Quote :

"does not state that there is a god, but an intelligent designer."

IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW

I UNDERSTAND HOW AMERICAN CITIZENS COULD ACTUALLY, FOR A MOMENT, THINK THAT ID BELONGS IN SCIENCE

I MEAN LOOK AT THAT STATEMENT

11/11/2005 5:06:26 PM

evolution says there is no god. becuase if stuff could evolve, we wouldnt need a god.

11/11/2005 5:16:17 PM

Laughable to the point of absurdity.

11/11/2005 5:20:52 PM

Quote :

"exactly what i was saying. ID says god is intellegent. and since it competes with every other thoery out there, all the other thoeries must posit that god is stupid. "

science doesn't even propose god, ergo evolution is not in any way proposing that god is stupid considering it doesn't propose god at all.

Quote :

"its just common sense that god is intellegent. why doesnt evolution admit that? "

how is it common sense, first of all, that god even exists? second of all, evolution, once again, doesn't speak of god, it speaks of how we as humans came to be, among other creatures

11/11/2005 6:05:01 PM

And you continue to fail to recognize sarcasm every time it is thrown at you. We're all seeing through your tissue-paper lies, upon which I shall make you choke.

Quote :

"um, correct imo, which is why it shouldn't be taught in school alongside science"

Let it be noted for the record that he called the statement that believing in a religion or god was never acceptable "correct." I'm sure many of you agree, but he appears to be denying that he's ever said any such thing.

Quote :

"faith is based on lack of evidence."

That's worded horribly. Faith is not based on a lack of anything. For one thing, a great multitude of people feel that they have evidence for the existence of a god, through some feeling they have had or results from paryers or any other number of possibilities. None of that is evidence that can be applied to science, of course, but it is not the absence of something.

You still deny that science and even you yourself rely on great gobs of faith from day to day. You have faith, for instance, that you will not be obliterated by a meteor tomorrow. Sure, it could happen, and you might even recognize that fact; still, you operate as though it will not happen, based on faith. The leap is much, much smaller than it is with, say, God, but it's still there.

Quote :

"if you pay attention to the context of my statement you'll see that i'm implying that relying on faith to be the absolute truth is retarded"

Even if I were to give you the most generous possible interpretation of that garbage -- and don't worry, I won't -- you would still be outright insulting the beliefs of the large majority of Americans and billions of people worldwide. There's nothing particularly wrong with that; what bugs me is that you're trying to dance around it. The first step is acceptance. Say it with me:

"My name is Cherokee, and I think billions of people around the world are completely retarded."

But like I said, I'm not going to let you off that easy anyway. People who question their religion and continue to be religious do so because they have faith. A strong faith, at that, to withstand so much doubting. You have insulted the pensive faithful right along with the rest.

[Edited on November 11, 2005 at 6:09 PM. Reason : ]

11/11/2005 6:08:23 PM

well, you are liberal east-coast educated elite, i wouldnt expect you to have common sense.

11/11/2005 6:09:05 PM

ahahaha.

"evolution says god is stupid."
"evolution says there is no god."

make up your mind. you're not even consistent.

11/11/2005 6:11:02 PM

Holy Mother of God, you people are dense.

11/11/2005 6:12:50 PM

I've got enough common sense to recognize a false dichotomy when I see one.

11/11/2005 6:14:00 PM

You, yes.

Them, no.

11/11/2005 6:15:17 PM

Quote :

""evolution says god is stupid." "evolution says there is no god.""

i dont see the problem here. evolution killed god. only a stupid god, could be killed.

11/11/2005 6:21:17 PM

So wait, God requires your belief in him in order to exist?

What omnipotence.

GrumpyGOP:

I was referring to Josh8315's "liberal east-coast educated elite, i wouldn't expect you to have common sense" comment (since it appeared to be directed at me--I'm still waiting for my elite status though, thus far, no $texas).

[Edited on November 11, 2005 at 6:31 PM. Reason : ...]

11/11/2005 6:30:13 PM

if i said "there is no god" and "god is stupid", that would totally contradict each other. saying "god is stupid" automatically imply that there is a god because if there wasn't, why would i say he's stupid.

unless you mean "evolutionists thinks that believing in god is stupid" and "some evolutionist says that there is no god", other than that, you're pretty much inconsistent.

