• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Reporter Suspended For Defending Evolution Comes Back, Gives Immediate Middle Finger

Re: Reporter Suspended For Defending Evolution Comes Back, Gives Immediate Middle Fin

Ok, so right here - "creationists are stupid". Not a particular kind of creationists or whatever spin has been put on it in this thread, just "creationist". Now, was that so hard?

Creationism pretending to be science is stupid.
Creationists pretending to be scientists are stupid.
Adherents of creationism are willfully ignorant.

Such martyrdom...
 
Re: Reporter Suspended For Defending Evolution Comes Back, Gives Immediate Middle Fin

Watching X-Factor slink away from his first post in this thread is slightly satisfying. He lied about Dr. Edwin Conklin's position as an 'evolutionist'. He tried really hard to attribute the statements of others to my posts. Then he couldn't answer what his quote had to do with the issue. Then he got school on just which Christians accepted evolution. Then mbig called him out for engaging in further dishonest and trying to get people to insult his view. You gotta love just how his arguments have been bludgeoned to death but I'm not one to really enjoy jumping on people who don't know their stuff. So I'll bid you all adieu and observe as some of you demolishing X's uninformed statements.

:peace

I've slunk away from it? Lol. Since I've posted it, I've gotten various responses to it. First, mbig was all he didn't really say it. Then it became, ok, he said it but it's out of context. Then; ok he said it and he meant it but he's not credible because he was a devout Christian Scientist who lived a long time ago and he's not really an evolutionist anyway. I believe we're curently at he said it, he mean it, he's actually probably correct about the odds but space is so vast that we are that one in many trillion chances where life came from nothing living.

I'm just waiting so see what's next.
 
Re: Reporter Suspended For Defending Evolution Comes Back, Gives Immediate Middle Fin

Who said that?

1. Where did I say any of my post was directed at anything anyone on DP has said?

2. The use of the word "essentially" prior to the quoted passage was to indicate that said passage was not an exact quote, but was my view of the basic essense of what the arguments against criticism of YEC is.

In the times I've had discussions about, or read discussion of, YEC that's generally been the essense of the arguments. That either things like fossils and carbon dating are smiply conspiracies or fraudulent things concocted by the scientific community to discredit god and are fraudulent...or that those type of things are simply WRONG, with the only evidence offered as to WHY they're "wrong" is because it doesn't match up with what the bible says.
 
Re: Reporter Suspended For Defending Evolution Comes Back, Gives Immediate Middle Fin

Watching X-Factor slink away from his first post in this thread is slightly satisfying. He lied about Dr. Edwin Conklin's position as an 'evolutionist'. He tried really hard to attribute the statements of others to my posts. Then he couldn't answer what his quote had to do with the issue. Then he got school on just which Christians accepted evolution. Then mbig called him out for engaging in further dishonest and trying to get people to insult his view. You gotta love just how his arguments have been bludgeoned to death but I'm not one to really enjoy jumping on people who don't know their stuff. So I'll bid you all adieu and observe as some of you demolishing X's uninformed statements.

:peace

Even better is seeing it happen to a Dallas Cowboys fan.....
 
Re: Reporter Suspended For Defending Evolution Comes Back, Gives Immediate Middle Fin

I've slunk away from it? Lol. Since I've posted it, I've gotten various responses to it. First, mbig was all he didn't really say it.

Irrelevant. :shrug:

Then it became, ok, he said it but it's out of context. Then; ok he said it and he meant it but he's not credible because he was a devout Christian Scientist who lived a long time ago and he's not really an evolutionist anyway.

Conflating the different responses you got into one? Classy. :) More dishonesty from you.

I believe we're curently at he said it, he mean it, he's actually probably correct about the odds but space is so vast that we are that one in many trillion chances where life came from nothing living.

I'm just waiting so see what's next.

It's funny how you think trying to pass off different responses as coming from a single source and addressing none of them makes your spineless avoidance of the commentaries any less obvious. :)
 
Re: Reporter Suspended For Defending Evolution Comes Back, Gives Immediate Middle Fin

I like how he is quoting me in his signature obviously without realizing the a majority of people would agree with my statement he is quoting.

