ATTN: People Who Believe in Creation Myths

[usernamer]

Whoa whoa whoa


You want to talk about "tolerating" creationists? You tolerate a noisy child at a grocery store. You tolerate a couple making out in the park. But don't ever you suffer a creationist!!!
These people believe that their personal version of their holy book is the definition of true reality. This same book says that they should smite the blood of homosexuals upon the pillows of which they lie. It's only a matter of time before they realize how hypocritical they are being and they start doing this too. These people do wield some political power and are more than willing to use it in horrible manners. They want to add the ten commandments to the Constitution and remove Evolution from our public schools teaching curriculum. How much more want should I have in tolerating a creationist than in tolerating a racist?
All disciplines of science agree on the earth's age. This isn't a matter of debate among professional fact-checkers. It's only an issue to these Bible thumping retards. They pollute the minds of children, they pollute political issues, and they're generally just jerks. Here they are science's chief enemy, above politicians, and so they are mine enemy. As they should be your enemy as well. They won't listen to reason, like a couple in the park may, because they have already rejected all reason in favor of creationism.

lol. nice speech

[Symmetry]

Yep tolerance is a word that only applies to conservatives. Liberals don't have to be tolerant of anyone with different views than them.

And there is plenty of evidence for young earth creationism as life is the most complex thing in the universe. The idea that all of this could have happened by pure chance is patently absurd.

Hmm, pretty sure you don't pick up a degree in evolutionary biology simply by writing papers along the lines of "Meh, it just happens- pure chance, dude". Might be a little bit more to evolutionary theory than sheer happenstance. Just saying you know, that it's never been portrayed as pure chance. I guess, if you're interested, you could look at some of the simple rules of genetics and inheritance for some of the basic rules, and kind of move on from there towards Darwin's theories, then Stephen J Gould is a good intro if you don't want to touch Dawkins.

But yeah, pure chance isn't part of the theory.

Everything prior to the first existence of life can only be proven by chance. The spontaneous arrival of life from non-life is completely by chance. Only then can you even begin discussing evolutionary theories and whether they are correct or not. And in evolution, it's based on chance whether a genetic mutation happens and whether that mutation is beneficial and can be passed on to the next generation. Nature itself works against evolution because mutations are inherently treated as undesired in an organism.

Not exactly dude, respectfully, the defintion of life is not clear. You might be familiar with the debate over whether viruses are lifeforms or not, but if you aren't, I can tell you that opinions differ.

Surprisingly enough, there are many debates about evolutionary theories and whether they are correct or not without engaging with theories of the origin of life. Perhaps an analogy would be best- a chemist could discuss a chemical reaction without contemplating whether God created all matter.

I sort of think your take on evolutionary theory is kind of stuck somewhere around the mid 19th century, and you haven't really read even the arguments from that period, let alone the science beyond that. Can I ask if you've even read The Origin of Species? Or perhaps even its wikipedia page?

[Serbia]

Yeah. Nothing wrong with Muslims except that their religion is dumb. Initially I deduct 20 IQ points from their perceived intelligence and then I'm good. My ex was a Muslim and so was her whole family. But at least she wasn't a creationist.

Interesting. I wanted to know just how far your hypocritical bigotry extended. Your intolerance is simply shocking, especially given your tirade in a private forum that you're no long associated with. Creationists are your "enemies"? Fairly harsh, don't you think? And the haughtiness in "deducting IQ points" based on a religious belief is telling as well. You believe yourself better than anyone who doesn't share your of "truth", and are completely intolerant of any opposing view, or belief system. Not that you would care, but I've lost any respect for you.

You can pick apart any religion, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, whatever you like. But this whole idea of instantly thinking a religious person to be "retarded" (your word), "stupid", (your word), and an "idiot" (again, your word) is egotistical, and worse, bigoted.

[john9blue]

Everything prior to the first existence of life can only be proven by chance. The spontaneous arrival of life from non-life is completely by chance. Only then can you even begin discussing evolutionary theories and whether they are correct or not. And in evolution, it's based on chance whether a genetic mutation happens and whether that mutation is beneficial and can be passed on to the next generation. Nature itself works against evolution because mutations are inherently treated as undesired in an organism.

if it's "based on chance" whether a mutation is beneficial, then how can mutations be "inherently undesirable"? that implies that all mutations are not beneficial.

