Creationists

[Hollie]

I went and saw the usual crowing about an observed change in bacteria under laboratory conditions. How does this prove that mankind evolved from hydrogen?

Only Eviel Kneivel would make a leap like that.

This is the usual tact taken by smarmy would-be scientists in arguments.

Oh look, a genetic change in a single cell animal! That proves that evolution is observable.

Please.

It's tough to argue against someone so blatantly wrong about their understanding of evolution to begin with.

It's like asking someone to multiply when they know they can't even add yet. It's
pointless.

Define your terms, then, and amaze me with your brilliance. Are we talking about macro or micro evolution? Are they one and the same?

How does evolution negate the notion that we are created beings?

Go ahead. Wow me.

I can take it.

Why do you insist, without a shred of evidence, that we are "created"?

Can you similarly account for the creators of your creator gawds?

Lastly, how do you account for a hierarchy of gawds who are such incompetent creators?

 

[Hollie]

See how vague evolutionary thinking is. I changed my mind about something that means I evolved,really ?

Evolution is not vague.

Its accepted as Scientific theory, it's been peer reviewed for over a century and still stands.

The only ones left who deny it are crack-pot obsessives who think Noah had an Ark.

You fall into that category.

You cannot read through and intelligently decipher evidence because you have a confirmation bias. You screen name is "youwerecreated" for fuck's sakes.

It's like letting a slave owner tell us all what is best for an African.

confirmation bias.

it makes you retarded.

Evolution is fact.

The only people who think evolution negates creationism are hare-brained naturalists whose idea of God is some guy in the sky pointing a finger and making things happen.

A sub-genre is the supercilious self-superior oaf who delights in destroying the faith of people who are seeking meaning in the universe.

Yet another angry, self-hating fundie.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

I went and saw the usual crowing about an observed change in bacteria under laboratory conditions. How does this prove that mankind evolved from hydrogen?

Only Eviel Kneivel would make a leap like that.

This is the usual tact taken by smarmy would-be scientists in arguments.

Oh look, a genetic change in a single cell animal! That proves that evolution is observable.

Please.

It's tough to argue against someone so blatantly wrong about their understanding of evolution to begin with.

It's like asking someone to multiply when they know they can't even add yet. It's pointless.

Just think, this is the kind of retrograde nonsense that fundies want to introduce into a public school syllabus. Every class - a fundie madrassah.

Just think, fundie atheists are trying to jam a naturalistic view of the universe down the throats of the young under the guise of science.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Evolution is not vague.

Its accepted as Scientific theory, it's been peer reviewed for over a century and still stands.

The only ones left who deny it are crack-pot obsessives who think Noah had an Ark.

You fall into that category.

You cannot read through and intelligently decipher evidence because you have a confirmation bias. You screen name is "youwerecreated" for fuck's sakes.

It's like letting a slave owner tell us all what is best for an African.

confirmation bias.

it makes you retarded.

Evolution is fact.

The only people who think evolution negates creationism are hare-brained naturalists whose idea of God is some guy in the sky pointing a finger and making things happen.

A sub-genre is the supercilious self-superior oaf who delights in destroying the faith of people who are seeking meaning in the universe.

Yet another angry, self-hating fundie.

Yet another fundie atheist unable to defend his position lapsing into absurdity.

 

[Hollie]

It's tough to argue against someone so blatantly wrong about their understanding of evolution to begin with.

It's like asking someone to multiply when they know they can't even add yet. It's pointless.

Just think, this is the kind of retrograde nonsense that fundies want to introduce into a public school syllabus. Every class - a fundie madrassah.

Just think, fundie atheists are trying to jam a naturalistic view of the universe down the throats of the young under the guise of science.

Yeah, what a horrible thing. Science should be banned so fundie creationists can transform schools into madrassahs.

Legions of Kool-aid drinkers.

 

[Hollie]

The only people who think evolution negates creationism are hare-brained naturalists whose idea of God is some guy in the sky pointing a finger and making things happen.

A sub-genre is the supercilious self-superior oaf who delights in destroying the faith of people who are seeking meaning in the universe.

Yet another angry, self-hating fundie.

Yet another fundie atheist unable to defend his position lapsing into absurdity.

What "position" would that be? Religious zealots typically attack science as a means to promote their gawds. It's pointless and time-wasting because evidence for gawds (of which there is none), is not an endeavor that science has any interest in. Science cannot investigate supernaturalism and mysticism.

