The creationists are BACK

[Robert]

so because i dont believe in your god or any god im the bigot?

so tell me mr creationism, what is that Christian believe exactly? are you beliefs that much better than Jews or Catholics or Buddhists or Muslims?

Again show me where I've stated I believe in either God or Creationism.

That large brush isn't working all that well is it.

feel free to clarify your position anytime now. your argument has been skewed against the theory of evolution since the beginning. if you dont believe in creationism either, by conjecture you believe in nothing.

Na you can go back a few pages and figure it out for yourself.

I have to laugh You state my argument is skewed one way or the other when you haven't the slightest clue as to what my position is other then it seems to conflict with your orthodoxy.

 

[Dr.Drock]

so because i dont believe in your god or any god im the bigot?

so tell me mr creationism, what is that Christian believe exactly? are you beliefs that much better than Jews or Catholics or Buddhists or Muslims?

Again show me where I've stated I believe in either God or Creationism.

That large brush isn't working all that well is it.

feel free to clarify your position anytime now. your argument has been skewed against the theory of evolution since the beginning. if you dont believe in creationism either, by conjecture you believe in nothing.

He said he doesn't believe in either.

From what I can tell you of Robert's posting history, even though he says he equally denies both, the reason he talks like a creationist by attacking basic science like evolution and defending those who are creationist is because it's a part of a large segment of republican's thinking. A lot of republicans deny evolution, so he has to side with his team and bash evolution, and he certainly doesn't want to bash creationism even though he doesn't believe in it.

So he thinks having zero evidence (creationism) and having a lot of evidence but not "enough" for him (evolution) is exactly the same.

 

[Jack Fate]

I think you have some misconceptions of what Christians believe and it's based on ignorance; the very thing you accuse Christians of.

His bigotry and lack of intelligence is somewhat frightening it used to be rare to see someone so locked into their dogma that they become blind to the world around them.

so because i dont believe in your god or any god im the bigot?

so tell me mr creationism, what is that Christian believe exactly? are you beliefs that much better than Jews or Catholics or Buddhists or Muslims?

There are many different beliefs concerning creation in Christianity. By the way, Catholics are considered Christians also. Some Christians believe the earth is 6000 years old, a small minority. Christians are on the whole not locked in to rigid beliefs. Christianity is not near as rigid as Islam. Christianity is not a religion of laws because the basis of Christianity is freedom from religious law.

 

[Skynet]

His bigotry and lack of intelligence is somewhat frightening it used to be rare to see someone so locked into their dogma that they become blind to the world around them.

so because i dont believe in your god or any god im the bigot?

so tell me mr creationism, what is that Christian believe exactly? are you beliefs that much better than Jews or Catholics or Buddhists or Muslims?

There are many different beliefs concerning creation in Christianity. By the way, Catholics are considered Christians also. Some Christians believe the earth is 6000 years old, a small minority. Christians are on the whole not locked in to rigid beliefs. Christianity is not near as rigid as Islam. Christianity is not a religion of laws because the basis of Christianity is freedom from religious law.

thanks for clarifying absolutely nothing.....

 

[Robert]

Again show me where I've stated I believe in either God or Creationism.

That large brush isn't working all that well is it.

feel free to clarify your position anytime now. your argument has been skewed against the theory of evolution since the beginning. if you dont believe in creationism either, by conjecture you believe in nothing.

He said he doesn't believe in either.

From what I can tell you of Robert's posting history, even though he says he equally denies both, the reason he talks like a creationist by attacking basic science like evolution and defending those who are creationist is because it's a part of a large segment of republican's thinking. A lot of republicans deny evolution, so he has to side with his team and bash evolution, and he certainly doesn't want to bash creationism even though he doesn't believe in it.

So he thinks having zero evidence (creationism) and having a lot of evidence but not "enough" for him (evolution) is exactly the same.

No I deny idiots the right to make statements to the effect that what they say is a scientific fact when it is nothing more then a theory. I equally disdain both but I disdain the Liberal Orthodoxy when it seeks to attack religion or those that believe. Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty would admit that as far as the two arguments go neither holds the truth

 

[Dr.Drock]

feel free to clarify your position anytime now. your argument has been skewed against the theory of evolution since the beginning. if you dont believe in creationism either, by conjecture you believe in nothing.

