Creationism.

[Spiffor]

I think it has now become pretty fun

[SlowwHand]

It was bull**** to begin with.
An ******* atheist started a troll thread, citing it as not a troll thread, then split.
Typical.

[Boris Godunov]

How do you know he's an atheist? Most of those who accept evolution are also theists. Heck, one of the primary operators of talkorigins.org is a gun-totin' Christian Texan Republican.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet

Creationism is a good example of mans need to rationalize what he does not understand into concepts he is familiar with and can control.

Delete "Creationism" and add "Evolution" and that sentence would have equal validity.

Descent with variations from a common ancestor was definitely a new concept during old Chuck's days.

[problem_child]

Actually, I'm a panathiest.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by problem_child
Actually, I'm a panathiest.

What is this ? You believe in the presence of a no-God everywhere ?

[Elok]

I'm assuming he put the second "a" in there by mistake.
Anyway, you people need booze if you're gonna discuss a topic of this sensitivity. You should know that.

[problem_child]

Originally posted by Spiffor

What is this ? You believe in the presence of a no-God everywhere ?

Yes... I suppose I do... but I did put the second 'a' there by mistake.

To me, the whole god-thing is an unnessesary waste of time clung to by people who hate the idea that nature is free, and beyond our ken.

[CerberusIV]

Be careful guys, the creationists have money and are spreading their propaganda in our midst.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/3088444.stm

Our microbes are not safe.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay
In the real, peer-reviewed science of today, that is simply not true. Inferences can be made from observing physical phenomena, but no scientist worth his salt would ever attempt to prove anything as fact based on inconsistent/absent evidence. That's not science.

You have obviously never had first hand experience of peer review. It is not about 'is this a good piece of science'- it is more like 'hmm.... did he cite me? did he cite my friends? Do I like this person? Do I like their field?'.

I once had a paper completely rejected (ie. no chance of resubmission after alteration) by a referee who said it 'wasn't interesting'. No counter arguments - just that he/she didn't find it interesting. That very same paper, without modification, is now a 'top cite' paper (ie. it has been cited so much that it gets a special ranking) so obviously some people find it interesting.

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


You have obviously never had first hand experience of peer review. It is not about 'is this a good piece of science'- it is more like 'hmm.... did he cite me? did he cite my friends? Do I like this person? Do I like their field?'.

And that is infinitely more important than the quality of your paper!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
Be careful guys, the creationists have money and are spreading their propaganda in our midst.

Evil!

[Japher]

The problem with both approaches to the origins of existence is that they both attempt to prove or explain something which we do not understand and were not around to witness. Thus, they are both arbitrary standards. What makes the idea of evolution "better" is that it is more useful since this omniscient omnipotent being doesn't answer my calls.

[Elok]

Originally posted by problem_child
To me, the whole god-thing is an unnessesary waste of time clung to by people who hate the idea that nature is free, and beyond our ken.

I know I'm guilty of it too, but maybe you should try not to make collective judgments of a large group of people you never met based on one possible idea that may or may not be passing through their heads...it's not nice, no, but more importantly you can't really do anything with an idea based on so many unknown conditions being exactly as you think they might be. Trying to build on that sort of assumption is a tough, obnoxious habit to kick.

[LordVipper]

creationism...christians trying to be rational? oxymoron. once i met one that insisted that could prove the existence of heaven and hell based on the theory of alternate dimensions.another one tryed to prove that dinosaurs are still alive and are actualy demons.oh and heaven is a dome with windows through wich rain falls, earth is flat and is the center of the universe,god is a bearded man living in heaven/man acompanied by angels who eats beef and talks to abraham in person, a guy who's sons mate with the "daughters of humans" and gives birth to giants so its only logical that those guys would try to prove that he also created earth.with facts.lol! reading the old and new testament gives a man new insights to insanity.as do those texts trying to prove creationism.