[Night Strike]

Perhaps an analogy would be best- a chemist could discuss a chemical reaction without contemplating whether God created all matter.

Which is exactly why I'm a chemist.

[Symmetry]

Perhaps an analogy would be best- a chemist could discuss a chemical reaction without contemplating whether God created all matter.

Which is exactly why I'm a chemist.

Heh- excellent. I hope you can accept that biologists can discuss evolutionary theories then, without having to go back to the beginning of life.

[Juan_Bottom]

lol. nice speech

I don't know who this is. But! obviously, he/she is one of the smartest people to ever to visit the OT.




Falsehoods I noticed:

Everything prior to the first existence of life can only be proven by chance.

Why? Where did you learn this? The biggest most famous gap in data is what happened before the big bang. Nobody knows where any of this came from.

The spontaneous arrival of life from non-life is completely by chance.

No... evolutionary theory doesn't explain the arrival of life. It doesn't even try.
All other explanations are just attempts at guessing. We now know that some of our building blocks, certain acids, do exist in abundance in space. And we do know some can be created. So taking an educated guess on the matter should not cause any great harm... Particularly since these guesses are not part of the theory of evolution.

Only then can you even begin discussing evolutionary theories and whether they are correct or not.

And in evolution, it's based on chance whether a genetic mutation happens and whether that mutation is beneficial and can be passed on to the next generation.

Some genetic scientists have been doing work for years now that seems to suggest that somehow your own body/species is evolving itself on it's own.

Nature itself works against evolution because mutations are inherently treated as undesired in an organism.

As Eugenie would say, this is why evolution is a process of anything but chance. In a race, you bet on the fastest horse. Nature also bets on the fastest horse.

And there is plenty of evidence for young earth creationism as life is the most complex thing in the universe.

That's not evidence for anything. And you don't factually know that at all.

The idea that all of this could have happened by pure chance is patently absurd.

Says the guy who's God "has always been and is outside time and the laws of physics." I think that I'll take my chances listening to the guys who physically research within the realm of reality. You can take yours with the guys tossing chicken bones into the air and reading the shapes that they land in.




These obvious falsehoods, some of which Darwin answered years ago, are exactly the reason that we don't have to respect creationists. They don't even know what the argument is, they understand that their version of God doesn't want them to hear it. As Sym delightfully points out, the reviewed literature and facts on this subject have progressed a lot since the year 0. But these people haven't kept up with any of it. I mean, sure they'll point out any gap in the data and cry 'GOD DID THAT!" But so what? They're retards.

[natty dread]

And there is plenty of evidence for young earth creationism

Oh night strike, you crack me up.

Good one, man.

[Night Strike]

The idea that all of this could have happened by pure chance is patently absurd.

Says the guy who's God "has always been and is outside time and the laws of physics." I think that I'll take my chances listening to the guys who physically research within the realm of reality. You can take yours with the guys tossing chicken bones into the air and reading the shapes that they land in.

Those guys who physically research also start from the premise that "God is false" and look for any other explanation that they can halfway piece together. And Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with tossing chicken bones (or anything else) into the air and interpreting shapes. Evolution on the other hand requires you to believe in life coming from non-life on its own, when that was demonstrated as false way back under Pasteur.

These obvious falsehoods, some of which Darwin answered years ago, are exactly the reason that we don't have to respect creationists. They don't even know what the argument is, they understand that their version of God doesn't want them to hear it. As Sym delightfully points out, the reviewed literature and facts on this subject have progressed a lot since the year 0. But these people haven't kept up with any of it. I mean, sure they'll point out any gap in the data and cry 'GOD DID THAT!" But so what? They're retards.

Considering Darwin knew absolutely nothing about DNA and its intricate complexities that would be impossible to arise from nothing, it's hard to rely on his work to explain why the world is the way it is.

And there is plenty of evidence for young earth creationism

Oh night strike, you crack me up.

Good one, man.

Considering both you and juan start with the premise that Christians are patently idiots with no rational iota in their beings, I'm not surprised that you don't understand and enjoy a good laugh. Your laughing now and refusal to accept Christianity means you won't be enjoying yourself come Judgment Day.

[Symmetry]

Considering both you and juan start with the premise that Christians are patently idiots with no rational iota in their beings, I'm not surprised that you don't understand and enjoy a good laugh. Your laughing now and refusal to accept Christianity means you won't be enjoying yourself come Judgment Day.

Ouch, that's a burn.