He said he doesn't believe in either.

From what I can tell you of Robert's posting history, even though he says he equally denies both, the reason he talks like a creationist by attacking basic science like evolution and defending those who are creationist is because it's a part of a large segment of republican's thinking. A lot of republicans deny evolution, so he has to side with his team and bash evolution, and he certainly doesn't want to bash creationism even though he doesn't believe in it.

So he thinks having zero evidence (creationism) and having a lot of evidence but not "enough" for him (evolution) is exactly the same.

No I deny idiots the right to make statements to the effect that what they say is a scientific fact when it is nothing more then a theory. I equally disdain both but I disdain the Liberal Orthodoxy when it seeks to attack religion or those that believe. Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty would admit that as far as the two arguments go neither holds the truth

It is a scientific fact, a basic google search will provide many evidences of proof for you if you don't believe me. You don't have equal disdain for both, or you would show it.

And I'm 1 million times more conservative than you are, so pretending you're attacking evolution and not creationism is based on what liberal democrats are doing is just a flat out lie.

Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty doesn't equate evolution with creationism in terms of scientific ability to prove. Hence why you equate the 2.

 

[Skynet]

feel free to clarify your position anytime now. your argument has been skewed against the theory of evolution since the beginning. if you dont believe in creationism either, by conjecture you believe in nothing.

He said he doesn't believe in either.

From what I can tell you of Robert's posting history, even though he says he equally denies both, the reason he talks like a creationist by attacking basic science like evolution and defending those who are creationist is because it's a part of a large segment of republican's thinking. A lot of republicans deny evolution, so he has to side with his team and bash evolution, and he certainly doesn't want to bash creationism even though he doesn't believe in it.

So he thinks having zero evidence (creationism) and having a lot of evidence but not "enough" for him (evolution) is exactly the same.

No I deny idiots the right to make statements to the effect that what they say is a scientific fact when it is nothing more then a theory. I equally disdain both but I disdain the Liberal Orthodoxy when it seeks to attack religion or those that believe. Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty would admit that as far as the two arguments go neither holds the truth

again thanks for clarifying nothing


all those scientific theories that have been developed over the years are crap i guess.


gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution, cell theory,

 

[ABikerSailor]

His bigotry and lack of intelligence is somewhat frightening it used to be rare to see someone so locked into their dogma that they become blind to the world around them.

so because i dont believe in your god or any god im the bigot?

so tell me mr creationism, what is that Christian believe exactly? are you beliefs that much better than Jews or Catholics or Buddhists or Muslims?

There are many different beliefs concerning creation in Christianity. By the way, Catholics are considered Christians also. Some Christians believe the earth is 6000 years old, a small minority. Christians are on the whole not locked in to rigid beliefs. Christianity is not near as rigid as Islam. Christianity is not a religion of laws because the basis of Christianity is freedom from religious law.

Christianity isn't a religion of laws? What about gay rights and marriage? What about telling everyone that they're going to hell because they don't know Yeshua? What about so many other things that they tell you to do and not do? Whose morality is best, yours because you're a Christian, or someone else's because they're Buddhist?

Yes, Christians ARE locked into a religion of laws.

As far as Creation? Well.......ya may wish to remember something.........God said "Let Us make man in Our own image", which, if you've paid any attention to history, mankind has EVOLVED over the past thousand years or so........we live longer, we're healthier and we now interbreed among the various races. The things we invent also evolve, and if you need an example of that, look no farther than computers.

Since we've evolved, as well as the things we now have did so as well, because we kept improving them.

Ever wonder why the dinosaurs aren't around anymore? They weren't exactly doing what Father wanted them to do, so he started the experiment (growing humans) all over again by wiping out the Yucatan penninsula with a meteor. You can see proof of that in the iridium layer.

 

[Dr.Drock]

He said he doesn't believe in either.

From what I can tell you of Robert's posting history, even though he says he equally denies both, the reason he talks like a creationist by attacking basic science like evolution and defending those who are creationist is because it's a part of a large segment of republican's thinking. A lot of republicans deny evolution, so he has to side with his team and bash evolution, and he certainly doesn't want to bash creationism even though he doesn't believe in it.

So he thinks having zero evidence (creationism) and having a lot of evidence but not "enough" for him (evolution) is exactly the same.

