[_ Old Earth _] ID/Creation- What's the point ???

[Guest]

±

±

 

[Scott1]

Take no offence but, the (red) highlighted section of your (above) statement I personally believe is indicative of someone who (is not really born-again, or a authentic Christian, or) either never even read the Bible, or do not even understand it & is incognizance about the (Satanic, or) Antichrist spirit globally propagating evolution, etc.

"Take no offence"..... I do not.... I just pray that God heals your angry and judgemental heart.

Any chance you want to offer opinion as to the thread topic instead of my personal faith?

It would be mighty Christian of you to "correct my errors". :-?

Show me the way,
S

 

[Guest]

±

±

 

[jmm9683]

Take no offence but, the (red) highlighted section of your (above) statement I personally believe is indicative of someone who (is not really born-again, or a authentic Christian, or) either never even read the Bible, or do not even understand it & is incognizance about the (Satanic, or) Antichrist spirit globally propagating evolution, etc.

After reading the title you chosen for your post & your statement(s) contained within your post, I concluded that you're not a authentic Christian (just another wolf wearing sheeps clothing).

You lose all credibility in the science forum when you say that it is the Antichrist propagating evolutionary biology. You are too funny. You try to be scientific only when it doesn't interfere with your religion. I guess the Antichrist is also pushing the Germ Theory of Disease and Atomic Theory too. Analytically and logically you are a moron and a hypocrite.

 

[Guest]

±

±

 

[Scott1]

:shocked!: Interestingly sadly, you precieve my analyst of your posted title & posted text as someone who has a angry & judgemental heart, which I view as extremely hilarious

You hurt and offend another human being ... and you find it "hilarious"?

if I was a pagan whom desperately wanted to know how can I become a Christian & you were the only Christian stationed where I am, honestly & realistically (due to your own inactions) God could not use you to bring me (or, anyone else) into His kingdom.

Son... I've been stationed all over the world..... but I didn't find arrogance like yours outside of the rural south.... I pray that you are more charitable in person.

God bless you,
S

 

[jmm9683]

I will allow pagans to say whatever pagans naturally say at pagan forums.

No actual response, just what I thought. There you go kids, according to C 4 C, teh debbilz behind evolution. What an astounding scientific argument... go on professor teach us more, hahaha.

 

[BobRyan]

The "awe pwaise to dawbwin" alternative to actual science has never been "compelling" to the objective unbiased mind.

Why does this come as such a surprise to agnostics and atheists? Why not simply agree that atheist "religionist" NEEDS darwinian doctrines -- but the rest of us "don't"?

Now back to ID.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

To "C 4 C" -- consider this about Intelligent Design - I am sure that as a Christian you will enjoy the facts listed here rather than trying to find every way possible to embrace a "deny-all" solution in devotion to atheist Darwinism.

Intelligent Design:

Academic Freedom to [/u]“follow the data where it leadsâ€Â[/u] EVEN if it leads to a conclusion (such as Intelligent Design) that does not pander to the central doctrines and dogmas of atheists"

Contrast that to the "shackles-on" indeed "blinders-on" approach of the atheist religionists posting on these boards AND "those who follow them" on these boards.

As for the "everyday FACT" of ID science -- consider this.

Real World Validation of ID as Science Fact.

ID theorists are just scientists that happen to be willing to admit to evidence for Intelligent Design when they find it in Nature. However this method of analysis is not limited to scientists open to “inconvenient facts†and willing to free science from today’s political bindings that demand conformance to the religious distinctives of atheism.

For example there are four fundamental forces in nature – the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, gravity and electromagnetism. Some electromagnetic wave forms show that they have been purposely manipulated – their pattern shows “Intelligent Design†– (hence TV, Cell Phones, Radio) and others do not (background noise, static). We have entire industries (security, National Security Agency etc) based on the obvious and reliable fact that it is possible to evaluate electromagnetic wave forms and determine if they convey coded information – content from intelligent designers.

ID theorists are doing the same thing as they accept the fact that physics and biochemistry are the baseline medium in which Biology is expressed.

The empty claim that nothing in nature can be studied and evaluated to determine if it has an intelligent cause is disproven every day in commercial and private sector analysis of the electromagnetic wave forms alone. Admittedly the study of the instances of design found in Biology is just beginning by comparison but it is based on the same fundamental principles of analysis. While allowing this form of scientific investigation in the domain of Biology is clearly taboo to atheist religionists it is nonetheless consistent with the existing science principle of analysis already in use in many other domains of scientific investigation and discovery.

