So... What are they afraid of?

[SteamWake]

I'd rather have a creationist than a Marxist 'community orginizer'.

[antikristuseke]

I'd rather have both shot.

[August]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

I'd rather have both shot.

If you were my neighbor I'd have to shoot you just in case you expand your hit list to include me...

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by August

If you were my neighbor I'd have to shoot you just in case you expand your hit list to include me...

If I was my own neighbor I would have myself shot as well.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

If I was my own neighbor I would have myself shot as well.

[SteamWake]

Makes me proud to see such tolerance on display.

[antikristuseke]

I am quite tolerant, just not of willful ignorance.

[ETR3(SS)]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Are you serious or are you just so badly misinformed that you actualy believe that the theory of evolution and creationism have equal amounts of supporting evidence?
Hell, even calling creationism a theory is completely wrong, since it isn't one, it is a hypothesis at best. A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. Also theories have to be falsifiable and have to make testable predictions, the toe does that while creationism, not being a theory does not.
Now a request for you, in your own words, describe what the theory of evolution is, please.

Upon re-reading my post, after reading your post, I realize a clarification of my position is in order. In my opinion the amount of supporting evidence for one or the other is irrelevant. This isn't a football game. When the timer runs out the team with the most "points" doesn't win. Both sides have the coup de grace that they have to provide to irrefutably prove their side correct. Creationist's would have to provide direct proof of God's existence, and likewise evolutionist's would have to provide the common ancestor as proof to win the argument.

Clearly evolution is a scientific argument that adheres to the rules of scientific theory much better and easier than creationism does. As we all know creationism relies upon faith, and faith can not be measured in any scientific manner. So in that sense, yes using the word theory in conjunction with creationism is like trying to put the square peg in a round hole. A word devised by science can not be applied to religion. My intent was to put them on par with each other as far as proof goes.

Now as you have requested my description of the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution is the belief that all organisms evolved from a common ancestor. This evolution was brought about by processes such as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS)

Upon re-reading my post, after reading your post, I realize a clarification of my position is in order. In my opinion the amount of supporting evidence for one or the other is irrelevant. This isn't a football game. When the timer runs out the team with the most "points" doesn't win. Both sides have the coup de grace that they have to provide to irrefutably prove their side correct. Creationist's would have to provide direct proof of God's existence, and likewise evolutionist's would have to provide the common ancestor as proof to win the argument.

Clearly evolution is a scientific argument that adheres to the rules of scientific theory much better and easier than creationism does. As we all know creationism relies upon faith, and faith can not be measured in any scientific manner. So in that sense, yes using the word theory in conjunction with creationism is like trying to put the square peg in a round hole. A word devised by science can not be applied to religion. My intent was to put them on par with each other as far as proof goes.

Now as you have requested my description of the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution is the belief that all organisms evolved from a common ancestor. This evolution was brought about by processes such as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

Fair enough, I did misunderstand your position at first.
Still I believe you to be mistaken where evidence is concerned, we have plenty of common ancestors for humans and other species that are alive today or extinct by now.
Or are you asking for the last common ancestor to all the species alive on Earth right now? If so, there might not have been just one.
You could also be talking about the origins of life, but from your post that does not appear to be so, regardless that is the department of abiogenesis, a completely different theory, that has far less evidence for it than the theory of evolution does, for now anyway.
As evidence of evolution we have the fossil record for one thing, observed instances of speciation, genetics and due to that ERVs. Thw following link leads to a website with information about everything I mentioned and more, all well sourced, usually from peer reviewed papers. http://www.talkorigins.org/

But now that I have dragged this very far off topic, I think we should end this discussion here, if you like would be glad to continue in PM.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

I'd rather have a creationist than a Marxist 'community orginizer'.

Good thing Obama isn't a Marxist, than. I don't know his status as an orginizer, though. I don't even know what that word means!!!

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

Good thing Obama isn't a Marxist, than. I don't know his status as an orginizer, though. I don't even know what that word means!!!

Usually Liberal left wing community activist.

The likes of Jessie Jackson, Reverend Wright, acorn and such.

I don't even know what that word means!!!

Its net shorthand for Original Tizer
http://www.tizer.co.uk/
You can call it marxist original tizer because it is red

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

I just don't know how an intelligent person could say the things she's said. And the evidence that she's a creationist bodes even worse for her IQ, regardless of how many right wingers will lap it up.

