Creationists

[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.

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?

Unfortunately, the religious perspectives furthered by the science-loathing, fear and superstition promoting, self-hating fundies most of us are familiar with have been the prime antecedent of 10,000 years of odd rituals, human and animal sacrifice, deistic moral codes, cathedral building, sectarian strife, chants; Gregorian and otherwise, magic beads, smelly incense, golden icons, prayers of petition, public stoning, plastic effigies on dashboards, blind worship of an arbitrarily compiled and dubiously translated book, and lots of guys sporting big funny hats!

For your enlightenment, science is the process of discovery. You will want to scream the four word "The Gawds Did It", and proceed on as though you have answered every query, resolved every mystery and vacated every original thought, when what you actually have done is to further your religious dogma by retreating from any further investigation.

There is the brightness of hope and achievement that is falling across the land called literacy and education and knowledge, and exploration and science, each demonstrable, each progressing the human condition, each giving us hope for a better day tomorrow. The hatreds that you espouse for science and the knowledge it brings will always be your worst enemy.

 

[daws101]

No difference from the atheistic evolutionist except there is better and more evidence to support what I believe.

wrong since you have no evidence ,it cannot be better or more saying it is ,is a rationalization and a lie.
the only thing you have is belief and that'S not evidence.

So you say

just stating fact. Your answer screams denial of fact.

 

[daws101]

Microadaptations.

Fact#1 plants and animals only produce what they are because of the genetic code barrier because they only have the genetic information to produce what they are.

Fact #2 Microadaptations result from the sorting or loss of genetic information. Adaptations can only produce weaker and weaker gene pools it's called gene depletion. Purebreds are from weaker gene pools because the loss of information. All the other genetic information was bred out of them. Smaller gene pools become weaker. The fact is that is why mutts are healthier they are from a larger gene pool. You can't over breed mutts where you can purebreds.

Fact #3 We know of no way of increasing appreciables amounts of new and beneficial genetic information to a gene pool.

There are many examples of microadaptations they are simply changes within a kind and not a new kind. Example a cow does not produce a non cow because of the genetic code barrier won't allow it. The barrier is simply the genetic data available.

When the religiously addled claim to spew irrefutable "facts", regarding evolution. it usually means they've been scouring Harun Yahya again.

Observed Instances of Speciation

Funny then you copy and paste from talk origins. What is your point ? are you once again showing you have reading comp problems.

here's a fine example of ywc's lack of originality, the phrase:" you have reading comp problems" was first used by Me in this thread .it also points up ,quite nicely I might add, that ywc has no concept of context.

 

[daws101]

Funny then you copy and paste from talk origins. What is your point ? are you once again showing you have reading comp problems.

What's really funny is watching you run for the exits when your invented "facts' are shown to be fraudulent.

This article addresses your point.


Species” and “Kind”


by on

January 1, 1994




author-gary-parker
creation-facts-of-life
evolution
kinds
speciation

Whoops! Two or more species from one kind! Isn’t that evolution?

Some evolutionists certainly think so. After I participated in a creation-evolution debate at Texas A & M, a biology professor got up and told everyone about the flies on certain islands that used to interbreed but no longer do. They’ve become separate species, and that, he said, to a fair amount of applause, proves evolution is a fact—period!

Well, what about it? Barriers to reproduction do seem to arise among varieties that once interbred. Does that prove evolution? Or does that make it reasonable to extrapolate from such processes to real evolutionary changes from one kind to others? As I explained to the university-debate audience (also to applause), the answer is simply no, of course not. It doesn’t even come close.

?Species? and ?Kind? - Answers in Genesis

this is not a scientific site

 

[daws101]

I gave the person asking for the mechanism of change within a kind or group how did you refute what I said ? How would you explain microadaptations ?

Examples of evolutionary change (adaptation over time), have been presented to you on many occasions. How is it you choose to remain ignorant of these examples?

Wrong this evidence don't exist you believe in a fairytale.

notice the lost of grammar in this fact less rebuttal.

 

[daws101]

Sound familliar ?

con·jec·ture

/kənˈjekCHər/
Noun
An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
Verb
Form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.

Scientists aren't pretending to know everything, they are still looking, experimenting, sometimes getting things wrong, but that also moves them and us forward. You read something in a 1700 year old book about a magician who poofed everything into being in 6 days, and then are stuck there like an ignoramous.

