WHY CREATIONISM WILL NEVER WIN

@Intrepid,

Yes but now your sole is tainted by the breathe of the heathen evolutionists. We have the fossils, we win.
PS it wasnt purposely ambiguous, I just thought that keeping in mind that this IS a fight, the statement would become more obvious. Only one who misses it entirely is, apparently, spendi. O George was a late comer and hadnt (I assume) read a few pages back, so he was just being supportive of spendiprose.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Nay, my soul isn't tainted. Unless, you meant the sole on my shoe. I could have stepped in some horsey poop.

I don't consider evolutionists heathens at all. The two are exclusive to each other. Also, I certainly do not dismiss evolultion and, in fact, embrace it in many respects. I would be foolish, even through my faith, to consider that the earth is merely 6000 years old. A lot of the old testament was a guide and should not be taken as a total literal writing. IMHO

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

O'George, there are soi-disant atheists who are every bit as ignorant and superstitious as the religionists, and who make a scripture of science, which the understand about as well as most religionists understand the provenance of their own scripture. Literalists abound, as do the docrtinally dogmatic, and not just in religion or science, of course.

As for this:

Quote:

. . . Spendius appears to me to be the antithesis of such literalists in spiritual matters. He may well be a crypto Protestant, but he strikes a sympathetic chord. You just don't like his posturing.

You are mistaken. I responded only to your remarks about Cyclo's post. I would not have read a word that Spurious wrote, had Cyclo not quoted it. I have not, literally, read a post by Spurious for years and years--and that will not change. Whether or not he is posturing is a matter of indifference to me, and something i will never discover on my own.

By the way, that tactic of attempting to suggest that i am irritated or angry simply because i criticize what you write is wearing awfully thin. I think you are bedevilled by delusions of adequacy.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I take it that spendi is famished for attention.

Oh, dearie, dearie me!! You must spend too much of your time in the company of the business-suited woman of a certain age.

Quote:

Perhaps I didnt just announce it outright

No perhaps about it. You didn't announce a Texas dimension at all. And you claimed to have carefully considered your topic. Which you didn't.

Perhaps the facts will out eventually but none of us will be here to see it.

effemm is blissfully unaware of how the use of the alphabet, as opposed to other forms of writing, and our grammer, has conditioned his mind to think that a word means the same thing as the reality of the thing the word signifies to us. This leads to thinking that the thing can be looked at without reference to the Gestalt interconnectednesses of all things. The word made flesh is a Christian idea. Found nowhere else.

"Substance" , said Bertrand Russell, "is a metaphysical mistake due to transference to the world-structure of the structure of sentences composed of a subject and a predicate. "

And effemm fails to distinguish between the written and the spoken word. Socrates relegated the written word to the extent that moral and metaphysical truth,he claimed, could not be conveyed by it but only by rhetoric and didactic techniques.

The Chinese took the opposite view. Chinese leaders don't do rhetoric. They read out their orders and have them printed up and posted everywhere. The famed American preacher and charismatic politician are impossible in China. There is no direction in Chinese landscape painting. No perspective.

And that position has necessarily been adopted by Science. Anybody too much sold out to formal learning will tend to do the same.

It is a complex subject and I only know enough about it to vaguely understand it. I am incapable of explaining it.

It might be worth saying though that the alphabet was "discovered" in Byblos which once was in what is now Lebanon. It was a port and a centre of the papyrus trade. Papyrus was called byblos or biblion. It had a number of uses one of which was to record language. Hence- the bibles and hence The Bible. We wrote on beechwood and called it a book.

The use of "Bobble" and other put downs desecrates our language besides betraying a most simple-minded attitude. It is as if one were to kick the wreath off the tomb of the unknown genius who invented our 26 letter alphabet.

I do not for a moment believe the assertion that the Texas education boards are trying to return us to the Middle Ages.

And to speak in the name of pure reason without mounting a defense of it in the face of the philosophical undermining of the idea is plain ignorance and, in effemm's case as it has been pointed out to him more than once, bigoted, shut-minded fear. He means his version of it.

Science will triumph when it best answers ALL our needs. And not until.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

By the way, that tactic of attempting to suggest that i am irritated or angry simply because i criticize what you write is wearing awfully thin. I think you are bedevilled by delusions of adequacy.

QED.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

I have not, literally, read a post by Spurious for years and years--

I bet he peeps through his fingers now and again like a teenage girl who can't look at the giant spider with the thick hairy legs as it creeps towards the camera.

Fancy admitting that though. A2Kers take note. Unless Set approves of what you say or is neutral about it he won't read your posts. Are you mortified or are you mortified? What a spokeman for science eh what?

ros has the sense to keep it a little secret.

