WHY CREATIONISM WILL NEVER WIN

@Foofie,

Although the interpretation of history may be a matter of opinion, the events which comprise history are not. Even the opinions which one might render on the meaning and significance of historical events require a knowledge of the events, people and organizations which you obviously lack. As EB has pointed out, if you can't take contradiction, you have no business here.

You've attempted to claim that Catholics and Presbyterians cannot possibly believe in a theistic creation and accept a theory of evolution for reasons of dogma--but you don't do anything more than make a few vague remarks about transubstantiation, with the inference that all Catholics hew adamantly to such a belief. You've attempted to suggest that this is all a matter of opinion--but opinion, in science as in history, which is uniformed is little better, and often indistinguishable from superstition. In science, opinion would be roughly equivalent to hypothesis, and if it does not account for all the known data, and if it does not stand up to falsification, it gets ignored--deservedly.

In your feeble dull-witted attempt to suggest that these are just matters of a difference of opinion, you bring up the Know Nothings, and demonstrate beyond a doubt that you don't know a goddamned thing about them other than the name. It's too bad, so sad for you that you get told you've written idiotic things when you happen to write idiotic things. Get over it. Don't post horseshit, and you won't be accused of doing so.

This thread is about the inevitable failure of creationism in its attempts to foist Christian superstition off on the school system. It may happen later rather than sooner, and it may happen later than many would want--but it will happen. It will happen because it is founded in ignorance, and derived from what people want to believe, rather than anything they have good reason to believe. Which is a fairly accurate description, so it seems, of what motivates the drivel that you habitually post.

2 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

That Hadron Collider programme had real deep, limpid pools of feminine guile but unfortunately minus the twat. Watching it I could imagine the scientifics preening themselves as the chosen intimates of this esoteric knowledge which the sweating masses are not a party to. And esoteric does not do justice to the knowledge. It was way out man. The seductive voiceover was the core. With some equipment fetishism added.

Meanwhile life outside goes on all around them.

Very Zen, in my opinion.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

The whole point of threads like this one is to thrash it out. If you can't take being disagreed with, you can't very well function here.

I guess I should defer to the big boys in the schoolyard, as to what games should be played, so to speak!

2 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

The whole point of threads like this one is to thrash it out. If you can't take being disagreed with, you can't very well function here.

I guess I should defer to the big boys in the schoolyard, as to what games should be played, so to speak!

or just stop whining because someone disagrees with you.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

I rather like Foofie. We disagree about many things, and he can be a bit fixed in his opinions, but that is by no means a disabling, or even unusual, condition here on A2K. He does read and attempt to respond to what others actually post in these dialogues - something many others fail to do at all. Moreover, he also occasionally attempts to interpret the perspectives of others here, and if he does so imperfectly, I do give him credit for the effort -- it is something many others here never even attempt or appear to consider.

There is a lot of drivel on these threads, but I don't think that Foofie - or you, Setanta, are sources of it.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

The whole point of threads like this one is to thrash it out. If you can't take being disagreed with, you can't very well function here.

I guess I should defer to the big boys in the schoolyard, as to what games should be played, so to speak!

You don't have to do anything. Just suggesting. Woops. Accident. Didn't mean to knock your beanie askew. Looks like the propeller might be bent now.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You've attempted to claim that Catholics and Presbyterians cannot possibly believe in a theistic creation and accept a theory of evolution for reasons of dogma--but you don't do anything more than make a few vague remarks about transubstantiation, with the inference that all Catholics hew adamantly to such a belief. You've attempted to suggest that this is all a matter of opinion--but opinion, in science as in history, which is uniformed is little better, and often indistinguishable from superstition. In science, opinion would be roughly equivalent to hypothesis, and if it does not account for all the known data, and if it does not stand up to falsification, it gets ignored--deservedly.

No. Perhaps, I was misconstrued. My point about Catholics was that since the Vatican has stated officially that science (evolution) is not at odds with Catholic theology, good Catholics, in good conscience, can believe in evolution. My point was that Catholicism relies on sympathetic magic performed in its rites to make its adherents feel they have a better chance at Salvation. Whether or not a Catholic believes in the power of the transubstantiation is really academic; it is what the Vatican is claiming relating to evolution and then incongruously allows its adherents to believe, if they choose to, that the Eucharist may get them Salvation (since somewhere in the New Testament Jesus stated, "eat of me and drink of me and have eternal life" (likely just a paraphrase, since I had no Catholic education).

What I said about Presbyterians is that at least they admit that the power of the transubstantion is not in their theology, and they are performing the Eucharist only symbolically (why I do not know).

