Creationism's Legacy: Anti-intellectualism

Originally posted by noobfun

Originally posted by Good Wolf
I'll take this opportunity to point out that most evolutionists are christians and most christians are evolutionists.

everyone knows they arnt a True Christian™

I'll sincerely second that.

And Jesus said that young ones were children of God.
No they don't go to hell, there is an 'age of accountibility'.

Originally posted by Clearskies
Sexuality without restraints will get you lots of problems NO MATTER WHAT your choice.

A Christian has to give up stuff to have Jesus close to them.
Not so with many of the evolutionists, whose affairs and rollicking were legendary.

Oh, we don't really need to point out the 'rollicking' of 'Good Christians' now do we??? Haggert, Bakker, etc. etc. etc. Now those truly are 'legendary'!!! Especially Haggert with the gay hooker and lots of meth!!! Meanwhile, most 'non-christians' are not sexually deviant, as are most christians. Your arguement, as always, is extremely weak. But keep trying, I enjoy the giggle!

reply to post by constantwonder

Science doesnt try to explain away god, are you serious..... do you follow physics or biology or mathematics? These people believe that their doesnt need to be a god that everything just sprang up by sheer mathematical chance....

100% serious. I already said, God is a supernatural entity (if he exists at all) and therefore cannot be examined by science as science can only examine the natural, Period!

But you don't do much to help yourself by not being able to differentiate between Deity and Religion. Big difference.

Originally posted by Clearskies

Sexuality without restraints will get you lots of problems NO MATTER WHAT your choice.

I agree.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. That is about promiscuity and un-safe sex.

TIP: do not bring up anal sex as if that's exclusive to the gay community

Also, unless we can tie this into the topic more directly we should both probably drop it.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

reply to post by Clearskies


He was joking FGS.

Robert T Bokker, a world renown paleoanthropologist and evangelical christian says in his book that to interpret the Bible literally is to degrade it's eternal meaning.

Grow up, narrow minded sheep.

[edit on 10/29/2008 by Good Wolf]

Originally posted by constantwonder

Science doesnt try to explain away god, are you serious..... do you follow physics or biology or mathematics? These people believe that their doesnt need to be a god that everything just sprang up by sheer mathematical chance....

it explains how things do what they do and why they are there

the big bang is the ftheory of how everything got here, it doesn say there was no god, god could have started the big bang, it only cares about what can be tested and proven

no evidence for god so cant be tested or proven

Militant atheism is on the rise. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens have dominated bestseller lists with books denigrating religious belief as dangerous foolishness. And these authors are merely the leading edge of a far larger movement–one that now includes much of the scientific community.

were comming ta get ya Boo did i scare ya?

is your faith that insecure your worried? maybe takings are down on the collection plate and your worried youll be asked for more?

Either Jesus had a father or he didn't.

or maybe he never existed or his father was called joseph or fred or .....

The question is a scientific one, and scientific evidence, if any were available, would be used to settle it.

then bring some evidence or join clear in call the carepolice

The same is true of any miracle — and the deliberate and intentional creation of the universe would have to have been the mother and father of all miracles.

or somthing totally different

Either it happened or it didn't.

well were here so i guess it happened but what happened is a difference of opinion ... unless its one of those pyilsophical am i really here things

Humanity's best estimate of the probability of divine creation dropped steeply in 1859 when The Origin of Species was published, and it has declined steadily during the subsequent decades, as evolution consolidated itself from plausible theory in the nineteenth century to established fact today.

shall i build a time machine andgo shoot Darwin becasue your having to work a little harder for convertions?

After evaluating all the scientific evidence—the studies done by reputable institutions on the power of prayer;

was shown to make no real differance but its impossible to do double blind tests unless we can build pray proof rooms

Stenger concludes that beyond a reasonable doubt the universe and life appear exactly as we might expect if there were no God. He convincingly shows that not only is there no evidence for the existence of God, but scientific observations actually point to his nonexistence.

yes there is no evidence he forgot to carve his name in a rock but thats Stengers opinion its just as easy to say there is a god that started it he just forgot to autograph it later

I could do this all day long. Science is just as biased as religion. And yet we may find they actually have more in common that meets the "naked" eye.

give us evidence of god beyond a book thats been shown to be full of inconsitancies with geology archaeology history biology and has had most of it show as pladgerised from many sources or just fraudulently made to bulk out the religoen

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


Have you ever heard of 'wolves in sheep's clothing'?
Christians aren't perfect like Jesus, but, they try.(most of them)
The thing is, JESUS HELPS us to overcome evil, if we want Him to.

