DarkWizard12

Wow, you really believe that?

What you stated is CREATIONISM. Creationism is simply the assumption that ALL life was created. ID however, is more narrow. It only states that humans (or, as others believer, all EARTHEN-life) was created, whether by a supernatural God or other life forms. A more recent trend in my university has been that other "super-intelligent" microbes inside rocks created us. Its a radical belief but, apparantly they believe they have evidence. Hasn't stopped them from knocking on my door to advertise.

justone

Thanks…. really, - thanks... It all depends on the definition of “”Yes”’.

There is one thing about atheists here – they make me laugh...


Define ‘’define”.





Thanks again, - you said ID but not LC, and I replied to ID but not LC. Thanks for making another joke.

Thus it is proven that when you came up with the OP you knew that ID=LC, and you were merely pretending that you had some intention to rise an intellectual conversation. Thanks for another demonstration of the intellectual level of atheism …




It could be so and may be it could not be so, - my question was – ‘’’What particular ‘’large’’ parts? Tights? Breasts? Legs? And what (are) is about the small parts, - heart, liver and kidneys?’’ You have no answer, and I have not expected you to have any



Hey, there are 100s of 1000s of pages , if not millions of millions written with the only purpose of bringing in confusion and deception and demonstrating the lack of intellect; – but for a reasonable mind – why do I have to read all the pages, if the first line about the ‘’large parts’’ clearly shows as a product of an insane mind? Does a psychiatrist have to go through all details and twists of a schizophrenic mind to make a diagnosis?


http://www.debatepolitics.com/religi...nostics-5.html (Proof, negatives, existence, and Agnostics) - #47

http://www.debatepolitics.com/religi...nostics-6.html (Proof, negatives, existence, and Agnostics) - #54

Here comes the simple truth Christian Creationist scientists have behind them:

Laws - not theories, not hypotheses – but laws of genetics discovered 150 years ago by a Christian Creationist scientist, who in order to be a Christian Creationist was primarily trained in mathematics.

Darwin failed mathematic completely. He wouldn’t pass a 4th grade exam.

Thus there is no possibility of an intellectual debate between Christian Creationist scientists and Darwinists-atheists.

The laws of genetics not only have been proven with endless experiments but also have been described mathematically and they tell us that evolution is impossible The same laws of math and the theory of information are applicable to everything in the universe, in the same way as thermodynamics. You can write millions of pages, but you cannot beat math. You cannot beat the simple truth about entropy of information, - that no new information can rise from the combination of old bits of information. You can take all copper coins but however you toss them, they would have the same heads and tails and no silver coin would appear between them, and the total value wouldn’t increase even by a single cent. You can loose some coins tossing, but you would never add a coin. That’s it. It is so simple a child can understand.

Christian creationist scientists have the simple truth behind them while Evolutionists have tons of pages filled with meaningless absurd. The intellectual debate is impossible, but now there are a lot more chances for Christian creationist scientists. Evolutionists-atheists always based their debate on lies, cheating, billions spend for brainwashing, and brutal force. One of their leaders was torturing geneticists and murdering them and putting them in hard labor camps. But today evolutionists have completely lost the support of Stalinists. All they have is China and North Korea, but there is a great cultural and language barrier which works against evolutionists –atheists. Atheistic ‘’scientists” resorting to mass appeal to the mob, ignorant masses in a scientific inquiry without the armed back up of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism are rather funny – like clowns.

BTW, many people brainwashed by the atheistic propaganda do not know that the term ID was introduced by Christian creationists 500 years ago, - it is a specific term of Christian theology and it has been used as one of the description of the Christian G-d. If some “’new born’’ scientists discover ID for themselves and are not familiar with Christianity it does not change the fact that ID belongs to the Christian religion. So my friend Jerry is all correct about tires and a car.

SouthernDemocrat

What level of "Proof" would you like? The fact of the matter is, there is not one iota of positive empirical evidence that supports creationism or ID in any peer reviewed journal in all science.

Yet, one can visit virtually any museum of natural history and see numerous examples of transitional fossils, gene flow, and even observed speciation such as Yellowstone Diatoms. We know from genetics alone that the two creation stories in Genesis could not possibly be literally true and are obviously metaphorical. After all, had we literally originated from two individuals, the genetic fingerprint of that would be plain as day.

Furthermore, as the vast majority of Christian denominations accept theistic evolution as the literal explanation of how life originated, I am not sure why fundamentalists have such an issue with it. Arguing from ignorance and intellectual dishonesty as they do does not help further Christianity. It only serves to drive a wedge that does not have to exist, between faith and intelligent people.