I am amazed you don't see the irony in your own post....
You belittle someone who has a belief in something you disagree with...
But you do so, claiming they are somehow less than intelligent, and you try to prove your point with:

A cartoon.

Most people recognize that a cartoon is meant to poke fun at things, not be a true medical standard. The irony that you somehow think a drawing from a cartoon comedy makes your statement irrefutable fact is epic.

What is even more amazing is that those who are scared of people like Palin are also the same ones that cannot let people be because they don't follow along believing evolution.

Know why evolutionists can't stand the thought of creationism? Because that means they have to answer for their actions ultimately. Notice creationists are not here bashing people who believe in evolution. Instead, its the "all accepting, inclusive" liberals that deride anything they don't agree with, even though evolution lacks any major evidence when looking at life above a certain (and very small) size.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I am amazed you don't see the irony in your own post....
You belittle someone who has a belief in something you disagree with...
But you do so, claiming they are somehow less than intelligent, and you try to prove your point with:

A cartoon.

Most people recognize that a cartoon is meant to poke fun at things, not be a true medical standard. The irony that you somehow think a drawing from a cartoon comedy makes your statement irrefutable fact is epic.

You are putting words in another posters mouth, what you are stating was not posted by the poster you quoted.

What is even more amazing is that those who are scared of people like Palin are also the same ones that cannot let people be because they don't follow along believing evolution.

Know why evolutionists can't stand the thought of creationism? Because that means they have to answer for their actions ultimately. Notice creationists are not here bashing people who believe in evolution. Instead, its the "all accepting, inclusive" liberals that deride anything they don't agree with, even though evolution lacks any major evidence when looking at life above a certain (and very small) size.

No that is not why people who accept evolution have a problem with creationism, we have a problem with it because it disagrees with observable reality, that is all. What you just did there was to create a strawman argument, which is a logical fallacy and a really dick thing to do. And on the front of evidence you could not be more wrong, you just close your eyes to the evidence or you have not looked for it, given your intellectual honesty, I would assume it be the former rather than the later. But for my own damned curiosity, what evidence does it lack? Be specific because unless you are going to ask for evidence for some strawman version of evolution I can put money on it that there is evidence for it.

And another question, what the **** is an evolutionist? Do you call people who accept the theory of gravity gravitationalists? Or is it just the theory of evolution only scientific theory, which has been helpful in many ways, the one you single out because you disagree with it?

[CaptainHaplo]

Antikrist - I did not put words in his mouth...

I quoted Angus - as follows:

"I just don't know how an intelligent person could say the things she's said. And the evidence that she's a creationist bodes even worse for her IQ, regardless of how many right wingers will lap it up."

Now - if he doesn't know how an intelligent person could say certain things, logic dictates he does know how a NON-intelligent person could. The comment of "creationist" boding even worse for her IQ - your saying that ISN'T an indictement of her intelligence?

How did I put words in his mouth? I simply took his statements above - along with the cartoon HE posted, quoted them, and replied by pointing out the irony of him insulting someones intelligence, then trying to use a cartoon to prove his point.

Now as for the "strawman" arguement, I simply gave what I see as a logical and reasonable reason for the absolute mockery that has been tossd out against those who believe in creationism. I pointed out that those who are so against such a belief have a very good MORALISTIC reason for not wanting to accept it. Its unfortunate that you think its a "really dick thing to do", but its simply put out there as a point of view for people to consider. The hostility that those who embrace evolution have shown on this board to anyone who disagrees demonstrates that there must be some reason behind it. A discussion of scientific ideas shouldn't degenerate into people calling other people stupid just because they disagree. Yet that is what, so far, has happened - creationists are insulted as lacking intelligence because they choose not to agree. I would call that a "really dick thing to do", and not the other way around, but your entitled to your opinion.

Now - as for the evidence of evolution and the evidence for biblical history, I will make a thread for that so we can discuss it, hopefully with some majority and real points, instead of insults. No reason to take this post farther off topic than it is.

I will address your "evolutionists/gravitationalists" question though. Evolution is a theory that, to my knowledge, lacks truly credible evidence. Perhaps in the coming thread I will learn something, as I hope you will as well. However, gravity is rather apparent to each and every person, and thus its rather hard to say something doesnt exist when you personally experience it every moment (or nearly every moment) of your life.

I have found that you tend to be a reasonable person Antikrist - especially compared to some others, and so I look forward to a mature
discussion of the pros and cons of both sides of this issue.