Bob

 

[jmm9683]

The "awe pwaise to dawbwin" alternative to actual science has never been "compelling" to the objective unbiased mind.

Why does this come as such a surprise to agnostics and atheists? Why not simply agree that atheist "religionist" NEEDS darwinian doctrines -- but the rest of us "don't"?

Now back to ID.

Bob

Whatever you say Bobby, the objective unbiased mind accepts evolution. It's the ones who have a problem with it religiously that don't accept it. 95% of scientists in the US accept evolution, but who's counting? Modern science considers creationism unscientific, pseudoscience, or junk science. It is the only theory that can explain biology, anthropology, paleontology and others.

 

[BobRyan]

It is easy to see why you turn from facts and arguments in favor of Academic freedon-- to the blind censorhip model of the dark ages -- I don't think that is the confusing part for the unbiased objective reader.

Intelligent Design:

Academic Freedom to “follow the data where it leads†EVEN if it leads to a conclusion (such as Intelligent Design) that does not pander to the central doctrines and dogmas of atheists"

The confusing part is how anyone could be duped by blind atheist darwinism that is NOT ALREADY sold out to atheism itself given the unparralled stream of CONFIRMED hoaxes and frauds used to prop up the junk-science religion of athiest darwinism.

Sadly we would not expect devotees to that religion to "notice" the hoaxes and frauds -- (and they hardly ever "dissappoint" that expectation).

But why not "step into the light" of academic freedom "instead" of your ranting against anyone posting in favor of it?

In the 100's of PHD's "Dissenting from Darwinism" (including those on this list below) -- I doubt that any would "rant" as you do to protect Darwinism "at all costs to science".

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... oad&id=660

Bob

 

[jmm9683]

It is easy to see why you turn from facts and arguments in favor of Academic freedon-- to the blind censorhip model of the dark ages -- I don't think that is the confusing part for the unbiased objective reader.

Intelligent Design:

Academic Freedom to [/u]“follow the data where it leadsâ€Â[/u] EVEN if it leads to a conclusion (such as Intelligent Design) that does not pander to the central doctrines and dogmas of atheists"

The confusing part is how anyone could be duped by blind atheist darwinism that is NOT ALREADY sold out to atheism itself given the unparralled stream of CONFIRMED hoaxes and frauds used to prop up the junk-science religion of athiest darwinism.

Sadly we would not expect devotees to that religion to "notice" the hoaxes and frauds -- (and they hardly ever "dissappoint" that expectation).

But why not "step into the light" of academic freedom "instead" of your ranting against anyone posting in favor of it?

In the 100's of PHD's "Dissenting from Darwinism" (including those on this list below) -- I doubt that any would "rant" as you do to protect Darwinism "at all costs to science".

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... oad&id=660

Bob

Sorry, but the Wedge document admits that ID is religion. It is not science and never was. I accept the best science that we have, and sorry but ID isn't science, it is religion and doesn't follow the scientific method. I guess people that believe in astrology are not being granted academic freedom either. If you don't do actual science, you don't belong in science classrooms. ID doesn't have any peer-reviewed journals supporting it either. So until it does, it will be considered junk science.

 

[BobRyan]

Sorry but the blind devotion to junk-science hoaxes among "darwinist believers" show it to be a thinly veiled bare-bones religion and as it "turns out" the courts already define "humanism" that way as well.

WE all see that Atheists are tied to their doctrines and dogmas about "there is no god" so when they abuse science and promote hoaxes, censor data and academic freedom and declare jiihad and holy pogroms against any who oppose them - we can "at least" discern the nature of their "religious fervor".

But ID "by contrast" and "by definition" does not comply with the shackled-science policies of atheists and so -- stands in favor of pure science "by contrast".

(As we saw "spelled out" here -)
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31962&p=378371#p378157

Bob

 

[Snidey]

Sorry but the blind devotion to junk-science hoaxes among "darwinist believers" show it to be a thinly veiled bare-bones religion and as it "turns out" the courts already define "humanism" that way as well.