__________________
Charles Krauthammer describing Obama:

"He's got both a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament."

justone

I just pointed to ALL experiments in genetics. ALL of them support my simple description of the coins. Let me start from the first one
Table of Contents for Mendel's Paper 97.1
My friend, you have not bothered to read my links, have you? I fully addressed observed speciation, and you are totally ignoring my address. How can we remain friends in good standing after that?

If ID is correct it would not be so plain at all, but it would be a lot more clear why the vast % of human genome is “junk”, why some monkeys show more “”evolutionary”’ changes than humans… etc.

My friend, if you make a statement like this, try to think a bit – how in the world it would be “’plain as day” if ID is correct?


I see it as the opposite and I can back up my view with facts. Exactly fundamentalists = the Catholic Church accept some variants of evolution, while among us, evangelicals, a descent is not so unusual. Can you back up your view?

Then, you are referring to theistic evolution… What is that- vs. atheistic evolution, agnostic evolution, undecided voters evolution, pledged delegates evolution? Then you get offended just because I am laughing. Well, I am sorry, I apologize, I just cannot help it, I am not meaning to offend you in any way, it is just really funny…


Thus you are telling me that since I belong to faith I do not belong to intelligent people. I take no offense, I am just laughing, I have heard this so many times… So, can we be even, - I take no offense in your statement that I do not belong to intelligent people, and you will take no offense because I am laughing?

obvious Child

I don't see that at all. The vast majority of IDers are Christians who believe in Creationism. What ID serves is replacing parts of Creationism that are too loony for public education with fake science. I suppose you are somewhat correct in that God is the real source. What I always found funny is offering the suggest that the invisible pink unicorn was the God in ID to ID believers. They tend to fly off the handle at such a suggestion.

obvious Child

justone, what DO you understand about evolution?

I get the feeling you know nothing about the actual issues, have no science education and your reactions are typical of an ignorant creationist who has no basis to actually argue against the science other then 'conspiracy and brainwashing."

I've learned that arguing with such people on complex issues is a waste of time, similar to trying to argue against someone who argues that quantum mechanics is all wrong when they don't even understand the basics of force.

So what DO you know?

justone

1. It is obvious that you, in the same way as my friend SD have completely ignored my links, where I fully report my experience of conversations with evolutionists. You are exactly confirming to this report. The link has been supplied, anyone can read and see where you are standing, anyone who has a minimal sense of humor may laugh, and those who are too sensitive can be sadden by seeing another evolutionist stepping on the same rake.

2. What I exactly know I exactly report in exact relation to what you know and throw at me. It is enough that I have a little bit more knowledge demonstrated in my real time and real context replies than you demonstrate in your real time and text attacks - for me to have an upper hand each time at any real event of confrontation of our knowledge. But since you have demonstrated 0 knowledge on the scale of 0 to 10, my knowledge of 1 on the same scale is already infinitely superior to your knowledge (of course, I am referring to the local infinity). What I do know I do demonstrate in real time in real context as the debate goes and calls. What you don’t know is how much more I can demonstrate if called for. You have not made any contextual calls.

3. I may not have science education, but it is not a requirement for evolution. Moreover the requirement of evolution has always been to look at things from a non-scientific POV. Darwin had absolutely no education in science, - as it has been outlined in my post. It is very easy to detect that at least a half of posters here have better education in science than Darwin. Your point is mute.

4. A Conspiracy theory is based on suspicions and indirect evidence. I don’t do such things. A number of times I had supplied historical documents which did not allow any other conclusion than the one reported by me. I have the best on DP knowledge and experience of Marxism-Leninism –Stalinism. But it is not even so important. The simple and self-evident fact that evolution has not been having any other practical use except for promoting atheism does not even need my knowledge, experience or the quoted documents. If you remove any mentioning of evolution from papers on biology it would not result in any practical lost. Evolution is a wasteful ballast and an obstacle on the way of developing science in the useful for humanity way.

5. If you go on DP to discuss evolution vs. ID and think that evolution requires any special and huge education and your posts cannot be understood without such an education by a fellow DPer who has a minimal colledge education you are not passing a minimal intellectual requirement of DP. You are obviously acting as a child. You posts consist mostly of unfounded flaming.

