I have now met a real life creationist.

[DrZoidberg]

Oh, how I liked calling AiG "AIG" instead to piss off that AiG guy at TWeb.

I wish I wasn't so honest, good money to made off them.

There seems to be no end to the amount people are willing to throw away.

Or "A"IG

 

[Speakpigeon]

There's no doubt she will still demonize you. Asking you what you believe was merely a formality for the purpose of appearing to be reasonable.

we have more albino moose than creationists.

This gave me a good laugh this morning.

Sir, this is no laughing matters. Albino moose are all creationists.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I have a coworker from Sweden, and he's fond of telling people they are being retarded.

In Switzerland I know clocks aren't routinely being retarded.

But Sweden is a different country.

Maybe even the grammar is different.
EB

 

[Elixir]

And that was essentially the gist of her argument. No real arguments.

The creationist "argument" against ToE always boils down to one word: "Eeeuw!"
Glad you have the opportunity to get acquainted with that fact.

 

[wilson]

And that was essentially the gist of her argument. No real arguments.

The creationist "argument" against ToE always boils down to one word: "Eeeuw!"
Glad you have the opportunity to get acquainted with that fact.

There is much to the design argument that you may not have seen.
Some facts are summarily dismissed simply because of their origin.
Can you deal with the facts of an argument on its own merits without prejudice?
I mean, if an article is about facts of creation but found in a Hindu publication?

 

[DrZoidberg]

The creationist "argument" against ToE always boils down to one word: "Eeeuw!"
Glad you have the opportunity to get acquainted with that fact.

There is much to the design argument that you may not have seen.
Some facts are summarily dismissed simply because of their origin.
Can you deal with the facts of an argument on its own merits without prejudice?
I mean, if an article is about facts of creation but found in a Hindu publication?

Ok, I'm listening. Keep going.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There is much to the design argument that you may not have seen.

Reminds me of that parrot joke.

A man went into the pet shop to purchase something for his mother's birthday. His mother was alone and he thought it would be a good idea if she had a nice companion with her. He couldn't decide what kind of a pet to get so the shop owner showed him a parrot. He said, "This parrot can speak in 5 different languages." The man said, "Wow, that'll give her someone to talk to, it should be a nice pet. I'll take it."
About a week later, the man received a letter from his mother that said the usual things, "Today I went shopping and found a great deal on peaches...my friend and I played bingo and I won $15.00 and a t-shirt...and thank you, son, for the wonderful chicken you sent me, it was absolutely delicious..." The man was horrified. Surely his mother couldn't be talking about the parrot! He called his mother up immediately. "What do you mean, 'chicken'?" he asked. "That was a parrot that could speak in five different languages!" The mother replied, "Well then it should have said something!"

Time after time, creationists claim that their theories are scientific theories and try to get it taught in school. Time after time, they're taken to court and given the opportunity to prove that it's science and not teaching religion.
Time after time they fail to prove their case.

If there is something to the design argument that would be a compelling argument, or objective evidence towards that conclusion, well, you'd think that at one or another of these court appearances, someone should have said something.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

There is much to the design argument that you may not have seen.
Some facts are summarily dismissed simply because of their origin.
Can you deal with the facts of an argument on its own merits without prejudice?
I mean, if an article is about facts of creation but found in a Hindu publication?

Ok, I'm listening. Keep going.

Ya, nobody has much of a problem with the design argument beyond the fact that the arguments put forward for it are shit. The fact that they tend to be Christian arguments instead of Hindu arguments isn't relevant to the fact that they're just bad arguments which don't actually lead to the conclusions which creationists claim that they do.

What you should really do is try and trick us by telling us that they're Islamic arguments and then our white, liberal guilt will force us to concede that they're valid without looking into them because doing so would be racist of us.

 

[Elixir]

The creationist "argument" against ToE always boils down to one word: "Eeeuw!"
Glad you have the opportunity to get acquainted with that fact.

There is much to the design argument that you may not have seen.

I sincerely doubt it. I spent about 5 years reading every apologetic, hair brained creo "theory" (none of them are actually theories), speculation about vast worldwide science conspiracies etc. etc. etc.

