Isn't it great a thread about a Creationist using threatening language results in two people of broadly the same opinion behaving in a similar fashion?
And these people want to be given equal time in school; would parent really want people who condemn and insult others to be an example to their children?
Heathen:
Lovely, once again a creationist resorts to ad hom attacks.
So, you're totally lacking any real knowledge about evolution, but have decided on this basis it is false (despite lack of proof for your theory of creation).
What adds to the hallarity of your position is you consider you can look down on fellow creationists because they believe something different, despite your own beliefs being equally flawed.
I suppose you believe Intelligent Design is a wonderful theory (despite the fact it proves itself wrong)?
That's rhetorical sarcasm; you don't have to reply - there's little point in talking to you as you don't want to engage in the issue but would rather hurl insults and show-off your ignorance on the subject.
Mr. Kim;
Ok! I have been asked to play your little game and not to be so harsh. After all, "children don't always do as they are told."
You were the one playing games; I was just asking questions. And who asked you? Is this why you were talking about "te human side of me". Do you have MPD, or hear voices?
Why Abaddon, you must be careful what you wish for. I will be glad to take your sarcasim under advisement. I will be glad to specify about you and I will keep it simple and use easy words. don't forget to slam back and make youself feel good and by all means, impress everyone. ( you were told this when you were younger, remember?)
Still all talk and no trousers; and still no answers to questions.
Are we having fun yet? You seem to go on and on and say nothing. Why? Is it perhaps you have ears and do not hear? You also have eyes and you do not see! Or are you trying to tickle the ears of anyone that will listen? You must need a lot of attention. Do you enjoy it? You remember who GOD is, don't you? Take your time and please slow down and enjoy yourself like you ALWAYS do.
Still all talk and no trousers; and still no answers to questions. I'd ask you to define 'God', that's normally good for a laugh, but you're affectations are tiresome.
Unlike you and other people like YOU, I have nothing to prove. I am rich in many ways and I thank almighty GOD for the good things in my life.
Oh stop lying to yourself; I can endure people lying to me, but when they are lying to themselves it is quite ridiculous. If you have nothing to prove why are you in this thread? Silly person; think before opening your mouth.
You on the other hand have cursed and tormented the Holy Spirit! Woe be to you frail earthling man. For what you have said and done over the last four years and seven months; has a price tag on it. But why should you care? You have made your choices in many public and private ways. Your actions speak for you and the record is clear as to the clarity of your heart. Wonder what is in your future? I understand that you have some decisions to make?
___________________________________________________
I must share with you a sign from the sky above. It was made just for you. It has the sign and meaning that people like you know and respect. It has something special made just for you and your kind. Enjoy it with the love that you have given to so many others...............
Ah, here we go; I thought this would happen, and this is wonderful proof of the dangers that people like you and the person this thread was triggered by represent.
Now you are off, condemning people, so consumed by your own purity that you fail to realise by doing so you prostitute your own religious beliefs on the alter of intolerance. You judge, despite scriptual admonition against such arrogance. You set yourself up in public as a pure person, just as the Pharasees that Jesus despised did. You are a "superfine apostle" who fails to realise the admonition in scripture to judge a tree by its fruits applies to you as much as to everyone, and whilst you label yourself Christian, you lack any fruit of Christianity. Hypocrite. Why not get the rafter out of your own eye first?
hooberus:
Your example is wonderful!
First of all it indicates the foolishness of developing a theory looking at facts (literally) from one angle and before a study been made.
This results in "it looks like a face; it must be made, the chances of it looking like a face by random are minute".
This is almost identical to some forms of creationism; "it looks like it was designed, it must be made, the chances of it looking designed by random are minute".
If one investigates the face on Mars, one realises the image is a result of shadows being interpreted by our brain - which is so good at seeing faces it sees faces even when there aren't any, e.g.;
8-)
It's not on other images of the same place. It just looks like a face in that photo.
Likewise, creationistic theories were developed by people looking at the facts from the angle of a pre-scientific society before any study of origins had been made.
These same theories, despite their poor provenance and failure to match the evidence we have around us, are clung to by some people, just as some people still believe the face on Mars is real, even if you show them concrete evidence to the contrary.
Your example also indicates your entire argument is presuppositionaistic in nature. You ASSUME that if there is a possibility that something might be true it should be taught (i.e. all options given in the face on Mars example must be considered). What you fail to consider is that this standard would allow other religious or pseudo-religious theories of origin into the classroom that YOU would think of as supersticious and unscientific as I consider your beliefs.
And you would protest about it in all liklihood! I really don't think you'd like Zoranistic Creation Science taught alongside Christian Creation Science.
Likewise, one would have, using your theory, to allow for every form of revisionistic history to be taught, no matter how illogical or unsuported it might be. Physics lessons would have to include speculation about how aliens get here at super-luminal speeds, as teaching that c is absolute would be in violation of the principle you're advancing.
The way it works is that people are taught what there is evidence for. This might change over times as new evidence is found and techniques and theories advance.
If you object to this, go live in a cave in the cold and dark, believe diseases are caused by evil spirits, and wipe your bottom with leaves, as you are objecting to progress and improvement in knowledge and technology.
If there is evidence of a supernatural origin, please provide it. So far you and your fellow creationists have failed to provide any proof of a supernatural origin.
Please also remember that argument from design is flawed as it is inextricably self-falsifying in that it never explains how the designer was designed. It is a theory that requires what it says CAN'T happen to happen in order to happen.
If both strands of possible origins end up with a assumption of either a naturalistic environment with conditions that allow the sequence of events required to put us here today, or a supernatural environment with conditions that allow the sequence of events required to put us here today, one must turn away from the debate of origins to find the answer - something I know, have known, and causes great amusement whenever people start discussing the subject as even though I like playing the game, I know it's more about the playing than any possibility of either side being able to prove their point to the satisfaction of the other
Look at the world around you hooberus; just as you see god in design, you may see god in the world around you. I don't; all the theories that explain our existence using a concerned caring god either test as false, fallacious or fanciful as they do not match with the evidence we see NOW, let alone any supposed historical evidence.
Again, if you have evidence to the contrary, provide it... or else explain why a caring god would allow events that obviously the observers then found convincing evidence to happen in the past, but does not allow these events (when they would spread world-wide in hours) now. Ineffable plans are not allowed, as a caring god would not expect us to be blindly trusting; the exercise of freewill and the expectation of blind trust are not compatable.
