Despite Overwhelming Evidence, Creationists Cling to Unreality

[wolfie_cr]

Ok Wolfie, you win. I now believe that we all evolved from
chimpanzees (or a common ancestor). And, chimps evolved
from a pile of goo. And the goo came from... oh wait, the Darwinists
don't want to argue about abiogenesis.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAAH

The evidence is so overwhelming everyone should believe in the
religion of Darwinism. BWHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAAHAH

Excuse me while I go eat some bananas.

Since you have totally abandoned any remote trace you showed of a smart discussion........I can now openly say that I find it so very hard to believe that you have a degree in science (Then again, who knows what you define by science, you were not Bergman's classmate at some point right? ROFL)

I am glad that you are going to eat a banana, first of all they are good for you, second it probably came from Costa Rica and third, its the worst atheists nightmare

<embed id="VideoPlayback" style="width:400px;height:326px" allowFullScreen="true" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-4472004596147265716&hl=en&fs=true" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"> </embed>

btw, how can anyone have a discussion with you about the current theories of the emergence of life....if you don't even acknowledge that there is a problem with Bergman's position and the young earth. Starting right there.....you can dismiss without any explanation, any reference to chemistry/physics or anything even remotely linked......so you see....its totally useless to even start debating you on that issue

 

[festeringZit]

Worshipers at the altar of Darwinism speak up:

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Harvard's own Lewontin, Richard, Review of the Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.

One Darwinist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) Darwinist, says:

'We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.'

Bowler, Peter J., Review In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.

At least this guy is honest:

'And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal -- without demonstration -- to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.'

Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.
​

 

[wolfie_cr]

Worshipers at the altar of Darwinism speak up:

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Harvard's own Lewontin, Richard, Review of the Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.


One Darwinist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) Darwinist, says:

'We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.'​

Bowler, Peter J., Review In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.​

At least this guy is honest:​

'And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal -- without demonstration -- to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.'​

Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.​

lies lies and twisted words

Quod erat demonstrandum

hey if festeringZit can use this method so can I :lolBIG:

 

[wolfie_cr]

"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy." [10]
straight from the horse's mouth.....Phillip Johnson, considered the father of ID

I am glad he has it straight, too bad ID is presented as 'science'

 

[wolfie_cr]

"Johnson is involved in AIDS denialism, which challenges the scientific consensus that HIV is the cause of AIDS"

Once again Mr Phillip Johnson, leader of the ID movement tells us that HIV is not the cause of AIDS.

 

[festeringZit]

"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy." [10]
straight from the horse's mouth.....Phillip Johnson, considered the father of ID

I am glad he has it straight, too bad ID is presented as 'science'

Hey Wolfie, we agree! And why does the brilliant Johnson say that?
Because Darwinism isn't science - it's religion.

 

[wolfie_cr]

"'You must unify your own side and divide the other side,' Johnson said. He added that he wants to temporarily suspend the debate between young-Earth creationists, who insist that the planet is only 6,000 years old, and old-Earth creationists, who accept that the Earth is ancient. This debate, he said, can be resumed once Darwinism is overthrown. (Johnson, himself an old-Earth creationist, did not explain how the two camps would reconcile this tremendous gap.)..."

Once again Philip Johnson.......how convenient.....lets put aside this minuscule problem of the young Earth..........

 

[wolfie_cr]

Phillip Johnson, Berkeley law professor and acknowledged leader of the "Intelligent Design Movement." In a 7 May article by Steve Maynard of the Tacoma News Tribune (and also posted on the Discovery Institute's web site), regarding a speech by Johnson in April at Pacific Lutheran University, Maynard states "Johnson said he and most others in the intelligent design movement believe the designer is the God of the Bible."

smokescreen is over, the 'ID' very own DESIGNER admits what ID really is, an attempt to bring the Christian God to science classes.

And just so that buddists, muslims etc dont get excited about ID...........

