words this idea, "Signature in the Cell" does not establish that there was a designer, and that it did create or influence the development of certain aspects of what one might call proto-life, which is the issue most would be concerned with regarding the book, and which is what 'newpolitics' is getting at.

This is not to say that the book is simply a long collection of falsified statements, if, in writing something which objects to a statement by the user known as 'newpolitics,' stating that what he has written is in conflict with "the science," you refer to that most of the book takes the form of a history of various aspects of chemistry and biology, in particular the discovery of the various chemical forms through which life is maintained and given anchor, so to speak, and that all these facts are true.

However, the book does not justify that there is an intelligent designer, and to say so is not to contradict the chronological succession of facts contained in the book, even if, as you apparently make reference to, these are facts gathered by scientific means.

Ignorant poster #2. You obviously haven't read the book based on both your completely false, bolded comments above, so your claims are just as preposterous and ignorant as NP's. Instead of surfing atheist websites for your misinformation, if you really want to speak intelligently on the topic, you need to have read it. If you are truly interested in the truth, which I seriously doubt you are, then take a cue from the author Meyer, who rigorously investigated all the opposing viewpoints and weighs in on each one. The fact he has examined the current materialistic thinking on origins lends just that much more credibility to his argument when he finally presents the argument for intelligent agent as the best possible explanation for the source of dna. His scientific theory has yet to be falsified, and provides the "best explanation" for dna since it is directly related to observable phenomena we see today, not some as of yet not proven 43 step magical process proposed by materialists. The book absolutely makes a case for an intelligent agent being responsible for the digital code in dna. It refutes both the chance and necessity arguments for the origins of dna.

Perhaps you don't quite understand. The first cell containing replicating code originated some 3 to 4 billion years ago. This was an event of tremendous significance and occurred in the distant past. It no longer occurs today. We do not see life spontaneously arising in "warm little ponds". What we do find is intelligent agent after intelligent agent producing digital code. So falsifiability is fairly simple. Find a specifiable, functional digital code originating spontaneously somewhere, anywhere, on earth right now, that does not have an intelligent agent as its source. You buddy Dawkins has tried and failed with his little computer code that knows the outcome before it begins but so far no one has even come close. Deny all you want, but the theory posited by Meyer is a legitimate, testable and falsifiable scientific theory, and if you are to remain intellectually honest, you must absolutely admit it as so. Scientists even continue to bolster the theory and provide more evidence, not less, of the similarity of dna to flash memory and binary information storage. In fact, Harvard students have effectively used dna as a digital storage medium.

Go actually read the book and then get back to me with your thoughtful rebuttals.

 

[UltimateReality]

I think to be fair, what you have answered was more a matter of posting creationist boilerplate.

I think that only zealots and/or the foolish would make the claim that they're partisan religious beliefs alone possess some ultimate "truth" that derives from belief in the supernatural. When someone has 100% conviction in a belief system supported by 0% facts, we have very valid reasons to suspect fraud. Blind and unthinking devotion to ancient myths may be acceptable when it's internal but as we&#8217;re aware, such unquestioning and literal acceptances of ancient myths can too often be used as a bloody truncheon to force that belief on others. ...

Please clarify. Are you describing the Darwin Myth and the fact that atheist use it to force their beliefs on others?

Reference to phrase; As before:

Whatever you call it, barring differences in what the term is referencing or is defined, and how words in descriptions of it are defined; Whether you say it's a myth, [...] it is, at the very, very least, likely. Assuming you're talking about 'Biological History' as I've written of before.

Repeating the same phrase over and over won't make it come true. It is NOT very, very, very likely and while it makes for a nice story, there is not a single modern example of natural selection acting on a POSITIVE or ADDITIVE mutation to bring about a change in a particular species phenotype. And there certainly isn't a shred of evidence to support that new species result from such a process. Before you quote the Ecoli experiments, you should know that the citrate digestion mutation came from a reduction in genetic information, not an additive one.

 

[Hollie]

What are gawds? Humanity hasn't been wiped from the planet.

6,000 years old is a number you keep bringing up. Not me.

It's clear that you cannot have an honest debate. You have done nothing but pettifog, insult and ridicule that which you don't believe nor know anything about.

You cannot even muster a defensible argument to support your position without cut and pasting.

I'll take your inability to discuss manners in a rational manner as a concession.

Class dismissed.

Bailing out when the questions are difficult, as usual. That's a common tactic of fundies. It's a simple matter to make grandiose claims and cut and paste alleged bible prophesies but when you're pressed to defend such silliness, you head for the exits in panic.

I will admit to an inability to discuss supernaturalism, your alleged spirit world, magic and a litany of creationist claims to magic in a rational fashion when creationists are unable to themselves discuss such silliness in a rational manner.

What is rational about supermagicalism?

Hollie, why is that you never discuss the evidence presented from ID Theory? You continue to attack religious beliefs as a substitute for a scientific discussion. Is it because you don't feel comfortable debating the matter on its scientific merit?

There is no reason to take bible thumping as a serious discussion. You're being too generous to define ID theory as anything more than Christian apologetics describing supermagical processes.

You're just wasting time.