Fundie zealots despise science and knowledge because it conflicts with their ancient tales and fables.

Your revulsion for enlightenment is your own issue to deal with.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

It's tough to argue against someone so blatantly wrong about their understanding of evolution to begin with.

It's like asking someone to multiply when they know they can't even add yet. It's
pointless.

Define your terms, then, and amaze me with your brilliance. Are we talking about macro or micro evolution? Are they one and the same?

How does evolution negate the notion that we are created beings?

Go ahead. Wow me.

I can take it.

Why do you insist, without a shred of evidence, that we are "created"?

Can you similarly account for the creators of your creator gawds?

Lastly, how do you account for a hierarchy of gawds who are such incompetent creators?

No sir. You made the claim that evolution negates the notion of creationism.

How does it do that?

Why are the two views oppositional?

How can you, without a shred of evidence, buy into the notion that hydrogen, through some mysterious ever-changing force you call evolution, will, unaided, turn into human beings?

I am uninterested in your religious views. Plainly they are unsophisticated and are based on the idea of an anthropomorphical god and your "clever" proof that no such god exists. If you can accept the idea that energy can display intelligence, the case for the existence of God is made. If you don't acccept that, we have no common ground on which to argue.

Now back to the real question. By what mechanism does hydrogen turn into human beings? Certainly, the macro-evolution of single-celled animals does not explain it. By the way, how did those single cell animals come to be in the first place?

How do you seperate cosmology from evolution? Does one not follow the other?

Oh, and please give me a working definition of evolution to proceed from. I get tired of constantly shifting defintions.

 

[Hollie]

Define your terms, then, and amaze me with your brilliance. Are we talking about macro or micro evolution? Are they one and the same?

How does evolution negate the notion that we are created beings?

Go ahead. Wow me.

I can take it.

Why do you insist, without a shred of evidence, that we are "created"?

Can you similarly account for the creators of your creator gawds?

Lastly, how do you account for a hierarchy of gawds who are such incompetent creators?

No sir. You made the claim that evolution negates the notion of creationism.

How does it do that?

Why are the two views oppositional?

How can you, without a shred of evidence, buy into the notion that hydrogen, through some mysterious ever-changing force you call evolution, will, unaided, turn into human beings?

I am uninterested in your religious views. Plainly they are unsophisticated and are based on the idea of an anthropomorphical god and your "clever" proof that no such god exists. If you can accept the idea that energy can display intelligence, the case for the existence of God is made. If you don't acccept that, we have no common ground on which to argue.

Now back to the real question. By what mechanism does hydrogen turn into human beings? Certainly, the macro-evolution of single-celled animals does not explain it. By the way, how did those single cell animals come to be in the first place?

How do you seperate cosmology from evolution? Does one not follow the other?

Oh, and please give me a working definition of evolution to proceed from. I get tired of constantly shifting defintions.

Hydrogen turning into a humans being suggests you know nothing of the various sciences supporting evolution. Secondly, do all fundie zealots believe that the entirety of science is a global conspiracy?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Just think, this is the kind of retrograde nonsense that fundies want to introduce into a public school syllabus. Every class - a fundie madrassah.

Just think, fundie atheists are trying to jam a naturalistic view of the universe down the throats of the young under the guise of science.

Yeah, what a horrible thing. Science should be banned so fundie creationists can transform schools into madrassahs.

Legions of Kool-aid drinkers.

Science is fine. Atheism disguised as science is a disgrace. Legions of empty-headed, atheistic propagandists hiding behind the skirts of science.

Science should have nothing to do with religion, just as religion should have nothing to do with science. If evolutionists would simply present what they actually know, instead of what they surmise, the world would be a better place.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Yet another angry, self-hating fundie.

Yet another fundie atheist unable to defend his position lapsing into absurdity.

What "position" would that be? Religious zealots typically attack science as a means to promote their gawds. It's pointless and time-wasting because evidence for gawds (of which there is none), is not an endeavor that science has any interest in. Science cannot investigate supernaturalism and mysticism.

Fundie zealots despise science and knowledge because it conflicts with their ancient tales and fables.

Your revulsion for enlightenment is your own issue to deal with.

Fundie atheists try to use science to prove their nihilistic, mistaken view of the universe. It's not about denying evolution, it's about you using evolution to persecute those with religious beliefs.