There's no blind devotion to hoaxes among evolutionary biologists. People have been tricked briefly, for example by the horse sequence issue, until God swooped in and corrected them (did I say God? I meant other scientists). Comparing evolution negatively to a religion doesn't really help your case, since whatever ridiculous leaps of rationality you take to try to compare hard science to faith, you're the one talking to the sky at the end of the day.

WE all see that Atheists are tied to their doctrines and dogmas about "there is no god" so when they abuse science and promote hoaxes, censor data and academic freedom and declare jiihad and holy pogroms against any who oppose them - we can "at least" discern the nature of their "religious fervor".

YOU (creationists lol) may think atheists are tied down by dogma, and just about anything can be made dogmatic, but atheism is not intrinsically dogmatic. Christianity is, however. Atheists don't promote hoaxes or abuse science (lolol), but I assume you're confusing them with scientists, who also generally do neither. They also don't censor academic freedom. Idiots are prevented from teaching idiocy to students. I believe this is responsible education. Your trips to CreationWiki and copy/pasting of pseudo-educated message board posts for reference don't make you qualified to speak on the issue. You're right about us declaring jihad, though, we do that all the time. Our jihad was made official at the last "Suppressing the Great Truths of Creationism Conference" that we secretly hold where we discuss how to further defy God with our crazy theories.

But ID "by contrast" and "by definition" does not comply with the shackled-science policies of atheists and so -- stands in favor of pure science "by contrast".

lol o rly?

 

[jmm9683]

Sorry but the blind devotion to junk-science hoaxes among "darwinist believers" show it to be a thinly veiled bare-bones religion and as it "turns out" the courts already define "humanism" that way as well.

WE all see that Atheists are tied to their doctrines and dogmas about "there is no god" so when they abuse science and promote hoaxes, censor data and academic freedom and declare jiihad and holy pogroms against any who oppose them - we can "at least" discern the nature of their "religious fervor".

But ID "by contrast" and "by definition" does not comply with the shackled-science policies of atheists and so -- stands in favor of pure science "by contrast".

(As we saw "spelled out" here -)
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31962&p=378371#p378157

Bob

So you admit that ID isn't science, well that was easy.

 

[Free]

but atheism is not intrinsically dogmatic

Actually, it is, but that's off topic. :D



Everybody better start playing nice or I'll have to lock this up, and I would rather not have to.

Thanks.

 

[BobRyan]

Sorry but the blind devotion to junk-science hoaxes among "darwinist believers" show it to be a thinly veiled bare-bones religion and as it "turns out" the courts already define "humanism" that way as well.

There's no blind devotion to hoaxes among evolutionary biologists.

1. Step one -- go to this thread
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31953&start=0#p374752

2. Step two - read.

People have been tricked briefly, for example by the horse sequence issue, until God swooped in and corrected them (did I say God? I meant other scientists).

I guess if you "promise not to look" or do any critical review of the hoax -- you could walk away believing that pablum -- but those who look find quite another story.

They find what Colin Patterson said is true "TELLING STORIES about how one thing came from antoher is simply STORIES EASY ENOUGH TO TELL - but they are NOT science".

The ARRANGING of fossils into a sequence that "was never found in nature" simply because it fits your "story telling preference" is NOT science today and NEVER was!

get it?

That is WHY it is called junk-science!

those blindly devoted to atheist dogma and transparent doctrine have NO CHOICE but to cling to atheist darwinism NO MATTER WHAT the junk-pile of hoaxes that are discovered over time.

That is the one thing we can ALL see without a problem.

WE all see that Atheists are tied to their doctrines and dogmas about "there is no god" so when they abuse science and promote hoaxes, censor data and academic freedom and declare jiihad and holy pogroms against any who oppose them - we can "at least" discern the nature of their "religious fervor".

YOU (creationists lol) may think atheists are tied down by dogma, and just about anything can be made dogmatic, but atheism is not intrinsically dogmatic.

Again blind devotion to atheism has compromised your objectivity here. The atheist "THERE IS NO GOD" limits the atheist from "following the data where it leads" UNLESS it is following a path of "There is no God".

The ID scientist has no such limits "obviously".

For the ID scientist - a NaCl precipitant is fine - so ALSO is an encoding/decoding translating architecture for DNA BOTH are equally acceptable to him but for the blindly devoted atheist "they need a wild story" to go with the Nucleus to Ribosome data transmition.