That is quite possible, although I doubt the "stupid" part, but there are people here that would be surprised that it came from you. I consider it a PSA for any believer who engages you so that they know, at the outset, where they stand with you. That's all.

I do appreciate your consent to keep it.
 
Re: Reporter Suspended For Defending Evolution Comes Back, Gives Immediate Middle Fin

Moderator's Warning:
Folks, this isn't the basement. I suggest people don't treat it such, both in those baiting or those wantonly participating in the bait
 
Re: Reporter Suspended For Defending Evolution Comes Back, Gives Immediate Middle Fin

Even better is seeing it happen to a Dallas Cowboys fan.....

Let's just keep the Cowboys out of this.
 
Re: Reporter Suspended For Defending Evolution Comes Back, Gives Immediate Middle Fin

He is dishonestly conflating believing in a creator and being a creationist. The two are mutually exclusive. The fact that he thinks evolution and a creator were mutually exclusive and then got completely destroyed when he tried to claim all Christians were creationists-a-la-evangelicals just made me realize how little he knows about this topic. Then again... what else can we expect from someone who tried to pass off a devout Christian scientist as an evolutionist?

Its like saying that accepting the laws of physics and the belief in a creator are mutually exclusive. Back when I was religious I would get really annoyed when a fundamentalist would paint challenges to their absurd beliefs (creationism, flood geology, tower of babel) as "attacks on Christians". I was raised Catholic, Roman Catholics constitute half of the world's 2 billion Christians and Catholics are not creationists and don't believe in such nonsense as Flood Geology. As an adult I became Episcopalian, and they don't believe such nonsense either, and the Anglican Communion, which they are apart of is the third largest Christian denomination on earth. Its actually a minority of Christians that hold such ridiculous beliefs such as creationism, flood geology and so on.
 
Re: Reporter Suspended For Defending Evolution Comes Back, Gives Immediate Middle Fin

Creationists by definition are people that believe that the 2 creation stories in Genesis are literal accounts of the creation of man, all life, and the universe. Within creationism there are 2 sects, Old Earth and New Earth. Basically the division being whether the earth is 6 thousand years old or much older. However, regardless of how old they think the earth is, creationists by definition believe there was a literal Adam and a literal Eve that which all of humanity descends from.

Frankly I am beginning to think that despite your histrionic indignation, you don't even know what creationists believe.

Eh, I think the one caveat to this is I have encountered people who subscribe to the intelligent design style of thought that refer to themselves as creationists. While I agree with you in terms of the general definition, I deifnitely think there are people who self identify as "creationist" who dont necessarily believe the bibilical creation story is literal in nature but rather fall more in the ID side of things.
 
Re: Reporter Suspended For Defending Evolution Comes Back, Gives Immediate Middle Fin

Eh, I think the one caveat to this is I have encountered people who subscribe to the intelligent design style of thought that refer to themselves as creationists. While I agree with you in terms of the general definition, I deifnitely think there are people who self identify as "creationist" who dont necessarily believe the bibilical creation story is literal in nature but rather fall more in the ID side of things.

ID is basically creationism with modern marketing. What gets me about it though is that if you believe that the Bible, cover to cover, is the literal word of God and a literal account of history, then Intelligent Design is no more compatible with your fundamentalist interpretation of scripture than evolution is.
 
Re: Reporter Suspended For Defending Evolution Comes Back, Gives Immediate Middle Fin

That is quite possible, although I doubt the "stupid" part, but there are people here that would be surprised that it came from you. I consider it a PSA for any believer who engages you so that they know, at the outset, where they stand with you. That's all.

I do appreciate your consent to keep it.

Most believers don't believe in literal creation, so I don't know what your point there is. I assure you that any actual creationist would quickly pick up where I stand in regards to their beliefs regardless of whether you have your PSA or not.
 
Re: Reporter Suspended For Defending Evolution Comes Back, Gives Immediate Middle Fin

Yeah, except this was a coworker at ESPN.

So what... I don't see that as any reason to not criticize someone. If you were not allowed to criticize a co-worker, how would you ever resolve any problems at work, or point out someone that is not doing their job?
 
