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/artic...ON02/107270089

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]

Originally Posted by rittjc

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]

Originally Posted by rittjc

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by rittjc

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?

Originally Posted by rittjc

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"?

Originally Posted by rittjc

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?

Originally Posted by rittjc

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?

Originally Posted by rittjc

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.

Originally Posted by rittjc

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/artic...ON02/107270089

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

Originally Posted by 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.

No comment, I don't understand the comment.

Originally Posted by rittjc

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?

Originally Posted by rittjc

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?

Originally Posted by rittjc

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?

Originally Posted by rittjc

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?

Originally Posted by rittjc

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.

Originally Posted by rittjc

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?

Originally Posted by rittjc

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]

Originally Posted by 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)

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/artic...ON02/107270089

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]

Originally Posted by rittjc

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...

Originally Posted by rittjc on Youtube

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".

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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/artic...ON02/107270089

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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*

Originally Posted by rittjc

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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/artic...ON02/107270089

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

...

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by 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/artic...ON02/107270089

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/b.../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]

Originally Posted by rittjc

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.

Originally Posted by rittjc

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".

Originally Posted by rittjc

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.

Originally Posted by rittjc

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.

Originally Posted by rittjc

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?

Originally Posted by rittjc

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

Originally Posted by rittjc

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/artic...ON02/107270089

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.

Originally Posted by rittjc

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.

Originally Posted by rittjc

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.

Originally Posted by rittjc

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.

Originally Posted by rittjc

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.

Originally Posted by rittjc

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 )

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by rittjc

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]

Originally Posted by Floyt

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

(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]

Originally Posted by Floyt

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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by articulett

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]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

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")

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

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by 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/artic...ON02/107270089

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Whom are you addressing?

[articulett]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.