Some facts are summarily dismissed simply because of their origin.

I have never dismissed any "facts" that are supported by repeatedly observable evidence.

Can you deal with the facts of an argument on its own merits without prejudice?
I mean, if an article is about facts of creation but found in a Hindu publication?

Uh - bring it on. "Facts of creation" begin and end with "Creation, aka reality, exists". Everything else is someone's feeling about it or an artificial construct designed to either keep people under control, or to separate them from their money.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Some facts are summarily dismissed simply because of their origin.

I have never dismissed any "facts" that are supported by repeatedly observable evidence.

And isn't that claim somewhat self-defeating, anyway?

I mean, if there were hypothetical atheist labs publishing results alongside Christain labs and Hindu labs and Shinto labs working on the Speed of Light, we couldn't reject the Christain results based on their source, because all the other labs would (hypothetically) be getting the same results

But to reject the evidence for the Design argument based on the source, that would have to mean that the facts for the Design argument are only coming from labs where they already believe in the Design argument. If they were objective facts, they'd show up in everyone's labs.

 

[abaddon]

I have never dismissed any "facts" that are supported by repeatedly observable evidence.

And isn't that claim somewhat self-defeating, anyway?

I mean, if there were hypothetical atheist labs publishing results alongside Christain labs and Hindu labs and Shinto labs working on the Speed of Light, we couldn't reject the Christain results based on their source, because all the other labs would (hypothetically) be getting the same results

But to reject the evidence for the Design argument based on the source, that would have to mean that the facts for the Design argument are only coming from labs where they already believe in the Design argument. If they were objective facts, they'd show up in everyone's labs.

And yet it's unbelievers that are blinded by ideology. Special "facts" about an intelligence that forces the dumb random junk, matter, to make patterns is invisible outside the 'Christian labs'. It's just specifically theistic believers who are not blinded by beliefs.

 

[Juma]

Ok, I'm listening. Keep going.

Ya, nobody has much of a problem with the design argument beyond the fact that the arguments put forward for it are shit. The fact that they tend to be Christian arguments instead of Hindu arguments isn't relevant to the fact that they're just bad arguments which don't actually lead to the conclusions which creationists claim that they do.

What you should really do is try and trick us by telling us that they're Islamic arguments and then our white, liberal guilt will force us to concede that they're valid without looking into them because doing so would be racist of us.

Bravo! You managed to get your hobby horse up and running in even when there where no reason at all. Bravo!

 

[wilson]

I have never dismissed any "facts" that are supported by repeatedly observable evidence.

And isn't that claim somewhat self-defeating, anyway?

I mean, if there were hypothetical atheist labs publishing results alongside Christain labs and Hindu labs and Shinto labs working on the Speed of Light, we couldn't reject the Christain results based on their source, because all the other labs would (hypothetically) be getting the same results

But to reject the evidence for the Design argument based on the source, that would have to mean that the facts for the Design argument are only coming from labs where they already believe in the Design argument. If they were objective facts, they'd show up in everyone's labs.

I am not a "creationist" whatever that is. I do not believe that the universe was created in 6 twenty-four-hour days, nor do I believe that the earth or universe is only 6 thousand years old. That should take care of the "creationist" label.
I do not accept the Intelligent Design movement because they try to take a scientific approach to the idea of design and it is purely materialistic. They also get involved in social issues that antagonize many. The results of any court trial is only because of the social issues and the militancy they pursue. That should take care of the "ID" label.
Please do not refer to me as "creationist" nor "ID proponent." I am neither. There is a great difference between "creationism" and believing in creation. There is a great difference between accepting design and the ID movement.
The search for the origin of life is futile if it is concentrated on chemical and other physical properties.
Life itself is spiritual. It cannot be quantified nor explained in any physical terms.
So far, all I see here is the prejudice and it is suffocating.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I am not a "creationist" whatever that is.

Okay, sure.
It's the internet, you can be anything you want.

