A Challenge To All Creationists

[McBell]

a rather blaze response to the countless victims of dehumanization. I guess the Indians who used to live here didn't really mind it, or the blacks who were enslaved, or the Jews in the ovens. I guess they must have thought it was a real hoot.

rotflmao
Your desperation is showing.

 

[Davarr]

Fair enough.
I suspect it actually means anyone and everyone that disagrees with their particular strawman of evolution.

I disagree with the macro concept. creatures do adapt to their environment; that is provable. that it must have taken a billion years, or that humans-who ware obviously distinct from the natural world-came from low orders of animals is absurd and dangerous.

I am willing to let people trapse around in their bones and fossils, as long as they don't cross over into dehumanizing people. I will let science do it's thing, and not bother it, it if will quit telling us we are monkeys. Is that a fair idea?

 

[McBell]

I disagree with the macro concept. creatures do adapt to their environment; that is provable. that it must have taken a billion years, or that humans-who ware obviously distinct from the natural world-came from low orders of animals is absurd and dangerous.

I am willing to let people trapse around in their bones and fossils, as long as they don't cross over into dehumanizing people. I will let science do it's thing, and not bother it, it if will quit telling us we are monkeys. Is that a fair idea?

Your continued misuse of the word "dehumanizing" makes it difficult to take you seriously.

 

[SkepticThinker]

a rather blaze response to the countless victims of dehumanization. I guess the Indians who used to live here didn't really mind it, or the blacks who were enslaved, or the Jews in the ovens. I guess they must have thought it was a real hoot.

I wonder how people were able to dehumanize others before the theory of evolution was published. You know, like for the vast majority of human history.

My view is quite different from yours on this. I feel that if this is the only life we get, human life is all the more precious and should be treated accordingly.

 

[Davarr]

rotflmao
Your desperation is showing.

I see you have no intention of debate, just trundle out deflections. The priesthood of Darwin suits you well; enjoy your career of chanting his liturgies.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I disagree with the macro concept. creatures do adapt to their environment; that is provable. that it must have taken a billion years, or that humans-who ware obviously distinct from the natural world-came from low orders of animals is absurd and dangerous.

I am willing to let people trapse around in their bones and fossils, as long as they don't cross over into dehumanizing people. I will let science do it's thing, and not bother it, it if will quit telling us we are monkeys. Is that a fair idea?

Science doesn't tell us that we're monkeys or that we come from "low orders of animals." So I guess you're good with it then, right?

 

[Shad]

Yes it is a quote from the book. I quoted it, I cited the page and provided a link to the very book itself. You are either too lazy to look or to dishonest to admit your mistake.

 

[Shad]

It doesn't imply anything. Bones don't tell stories. You can look at a bone and make up a story about it that sounds logical, sure. But the bone can't tell you how old it is, where it came from, etc. You have to guess.

You can look at the world and make up a story about it..... One is called the Bible. You logic is amazing..... The world is not telling you about the Bible, you believe in guesses by men you give more credibility to then anyone that even entertains science.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Boy, if I'm ever on trial for a crime that had no eye witnesses, I hope I get you on the jury.

"I'm sorry, but unless the police can describe and absolutely prove every single aspect of the crime in perfect detail, then it's all just guesswork and I will vote to acquit."

Good try, yet another false dichotomy.

DNA changes are provable, if they happen. Quite precisely.

12 jurors don't decide if something evolved or not, you can look at it under the microscope.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Except that it's not obvious. There are billions of people who don't believe in the god you believe in. And many who don't believe in any gods. And still many more who came before us who believed in thousands of other gods.

Now, if you have something more substantial besides "it's obvious," then I'm all ears.

Well, you can lead a horse to water...

 

[McBell]

I see you have no intention of debate, just trundle out deflections. The priesthood of Darwin suits you well; enjoy your career of chanting his liturgies.

You are right.
I have no intentions on "debate" with some ome as dishonest as you.

Call me all the names you like.
They reveal much more about you than they do about me.

Have a nice day

 

[Reggie Miller]

You can look at the world and make up a story about it..... One is called the Bible. You logic is amazing..... The world is not telling you about the Bible, you believe in guesses by men you give more credibility to then anyone that even entertains science.

God is holy. Men lie.
God is all-knowing. Men can only guess.
God is all-powerful. Men are weak.
God lives forever. Men die.

 

[Davarr]

I wonder how people were able to dehumanize others before the theory of evolution was published. You know, like for the vast majority of human history.

My view is quite different from yours on this. I feel that if this is the only life we get, human life is all the more precious and should be treated accordingly.

interesting. How is human life precious, I ask, in a materialist paradigm? In the context of the Scriptures, human life is valued as the progeny of Yahweh. There is no guarantor in evolution. What you have are competing narratives at that point. Might makes right, and the State is all of the former, and none of the latter. Before evolution was affirmed, people had inalienable rights ascribed to Deity (Declaration of Independence). Now, what is there? The State has no limit to its' power; if you pay attention to history, that never ends well. Your life will treated as precious as your resources allow. If you are marked for dehumanization, that co-efficient drops to zero.

 

[Jose Fly]

the language of Evolution is directly parallel to political objectives in mass homicide. When The State wants to liquidate people, they dehumanize them. Evolution provides a perfect cover for employing this device. It affirms that we are just cells, cats doubt on our divine heritage, thus programming people to accept that people are just a part of the natural record. IN this way, disposing of or enslaving people becomes easier to accomplish.

Oh now this oughta be entertaining.....

 

[Shad]

What Gould says indicates intermediate fossils are rare. If evolution was true, the great majority of fossils would be intermedates. Gould said some were transitional to save fact, but there are none.

Non-sequitur. Gould says fossils are rare nothing more. You follow up with an assertion, nothing more. I can do that too

Despite all Omega's talk on creationism he actually believes in evolution. He only brings up creationism to save face with his fellow Christians.

 

[McBell]

I wonder how people were able to dehumanize others before the theory of evolution was published. You know, like for the vast majority of human history.

My view is quite different from yours on this. I feel that if this is the only life we get, human life is all the more precious and should be treated accordingly.

The problem here is that his idea of "dehumanizing" is to take away an imagined "divinity" from people.

In other words, he believes that humans are somehow "special" do to god and that evolution takes that "special" from people.

 

[McBell]

God is holy. Men lie.
God is all-knowing. Men can only guess.
God is all-powerful. Men are weak.
God lives forever. Men die.

Bold empty claims do nothing to bolster your credibility.
Even if you use four in row.

 

[Jose Fly]

Good try, yet another false dichotomy.

DNA changes are provable, if they happen. Quite precisely.

12 jurors don't decide if something evolved or not, you can look at it under the microscope.

Try and keep up. Before you'll accept scientific conclusions about past events, you hold them to a standard of perfect and complete explanations of every detail of the events. Obviously though you don't hold other conclusions about past events to that standard, as the example of a jury trial shows.

If you don't see the problem with that, I suggest you stop and think about it more.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, you can lead a horse to water...

.... But you can't provide good evidence for your claims.

 

[SkepticThinker]

God is holy. Men lie.
God is all-knowing. Men can only guess.
God is all-powerful. Men are weak.
God lives forever. Men die.

More claims. No evidence.