Creationists

[Hollie]

Ima, you have proven on numerous occasions to be pretty thick. I know this has been explained to you several times and a simple internet search would provide more info than you could ever want or read on dualism, good vs. evil, etc.

I think it's your god that seriously thick. He makes a world, gives us free will, then punishes us if we don't choose him. Sorry, but I can't worship such a massive egotistical douchesack.

No God created a world without sin and man had a choice not to sin but is now paying a price for choosing to live in sin.

Your gawds created evil.

The "test" was a fraud.

You need some new gawds.

 

[daws101]

"One of the most common metaphysical premises in evolutionary theory is the claim that similarity implies common descent. If two species share similar genes then they must share a common ancestor, from which those genes originated. Evolutionists don’t think twice about this metaphysical claim. Among friends it is taken for granted and any challenges from creationists don’t matter to begin with. Why is this claim metaphysical? Because it doesn’t come from science. There is no scientific experiment or observation that tells us that biological similarity implies common descent. And yet, in a sure sign of metaphysics at work, evolutionists are certain of this premise. Similarity must arise as a consequence of common descent. This conclusion can be trumped only by the finding of even more similarity elsewhere. And such conflicts are common. Evolutionists often need to retract earlier conclusions of relatedness, and the evolutionary tree is filled with conflicting similarities and differences."

Darwin's God: A Common Code: Surely That Means They?re All Related?Doesn?t It?

Yeah he hit the nail on the head the only B.S. being spewed is the side trying to suggest exactly what UR stated.

DNA similarity does not prove common ancestry got it ?

so not debating me any more was a lie? god will appreciate that.

 

[daws101]

I would not allow abnormal couples adopt children that already have enough problems under their belts. And invitro fertilization still needs both a female's egg and a male's sperm. Same sex "gay" couple cannot provide both. And it seems to me that the latter part of your post is true of a "gay" male's focus of worship.....

that assumption like all your other assumption is false.
being gay is not abnormal or not natural.
you did prove one thing , you're a bigot a homophobe..
where the egg and sperm come from is not the point, anyone can have sex.
the gift as you call it is in the raising and nurture of the child.
GAY couples do have one huge advantage over "straight couples they do not fill group homes and mortuaries with their creations.
did I tell you what a ignorant and hateful person you are today?

This is the playbook of an Ideologue on display when someone disagrees with their view.

no these are facts and any rebuttal to them is willful ignorance...

 

[ima]

So why did god make ugly people?

 

[daws101]

So why did god make ugly people?

my guess is, god is no brad pitt.

 

[Vandalshandle]

God told me that homosexuals are condemned to hell, except the Episcopalian, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, and Evangelical Luthern churches, who God has decided may ordain practicing gay and lesbian ministers. I am not sure if God is saying that these churches are so far beyond the pale that He doesn't care, or if He is saying that these are his favorite churches, and wants them to be examples of what He likes.

 

[Hollie]

Yeah he hit the nail on the head the only B.S. being spewed is the side trying to suggest exactly what UR stated.

DNA similarity does not prove common ancestry got it ?

so not debating me any more was a lie? god will appreciate that.

I thought he wasn't debating you anymore... anymore like the last half-dozen times he wasn't debating you anymore.

He went wee wee wee all the way home.

 

[daws101]

Yeah he hit the nail on the head the only B.S. being spewed is the side trying to suggest exactly what UR stated.

DNA similarity does not prove common ancestry got it ?

so not debating me any more was a lie? god will appreciate that.

I thought he wasn't debating you anymore... anymore like the last half-dozen times he wasn't debating you anymore.

He went wee wee wee all the way home.

with wee wee running down his leg.

 

[UltimateReality]

I think it's your god that seriously thick. He makes a world, gives us free will, then punishes us if we don't choose him. Sorry, but I can't worship such a massive egotistical douchesack.

God gave us free will and warned that there will be consequences for our actions.

is it just me or is that just the opposite of free will..?

It's just you. Now if he had said negative consequences, you might have the basis of an argument. But he didn't, so as usual your post is completely devoid of any logic... Thethspy-douche. I think I've figured out the source of your anger... shrunken tights!!!

