Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Are you really that dense? See that first sentence there? It's a generalization. You're trying to pin a concept which is most largely consistent and used in the definition I have provided, but has other minor meanings generally not used in language and DEFINITELY not used here, and claim it is definitely not the most frequently used definition. It's absurd.Are you willing to admit that creationism is not the belief that life was created as is? If not you are still trying to parse the definition in order to make your point that creationism is that belief.
Creationism is, for the large majority of uses, including the one used here, the definition I provided, being "opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth." This is also the definition you provided, which you seem to be arguing against now.
Nonetheless the point still remains: the term creationISM, as your own source points out, refers to "Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth," that this was the exact meaning it was used here, and is therefore incompatible with evolution. What part of that do you feel is incorrect? That's the point you continue to bicker about to save face. You can't even say what part of that is wrong. You just go off on semantic garbage again and again, which only makes your failed efforts more absurd. Quit while you're behind.
No. And "opinion data" is a made up term.In other words, the only opinion data that matters to you is your opinion.
No, I am not the only authority on this matter. However, the bullshit you have provided does not have relevant credibility. In this thread, the things you have used to support the ridiculous things you've been saying have included:I will take your advice and quit while I am behind because you are obviously incapable of admitting that you are insisting that you are the only authority in this matter, and only see the data that supports your position.
No. And "opinion data" is a made up term.In other words, the only opinion data that matters to you is your opinion.
No, I am not the only authority on this matter. However, the bullshit you have provided does not have relevant credibility. In this thread, the things you have used to support the ridiculous things you've been saying have included:I will take your advice and quit while I am behind because you are obviously incapable of admitting that you are insisting that you are the only authority in this matter, and only see the data that supports your position.
- Wikipedia, which directly proved you wrong
- The laughable idea that scientists believe there was nothing left to discover in the world, with no support whatsoever
- The God particle in response to an experiment designed to identify how god interacts with the world, because you didn't understand what it was or even read your own source
- The wrong idea that scientology does not address good and evil, when it is highlighted in the source that you provided.
- The unsupported idea that some people treat evolution like a religion.
- "beats the fuck out of me"
If you're going to take my advice to quit while you're ahead, just duck out of the thread. Throwing up one last immature ad hominem attack because you are completely incapable of supporting the things you say, and have run out of sources to share that directly contradict your own points, only allows me to retort with all the dumb things you've done in this thread. Seriously, quit while you're behind.
Which question there do you believe scientology doesn't address?
I am curious too. Scientology definitely has their own "answers" to the fundamental questions.
I find them to be absurd, but who knows what people will think of them in 2000 years.
I just got off of psych and found it ironic that the psych hospital library had virtually all of Hubbards works.
Someone had donated them.
Scientology was made up by a hack SF author from the Golden Age and really doesn't answer anything, but the most singular lack is its addressing good v evil dichotomy. It is a bit like Buddhism, except you have to achieve enlightenment through self awareness instead of giving up self.
The ironic part of fear of the unknown and it's symbiotic relationship with faith, to me, is that there is much evidence and REAL hope that if we really pursued science with vigor we could all live at least a couple of hundred years. That would eliminate or at least diminish the urgency of latching on to what I consider the fraud of placing ones bet on religion.
Science will eventually lead to the possibility of cloning for body parts if not for all vital organs or complete body replacements. This is the biggest no-no for religions and the one thing they fear the most. When we can truly choose between our own destiny or one only offered as a theory hidden in faith and mysticism religion will have to prove it's worth or dry up as a very stupid choice.
Faith is the sugar pill. Cloning will be the cure.
People have a bad habit of citing Einstein as the end-all of information. He was certainly a genius in physics, but he's no more comparable to modern knowledge and culture than citing Alexander the Great. Now if you want to use him as a source for PHYSICS then you'd have a strong point. But that's not the topic we're talking about, and he's unfortunately not been alive for over half a century. To say he never saw the coming of genetics is an understatement.
People have a bad habit of citing Einstein as the end-all of information. He was certainly a genius in physics, but he's no more comparable to modern knowledge and culture than citing Alexander the Great. Now if you want to use him as a source for PHYSICS then you'd have a strong point. But that's not the topic we're talking about, and he's unfortunately not been alive for over half a century. To say he never saw the coming of genetics is an understatement.
I'll go with Einstein.
You, not so much.
The ironic part of fear of the unknown and it's symbiotic relationship with faith, to me, is that there is much evidence and REAL hope that if we really pursued science with vigor we could all live at least a couple of hundred years. That would eliminate or at least diminish the urgency of latching on to what I consider the fraud of placing ones bet on religion.
Science will eventually lead to the possibility of cloning for body parts if not for all vital organs or complete body replacements. This is the biggest no-no for religions and the one thing they fear the most. When we can truly choose between our own destiny or one only offered as a theory hidden in faith and mysticism religion will have to prove it's worth or dry up as a very stupid choice.
Faith is the sugar pill. Cloning will be the cure.
The ironic part of fear of the unknown and it's symbiotic relationship with faith, to me, is that there is much evidence and REAL hope that if we really pursued science with vigor we could all live at least a couple of hundred years. That would eliminate or at least diminish the urgency of latching on to what I consider the fraud of placing ones bet on religion.
The ironic part of fear of the unknown and it's symbiotic relationship with faith, to me, is that there is much evidence and REAL hope that if we really pursued science with vigor we could all live at least a couple of hundred years. That would eliminate or at least diminish the urgency of latching on to what I consider the fraud of placing ones bet on religion.
Science will eventually lead to the possibility of cloning for body parts if not for all vital organs or complete body replacements. This is the biggest no-no for religions and the one thing they fear the most. When we can truly choose between our own destiny or one only offered as a theory hidden in faith and mysticism religion will have to prove it's worth or dry up as a very stupid choice.
Faith is the sugar pill. Cloning will be the cure.
Einstein believed in God.
What are your scientific credentials, genius?
Watching the Sci-Fi Channel doesn't count
The ironic part of fear of the unknown and it's symbiotic relationship with faith, to me, is that there is much evidence and REAL hope that if we really pursued science with vigor we could all live at least a couple of hundred years. That would eliminate or at least diminish the urgency of latching on to what I consider the fraud of placing ones bet on religion.
I'd argue that the quest to continually tack on life-years is misguided (and, perhaps, tragic). The immortality fantasy is exactly why religions exist. And that's a shame because I have no doubt that for many people spirituality can provide a much richer life, as can many forms of philosophy. Yet people persist in preferring quantity to quality, opting for cheap promises and empty reassurances over the pursuit of deeper insights. Everyone will die; every lifespan is finite. I'd much prefer to see the quality of that lifespan improved (materially, intellectually, emotionally, philosophically, etc) than seeing it artificially lengthened.
I don't see living a lie as quality control. Silly me.
I don't see living a lie as quality control. Silly me.
I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm no more arguing in favor of the promises and reassurances of religious authorities or sacred texts than I am the wishful thinking of those who foresee technology gradually taking away those things that make us human. The empty quest for immortality from both camps tends to have the unpleasant effect of crowding out the more important quest for a life well-lived and well-ended.
Sometimes religions are falsely presented as science. For instance Al Gore's Global Warming Cult and L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology.
