Pink flamingos prove Creationism.

[leibowde84]

Obviously pink flamingos prove creationism. The odds of something like that in a materialist zeitgeist are laughably small. Actually, the ''odds'' of plain materialism are laughably small in general. ''Oh but it could happen''. Well, purple unicorns on Mars could happen as well.

I'm confused. Do you think that evolution and materialism are the same thing?

 

[dust1n]

Obviously pink flamingos prove creationism. The odds of something like that in a materialist zeitgeist are laughably small. Actually, the ''odds'' of plain materialism are laughably small in general. ''Oh but it could happen''. Well, purple unicorns on Mars could happen as well.

Which pink flamingos prove creation?

So you refer to Phoenicopterus chilensis?

Or Phoenicopterus ruber?

Or did you mean Phoenicopterus roseus?

Or was it Phoeniconaias minor you refer to?

Or Phoenicoparrus andinus?

Or Phoenicoparrus jamesi?

Or were you referring to one of the many extinct species of flamingo, like:

Phoenicopterus croizeti, Phoenicopterus aethiopicus, or Phoenicopterus eyrensis?


Which one of these were you referring to as having bad odds in a materialist paradigm?

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm confused. Do you think that evolution and materialism are the same thing?

The DIR is called ''evolution vs creationism''.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

These are all merely assumptions based on the assumption that your claim of subjectivity being denied by evolutionists necessarily. Do you mean to speak to materialism instead? Because they are vastly different.

See that's not honesty, that is more of the usual debating tactics idea.

 

[leibowde84]

The DIR is called ''evolution vs creationism''.

What does that have to do with anything. You refer specifically to materialism in the OP, yet the DIR is evolution vs. Creationism.

 

[leibowde84]

See that's not honesty, that is more of the usual debating tactics idea.

What do you think was dishonest? Evolution is vastly different than materialism. They mean different things. That is true, so how could that be dishonest?

 

[leibowde84]

See that's not honesty, that is more of the usual debating tactics idea.

So, you think they mean the same thing? Because, that would kill your entire argument. You would simply be confusing terms with other terms.

 

[Desert Snake]

What does that have to do with anything. You refer specifically to materialism in the OP, yet the DIR is evolution vs. Creationism.

A creationist who believes in evolution is technically a creationist. An evolutionist who does not believe in creationism is a materialist per context.

What is the problem with the op?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

WHAT??? Does this mean?

Are you sure you understand those words?

Absolutely, honesty is related to courage fairness fortitude openness etc. Enter the evolutionist....out the window goes subjectivity.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Screechy nonsense. I have never seen an honest evolutionist, which is because honesty requires subjectivity. First thing an evolutionist does is surpress and cancel their own subjectivity. Repressed emotions do not provide for honesty. That's how evolutionists become like these pitbulls for Darwin, completely prejudiced.

Have you ever seen an honest gravitationalist, or an honest germ theorist, or an honest plate tectonicist?

 

[dust1n]

A creationist who believes in evolution is technically a creationist. An evolutionist who does not believe in creationism is a materialist per context.

What is the problem with the op?

A creationist who believes in evolution is technically creationists and not an evolutionist? Well they should distinguish themselves better, because no one cares about debating against people who believe in evolution and just happen to think God did it, at least not like they do people who suggest evolution isn't real, or only goes to some imaginary "kind" line. You know, things that disparage and misrepresent evolution.

Anyways, an evolutionist who does not believe in creationism is not a materialist necessarily. There are people who believe in evolution, don't believe in God, and still believe in ghosts and astrology and big foot.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Have you ever seen an honest gravitationalist, or an honest germ theorist, or an honest plate tectonicist?

The problem is centered around evolution theory. I would guess that plate tectonists are also dishonest much, because they have close ties with evolutionists. But I never had the displeasure of discussing with a tectonicist.

 

[outhouse]

. Enter the evolutionist....out the window goes subjectivity.

PROVIDE CREDIBLE SOURCES

Your wrong YOUR proselytizing personal faith and FACTUAL unsubstantiated rhetoric and its not honest.

 

[outhouse]

I would guess that plate tectonists are also dishonest much

PROVIDE CREDIBLE SOURCES

Your wrong YOUR proselytizing personal faith and FACTUAL unsubstantiated rhetoric and its not honest.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So, you think they mean the same thing? Because, that would kill your entire argument. You would simply be confusing terms with other terms.

See you're simply trying to be clever, tricking, fighting like a pitbull. Some nonsense definition game does not destroy the fact upon consideration and ample evidence that evolutionists reject subjectivity on account of natural selection theory.

They quite openly reject subjectivity in this topic also.

 

[outhouse]

See you're simply trying to be clever, tricking, fighting like a pitbull. Some nonsense definition game does not destroy the fact upon consideration and ample evidence that evolutionists reject subjectivity on account of natural selection theory.

They quite openly reject subjectivity in this topic also.

PROVIDE CREDIBLE SOURCES

Your wrong YOUR proselytizing personal faith and FACTUAL unsubstantiated rhetoric and its not honest.

 

[leibowde84]

A creationist who believes in evolution is technically a creationist. An evolutionist who does not believe in creationism is a materialist per context.

What is the problem with the op?

No problem with the OP. This is just completely inaccurate. You are basing it on the incorrect assumption that without belief in deities, one is necessarily a materialist. No reason to think this, that's all.

 

[dust1n]

What can creationism tell us about flamingos?

 

[leibowde84]

See you're simply trying to be clever, tricking, fighting like a pitbull. Some nonsense definition game does not destroy the fact upon consideration and ample evidence that evolutionists reject subjectivity on account of natural selection theory.

They quite openly reject subjectivity in this topic also.

No I'm just pointing out the striking lack of reason in your assumptions. Many evolutionists are theists. How do you explain that? BTW, many believe in intelligent design as well.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

PROVIDE CREDIBLE SOURCES

Your wrong YOUR proselytizing personal faith and FACTUAL unsubstantiated rhetoric and its not honest.

I am actually honest. Freedom is real and relevant in the universe. Creationism is true. This is the conclusion of fair and open consideration of the evidence.