quote: If you haven't noticed, I've been trying to support creationism in some of my posts. The reason is because I've been trying very very hard to think like myself a few years back (christian fundy). I must admit that the result is very surprising.
Rule #1: There is a god. Rule #2: God is actively influencing the world.
My sincere compliments. Your attitude is a refreshing and indeed profound breath of fresh air from the litany of repetitive responses from atheists on message boards and in books everywhere.
quote:I ask you this. Are the atheists, who started out on the religious side, really putting these 2 rules into consideration when dealing with a "fundy"?
Now there you go again, with the epithet thing, as if anyone and everyone who does not march to your tune is a "fundy." It's all black or white in atheist-think. Do you think it is not remotely possible that people can be Christians and not believe the earth is 6000 years old? Is that possible? Must atheists so often invoke the "flat earth" and "gravity" and "ignorance" and countless other inane arguments? Why!
quote: Fundies often have trouble understanding why we demand evidence for everything, and I think atheists often have trouble understanding why fundies have "faith".
I have absolutely no trouble understanding why atheists are so extremely condescending, pretending that they and only they rely on "evidence" and "science."
One need only ask a few simple questions to see atheists running for the doors, hurling insults and epithets as the flee in terror.
It is very unscholarly to rely on epithets instead of explanations.
That is why someone is judged "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", not "guilty beyond any doubt". Even the court realizes that we can not be 100% sure of anything. It is very unreasonable to claim that a video was doctored or that evidence was planted. However, it is not impossible. This is also why science is never 100% sure. For all we know, the fossils were all planted in their particular sediments by a bunch of trickster aliens. However, the reasonable assumption is that they ended up in those sediments through natural mechanisms.
Macroevolution is never ever claimed to be "the reasonable assumption." No, macroevolution is "fact, fact, fact." It is "as certain as gravity." All who do not comport to these demands, not "reasonable assumptions," but demands can only be, in atheist-talk:
- a fundie - a bible-thumper - ignorant - one who knows nothing about science - someone who does not understand evolution
There is no need for atheists and biologists to explain the gaps in fossils, or DNA synthesis from basic chemicals, or the mechanisms of producing polypeptides with spaces of 10 to the 200th or 400th power. Just run for the door and hurl "findie" and "bible-thumper" behind you as you dodge the question. That's real *science*.
quote: You do realize you are responding to an almost 5 year old post,don't you. I don't think the poster has even been here in about that long. Then again your posts have shown that you are not interested in a rational discussion anyway.
You do realize that the post was still carried on this brilliant forum, don't you? If five year old comments are too old, then tell the administrators to delete them at the time of your choosing, for of course your opinion is all that matters.
Now as to "rational discussion," what do pink unicorns have to do with science or evolution? I bring this up because "scientists" here, like the guy in the cute little pirate's hat, are always pretending to be on the side of "science" even as they constantly invoke topics that nobody else has mentioned. Such irrationality by the Anointed Set. tsk, tsk