Designation: No Frills Fundie Traits: Bad grammar and spelling. Inability to separate paragraphs. Almost comical lack of objectivity and self-consciousness. Posts two messages using brother’s computer and password, never registers. Level of science education: Watched “Bill Nye the Science Guy” twice before selling TV for food. Favorite word: Savior First line of first post: “the fear of the lord is the begining of all wisdim” Reaction to rebuttal: “thats just what i expect to hear from someone who killing the unborn”
Designation: Fundie 6.0 Traits: Techno-savvy presentation, with video-game avatar and MTV nickname. Prefers to be called a 'creation scientist.' Thinks he’s the first person who’s ever heard of Dr. Dino. Can link to any creationist website currently operating. Posts two dozen messages per day for two weeks, disappears. Level of science education: Has to take biology over again during the summer. Favorite word: Empirical First line of first post: “Evolution is a theory. A theory in crisis.” Reaction to rebuttal: “That’s just what I’d expect to hear from people who’ve never read Sarfati.”
Designation: The Deep Thinker Traits: Run on sentences. Inability to decide whether evidence for species evolution is nonexistent or misinterpreted. Accusations of atheism and amorality toward anyone opposing him. Posts all his messages on the same day every month, claims to be extremely busy with his ‘research.’. Level of science education: Excused from freshman biology because of allergy to formaldehyde. Has read everything by Phillip Johnson, still working on Darwin’s Black Box. Favorite word: Paradigm First line of first post: “The presumed evidence for the metaphysical research program of evolution, which may be explained equally well by the teleological hypothesis of Intelligent Design, consists of a data set that is meaningless outside the context of a philosophical mindset, is evidence of nothing more than atheistic bias masquerading as objective science, having no more validity than any other just-so story.” Reaction to rebuttal: “That’s precisely what I would expect to hear from the brainwashed minions of the scientific politburo who oppose scientific progress who are covering up the bankruptcy of Darwinist dogma which scientists are abandoning by the droves.”
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed. Brad McFall
Designation: Self proclaimed genius fundie XP Traits: Arguements from authority. Evidence = personal belief. Uses technical jargon to initially sound like they have some passing familiarity with a biological discipline but over time, their posts become more and more estoteric. Level of science education: Studied biology 40 years ago but have not looked at a book or the primary literature since then. Well acquainted with scientific literature that has been shown to be incorrect in the interim. Completely ignorant of all subsequent research. Favorite words:semi-meiosis, farts First line of first post: "During my brilliant career as a famous scientist it was my observation that evolution is not supported by the evidence and that my alternate theory will shift the paradigm towards creation among the true scientists and not the blind atheistic dogmatic people who call themselves scientists" Reaction to rebuttal: "You clearly fail to grasp the importance of what I say since you are not a real scientist like I am. I have provided rock solid evidence for creation whereas evolution has no support found in any discipline. This is also supported by the unquestionable (insert name of anti-Darwin scientist who died 100 years ago) who provided the indisputable proof that Darwin was a fraud. If you understood how the law of succession and Monte Carlo simulation disproves the change in allele frequency over time, you would see that Jehovah is the answer. It's your choice. Get a life."
[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 01-27-2004]
Designation: Sy-bernetic Fundie Traits: Quotes book titles. Repetitive posting pattern. Thinks science dictates morality. Thinks everyone else is a nazi. Finds comparison, competition, and Bosnian Serbs immoral. Level of science education: Picked up one of Dawkin's books once, but never read it. Knows how to spell Lorenz. Favorite word: Lorenz First line of first post: "Comparison leads to prejudice and is not necessary in evolution thus one must only talk about relative reproduction if one does not want to become a nazi like all those darwinists." Reaction to rebuttal: "You should all just go away."
Hey Guys...Phatboy, here. I know that I am in the camp of people known as Believers in God,(Christian version) but I don't really know if I am a Creationist, per se. I believe that God was the first cause, but I also think that the guys who try and refute the traditional science theories are a bit whack. Hmm...how would I rate in your terminology? Name: Phatboy Designation: Rodney King fundie..(why can't we all just get along?) Traits: Never answers questions that he does not understand. Thinks that he is Gods spokesman, but prays a lot. Level of science education: Has a buddy that works at Ball aerospace and who thinks that Jesus was an alien. Favorite word: Hmmmmm First line of first post: "Hey Guys. Wassup?" Reaction to rebuttal: "Do you feel lucky?"
quote:Hey Guys...Phatboy, here. I know that I am in the camp of people known as Believers in God,(Christian version) but I don't really know if I am a Creationist, per se. I believe that God was the first cause, but I also think that the guys who try and refute the traditional science theories are a bit whack. Hmm...how would I rate in your terminology?
Hi Phatboy, A creationist is actually someone who 1. confuses abiogenesis with evolution 2. believes in a strict literal interpretation of the bible, koran, any religious text 3. then proceeds to claim that evolution is not true because they cannot understand it and that it is a conspiracy by all us evil scientist to break them away from god. From your description of yourself, you would not be a creationist but more a theistic evolutionist i.e. one who believes in god but does not find their belief in conflict with the results of methodological naturalism i.e. science.
