Evolution: Brutality & Intolerance Inc.

[rittjc]

I have been speaking often about the fact that evolutionists react viscously and emotionally when their religious idealism is challenged.

No where is the more prevalent than in the scientific community itself. For years I have been reading of assaults on IDers and Creationists that propose theories in the secular arena of science.

I have also, well documented the point that Atheism is merely are religion where the belief is that there is no God (something they cannot prove at all).

Evolution's brutality and intolerance is very similar to the days of the Church of Rome where people like Galileo paid a huge price for dissent against the prevailing idealistic views. In fact it is almost like a reincarnation of this heart of such wicked men. The primary difference is that evolutionists are not the majority and cannot kill or torture Creationists and IDers for challenging their lofty religious beliefs.

Of course, since the Atheist heart rules the media world, good luck seeing this on the local news.

But, a perfect analogy did get past the filters of the Washington Post on Global Warming Alarmism (the climatologists world view).

Fortunately the Senate caught wind of it and it is now being investigated. Here is the article so you can see what happens to dissenters of a public idealism:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070727/NATION02/107270089

This is nothing new to an IDer and a Creationist. This is why I am convinced of a silent majority of creationists. We will see this as truth begins to destroy ignorance.

It is sort of like the way it was with gays. First they were only a few outspoken and now they are holding gay days and family nights on the same day in San Diego at the Padres stadium.

You can look at the evolutionists blowing a blood vessel when their religion is questioned. Nothing is more telling of a severe insecurity in a belief than to see them go off when someone wants to juxtapose it with an alternative idea.

If evolution was substantive, then it would be able stand up to challenges without irrational panic from its zealots. But, what evolutionist believes that it could? That is why you have ridiculous posts such as "should creationists debate evolutionists?". No church wants to lose its congregation, and the church of Evolution is certainly no exception to that rule.

The nascence of ID and Creationism is showing people new ideas that have heretofore not been allowed under the gestapo of evolution idealism.

So, as a man that loves justice and truth, I say farewell to tyrants. For 150 years you have darkened the understanding of science and held it back from its full potential with a religious idealism that is usually accompanied by Atheism with all sorts of ridiculous fantasies from embryonic recapitulation to punctuated equilibrium.

[mumchup]

I have been speaking often about the fact that evolutionists react viscously and emotionally when their religious idealism is challenged. ...

I resent that remark. I'll have you know that I almost always react in a smooth and frictionless manner, I am almost never viscous. Except for that week I spent showering with honey. (little advice, water works better and attracts fewer ants.)

[PixyMisa]

I have been speaking often about the fact that evolutionists react viscously and emotionally when their religious idealism is challenged.
Yes, you have. You haven't shown any evidence that "evolutionists" are religious, are idealists, or that they react emotionally to challenges. I'll grant you that we can be a pretty viscous bunch.

No where is the more prevalent than in the scientific community itself. For years I have been reading of assaults on IDers and Creationists that propose theories in the secular arena of science.
Really? What assaults are these?

I have also, well documented the point that Atheism is merely are religion where the belief is that there is no God (something they cannot prove at all).
How does the belief that there are no gods constitute a religion? And how do you reconcile this with the fact that many atheists do not in fact believe this?

Evolution's brutality and intolerance is very similar to the days of the Church of Rome where people like Galileo paid a huge price for dissent against the prevailing idealistic views.
I'm sure you can present examples to back up this assertion. Quite sure.

In fact it is almost like a reincarnation of this heart of such wicked men. The primary difference is that evolutionists are not the majority and cannot kill or torture Creationists and IDers for challenging their lofty religious beliefs.
"Evolutionists" are not the majority of what? Biologists? Anteaters?

But, a perfect analogy did get past the filters of the Washington Post on Global Warming Alarmism (the climatologists world view).
Ah, an analogy. Your case is thus proven.

This is nothing new to an IDer and a Creationist. This is why I am convinced of a silent majority of creationists.
Ignoring what everyone actually says, in other words.

If evolution was substantive, then it would be able stand up to challenges without irrational panic from its zealots. But, what evolutionist believes that it could? That is why you have ridiculous posts such as "should creationists debate evolutionists?". No church wants to lose its congregation, and the church of Evolution is certainly no exception to that rule.
The reason that the question about debating creationists comes up is complex and rather subtle. The problem is that debates are best suited to discussing matters of opinion, rather than matters of fact, and that creationists are miserable lying weasels.

So, as a man that loves justice and truth, I say farewell to tyrants. For 150 years you have darkened the understanding of science and held it back from its full potential with a religious idealism that is usually accompanied by Atheism with all sorts of ridiculous fantasies from embryonic recapitulation to punctuated equilibrium.
Hooray! So how's that evidence for your claims coming along? No? Well, you know where to find us.

[Wings]

EDIT: Fuller response below.

[Dogdoctor]

The silent majority just think creationism and ID are silly nonsense not worth their consideration.

[Wowbagger]

Rittjc,
You seem to confuse "compassion for empirical measurement" with "intolerance and brutality". I think most evolution advocates simply have a lot of passion for measurable and definable pieces of evidence. And, it creates the illusion that they are brutal and intolerant, when in reality all they are doing is reiterating that the opposition has no measurable nor definable bits of evidence, at all.

Your reaction is typical of those who have no empirical evidence to back up their claims, and more importantly, it does not help your case, in the court of science. Appeals to emotion does not count as evidence.

[Complexity]

rttjc - Pack it in. The Krazy Kristian Kreationist thing has been done better by your betters.

You want answers - search the forum.

Life is too short to waste any more of it on you.

[Wings]

I have been speaking often about the fact that evolutionists react viscously and emotionally when their religious idealism is challenged.

What do is meant by "visciously and emotionally", may I have some examples?

No where is the more prevalent than in the scientific community itself. For years I have been reading of assaults on IDers and Creationists that propose theories in the secular arena of science.

How does the scientific community react "visciously and emotionally" to IDers and creationists who propose "theories" to the "secular arena of science"?

I have also, well documented the point that Atheism is merely are religion where the belief is that there is no God (something they cannot prove at all).

I fail to see how this is relevant, can you help me to understand how it is?

Evolution's brutality and intolerance is very similar to the days of the Church of Rome where people like Galileo paid a huge price for dissent against the prevailing idealistic views. In fact it is almost like a reincarnation of this heart of such wicked men. The primary difference is that evolutionists are not the majority and cannot kill or torture Creationists and IDers for challenging their lofty religious beliefs.

How can evolutionists "brutality and intolerance" be "very similar" to the days of the Church of Rome when, in the same paragraph, you list a very major difference between the two?

Of course, since the Atheist heart rules the media world, good luck seeing this on the local news.

May I see some examples for how the "atheist heart" rules the media? Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I see a sizable inclination towards the right on TV.

But, a perfect analogy did get past the filters of the Washington Post on Global Warming Alarmism (the climatologists world view).

Fortunately the Senate caught wind of it and it is now being investigated. Here is the article so you can see what happens to dissenters of a public idealism:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070727/NATION02/107270089

I will check out the article and respond on this point later.

This is nothing new to an IDer and a Creationist. This is why I am convinced of a silent majority of creationists. We will see this as truth begins to destroy ignorance.

No comment, I don't understand the comment.

It is sort of like the way it was with gays. First they were only a few outspoken and now they are holding gay days and family nights on the same day in San Diego at the Padres stadium.

Is there a problem with this?

You can look at the evolutionists blowing a blood vessel when their religion is questioned. Nothing is more telling of a severe insecurity in a belief than to see them go off when someone wants to juxtapose it with an alternative idea.

Dear sir, may I have some examples of this?

If evolution was substantive, then it would be able stand up to challenges without irrational panic from its zealots.

Excuse me, what do you mean here?

But, what evolutionist believes that it could? That is why you have ridiculous posts such as "should creationists debate evolutionists?".

Dear sir, how is it ridiculous? Because there is a debate on the usefulness of such a debate? Are you suggesting that our motive is fear based for discussing the issue?

No church wants to lose its congregation, and the church of Evolution is certainly no exception to that rule.

Dear sir, I would love for there to be a loving God who created me and in whom I would never be seperated from the people I love. But I do not see evidence for such a god, I do see evidence for evolution. That is my reasoning for "believing" it.

The nascence of ID and Creationism is showing people new ideas that have heretofore not been allowed under the gestapo of evolution idealism.

Can you show me some examples of "the gestapo of evolution idealism" stopping others from finding the new ideas from ID and Creationism? Do you refer to the conflict over ID in the classroom?

So, as a man that loves justice and truth, I say farewell to tyrants. For 150 years you have darkened the understanding of science and held it back from its full potential with a religious idealism that is usually accompanied by Atheism with all sorts of ridiculous fantasies from embryonic recapitulation to punctuated equilibrium.

How has the last 150 years darkened understanding of science? Why do we have all of these new inventions and new innovations if understanding of science has been darkened? I don't understand.

[sts60]

I have been speaking often about the fact that evolutionists react viscously and emotionally when their religious idealism is challenged.

No where is the more prevalent than in the scientific community itself. For years I have been reading of assaults on IDers and Creationists that propose theories in the secular arena of science.

I have also, well documented the point that Atheism is merely are religion where the belief is that there is no God (something they cannot prove at all)
So are you saying that "evolutionists" are all atheists? Hardly. I am a Christian and I have no problem with modern evolutionary theory.

Evolution's brutality and intolerance is very similar to the days of the Church of Rome where people like Galileo paid a huge price for dissent against the prevailing idealistic views. In fact it is almost like a reincarnation of this heart of such wicked men. The primary difference is that evolutionists are not the majority and cannot kill or torture Creationists and IDers for challenging their lofty religious beliefs.

Please. As a Catholic I am keenly aware of the Church's oppression of science. There is no similar oppression of ID, which is simply an attempt to plaster a scientific veneer over creationism. There is, in fact, almost nothing to repress; despite all their whining, the ID crowd has not even attempted any serious research, even failing to take the money the Templeton Foundation tried to give them for that purpose.

Of course, since the Atheist heart rules the media world, good luck seeing this on the local news.

But, a perfect analogy did get past the filters of the Washington Post on Global Warming Alarmism (the climatologists world view).