6. Since you have absolutely no education in QM your comparison is mute. If one has an education in QM and a conspiracy theoretic comes to argue, a physicist provided that he has understanding of the subject would have no problem to point to the blunders and illiteracy in the lines typed by the conspirator so that anybody with a minimal education can see what is going on. Somewhere there is a lost debate between conqueror and me. A physicist may be bored, annoyed, looking down at the conspirator, but still he would feel comfortable in the subject talking to an ignoramus, even if he himself could have doubts in many parts of QM.


7. When I came to DP 2 years ago I was as joyful about evolution as my friend SouthernDemocrat. It took long and consistent efforts of the proponents of evolution on DP to kill my joy. As you can see from the post of my friend SD my religion couldn’t be something that turned me 180 around against evolution (found wrong I always can call my friend SD and have a drink for evolution with him, not loosing my religion) ; evolutionists themselves made me to do a required research on the subject and undertook all possible efforts to turn me 180 degrees around.


8. As a very recent example in the links provided by me I submitted my analyses of scientific articles in the scientific papers, addressing experimental speciation claimed by evolutionists. As no evolutionist has been able to come up with critique of my analyses I still stand all correct.

9. I have been acknowledging that I may be wrong as anyone may be wrong in a scientific or intellectual inquiry. I do acknowledge that I often go to extremes in my considerations, as a very old scientific and intellectual method of approaching a problem requires me to do (even if it may be somewhat scary and difficult to understand for people who have no experience in solving intellectual and scientific problems). So far you and your company have been demonstrating only the contrarily to an honest intellectual enquiry position of an evolutionist-atheist.


I may be wrong, but you and your company are not even wrong, if I may borrow the famous words of my friend Wolfgang Pauli. I have been making attempts of on intellectual and scientific inquiry within my level of comprehension, education and abilities in science, when you have been putting your efforts only in avoiding any intellectual attempts.

Thus you have provided a conformation #1001 that an intellectual debate between IDers and evolutionists is impossible. The approach to the subject is totally different on the both sides.

Your replay is not even week. It is no more than zero on any scale. Just a little childish flaming.

-"I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest - and as scientists honesty is our precise duty - we cannot help but admit that any religion is a pack of false statements, deprived of any real foundation. The very idea of God is a product of human imagination. ... I do not recognize any religious myth, at least because they contradict one another. "

-"Well, I'd say that also our friend Dirac has got a religion and the first commandment of this religion is 'God does not exist and Paul Dirac is his prophet.'" - Wolfgang Pauli

As an honest scientist Dirac was able to burst in laughter when he was found to be ganz falsch (utterly false).


You would be funny with your little flaming, if it was not so appalling and intellectually miserable. You cannot even make a good joke, or, at least, something acceptable like my friend SD.

You are not even funny.

SouthernDemocrat

Since this is a scientific issue, you need to provide articles from peer reviewed journals to backup your assertions.

If literal creationism was correct, then it would be very easy, especially considering we have now mapped the human genome, to trace us all literally back to a literal Adam and Eve. The journals would be full of data to back that up if that were the case.


Churches that accept theistic evolution:

Catholocism - 1 Billion Members
Orthodox Christianity - 300 Million Members
Angicans - 80 Million Members
Methodists - 70 Million Members
Most of the Lutherans - 65 Million Members

There is about 2 billion Christians worldwide, that does not leave a lot left.

Theistic Evolution simply accepts all of the science behind Evolution, but believes that God was behind it some how. Otherwise, science simply explains the natural world, thus faith and science are not incompatible.

If one simply took a strict literalistic interpretation of scripture, then ID would be more heretical than theistic evolution.


I worded that poorly, but just the same. When one pits religion against reason and science, then they drive a wedge that does not have to exist, between those that accept science and reason.

DarkWizard12

Just because their councils accept Theistic Evolution doesn't mean the people do. I have never met a methodist, at least here in texas that believes in evolution in any form. So, you can't just by the numbers by themselves. There many many more factors involved in determining the numbers. Even polls are unreliable. In michigan, a popular trend was christians just saying they are "theistic evolutionists" just so the hard-core atheist population would leave them alone.

Personally, I never understood Theistic evolution. Theism and Atheism was confusing enough. If atheists are so "pro-reason" as they claim they are, then they would see that theistic evolution is nothing but a logical fallacy. In theistic evolution, you would have a theistic atheist, and that is illogical.

DarkWizard12

So, your argument is: since many IDers are christians, ID = creationism? Do you have any idea how flawed that logic is? All the examples that could be thrown at it? I suppose you will say that since the vast majority of communists are atheists, communism = atheism?