|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Why I am creationist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What are you psychic now? No just more strawmen, thats all you got there babe. Well, do tell us your views, then we won't have to guess. For example, do you believe that the Bible is inerrant?
Thats laughable ... In what way? Are you denying that historically religious folk have compelled orthodoxy by the inquisition and the stake?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
IchiBan writes:
Obvious nonsense.Actually what I find odd is that so many evolutionists are on a zealous crusade against any notion of a creator (except the ones made in their own image) . There are many theistic evolutionists, who do believe in a creator. And there is no mass crusade against them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IchiBan Member (Idle past 4937 days) Posts: 88 Joined: |
And I am supposed to take your word over what is published over several different sources with notes?
If you are going to sling around a lpt of wild accusations, how about backing them up with independent & verifiable sources. Err uh, places like talkorigins wont qualify. Dr, You and your halfwitted diatribes, are not adequate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 4808 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
nwr writes: IchiBan writes:
Obvious nonsense. Actually what I find odd is that so many evolutionists are on a zealous crusade against any notion of a creator (except the ones made in their own image) .There are many theistic evolutionists, who do believe in a creator. And there is no mass crusade against them. Case in point. I believe in a Creator, and I am an evolutionist. And I haven't been hounded for it yet. And I'm certainly not on a zealous crusade against any religious belief. I guess that kind of disproves your "point", doesn't it? Respectfully, -Meldinoor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IchiBan Member (Idle past 4937 days) Posts: 88 Joined: |
You dont read to well do you. What he said was that I could not send the Inquisition yada yada yada after him. And whre he dredged that up from I have no idea, except maybe in his own head.
Pretty sloppy there ol' chap, of both him and you. And I am supposed to take your word about what?? Like I said before, neither creationism nor christianity are required to see all of the flaws in evolutionary beliefs and reject them for what they are, a belief. Ultimately evolutionism is a religion that masquerades as a science discipline .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IchiBan Member (Idle past 4937 days) Posts: 88 Joined: |
No I would not agree that your your one vote invalidates that statement I made about so many evolutionists. My point however is that
neither creationism nor christianity are required to see all of the flaws in evolutionary beliefs and reject them for what they are, a belief. Ultimately evolutionism is a religion that masquerades as a science discipline .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 801 days) Posts: 3193 Joined:
|
And I am supposed to take your word over what is published over several different sources with notes? What sources did YOU use? What notes? All you provided were quotes that could have come from anywhere.
If you are going to sling around a lpt(sic) of wild accusations, how about backing them up with independent & verifiable sources. It would behoove you to heed your own advice.
Err uh, places like talkorigins wont qualify. Why is that, exactly?
Like I said before, neither creationism nor christianity are required to see all of the flaws in evolutionary beliefs and reject them for what they are, a belief. Ultimately evolutionism is a religion that masquerades as a science discipline . Simply repeating the same inane nonsense does nothing to further your point. "Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan "On a personal note I think he's the greatest wrestler ever. He's better than Lou Thesz, Gorgeous George -- you name it."-The Hulkster on Nature Boy Ric Flair
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 4808 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
IchiBan writes: No I would not agree that your your one vote invalidates that statement I made about so many evolutionists Then how many votes would it take to satisfy you? There are several more who take my position on this forum. If we are to believe the Gallup polls, some 36% of the American population believe God guided evolution to produce the diversity of life on earth. There are potentially many more who believe in evolution by purely natural processes (my position, until further evidence presents itself) but where God may have acted as a prime mover to get creation going. Finally, there are many scientists who hold a similar position. Science and Nature How many exceptions does it take before a rule becomes a smelly puff of hot air?
IchiBan writes: Ultimately evolutionism is a religion that masquerades as a science discipline Nah. I have no faith in evolution beyond expecting to see natural processes in the past extrapolate into the present and future. Evolution is falsifiable, something that most religions are not. If evidence no longer supported descent with modification, I would "recant" BTW, are we talking about "evolutionism" or evolution here? If you mean "evolutionism", you may have a point. If you're referring to the theory of evolution you're sadly mistaken. Which is it? Respectfully, -Meldinoor ABE:By the way, if evolution was a religion, wouldn't I know? After all, I'm an "evolutionist". And I have no theological axe to grind, so why would I lie? Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given. Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given. General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett - "If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5018 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
quote: And your evidence for this is......
quote: I've never personally come across anyone who 'sees all the flaws in evolutionary theory' without having prior belief in some religious truth that contradicts it. So, are there people who believe in a young earth but do NOT believe this because of their religion? Can you name some? Are there people who believe in special creation but do NOT believe it was done by their God? Can you name some? Edited by Peepul, : No reason given. Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IchiBan Member (Idle past 4937 days) Posts: 88 Joined: |
Well then your experience as for all of us, is limited.
