Creationism game

[Corny]

Time to deny something!

 

[treanir]

Now watch as the thread spins horribly out of control with either:
1) A creationism/evolution debate ending in name-calling before post #8, or
2) more creationist fun.

 

[Corny]

2) more creationist fun.

2) please

 

[treanir]

Ah, creationism.

The last ditch effort of the insane to try and preach to the young impressionable minds... i laugh at thee.

But, but, *rolls* molecular biology is... *rolls* proven wrong by scientists at Patriotic Christ university.

Can't argue with the facts, there!

 

[rareboy]

Where are AndrewD and all of our fave creationist trolls these days, anyhow?

 

[treanir]

Where are AndrewD and all of our fave creationist trolls these days, anyhow?

Good question. Probably found another board to annoy.

 

[metta]

There is a Christian University in the city that I live in that just completed a new $54 million dollar building. On the outside of it, it reads in huge letters "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

That does not belong on a real science building.

 

[purina]

Do you have creationists over there?

 

[Corny]

AAAH AAAH AAAH I CAN'T HEAR YOUUuuu


(yes a few .. but people laugh at them and point fingers)

 

[winterknight]

Just Because.

 

[bankside]

There is a Christian University in the city that I live in that just completed a new $54 million dollar building. On the outside of it, it reads in huge letters "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

That does not belong on a real science building.

A Christian University is like a swimming pool filled with sand.
For the very reason shown in your quote. Why do the research if you already know the answer? Even the Taliban have figured that one out.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Where are AndrewD and all of our fave creationist trolls these days, anyhow?

Got tired of the usual hypocrisy; ie, it's fine to be open-minded as long as it's something you like, but once it's something you hate, it's fine to be a bigot.

Besides anyone that confuses Creationism with ID is probably not going to have anything worth saying anyway...

Does that make you feel better? [runs]

RG

 

[jdbadboy]

Got tired of the usual hypocrisy; ie, it's fine to be open-minded as long as it's something you like, but once it's something you hate, it's fine to be a bigot.

Besides anyone that confuses Creationism with ID is probably not going to have anything worth saying anyway...

Does that make you feel better? [runs]

RG

If anyone confuses creationism with ID it isn't the fault of people who believe in mainstream science. YEC often use ID scientists, such as Behe, to further their cause. ID scientist are often loathe to contradict the antiscience nonsense of creationist out of fear of alienating their book buying and lecture circuit public. Creationism and ID are clearly in bed together and any resulting confusion is their fault.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

A Christian University is like a swimming pool filled with sand. .

Conveniently ignoring that most science comes from religious organizations, there isn't necessarily a contradiction. In fact, I'm finding more scientific ignorance from atheists than I am from most religious people. I recently had a conversation with an atheist who earnestly believed that the ONLY way creatures evolved was through adaptation; mutation, kill-offs (such as the dinosaurs/meteor thing), even natural accidents (such as epidemics, destructive weather, or even earthquakes) had absolutely nothing with evolution.

In essence, cave fish adapted to their environment by becoming blind, yet there was no allowing for how they got there in the first place.

Heck, even look at the protesters against genetic manipulation, who are generally atheist. The issues given aren't usually religious reasons, but because someone fears what would happen if some modified species of corn will escape the farm and mate with some wild plant to create some mutant killer plant. If the plant has been sterilized, then the protester complains about the company screwing the farmers. Interesting, they're ignoring that the plants have been modified for centuries; we've just found a way to do it faster.

And let's conveniently ignore that priests were the majority of the first scientists...

RG

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

If anyone confuses creationism with ID it isn't the fault of people who believe in mainstream science. YEC often use ID scientists, such as Behe, to further their cause. ID scientist are often loathe to contradict the antiscience nonsense of creationist out of fear of alienating their book buying and lecture circuit public. Creationism and ID are clearly in bed together and any resulting confusion is their fault.

Behe is a moron. Straight up: If you use him as an example of ID, then it's just like using NAMBLA as the only example of homosexuality or that all doctors are quacks. Why does the ability to use a stereotype to define the group constitute "reasonable logic"?

It always amuses that atheists use evolution as the shining example of why Christianity doesn't work, but ignore that most of the work, including the initial theory, comes from religious people. Darwin was a devout Christian during the period when he did the research and founded the Theory of Evolution, yet that's conveniently ignored. The same applies to any field of science; almost every field has its share of devout men and women, some of whom became that way through their research, and that in some cases the very field itself would not exist except through the initial funding and curiosity of religious in the search for the truth.

Sort of funny that atheists who pride themselves on truth ignore the contributions of those with a holy symbol on a chain around their necks...

RG

 

[blackbeltninja]

When I was an undergraduate, one of the many on-campus Christian groups hosted a seminar called "Evolution vs Creation - an objective perspective" hosted by some local priest affiliated to them.

It wasn't objective at all, to the science students who attended; the members of said Fellowship thought it was immensely objective and of course it rather unsurprisingly adopted their creationist viewpoint.

Anyway... some light relief from C&H:

-d-

 

[levenshulme31]

Intelligent Design is just creationism in a borrowed lab coat. However much they try to dress their claims up in psuodo scientific jargon, their argument still boils down to "God did it".

As for the comment about so many scientific discoveries throughout history being made by faithful religious believers, I don't see anyone disputing this or mocking the discoveries of those that have gone before on the basis of their religiosity.

It may also have something to do with the fact that the church held so much power over the population that those of a scientific bent had pretty good reasons to remain faithful to the church when the alternatives ranged from ostracism through exile to torture and burning at the stake - depending on your particular era.

I'm also pretty sure that a great many clergymen down the years were atheists but they knew an easy living when they saw one.

 

[Corny]

lol at you guys trying to make a serious discussion out of this

about ID

about creationism as a science

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Corny: I'm not. I just like tweaking atheist noses....

Intelligent Design is just creationism in a borrowed lab coat. However much they try to dress their claims up in psuodo scientific jargon, their argument still boils down to "God did it".

Yeah; except that ID believes everything science, down to the age of the universe. The only difference is that whereas Science says that "It just happened, all nice and coincidental-like!", ID says that God probably started the ball rolling and touches things up here and there.

As for the comment about so many scientific discoveries throughout history being made by faithful religious believers, I don't see anyone disputing this or mocking the discoveries of those that have gone before on the basis of their religiosity.

Agreed. However, there is usually some dispute over whether or not a scientist can be religious...just saying that they can.

It may also have something to do with the fact that the church held so much power over the population that those of a scientific bent had pretty good reasons to remain faithful to the church when the alternatives ranged from ostracism through exile to torture and burning at the stake - depending on your particular era.

And I don't doubt that it was the case. However, it doesn't mean that you couldn't have some scientists have a devout faith. Just because you have one, doesn't mean you can't have the other...

I'm also pretty sure that a great many clergymen down the years were atheists but they knew an easy living when they saw one.

No doubt of this one. There's even journals of some priests that would back you; sometimes they needed a particular skill and so ordained the person, or the person ordained could care less about piety and more about power. And, of course, there were random ordinations when they wanted to make a point that they didn't care if the place had a priest or not.

Just saying: Science and faith can mix. However, you need to decide which is more important...

RG

 

[landers]

Conveniently ignoring that most science comes from religious organizations...

I don't think CERN would agree with your statement.