I'm perfectly willing to accept science. I am unwilling to accept science as religion. Science is one method of inquiry. That's all it is and all it will ever be. The idea that science should be used to promote a naturalistic view of the universe is nefarious.

 

[Hollie]

Just think, fundie atheists are trying to jam a naturalistic view of the universe down the throats of the young under the guise of science.

Yeah, what a horrible thing. Science should be banned so fundie creationists can transform schools into madrassahs.

Legions of Kool-aid drinkers.

Science is fine. Atheism disguised as science is a disgrace. Legions of empty-headed, atheistic propagandists hiding behind the skirts of science.

Science should have nothing to do with religion, just as religion should have nothing to do with science. If evolutionists would simply present what they actually know, instead of what they surmise, the world would be a better place.

The term "evolutionists" suggests you're another fundie zealot who spends a lot of time on hate promoting fundie websites.

It's a shame that your agenda is promotion if hate, fear and ignorance. Your anti-enlightenment agenda just screams of amateur.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Why do you insist, without a shred of evidence, that we are "created"?

Can you similarly account for the creators of your creator gawds?

Lastly, how do you account for a hierarchy of gawds who are such incompetent creators?

No sir. You made the claim that evolution negates the notion of creationism.

How does it do that?

Why are the two views oppositional?

How can you, without a shred of evidence, buy into the notion that hydrogen, through some mysterious ever-changing force you call evolution, will, unaided, turn into human beings?

I am uninterested in your religious views. Plainly they are unsophisticated and are based on the idea of an anthropomorphical god and your "clever" proof that no such god exists. If you can accept the idea that energy can display intelligence, the case for the existence of God is made. If you don't acccept that, we have no common ground on which to argue.

Now back to the real question. By what mechanism does hydrogen turn into human beings? Certainly, the macro-evolution of single-celled animals does not explain it. By the way, how did those single cell animals come to be in the first place?

How do you seperate cosmology from evolution? Does one not follow the other?

Oh, and please give me a working definition of evolution to proceed from. I get tired of constantly shifting defintions.

Hydrogen turning into a humans being suggests you know nothing of the various sciences supporting evolution. Secondly, do all fundie zealots believe that the entirety of science is a global conspiracy?

No, it is a concise statement describing what is being taught to our children in public schools.

They are taught that the universe began for no reason, that hydrogen and other gases formed into solids, that those solids sprang to life and evolved into us, no?

I'll ignore the fact that religion is generally presented as something awful that should only be practiced in your home and not fit to be discussed in public.

I have no beef with scientific proof. I'd actually like to see some instead of a naturalist cosmology being palmed off as science.

If evolutionists would simply state that environment has an effect on the genetic make-up of populations, they'd be on solid ground.

Why try to sell it as anything else? How is that an argument against a created universe?

Do all fundie atheists avoid answering questions and rely on hiding behind "science" to advance thier beliefs?

Is that it?

Once again, how does evolution negate the idea of a created universe?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Yeah, what a horrible thing. Science should be banned so fundie creationists can transform schools into madrassahs.

Legions of Kool-aid drinkers.

Science is fine. Atheism disguised as science is a disgrace. Legions of empty-headed, atheistic propagandists hiding behind the skirts of science.

Science should have nothing to do with religion, just as religion should have nothing to do with science. If evolutionists would simply present what they actually know, instead of what they surmise, the world would be a better place.

The term "evolutionists" suggests you're another fundie zealot who spends a lot of time on hate promoting fundie websites.

It's a shame that your agenda is promotion if hate, fear and ignorance. Your anti-enlightenment agenda just screams of amateur.

The term fundie suggest to me that you are an anti-religious zealot who wouldn't know enlightenment if it crawled up her leg and bit her on the ass.

The fact that you equate religion with fear and ignorance pretty much proves it.

 

[ima]

Yeah, what a horrible thing. Science should be banned so fundie creationists can transform schools into madrassahs.

Legions of Kool-aid drinkers.

Science is fine. Atheism disguised as science is a disgrace. Legions of empty-headed, atheistic propagandists hiding behind the skirts of science.

Science should have nothing to do with religion, just as religion should have nothing to do with science. If evolutionists would simply present what they actually know, instead of what they surmise, the world would be a better place.

The term "evolutionists" suggests you're another fundie zealot who spends a lot of time on hate promoting fundie websites.

It's a shame that your agenda is promotion if hate, fear and ignorance. Your anti-enlightenment agenda just screams of amateur.