Fortunately the Senate caught wind of it and it is now being investigated. Here is the article so you can see what happens to dissenters of a public idealism:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070727/NATION02/107270089

BWAHAHAHAHA! Now that's funny. You can't even get straight the difference between the Pulitzer-winning Washington Post and the Washington Times, which has evolved into a reasonably respectable newspaper leaning pretty far to the right, but was founded and I believe is still owned by Sun Myung Moon. The same cult leader who bankrolled Jonathan Wells into getting a PhD to defeat that eeevil Darwinism. Not that he's done any real research either, but this Moon disciple been welcomed as a fellow traveler by the wonderful Christians pushing ID everywhere but in the laboratory and in the field.

This is nothing new to an IDer and a Creationist. This is why I am convinced of a silent majority of creationists. We will see this as truth begins to destroy ignorance.

Aside from reversing "truth" and "ignorance", I'd say don't hold your breath. ID is not merely vacuous but the laziest excuse for science I've ever seen.

It is sort of like the way it was with gays. First they were only a few outspoken and now they are holding gay days and family nights on the same day in San Diego at the Padres stadium.

Which has nothing to do with evolutionary science.

You can look at the evolutionists blowing a blood vessel when their religion is questioned. Nothing is more telling of a severe insecurity in a belief than to see them go off when someone wants to juxtapose it with an alternative idea.

You mean "replace", not "juxtapose". And if there's a strong reaction, it's too having religious doctrine forced into a science classroom. I resent such efforts as an American, a taxpayer, and a Christian.

If evolution was substantive, then it would be able stand up to challenges without irrational panic from its zealots. But, what evolutionist believes that it could? That is why you have ridiculous posts such as "should creationists debate evolutionists?". No church wants to lose its congregation, and the church of Evolution is certainly no exception to that rule.

Projection duly noted.

The nascence of ID and Creationism is showing people new ideas that have heretofore not been allowed under the gestapo of evolution idealism.

Godwin. Game over, man!

So, as a man that loves justice and truth, I say farewell to tyrants. For 150 years you have darkened the understanding of science and held it back from its full potential with a religious idealism that is usually accompanied by Atheism with all sorts of ridiculous fantasies from embryonic recapitulation to punctuated equilibrium.

It must make you feel warm all over to believe that now, in the early years of the 21st century, evolution is about to crumble. As another gentleman who feels as you do wrote a few years ago:

"Today, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is more certain than that Darwinism has lost its prestige among men of science. It has seen its day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past. A few decades hence when people will look back..., they will confess that the years [of evolution's heyday] were in many respects a time of carnival; and the enthusiasm which at that time took possession of the devotees of natural science will appear to them as the excitement attending some mad revel."

His name was Eberhard Dennert. He said that in 1904. Just how long can you hold your breath, my good man?

[Foster Zygote]

I have been speaking often about the fact that evolutionists react viscously and emotionally when their religious idealism is challenged.
If only we could be as tollerant as you...
There are many Muslim men that would love to beat your brains out and make you their sex slave or in your language "a fair treated wife". One can only hope Wahabiism comes to the US as the feminist have been wanting "deserving" treatment for a long time.

I love the intense hypocrisy of you feminists. It tells you how stupid women have become. Your spokeswoman Helen Reddy should have said "I am **** hear me bitch".


No where is the more prevalent than in the scientific community itself. For years I have been reading of assaults on IDers and Creationists that propose theories in the secular arena of science.
Assaults? Oh, you mean using evidence to show that a claim is erroneous. If someone were to state, for instance, that there is no evidence in support of Special Relativity and another person pointed to numerous experimental verifications of Special Relativity then that would not be an assault, but rather a statement of fact.

I have also, well documented the point that Atheism is merely are religion where the belief is that there is no God (something they cannot prove at all).
Actually, the great majority of atheists do not claim to have proved that gods do not exist. They simply state that in the absence of any evidence for the existence of gods there is no logical reason to assume that they exist. Can you prove to us that a teapot isn't orbiting the sun between the paths of Jupiter and Saturn? Can you prove that Allah is not the one true God and Mohamed is not his prophet? Can you prove that Wotan does not exist?

Evolution's brutality and intolerance is very similar to the days of the Church of Rome where people like Galileo paid a huge price for dissent against the prevailing idealistic views. In fact it is almost like a reincarnation of this heart of such wicked men. The primary difference is that evolutionists are not the majority and cannot kill or torture Creationists and IDers for challenging their lofty religious beliefs.
You really do irony well, I have to hand it to you. This is pure histrionics, which you regularly resort to when you can't offer an actual argument. Show us any evidence that the scientific community has sought to torture and kill all those who oppose it.

Of course, since the Atheist heart rules the media world, good luck seeing this on the local news.
Really? Rupert Murdoch is an atheist? Who knew?

But, a perfect analogy did get past the filters of the Washington Post on Global Warming Alarmism (the climatologists world view).

Fortunately the Senate caught wind of it and it is now being investigated. Here is the article so you can see what happens to dissenters of a public idealism:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070727/NATION02/107270089
I'm sorry, but the actions of one man do not a science wide conspiracy make. This would be like someone quoting an angry letter by one pastor as evidence of the danger of all Christians. Besides, in the quoted material Eckhart seems to be threatening to publicly expose Lewis as a liar, not to slander him.

This is nothing new to an IDer and a Creationist. This is why I am convinced of a silent majority of creationists.
Why, because creationists are afraid to speak up lest they be persecuted by evolutionists? That's the most laughable thing I've heard in days.
We will see this as truth begins to destroy ignorance.
That reminds me: When are you going to provide some evidence for the Earth only being 6000 to 10,000 years old?

It is sort of like the way it was with gays. First they were only a few outspoken and now they are holding gay days and family nights on the same day in San Diego at the Padres stadium.
So the Creationists are like gays? Like gays, they will grow in confidence and become more outspoken until they are no longer afraid of the evolutionist despots and we'll see creationist nights at Padres Stadium? Creationists must be so grateful to gays for showing them the way.

You can look at the evolutionists blowing a blood vessel when their religion is questioned. Nothing is more telling of a severe insecurity in a belief than to see them go off when someone wants to juxtapose it with an alternative idea.
You mean an alternative idea like "Fossils were deposited during the Biblical flood according to their density"? Can you explain why fossils are not arranged according to density?

If evolution was substantive, then it would be able stand up to challenges without irrational panic from its zealots. But, what evolutionist believes that it could? That is why you have ridiculous posts such as "should creationists debate evolutionists?". No church wants to lose its congregation, and the church of Evolution is certainly no exception to that rule.
Scientists have been crashing the theory of evolution into the wall of testing and evidence for over a century and a half. So far, the wall has always been what broke. But if you can offer one piece of evidence that would invalidate evolutionary theory we'd love to see it. We promise not to panic.

The nascence of ID and Creationism is showing people new ideas that have heretofore not been allowed under the gestapo of evolution idealism.
New ideas? You're kidding, right? The ideas of intelligent design and irreducible complexity have been around far longer than evolutionary theory.

So, as a man that loves justice and truth, I say farewell to tyrants. For 150 years you have darkened the understanding of science and held it back from its full potential with a religious idealism that is usually accompanied by Atheism with all sorts of ridiculous fantasies from embryonic recapitulation to punctuated equilibrium.
Yes, it's a real tragedy that evolutionary dogma is holding back the advance of medical science. Without modern genetics we might have something truly effective to rely on, like prayer.

And for the last time, evolution and atheism are not one in the same. Every time you conflate the two you sound like Biff saying "Make like a tree and get outa here".

[Normal Dude]

People SHOULD react with anger when a group tries to impose their beliefs on everyone else, and in the worst way possible, in the CLASSROOM. If they kept said beliefs in their own homes and churchs no one would care.

The entire Intelligent Design / Creation Theory in the Classroom movement is a despicable attempt from a group to impose their beliefs on other peoples children. They simply cannot tolerate other people thinking differently than they do.

The "science" behind ID is bunk. The arguments are fundementally flawed. This is why rational citizens of all faiths in America reject it being taught in a science class.

If you deny this you are a liar. It is as simple as that.

[Taffer]

*Cracks fingers*

I have been speaking often about the fact that evolutionists react viscously and emotionally when their religious idealism is challenged.

Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religious idealism. Therefore, the 'religious idealism' of evolution cannot be challenged. Furthermore, I know a few evolutionary biologists who are religious, and would defend evolutionary theory just a strongly as I would.

No where is the more prevalent than in the scientific community itself. For years I have been reading of assaults on IDers and Creationists that propose theories in the secular arena of science.

The problem is, I have yet to see an ID or Creationists "theory" which has any scientific merit whatsoever. They are not assaults. They are simply where one points out that their "theory" is not scientific.

I have also, well documented the point that Atheism is merely are religion where the belief is that there is no God (something they cannot prove at all).

Well, considering that that is not what evolution means to the general field of philosophy of religion, you are wrong. "Atheism" is usually given qualifiers (strong and weak) to express different beliefs. Before claiming 'victory', I suggest you study this more.

Evolution's brutality and intolerance is very similar to the days of the Church of Rome where people like Galileo paid a huge price for dissent against the prevailing idealistic views. In fact it is almost like a reincarnation of this heart of such wicked men. The primary difference is that evolutionists are not the majority and cannot kill or torture Creationists and IDers for challenging their lofty religious beliefs.

You are utterly wrong. Evolutionary theory is not different to any other scientific theory in the way it is presented and defended. Stop whining and start presenting facts if you wish to debate evolution.

Of course, since the Atheist heart rules the media world, good luck seeing this on the local news.

But, a perfect analogy did get past the filters of the Washington Post on Global Warming Alarmism (the climatologists world view).

Fortunately the Senate caught wind of it and it is now being investigated. Here is the article so you can see what happens to dissenters of a public idealism:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070727/NATION02/107270089

What does atheism have to do with evolution? The two often go hand in hand, but one does not beget the other.

This is nothing new to an IDer and a Creationist. This is why I am convinced of a silent majority of creationists. We will see this as truth begins to destroy ignorance.

