Posted on 12/11/2009 8:50:14 PM PST by Phileleutherus Franciscus
Say, isn't having multiple accounts frowned upon on FR?
OH...... I think I am starting to see the light..... there is a Flame War transpiring between the Creationists on FR, versus the Darwinians who exist on some other entirely different board, and they are saying meanie things about FR?
“I said *SEEMS* to be......”
I know you said that, but since it is objectively measurable why make the claim at all?
“That’s why I never touch those issues. Check my posting history.”
You and I seem to always end up sparring on those threads. It *seems* to me that if you don’t touch “creation science” and I don’t touch questions of honestly expressed faith that we’d never find opportunity to discuss much of anything.
Yet here we are. Again.
Going through a bajillion posts on hundreds of crevo threads simply isn’t feasible.
I only made an observation and told you what I noticed seemed to be the case that there were more in numbers or percentage, of non-evos who held science degrees than evos.
The best I can do at this point is suggest that you pay attention to either what the poster says about their actual education, or what they post and discern from their arguments and ask them.
A lot of the problem is also the inability or unwillingness of some of the more agressive creationist posters to distinguish between criticism of what they post and criticism of Christianity.
Because I don't know for ALL posters so I can't.
I only know for the ones who have definitively stated. That's why I said *seems to be*.
“There was a evo/DCer who left that site because they turned on him.
It’s not just us.”
I was once approached via freepmail and invited to join DC. I didn’t but the stated view that the DC folks are on here recruiting is true enough in my experience.
I did find I was quoted on there though - but I have no control over that.
They are poo-poo heads.
Who are you praying to?
My experience has been that this is not the case. Rather, evos utilising circular reasoning assume that any challenge to their mythology constitutes "anti-science," thereby disqualifying opposing arguments on philosophical, rather than scientific, grounds.
“I only know for the ones who have definitively stated. That’s why I said *seems to be*.”
You are missing my point. You shouldn’t make the claim at all - the burden is on you to prove it if you make that claim.
I think you should steer away from that claim rather than keep repeating it.
.....This is the worst kind of fanaticism as it pits a particular religious belief against an individuals ability to think.....
Thinking is not permitted.
As the rind around the brain grows, a point is reached where rational thought ceases. The rind prevents rational thought from entering or leaving.
Reason is forever excluded an self righteouness controls
America has been blessed because it was founded upon the notion that the Judeo/Christian God IS the true God. God has been acknowledged as the leader of our country. That's changing and that's not good. Those who don't believe in God and support a conservative country don't have their foundation in place. Their vision of the country is as wrongheaded as the leftists.
That being said I don't believe in a 6000 year old earth. I think the earth is very old. But I believe that there was a special creation approximately 6000 years ago, a recreation. The bible has ample evidence to show that something destroyed the ancient earth, probably the demonic revolt, and that God recreated it for our benefit.
It's ironic you should say that. I have yet to get a single one of the evos on here to actually address the fact that their necessary belief in abiogenesis is completely impossible from the standpoint of the laws of organic chemistry. I've even provided my "data," quite openly, and they've never addressed it.
“that any challenge to their mythology”
Why do you say it is “mythology”?
There is an awful lot of research and data for you to refute before you can make this claim. The difference between actual science and “creation science” is that the data is in plain sight for you to refute. “Creation science” is not so rigorous, to say the least.
“Creation science” is the triumph of rhetoric over reason, as your post certainly demonstrates.
BS
“abiogenesis is completely impossible from the standpoint of the laws of organic chemistry”
Is abiogenesis required to substantiate the science behind the theory of evolution?
I don’t think it is. If you wish to start an organic chemistry thread and ping me to it, I’d be willing to participate.
NOBODY pings them, and yet they find them... --- I think that in light of the fact that the Internet is a PUBLIC place open to ALL people almost everywhere, and that the search at FR and all the big search engines send bots through FR makes this a very silly irrational naive complaint.
Obviously you are reading your words differently from how others are reading same.
Claiming to to be true would be using the word *is*.
I didn’t. I merely stated an opinion based on casual observation.
“A lot of the problem is also the inability or unwillingness of some of the more agressive creationist posters to distinguish between criticism of what they post and criticism of Christianity.”
I’ve repeatedly asked GGG if there is a difference between “creation science” and faith. I’ve never gotten an answer.
I think that it’s an ego thing - a “mini-god complex” - where folks assign divine meaning to their own beliefs - making them unable to distinguish between criticism of their beliefs (even if it is preposterous science) and Christianity itself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.