[john9blue]

people like NS are just like the straw men that atheists make, whenever they debate someone like me.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

-TG

[Juan_Bottom]

Those guys who physically research also start from the premise that "God is false" and look for any other explanation that they can halfway piece together.

If all scientists are Atheists then wouldn't that say something about the idiocy of Creationists? And about their rejection of reality?

Evolution on the other hand requires you to believe in life coming from non-life on its own, when that was demonstrated as false way back under Pasteur.

Well, again, I just said that this has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. It presumes nothing about the origin of life.

Considering Darwin knew absolutely nothing about DNA and its intricate complexities that would be impossible to arise from nothing, it's hard to rely on his work to explain why the world is the way it is.

First you don't know that anything is impossible about DNA or intricate complexities. Scientists recently observed a worm and a snail exchange DNA. WTF is up with that?
Second, Darwin didn't explain the origin of life, he explained the origin of species. So again you're demonstrating your complete lack of information on this subject. Even in his own time he was the one who demonstrated completely and satisfactorily the evolution of the human eye. He was not without training or intelligence. I wonder where yours is when you speak out against a Theory that you don't even understand.
And, it's funny that you attack Darwin for not knowing about DNA and still theorizing about Evolution. Yet you accept the word of Desert Goat Herders who lived thousands of years ago about the existence of a supreme being. You're defending your God Hypothesis by attacking Evolutionary Theory. There's something vainly hypocritical in your position, good sir. And it does not mix at all with your alleged scientific training.

Considering both you and juan start with the premise that Christians are patently idiots with no rational iota in their beings, I'm not surprised that you don't understand and enjoy a good laugh.

I just deduct 20 IQ points from their perceived intelligence. Other than that, I ignore their claims to religion. Most Christians don't know much about the Bible anyway. They don't know much about science either, I guess. That's why they don't kill homosexuals and allow women to have jobs and stuff.

[PLAYER57832]

Of course science is true: it was designed by God. However, human interpretations of science are not always correct.

On this, I absolutely agree with Nightstrike.

Insisting that anyone of faith is an idiot who does not understand science is beneath you pimpdave... and such attitudes do nothing to advance knowledge or understanding.


BUT.. this puts Nightstrike firmly in the camp of those who get ridiculed, with reason:

And there is plenty of evidence for young earth creationism

No, there is not a shred of evidence to support young Earth theories. In fact, the only concurrance of Young Earth ideas and science would require that God created everything and made it look as if the Earth were old.. or, in other words created the Earth as a lie.

Darwin actually began as a man of faith. What drove him to question God was the prolonged illness and then death of his daughter, which he thought was partially due to the fact that he and his wife were cousins.

[PLAYER57832]

people like NS are just like the straw men that atheists make, whenever they debate someone like me.

I vote we talk all in both groups, put them into the same room.. and maybe we would see Natural selection in progress.

[natty dread]

Those guys who physically research also start from the premise that "God is false" and look for any other explanation that they can halfway piece together.

Why wouldn't they, though? There's no evidence for the existence of any gods, why should they not assume that god is false?

Furthermore, considering your god that is both unfalsifiable and undetectable by any scientific means, how exactly should the scientists take your "god" in account?

Evolution on the other hand requires you to believe in life coming from non-life on its own, when that was demonstrated as false way back under Pasteur.

Evolution requires no such thing, you're confusing it with abiogenesis. Which incidentally hasn't been shown false.

Considering both you and juan start with the premise that Christians are patently idiots with no rational iota in their beings, I'm not surprised that you don't understand and enjoy a good laugh. Your laughing now and refusal to accept Christianity means you won't be enjoying yourself come Judgment Day.

That's ok, judgement day is pure fiction. Why would I care about your fairy tales?

Anyway, I don't think all christians are idiots or incapable of rationality, only the ones who refuse to accept reality. If you catch my drift...

Incidentally, this isn't the first time you've condemned me straight to hell... didn't jesus say "judge not, lest thee be judged"? What's up with that?

[PLAYER57832]

Yep tolerance is a word that only applies to conservatives. Liberals don't have to be tolerant of anyone with different views than them.

Allowing people to be idiots and agreeing are 2 different concepts, Nightstrike. Liberals are not out there attacking Young Earth creationists. They ARE saying that science teachers cannot teach a theory that is not science and is, in fact strongly disproven by science.
Science requires certain standards be met. The real truth is that young earthers continually try to be published, but even pushing the boundaries of science they jsut don't provide the scholarship necessary. I am more than happy to critique any paper you bring up.