Designation: Not quite extinct hairy scientist Traits: Negative reaction to boneheaded comments put forth arrogantly. Can't distinguish Ginger from Amber Lynn anymore. Favorite word: Spam..or maybe spork..Fartmann..ok it's a name..but it's one of my favorites...maybe Stephan ben Yeshua can use the guy as evidence for demons? First line of first post: Please provide a testable and falsifiable hypothesis of (insert god/gods/ID/pink unicorns etc.) Reaction to rebuttal (has there ever been a real creationist rebuttal???): Please provide a testable and falsifiable hypothesis of (insert god/gods/ID/pink unicorns etc.)
Each of the great Western monotheistic traditions sees God as truth, love, and knowledge. This should mean that each and every increase in our understanding of the natural world is a step toward God and not, as many people assume, a step away. If faith and reason are both gifts from God, then they should play complementary, not conflicting, roles in our struggle to understand the world around us. As a scientist and as a Christian, that is exactly what I believe. True knowledge comes only from a combination of faith and reason.
A nonbeliever, of course, puts his or her trust in science and finds no value in faith. And I certainly agree that science allows believer and nonbeliever alike to investigate the natural world through a common lens of observation, experiment, and theory. The ability of science to transcend cultural, political, and even religious differences is part of its genius, part of its value as a way of knowing. What science cannot do is assign either meaning or purpose to the world it explores. This leads some to conclude that the world as seen by science is devoid of meaning and absent of purpose. It is not. What it does mean, I would suggest, is that our human tendency to assign meaning and value must transcend science and, ultimately, must come from outside it. The science that results can thus be enriched and informed from its contact with the values and principles of faith. The God of Abraham does not tell us which proteins control the cell cycle. But he does give us a reason to care, a reason to cherish that understanding, and above all, a reason to prefer the light of knowledge to the darkness of ignorance.
As more than one scientist has said, the truly remarkable thing about the world is that it actually does make sense. The parts fit, the molecules interact, the darn thing works. To people of faith, what evolution says is that nature is complete. Their God fashioned a material world in which truly free and independent beings could evolve. He got it right the very first time.
To some, the murderous reality of human nature is proof that God is absent or dead. The same reasoning would find God missing from the unpredictable branchings of an evolutionary tree. But the truth is deeper. In each case, a deity determined to establish a world that was truly independent of his whims, a world in which intelligent creatures would face authentic choices between good and evil, would have to fashion a distinct, material reality and then let his creation run. Neither the self-sufficiency of nature nor the reality of evil in the world mean God is absent. To a religious person, both signify something quite different - the strength of God's love and the reality of our freedom as his creatures.
I must say that I DO believe in the supernatural reality of demons/angels only because I have experienced it. I would not rule out another plausible explanation of what I did experience, however.
I miss Mr. Hambre, he was a good poster. Looking back, I now ask myself the question of what a creationist is.
Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being. However, the term is more commonly used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of certain biological processes, in particular much of evolution, as an explanation accounting for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth
Wiki Source I now see no problem with evolution as an explanation. The only thing it appears to do is to make the Bible out to be the best explanation that folks had at that time, rather than an eternal source of wisdom and truth..and I can still believe that God knows what humans are likely to conclude and has made arrangements for it in the script.
In drama there's the Writer who creates the script, the Director who interprets it and the Producer who applies the budget constraints. Creationists seem to be missing the third member of that Trinity, the guy who ties it in to reality,"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
There is no topic available that I can find where this question will not be off topic, so here goes. Is hydrogen sulfide really amphoteric and if it is, give examples of how it acts as a base and an acid.
If science and religion are ever going to have any harmony they should see the points of each others' argument with a grain honesty. Both are religious by any definition since they both possess traits of fundamentalism, blindly adhering to whatever their respective camps' dogma is touting.
To a evolutionist, saying that the earth is only 5000-6000 years old is ridiculous to those with this seemingly scientific mindset. They will NEVER accept a "new earth theory" or ex nihilo creationism, which defies laws of thermodynamics.
Conversely, to say all that we are, and life in general came from a random, matter of chance, therefore our existence and lives means nothing, and we go nowhere after this mortal existence is equally preposterous. Creationists will NEVER accept this either.
But I am definitely on the creationists' side of the fence when it come to this debate. However, I would like to ask the Bible believing creationists to please reread the 1st chapter of Genesis carefully. Please tell me when/where does God ever say "let there be water?" Where does it say "let there be land?"
He doesn't. The water was already there according to the Genesis account. Maybe it was there for eons upon eons. He divided the water and dry land appeared. He called it earth. Also, if Christians would explore their Judaic roots a bit further, they would see that there is a long held tradition that God created and destroyed the earth numerous times before He placed Adam and Eve here. To say that God is an Eternal Being, but to say simultaneously that He never did any creative works until a mere 5000-6000 years ago is preposterous. Christians will always be ridiculed by the scientific community until they quit limiting an Eternal God's creative genius to a few thousand year time frame.
The earth can indeed be billions of years old, but that doesn't mean that God didn't create it long before He put Adam and Eve here. The earth being very old doesn't mean that Adam and Eve didn't exist or the Bible is false. The contradictions are caused by misinterpretations. What is a few billion years in an eternal perspective? Not a whole heck of a lot. Besides, isn't a day for God equal a 1000 years according to our time? Expand your mind creationists. Stuff happened before Genesis. And because it happened, doesnt mean Genesis isn't true.