Ugh. ID and creationism aren't even the same thing. ID is based on science; granted, it isn't acceptable to atheistic naturalist religion, but it is a dissenting scientific viewpoint. There is no more faith in believing that science shows traces of a creative force than there is in believing that nature is a creating force, in and of itself. Neither have been proven, and neither are likely to ever be proven. Both have fact-based reasons supporting them. The most dangerous form of anti-intellectualism in the world is dogmatic fervor towards unprovable theories.

Originally posted by Clearskies
I'll sincerely second that.

And Jesus said that young ones were children of God.
No they don't go to hell, there is an 'age of accountibility'.

-_- first i thought you were just a bit missguided with your whole Darwisn a racist so there fore wrong

now i know thats not the case your far worse

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Homosexuality is forbidden in God's eyes.
Just like adultery, or pre-marriage sex.

I had to get rid of boyfriends before I got married, just because they were too worldly.
I was willing to be celibate, if God so wanted. Then He sent my husband to me and we've been married almost 14 years.

im not trying to argue for or against the exsistance of god. I am only trying to point out that when it comes to dog-matic narrowmindedness science is equally as bad as religion. My own beliefs are my business and i do not try to push it off on people. I just think that if your gonna beat on theists then you should equally scrutinize the scientific paradigm. Everyone deserves a fair shake. Do you not agree?

and all the quotes you replied to were not mine they were from scientists published works(hence the links i provided) . Quit trying to paint me with the religious fantaic brush please.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by constantwonder]

[edit on 29-10-2008 by constantwonder]

Originally posted by Clearskies
JESUS HELPS us to overcome evil, if we want Him to.

i help myself overcome it, its called persoanl accountability and responsability

i dont need an invisible friednt o understand acceptable from not acceptable, its then my choice to act either way

and usually its the acceptable path

reply to post by constantwonder


The narrow mindedness of science? The scientific community basses all it's theories and beliefs based on evidence. Heard of it?!

reply to post by noobfun


Not to God.
You might be smart and everything like that, but, God knows you since before you were born.

reply to post by saturnine_sweet



actually ID has set out exactly what it needs to do to become more then an hypothesis

only when it moves beyond hypothesis and into a working theory can it become a voice of decent or opposition within the scientifc community

the scientists promoting ID understand this unfortunatley its the beleivers shouting demands that dont

reply to post by JaxonRoberts

Sorry, don't know how to use the quote function
You said
"Next I would point out that I have yet to see one person from the Jewish faith defending the Creation myth, and by all rights, it's their story. Now if the originators of the myth don't put any creadence into the myth, why do so many non-Jews feel the need to defend it and advocate it's propogation in place of hard science?"

May I suggest that those who thrust creationism on society are those who require the old testament to justify their own belief. If the Jewish myths are dscounted, Christianty, among other religions, has nothing to stand on.

Just a thought.

Originally posted by Clearskies

Homosexuality is forbidden in God's eyes.
Just like adultery, or pre-marriage sex.

According to your Bible, and your interpretation of it.

I believe in God, and I don't believe God sees it like you believe God does.

reply to post by Clearskies
then he wont have a problem giving me a call on my phone or sendin me an email pointing me towards the evidence he must have left lying around here somewhere

clear your a bigot narrowminded and thankfully someone i will probabily never ever be stuck in a confined space with thanks the none existant god

maybe you should speak to Pastor Fred about joining Land Over Baptisit church you share common views it seems

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by constantwonder

 

The narrow mindedness of science? The scientific community basses all it's theories and beliefs based on evidence. Heard of it?!

Ah there you are wrong my friend. There are many many theories in particle physics mathematics and cosmology that are much better than the accepted paradigms.

One such example is the electromagnetic universe model that gets shunned and called fringe science because the string theorists are sucking up the budget and without making one testable prediction they shoot down other models that have testable provable hypothosys.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by constantwonder]

reply to post by constantwonder


Well that's a squabble among egos if it's true. It happens, there no point denying it. But that is a long way from evolution. 150 years and it hasn't been trumped with evidence against it yet.