Even when people know there are negative consequences, they still choose destruction... kind of like choosing to engage in homosexual behavior. Did I ever tell you about the search warrant we did on an ecstasy lab run by a group of gay guys? The one guy was obviously dying of AIDS... 5'9" and about 90 lbs when we arrested him. We found pics of him handcuffed to a wall, wasting ribs protruding from his chest, with his buddy trying to cram what must have been a 5-inch diameter dildo up his ass. You would have enjoyed the pics but they just made me want to vomit... literally. I was nauseated. Even though he was obviously dying, he couldn't stop engaging in the behavior that killed him. At least that was the lie he had bought from evolutionist, genetic deterministic pricks like you Daws, which sold him the lie he was powerless to do anything about his deviant, destructive urges.

 

[UltimateReality]

I would not allow abnormal couples adopt children that already have enough problems under their belts. And invitro fertilization still needs both a female's egg and a male's sperm. Same sex "gay" couple cannot provide both. And it seems to me that the latter part of your post is true of a "gay" male's focus of worship.....

that assumption like all your other assumption is false.
being gay is not abnormal or not natural.
you did prove one thing , you're a bigot a homophobe..
where the egg and sperm come from is not the point, anyone can have sex.
the gift as you call it is in the raising and nurture of the child.
GAY couples do have one huge advantage over "straight couples they do not fill group homes and mortuaries with their creations.
did I tell you what a ignorant and hateful person you are today?

This is the playbook of an Ideologue on display when someone disagrees with their view.

I can sum up Daws rebuttal easily... "Because I said so" statements and Ad Hominem attacks.... NEXT!!!

 

[UltimateReality]

So why did god make ugly people?

Answer me this question... If EVERYONE was beautiful, how would anyone know they were beautiful?

Ugly-beautiful, Light-Dark, Hot-Cold, Good-Evil...

You really should get some formal education starting with a basic philosophy class.

 

[UltimateReality]

Epigentics...

"This is far more involved than a random mutation occurring that just happens to improve slightly how the organism works. In fact epigenetics would involve literally hundreds (and that is conservative) of changes required before any benefit would be realized.

The tagging machines not only need to be built, or adapted from other machines, but they need to know where in all the genome to place the tags. Likewise for the machines that remove and move the tags. In other words, it is not good enough merely to evolve the machines. They somehow much know where to place the tags given a spectrum of environmental signals.

And then the machines that interpret the tags would have to do so correctly. They would have to know what the tag means. So again, not only must these machines have evolved or adapted, but they must know what they are doing.

That is astronomically unlikely to occur according to our knowledge of science."

Darwin's God: Plant's Epigenome as Varied as Their Environments

Wait! Here comes Hawly without a rebuttal and another lame Ad Hominem attack.

 

[holston]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

Not ALL "creationists" believe that the earth is 6000 years old, only that it was created.
They may also believe that there was an intelligence in the universe which was in the form of a "spirit", or "ghost",........a Holy ghost, if you will, that was responsible for creating it.
This alone says nothing about HOW this "Ghost" created the universe, only that it was a form of intelligence that did so.

No, this does not explain the chicken and the egg paradox.
But neither does the explanation of ....... "Well, it just always was."

One expresses the belief that a spirit preceded matter, or that matter proceeded from the conscious will of the spirit.

The other believes essentially that there is no ultimate explanation for the origin of energy or matter, or if there is, it remains for some future intelligence to discern.
Otherwise, consciousness, and what we call "intelligence" was purely an accident and is not eternal, whereas matter and energy are.

Which scenario makes more sense depends on whether how you rank intelligence and energy or matter.
For there is no reason to assume that an intelligent spirit could not have just "always been", than it does to suppose that matter has just "always been".


If in the future, it becomes possible to comprehend the origin of the universe by some highly involved intelligence which ultimately owed it's origin to matter, what logic precludes that future intelligence from "mastering" matter so to speak by finding a way to achieve eternal life?

The puzzle still remains.... "WHEN was the beginning in relation to a future
which has no end?