Neither creationism nor christianity are required to see all of the flaws in evolutionary beliefs and reject them for what they are, a belief. And yes, ultimately evolutionism is a religion that masquerades as a science discipline .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5018 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
quote: Simply re-asserting this doesn't get you any further forward. It makes it look as if you have nothing to back it up. I believe you don't have anything to back it up. To quote you:
quote: So, - are there any people who believe in a young earth without having a religious belief in a young earth? Who are they? - are there any people who believe in special creation without believing that their god did it? Who are they? I don't believe there are people like this- in which case your statement is untrue. Can you prove me wrong? - what is it about evolution that you think makes it a religion? Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
If you are going to sling around a lpt of wild accusations, how about backing them up with independent & verifiable sources. The irony is strong in this one. Where are your references? Where is the context for those quotes? Where are you going with this line of reasoning? Why is it so important for you to describe evolution as a religion? What is your argument here? Also, you claim it is very easy to see the flaws in evolution and yet you can't seem to describe any of them. It would appear that it is very hard to find these flaws, otherwise you would have done it already.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And I am supposed to take your word over what is published over several different sources with notes? The fact that several different creationists have published the same libel ("with notes" even) does not add weight to it. Creationists always copy each other's junk without independently verifying it.
If you are going to sling around a lpt of wild accusations, how about backing them up with independent & verifiable sources. Uh, hello, does "burden of proof" mean anything to you? It's up to you to find these imaginary words anywhere in the works of Keith and of Wald. Or you could apply your common sense. Evolutionists do not recite creationist dogma. They just don't. It is a "wild accusation", not to mention a slur on their intelligence, to suggest that two of them did recite creationist dogma. It is not in the least bit "wild" to point out that they didn't.
Err uh, places like talkorigins wont qualify. Right, of course you want to exclude anyone who's bothered to check the facts on this issue, i.e. evolutionists. Instead you take the word of creationists, none of whom even claim to have read the original documents which they nonetheless claim to be quoting.
Dr, You and your halfwitted diatribes, are not adequate. And yet somehow I'm right and you're wrong. How did that happen? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You don't read too well, do you? As usual, you are wrong. However, in this case I made the fatal mistake of assuming that what you were saying made sense, which is usually the best first interpretation of any text.
What he said was that I could not send the Inquisition yada yada yada after him. And whre he dredged that up from I have no idea, except maybe in his own head. If you were actually condemning as "laughable" the literal meaning of his words, i.e. that you can't send the Inquisition after him, then I would point out that you really can't send the Inquisition after him, what with you not being advanced in the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, and what with the Office of the Holy Inquisition having been disbanded for several centuries.
Pretty sloppy there ol' chap, of both him and you. And I am supposed to take your word about what?? You tell me, it's your non sequitur. I didn't ask you to take my word for anything.
Like I said before, neither creationism nor christianity are required to see all of the flaws in evolutionary beliefs and reject them for what they are, a belief. And yet for some reason it almost always seems to be religious fanatics who gabble out this sort of nonsense about evolution. Coincidence?
Ultimately evolutionism is a religion that masquerades as a science discipline . If this was true, then the first people who'd spot this supposed masquerade would be scientists, don't you think? So I think I'll let scientists tell me what is and isn't science. I mean, what would you know about science? Be honest. But these people ... I think they'd know.
Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. --- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Acadmie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Acadmie des Sciences et Techniques du Sngal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Fsicas, Matemticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU). Now, either you're better at telling what is and isn't science than they are ... or, and I strongly urge you to consider this possibility ... you're not. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
...Office of the Holy Inquisition having been disbanded for several centuries. From Wiki: When the institutions of the church felt themselves threatened by what they perceived as the heresy, and then schism of the Protestant Reformation, they reacted. Paul III (Pope from 1534 to 1549) established a system of tribunals, administered by the "Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition", and staffed by cardinals and other Church officials. This system would later become known as the Roman Inquisition. Inquisition - Wikipedia Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024