Originally posted by rwingettThanks. No offence taken. I respect your perspective on creationists, be it a little dreary.
No, there isn't. There can be no civilized discussion with creationists. Debating with riffraff of that nature is absolutely pointless. So let's cut straight to the mud slinging, shall we? If you are a creationist, Halitose, then you are a complete idiot.
When you're ready to pull your head out of your nether regions and leave the dark ages behind, t ...[text shortened]... ng as you're going to babble on incoherantly about creationism you'll get nothing but insults.
Now why would you say that there can be no civilized discussion? Aren't we busy having one?
Originally posted by HalitoseIf you call that a civilized discussion, then most atheists love to have civilized discussions of that sort with creationists. 🙂
Thanks. No offence taken. I respect your perspective on creationists, be it a little dreary.
Now why would you say that there can be no civilized discussion? Aren't we busy having one?
Originally posted by rwingettROFL, there can only be a civilized discussion when everyone in the
No, there isn't. There can be no civilized discussion with creationists. Debating with riffraff of that nature is absolutely pointless. So let's cut straight to the mud slinging, shall we? If you are a creationist, Halitose, then you are a complete idiot.
When you're ready to pull your head out of your nether regions and leave the dark ages behind, t ...[text shortened]... ng as you're going to babble on incoherantly about creationism you'll get nothing but insults.
discussion are acting civil. Being called names and saying my views
are pointless at the start isn't what I'd call civil, but that is just me.
Kelly
Originally posted by PalynkaHey! We were just going through the motions of greeting and sharing our view on each other in the best way we know how, civil discussion is sure to follow. 😛
If you call that a civilized discussion, then most atheists love to have civilized discussions of that sort with creationists. 🙂
Originally posted by KellyJaySorry, KellyJay, I'm prepared to discuss almost anything in a civilized manner, but creationism is not one of them. When creationism comes up, it's straight on to the ad hominem attacks.
ROFL, there can only be a civilized discussion when everyone in the
discussion are acting civil. Being called names and saying my views
are pointless at the start isn't what I'd call civil, but that is just me.
Kelly
Originally posted by rwingettI know you are, and I'm not trying to be insulting. I have had more
Sorry, KellyJay, I'm prepared to discuss almost anything in a civilized manner, but creationism is not one of them. When creationism comes up, it's straight on to the ad hominem attacks.
than a few civil discussions with you and look forward to having many
more.We have even discussed creation in a civil manner too if I'm not
mistaken.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayOops, meant to hit the edit key and hit the reply instead, my bad.
I know you are, and I'm not trying to be insulting. I have had more
than a few civil discussions with you and look forward to having many
more. We have even discussed creation in a civil manner too if I'm not
mistaken.
Kelly
Kelly
Scientists are willing to listen to creationists and IDiots, but only under the condition that these people produce science. You'll find that while the Discovery Intitute and Institute for Creation Research love to have their "theories" printed in news media and layman books, they retreat from science conferences and respectable peer reviewed journals.
The well-respected Catholic biologist Ken Miller pointed out the Michael Behe that, as a member of one particularly large association for biochemists, Behe had the privilege to give a lecture before at a conference on any subject within his field. Of course, Behe retreated from the challenge. ID wasn't ready for an informed audience. Better to go to churches and school boards boasting that there the cell is just too complex.
And don't get me started on the supposed "Isaac Newton of Information Theory," William Dembski. I read a one of his latest papers. What a putz. Incredible really given his credentials.
Originally posted by telerionI believe I have stated over and over that I believe creation and
Scientists are willing to listen to creationists and IDiots, but only under the condition that these people produce science. You'll find that while the Discovery Intitute and Institute for Creation Research love to have their "theories" printed in news media and layman books, they retreat from science conferences and respectable peer reviewed journals. ...[text shortened]... ski. I read a one of his latest papers. What a putz. Incredible really given his credentials.
ID are two different things. In my opinion, and I'm not trying to
pass this off as science just my opinion that science has built in
blinders. It cannot for example entertain the view that something
that cannot not be explained naturally can have been caused by
the supernatural. ID to me seems like a want-a-be creation
and science view of the universe. It cannot for example say that
God did it, while at the same time it is looking at what is here and
attempting to fill in the unknown with the idea that something
more than what we can see and feel is the real cause of it all.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayHello KJ. I completely agree with your criticism of ID, and I think you explained its central contradiction very well.
I believe I have stated over and over that I believe creation and
ID are two different things. In my opinion, and I'm not trying to
pass this off as science just my opinion that science has built in
blinders. It cannot for example entertain the view that something
that cannot not be explained naturally can have been caused by
the supernatural. ID to ...[text shortened]... the idea that something
more than what we can see and feel is the real cause of it all.
Kelly
lol scientists and creationists dont want it . and there's good reason for both to disown it.
Only creationists object to evolution being taught in schools without ID and that's because they object to evolution. The original ID concept has been distorted by psuedo-scientists in another attempt to wreak what they wrongly think is an attack on religion.
As you rightly point out ID doesn't agree with creation in any biblical sense since it only presumes there was intelligent First Cause. After that first cause( design) there is no supposition on the existence of god or even what the mechanism of creation was.
Scientists on the other hand can take ID into their religious philosopy, however they cannot inflict their religious views into their science, because in doing so they stop being scientists and become theologians.
Science isn't religion. ID as presented by the psuedo-scientists isn't even ID it it rather a bastardization of creationism and science and should be tossed on the dung-heap of history.
Originally posted by telerionWell all three have their issues; creation is a one time supernatural
Hello KJ. I completely agree with your criticism of ID, and I think you explained its central contradiction very well.
event, it can only be take on faith, science if there was a supernatural
event will never acknowledge it, for it is beyond the vision of science,
and ID may acknowledge there is a supernatural aspect of the universe
but that is all it can do, acknowledge there may be one nothing more.
Kelly
Originally posted by telerionWilliam Dumbski, yeah. Design INFERANCE. Design DETECTION.
Scientists are willing to listen to creationists and IDiots, but only under the condition that these people produce science. You'll find that while the Discovery Intitute and Institute for Creation Research love to have their "theories" printed in news media and layman books, they retreat from science conferences and respectable peer reviewed journals. ...[text shortened]... ski. I read a one of his latest papers. What a putz. Incredible really given his credentials.
You notice those phrases that keep pooping up in his papers?
Thats like reading tealeaves and finding meaning....