And if for some reason the universe must ultimately cease to exist, then why should it have ever existed in the first place?

Faced with all of these numinous and ineffable prospects, is it really all that preposterous to posit the existence of God the intelligent creator?
I don't think so.

Some people would try to convince you it is. Why they feel that is important to do is for you to ponder.

 

[Hollie]

Epigentics...

"This is far more involved than a random mutation occurring that just happens to improve slightly how the organism works. In fact epigenetics would involve literally hundreds (and that is conservative) of changes required before any benefit would be realized.

The tagging machines not only need to be built, or adapted from other machines, but they need to know where in all the genome to place the tags. Likewise for the machines that remove and move the tags. In other words, it is not good enough merely to evolve the machines. They somehow much know where to place the tags given a spectrum of environmental signals.

And then the machines that interpret the tags would have to do so correctly. They would have to know what the tag means. So again, not only must these machines have evolved or adapted, but they must know what they are doing.

That is astronomically unlikely to occur according to our knowledge of science."

Darwin's God: Plant's Epigenome as Varied as Their Environments

Wait! Here comes Hawly without a rebuttal and another lame Ad Hominem attack.

No, wait. Here comes the knucklehead with another cut and paste outlined in gargantuan fonts and bright colors. All from the same fundie whackjob.

 

[ima]

So why did god make ugly people?

Answer me this question... If EVERYONE was beautiful, how would anyone know they were beautiful?

Ugly-beautiful, Light-Dark, Hot-Cold, Good-Evil...

You really should get some formal education starting with a basic philosophy class.

So god made some people really ugly so that the beautiful people would know that they're good looking?

 

[Hollie]

To Distinguish Creationism from ID, Try Evolution as the Outgroup - The Panda's Thumb

After the unit on Creationism and Intelligent Design in my Critical Thinking/Science and Pseudoscience class at New Mexico Tech (Psych 189), I asked the students to write an essay on the question

Is “Intelligent Design” just another version of Creationism? Why?

Along came student Elaine, who included this comment in her essay:

It seems that if you are only comparing Intelligent Design against Creationism, there are enough subtleties to identify one or the other. However, if it is a case of arguing Intelligent Design vs. Creationism vs. evolution, the contrast between evolution and the other two is so great that Intelligent Design and Creationism become indistinguishable in their respective arguments. The only giveaway would be a reference to Genesis, the use of “God” rather than “Creator/Designer”, or some explicit differentiation between the two. In contrast, no one could ever possibly confuse an evolution argument with any other.

I remarked that the student had used evolution as an outgroup to correctly root the evolution/creationism/ID tree, and gave her an “A” for the assignment.

 

[holston]

The theory that man is an ape is actively promoted in the Judeo Zionist academic world.

Students are rewarded for politically correct answers and punished for those which deviate from the acceptable political narrative.

However one imagines man to have come into existence, man is still man, and apes are still apes.

One need not degrade the primate world in order to ascribe to man the existence of a moral dimension or to allow for the possibility that the temporal body is survived by the spirit which once inhabited it.

It should be emphasized that all theories remain theories until they have been proven.
Any thinking man should be reluctant to accept alleged proofs based on nothing more than another persons word, even if that person has a PhD.

Since a PhD is no guarantee of complete honesty, integrity, or correctness, the possibility is left open that such a person may have reasons for promoting particular ideas for personal or political reasons with little regard for the truth.

One can pay deference to the credentials and accomplishments of others by allowing their words added weight. Personally I would come nearer to accepting the opinion of an expert than a novice. At the same time I remain conscious of the fact that all of us are capable of error.

 

[koshergrl]

To Distinguish Creationism from ID, Try Evolution as the Outgroup - The Panda's Thumb

After the unit on Creationism and Intelligent Design in my Critical Thinking/Science and Pseudoscience class at New Mexico Tech (Psych 189), I asked the students to write an essay on the question

Is “Intelligent Design” just another version of Creationism? Why?