[Edited on November 11, 2005 at 6:51 PM. Reason : reword]

11/11/2005 6:39:08 PM

im saying god was stupid. then all you scientists killed god. now she is gone.

11/11/2005 6:56:28 PM

hahahaha. i have nothing to say as of the moment.

11/11/2005 7:27:01 PM

everything here is so perfect for the existance of humans? why cant you admit that clearly god designed the earth for us? evolution has to be wrong, becuase it says there is no reason we should be here. and i know that because i read a lot of papers and stuff about the THEORY of evolution written by a lot of very smart creationists.


[Edited on November 11, 2005 at 7:37 PM. Reason : -]

11/11/2005 7:36:21 PM

Quote :

"everything here is so perfect for the existance of humans?"

um yea i'm not sure how our world is exactly perfect

Quote :

"why cant you admit that clearly god designed the earth for us?"

because you say so?

Quote :

"evolution has to be wrong, becuase it says there is no reason we should be here."

want to explain why there even has to be a reason to be here? this is another one of the ideas that a lot of religious people have trouble with, that there could possibly, just maybe, might not be any reason at all for us to be here, at least anymore so than there is for bacteria and elk to be here.

Quote :

""You also effectively implied that believing in a religion or god was only acceptable when it was somehow provable, which is to say, it is never acceptable.""

grumpygop, i responded "correct, imo" to this statement. however you have misunderstood what i was saying was correct. what is correct about it was that it was never acceptable simply based on the fact that it isn't provable, therefore, not acceptable to be taught ALONGSIDE science in a place of HIGHER learning. this is why i continued after saying correct, saying that i felt it was why it shouldn't be taught in school.

tissue paper lies, care to enlighten me on what that's all about?




[Edited on November 11, 2005 at 9:25 PM. Reason : hurricanes are winning]

11/11/2005 9:22:16 PM

Quote :

"tissue paper lies, care to enlighten me on what that's all about?"

Certainly. You claimed that you intentionally misread obvious sarcasm as humor. If that was true (and it wasn't), you've dragged on the joke far too long by continuing to reply to anything Josh says. That would make you merely a fool with no sense of humor, rather than a lying fool with no sense of humor. No such luck, though.

Quote :

"what is correct about it was that it was never acceptable simply based on the fact that it isn't provable, therefore, not acceptable to be taught ALONGSIDE science in a place of HIGHER learning."

1) "Higher learning" generally refers to college, not high school
2) Fine, so it's "acceptable" in addition to being "retarded." You still insulted everyone with a religion, you just did it one fewer time than you had otherwise.

11/11/2005 10:20:42 PM

Quote :

"you just did it one fewer time than you had otherwise"

lol

as for the higher learning thing, i consider highschool to be higher learning than elementary school, which is about the level the story of creation in the bible is on

11/11/2005 11:01:41 PM

So are you just giving up on the, "I'm not insulting religion, I swear " lie? That'll save us some time.

As to the "higher education" thing, I don't really know what to tell you, man. The term means what it means, and it means college. If you can't even take your lickings on the most basic definitions of innocuous terms, you will last even less time than I initially predicted.

11/11/2005 11:04:22 PM

Quote :

"might not be any reason at all for us to be here"

i dont think we should teach our kids in science class to be godless sodomites.

11/12/2005 12:44:11 AM

Quote :

"yeah, how dare we let scientists determine what science is!"

my point exactly.

11/12/2005 12:53:04 AM

And that point continues to be one of the most heinously stupid points ever made on the soapbox.

11/12/2005 8:09:36 AM

^^ did you ever consider that these 'scientists' may a have a liberal socialist athiestic agenda?

did you?

11/12/2005 12:38:46 PM

did you ever consider "science" may have a liberal socialist athiestic agenda?

11/12/2005 12:54:11 PM

science was just conjured up by bored scientists

11/12/2005 2:00:12 PM

and since nobody responded, this absence of refutation is evidence of absence of the legitimacy of "science"

11/14/2005 3:36:28 AM

^http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#burden

[Edited on November 14, 2005 at 4:41 AM. Reason : sdf]

11/14/2005 4:41:16 AM

Its all cool.

Our Chinese soon-to-be-overlords are the most patient governance on the planet. They'll simply wait till Chinese science has far exceeded ours before taking over and banning religion.

11/14/2005 6:06:33 AM

I hear skokiaan has a black baby

11/14/2005 6:24:08 AM