Majority of Republicans believe in literal creationism

Nice to know Mojo has reduced you to a babbling fool.

Dixie said:
Look... can you provide ANY physical proof of human imagination? Of course, you can provide evidence to suggest humans have imagination, it's all around us! But can you provide physical proof of the existence of the actual human imagination? Does that mean it doesn't exist and is not possible? That is what you are saying about a Creator. You are arguing, that since we can't "see" a Creator, there isn't one. We can't "see" someone's imagination! Yet, we do have evidence that people have imaginations!

I've tried to explain concepts of God to you, which hopefully, you could relate to... but it has been no use. I have likened God to "energy" and you have mocked that, without any counter-argument, just dismissed it completely as nonsense. Now... if God has got to be a human-like invisible man who lives in the sky and speaks with a Charleton Heston voice... then, I don't believe in that God either! It's preposterous to believe God would have human attributes, or live in the sky, have a white beard, or talk like an American actor! This is the characterization of God you have developed, and reject, and I don't blame you... if THAT is God, I don't believe in God either!

This doesn't mean the universe wasn't the product of creation. This doesn't mean, life was not intelligently designed. There is NO SCIENCE which proves this invalid, nor can it ever! There is only YOUR OPINION, and it stands alone, naked and shivering, without a shred of basis for support. This is why you must revert to ridicule and mock others, you have no basis for what you believe.
Click to expand...

Care to respond to my questions, AssClown?
 
Dixie said:
Nice to know Mojo has reduced you to a babbling fool.



Care to respond to my questions, AssClown?
Click to expand...

Aww come on Dix it was a pretty damned funny response~

Ahz rejects even the possibility of God~

Hearts of stone and flesh and all that jazz...ya know?
 
Dixie said:
You have basically contradicted your own point here. If science is tentative and can't be absolutely certain, how can it be absolutely certain creation isn't science? Perhaps creation is a science we don't yet understand? Perhaps our science is inadequate to explain creation, just as it is inadequate to explain any number of other phenomenon we know about?

The point here, is not advocacy of teaching things that are only positive and certain. Science does not draw certainty, it proposes possibilities. Science does not conclude, it offers potential explanations. We can apply your same standards for creationism to science, and not teach our children about black holes and anti-matter, because science can't explain them... but is that teaching knowledge, or is that indoctrinating people based on what we THINK should be learned?

Millions of people believe the universe is the product of creation. Countless scholars have pondered the possibility without being able to dismiss it. The evidence all around us, is overwhelmingly supportive of the idea it could have been created, and there is NO EXPLANATION for origin found conclusively in science, there is not even a tangible theory on how life originated, that can be supported with tests or observation. It still remains a great big question mark! In light of this, we should EDUCATE our children on the possibilities. We shouldn't ever DISCARD possibilities because we don't believe them personally, or can't prove them conclusively, and that is exactly what you are proposing we do! It is the ANTITHESIS of Education AND SCIENCE!
Click to expand...
Because Dixie, and I know it's futile explaining this to someone as purposefully obtuse as you, science has it's rules, whether you choose to accept them or not. Science does not examine possibilities. It examines probabilities and even then only ones that have a natural causation with supernatural causation being excluded. So yes Dixie, anything is possible but that doesn't make it science.
 
AssHatZombie said:
No. now theocrats say "complexity proves god" too...



My point is "don't fall for the same theocrat traps".
Click to expand...
Well I don't know how you drew that from my comments but yes, Creationist, particularly ID Creationist draw what they call "The design inference" from the observation of biological complexity. This not only demonstrates their ignorance of biology but of engineering as well. The single most cogent observation of design is simplicity. Look at the most complex engineering design and you'll see it broke down into very simple elements, circles, ovals, triangles, lines and curves, etc, etc, so complexity is actually not a evidence of design, rather simplicity is.
 
AssHatZombie said:
What about those who say god is creating through evolution? Why do they insist on sullying science with their unproven associations of stupidity?
Click to expand...
Because believing in science and religion are not mutually exclusive. One can believe in both. I personally believe in theistic evolution. That is God guides biological evolution but this is a philosophical belief of mine. It is not a scientific one and that is what is important here being able to draw the distinction between what is science and what is religion and/or philosophy. This is where those like Dixie are incredibly intellectually dishonest. They really want to redefine what is science so that the can promote their personal religious agenda.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well I don't know how you drew that from my comments but yes, Creationist, particularly ID Creationist draw what they call "The design inference" from the observation of biological complexity. This not only demonstrates their ignorance of biology but of engineering as well. The single most cogent observation of design is simplicity. Look at the most complex engineering design and you'll see it broke down into very simple elements, circles, ovals, triangles, lines and curves, etc, etc, so complexity is actually not a evidence of design, rather simplicity is.
Click to expand...

It's the complexity of the organism combined with its specificity that underscores the argument for intelligent design. Are you saying that there are not molecular biologists who themselves subscribe to ID theory?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Because believing in science and religion are not mutually exclusive. One can believe in both. I personally believe in theistic evolution. That is God guides biological evolution but this is a philosophical belief of mine. It is not a scientific one and that is what is important here being able to draw the distinction between what is science and what is religion and/or philosophy. This is where those like Dixie are incredibly intellectually dishonest. They really want to redefine what is science so that the can promote their personal religious agenda.
Click to expand...

One can believe in both, but only one of those beliefs is rational.

It's ridiculous with most of these nuts, when god can be, energy, or everything, or the laws of physics, it gets to be absurd. Pick one, you oat-mongers.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Your questions are pointless..

you believe god is energy. Energy is energy. God is fake.
Click to expand...

No, I never stated I believed God was energy. I believe God is LIKE a form of energy. Please note the difference. If you wish to believe God is "fake" or not real, that is entirely up to you... free will! The evidence, however, is overwhelming. I believe you are absolutely wrong.
 
Damocles said:
Translation:

Well, I thought I had proof of something. Then I found out I that I had made a bad assumption, instead of just moving on I thought I might try to throw an insult to distract from my embarrassment.

Maybe, if god exists, he is a scientist. We're just an unfinished experiment, maybe even a failing one.
Click to expand...
or worse his/her idea of a bad joke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top