No I deny idiots the right to make statements to the effect that what they say is a scientific fact when it is nothing more then a theory. I equally disdain both but I disdain the Liberal Orthodoxy when it seeks to attack religion or those that believe. Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty would admit that as far as the two arguments go neither holds the truth

again thanks for clarifying nothing


all those scientific theories that have been developed over the years are crap i guess.


gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution, cell theory,

If there were republicans who denied those things, Robert would defend them.

 

[Robert]

He said he doesn't believe in either.

From what I can tell you of Robert's posting history, even though he says he equally denies both, the reason he talks like a creationist by attacking basic science like evolution and defending those who are creationist is because it's a part of a large segment of republican's thinking. A lot of republicans deny evolution, so he has to side with his team and bash evolution, and he certainly doesn't want to bash creationism even though he doesn't believe in it.

So he thinks having zero evidence (creationism) and having a lot of evidence but not "enough" for him (evolution) is exactly the same.

No I deny idiots the right to make statements to the effect that what they say is a scientific fact when it is nothing more then a theory. I equally disdain both but I disdain the Liberal Orthodoxy when it seeks to attack religion or those that believe. Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty would admit that as far as the two arguments go neither holds the truth

It is a scientific fact, a basic google search will provide many evidences of proof for you if you don't believe me. You don't have equal disdain for both, or you would show it.

And I'm 1 million times more conservative than you are, so pretending you're attacking evolution and not creationism is based on what liberal democrats are doing is just a flat out lie.

Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty doesn't equate evolution with creationism in terms of scientific ability to prove. Hence why you equate the 2.

There are two parts to Evolution one part is Theory one part is fact it is a fact that things evolve it is not a fact but a theory that everything that is today was created out of some mystical goop in the far distant past equally it is a theory that we were created out of apparently nothing by a creator nor can the existence of the creator be proven either for or against.

It is as I have stated between Evolution and Creation neither have facts to back them up both are equally based on theory's both are nothing more at this point then Faith.

 

[Robert]

Then of course the question becomes who designed the creator?

Is the Universe all there is?

How was the Universe created?

There are so many questions that will never be proven as a fact all we have are theory's and for much that's all we ever will have.

They are called scientific theories because science doesn't claim to be infallible. Science, especially at this point where we don't know so much, doesn't claim to know everything. It always leaves a door open for something to come in and disprove it, because then our knowledge of the universe will be forwarded by the new information, and a new theory will be developed. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

Theories can't be 100% proven, but they can be disproven. However, this does not mean you can assume they are false simply because they can only be disproven, otherwise there wouldn't be a point to them in the first place.

I certainly didn't suggest the theory's are false quite the contrary both hold equal weight until one or the other is proven correct or incorrect.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Proven science carries more weight than unproven faith.

 

[Dr.Drock]

No I deny idiots the right to make statements to the effect that what they say is a scientific fact when it is nothing more then a theory. I equally disdain both but I disdain the Liberal Orthodoxy when it seeks to attack religion or those that believe. Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty would admit that as far as the two arguments go neither holds the truth

It is a scientific fact, a basic google search will provide many evidences of proof for you if you don't believe me. You don't have equal disdain for both, or you would show it.

And I'm 1 million times more conservative than you are, so pretending you're attacking evolution and not creationism is based on what liberal democrats are doing is just a flat out lie.

Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty doesn't equate evolution with creationism in terms of scientific ability to prove. Hence why you equate the 2.

There are two parts to Evolution one part is Theory one part is fact it is a fact that things evolve it is not a fact but a theory that everything that is today was created out of some mystical goop in the far distant past equally it is a theory that we were created out of apparently nothing by a creator nor can the existence of the creator be proven either for or against.

It is as I have stated between Evolution and Creation neither have facts to back them up both are equally based on theory's both are nothing more at this point then Faith.

I'm talking about what what's taken place in plants and animals since live started (evolution), not how life started. No one can deny evolution because it's been proven and not disproven, no one can deny creationism either but it's neither been proven or disproven.

 

[peach174]

you can not create anything from something that is "dead"

although you can create something from nothing.

CERN creates and traps antimatter (Wired UK)

anti matter still comes from something that already exists.
all the world is made of matter. Any antimatter we produce in the laboratory soon disappears because it meets up with matching matter particles and annihilates.