Ignorance? Evolutionary theory is as well tested as any other scientific theory, and in many cases even more so. If you wish to claim that evolution is wrong, you will first need evidence, and second need a hypothesis which explains just as much of the data as the theory of evolution does.

It is sort of like the way it was with gays. First they were only a few outspoken and now they are holding gay days and family nights on the same day in San Diego at the Padres stadium.

...

You can look at the evolutionists blowing a blood vessel when their religion is questioned. Nothing is more telling of a severe insecurity in a belief than to see them go off when someone wants to juxtapose it with an alternative idea.

I have yet to see any evolutionary scientist "blow a blood vessel" when their view is questioned. Further more, evolutionary theory is a scientific theory, not a religion.

If evolution was substantive, then it would be able stand up to challenges without irrational panic from its zealots. But, what evolutionist believes that it could? That is why you have ridiculous posts such as "should creationists debate evolutionists?". No church wants to lose its congregation, and the church of Evolution is certainly no exception to that rule.

There is more evidence that evolution happened then there is evidence that people landed on the moon. And you can see the moon lander!

How is that not substantive?

The nascence of ID and Creationism is showing people new ideas that have heretofore not been allowed under the gestapo of evolution idealism.

So, as a man that loves justice and truth, I say farewell to tyrants. For 150 years you have darkened the understanding of science and held it back from its full potential with a religious idealism that is usually accompanied by Atheism with all sorts of ridiculous fantasies from embryonic recapitulation to punctuated equilibrium.

I... I cannot even begin to express how wrong this is. Seriously.

[articulett]

Ignorance thrives on making all those bearing facts part of the "evil conspiracy"...

It's all part of the devil tempting them or a liberal conspiracy or a media conspiracy or a scientific conspiracy... or a jref conspiracy...or a skeptic conspiracy-- everything you say in response no matter how matter-of-fact and evidence-supported becomes evidence that you are part of the paranoid person's conspiracy.

[Dancing David]

I have been speaking often about the fact that evolutionists react viscously and emotionally when their religious idealism is challenged.

No where is the more prevalent than in the scientific community itself. For years I have been reading of assaults on IDers and Creationists that propose theories in the secular arena of science.

I have also, well documented the point that Atheism is merely are religion where the belief is that there is no God (something they cannot prove at all).

Evolution's brutality and intolerance is very similar to the days of the Church of Rome where people like Galileo paid a huge price for dissent against the prevailing idealistic views. In fact it is almost like a reincarnation of this heart of such wicked men. The primary difference is that evolutionists are not the majority and cannot kill or torture Creationists and IDers for challenging their lofty religious beliefs.

Of course, since the Atheist heart rules the media world, good luck seeing this on the local news.

But, a perfect analogy did get past the filters of the Washington Post on Global Warming Alarmism (the climatologists world view).

Fortunately the Senate caught wind of it and it is now being investigated. Here is the article so you can see what happens to dissenters of a public idealism:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070727/NATION02/107270089

This is nothing new to an IDer and a Creationist. This is why I am convinced of a silent majority of creationists. We will see this as truth begins to destroy ignorance.

It is sort of like the way it was with gays. First they were only a few outspoken and now they are holding gay days and family nights on the same day in San Diego at the Padres stadium.

You can look at the evolutionists blowing a blood vessel when their religion is questioned. Nothing is more telling of a severe insecurity in a belief than to see them go off when someone wants to juxtapose it with an alternative idea.

If evolution was substantive, then it would be able stand up to challenges without irrational panic from its zealots. But, what evolutionist believes that it could? That is why you have ridiculous posts such as "should creationists debate evolutionists?". No church wants to lose its congregation, and the church of Evolution is certainly no exception to that rule.

The nascence of ID and Creationism is showing people new ideas that have heretofore not been allowed under the gestapo of evolution idealism.

So, as a man that loves justice and truth, I say farewell to tyrants. For 150 years you have darkened the understanding of science and held it back from its full potential with a religious idealism that is usually accompanied by Atheism with all sorts of ridiculous fantasies from embryonic recapitulation to punctuated equilibrium.


Thanks for the laugh!

I wasn't viscous to you at all, are you some sort of bigot?

Lets see, they attack the stupid ideas because they are stupid and have no evidence. Not because of some vast conspiracy.

Stupid ideas are stupid ideas, regardless of the credentials of who holds them.

[balrog666]

rttjc382iqwuq, get a grip, dude!

No evidence = no argument.

And here's a link just for you: http://childparenting.about.com/cs/behaviorproblems/a/whining.htm

[Miss Anthrope]

Rittjc: your claims have consistently been lacking in fact and full of ad homs to those who understand and believe in scientific fact.

You do not see that you engage in the very thing you accuse others of doing.

If you'd like to start a thread strictly arguing science, do so. But I'd say you're only going to get mileage out of it if you make a sincere attempt to post in a dignified manner. You can also ignore snide insults as well as refuse to stoop to that level yourself.

It works for my children, certainly it can work for you?

[bruto]

Rittjc, you keep talking about how some kind of evolutionist atheist gestapo has suppressed your ideas and not allowed them to be expressed, and that you would be killed if you were not already in the majority. And yet you are in the majority, are you not?

It seems a little odd, and perhaps disingenuous, to back up a claim that the newspapers are biased against your point of view by citing a newspaper article that supports you. Granted, the story involves what appears to be some nasty behavior in the hot debate over global warming. In essence, a scientist has told a person he believes to be a liar that he will destroy her reputation by calling her a liar in circles where such things might matter. It's bad behavior, but hardly a gestapo roundup by itself.

You also continue, it seems, to ignore the fact that evolution is not an atheist doctrine, and is, in fact, accepted by millions of devoutly religious people, including Christians, such as Stephen Jay Gould, the Christian who is most associated with punctuated equilibrium. Why do you persist in introducing the spurious and dishonest characterization of evolution as atheist, when it so clearly is not?

The fact that most atheists likely also accept evolution, since the only reason I know not to is adherence to the infallibility of scripture, is irrelevant to the question, unless you truly believe that failure to adhere to the infallibility of scripture is equal to atheism. If you do believe that, then you should make that point of view clear, so that all who read your posts will be able to judge your opinions in that context. If you do not believe that, then your continual characterization of evolution as atheistic or anti-religious is a very great falsehood, of which you must surely be aware if you are able to comprehend anything at all, and to continue it is to open yourself up to accusations that you are, purely and simply, a liar.

I am pretty sure that the most radical Islamic extremists also espouse a strictly scriptural young-earth creationism. However, if, in arguing against your point of view, I continued to call you a radical Islamic extremist because of those views, I think you would be entitled to take offense. In fact, you would be entitled to take offense even if you were a radical Islamic extremist, because the characterization is irrelevant, dishonest, and gratuitous. I think it's called "poisoning the well." And yet you continue to do exactly the same thing, over and over, everywhere you post. This is a very bad habit. It is the habit of a liar. If you really believe that what you consider the truth cannot be put forward without an envelope of lies, then you cannot expect to be taken seriously, or answered politely, by those about whom you are lying.

[my_wan]

I have been speaking often about the fact that evolutionists react viscously and emotionally when their religious idealism is challenged.

How is anything evolutionists do any more vicious or emotional than intentionally lying to maintain the appearance that creation is science? This is not a statement about you specifically. You should at least study the evidence as if it were true before you try to disprove it.

No where is the more prevalent than in the scientific community itself. For years I have been reading of assaults on IDers and Creationists that propose theories in the secular arena of science.

If you did your homework you would know that ID and other strategies was created specifically to assault evolution. This would be a fine way to do science if the IDers wouldn't intentionally make statements known to be false to support themselves. This "assault" as you call it is a legitimate and accepted part of peer review and science. It is only when creationist gets called out for intentional distortions of facts that they start hollering "assault".

I have also, well documented the point that Atheism is merely are religion where the belief is that there is no God (something they cannot prove at all).

Of course you can't prove god or anything else doesn't exist. The only thing that can be done is to prove that certain interpretations of what a bible says is false. Of course if you look closely at the language the bible was originally written in you'll realize that it don't necessarily say what you thought it did even if you take it literally.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth, and it was void and without form". The word translated to "was" was translated to "became" many other places in the bible. No past or future tense in that language. If you want to hang onto your belief in a good God fine. Just don't pretend to dictate absolute scientific truth to the world from it.

Evolution's brutality and intolerance is very similar to the days of the Church of Rome where people like Galileo paid a huge price for dissent against the prevailing idealistic views. In fact it is almost like a reincarnation of this heart of such wicked men. The primary difference is that evolutionists are not the majority and cannot kill or torture Creationists and IDers for challenging their lofty religious beliefs.

The fear here is that if you succeed in your fundamentalism the intolerance for conflicting beliefs will result in injustice on a massive scale like what exist in other countries. You point to us being the reincarnate of the church in the past. What about the kids being beaten this very day in this very country because their peers found out they were atheist? This while teachers and others pretend not to notice. Others are forced from towns etc.

Of course, since the Atheist heart rules the media world, good luck seeing this on the local news.

Then why aren't they going after the Christians etc. for blatant misrepresentation of facts or the continued atrocious behavior?

But, a perfect analogy did get past the filters of the Washington Post on Global Warming Alarmism (the climatologists world view).

Fortunately the Senate caught wind of it and it is now being investigated. Here is the article so you can see what happens to dissenters of a public idealism:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070727/NATION02/107270089

This is nothing new to an IDer and a Creationist. This is why I am convinced of a silent majority of creationists. We will see this as truth begins to destroy ignorance.

This is a serious problem that plagues every area of strongly held beliefs. He should be prosecuted the same way christians and atheist should be prosecuted for their actions. This is a moral battle that you can't hide behind a bible to avoid.

It is sort of like the way it was with gays. First they were only a few outspoken and now they are holding gay days and family nights on the same day in San Diego at the Padres stadium.

I suppose you would have us beat and jail them for speaking out. It's about the only way to stop them from speaking up like it or not.

You can look at the evolutionists blowing a blood vessel when their religion is questioned. Nothing is more telling of a severe insecurity in a belief than to see them go off when someone wants to juxtapose it with an alternative idea.