I do not believe that the universe was created in 6 twenty-four-hour days, nor do I believe that the earth or universe is only 6 thousand years old. That should take care of the "creationist" label.

Oh. So you DO have an idea of what 'creationist' means.
But, no, the above position would mean you're not a biblical literalist.
There are several flavors of creationist.

I do not accept the Intelligent Design movement because they try to take a scientific approach to the idea of design and it is purely materialistic. They also get involved in social issues that antagonize many. The results of any court trial is only because of the social issues and the militancy they pursue. That should take care of the "ID" label.

I have no idea what you think you've just established...

Please do not refer to me as "creationist" nor "ID proponent."

Okay.
I think the first thing asked of YOU though, was to provide the evidence you alluded to for the design argument?

I am neither. There is a great difference between "creationism" and believing in creation.

Now, you're lecturing on a term you pretended, at first, not to understand what I meant when I used it.
Please pick one side or the other, ignorance or expertise.

There is a great difference between accepting design and the ID movement.

If you say so...

Still waiting for any objective facts that support design.

The search for the origin of life is futile if it is concentrated on chemical and other physical properties.

Why is that?

Life itself is spiritual.

Why do you say that? What evidence do you have that 'spiritual' is a word with any descriptive power?

It cannot be quantified nor explained in any physical terms.

Not in ANY physical terms?
Okay.
So what si your definition of life that doesn't include any physical terms?

So far, all I see here is the prejudice and it is suffocating.

Yeah, see, it's statements like that, following a post with absolutely no facts or evidence, that make me THINK you're a creationist. You certainly post in the manner of one. But, hey, you say you're not one, except you said you don't know what one is, and if you don't know what I mean by creationist, you're not really in a good position to tell me that you aren't one, are you?

But, if you're worried about prejudice, you could just ignore labels an offer up the 'facts' for design that you claimed might be unknown to us.

I'm quite curious to see what they are.

I fear, though, that many of your 'facts' will turn out not to be supporting Design nearly as much as they will be attempts to discredit the 'physical' theories. But go ahead, show us what you have, please.

 

[wilson]

Okay, sure.
It's the internet, you can be anything you want.

I do not believe that the universe was created in 6 twenty-four-hour days, nor do I believe that the earth or universe is only 6 thousand years old. That should take care of the "creationist" label.

Oh. So you DO have an idea of what 'creationist' means.
But, no, the above position would mean you're not a biblical literalist.
There are several flavors of creationist.

I do not accept the Intelligent Design movement because they try to take a scientific approach to the idea of design and it is purely materialistic. They also get involved in social issues that antagonize many. The results of any court trial is only because of the social issues and the militancy they pursue. That should take care of the "ID" label.

I have no idea what you think you've just established...

Please do not refer to me as "creationist" nor "ID proponent."

Okay.
I think the first thing asked of YOU though, was to provide the evidence you alluded to for the design argument?

I am neither. There is a great difference between "creationism" and believing in creation.

Now, you're lecturing on a term you pretended, at first, not to understand what I meant when I used it.
Please pick one side or the other, ignorance or expertise.

There is a great difference between accepting design and the ID movement.

If you say so...

Still waiting for any objective facts that support design.

The search for the origin of life is futile if it is concentrated on chemical and other physical properties.

Why is that?

Life itself is spiritual.

Why do you say that? What evidence do you have that 'spiritual' is a word with any descriptive power?

It cannot be quantified nor explained in any physical terms.

Not in ANY physical terms?
Okay.
So what si your definition of life that doesn't include any physical terms?

So far, all I see here is the prejudice and it is suffocating.

Yeah, see, it's statements like that, following a post with absolutely no facts or evidence, that make me THINK you're a creationist. You certainly post in the manner of one. But, hey, you say you're not one, except you said you don't know what one is, and if you don't know what I mean by creationist, you're not really in a good position to tell me that you aren't one, are you?

But, if you're worried about prejudice, you could just ignore labels an offer up the 'facts' for design that you claimed might be unknown to us.

I'm quite curious to see what they are.