I will be candid with all readers. While I am a secular Jew, I basically subscribe to the secular faith some call Americanism. It is just based on feeling that being a U.S. citizen is all a non-religious person need focus on in this life. That means not being an ingrate for living in this good country, having some gratitude for being here, since it was not settled by Jews nor Catholics. I try very hard not to be alienated from the faith of the descendants of those that had to clear prairies, and even fight with Native Americans. That means I do not denigrate Evangelical Protestantism, since Methodism, as an example, was a fire and brimstone faith 150 years ago also (and today it might be seen as just a Christmas and Easter version of Christianity).

So, if I am not going to "take over," but rather just contribute to this country's strength, I do not use the faith of another group to imply that group is just not thinking as well as another group, especially if their relatives came here in the 1600's, 1700's, and my family came in the late 1800's, after a lot of the hard work was done. I think I am espousing a belief in humility, to one's fellow Americans, that might deserve more respect than they might usually get from the more sophisticated amongst us.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I rather like Foofie. We disagree about many things, and he can be a bit fixed in his opinions, but that is by no means a disabling, or even unusual, condition here on A2K. He does read and attempt to respond to what others actually post in these dialogues - something many others fail to do at all. Moreover, he also occasionally attempts to interpret the perspectives of others here, and if he does so imperfectly, I do give him credit for the effort -- it is something many others here never even attempt or appear to consider.

There is a lot of drivel on these threads, but I don't think that Foofie - or you, Setanta, are sources of it.

Poster Foofie reporting as ordered, Sir. [Foofie standing at attention in the doorway of Georgeob 1's office.]

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Quote:

My point about Catholics was that since the Vatican has stated officially that science (evolution) is not at odds with Catholic theology,

Jerry Coynes take on this is directly the opposite. He stated that , in Ken Millers new book (and the new version of elementary biology which is on "the Texas block" to be reconsidered for adoption as a text in the entire state), Miller is saying the same as you. That there is "no contradiction between Christian teaching and acceptance of science", is what Miller is saying, and Coyne is asserting that Miller is merely trying to peddle books to te nations second largest book buyer. Millers bar for acceptance of science is based upon "rigorous proofs, evidence, and experimentation". However Millers own "worldview" is based uponunprovable stuff like A Virgin Birth, Walking on water, and rising from the dead (and noone who wrote about these miracles was around to see them) Now is that a familar argument among the Creationists that "noone was around to see evolution or the Big Bang".
Coyne says that prooflessly believing one and requiring detailed proof of the other is cognative dissonance to the max.
So, according to Coyne, Miller is just another hypocrite.

I too believe that Miller is thinking from two sides of the brain BUT, I dont want to lose a colleague in the areas where he doesnt let his religious beliefs get in the way of good research. So, I guess Im a minder of hypocrisy. Ill let it live if it doesnt get in the way of truth.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

You're a fundamentalist effemm.

It's hilarious watching grown men deal with matters such as the virgin birth, walking on water and rising from the dead in the pedantic and literal manner of a fully fledged creationist.

You'll have to admit that you're either taking the piss or that you are completely naive.

0 Replies

@BigTexN,

Looking for a fun forum? Want to respond to Wilson and circle of Communist friends? Check this forum out and tell others at totw.
http://talkofthewoodlandsonline.com/

2 Replies

@Uncle Ted,

Unlike A2K , sounds like your woodlands line is only open to the right wingers. Course Big Texn usually cant cobble up an intelligent argument so he may work better over there where everyone thinks alike. Why didnt you call the forum "Ditto heads"?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Unlike A2K , sounds like your woodlands line is only open to the right wingers. Course Big Texn usually cant cobble up an intelligent argument so he may work better over there where everyone thinks alike. Why didnt you call the forum "Ditto heads"?

Most users ever online: 3.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

I checked in over there ands found a sizable number of posts are by BigTexn. He sounds like a total pussy and doesnt seem to want to look anything like he does over here.
Maybe thats a testament to the more elevated IQs of A2K.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

I'll be grinning sheepishly and tittering all the way to the pub on that one.

0 Replies

There's a survey on Prop 8 that says your ladies would give you the bum's rush if they could.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I checked in over there ands found a sizable number of posts are by BigTexn. He sounds like a total pussy and doesnt seem to want to look anything like he does over here.
Maybe thats a testament to the more elevated IQs of A2K.

Does that about elevated IQs apply to spendi? He's only intelligent the way Stewie is, on Family Guy.

1 Reply

@Uncle Ted,

"You may now speak your piece."

Seriously?

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

He's only intelligent the way Stewie is, on Family Guy.

.
YES, Im quite aware of Stewie. At least Stewie is able to communicate to many species. Ive always wondered who does his Ronald Coleman like voice?

Spendi is a featherweight who is trying only to impress. He never actually involves himself with communication. (Solipsister is sorta the same way) Are they separated sibles?

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

Quote:

Seriously?

You are pulling our legs aren't you?

0 Replies

WHY CREATIONISM WILL NEVER WIN

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know