I absolutely love to juxtapose alternative ideas for and against the prevailing evidence. I would love to hear it from creationist if they wouldn't intentionally subvert evidence in order to do it.

If evolution was substantive, then it would be able stand up to challenges without irrational panic from its zealots. But, what evolutionist believes that it could? That is why you have ridiculous posts such as "should creationists debate evolutionists?". No church wants to lose its congregation, and the church of Evolution is certainly no exception to that rule.

Within the context of this debate evolution is just a playing card. The real fight is over whether truth is going to be dictated to us by religious doctrine or if we are allowed to investigate ourselves. Yes we fear religious intolerance and you should to. You don't want to be killed any more than I do for choosing the losing religion. Look at Ireland, a land that monuments are built for my great great great great great grandfather. This fight is a moral fight that more important than any choice of religion.

The nascence of ID and Creationism is showing people new ideas that have heretofore not been allowed under the gestapo of evolution idealism.

You accuse us of beating down anti-evolution yet the very purpose of our fight is to defend your freedom of religion. What is not allowed is to lie about the evidence. If you were really being honest it is your interpretation and not God himself that you feel is being attacked with evolution. Science can't attack God directly by its very definition. It seems to me that this fight was perpetuated by the religious to reinstitute the same intolerant behavior of the past and present. When we argue you accuse us of being you.

So, as a man that loves justice and truth, I say farewell to tyrants. For 150 years you have darkened the understanding of science and held it back from its full potential with a religious idealism that is usually accompanied by Atheism with all sorts of ridiculous fantasies from embryonic recapitulation to punctuated equilibrium.

So why then is persecution so rare here compared to then or other countries where religion still rules. Accusing an enemy of your own atrocities is the same tactic terrorist use.

[articulett]

Most people across the world accept evolution-- religious or not. Those who don't accept it usually don't understand it and are "required" to believe a creation story proffered by some fundamentalist religion (Muslim sects, Christian sects, and Moonies are the biggest branches of such fundamentalism). http://www.livescience.com/health/060810_evo_rank.html



Rttjc's religion has made him brainwashed him and made him paranoid of facts and an evolutionist conspiracy. Religion is still doing that to kids today. Not understanding evolution is associated with societal dysfunction. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.htmlsci

And I'm not sure it's fixable in some people.

[Floyt]

(I like how they found only 500 Luxembourgians and Icelanders to poll. All the rest were probably visiting each other at that time :D )

[CapelDodger]

I have been speaking often about the fact that evolutionists react viscously and emotionally when their religious idealism is challenged.

Have you ever done anything but whine? Didn't you come here seeking the scourging you believe you've received? If you have received it, was it not an act of charity?

Can we help it if we love it?

[CapelDodger]

(I like how they found only 500 Luxembourgians and Icelanders to poll. All the rest were probably visiting each other at that time :D )

(Trying to get away from the people they found at the other end that were trying to get away from them ...

Twinned cities is old, twinned countries is new :) .)

[articulett]

(I like how they found only 500 Luxembourgians and Icelanders to poll. All the rest were probably visiting each other at that time :D )

I know... I think the population of Iceland is 300,000. They are a very educated, intelligent, and functional society with a huge population of secular humanists. But their language is so damn hard to understand. I hear Finland is similar because it has been isolated so long.

[my_wan]

Most people across the world accept evolution-- religious or not. Those who don't accept it usually don't understand it and are "required" to believe a creation story proffered by some fundamentalist religion (Muslim sects, Christian sects, and Moonies are the biggest branches of such fundamentalism). http://www.livescience.com/health/060810_evo_rank.html



Rttjc's religion has made him brainwashed him and made him paranoid of facts and an evolutionist conspiracy. Religion is still doing that to kids today. Not understanding evolution is associated with societal dysfunction. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.htmlsci

And I'm not sure it's fixable in some people.

Excellent excellent reference articulett. The social sciences seem to lack creativity. Nice to see at least the beginnings of some real questions being asked.

[CapelDodger]

I know... I think the population of Iceland is 300,000. They are a very educated, intelligent, and functional society with a huge population of secular humanists. But their language is so damn hard to understand. I hear Finland is similar because it has been isolated so long.

You should try Proper Yorkshire. Not townie or professional Yorkshire. Proper Yorkshire. Where every girl's father is armed and ill-disposed to outsiders. They're unintelligable.

[Dr Adequate]

So, rittjc, you lost your thread about the age of the earth, because all the evidence was on the side of your opponents.

So instead you started a thread about your daydreams about what your opponents think, because then all the evidence is the imaginary thoughts in your head.

Good luck with that.

[articulett]

You should try Proper Yorkshire. Not townie or professional Yorkshire. Proper Yorkshire. Where every girl's father is armed and ill-disposed to outsiders. They're unintelligable.

As unintelligible as creationists? (kidding!) (Luckily rttjc has me on ignore because I inserted the word "vagina" in a post once-- scandalous!)

(-- and since he has me on ignore, let me just add: "mons pubis" and "cervix")

:D (Hey, his savior died for my sins, and I plan to get my money's worth on this prepayment...)

[Dr Adequate]

I have been speaking often about the fact that evolutionists react viscously and emotionally when their religious idealism is challenged.

No where is the more prevalent than in the scientific community itself. For years I have been reading of assaults on IDers and Creationists that propose theories in the secular arena of science.

I have also, well documented the point that Atheism is merely are religion where the belief is that there is no God (something they cannot prove at all).

Evolution's brutality and intolerance is very similar to the days of the Church of Rome where people like Galileo paid a huge price for dissent against the prevailing idealistic views. In fact it is almost like a reincarnation of this heart of such wicked men. The primary difference is that evolutionists are not the majority and cannot kill or torture Creationists and IDers for challenging their lofty religious beliefs.

Of course, since the Atheist heart rules the media world, good luck seeing this on the local news.

But, a perfect analogy did get past the filters of the Washington Post on Global Warming Alarmism (the climatologists world view).

Fortunately the Senate caught wind of it and it is now being investigated. Here is the article so you can see what happens to dissenters of a public idealism:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070727/NATION02/107270089

This is nothing new to an IDer and a Creationist. This is why I am convinced of a silent majority of creationists. We will see this as truth begins to destroy ignorance.

It is sort of like the way it was with gays. First they were only a few outspoken and now they are holding gay days and family nights on the same day in San Diego at the Padres stadium.

You can look at the evolutionists blowing a blood vessel when their religion is questioned. Nothing is more telling of a severe insecurity in a belief than to see them go off when someone wants to juxtapose it with an alternative idea.

If evolution was substantive, then it would be able stand up to challenges without irrational panic from its zealots. But, what evolutionist believes that it could? That is why you have ridiculous posts such as "should creationists debate evolutionists?". No church wants to lose its congregation, and the church of Evolution is certainly no exception to that rule.

The nascence of ID and Creationism is showing people new ideas that have heretofore not been allowed under the gestapo of evolution idealism.

So, as a man that loves justice and truth, I say farewell to tyrants. For 150 years you have darkened the understanding of science and held it back from its full potential with a religious idealism that is usually accompanied by Atheism with all sorts of ridiculous fantasies from embryonic recapitulation to punctuated equilibrium. 467 words.

Occasionally you use the word "evolution", but you don't say what you think it means.

What do you think it means?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ignorance thrives on making all those bearing facts part of the "evil conspiracy"...

It's all part of the devil tempting them or a liberal conspiracy or a media conspiracy or a scientific conspiracy... or a jref conspiracy...or a skeptic conspiracy-- everything you say in response no matter how matter-of-fact and evidence-supported becomes evidence that you are part of the paranoid person's conspiracy.It doesn't even have to be that specific, the human brain has a defense mechanism called rationalization.

Can't support your beliefs with evidence? No worries, just rationalize that those who can support their beliefs with evidence have merely 'chosen' to believe as you have. Rationalize by ignoring the evidence factor.

And speaking of evidence, no god beliefs (aka religions) are based on 'real' evidence. God beliefs are based on faith and traditions. Science is based on evidence, and beliefs based on evidence are always open to change when new evidence or a better way of looking at the evidence is found. Science is not just another set of beliefs or just another religion. Because you can test scientific conclusions.

It's really a shame we are wasting so much effort on convincing people there is massive, overwhelming, irrefutable evidence that life evolved and the theory of evolution is correct. The vast majority of scientific medical advances today are based on evolution science, aka genetic science. We detected and stopped the potentially devastating disease SARS by using advances in evolution science. We have turned HIV from an almost 100% fatal disease into a chronic disease using evolution science. We are currently tracking and may be able to abort or modify the next influenza pandemic, one of the most potentially lethal infections in history all using evolution science.

The Earth is not flat, it is not 6,000 years old and the Creation story in the Bible is a myth just as Zeus and Pele are myths and Coyote did not steal fire from Heaven and there are not "turtles all the way down". ;)

You can adapt your interpretation of the Biblical accounts of Creation or you can give them up. But you cannot deny the testable, irrefutable evidence.

I don't need to prove that gods don't exist. I can look at the evidence and determine that the most likely explanation for god beliefs is that humans made the stories up. That's sufficient for me to draw a conclusion. Others take different approaches. Letting go of god beliefs is either not necessary for them, they prefer the beliefs whether true or not, or they simply cannot discard a belief they have invested in. Most scientists have managed to separate the god question out from the evidence that evolution theory is correct.

[Cainkane1]

Evolutionists only defend what they think is the truth. Being an evolutionist myself I never attack a creationist view unless they bring the subject of creationism versus evolution up themselves. Its a free country (in the free world anyway) and you can believe anything you want. Actually being an atheist myself I never attack religion unless the believer brings up that subject also. Also I don't have to prove God doesn't exist. The so called believer has to prove to me that he does. O say ther is no God based on evidence. You say he does based on faith. prove it.

[Wings]

rittjc, what is your purpose for coming to this forum? What goal do you hope to accomplish here? I haven't yet been able to figure this out.

Are you here for learning, to prove us wrong, to educate us, to prove your superiority, to attack the man, something else?

Feel free to ignore my long above post, I'm actually more curious about these two questions here, everyone else has addressed the large post anyway.