Re: Reporter Suspended For Defending Evolution Comes Back, Gives Immediate Middle Fin

Its like saying that accepting the laws of physics and the belief in a creator are mutually exclusive. Back when I was religious I would get really annoyed when a fundamentalist would paint challenges to their absurd beliefs (creationism, flood geology, tower of babel) as "attacks on Christians". I was raised Catholic, Roman Catholics constitute half of the world's 2 billion Christians and Catholics are not creationists and don't believe in such nonsense as Flood Geology. As an adult I became Episcopalian, and they don't believe such nonsense either, and the Anglican Communion, which they are apart of is the third largest Christian denomination on earth. Its actually a minority of Christians that hold such ridiculous beliefs such as creationism, flood geology and so on.

You're preaching to the choir here man. My wife is a catholic and she doesn't place all that much emphasis on genesis other than it's a cute story told by people who never even came close to noticing evolution. What I think is more telling about all this is that the arguments have been better addressed than in most other discussions concerning evolution. We simply don't live in an age where the bible provides anywhere near a logical explanation for the origins of life. We're what? Half a century away from printing organs? Maybe less? How anyone can still think "and then God made man out of dust" is a logical explanation is just being willfully obtuse of the knowledge the human race has developed and attained in the last 100 years. I mean, you can keep all the religious teachings and I have no doubt they benefit some, but there simply isn't much scientific accuracy in the bible.
 
Last edited:
Re: Reporter Suspended For Defending Evolution Comes Back, Gives Immediate Middle Fin

ID is basically creationism with modern marketing.

Eh, I disagree...specifically for the very reasons you laid out in your original post and then here as well.

It's far different to believe that there was/is some sort of entity/power beyond the natural world that either initially set the natural word in motion (and potentially, depending on ones view on the matter, continues to dictate the manner in which that motion proceeds)....and to literally believe in the biblical account of creation, both as a YEC or an OEC.

Most specifically, science does not inherently contradict the basic premises behind ID as it does with either of the creationist belief structures.

Honestly, many of those I've ran into that either are ardent supporters of ID, or more casual supporters, haven't really been what I'd deem "fundamentalist" but rather run of the mill religious types. I don't think the notion of ID really fits as well with a fundamentalist view, as ID opens itself up to any number of various "creator" entities as well as is feasible to work in concert with most of scientific theory.

So I kind of agree with your latter part, but somewhat disagree with the former...unless you're simply meaning "it's a more modern take on 'creation via a super natural method'".
 
Re: Reporter Suspended For Defending Evolution Comes Back, Gives Immediate Middle Fin

Most believers don't believe in literal creation, so I don't know what your point there is. I assure you that any actual creationist would quickly pick up where I stand in regards to their beliefs regardless of whether you have your PSA or not.

You've already said, repeatedly that you anyone who consider themselves a creationist is an idiot, doesn't matter what "type". That's grand. I'm not trying to dissuade you at all. I'm telling you that most Christians consider themselves creationists.
 
Re: Reporter Suspended For Defending Evolution Comes Back, Gives Immediate Middle Fin

You've already said, repeatedly that you anyone who consider themselves a creationist is an idiot, doesn't matter what "type". That's grand. I'm not trying to dissuade you at all. I'm telling you that most Christians consider themselves creationists.

A creationist is someone that believes the accounts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are the literal accounts of the creation of man, all life and the universe. If you think that is what most Christians believe, then you need to visit a few churches.
 
Re: Reporter Suspended For Defending Evolution Comes Back, Gives Immediate Middle Fin

Eh, I disagree...specifically for the very reasons you laid out in your original post and then here as well.

It's far different to believe that there was/is some sort of entity/power beyond the natural world that either initially set the natural word in motion (and potentially, depending on ones view on the matter, continues to dictate the manner in which that motion proceeds)....and to literally believe in the biblical account of creation, both as a YEC or an OEC.

Most specifically, science does not inherently contradict the basic premises behind ID as it does with either of the creationist belief structures.

Honestly, many of those I've ran into that either are ardent supporters of ID, or more casual supporters, haven't really been what I'd deem "fundamentalist" but rather run of the mill religious types. I don't think the notion of ID really fits as well with a fundamentalist view, as ID opens itself up to any number of various "creator" entities as well as is feasible to work in concert with most of scientific theory.