0 Replies

Having just looked up the word "perfervid," that I learned from this thread, I will use it in a sentence. The possible perfervid debate in this thread leads me to wonder whether it is science (aka, evolution) versus Creationism that is being discussed/debated, or is there a degree of alienation between those that subscribe to science (aka, evolution), as opposed to those that would subscribe to Creationism, that is the driving force of this possible perfervid thread?

And, if there is a degree of alienation, from those that might subscribe to Creationism, might this be due to their upbringing in a particular faith that has the history of being considered mystical to some (aka, non-scientific, by some standards)? Am I witnessing possible reaction formation?

What I believe is interesting is that those that believe today in Creationism, I believe, tend to ignore those that do not, and that can include a sizable majority of a population. In other words, it is the ability to ignore science that I admire in these Creationists folks, or rather the ability to ignore all those that believe in evolution. What bothers me is that if one hears "another drummer" I wonder what motivates others to get upset with that alternate hearing? Was that not what the Know Nothing Party advocated? Why must we all march lock step to a particular set of beliefs, if it does not hurt anyone?

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

In other words, it is the ability to ignore science that I admire in these Creationists folks

The ability to ignore science is only admirable if you are happy to live without the rewards of science. All those Creationists who are out there living with nature, hunting for food and sleeping by the fire, more power to them. All the others who are driving their cars to the store for a frosty freeze cone when not watching their favorite reality TV show, should not be admired for their dismissal of science.

Foofie wrote:

What bothers me is that if one hears "another drummer" I wonder what motivates others to get upset with that alternate hearing?

It's the hypocrisy of watching people take the best of what their society has to offer (knowledge and a better way of life) and then attacking the very foundations of that which supports them.

Foofie wrote:

Was that not what the Know Nothing Party advocated? Why must we all march lock step to a particular set of beliefs, if it does not hurt anyone?

Because willful ignorance and delusional thinking does hurt society. It is inherently dangerous to live within a group of people who are not thinking clearly. The Salem witch trials weren't perpetrated by a bunch of scientists seeking to learn more about farming.

2 Replies

IDers are welcome to live in ignorance, if they so wish. No skin off my nose. What grinds my gears is when they attempt to force their beliefs on the rest of the population.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

god knows why you all bother with your meaningless beliefs

2 Replies

@solipsister,

solipsister wrote:

god knows why you all bother with your meaningless beliefs

Dog knows why you push yours on others.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

"sister" just flits around from thread to thread, never with anything to contribute. Too bad, maybe shes unable to commit.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

"sister" just flits around from thread to thread, never with anything to contribute. Too bad, maybe shes unable to commit.

She's a flitter Smile

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Foofie wrote:
In other words, it is the ability to ignore science that I admire in these Creationists folks
The ability to ignore science is only admirable if you are happy to live without the rewards of science. All those Creationists who are out there living with nature, hunting for food and sleeping by the fire, more power to them. All the others who are driving their cars to the store for a frosty freeze cone when not watching their favorite reality TV show, should not be admired for their dismissal of science.

That is exactly the sort of argument which ros spouts just before he sticks his head in a soundproof bag to ensure that he does not hear any responses in kind relating to some of the things he believes in. Blurt and hide.

There is no question of one or the other: black or white. That's what the Faustian bargain is all about. ros demonstrates that he doesn't understand the fundamentals of our culture. Which was obvious anyway I suppose. But here's the proof. He's an ancient Greek. Most ordinary, everyday toss-pots are, so he's got company.

What he needs to do is enact a law whereby all those who won't swear an oath of loyalty to the atheist Great Leader will have to live as he says and the atheists will then have to make all the goods, fight all the wars and have exclusive shagging rights to the ladies who have sworn the oath. Germaine Greer types. And deal with about 250 million Yanks running loose hunting for food and sleeping by the campfire with the doxies dressed in kit they can claim to have just found piled up in deserted superstores and suchlike places.

In other words, ros's fatuity knows no limits. He is even unaware, and at his age it is ridiculous, it can be forgiven in tiny-tots, that hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue because otherwise we would still be running around catching moose to keep the Venus of Willendof sweet and co-operative.

And one might well imagine that if -

Quote:

It is inherently dangerous to live within a group of people who are not thinking clearly.

is true then living with 250 millions of those ros defines as not thinking clearly, the other 15% being agreed to be clear thinkers, which is stretching it a bit, then how historians will explain our fantastic civilisation, probably the safest ever known in the whole history of everything, it is difficult to imagine.

I know that historians, being historians, will sift the record and have a go at it but rather them than me.