[my_wan]

rittjc, what is your purpose for coming to this forum? What goal do you hope to accomplish here? I haven't yet been able to figure this out.

Are you here for learning, to prove us wrong, to educate us, to prove your superiority, to attack the man, something else?

Feel free to ignore my long above post, I'm actually more curious about these two questions here, everyone else has addressed the large post anyway.

I'm glad that he is here. Its like an alarm clock. Nobody likes it but it's a needed reminder of why we are here.

[articulett]

You can adapt your interpretation of the Biblical accounts of Creation or you can give them up. But you cannot deny the testable, irrefutable evidence.



Well, you can deny them... and creationists seem to spend a lot of mental energy denying them. I wish I could know how they explain Natural History Museums and the consensus of scientists all over the world-- or do they just not "see" such things? How do they imagine the world would look, if by some wild stretch of the imagination, evolution was factual? Would they want to know? Or would they rather believe that they already know all there is to know on the topic?

The nice thing about the facts is that they keep being the facts no matter how much people fight against them or whether people believe in them or not. A person may be creating the reality in their head, but it doesn't seem to affect actual reality one bit. I mean, faith makes people do stupid things, but believing something to be true doesn't make a notion one iota more factual.

To me, all "higher truths" are lies and delusions.

[T'ai Chi]

Gotta like how Cain not-so-subtly attempted to equate science and atheism. Gotta love the attempt to try and make it appear that science is on your side. :)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Perhaps, articulett, I should have said, you cannot 'legitimately' deny.. :)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Gotta like how Cain not-so-subtly attempted to equate science and atheism. Gotta love the attempt to try and make it appear that science is on your side. :)Whom are you addressing?

[articulett]

Whom are you addressing?

I'm sure T'ai has you and most people on ignore... So I doubt he'll answer. The woos all tend to be in their own world having their own conversations... they try to drop by and support each other on occasion, but if we can't make sense of them, I can't imagine they are making sense to each other.

Can anyone translate "T'ai" for us?

[my_wan]

Gotta like how Cain not-so-subtly attempted to equate science and atheism. Gotta love the attempt to try and make it appear that science is on your side. :)

Was that a subtle attempt to equate science with religion?

Honestly science has nothing to do with the question of God for or against. Denying the evidence of science in favor of what you imagine about God is your insanity. As a matter of fact how many bible verses warn about living in your own imagination?

[Foster Zygote]

All those people he has on his ignore list.

[Foster Zygote]

Gotta like how Cain not-so-subtly attempted to equate science and atheism. Gotta love the attempt to try and make it appear that science is on your side. :)

I've often wondered "Is T'ai really that thick?". I guess I have my answer in yet another smug yet ill-prepared statement of his. I see no attempt on Cainkane1's part to equate science and atheism (he can correct me if I'm wrong). All I see is someone making a statement about evolution/creationism and then another separate but related statement about atheism/theism. Someone saying "I'm an evolutionist and an atheist" is not the same as claiming that evolutionary theory and atheism are one in the same.

[articulett]

I've often wondered "Is T'ai really that thick?". I guess I have my answer in yet another smug yet ill-prepared statement of his. I see no attempt on Cainkane1's part to equate science and atheism (he can correct me if I'm wrong). All I see is someone making a statement about evolution/creationism and then another separate but related statement about atheism/theism. Someone saying "I'm an evolutionist and an atheist" is not the same as claiming that evolutionary theory and atheism are one in the same.

Oh... now I'm laughing... I thought T'ai was making some absurd reference to the biblical "Cain" (!!)... that's the problem with creationists... you can tell them from a good parody of them. I've long since trying to make sense of T'ai.

I don't put T'ai on ignore, because it makes me feel super duper smart when I read him. Sure, it's a cheap thrill--but one takes one's thrills as one finds them.

[Dr Adequate]

The strange thing about T'ai Chi is that T'ai Chi just tries to fill in.

When the loonies have all gone to bed, he fills in.

At the weekends, he stands in for kleinman.

When rittjc is obviosly completely pwned, T'ai Chi stands in.

He's a substitute moron. He has no ideas of his own, he just stands in for whoever is being the most ignorant halfwit of the week.

[Art Vandelay]

I'm not going to read through another thread of this guy's crap, so sorry if this point has been made before, but damn straight we're intolerant of Creationists! Creationism isn't simply a matter of challenging orthodoxy. It's an ideology inextricably linked to bigotry, lies, intimidation, assault, divisiveness, small-midedness, jingoism, ignorance, stupidity, and fallacious reasoning. The Dover case showed just what sort of people Creationists are. They took a peaceful town and set neighbor against neighbor, demanded teachers tell lies to their students, and themselves outright lied under oath. They destroyed the property of those that didn't agree with them, harassed their opponents with death threats, and bullied people into going along with their agenda.

Creationism is a cancer that should be opposed at every turn. There is indeed a cultural war. Fundies have declared war on basic American values such as freedom, truth, diversity, and respect for other people, and we're not going to let those values be destroyed without a fight.

[articulett]

The strange thing about T'ai Chi is that T'ai Chi just tries to fill in.

When the loonies have all gone to bed, he fills in.

At the weekends, he stands in for kleinman.

When rittjc is obviosly completely pwned, T'ai Chi stands in.

He's a substitute moron. He has no ideas of his own, he just stands in for whoever is being the most ignorant halfwit of the week.

Who knew that someone would aspire to be a substitute woo...

[Dr Adequate]

Who knew that someone would aspire to be a substitute woo... And yet I'm not joking.

That's what he does.

[Jeff Corey]

Interesting.

[Mozybyte]

Rit..., I have only read but a couple of your postings, yet I rest assured that you wish me no harm.
I don't know what God is, but I have a feeling that it has no Religion, and I have nothing else but Myself to place my trust upon.
Please forgive those who's purpose is but to belittle the likes of you, tribalism helps sooth the inadequacies about ourselves, like the hording of things as crutches to our solitude, You see, We are all Islands in fear of the Ocean... In time as we age, our fears allay/rescind and becomes clearer the amount of water past the waves at our shore.
There is water everywhere, and can't be contained. Enjoy the Surf if that's all you can see, but it seems you started questioning the swell, be well my friend, the Ocean is there, but don't trust Me.
(If only they knew what it is like to have no shoes)

I come from a long line of fools, I doubt it will be different for the likes of my Great, Great, Great Grandchildren.

Zero PLUS a little less equals You and Me

[Art Vandelay]

Please forgive those who's purpose is but to belittle the likes of you,"Whose"

[BlackKat]

I'm not sure I understand this... but let me see if I have this straight.

So rittjc wants me to believe the Flinstones was in fact a documentary and if I laugh at the hijinks of Barney and Fred I'm being rude?

[Mozybyte]

"Whose"
Having never had a single English lesson, I rely on this moments to extend my limitations... Thank You "Van".
Interestingly, you proved the point of the sentence ( and they say there is no God).

[Mozybyte]

I'm not sure I understand this...
Rest ASSURED, you didn't...

[Slimething]

ratttjdkjsl,

So this is what you do when you can't answer a question. Dr. A pwned you on the "how old is the Earth" thread so, instead of owning up, you start a new thread of idiocy? Life should be so easy!

You also seem to have forgotten to furnish evidence that the idiot creation museum is "high tech". That was your claim, wasn't it? So, not only can you fail to post evidence that the earth is only six thousand years old but you also can't post evidence that this intellectual black hole has anthing more high-tech to it than monitors suspended from the ceiling. Why, oh why, would anyone with a brain want to believe you?

The only source of information for your stand against evolution that you have mentioned is the bible. Amazing that most people who also base their beliefs on the bible don't agree with your view. Could you fill me in on exactly where in the bible I can find the claim that states that is should be taken as lireally accurate? I can't seem to find it myself.

Oh, and by the way,

:dl:

[rittjc]

Rittjc,
You seem to confuse "compassion for empirical measurement" with "intolerance and brutality". I think most evolution advocates simply have a lot of passion for measurable and definable pieces of evidence. And, it creates the illusion that they are brutal and intolerant, when in reality all they are doing is reiterating that the opposition has no measurable nor definable bits of evidence, at all.

Your reaction is typical of those who have no empirical evidence to back up their claims, and more importantly, it does not help your case, in the court of science. Appeals to emotion does not count as evidence.

No, you are wrong. When you intimidate people by threatening their career which is how they feed their families, or their reputation which some people value to an extreme, you have done humans a disservice.

No one is offended when their point of view is not challenged. So I can certainly see why an evolutionist would not see contempt in this area. But when someone screws with your life it is an offense on your fellow man regardless of his beliefs or yours.

In the middle ages, the Church of Rome tortured those that deviated from its view of the world. They would have them punished to the extreme of their life. They would be ostracized and outcasts and would have trouble finding work to feed their families.

Today, men have learned from the past or at least should have. The fact is that idealism in whatever form will take ruthless measures to promote their beliefs and crush opposing ones.

It is not a point of whether evolution or ID or creationism hold a better world view it is an issue of decency toward your fellow man. After all, it could be the other way (as it was then) and you could be having to compromise your beliefs for your career's sake.

We have an Establishment Clause in our constitution that says Congress (House and Senate) have no power whatsoever to make laws (whether for or against) any religion. This was put in there by religious men because they realized what idealism, whether it be the King's religion or whatever, must not rule other views and men must be free to believe as they see fit. For years Atheists demanded protection afforded to religions and they got it because fairness should prevail.

There is a breech in our Judicial system where they make rulings on laws that by the Establishment Clause cannot exist. If Congress can make no laws, then logically the Judiciary branch cannot rule on the interpretation of those non-existent laws. We have seen many accounts of "legislation from the bench" as they call it where the Judiciary makes rulings of laws that simply do not exist and constitutionally cannot exist.

But the Supreme Court has failed to deal with Theism and Atheism on equal terms. They are both beliefs that should have equal protection from idealistic Congressional bodies, and idealistic Judicial bodies.

When there are no laws, then resolution come down to simple Democratic will. Typically, referendums are introduced to deal with issues that are not addressed by the laws of the republic. But most of these are unconstitutionally intercepted by the Judiciary and we have had rulings that give an unfair weighting to Atheism over Theism. Int the dark ages it was the opposite and equally unfair and oppressive.