Along came student Elaine, who included this comment in her essay:

It seems that if you are only comparing Intelligent Design against Creationism, there are enough subtleties to identify one or the other. However, if it is a case of arguing Intelligent Design vs. Creationism vs. evolution, the contrast between evolution and the other two is so great that Intelligent Design and Creationism become indistinguishable in their respective arguments. The only giveaway would be a reference to Genesis, the use of “God” rather than “Creator/Designer”, or some explicit differentiation between the two. In contrast, no one could ever possibly confuse an evolution argument with any other.

I remarked that the student had used evolution as an outgroup to correctly root the evolution/creationism/ID tree, and gave her an “A” for the assignment.

Nice blog. Try using quotation marks next time.

Did you see this:

"
When it comes to “relying entirely on science and not on religion”, it’s rather clear that YOU EVOLUTIONISTS simply aren’t in any position to accuse the Discovery Institute of failing to do so.
Indeed, (on top of the EA4 example), at Eugenie Scott’s website (the NSCE), you’ll find plenty of theistic-evolution “religious sects” that she’s happy to promote and quote for saying the very same TE claim given by Pope John Paul II which was promoted in EA4. And the NAS book “Science, Evolution, and Creationism” includes a reference to that NSCE religion section.
Therefore, since you evolutionists clearly feel that YOU have the right to exploit promote, and teach what various theistic-evolution “religious sects” believe about biology/evolution, and even textbook-teach those religious TE positions in supposed-to-be-science textbooks when it suits you, there is nothing wrong, nothing ‘ironic’, and even nothing unscientific, regarding the Discovery Institute critically examining and rejecting the theistic-evolution positions of those various TE “religious sects” as well.
(By the way, I do have a copy of the DI’s book “God and Evolution”, so I know what it is you’re talking about, regarding the DI’s critiques of said “sects.” Of course, the arguments presented by the DI on this TE thing are quite strong and quite accurate, there’s really no disputing about that. I’m also glad that you at least were willing to allow your students to at least see some of what the DI is saying, even though you oppose the DI.)"

?

Lol.

 

[Hollie]

"The theory that man is an ape is actively promoted in the Judeo Zionist academic world".

I think someone is suffering from IJHS (Irrational Jew Hatred Syndrome)

 

[holston]

So why did god make ugly people?

Answer me this question... If EVERYONE was beautiful, how would anyone know they were beautiful?

Ugly-beautiful, Light-Dark, Hot-Cold, Good-Evil...

You really should get some formal education starting with a basic philosophy class.

So god made some people really ugly so that the beautiful people would know that they're good looking?

Maybe God made people ugly to let us know that we are not the Gods we imagine ourselves to be.

Or maybe He wants us to learn that a man is more than flesh.

And maybe He wants to teach us to learn a kind of love which is not based purely on the lust of the flesh.

If pride goeth before a fall, one might say that a person who is born physically beautiful is at somewhat of a disadvantage. They may be deceived into thinking that the attention they receive is due to some quality associated with their inner being, the part which would for example survive a freak accident which marred the appearance.

Could it be that blond blue eyed women get saddled with the reputation for being dumb because they grow up not having to depend upon their wits to open doors and therefore never feel a pressing need to educate themselves to any level of competency?

A "beautiful" person may also run a greater risk of losing their eternal soul if caused them to become so conceited that they developed a sense of self worth which was far beyond what they actually possessed in terms of the things which God prizes most.

An person who is physically unattractive learns to adjust to the fact at a much earlier age than one who is destined to lose their appeal due to old age.
An ugly person learns quickly what they must acquire in order to succeed in this life. Therefore they begin making provisions for themselves at an early age.

They may not be so conceited or infatuated with themselves that they neglect this effort, falsely assuming that they will always be able to get what they want by simply batting eye lids.

What physical beauty or the lack of it may do to a person's soul, depends a great deal on the quality of that person's soul to begin with. A sizable portion of that lies within that persons ability to determine, whereas their is little one can do about their physical appearance outwardly, and nothing one can do to alter their genetic inheritance.

Isn't it for reasons such as these that it is popular to assume that "discrimination" based on appearance is considered morally wrong in the realm of political correctness?