But why is religion afraid of science? Ok, the bible is wrong, but we all knew that anyways. And why can't evolution be part of a creator's plan? Because of the book again?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Science is fine. Atheism disguised as science is a disgrace. Legions of empty-headed, atheistic propagandists hiding behind the skirts of science.

Science should have nothing to do with religion, just as religion should have nothing to do with science. If evolutionists would simply present what they actually know, instead of what they surmise, the world would be a better place.

The term "evolutionists" suggests you're another fundie zealot who spends a lot of time on hate promoting fundie websites.

It's a shame that your agenda is promotion if hate, fear and ignorance. Your anti-enlightenment agenda just screams of amateur.

But why is religion afraid of science? Ok, the bible is wrong, but we all knew that anyways. And why can't evolution be part of a creator's plan? Because of the book again?

You are confused because you think I am not accepting scientific proof of evolution and because you think I subscribe to a litreral interpretation of the bible.

Evolution certainly is a factor in a created universe.

That said, the first level of interpretation of any work should be literal. People grow to understand deeper meanings as they are ready for them. Why beat up fundamentalists?

Oh, and the bible isn't wrong. It's just a little past your present understanding of it.

 

[Hollie]

The term "evolutionists" suggests you're another fundie zealot who spends a lot of time on hate promoting fundie websites.

It's a shame that your agenda is promotion if hate, fear and ignorance. Your anti-enlightenment agenda just screams of amateur.

But why is religion afraid of science? Ok, the bible is wrong, but we all knew that anyways. And why can't evolution be part of a creator's plan? Because of the book again?

You are confused because you think I am not accepting scientific proof of evolution and because you think I subscribe to a litreral interpretation of the bible.

Evolution certainly is a factor in a created universe.

That said, the first level of interpretation of any work should be literal. People grow to understand deeper meanings as they are ready for them. Why beat up fundamentalists?

Oh, and the bible isn't wrong. It's just a little past your present understanding of it.

Oh sorry. The bibles are not just wrong but sweepingly wrong. The gross errors, contradictions and falsehoods are not surprising in that the bibles were penned at a time when fear and superstition were used to coerce behavior. In the limited framework of knowledge regarding the natural world that existed at the time, this is understandable.

 

[Hollie]

It's tough to argue against someone so blatantly wrong about their understanding of evolution to begin with.

It's like asking someone to multiply when they know they can't even add yet. It's pointless.

Just think, this is the kind of retrograde nonsense that fundies want to introduce into a public school syllabus. Every class - a fundie madrassah.

Just think, fundie atheists are trying to jam a naturalistic view of the universe down the throats of the young under the guise of science.

I think your revulsion for science and knowledge is quite typical for the fundie crowd. It's strange that you would define a science program in public schools as jamming a naturalistic view of the universe down anyone's throat.

Other than a naturalistic view of the universe, what un-natural view should be taught? Transforming the school system into a third world backwater of madrassahs is not an answer.

I think you will find that limiting your education of the sciences and the natural world by scouring creationist websites for quote-mining material will only deepen your inability to separate "faith" from the science of evolution. I understand that you hope to denigrate the sciences by dragging them into the realm of supernaturalism, superstition and fables which are all inextricably linked to religious dogma but the consecrating success of evolutionary science undeniably separates it from your myths and legends. Not only is the supernaturalist deficient at supporting their claims but they are deficient at offering even the most basic of proofs for these silly claims.

Your partisan religious claims to supermagicalism and mysticism have no place in the public school system. As a philosophical argument for angry, hateful gawds, demons, spoons, spirits and other such nonsense, you can make any claim you wish as you don't feel you're under any obligation to support your claim. I should remind you though that the issues here are not philosophical. Evolution is entirely a scientific issue. It can be understood, discussed and explored without any necessary recourse to philosophical argument.

This is why the anti-evolution / anti-science crowd tends to run screaming from actual discussion of the science surrounding evolution and instead insist that they be linked to issues that are philosophical or theological. Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is effectively useless in the study of science. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine demonstrable utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

But why is religion afraid of science? Ok, the bible is wrong, but we all knew that anyways. And why can't evolution be part of a creator's plan? Because of the book again?

You are confused because you think I am not accepting scientific proof of evolution and because you think I subscribe to a litreral interpretation of the bible.

Evolution certainly is a factor in a created universe.