This is outright wrong. Most evolutionists delight in it because it fits their idealism though they never look at it from the perspective that "the shoe could be on the other foot". Most IDers and Creationists are oppressed by this violation of the constitution of the land because it restricts their free speech.

The Dover PA. case is a perfect example of this. Dr Behe had a very convincing logical and science based testimony on why things are better explained by design but the federal judge ruled that the complexity of life still implies a god and therefore cannot be used as science.

What is so unfair about this is that if there is a God, we cannot be allowed to discuss Him as only ideas that can support the world view of Atheism are allowed to be taught in public schools. This could "damn" you into debilitating ignorance all because the judiciary overstepped their authority.

Eventually it must come down to the point of whether two world views are considered equal or if deference denied by the constitution is given to one or the other, despite of the Establishment Clause. Atheism is not Agnosticism. It is not neutral. Therefore it makes a statement as to the non-existence of god. Its claims imply it can prove such a thing as one could prove a scientific theory to become a scientific law.

Of course, this does not offend the Atheists as it is a way of tipping the balance of jurisprudence in his favor just as it was done in Europe in the middle ages. But, this of course has the opposite affect on the creationist or the IDer.

This would be much more of an issue if the tables were turned.

I don't believe Atheists are interested in justice nor are they offended by injustice unless it happens to them. This is a shame because it crosses a line of absolute of morality. It simply doesn't matter how you try to define what is moral. If it is something you would not want done to you and your beliefs, then you would be equally unjust to be pleased by it happening to others.

There has to be some moral foundation and commonality that binds us as fellow men. Without such limits, it basically says "might make right" and eventually one side or the other will grow weary of the oppression. It is in the best interest of both to respect the rights of the other regardless of the degree of disagreement they may share. This has been the basis of war throughout time where one forces its will on the other unjustly.

[rittjc]

ratttjdkjsl,

So this is what you do when you can't answer a question. Dr. A pwned you on the "how old is the Earth" thread so, instead of owning up, you start a new thread of idiocy? Life should be so easy!

You also seem to have forgotten to furnish evidence that the idiot creation museum is "high tech". That was your claim, wasn't it? So, not only can you fail to post evidence that the earth is only six thousand years old but you also can't post evidence that this intellectual black hole has anthing more high-tech to it than monitors suspended from the ceiling. Why, oh why, would anyone with a brain want to believe you?

The only source of information for your stand against evolution that you have mentioned is the bible. Amazing that most people who also base their beliefs on the bible don't agree with your view. Could you fill me in on exactly where in the bible I can find the claim that states that is should be taken as lireally accurate? I can't seem to find it myself.

Oh, and by the way,

:dl:

Man, I have no idea what you are talking about. You better check your attitude at the door. You are one smart remark from me shutting your posts off so I don't have to look at them.

[rittjc]

Rit..., I have only read but a couple of your postings, yet I rest assured that you wish me no harm.
I don't know what God is, but I have a feeling that it has no Religion, and I have nothing else but Myself to place my trust upon.
Please forgive those who's purpose is but to belittle the likes of you, tribalism helps sooth the inadequacies about ourselves, like the hording of things as crutches to our solitude, You see, We are all Islands in fear of the Ocean... In time as we age, our fears allay/rescind and becomes clearer the amount of water past the waves at our shore.
There is water everywhere, and can't be contained. Enjoy the Surf if that's all you can see, but it seems you started questioning the swell, be well my friend, the Ocean is there, but don't trust Me.
(If only they knew what it is like to have no shoes)

I come from a long line of fools, I doubt it will be different for the likes of my Great, Great, Great Grandchildren.

Zero PLUS a little less equals You and Me

I prefer to think of it as when we grow older we grow wiser by not accepting baseless things promoted by men. Surely as one grows old he has seen it all and is much to wise to buy into follies of the past.

But to be honest with you, I have no idea what you are getting at. Honestly, it almost seems like you had one too many hits from the bong before you posted. But to your credit you did remain civil.

[rittjc]

I'm not going to read through another thread of this guy's crap, so sorry if this point has been made before, but damn straight we're intolerant of Creationists! Creationism isn't simply a matter of challenging orthodoxy. It's an ideology inextricably linked to bigotry, lies, intimidation, assault, divisiveness, small-midedness, jingoism, ignorance, stupidity, and fallacious reasoning. The Dover case showed just what sort of people Creationists are. They took a peaceful town and set neighbor against neighbor, demanded teachers tell lies to their students, and themselves outright lied under oath. They destroyed the property of those that didn't agree with them, harassed their opponents with death threats, and bullied people into going along with their agenda.

Creationism is a cancer that should be opposed at every turn. There is indeed a cultural war. Fundies have declared war on basic American values such as freedom, truth, diversity, and respect for other people, and we're not going to let those values be destroyed without a fight.

Too bad. I loved your moniker. I was a big Seinfeld fan. But I gotta cut you off. You have no self-restraint. Sorry.

[rittjc]

The strange thing about T'ai Chi is that T'ai Chi just tries to fill in.

When the loonies have all gone to bed, he fills in.

At the weekends, he stands in for kleinman.

When rittjc is obviosly completely pwned, T'ai Chi stands in.

He's a substitute moron. He has no ideas of his own, he just stands in for whoever is being the most ignorant halfwit of the week.

See ya doc! Gotta filter you.

[Filippo Lippi]

This

http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=060810_evo_rank_02.jpg&cap=A+chart+showing+public+acceptance+of+evolution +in+34+countries.+The+United+States+ranked+near+th e+bottom%2C+beat+only+by+Turkey.+Credit%3A+Science&title=U.S.+Lags+World+in+Grasp+of+Genetics+and+Acc eptance+of+Evolution&title=U.S.%20Lags%20World%20in%20Grasp%20of%20Gene tics%20and%20Acceptance%20of%20Evolution


gives the lie to this

The primary difference is that evolutionists are not the majority and cannot kill or torture Creationists and IDers for challenging their lofty religious beliefs.


I live in the UK, in the UK "Creationist and IDers" are not killed or tortued by the "evolutionist" majority, they are quite free to believe any damn stupid thing they choose and they are even given money from taxation to run schools and propogate their stupidity.

Mozybite, read the opening post on this thread; if you cannot understand why the majority of the posters on this thread are irked at being called vicious, emotional, capable of assaults, torture and murder, wicked, ignorant, insecure, zealots, a gestapo and tyrannical then you don't understand this place.

[Filippo Lippi]

See ya doc! Gotta filter you.

The light! It burns!

[Slimething]

Man, I have no idea what you are talking about. You better check your attitude at the door. You are one smart remark from me shutting your posts off so I don't have to look at them.

Maybe these will refresh your memory:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2810535#post2810535

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2809582#post2809582

Remember them, O lying sack?

Go ahead and put me on Ignore, for all I care. That only means that you can't read what I post. I can keep on posting and showing all what disingenuous filth you are. (They don't really need me but I like to do it anyway.)

So, what about it? Are you going to ever provide evidence for anything you say or do you just like to spout? :boggled:

[Taffer]

The strange thing about T'ai Chi is that T'ai Chi just tries to fill in.

When the loonies have all gone to bed, he fills in.

At the weekends, he stands in for kleinman.

When rittjc is obviosly completely pwned, T'ai Chi stands in.

He's a substitute moron. He has no ideas of his own, he just stands in for whoever is being the most ignorant halfwit of the week.

I... I never noticed this before, but that's so true!

Eerie... :boxedin:

[rittjc]

So are you saying that "evolutionists" are all atheists? Hardly. I am a Christian and I have no problem with modern evolutionary theory.

Evolution's brutality and intolerance is very similar to the days of the Church of Rome where people like Galileo paid a huge price for dissent against the prevailing idealistic views. In fact it is almost like a reincarnation of this heart of such wicked men. The primary difference is that evolutionists are not the majority and cannot kill or torture Creationists and IDers for challenging their lofty religious beliefs.

Please. As a Catholic I am keenly aware of the Church's oppression of science. There is no similar oppression of ID, which is simply an attempt to plaster a scientific veneer over creationism. There is, in fact, almost nothing to repress; despite all their whining, the ID crowd has not even attempted any serious research, even failing to take the money the Templeton Foundation tried to give them for that purpose.

Of course, since the Atheist heart rules the media world, good luck seeing this on the local news.

But, a perfect analogy did get past the filters of the Washington Post on Global Warming Alarmism (the climatologists world view).

Fortunately the Senate caught wind of it and it is now being investigated. Here is the article so you can see what happens to dissenters of a public idealism:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070727/NATION02/107270089

BWAHAHAHAHA! Now that's funny. You can't even get straight the difference between the Pulitzer-winning Washington Post and the Washington Times, which has evolved into a reasonably respectable newspaper leaning pretty far to the right, but was founded and I believe is still owned by Sun Myung Moon. The same cult leader who bankrolled Jonathan Wells into getting a PhD to defeat that eeevil Darwinism. Not that he's done any real research either, but this Moon disciple been welcomed as a fellow traveler by the wonderful Christians pushing ID everywhere but in the laboratory and in the field.

This is nothing new to an IDer and a Creationist. This is why I am convinced of a silent majority of creationists. We will see this as truth begins to destroy ignorance.

Aside from reversing "truth" and "ignorance", I'd say don't hold your breath. ID is not merely vacuous but the laziest excuse for science I've ever seen.

It is sort of like the way it was with gays. First they were only a few outspoken and now they are holding gay days and family nights on the same day in San Diego at the Padres stadium.

Which has nothing to do with evolutionary science.

You can look at the evolutionists blowing a blood vessel when their religion is questioned. Nothing is more telling of a severe insecurity in a belief than to see them go off when someone wants to juxtapose it with an alternative idea.

You mean "replace", not "juxtapose". And if there's a strong reaction, it's too having religious doctrine forced into a science classroom. I resent such efforts as an American, a taxpayer, and a Christian.

If evolution was substantive, then it would be able stand up to challenges without irrational panic from its zealots. But, what evolutionist believes that it could? That is why you have ridiculous posts such as "should creationists debate evolutionists?". No church wants to lose its congregation, and the church of Evolution is certainly no exception to that rule.