So I kind of agree with your latter part, but somewhat disagree with the former...unless you're simply meaning "it's a more modern take on 'creation via a super natural method'".

I think you are confusing Intelligent Design with Theistic Evolution. Science doesn't inherently contradict Theistic Evolution, but ID is another matter entirely.

Theistic evolution basically asserts that man evolved just like all other life forms. However, evolution as a natural law is a product of God. God is omniscient, thus God knew everything that would result from the laws of the universe that he created, and thus man, and all life - God created us with evolution.

ID goes far further than that. ID asserts that God literally created parts of us such as our eyes because they are "irreducibly complex" and that we did not evolve, but rather are the product of a supernatural assembly process that merely appears to scientists that limit themselves to naturalistic explanations as though we evolved. As such, ID is in no way compatible with modern science.
 
Re: Reporter Suspended For Defending Evolution Comes Back, Gives Immediate Middle Fin

Eh, I think the one caveat to this is I have encountered people who subscribe to the intelligent design style of thought that refer to themselves as creationists. While I agree with you in terms of the general definition, I deifnitely think there are people who self identify as "creationist" who dont necessarily believe the bibilical creation story is literal in nature but rather fall more in the ID side of things.

ID is creationism. The problem is when they try to be scientific about it all, but they can't because all their creationism still has to rely on "...and then, a miracle happened" to prove their point. Supernatural miracles that flout the laws of physics is a nice McGuffin, but untestable, non repeatable, un provable, and rely on the heresay from a oft re written book from iron age times.

That is no foundation for anything even remotely resembling science.
 
Re: Reporter Suspended For Defending Evolution Comes Back, Gives Immediate Middle Fin

If people could visualize advanced lifeforms taking the place of words like "gods, demons, angels," and open their mind to the possibility that we are only advanced as we are, through genetic design and manipulation, by the afore mentioned, all that religious mumbo-jumbo might start to make sense. At least a bit more than it makes now.

I wish I could witness with my eyes the things the ancients must have seen to come up with the "God," theory. It had to be spectacular.
 
Re: Reporter Suspended For Defending Evolution Comes Back, Gives Immediate Middle Fin

ID is creationism. The problem is when they try to be scientific about it all, but they can't because all their creationism still has to rely on "...and then, a miracle happened" to prove their point. Supernatural miracles that flout the laws of physics is a nice McGuffin, but untestable, non repeatable, un provable, and rely on the heresay from a oft re written book from iron age times.

That is no foundation for anything even remotely resembling science.

I think it's basically a creationist-driven movement to supply a rather deistic explanation for the universe.
 
Re: Reporter Suspended For Defending Evolution Comes Back, Gives Immediate Middle Fin

I think it's basically a creationist-driven movement to supply a rather deistic explanation for the universe.

And it is pure garbage. Every religion has its own origin myth, but the creationists want their christian one to be the one taugh in schools, as science.

Maybe the yokels in Texas will eat that baloney, but they do so at the risk of furthering their ignorance.
 
Re: Reporter Suspended For Defending Evolution Comes Back, Gives Immediate Middle Fin

ID is creationism. The problem is when they try to be scientific about it all, but they can't because all their creationism still has to rely on "...and then, a miracle happened" to prove their point. Supernatural miracles that flout the laws of physics is a nice McGuffin, but untestable, non repeatable, un provable, and rely on the heresay from a oft re written book from iron age times.

That is no foundation for anything even remotely resembling science.

You get a like from me (cherish it) for not mincing or trying to spin away from what you've been saying or claiming to have the only possible definition of "creationism"
out there.
 
Re: Reporter Suspended For Defending Evolution Comes Back, Gives Immediate Middle Fin

And it is pure garbage. Every religion has its own origin myth, but the creationists want their christian one to be the one taugh in schools, as science.

Maybe the yokels in Texas will eat that baloney, but they do so at the risk of furthering their ignorance.

I'm not interested in teaching it in a science classroom, but I certainly think it valid for exploration in the many social science courses we expect young people to walk through. It might be slightly redundant, but it's not as if deism is a foreign concept to public school educators.
 
Back
Top Bottom