And if they are wrong and there is a designer ?

so you're not confident that existence is a product of a designer?
if you were you wouldn't have used the word if?

 

[emilynghiem]

For your enlightenment, science is the process of discovery. You will want to scream the four word "The Gawds Did It", and proceed on as though you have answered every query, resolved every mystery and vacated every original thought, when what you actually have done is to further your religious dogma by retreating from any further investigation.

There is the brightness of hope and achievement that is falling across the land called literacy and education and knowledge, and exploration and science, each demonstrable, each progressing the human condition, each giving us hope for a better day tomorrow. The hatreds that you espouse for science and the knowledge it brings will always be your worst enemy.

OK Hollie when science is used to establish that spiritual healing is real, and there is a measurable cause and effect and healing effect and even cure from applying exorcism or deliverance, then maybe you will see there is no need to demonize religion for science.

If science would change your beliefs by discovery, then you would prove you are not being hypocritical nor avoiding anything because of your own biases, but are open to science and truth even if this proves that some things taught in religion are actually natural laws at work.

 

[Koios]

For your enlightenment, science is the process of discovery. You will want to scream the four word "The Gawds Did It", and proceed on as though you have answered every query, resolved every mystery and vacated every original thought, when what you actually have done is to further your religious dogma by retreating from any further investigation.

There is the brightness of hope and achievement that is falling across the land called literacy and education and knowledge, and exploration and science, each demonstrable, each progressing the human condition, each giving us hope for a better day tomorrow. The hatreds that you espouse for science and the knowledge it brings will always be your worst enemy.

OK Hollie when science is used to establish that spiritual healing is real, and there is a measurable cause and effect and healing effect and even cure from applying exorcism or deliverance, then maybe you will see there is no need to demonize religion for science.

If science would change your beliefs by discovery, then you would prove you are not being hypocritical nor avoiding anything because of your own biases, but are open to science and truth even if this proves that some things taught in religion are actually natural laws at work.

Science already has: placebo effect.

Actual healing, science does, too, i.e. reattaching a severed arm, which will not regrow, even if the entire fucking planet is praying in unison.

There's what's real (scientifically discovered) and what's believed (take your fucking pick.)

And it's none too complicated.

 

[daws101]

That is correct precision in nature is evidence of design.

you cant use precision in nature as evidence of design, obviously, and even if you were dumb enough to do so, you'd have to explain the areas where there's lack of precision.

How do you get precision in nature from chaos ? The answer for a creationist is that things are no longer precise because of the punishment for origional sin handed down by God.

and it's false...based on an unprovable assumption.

 

[daws101]

How do you get precision in nature from chaos ? The answer for a creationist is that things are no longer precise because of the punishment for origional sin handed down by God.

How can you get precision from chaos?

Really? That's what you'd hang your hat on?

First of all, there's (no precision!).

All species decay.

Even fucking trees.

All stars eventually fizzle out, read about supernovae.

There is no precision.

The big bang began from a state of chaos but then settled down and produced precison in nature ?

Evidently you don't understand the precision of the formation of a cell nor the precision of this planet and how it can sustain life.

bullshit alert ! bullshit alert!
since there was nothing before the big bang there could be no chaos.
to be chaotic there has to something. slap dick!
the big bang At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What existed prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurrence was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.

THE BIG BANG

At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point.
by definition NOT CHAOTIC.

 

[daws101]

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

Meh. It baffles me.

"someone" actually realizes that there is something bigger, greater, more powerful, wiser, stronger, and an eternity beyond the intelligence of man.

stfu!

 

[Hollie]

For your enlightenment, science is the process of discovery. You will want to scream the four word "The Gawds Did It", and proceed on as though you have answered every query, resolved every mystery and vacated every original thought, when what you actually have done is to further your religious dogma by retreating from any further investigation.

There is the brightness of hope and achievement that is falling across the land called literacy and education and knowledge, and exploration and science, each demonstrable, each progressing the human condition, each giving us hope for a better day tomorrow. The hatreds that you espouse for science and the knowledge it brings will always be your worst enemy.

OK Hollie when science is used to establish that spiritual healing is real, and there is a measurable cause and effect and healing effect and even cure from applying exorcism or deliverance, then maybe you will see there is no need to demonize religion for science.

If science would change your beliefs by discovery, then you would prove you are not being hypocritical nor avoiding anything because of your own biases, but are open to science and truth even if this proves that some things taught in religion are actually natural laws at work.