Projection duly noted.

The nascence of ID and Creationism is showing people new ideas that have heretofore not been allowed under the gestapo of evolution idealism.

Godwin. Game over, man!

So, as a man that loves justice and truth, I say farewell to tyrants. For 150 years you have darkened the understanding of science and held it back from its full potential with a religious idealism that is usually accompanied by Atheism with all sorts of ridiculous fantasies from embryonic recapitulation to punctuated equilibrium.

It must make you feel warm all over to believe that now, in the early years of the 21st century, evolution is about to crumble. As another gentleman who feels as you do wrote a few years ago:

"Today, at the dawn of the new century, nothing is more certain than that Darwinism has lost its prestige among men of science. It has seen its day and will soon be reckoned a thing of the past. A few decades hence when people will look back..., they will confess that the years [of evolution's heyday] were in many respects a time of carnival; and the enthusiasm which at that time took possession of the devotees of natural science will appear to them as the excitement attending some mad revel."

His name was Eberhard Dennert. He said that in 1904. Just how long can you hold your breath, my good man?


As usual, I don't see any zeal in Catholics other than zeal for their religion. Even today they stand as the standard bearer of shedding darkness on mankind. I don't look to them for depth and understanding as to me they represent the penultimate in compromise and religious whoredom.

I view most Catholics like I do Masons, Elks, etc, more interested their organization than an objective search for truth and understanding. Their thoughts all seem to come from the same source. Their reliance on the word of a Pope that changes in contradictory manners from Pope to Pope leaves me thinking it is more a factor of who is the current head Elk at the lodge. If the Pope says evolution is ok, then evolution they accept. Don't fool yourself. The darkness that the Catholic church has deposited on mankind was not limited to the middle ages but is alive and well in more subtle harlotries than the overt ones in the past. There is a reason why the age of Catholicism is called the "Dark Ages". Could anybody imagine a more fitting term?

If you seek to please men, then do so, but don't try to lock shields with me. I don't go to bed as a prostitute I don't wake up as one. I personally cannot ignore the brain God gave me even if a Pope ordered me to, just to "fit in with the crowd" and seek the path of least resistance at the sacrifice of my beliefs. If any religion that "calls" itself Christian would sell rationality, it would be Catholicism. Its dubious history from its inception to now is well understood by all sides. I see no common ground with it. It is men following men. God has little place in it. A man that falls down stairs and breaks his hip is supposed to represent God, I don't think it holds any interest by God Himself. I would think He resents Catholicism from using His name in vain. But, I will let Him speak for Himself.

But science and truth to me is not about pleasing men and being liked. It is not about looking for your faith in men but rather in truth. I think you have more commonality with Atheists than you do with Protestants. What I am not holding my breath for is you ever having a though of your own.

Careful trying to ally with me. To me you are simply an Atheist with something to do on Sunday morning. At least an Atheist has the character to not pretend.

[Art Vandelay]

Their reliance on the word of a Pope that changes in contradictory manners from Pope to Pope leaves me thinking it is more a factor of who is the current head Elk at the lodge.Not to disturb your bigotry with facts, but I spent fourteen years going to Catholic Church, and went to a Catholic high school, and I can honestly say that I can't remember anyone ever saying "this is what we believe because the Pope says so", nor anything remotely similar. The Pope is merely the person highest in the hierarchy; he is not some religious dictator. The only time the Pope's statements are binding is when he speaks ex cathedra, and I know of no ex cathedra statements that are in contradiction.

If the Pope says evolution is ok, then evolution they accept.The Pope has merely said that evolution is compatible with Catholicism. He has never ordered people to believe in it. Unlike whatever denomination you follow, the RCC doesn't tell its members what to believe about evolution.

I see no common ground with it. It is men following men.Well, I see a lot of common ground between you and them in that. Unless you personally witnessed the Resurrection, you are simply taking other men's word for it.

God has little place in it. A man that falls down stairs and breaks his hip is supposed to represent God, I don't think it holds any interest by God Himself.So you're a Monophysitist?

I would think He resents Catholicism from using His name in vain. But, I will let Him speak for Himself.And by that, you mean you resent them challenging your monopoly on speaking for Him, and will insist that what you say He says is what He really is saying.

But science and truth to me is not about pleasing men and being liked. It is not about looking for your faith in men but rather in truth. I think you have more commonality with Atheists than you do with Protestants. What I am not holding my breath for is you ever having a though of your own.

Careful trying to ally with me. To me you are simply an Atheist with something to do on Sunday morning. At least an Atheist has the character to not pretend.In other words: "When people like me take power, and Christian who doesn't think exactly like us will be put up against the wall with the atheists".

[my_wan]

And yet I'm not joking.

That's what he does.

I never stopped to consider it that way but now that I think back that characterization does fit to almost too well. I'm going to have to think about that.

[Slimething]

I personally cannot ignore the brain God gave me even if a Pope ordered me to, just to "fit in with the crowd" and seek the path of least resistance at the sacrifice of my beliefs.

Fascinating. Supposedly, your beliefs and that of the pope come from the same place..the bible. What have you read in the bible that the pope has not? Be specific.

[Normal Dude]

Rittjc,

One simple question. Why are you here? It's obvious most of us detest you or your position. Any reasonable person following these threads has already observed you shot in flames, over and over again. And yet you keep coming back. Do you really think you are going to change our minds? Or is this just entertainment (because it sure is for me)?

I, for one, am glad we have a legal system with half a brain. They are keeping your intolarant unscientific BS out of our childrens science classrooms afterall.

Oh, by the way... VAGINA!!!

[Normal Dude]

He's a substitute moron.

This is gold; I am laughing my hindquarters off.

[Northernskeptic]

call this my attempt to get a shot on the OP but for most of that post it seemed like you had confused the terms creationist/IDer and evolutionist/or atheist.

[wollery]

No, you are wrong. When you intimidate people by threatening their career which is how they feed their families, or their reputation which some people value to an extreme, you have done humans a disservice.

No one is offended when their point of view is not challenged. So I can certainly see why an evolutionist would not see contempt in this area. But when someone screws with your life it is an offense on your fellow man regardless of his beliefs or yours.Except when you are threatening to expose them as having furthered their career or their standing in a particular group by lying. In that case you are doing humanity a service, by exposing lies and cheating.

Or are you suggesting that such things be allowed in the interests of freedom.

In the middle ages, the Church of Rome tortured those that deviated from its view of the world. They would have them punished to the extreme of their life. They would be ostracized and outcasts and would have trouble finding work to feed their families.Just as people in many parts of the US don't care reveal their atheism for fear that they will lose their jobs and be ostracised by their local communities.

Today, men have learned from the past or at least should have. The fact is that idealism in whatever form will take ruthless measures to promote their beliefs and crush opposing ones.Except that science is not idealistic in that sense. It is purely about the evidence. And this is the strength of science - many ideas that went against current theory have been accepted precisely because the evidence showed them to be more accurate, despite initial widespread criticism within the scientific community. There are huge numbers of examples of this, including the theory of evolution, big bang cosmology and quantum mechanics, all of which were eventually accepted because the evidence supported them, not because of any idealism.

This is how science progresses, and precisely why ID is not science. ID ignores the massive rafts of evidence.

It is not a point of whether evolution or ID or creationism hold a better world view it is an issue of decency toward your fellow man. After all, it could be the other way (as it was then) and you could be having to compromise your beliefs for your career's sake.Decency to your fellow man requires that you not lie to them or try to force your religion on them. ID is guilty of both of these.

We have an Establishment Clause in our constitution that says Congress (House and Senate) have no power whatsoever to make laws (whether for or against) any religion. This was put in there by religious men because they realized what idealism, whether it be the King's religion or whatever, must not rule other views and men must be free to believe as they see fit. For years Atheists demanded protection afforded to religions and they got it because fairness should prevail.Well, since atheism is not a religion, I fail to see how it falls under the establishment clause.

There is a breech in our Judicial system where they make rulings on laws that by the Establishment Clause cannot exist. If Congress can make no laws, then logically the Judiciary branch cannot rule on the interpretation of those non-existent laws. We have seen many accounts of "legislation from the bench" as they call it where the Judiciary makes rulings of laws that simply do not exist and constitutionally cannot exist.Any examples of this, or is it more assertion without proof?

But the Supreme Court has failed to deal with Theism and Atheism on equal terms. They are both beliefs that should have equal protection from idealistic Congressional bodies, and idealistic Judicial bodies.No, atheism is specifically a lack of belief.

When there are no laws, then resolution come down to simple Democratic will. Typically, referendums are introduced to deal with issues that are not addressed by the laws of the republic. But most of these are unconstitutionally intercepted by the Judiciary and we have had rulings that give an unfair weighting to Atheism over Theism. Int the dark ages it was the opposite and equally unfair and oppressive. "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." Wise man that Franklin bloke.

This is outright wrong. Most evolutionists delight in it because it fits their idealism though they never look at it from the perspective that "the shoe could be on the other foot". Most IDers and Creationists are oppressed by this violation of the constitution of the land because it restricts their free speech.In what way has their free speech been restricted?

The Dover PA. case is a perfect example of this. Dr Behe had a very convincing logical and science based testimony on why things are better explained by design but the federal judge ruled that the complexity of life still implies a god and therefore cannot be used as science.I think you need to reread what was said in that trial. Behe admitted under oath that he had lied, and the judges' ruling was that ID was not science, because it did not address the evidence, or apply the scientific method. Also, your characterisation that the judges' ruling was based on the idea that complexity implies a god is completely wrong. His ruling was that ID states that, but since ID is unscientific, and it inserts a god in order to explain away its lack of science it should not be taught in a science class, since to do so would breach the separation clause. He also found that ID was a barely veiled attempt to shoehorn religion into science, and described (IIRC) Behe as a liar.

Furthermore, you can discuss, and indeed teach religion and ID in US schools, but it must be done in a religious education class, where it belongs.