For the ID scientist observing the electromagnetic wave form - having a discriminator that can filter background static from actual intelligently designed wave forms is perfectly acceptable because he HAS NO DOCTRINE saying "THERE IS NO MAN".

But in the case of the Atheist -- he has to tread softly -- being very careful to pretend to be "confused" when he SEES design in nature IF it is in the "wrong nature" the one that does not lead to "MAN as designer".

Such shackled-science methods have no place in real science --- we do not object to atheists practicing their religion in their own temples - but keep it out of the science class room.

But ID "by contrast" and "by definition" does not comply with the shackled-science policies of atheists and so -- stands in favor of pure science "by contrast".

Bob

 

[Snidey]

1. Step one -- go to this thread
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31953&start=0#p374752

2. Step two - read.

I have read that thread. Believe it or not, I tend to prefer actual information over message board tirades. If anything, that thread demonstrates that the evolutionists here are not well read enough to counter some very stupid arguments. But with new stupid arguments being made up by creationists daily, who can blame them?

I guess if you "promise not to look" or do any critical review of the hoax -- you could walk away believing that pablum -- but those who look find quite another story.

No, those who look (scientists, not their Internet counterparts) are overwhelmed by the evidence in favor of a certain non-ID position.[/quote]

They find what Colin Patterson said is true "TELLING STORIES about how one thing came from antoher is simply STORIES EASY ENOUGH TO TELL - but they are NOT science".

Did he then explode in a ball of Christian irony?

The ARRANGING of fossils into a sequence that "was never found in nature" simply because it fits your "story telling preference" is NOT science today and NEVER was!

get it?

Yeah, I actually know a decent amount about what science is.

That is WHY it is called junk-science!

You know what else is widely deemed junk science?

those blindly devoted to atheist dogma and transparent doctrine have NO CHOICE but to cling to atheist darwinism NO MATTER WHAT the junk-pile of hoaxes that are discovered over time.

That is the one thing we can ALL see without a problem.

Partially correct. I don't have a choice but to be an evolutionist, because I have concluded it based upon observation of factual information.

Again blind devotion to atheism has compromised your objectivity here. The atheist "THERE IS NO GOD" limits the atheist from "following the data where it leads" UNLESS it is following a path of "There is no God".

I have no evidence for a god, and have seen nothing that indicates otherwise. I don't reach a single conclusion and then build my worldview around that. I have no emotional ties to my rational beliefs, because I wasn't trained to believe them aimlessly. It is religion that discards evidence in favor of "faith." Creationists strive to indicate that evolution requires faith, an idiotic assertion, generally involving a tacit acknowledgment that faith is irrational.

The ID scientist has no such limits "obviously".

Again with the oddly placed quotes. There's no such thing as an ID scientist, because there's no science to study. There are scientists who believe in ID. IDiots, they're called. Also, I don't see how an ID proponent is shielded from dogma less than an atheist. The opposite is basically true by definition.

For the ID scientist - a NaCl precipitant is fine - so ALSO is an encoding/decoding translating architecture for DNA BOTH are equally acceptable to him but for the blindly devoted atheist "they need a wild story" to go with the Nucleus to Ribosome data transmition.

For the ID scientist observing the electromagnetic wave form - having a discriminator that can filter background static from actual intelligently designed wave forms is perfectly acceptable because he HAS NO DOCTRINE saying "THERE IS NO MAN".

Wowow take a science class.

But in the case of the Atheist -- he has to tread softly -- being very careful to pretend to be "confused" when he SEES design in nature IF it is in the "wrong nature" the one that does not lead to "MAN as designer".

I don't see design in nature, period. Organization is not design, in my opinion, and I believe that sort of thinking generally maintains itself in the realm of feeble minds.

Such shackled-science methods have no place in real science --- we do not object to atheists practicing their religion in their own temples - but keep it out of the science class room.

lol. Your knowledge of "real science" clearly gives you academic credibility here.

But ID "by contrast" and "by definition" does not comply with the shackled-science policies of atheists and so -- stands in favor of pure science "by contrast".

Again, those quotation marks...

 

[Barbarian]

BTW, Bob, if you'd like to go over to that other thread, and show me a gap in the series of fossils I showed you, such that there is more variation between then, than is found in modern species of animals, you could still make some points.

One more try, um? If you're right, there has to be at least one.