I fear, though, that many of your 'facts' will turn out not to be supporting Design nearly as much as they will be attempts to discredit the 'physical' theories. But go ahead, show us what you have, please.

Mr. Keith & Co,
You have an exceedingly bad attitude that is not conducive to an amicable discussion. You do not want a discussion - you want an argument. I don't like arguments because they produce nothing. I am not going to waste words responding to all of your challenges. I said life is spiritual and that speaks for itself.
I will not allow myself to be verbally abused by people who do not know me and still continue talking with them. If you want a discussion, let me know.

 

[Keith&Co.]

trying to parse this part

I do not accept the Intelligent Design movement because they try to take a scientific approach to the idea of design and it is purely materialistic.

Okay, that's not my understanding of the ID movement. They are the ones claiming that the naturalistic approach is failing exactly because it's purely materialistic, that it presupposes no deity is involved in creation and thus will never come to the right answer.
I also reject ID because it's not a scientific approach, it's an attempt to dress up a religious belief to look like it's a scientific approach.

They also get involved in social issues that antagonize many.

That pretty much goes for everyone, doesn't it?
I mean, I have a coworker who's constantly happy, consistently friendly, never confrontational. If you knock her over with a guidance handling cart, she'll apologize to YOU for being in your way.
This antagonizes the crap out of at least two of my coworkers. One's waiting for her to snap, ones' sure she's insane.

The results of any court trial is only because of the social issues and the militancy they pursue.

Well, no. Court trials based on the claim that ID is science get consistent results because the people making this claim are unable to support it. It has nothing to do with the social issues. Yes, there are social facets to the attempt to teach this stuff in the schools, but the decision is clearly attributable to their inability to provide objective evidence for their claims.

That should take care of the "ID" label.

Okay, I see.
YOU have the premise that Design facts will be dismissed because of their source.
So before you bring anything to the table, you want to fully disassociate yourself from creationism or Intelligent Design.

Do you maybe want to start a new thread? Maybe not try to defend the creationist side of the argument in a thread about real life creationists? Maybe not post in a religion-vs-science forum if you're claiming you have science for your side?

You could try opening a thread in the Natural Science forum. It may not stay there, depending on the 'facts' you can produce, if you ever produce them. But maybe you'll feel better starting over there...?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Mr. Keith & Co,
You have an exceedingly bad attitude that is not conducive to an amicable discussion.

I do? Golly gee whiz and piss off and all that.

You're the one who contradicted yourself in your post, is pointing that out 'a bad attitude? Shucks.

You do not want a discussion - you want an argument.

I want something other than unsupported assertions, that's what I want, that's what several people have asked you for.
'Argument' is the word you brought to the thread.

I don't like arguments because they produce nothing.

And I dislike unsupported assertions and martyr complexes. Big deal.

I am not going to waste words responding to all of your challenges.

All? I'd love to see a response to one of them.

I said life is spiritual and that speaks for itself.

No, it really doesn't.
It sounds like unsupportable poetic bullshit. But when directly invited to explain you are incapable of doing so.

I will not allow myself to be verbally abused by people who do not know me and still continue talking with them.

This is verbal abuse? My, what a fragile snowflake you must be.

If you want a discussion, let me know.

You're the one who made a claim.
You're the one who appears to be finding excuses not to support them.


I really couldn't care a whole lot less if you never pony up evidence for Design. IF you do, it's a topic I'm interested in, but you creationists do spend a LOT of time telling other people how they should be posting. Good luck with that.

 

[wilson]

OK, Mr. Keith & Co,
Goodbye.
I will present my ideas to someone else and I will not respond to anything you have to say.
How about that?

 

[abaddon]

wilson, what does "life is spiritual" mean?

 

[Keith&Co.]

OK, Mr. Keith & Co,
Goodbye.
I will present my ideas to someone else

Hey, good luck with that, presenting your ideas and shit.

If you ever get around to presenting the 'facts' you mentioned in your first post in the thread, good luck with that, too.

and I will not respond to anything you have to say.
How about that?

Wow. That's so unusual. A poster who announces that they're ignoring someone. Really cuts me to the quick, it does.