What is so unfair about this is that if there is a God, we cannot be allowed to discuss Him as only ideas that can support the world view of Atheism are allowed to be taught in public schools. This could "damn" you into debilitating ignorance all because the judiciary overstepped their authority.The first amendment guarantees people the right to freedom of speech, and indeed, people are perfectly free to discuss it, and teach it in public schools. What you aren't allowed to do is to teach any one religion as being superior, or teach subjects outside the arena of religion from a religious viewpoint, which is where ID comes from. This is precisely the point of the establishment clause. You are free to discuss and teach your religion, but you are not free to force it on others.

Eventually it must come down to the point of whether two world views are considered equal or if deference denied by the constitution is given to one or the other, despite of the Establishment Clause. Atheism is not Agnosticism. It is not neutral. Therefore it makes a statement as to the non-existence of god. Its claims imply it can prove such a thing as one could prove a scientific theory to become a scientific law.This is an important point, so please read carefully. Atheism and agnosticism can be mutual. Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge, atheism is a statement of belief. I, for instance, am a weak atheist and a strong agnostic. That is to say, I do not believe there is a god (weak atheism - I don't say there isn't a god), but I know that I do not know if I am right, and know that it can not be proved one way or the other (strong agnosticism).

Of course, this does not offend the Atheists as it is a way of tipping the balance of jurisprudence in his favor just as it was done in Europe in the middle ages. But, this of course has the opposite affect on the creationist or the IDer.

This would be much more of an issue if the tables were turned. As someone who grew up in a part of England where "positive discrimination" was widely practiced for several years I would be greatly offended if I felt I was being prejudicially favoured by the courts. Equality means that everyone should be on an equal footing, regardless of any considerations of religion or ethnicity.

I don't believe Atheists are interested in justice nor are they offended by injustice unless it happens to them. This is a shame because it crosses a line of absolute of morality. It simply doesn't matter how you try to define what is moral. If it is something you would not want done to you and your beliefs, then you would be equally unjust to be pleased by it happening to others.What you believe and what is true have been shown many times over the last few weeks to be very different things.

As I stated above, I would be highly offended at being given preferential treatment over others simply because of my atheism. It is unfair, unjust, and I would fight it, vigorously. For instance, if I were offered a job, and found that that offer were made to me over someone else better qualified, because they believed in god I would refuse the job and let the employers know exactly what I think of their bigotry.

There has to be some moral foundation and commonality that binds us as fellow men. Without such limits, it basically says "might make right" and eventually one side or the other will grow weary of the oppression. It is in the best interest of both to respect the rights of the other regardless of the degree of disagreement they may share. This has been the basis of war throughout time where one forces its will on the other unjustly.I concur wholeheartedly with that statement, and it should probably be pointed out at this juncture that the vast majority of these wars have been due to religious differences, often between different sects of the same religion.

[my_wan]

rittjc,
Funny how you your response to sts60 has turned the same vile color that you love to paint on others. Behold, us atheist are judged above the catholics according to you. Yes I know your perspective well rittjc. Even better than I understand the catholic perspective. So I take it you don't want a theistic society were the catholics are on top. I don't want one with your brand or the Muslim brand or any brand on top. The vileness you just spewed on sts60 is exactly why. I will say I will fight for your right to choose your religion with the same fervor I will stick with my atheism. If you lift your hand against another whether it be a catholic, a Muslim, an atheist, or one of your own I will expect the same penalty. This moral battle is bigger than than your limited little Xian world.

[Taffer]

I think rittjc takes the JREF Bigot of the Year award.

[Alareth]

I think rittjc takes the JREF Bigot of the Year award.


No, MaGZ is lightyears ahead of the pack for that one.

[Art Vandelay]

rittjc,So I take it you don't want a theistic society were the catholics are on top. You mean "where"?

I will say I will fight for your right to choose your religion with the same fervor I will stick with my atheism.I don't see any reason to extend religious freedom to those that do not reciprocate. Once violating other people's rights becomes part of someone's religion, they lose their right to practice their religion.

[BlackKat]

Man, I have no idea what you are talking about. You better check your attitude at the door. You are one smart remark from me shutting your posts off so I don't have to look at them.


Too bad. I loved your moniker. I was a big Seinfeld fan. But I gotta cut you off. You have no self-restraint. Sorry.

See ya doc! Gotta filter you.

If he keeps filtering people out eventually he will only see his own posts and start thinking this is his blog or something...

This is the forum equivalent of sticking ones fingers in their ears and singing "La la la, I can't hear you! La la la, I can't hear you!" over and over.

Rittjc if they're going to take the time and effort to read your mean-spirited posts against everything from atheists (note little 'a'), scientists (note the comma between atheists and scientists because they're two completely separate designations), Catholics, women, homosexuals, etc.

Why don't you think you should have to read their posts? What makes you so smugly superior to them?

Does not your mythology book say such things as:
Do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves.
--2 Philippians 2:3

[Taffer]

No, MaGZ is lightyears ahead of the pack for that one.

Oh, I'd forgotten about him. You are most correct.

Second biggest, perhaps?

[Dabljuh]

The OP's post is a huge ass strawman argument coupled with a big ass fallacy.

"Evolutionists are forcing their religion unto me"
"Evolutionists are evil and violent etc"
"Therefore Evolution must be wrong"

... And that's all? I mean, no actual argument, except the fallacious deduction that therefore Creationism must be right?

I mean, even IF evolutionists were behaving the described way, this would in no way speak for or against evolution's validity as a theory.

Just like its not the 99 million jews the nazis killed are not evidence that national socialism is wrong. By induction, one could infer that they'd probably kill another 99 million if you'd let them, but *that* isn't what makes them wrong - just retarded. (Wouldn't you go after the 5th or so jew you kill "Hey guys, I think we need a better idea than that")

[Mozybyte]

I would imagine that this video has been posted here by now, but then again, it is so devastatingly surreal for most of us outside of the States, that needs to be viewed for sure.
Watch out Rit.., You are going to be converted, that headbanging wall is going to come down (be nice to the Christians).
Video Here "we have to be connected to Israel to enjoy the second coming." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/rapture-ready-the-unauth_b_57826.html)

[Dr Adequate]

In the middle ages, the Church of Rome tortured those that deviated from its view of the world. They would have them punished to the extreme of their life. They would be ostracized and outcasts and would have trouble finding work to feed their families. You don't explain why this is like us using evidence to prove you wrong.

Oh, wait, it isn't, is it?

The Dover PA. case is a perfect example of this. Dr Behe had a very convincing logical and science based testimony on why things are better explained by design but the federal judge ruled that the complexity of life still implies a god and therefore cannot be used as science. Actually, the court ruled that Behe's science was no good:

"Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."

I don't believe Atheists are interested in justice nor are they offended by injustice unless it happens to them. Then somebody has been telling you silly lies about atheists.

[Zep]

I would imagine that this video has been posted here by now, but then again, it is so devastatingly surreal for most of us outside of the States, that needs to be viewed for sure.
Watch out Rit.., You are going to be converted, that headbanging wall is going to come down (be nice to the Christians).
Video Here "we have to be connected to Israel to enjoy the second coming." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/rapture-ready-the-unauth_b_57826.html)Rapture Ready?? Seriously? C'mon, truth now! You're not seriously still pushing Rapture Ready, are you?

[Dr Adequate]

I prefer to think of it as when we grow older we grow wiser by not accepting baseless things promoted by men. Unless some guy in the sixteenth century draws a picture of a dragon, in which case that proves that they exist, right?

[Cainkane1]

This is nothing new to an IDer and a Creationist. This is why I am convinced of a silent majority of creationists. We will see this as truth begins to destroy ignorance.

Thats where you're wrong. Most religious people in the USA and the western world believe evolution is the vehicle the diety used to create all living things including humans. get your facts straight. I'm an atheist and an evolutionist myself but unlike what you just got through saying I try my level best to avoid an argument with the woo crowd. I have scientific facts on my side but all you have is faith. Get your facts straight Xtian.

[Mozybyte]

Rapture Ready?? Seriously? C'mon, truth now! You're not seriously still pushing Rapture Ready, are you?
The only thing I would be pushing for in America, is the returned empowerment of the Native Indians, Tepees without mortgages and concessionally synthetic moccasins.
The LardBags, I would drive over a cliff like the Buffalo. Prod Evolution a little and Teach them how to fly.
Outside of Cuckoo Land the argument is not between Evolution and Creation, but rather Psychopathic USA versus Humanity in general.

[Complexity]

Once we've all been ignored, I think it will come down to The Ultimate Smack-Down between rittjc and yrreg.

I'm making popcorn...

[bruto]

Unless some guy in the sixteenth century draws a picture of a dragon, in which case that proves that they exist, right?No no, Dr. A. You've not tapped into the true Rittjc wisdom. A picture of a dragon that looks nothing like any dinosaur ever discovered must be proof that dinosaurs were afoot in the sixteenth century, not necessarily dragons. By discounting this likelihood you reveal yourself not only to be a neo-nazi but a mocker of science.

Shame on you.

[rittjc]

This is nothing new to an IDer and a Creationist. This is why I am convinced of a silent majority of creationists. We will see this as truth begins to destroy ignorance.

Thats where you're wrong. Most religious people in the USA and the western world believe evolution is the vehicle the diety used to create all living things including humans. get your facts straight. I'm an atheist and an evolutionist myself but unlike what you just got through saying I try my level best to avoid an argument with the woo crowd. I have scientific facts on my side but all you have is faith. Get your facts straight Xtian.

Just say you wanted to post something stupid and we will give you credit for it. Don't waste a thread.

[wollery]

Just say you wanted to post something stupid and we will give you credit for it. Don't waste a thread.No, you're doing that well enough all by yourself.

[strathmeyer]

rittjc, can you please explain which parts of evolution you don't believe in?

[mumchup]

Just say you wanted to post something stupid and we will give you credit for it. Don't waste a thread.

This comment? From the person who started a whole thread to complain that other people are being rude?

[Taffer]

Way to ignore the rest of our posts, rittjc...

[bruto]

Way to ignore the rest of our posts, rittjc...I think rittjc has picked up his dollies and gone home. Gutless.

[Taffer]

I think rittjc has picked up his dollies and gone home. Gutless.

We all know it. He's yeller.