And there is plenty of evidence for young earth creationism as life is the most complex thing in the universe.

No, there is absolutely NO evidence, in fact, as I stated above, young earth creationism is a plain false theory.

The idea that all of this could have happened by pure chance is patently absurd.

This is another question entirely, not actually part of evolutionary theory. How/why evolution happens, whether is a purely random process or God is unkown.. EXCEPT that in scientific literature, soemtimes will refer to "random processes" in this context as a "catch all" for "unkown processes". This is an entirely different, but still valid use of the term random than the mathematical term "random".

Evolution says that things change over time, that life comes from other life, That small mutations happen and can over a very, very, very long period of time, eventually result in a new species. HOWEVER, that last big does not seem to happen much unless there is an extreme period of change (such as we see today, by-the-way). In other words, things stay the same for millenia.. the fossil record is relatively consistant. Then you see a marked shit and dramatic change in the species composition. The kind of selection that Darwin first invisioned-- a gradual but relatively constant change would take far longer than even the age of the Earth.

[Juan_Bottom]

[Lootifer]

people like NS are just like the straw men that atheists make, whenever they debate someone like me.

Man itd be sweet if you were as smart as you thought you were. Youd be able to solve all the worlds problems n shit.

[PLAYER57832]

Those guys who physically research also start from the premise that "God is false" and look for any other explanation that they can halfway piece together.

Why wouldn't they, though? There's no evidence for the existence of any gods, why should they not assume that god is false?

Assuming ANYTHING is a pretty poor scientific approach.

Furthermore, considering your god that is both unfalsifiable and undetectable by any scientific means, how exactly should the scientists take your "god" in account?

They generally don't, unless they are militant atheists. Most scientists, contrary to Nightstrike's beliefs, actually are people of faith (though not necessarily Christian faith).

Evolution on the other hand requires you to believe in life coming from non-life on its own, when that was demonstrated as false way back under Pasteur.

Evolution requires no such thing, you're confusing it with abiogenesis. Which incidentally hasn't been shown false.

True

[Night Strike]

Of course science is true: it was designed by God. However, human interpretations of science are not always correct.

On this, I absolutely agree with Nightstrike.

Insisting that anyone of faith is an idiot who does not understand science is beneath you pimpdave... and such attitudes do nothing to advance knowledge or understanding.

You obviously haven't read enough of pimpdave's posts. Pimpdave hates conservatives, hates Christians, and will go out of his way to post slander about either, especially if he can slander both in one post. This thread is par for the course for him.

[PLAYER57832]

Of course science is true: it was designed by God. However, human interpretations of science are not always correct.

On this, I absolutely agree with Nightstrike.

Insisting that anyone of faith is an idiot who does not understand science is beneath you pimpdave... and such attitudes do nothing to advance knowledge or understanding.

You obviously haven't read enough of pimpdave's posts. Pimpdave hates conservatives, hates Christians, and will go out of his way to post slander about either, especially if he can slander both in one post. This thread is par for the course for him.

Only recently. Only recently.

[natty dread]

Assuming ANYTHING is a pretty poor scientific approach.

Ultimately, some assumptions have to be made, since we can never have 100% absolute proof of anything.

Most scientists, contrary to Nightstrike's beliefs, actually are people of faith

Can we see some statistics of this? I find this hard to believe, unless you stretch the definition of "scientist" by a fair margin...

[Lootifer]

Of course science is true: it was designed by God. However, human interpretations of science are not always correct.

On this, I absolutely agree with Nightstrike.

Insisting that anyone of faith is an idiot who does not understand science is beneath you pimpdave... and such attitudes do nothing to advance knowledge or understanding.

You obviously haven't read enough of pimpdave's posts. Pimpdave hates conservatives, hates Christians, and will go out of his way to post slander about either, especially if he can slander both in one post. This thread is par for the course for him.

Heh, there is another option, but I guess you'd probably find that even more distastful.

[Lootifer]

Can we see some statistics of this? I find this hard to believe, unless you stretch the definition of "scientist" by a fair margin...

Eh most of the world is still religious you know? Something like 17% in the US are in the category of non-religious. That covers everything from apathy (dont care) to active athiesm. Still a pretty small secotr of society.