Unintended Consequences of Creationism

I'm a participant in this thread and can offer no moderator services here (I do take advantage of my permissions to do simple tasks like fix broken dBCodes). Perhaps Adminnemooseus will take note.--Percy

Which probably won't have any impact. But if the no content junk messages continue, the posts per day will be reduced.Adminnemooseus

I am not moderating this thread, but I would like to comment on what just happened. Given Dredge's participation here every day for the past four weeks, his complete absence immediately after Adminnemooseus's moderation two days ago is another item of evidence that he was truly a troll dedicated to insuring that no constructive discussion progress could be made. Once he saw his ability to disrupt beginning to be curtailed he ceased participation.

So then you vehemently oppose "evolution" while at the same time believing in biological evolution?But every time WE say "evolution", we very precisely mean biological evolution. You know, that thing that you also believe in.Which means that what you call "evolution" is something different than biological evolution.So just do you mean by "evolution", which is unacceptable to you and so different from acceptable biological evolution?IOW, just what the hell are you talking about? BTW, it's not just you, but ALL creationists who go on and on about "evolution" describing it and attributing to it things that have nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. IOW, creationists are notorious for not knowing what it is that they are fighting, nor even why they are fighting it.Consider this quote from the famous Chinese general, Sun Tzu:

quote:

---

Scroll III (Offensive Strategy):

31. Therefore I say: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.
32. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal.
33. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."

(Sun Tzu The Art of War, translation by Samuel B. Griffith, Oxford University Press, 1963)

---

Your avowed enemy is evolution (or rather your grossly bizaare misrepresentation of it, or whatever inanity you are misnaming "evolution"), yet you are completely ignorant of it. As per Verse 32, you might still have a chance so long as you know yourself, but you don't. You are also greatly ignorant of yourself. Therefore, you are certain in every battle to be in peril, as per Verse 33.

quote:

---

Deteriorata:

​

​

Give up.

​

---

 

I think evolution here just means adapting and changing over time rather than staying exactly the same.

I am not responding to Dredge anymore.But:He is deliberately not offering clarification and he ignores any request for clarification. In another thread, I was a victim of his constant contradictions when he argued progressive creation at times, while also making claims this support for theistic evolution. He refused to clarify, but the only slight clarifications were slight indeed. Then he contradicted himself yet again.No big deal?It was his place to attack the scientific community and observations, to a certain extent. But it is ridiculous to attack others for their observations with the emerging best-theories (evolution is it), but to then refuse to offer your own coherent theory.Creationism is not so much a theory as it is a conclusion without much of a detailed hypothesis. There is no scientific hypothesis in Creationism. The details & history are simply NOT THERECreationism (a "creationism" that questions biological evolution and the emergence of life)is not even a philosophical idea. It just lacks the whole scheme, and pretty much all of the time.There is no coherent, detailed, complete biological creationism schematic.Creationism is all puff. Dredge is just fluffing the fluff, swatting puff.

I think one of the unintended consequences of creationism is that it forces creationists into contradictions, not just with other creationists (e.g., YEC vs. OEC), but even with themselves, as you mentioned with Dredge who in different posts has both accepted and rejected evolution.--Percy

I don't think the everyday creationists understand that the creationism movement has completely and utterly failed - after all this time - to actually outline a timeline for life, and to distinguish what "micro-evolved" verses what just plain evolved or macro-whatever evolutionary changes happened.The emergence of life 6000 years ago by half of creationists verses billions of years ago by the other half does not embarrass the shameless mindsets in the sham "scientific" movement.It seems like biological creationism simply thrives on dishonest lies about the scientific community. It looks like a slimy movement is at the heart of biological creationism.(Dredge only wanted to set up an "atheist" strawman so he could get some benefit that I can't figure)