Is creationism science or not?

[CabinetMaker]

Yeah but, you called him a "goof". What's that all about if of a 7th grade mentality?

Simple statement of fact.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Big bang?? Why not learn the why of why the universe continues to get larger because of an explosion that never happened ___ if you can believe order can't happen of itself out of disorder which is what an explosion would be all about, correct?

Okay. Explain it to us. That will be the hypotheses that begins the scientific process.

 

[Ktoyou]

If creationists were just like For some reason, you have to take that next big leap and declare that those religious beliefs are supported by science, and spend a lot of money and time attacking science. That's when you bring people like me into it.

This is when they bring the morons into it? Well some do, I do not. As far as I am concerned the 'I am only a random egg' people and their arbitrary sense of self distinction, their confusion as to whether they are animals, or not, and their pondering of taking animal lives and eating them as moral. All those nihilist morons are not worth trying to persuade. As far as I am concerned, they can all go to hell at their own pace, as long as they leave me alone, which they do not! They, more than Christians, try to make moral rules for other people, such as humans are animals, and all animals are equal.

You stop your relative moralizing and I will not preach my faith to you!

 

[Hedshaker]

What would you call someone who denigrates people's ability to act sensibly based on what they believe?

And feel free to point to a situation where I would claim people cannot do science because of an idea they have.

So calling someone a retard simply for disagreeing with you is not bigotry? This is a discussion forum, peeps are supposed to disagree. calling them names when you don't like their point of view is poor form at best, bigotry at worst.

 

[Ktoyou]

So calling someone a retard simply for disagreeing with you is not bigotry? This is a discussion forum, peeps are supposed to disagree. calling them names when you don't like their point of view is poor form at best, bigotry at worst.

Being called a goofball is part of the language of most forums. It is not assigning you a particular status.

 

[Ktoyou]

By that definition, you're a bigot.

Not so offensive; it is not near as bad as calling a good chicken eater a vegan. Now that is downright insulting!

 

[alwight]

So calling someone a retard simply for disagreeing with you is not bigotry? This is a discussion forum, peeps are supposed to disagree. calling them names when you don't like their point of view is poor form at best, bigotry at worst.

Stripe's become bitter and twisted in recent years, the cognitive dissonance must be taking its toll.

 

[Cross Reference]

Okay. Explain it to us. That will be the hypotheses that begins the scientific process.

How/why do you ask for what you will out-of-hand reject? What is there to explain except the miracle of a given fact that has no other explanation for its existence?

Perhaps if you begin there in your thinking the 'dots' will start to connect themselves and you will get the answers you seek.

 

[Stripe]

No, God invented evolution.

Nope. You worship Darwin as god.

By that definition, you're a bigot.

Nope. Anybody is capable of science, as I've said consistently.

So calling someone a retard simply for disagreeing with you is not bigotry?

Cabinethead is a retard sans any evidence.

This is a discussion forum, peeps are supposed to disagree. calling them names when you don't like their point of view is poor form at best, bigotry at worst.

Fortunately, I don't do that. :up:

However, Darwinists refuse to engage respectfully with ideas that challenge their religion. By their own admission, they are solely here to mock, believing that their ideas will always trump all others.

 

[CabinetMaker]

How/why do you ask for what you will out-of-hand reject?

Where did I say I would reject it out of hand? I said present your hypothesis and let the scientific process begin.

What is there to explain except the miracle of a given fact that has no other explanation?

Perhaps if you begin there in your thinking the 'dots' will start to connect themselves.

I think there is a better explanation than God is a Genii that simply blinks His eyes and presto. Based on what we have learned through observing God's creation, God is a very sophisticated designer capable of designing systems that produce the results He wants. That is what connects the dots for me.

 

[Stripe]

I think...

No, you don't. You just invent a god to worship.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Nope. You worship Darwin as god.

Nope. Anybody is capable of science, as I've said consistently.
Cabinethead is a retard sans any evidence.
Fortunately, I don't do that. :up:

However, Darwinists refuse to engage respectfully with ideas that challenge their religion. By their own admission, they are solely here to mock, believing that their ideas will always trump all others.