"We once knew who the true God was and were able to proclaim it frankly. But since about 1960 we've been hiding from that. We've been trying to pretend that all religions are the same." Philip Johnson

 

[wolfie_cr]

"The mind that is clever at test taking and reasoning is also clever at deceiving itself. So you see, you can't rely on your own mind because it will betray you and trick you."

all reasoning MUST BE STOPPED , thank you Mr Philip Johnson

 

[wolfie_cr]

"Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement, and the Wedge strategy stops working when we are seen as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message. ... The evangelists do what they do very well, and I hope our work opens up for them some doors that have been closed."
thank you for admitting it

 

[wolfie_cr]

"I've just gotten kind of blase about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print," he says. "And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there. My books sell well. I get a royalty. And the material gets read more."
- -William Dembski in The Chronicle of Higher Education Dec. 21, 2001

YUP its easier to sell books to the suckers

Mr Dembski from the 'Discovery Institute'

 

[wolfie_cr]

"...I think is central to Christianity--that the creation was meant to culminate in human beings who are created in the image of God and who are different from everything else. So this is another area in which evolutionary thinking, in so far as it says, 'Well, human beings really are just another part of the animal world like any other'--the 'third chimpanzee,' as the title of one book has it, is profoundly anti-Christian, and again, if it's true, perhaps Christianity should be given up as a bad show. Now it isn't true at all. ..."


the real problem with Science and evolution in general, this is nothing new........cosmology/astronomy etc they all have had problems with the religious powers due to this little problem.

we just HAVE to be special........don't we.....

 

[wolfie_cr]

"If you get into things like trying to deal with the fossil record overall, you get into a tremendous amount of scientific detail and the other side can always bluff effectively because they have lots of information and slides and so on. One of the people we debate, Kenneth Miller, has written a book that's against intelligent design, master bluffer, so you have to be up on a whole lot to catch him; you usually don't have enough time. [Richard Dawkins] is a master bluffer too. And because they can speak with all the authority of science behind them they can get away with a lot of stuff the critic can't. Now that's good for us.

Mr Philip Johnson.........

In summary, don't get tricked into the finer details, they will beat the shit out of us and we just 'don't have enough time', anyone can deny mountains of evidence from hundreds of experts by saying 'we dont believe it.......our book says......' and thats good enough for Mr Johnson's goal of deceiving the uninformed masses

 

[festeringZit]

incoherent blather > /dev/null

 

[punter]

I really dont give a shit what people believe but when they want to start teaching creationism in school, that is teaching religion because other than faith there is nothing to suggest that a literal translation of biblical creation is anything else.

Also to say that the theory of evolution not be taught is also interference by religion in public school.

 

[wolfie_cr]

incoherent blather > /dev/null

I am so glad that we agree! You are making some advances here, now you recognize your 'idols' of the Discovery Institute for what they are ! ope:

 

[Vision]

I really dont give a shit what people believe but when they want to start teaching creationism in school, that is teaching religion because other than faith there is nothing to suggest that a literal translation of biblical creation is anything else.

Also to say that the theory of evolution not be taught is also interference by religion in public school.

Most "knowledge" is faith. Protestants that want to teach some radical biblical interpretation of life are just as foolish as the anti-Christian secularists that want teach theories upheld by faith.

 

[Romanowski]

I really dont give a shit what people believe but when they want to start teaching creationism in school, that is teaching religion because other than faith there is nothing to suggest that a literal translation of biblical creation is anything else.

Also to say that the theory of evolution not be taught is also interference by religion in public school.

Maybe creationism cant be backed by science but intelligent design can

Why does the ACLU block any intelligent design taught in schools:think2:

 

[DeathEatsaCracker]

Maybe creationism cant be backed by science but intelligent design can

Why does the ACLU block any intelligent design taught in schools:think2:

Explain ID's scientific thesis for the group, please.

 

[SmallDaddy]

Maybe creationism cant be backed by science but intelligent design can

Why does the ACLU block any intelligent design taught in schools:think2:

Fine, but if they do teach it, every possibility should get just as much "airtime" as the Bible