That said, the first level of interpretation of any work should be literal. People grow to understand deeper meanings as they are ready for them. Why beat up fundamentalists?

Oh, and the bible isn't wrong. It's just a little past your present understanding of it.

Oh sorry. The bibles are not just wrong but sweepingly wrong. The gross errors, contradictions and falsehoods are not surprising in that the bibles were penned at a time when fear and superstition were used to coerce behavior. In the limited framework of knowledge regarding the natural world that existed at the time, this is understandable.

Another semi-literate atheist heard from. You don't know an allegory from an allele, but you're damned well going to pontificate on both, aren't you?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Just think, this is the kind of retrograde nonsense that fundies want to introduce into a public school syllabus. Every class - a fundie madrassah.

Just think, fundie atheists are trying to jam a naturalistic view of the universe down the throats of the young under the guise of science.

I think your revulsion for science and knowledge is quite typical for the fundie crowd. It's strange that you would define a science program in public schools as jamming a naturalistic view of the universe down anyone's throat.

Other than a naturalistic view of the universe, what un-natural view should be taught? Transforming the school system into a third world backwater of madrassahs is not an answer.

I think you will find that limiting your education of the sciences and the natural world by scouring creationist websites for quote-mining material will only deepen your inability to separate "faith" from the science of evolution. I understand that you hope to denigrate the sciences by dragging them into the realm of supernaturalism, superstition and fables which are all inextricably linked to religious dogma but the consecrating success of evolutionary science undeniably separates it from your myths and legends. Not only is the supernaturalist deficient at supporting their claims but they are deficient at offering even the most basic of proofs for these silly claims.

Your partisan religious claims to supermagicalism and mysticism have no place in the public school system. As a philosophical argument for angry, hateful gawds, demons, spoons, spirits and other such nonsense, you can make any claim you wish as you don't feel you're under any obligation to support your claim. I should remind you though that the issues here are not philosophical. Evolution is entirely a scientific issue. It can be understood, discussed and explored without any necessary recourse to philosophical argument.

This is why the anti-evolution / anti-science crowd tends to run screaming from actual discussion of the science surrounding evolution and instead insist that they be linked to issues that are philosophical or theological. Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is effectively useless in the study of science. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine demonstrable utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.

No, my revulsion is for blatant ignorance disguised as enlightenment. Like philosophy, (and religion for all that matter) science should be a search for the truth, not a tool for close-minded, ignorant, know-it-all atheists who pretend to know things they do not.

That is why atheists run away screaming when anyone questions the philosophical underpinnings of their ridiculous. quasi-religious prostitution of science. When you manage to seperate naturalist philosophy from science, get back to me. Until then, stop pretending that it isn't there when it so obviously is.

Anyone with the sense God gave a rutabaga knows that real science does not negate the notion of creation. Please don't pretend like it does. It's getting embarrassing for you.

When any teleological evidence is presented in living tissue, trust atheists to run away screaming "That means a creator." like little girls who've just seen a snake in the garden.

Why does the notion of a created universe disturb you so?

 

[Hollie]

You are confused because you think I am not accepting scientific proof of evolution and because you think I subscribe to a litreral interpretation of the bible.

Evolution certainly is a factor in a created universe.

That said, the first level of interpretation of any work should be literal. People grow to understand deeper meanings as they are ready for them. Why beat up fundamentalists?

Oh, and the bible isn't wrong. It's just a little past your present understanding of it.

Oh sorry. The bibles are not just wrong but sweepingly wrong. The gross errors, contradictions and falsehoods are not surprising in that the bibles were penned at a time when fear and superstition were used to coerce behavior. In the limited framework of knowledge regarding the natural world that existed at the time, this is understandable.

Another semi-literate atheist heard from. You don't know an allegory from an allele, but you're damned well going to pontificate on both, aren't you?

My goodness. Fundie zealots have a habit if being really, really angry.

I suppose I should expect that you - and only you - are tasked with deciding what parts of your "holy texts" are allegory and what parts are not.

Such a weighty burden you bear.

I hope you will be so kind as to advise who bestowed this authority upon you: "Doctor, Field Marshall General of Allegory Interpretation", Division of fundies, Bureau of the Science Loathing"

It seems your co-religionists have had a great deal of difficulty coming to a consensus as to what is allegory, and who decides such things.

Could that be why religions have splintered into so many competing sects and subdivisions?

We're all glad you're on the job... as head decision maker in charge.