Swedishguy
Deity
In some theories
The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Four: The Genesis of Ire!
- Thread starter Perfection
- Start date
- Status
Perfection
The Great Head.
I don't want that kind of stuff really in this thread. It makes it seem that evolution still needs to be demonstrated.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Do you have a contrary notion?
Perfection, clearly evolution still needs to be demonstrated since you're trying to convince people of it???
Theme music for this thread:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwiPsgRrOs
Theme music for this thread:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwiPsgRrOs
I'm now equally afraid of peanut butter as I am of the banana
http://axiomsun.com/home/video/peanut_butter_the_atheists_nightmare!.html
http://axiomsun.com/home/video/peanut_butter_the_atheists_nightmare!.html
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
I am watching this video right now with my jaw hanging open. This borders on CRIMINAL misunderstanding of basic scientific knowledge. Can you sue someone for libel on behalf of science...?
Obvious those in this video doesn't know that Evolutionists has put evolution in a jar which is consistency of peanut butter in their new Mutation Paste.
Hey Smidlee,
first of all, would you mind stopping the insults? 'Evolutionist' is a term deliberately coined to insult people who refuse religious fanatism with regards to science, so please cut it out, you bad bad religionist - or should I rather say christianist?
Second, while you are here, would you mind giving answers to the many posts addressed to you or in reply to your previous posts? It is a tiny bit tiring to reply to people who only do drive-by-posting, so please be fair and answer, willya?
Sophie 378
Avvie by ybbor
Isn't <mutation paste etc> a joke site?
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
What's the term, "crimes against humanity" or something like that?
Why would you find the term "evolutionist" insulting? Do you have a problem calling creationists creationists? What's the difference?
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
Well, the dichotomy is more like creationist:scientist.
And creationists think that they are scientists too. (Whether you think they are is a matter of opinion) If you have the right to call them creationists, but not scientists, why don't they have the right to call you evolutionists? If it's OK to ignore what someone wants to be called and call them what you think they are, why are you complaining that creationists are calling you an evolutionist? Or do those rules only apply to the opposition?
A joke but none the less making an interesting point.
Bolding mine - do you want to be called a fundamentalist and intolerantist and religionist and christianist and biblical literalist? Do you want to?
I love how you defend the irrational and illogical and (the least offence in the list) linguistically utterly idiotic term the religionists have coined in order to create the illusion that evolution is similar to creation.
I am a fundamentalist, (At least according to the dictionary definition, which you probably aren't using) I am not intolerant. According to dictionary.com, evolutionist is defined as " a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, esp. in biology.". It's an actual word - if you don't believe in the theory of evolution, then you aren't an evolutionist. If you do, then you are. This is simple vocabulary.Bolding mine - do you want to be called a fundamentalist and intolerantist and religionist and christianist and biblical literalist? Do you want to?
I love how you defend the irrational and illogical and (the least offence in the list) linguistically utterly idiotic term the religionists have coined in order to create the illusion that evolution is similar to creation.
By the way, I'm not a YE creationist. (What you would call a creationist.) Meaning I believe God created the world, but I don't think it was 6,000 years ago. So I don't understand all your hostility.
Nice - a group of people opposed to science and to religious freedom makes up a word, this gets used by similar people, and thus included in dictionaries - and that is supposed to mean that there was no agenda behind it?
Get real!
So you still claim that science only works where it conforms to your religion.
BTW, you ARE intolerant - I remember well your preaching about things that you were clearly shown to be clueless about, or totally wrong on. It seems you can't accept that other people have a different opinion on these, nor that their opinion may be closer to the truth. Thus: you're an intolerantist.
Now, can you bring any sound indication that (a) god created anything?
No?
You know, this particular issue has come up in discussions that I've had with my wife. What to call the people who agree with evolution? I've just been saying "people who agree with evolution". Not everyone who agrees with evolution is a scientist, so I can't just say "scientist". And I don't like the term "evolutionist".Bolding mine - do you want to be called a fundamentalist and intolerantist and religionist and christianist and biblical literalist? Do you want to?
I love how you defend the irrational and illogical and (the least offence in the list) linguistically utterly idiotic term the religionists have coined in order to create the illusion that evolution is similar to creation.
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
No it isn't. It's a matter of definition.
A scientist starts out believing nothing, starts believing something when it's proven, and stops believing in something when it's disproven.
A creationist starts out believing in certain things, believes them when they haven't been proven, and still believes in them after they've been disproven.
A scientist by definition is someone whose beliefs are determined 100% by the facts. A creationist by definition is someone who will believe something with absolute disregard to the facts.
That's how it works when you decide what you want the answer to be before you even start looking for one.
- Status