You need to define your terms here. Aren't you in effect suggesting bargaining with the gawds? Do you believe the gawds will reward you with something in exchange for a specific behavior?

Please identify for us a single, documented case of prayer ever curing a disease. There is none.

As to the efficacy of prayer, perceived from a position of meditation I would not deny that it clears the mind -- but prayer from a theistic perspective is not meditation, it is an asserted communication that has some actual real specific effect on human issues. This remains totally undemonstrated except in the following manner -- it is a very powerful tool to coerce behavior, which is why (seemingly), the more fanatical or fundamental a religion is, the more reliant on the asserted efficacy of prayer you're liable to find.

When prayers aren't answered, I know religionists will sometimes say, "Well, that's not god's fault" or something similar, but the point is this: prayer doesn't actually work (at least it remains asserted and unproven that it does). Clearing the mind? Allowing a person to collect their thoughts? Giving the illusion of comfort (which may be indistinguishable from comfort itself), yes to all of those. But does it actually work? No, it can be shown over and over that it does not. And the fact is, many people actually rely on it, usually to their disappointment... or worse.

It's really the application of science and an understanding of biology that has allowed the development of drugs that treat and cure disease.

 

[daws101]

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.

Seems we have another smug faux Christian on this thread.

 

[LittleNipper]

Evolution is not science:

Scientists tell why evolution is not supported by the facts!

http://www.icr.org/article/455/

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/science.html

 

[Hollie]

Evolution is not science:

Scientists tell why evolution is not supported by the facts!

Evolution Is Religion--Not Science

Is Evolution Science?

Here, have a cookie.

 

[LittleNipper]

Evolution is propaganda:

PBS's 'Evolution' Series is Propaganda, Not Science

 

[emilynghiem]

Science already has: placebo effect.

Actual healing, science does, too, i.e. reattaching a severed arm, which will not regrow, even if the entire fucking planet is praying in unison.

There's what's real (scientifically discovered) and what's believed (take your fucking pick.)

And it's none too complicated.

Whoa Koios please back up and not jump ahead into things I don't mean by spiritual healing. Please!


The spiritual healing I mean requires DEEP spiritual forgiveness, and cannot be faked. It must be freely chosen and cannot be imposed from outside as people see religion!

Please make the distinction between false faith healing (which DOESN'T work and I have friends who have witnessed this fail or reverse when the full forgiveness isn't done first)

and true spiritual healing taught by authentic ministers and teachers

Please consult with experts who know the difference between false faith practices and the real deal which is consistent with science, medicine and secular therapies from AA to Buddhism that involve recognizing what people have not forgiven or let go in their minds that is keeping them from healing naturally.

Sorry I wasn't clear let's make this distinction first!
I agree the placebo effect is false and cannot provide real healing so that's not what i mean.

sources: "Healing" by Francis MacNutt Christian Healing Ministries
explains how healing works by forgiveness on many different levels depending on
where the problem lies and what types of prayer or therapy are required to heal
body mind and spirit,

'The healing light" by agnes sanford also explains how life energy
and healing are natural, and the point is not to block these laws from working in our lives
but to open the connections so the energy flows and healing takes place naturally

Dr. Scott Peck "Glimpses of the Devil" as a secular minded scientist he took on the challenge of disproving exorcism and deliverance and possession as mental delusion, and found these have real and measurable stages that can be diagnosed and written up for medical practice.

This is serious stuff. A friend of mine who remains atheist and anti-christian went through the same deliverance process as in Peck's book and described the same things. He did not convert to Christianity and still does not believe in personified God Christ etc. But he is healed of his demons of rage that used to overtake his mind and prevent him from getting medical help to heal his body and mind from past abuses. So he described his changes so much like this book, it amazed me and I learned from that. He did get his free will back and the ability to keep the demonic voices and impulses out of his life, he did not have before. The patient in Peck's book also did not convert and also described the process like rape it was so invasive and painful to go through the cleansing therapy on a spiritual level.

so this is not the placebo effect it goes beyond teh human will and into the spiritual levels we don't control and need help to clean out when evil or negative energy overtakes people and makes them mentally or criminally sick. this is serious to find such diseases can be cured

No placebo can cure schizophrenia
Dr. Peck and Dr. MacNutt both report cases of schizophrenic patients being cured
and it takes serious therapy that cannot be faked! It is too painful the work involved!

