Pink flamingos prove Creationism.

[Shad]

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.

Your honesty does not validate your idea as true. You could believe in a lie without knowing it is a lie and honestly express your view said lie. However this does not make a lie true regardless of how honest you are about it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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.

Intelligent design, the evolutionists made it illegal to teach in the USA in public schools. The organization of biology teachers came out against it.

My main concern is acceptance of the validity of subjectivity. If evolutionists did accept it, in stead of going out of their way to destroy it, then I would certainly recognize that.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Then, why do you refuse to provide this evidence that you claim exists?

 

[Shad]

Intelligent design, the evolutionists made it illegal to teach in the USA in public schools. The organization of biology teachers came out against it.

No, the government did that. Biologists are not lawmakers. The fact is evolution, and its supporters, made it's case within the legal and government systems while your idea, and supporters, didn't. You lost in a set of systems that has nothing to do with either idea.

 

[leibowde84]

Intelligent design, the evolutionists made it illegal to teach in the USA in public schools. The organization of biology teachers came out against it.

My main concern is acceptance of the validity of subjectivity. If evolutionists did accept it, in stead of going out of their way to destroy it, then I would certainly recognize that.

That is understandable. Our constitution forbids public institutions from supporting religious beliefs. If there was verifiable evidence for creationism, they would have no problem teaching it. But, I have yet to see anything but speculation and fears of what evolution might lead to.

 

[leibowde84]

Intelligent design, the evolutionists made it illegal to teach in the USA in public schools. The organization of biology teachers came out against it.

My main concern is acceptance of the validity of subjectivity. If evolutionists did accept it, in stead of going out of their way to destroy it, then I would certainly recognize that.

But, you are arguing with a straw man, as evolution (not materialism) doesn't speak to subjectivity. You merely refuse to recognize what evolution is limited to.

 

[Riverwolf]

Obviously pink flamingos prove creationism. The odds of something like that in a materialist zeitgeist are laughably small.

Actually, it's 100%.

Because it happened.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Just as a matter of style, you might avoid calling the rest of us dishonest.
It doesn't advance civil discourse.
Many of us hold negative opinions of others, but this doesn't mean we must express them.

 

[Desert Snake]

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.

You seem to have missed the per context part of my post, and also now you are contradicting your own assertion or question/inference, of incorrectness in the op. Ie, this is a confusing mess. If you can present an argument that rectifies non-materialism with evolution as obvious inference, then we are talking. Until you do, you are simply presenting an innacurate format for how you are reaching your conclusions regarding evolution.

 

[leibowde84]

Just as a matter of style, you might avoid calling the rest of us dishonest.
It doesn't advance civil discourse.
Many of us hold negative opinions of others, but this doesn't mean we must express them.

Well-put.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, it's 100%.
Because it happened.

This agrees with my calculations too!

 

[leibowde84]

You seem to have missed the per context part of my post, and also now you are contradicting your own assertion of incorrectness in the op. Ie, this is a confusing mess. If you can present an argument that rectifies non-materialism with evolution as obvious inference, then we are talking. Until you do, you are simply presenting an innacurate format for how you are reaching your conclusions regarding evolution.

I just meant I wasn't referring to the OP. If you did a bit if research you would see why the color of flamingos has nothing to do with your argument.

 

[leibowde84]

You seem to have missed the per context part of my post, and also now you are contradicting your own assertion or question/inference, of incorrectness in the op. Ie, this is a confusing mess. If you can present an argument that rectifies non-materialism with evolution as obvious inference, then we are talking. Until you do, you are simply presenting an innacurate format for how you are reaching your conclusions regarding evolution.

And, this is unreasonable. Why would an obvious connection between non-materialism and evolution be necessary? It seems like you are bending over backwards to assume whatever you can. Here is what evolution ACTUALLY means:

"the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth."

 

[Desert Snake]

And, this is unreasonable. Why would an obvious connection between non-materialism and evolution be necessary? It seems like you are bending over backwards to assume whatever you can. Here is what evolution ACTUALLY means:

"the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth."

Then your problem is with the DIR premise

''evolution vs. creationism''

 

[leibowde84]

Then your problem is with the DIR premise

''evolution vs. creationism''

Nope. Here is what "creationism" refers to (doesn't include intelligent design)

"the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution."

 

[outhouse]

. If you did a bit if research you would see why the color of flamingos has nothing to do with your argument

He was never intending to debate anything.

 

[Desert Snake]

Nope. Here is what "creationism" refers to (doesn't include intelligent design)

"the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution."

ID vs. materialism affects evolution proposals; you can't posit that materialism is somehow out of the argument,....hence, what's your point? Of course i'm going to reference an important aspect of the debate, ie materialism.

 

[outhouse]

ID vs. materialism affects evolution proposals;

Factually false.

Id is pseudoscience and effects nothing.


Evolution is fact, and not up for debate, and pseudoscience refutes none of the facts of evolution

 

[dust1n]

ID vs. materialism affects evolution proposals; you can't posit that materialism is somehow out of the argument,....hence, what's your point? Of course i'm going to reference an important aspect of the debate, ie materialism.

You could, but then you'd just be avoiding the issue, much like avoiding my responses so far.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's at times like this when I want to change the subject to cheeses.
Parmesan (old & dry) is still my favorite.