0 Replies

@solipsister,

Quote:

god knows why you all bother with your meaningless beliefs

Give Chaucer a couple of years of your time dearie. That might be sufficient for you to figure it out. Go from there. You might just activate that important part of your brain which is obviously currently inactive.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Foofie wrote:
In other words, it is the ability to ignore science that I admire in these Creationists folks

The ability to ignore science is only admirable if you are happy to live without the rewards of science. All those Creationists who are out there living with nature, hunting for food and sleeping by the fire, more power to them. All the others who are driving their cars to the store for a frosty freeze cone when not watching their favorite reality TV show, should not be admired for their dismissal of science.

Well, as long as you define the parameters of a correctly thinking paradigm, who can argue with someone that thinks within his/her own defined contexts.

I guess the modernity of Israel might then be incongruous because in Israel there are religious and modern folks that believe in that burning bush story, or the Exodus story. Living in your neck of the woods, the Salem Witch Trials might still resonate as a meaningful lesson. However, it might not apply universally, in my opinion, citing Israel as one example to the contrary.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Nothing is demonstrated therein, because, as always, such a claim is predicated upon an assertion on your part (inferential here) that you know that i am either angry or irritated. You know no such thing, and, in the event, cannot know it because you don't either anger or irritate me. If you were a sufficient irritant, i would simply ignore you, as i do Spurious.

Actually, you amuse me mightily, which is why i don't ignore you.

0 Replies

Foofie, you dismal idiot. The members of the Native American Party (originally), which became the American Party, were those who were branded "Know Nothings," because if asked about their political affiliation, or the party itself and its aims, they were told to reply "I know nothing." They were white Protestant xenophobes, who believed that immigrants, especially Catholics, and most especially Irish Catholics, were destroying the country, and ruining the economic prospects of the "native" Americans--the white Protestants like themselves. You can bet they had no love for Jews, either. They did not succeed as a political party, and they didn't last. They broke up formally over slavery, but largely, their party just faded away from a lack of electoral success. It appears that they mostly joined the Republicans at the time of the 1860 election.

Far from being a group who marched to a different drummer, they asserted that they represented the core majority of the American population (meaning white men, of course).

Just when i think it could not be possible for you to demonstrate even more stupidity about the history of our country . . .

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Israel is just like every other country in that their scientific acumen derives from that fraction of the population which don't reject science (regardless of the little idiosyncrasies they entertain in their belief structure).

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Foofie, you dismal idiot. The members of the Native American Party (originally), which became the American Party, were those who were branded "Know Nothings," because if asked about their political affiliation, or the party itself and its aims, they were told to reply "I know nothing." They were white Protestant xenophobes, who believed that immigrants, especially Catholics, and most especially Irish Catholics, were destroying the country, and ruining the economic prospects of the "native" Americans--the white Protestants like themselves. You can bet they had no love for Jews, either. They did not succeed as a political party, and they didn't last. They broke up formally over slavery, but largely, their party just faded away from a lack of electoral success. It appears that they mostly joined the Republicans at the time of the 1860 election.

Far from being a group who marched to a different drummer, they asserted that they represented the core majority of the American population (meaning white men, of course).

Just when i think it could not be possible for you to demonstrate even more stupidity about the history of our country . . .

Well, considering I am a "dismal idiot," in your opinion, then you may be able to accept that I choose to believe that the Know Nothings really felt Jews were a great resource to the U.S., and would one day benefit white Protestant males by being very skilled dentists and self-effacing golf partners.

What I do wonder about this thread, in particular, is how much division is there today between the two populations (main stream Protestantism/Catholicism/liberal Jews versus Evangelical Protestants/Ultra Orthodox Jews) relating to the debate over this topic. I personally believe the topic is just a smoke-screen for old divisions and historical rivalries. You do know that 150 years ago, Methodism was a hell-fire and brimstone religion, getting its impetus from tent revival meetings. And, today it it considered by some as a "Christmas and Easter" version of Christianity.

But, in my opinion, you should at least admit that what we both may have in common sociologically (I enjoyed sociology immensely) is that both of us, not being white Protestants, but white ethnics, are both part of respective out-groups in the eyes of white Protestant society. We may "pass" if we modelled in an LL Bean catalog; however, I believe readers are not supposed to think we are who we are, if one accepts what image LL Bean is likely marketing (old line Yankee, I believe).

While I may be a dismal idiot, I do not call you names, since I have no idea what/who you are. You do, in my opinion/observation, have some strong opinions that almost might be called antagonisms. I try not to be antagonistic, since this is just a virtual medium.

Enjoy.

2 Replies

WHY CREATIONISM WILL NEVER WIN

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know