Okay Stripe, I present you with a challenge. Present one idea that challenges evolution. Present any of your supporting evidence and documentation and we will have a respectful conversation. The respectful conversation will be over when of us is no longer respectful. This will be indicated by one of us calling the other a name, such as Darwinist, evolutionist, retard, goof, fool, Cabinethead, Stipe or any other name other than our screen name. It will also be over when one of use fails to address a relevant point raised by the other. A relevant point may be a question about fossil beds, erosion, speed of light or anything that goes unaddressed. Note: we do not have to agree with each other when addressing a point but the point must be answered. Finally, if you claim that you are being mocked then you must provide documentation that you are being ridiculed. If I say your definition of something is not supported by scientific observation, you are not being mocked and cannot claim that you are being mocked. For this discussion, mocking shall be defined as: making fun of someone or something in a cruel way; derisive..

So, are you up to it?

 

[Stripe]

Okay Stripe, I present you with a challenge. Present one idea that challenges evolution. Present any of your supporting evidence and documentation and we will have a respectful conversation.

:darwinsm:

How about we make it challenging? You name one area of scientific inquiry, and I will present a knock-out case against the possibility that evolution is a factor from that field. :thumb:

But start a new thread. :up:

The respectful conversation will be over when of us is no longer respectful.

Given our history, we know that will be you.

This will be indicated by one of us calling the other a name, such as Darwinist, evolutionist, retard, goof, fool, Cabinethead, Stipe or any other name other than our screen name.

Darwinist isn't a name, it's what you guys are. :AMR:

It will also be over when one of use fails to address a relevant point raised by the other. A relevant point may be a question about fossil beds, erosion, speed of light or anything that goes unaddressed. Note: we do not have to agree with each other when addressing a point but the point must be answered. Finally, if you claim that you are being mocked then you must provide documentation that you are being ridiculed. If I say your definition of something is not supported by scientific observation, you are not being mocked and cannot claim that you are being mocked. For this discussion, mocking shall be defined as: making fun of someone or something in a cruel way; derisive..So, are you up to it?

It sounds like you're not up for a conversation, whining about being mocked before you even begin.

How about you just respond rationally to the posts I make and quit pretending you've been wronged in the past, do not mock and have a history of reasoned debate. :up:

Because you don't. You're the most irrational, pointless debater on this site.

 

[CabinetMaker]

:darwinsm:

How about we make it challenging? You name one area of scientific inquiry, and I will present a knock-out case against the possibility that evolution is a factor from that field. :thumb:

But start a new thread. :up:

Given our history, we know that will be you.

Darwinist isn't a name, it's what you guys are. :AMR:

It sounds like you're not up for a conversation, whining about being mocked before you even begin.

How about you just respond rationally to the posts I make and quit pretending you've been wronged in the past, do not mock and have a history of reasoned debate. :up:

Because you don't. You're the most irrational, pointless debater on this site.

So that would be a no, then. Interesting that you could not even respond to my request with resorting ad hominem statements. I also can't help but notice your unwillingness to discuss the topic in a respectful discussion.

Interesting side bar: You say that I am a Darwinist. I looked for a definition and there is no definition for the word. That means your use of the word is actually name calling.

I think I will start a thread...

 

[Stripe]

So that would be a no, then.

:darwinsm: This is why discussions with you are a waste of time; you cannot read.

Interesting that you could not even respond to my request with resorting ad hominem statements.

:darwinsm:

I also can't help but notice your unwillingness to discuss the topic in a respectful discussion.

Liar.

Interesting side bar: You say that I am a Darwinist. I looked for a definition and there is no definition for the word. That means your use of the word is actually name calling.

:rotfl:

 

[Cross Reference]

Where did I say I would reject it out of hand? I said present your hypothesis and let the scientific process begin.

I think there is a better explanation than God is a Genii that simply blinks His eyes and presto. Based on what we have learned through observing God's creation, God is a very sophisticated designer capable of designing systems that produce the results He wants. That is what connects the dots for me.

Thank you for demonstrating how the "out-of-hand" procedure works in the psuedo science department.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Thank you for demonstrating how the "out-of-hand" procedure works in the psuedo science department.

If you do not agree that that is an accurate representation of the scientific process, please post what you understand the correct process to be.

 

[Cross Reference]

If you do not agree that that is an accurate representation of the scientific process, please post what you understand the correct process to be.

re my next to last reply. Naah. It ain't worth it.

 

[CabinetMaker]

re my next to last reply. Naah. It ain't worth it.

I hope realize that your comment means your conceding the argument and agreeing with my post as you decline to address it. Are you okay with that outcome?.

 

[Cross Reference]

I hope realize that your comment means your conceding the argument and agreeing with my post as you decline to address it. Are you okay with that outcome?.

LOL!!! :loser: