Majority of Republicans believe in literal creationism

PostmodernProphet said:
????.....that isn't what I read.....
Click to expand...

Well, I spose we disagree here.


PostmodernProphet said:
but that is only necessary if I am trying to prove to someone else that there is a designer......I can observe something and draw a conclusion from what I see that it is designed, and therefore choose to believe a designer exists
Click to expand...

OK. Like I said, it ain't science.


PostmodernProphet said:
true, if "shit just happens" satisfies you......it doesn't satisfy me.....
Click to expand...

Hilarious. I'm not saying "shit happens" but if "God did it" satisfies you, go nuts.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Have you suffered a traumatic brain injury?
Click to expand...

no....did you misunderstand my comment?....you live in a universe where gravity DOES work.....it's what we call a "natural law"......WHY does gravity work in this universe?......if you are one of those who believes that the matter in our universe came from another, then you must conclude it came from a universe which does not have "gravity" as we know it.....

so, what CAUSED gravity to exist here?......
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
?????.....was that an AHA moment for you?.....the rest of us have always known it......
Click to expand...


No, just pointing out it your opinion and not based in any fact what so ever! but at times you value your opinion as if it were the holy grail!

The AHA moment is in realizing what an unmitigated asshole thou art!
 
Mott the Hoople said:
None who have published any peer reviewed research on the topic that I am aware of. I would also agree with you that said argument does underscore the argument for ID. I'd also state that this is a very flawed logic for the following reason. You can infer design based upon complex specificity until the cows come home but until you identify this designer and their design, you have, from a scientific and a logical standpoint, nothing.
Click to expand...

Not true with regards to peer reviewed publications. Here's a list. BTW Jonathan Wells (Icons of Evolution) is a Ph.D in molecular and cellular biology.

It would not be prudent to "name the identity" of a designer if it is not known, scientifically speaking, anymore than it would to definitively expect evolutionists to answer all the questions related to the Cambrian explosion.

How about we encourage further investigation instead of dismissing out of hand that which is as yet unknown. Let's allow real and honest evaluations of research and study to see where it leads.
 
NigelTufnel said:
God is not an observable phenomenon. Black holes, anti-matter and dark energy are observable phenomena. Equating the two is fucking stupid.
Click to expand...

again, you are missing the point....it isn't that we are equating God and black holes.....we are equating our beliefs regarding the origin of black holes with your belief regarding the origin of black holes.....

this isn't that complicated....are you deliberately avoiding the debate?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
again, you are missing the point....it isn't that we are equating God and black holes.....we are equating our beliefs regarding the origin of black holes with your belief regarding the origin of black holes.....

this isn't that complicated....are you deliberately avoiding the debate?......
Click to expand...


Not really. You're saying black holes are "designed." And I'm saying black holes exist.
 
NigelTufnel said:
I simply said that it is not necessary to establish proof of the cause of observable phenomena to have evidence of the existence of observable phenomena.
Click to expand...

strange, I would have sworn that was what I was trying to prove and you were denying......it is not necessary for me to prove the existence of a designer in order to have evidence of design.....
 
CERVIXCRUSHER9000 said:
The majority of Republicans are creationists
Therefore, the Republican party is the part of creationists, as well as the party of evil
Threedee supports the party of creationism and evil
Therefore, Threedee supports creationism and evil

Pretty simple.
Click to expand...

My analogy was better. Pooooooo' Mississippi!!!
 
NigelTufnel said:
I was responding to Dixie who was indeed equating the two.
Click to expand...

I have equated the two in regards to what we have proof of and what we don't know or understand. You can't tell me why black holes exist any more than I can tell you why God exists. You have no more basis in science to explain black holes than I have to explain God. You can observe the evidence of black holes, just as I can observe the evidence of God. Neither of us can prove or disprove either one, or explain them with physics and science. We can speculate, we can educate guesses, but we can't know anything for absolute certain.

Let's get this straight, what you, Mott, Low, and other Atheists are trying to do, is apply an impossible standard that you can't meet yourself, on things that science doesn't have an explanation for. You see, from your personal perspective, you don't believe in God, therefore, you have established the criteria around your belief, and closed off any consideration of anything outside that belief. It's really no different than a religious person claiming the Earth is 6,000 years old, in spite of your evidence to the contrary... they simply dismiss your evidence, and build their criteria around what they believe to be true. This isn't how science functions. Science doesn't care that you are an Atheist who refuses to believe in God, and it doesn't stop functioning because you have drawn a conclusion without basis.
 
Dixie said:
I have equated the two in regards to what we have proof of and what we don't know or understand. You can't tell me why black holes exist any more than I can tell you why God exists. You have no more basis in science to explain black holes than I have to explain God. You can observe the evidence of black holes, just as I can observe the evidence of God. Neither of us can prove or disprove either one, or explain them with physics and science. We can speculate, we can educate guesses, but we can't know anything for absolute certain.

Let's get this straight, what you, Mott, Low, and other Atheists are trying to do, is apply an impossible standard that you can't meet yourself, on things that science doesn't have an explanation for. You see, from your personal perspective, you don't believe in God, therefore, you have established the criteria around your belief, and closed off any consideration of anything outside that belief. It's really no different than a religious person claiming the Earth is 6,000 years old, in spite of your evidence to the contrary... they simply dismiss your evidence, and build their criteria around what they believe to be true. This isn't how science functions. Science doesn't care that you are an Atheist who refuses to believe in God, and it doesn't stop functioning because you have drawn a conclusion without basis.
Click to expand...

As an aside Dix- here is a link that likewise provides numerous rabbit trails on the subject of ID if you are so inclined.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top