Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Herald,

. genesis and evolution are two totally different concepts

@farmerman,

As far as I know, you do not have exclusive rights to the use of the word creation. It only means something to you when it is capitalized.

0 Replies

Incidentally some dotty presenters of assorted TV wildlife programmes call everything "animals" because the word "creatures" sticks in their craws as it implies they were "created"!
For example a guy rummaging through a seashore rockpool said "there are some interesting animals in here"
Haha, since when are mussels, cockles, whelks and shrimps "animals"?
Same when a cloud of bats came flying out of a cave, "They're marvellous animals" said the presenter, ha ha they're funny guys.. Smile

-------------------------

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/swag80_zps72962e87.gif~original

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Incidentally some dotty presenters of assorted TV wildlife programmes call everything "animals" because the word "creatures" sticks in their craws as it implies they were "created"!
For example a guy rummaging through a seashore rockpool said "there are some interesting animals in here"
Haha, since when are mussels, cockles, whelks and shrimps "animals"?
Same when a cloud of bats came flying out of a cave, "They're marvellous animals" said the presenter, ha ha they're funny guys..

You're kidding, right?

Merriam Webster Dictionary

an·i·mal
noun \ˈa-nə-məl\
: a living thing that is not a human being or plant
: any living thing that is not a plant

: any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I think "creatures" is commonly used to denote what we consider lower life forms. I have heard it used for a gentleman in that way.

One might thus reasonably expect to hear the word in nature programmes fairly often and if Romeo is correct, which I don't know as I don't watch that sort of edited type of TV, and the word is deliberately avoided then there is a PC mind-design going on. Which is the point he was making.

Pedantic objections are babyish. And insulting. Nothing new in that eh?

0 Replies

Some atheist philosophers may slavishly stick to rigid dictionary definitions of "animal" to avoid having to use the word "creature", but they're only making themselves look funny.
The universally-accepted definition of the word "animal" refers to anything that purrs or barks etc, as any child will tell you.. Smile

----------------------------

2 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Some atheist philosophers may slavishly stick to rigid dictionary definitions of "animal" to avoid having to use the word "creature", but they're only making themselves look funny.
The universally-accepted definition of the word "animal" refers to anything that purrs or barks etc, as any child will tell you..

Some people stubbornly want to insist that the universe is a creation...so they can insist there has to be a creator.

It is laughable...although I will acknowledge a good deal more laughable than your insistence that certain animals are not animals because you, and other children, do not want them to be.

But although not quite as laughable...that position is laughable nonetheless.

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

What about animals that can grunt, snort, growl, sneeze, snore, bleat and cough?

0 Replies

Timur said:

Quote:

What about animals that can grunt, snort, growl, sneeze, snore, bleat and cough?

Yes mate I've had ladyfriends like that.
I can't see why atheists object to the word "creature" anyway, because they could still cover themselves by saying it was "created by evolution".. Smile

As for them making themselves look odd, imagine if a turtle ran across a golf course and an atheist golfer called out "Hey look at that animal!"
Everybody'd say "Where? Where? We can see a turtle but no animal!"

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

who says that atheists abjure the use of "creatures". Classically they are any animal that isn't a human no?

the word predates any concept pf evolution anyway.
All animals fit within the kingdom ANIMALIA, since, by definition, these are organisms (or creatures if you insist) that are NOT plants.

What is your opinion about EVOLUTION as only a theory??

0 Replies

Please don't feed the troll . . . he shits all over threads without encouragement as it is.

1 Reply

Farmerman said:

Quote:

What is your opinion about EVOLUTION as only a theory??

It's called the THEORY of Evolution because a theory is just a collection of hunches, guesses and missing links.
If they're so certain of it, why don't they call it The FACT of Evolution?.. Smile

----------------------------------

0 Replies

You see what i mean? You knew he'd say something stupid and clueless like that, so why encourage him?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Please don't feed the troll

It's Setanta who shits all over the thread. That is as regular as rabbit buttons.

0 Replies

Dawks jumps all over the place like a crackhead at a rock concert.. Smile

"My guess is that both bats and birds evolved flight by gliding downwards from the trees. Their ancestors might have looked a little like colugos. Birds could be another matter. … Here’s one guess as to how flying got started in birds. … Perhaps birds began by leaping off the ground while bats began gliding out of trees. Or perhaps birds too began by gliding out of trees."
(Dawkins: Climbing Mt Improbable pp. 113–4, emphases added)
-----------------------

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Ima baaad widow boy, I just cant help it when we get some of these clowns who want to sound like they know wht theyre tlking about yet hve not a clue.

ANY first year HS biology student can put him strait.

0 Replies

Like all scientists, Dawks was born with a God-given thirst for knowledge by analysis and experiment, but spiritual matters CAN'T be analysed and experimented on!
So because religion takes him out of his comfort zone he goes red in the face, pouts and throws his toys at it from his playpen.. Smile

---------------------------

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Quote:

"My guess is that both bats and birds evolved flight by gliding downwards from the trees. Their ancestors might have looked a little like colugos. Birds could be another matter. … Here’s one guess as to how flying got started in birds. … Perhaps birds began by leaping off the ground while bats began gliding out of trees. Or perhaps birds too began by gliding out of trees."
(Dawkins: Climbing Mt Improbable pp. 113–4, emphases added)

Did a publisher actually pass that tripe for publication?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

. genesis and evolution are two totally different concepts

Are you saying this to me ... or to yourself.
If this is the bad news, do you know what is the ugly news: you cannot make amino acids and DNA just so, from any inorganic matter ... without having an idea what you are doing. Besides that making the DNA is far not enough to breathe life.
There are a large number of fossils with perfectly preserved DNA (in the teeth, in the bones, etc.), some have even well preserved tissues (like the mammoths from Alaska & from Siberia). You can always find perfectly preserved DNA in a large number of extinct species ... and how many of them have you revived so far. We are not talking about making a creature out of inorganic matter by means of odds yet (for further details see 'Frankenstein' by Mary Shelley).
Do you know what I am thinking: we are totally missing something - some information or information series ... or perhaps whole stage (or stages) of the process.

2 Replies

Dawks knows jack.. Smile

For example he criticises the design of the eye by saying- "some of the parts in our eyes have been wired backwards!"
http://creation.com/seeing-back-to-front

But biologist Dr.George Marshall says -"The idea that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anatomy"http://creation.com/an-eye-for-creation-george-marshall-interview
--------------------------------

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know