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear CrackerJaxon and Hollie: I appreciate your msgs and find you are both intelligent and discerning in your statements. May I please encourage you to keep appealing to each other's higher intelligence and understanding you are well capable of expressing?

CJ I could not thank you for your biting msg to Hollie, but I agree with your point just not the language. I understand this was called for given how she was talking, but again, I want to encourage your intelligent discussions and not resort to emotional names or labels or jabs.

Please do continue minus any jabs or namecalling

CJ you wrote the best msgs I have ever read on how these things do not negate each other!
I agree! Please focus on science, and the only pt I disagreed with you on, I DO believe a naturalist view will work fine and can be established without negating things in religion either. I believe science will achieve truth and agreement on all sides, so thank you both!!!

Gotta go, do press on and stick to points we can resolve and discern.
You are both so intelligent and literate, you can meet this challenge and succeed at it!

 

[Hollie]

Evolution is propaganda:

PBS's 'Evolution' Series is Propaganda, Not Science

Once again, the science loathing, knowledge rejecting fundies have no positive evidence for gawds, thus are left to further conspiracy theories and attack science.

 

[Hollie]

Science already has: placebo effect.

Actual healing, science does, too, i.e. reattaching a severed arm, which will not regrow, even if the entire fucking planet is praying in unison.

There's what's real (scientifically discovered) and what's believed (take your fucking pick.)

And it's none too complicated.

Whoa Koios please back up and not jump ahead into things I don't mean by spiritual healing. Please!


The spiritual healing I mean requires DEEP spiritual forgiveness, and cannot be faked. It must be freely chosen and cannot be imposed from outside as people see religion!

Please make the distinction between false faith healing (which DOESN'T work and I have friends who have witnessed this fail or reverse when the full forgiveness isn't done first)

and true spiritual healing taught by authentic ministers and teachers

Please consult with experts who know the difference between false faith practices and the real deal which is consistent with science, medicine and secular therapies from AA to Buddhism that involve recognizing what people have not forgiven or let go in their minds that is keeping them from healing naturally.

Sorry I wasn't clear let's make this distinction first!
I agree the placebo effect is false and cannot provide real healing so that's not what i mean.

sources: "Healing" by Francis MacNutt Christian Healing Ministries
explains how healing works by forgiveness on many different levels depending on
where the problem lies and what types of prayer or therapy are required to heal
body mind and spirit,

'The healing light" by agnes sanford also explains how life energy
and healing are natural, and the point is not to block these laws from working in our lives
but to open the connections so the energy flows and healing takes place naturally

Dr. Scott Peck "Glimpses of the Devil" as a secular minded scientist he took on the challenge of disproving exorcism and deliverance and possession as mental delusion, and found these have real and measurable stages that can be diagnosed and written up for medical practice.

This is serious stuff. A friend of mine who remains atheist and anti-christian went through the same deliverance process as in Peck's book and described the same things. He did not convert to Christianity and still does not believe in personified God Christ etc. But he is healed of his demons of rage that used to overtake his mind and prevent him from getting medical help to heal his body and mind from past abuses. So he described his changes so much like this book, it amazed me and I learned from that. He did get his free will back and the ability to keep the demonic voices and impulses out of his life, he did not have before. The patient in Peck's book also did not convert and also described the process like rape it was so invasive and painful to go through the cleansing therapy on a spiritual level.

so this is not the placebo effect it goes beyond teh human will and into the spiritual levels we don't control and need help to clean out when evil or negative energy overtakes people and makes them mentally or criminally sick. this is serious to find such diseases can be cured

No placebo can cure schizophrenia
Dr. Peck and Dr. MacNutt both report cases of schizophrenic patients being cured
and it takes serious therapy that cannot be faked! It is too painful the work involved!

I'll propose an experiment:

Find two people with radical appendicitis. Person A, apply the same steps as were applied before the mid 1800's (i.e., pray over them, light incense, tell them to "believe", rattle bones, whatever). Person B -- perform an appendectomy using modern surgical techniques without any prayer. Who will survive, who will die -- consistently?

Then ask yourself why is it that when using prayer (or hoping for miracles) they've always died, and not until man learned the science of medicine did people start to survive (i.e., only until man learned how to remedy appendicitis, did "god suddenly have the power to perform this miracle")? It's pretty self-evident.