Modern theories of particle physics and of the evolution of the universe suggest, or even require, that antimatter and matter were equally common in the earliest stages,so why is antimatter so uncommon today? The observed imbalance between matter and antimatter is a puzzle yet to be explained. Without it, the universe today would certainly be a much less interesting place, because there would be essentially no matter left around; annihilations would have converted everything into electromagnetic radiation by now. So clearly this imbalance is a key property of the world we know. Attempts to explain it are an active area of research today.

And a complex living cell is still not able to be duplicated.
The very complexity of it shows that is was designed by a creator not from some primordial soup.
Something had to start the existence of everything.
You can't have a dead anything to build up a solar system, or life.

where did you poach this load of crap from?

and did you seriously just quote the "theory of particle physics?" is that by your logic crap because its a scientific theory? and therefore not factual?

and actually a complex living cell can be duplicated - its called cloning....... uh oh!

Cloning is duplicating not creating a cell. Science has not been able to create a complex cell yet, although they might be getting closer to it.

 

[Robert]

It is a scientific fact, a basic google search will provide many evidences of proof for you if you don't believe me. You don't have equal disdain for both, or you would show it.

And I'm 1 million times more conservative than you are, so pretending you're attacking evolution and not creationism is based on what liberal democrats are doing is just a flat out lie.

Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty doesn't equate evolution with creationism in terms of scientific ability to prove. Hence why you equate the 2.

There are two parts to Evolution one part is Theory one part is fact it is a fact that things evolve it is not a fact but a theory that everything that is today was created out of some mystical goop in the far distant past equally it is a theory that we were created out of apparently nothing by a creator nor can the existence of the creator be proven either for or against.

It is as I have stated between Evolution and Creation neither have facts to back them up both are equally based on theory's both are nothing more at this point then Faith.

I'm talking about what what's taken place in plants and animals since live started (evolution), not how life started. No one can deny evolution because it's been proven and not disproven, no one can deny creationism either but it's neither been proven or disproven.

Then I guess you agree with me

 

[Dr.Drock]

There are two parts to Evolution one part is Theory one part is fact it is a fact that things evolve it is not a fact but a theory that everything that is today was created out of some mystical goop in the far distant past equally it is a theory that we were created out of apparently nothing by a creator nor can the existence of the creator be proven either for or against.

It is as I have stated between Evolution and Creation neither have facts to back them up both are equally based on theory's both are nothing more at this point then Faith.

I'm talking about what what's taken place in plants and animals since live started (evolution), not how life started. No one can deny evolution because it's been proven and not disproven, no one can deny creationism either but it's neither been proven or disproven.

Then I guess you agree with me

Not really, I don't think ideas should be put into science class with no scientific backing, solely because they can't be disproven.

The flying spaghetti monster theory can't be disproven, doesn't make it a viable thing to put in a biology textbook.

 

[Mustang]

I'm talking about what what's taken place in plants and animals since live started (evolution), not how life started. No one can deny evolution because it's been proven and not disproven, no one can deny creationism either but it's neither been proven or disproven.

Then I guess you agree with me

Not really, I don't think ideas should be put into science class with no scientific backing, solely because they can't be disproven.

The flying spaghetti monster theory can't be disproven, doesn't make it a viable thing to put in a biology textbook.

I say that we should compromise with the intelligent design (creationists) folks. They can put ID in science class if they'll let science be taught in church.

As for me, I've always been partial to Linus and The Great Pumpkin.

 

[Jack Fate]

Proven science carries more weight than unproven faith.

Faith is proven by the evidence of things not seen.

 

[Skynet]

Proven science carries more weight than unproven faith.

Your mistake is your belief that faith is unproven. Faith is proven by the evidence of things not seen.

by definition faith can not be proven.

thanks for playing though

 

[Jack Fate]

Then I guess you agree with me

Not really, I don't think ideas should be put into science class with no scientific backing, solely because they can't be disproven.

The flying spaghetti monster theory can't be disproven, doesn't make it a viable thing to put in a biology textbook.

I say that we should compromise with the intelligent design (creationists) folks. They can put ID in science class if they'll let science be taught in church.

As for me, I've always been partial to Linus and The Great Pumpkin.

Great. When does Sunday School start, teacher? Give us a sample