Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

1…6465676970…232

Comments

  • #1982
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Masteroid wrote: »
    No offense intended J C, it was meant as a humorous reference to to cartoon that appeared in Denmark and caused huge offense to Muslims.
    No offense taken ... but seriously guys ... you seem to be in bad need of a course on respecting diversity in the workplace and society ... I would suggest you book the next available place !!!:eek:;)


  • #1983
    Masteroid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    J C wrote: »
    ... a Creationists beliefs do not include the rejection of cutting edge medicine.

    ... so it's quite obvious what is being suggested - and why it is being suggested.

    Of course... and you are right.

    But it is quite funny.

    Tell you what, why don't you post a cartoon of a load of scientists busting into God's lab when God says, 'I knew you'd come to me eventually' whereupon He devours them. I bet lots of non-creationists would laugh at that but not many would take offense.

    Truth will out J C, it always does. It doesn't matter what the law says, there will always be people to break it.

    Thank God.


  • #1984
    Masteroid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    doctoremma wrote: »
    I'm vegetarian....

    But wait... are you a Vegan? From Vega?


  • #1985
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Masteroid wrote: »
    Of course... and you are right.

    But it is quite funny.
    Poking fun at Noah's Ark may be funny ... and I've sometimes laughed at some Evolutionist cartoons poking fun at Creationism ... because of the irony of it all.
    ... but a cartoon with a strong message that advocates denying a group of people proper medical care isn't funny.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    Tell you what, why don't you post a cartoon of a load of scientists busting into God's lab when God says, 'I knew you'd come to me eventually' whereupon He devours them. I bet lots of non-creationists would laugh at that but not many would take offense.
    ... I don't think you would find any Creationists laughing at such a cartoon.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    Truth will out J C, it always does. It doesn't matter what the law says, there will always be people to break it.
    The truth will out ... but sometimes it takes a lot of time and effort!!!!
    You are correct that law is sometimes unable to protect people ... and discretion is the better part of valor in such circumstances.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    Thank God.
    ... and glory be to Him as well.


  • #1986
    pauldla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    I read that cartoon as poking fun at Creationists, no more: the Creationist has only himself to blame if he refuses the more advanced medicine because of his religious beliefs. The 'intelligently designed' punchline has a sting to it, too. I can see why you don't like it, JC.


  • Advertisement
  • #1987
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,691 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    J C wrote: »
    Poking fun at Noah's Ark may be funny ... and I've sometimes laughed at some Evolutionist cartoons poking fun at Creationism ... because of the irony of it all.
    ... but a cartoon with a strong message that advocates denying a group of people proper medical care isn't funny.
    The cartoon doesn't advocate that. Read it again.

    The doctor is asking the patient how he wants his condition to be treated, the point being that the doctor can only treat the patient to the extent, and in the way, that the patient consents to. If the patient's convictions lead him to decline a particular course of treatment, that is his right. The doctor should be sensitive to this,and should respect it, even if the patient's convictions do not align with the doctors.


  • #1988
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    pauldla wrote: »
    I read that cartoon as poking fun at Creationists, no more: the Creationist has only himself to blame if he refuses the more advanced medicine because of his religious beliefs. The 'intelligently designed' punchline has a sting to it, too. I can see why you don't like it, JC.
    There was no evidence that the Creationist was refusing advanced medical treatment ... and this is not a belief of Creationists.
    The general tone of the cartoon was that Creationists are old and don't deserve proper medical treatment ... when most are young people ... and they all deserve the best medical treatment, just like everybody else.

    The only funny line ... because of its irony, was the doctor saying that the new medicines were intelligently designed (because they are complex functional specific treatments) ... while he would be in denial that the patient before him was infinitely more intelligently designed!!!:)

    ... people should stick to poking fun at the ideas of Creationism ... if they wish ... and they should not engage in poking fun at Creationist people themselves ... and especially when it comes to such serious issues as medical treatment ... and ditto when it comes to Evolutionism.


  • #1989
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    The cartoon doesn't advocate that. Read it again.

    The doctor is asking the patient how he wants his condition to be treated, the point being that the doctor can only treat the patient to the extent, and in the way, that the patient consents to. If the patient's convictions lead him to decline a particular course of treatment, that is his right. The doctor should be sensitive to this,and should respect it, even if the patient's convictions do not align with the doctors.
    ... refusing advance medical treatment is not a belief of Creationists ... so the doctor wasn't doing this to be 'sensitive' to the patients beliefs ... he was clearly stating that the patient should be given 'noahs ark' treatment ... and refused modern medical treatment ... when many Creationists are involved in producing and delivering the very advanced medical treatments that the doctor was referring to.
    It's the equivalent of a Creationist claiming that Evolutionists shouldn't be medically treated because this would interfere with the 'survival of the fittest' principles of Evolution ... and I wouldn't consider such a cartoon to be funny or acceptable either, because it could be equally prejudicial to the welfare of Evolutionists, if it were to be accepted by society.


  • #1990
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    J C wrote: »
    ... ah but you (and many other people) would care if s/he was to say that s/he was a Creationist ... and that is why s/he wouldn't say!!!

    Your statement that you find Creationists to be "uninformed, lacking in intellectual curiosity, or simply unaware that it is possible to be a Christian while accepting the available scientific evidence regarding the age of the universe, evolution, and so on" ... would be practically impossible for you to rise above.

    It's none of your business, as a patient, quite frankly, what your doctor's worldview is.
    If the doctor is qualified and competent ... his/her religious beliefs shouldn't matter ... and that is the legal position ... but unfortunately it's not the actual position ... where religious bias is alive and well and living next door to every Creationist!!!!:eek:

    I clearly said that I wouldn't care if a doctor was a believer in creationism, provided they were qualified and capable of doing their job. In fact, I couldn't care less about my doctor's religious beliefs. I accept that there are believers in creationism who are perfectly intelligent people and capable in their own fields, although I think the person who described it as "cognitive dissonance" hit the nail on the head.

    As for "creation scientists" (and I presume you are talking about young-Earth creationism?) who work at the highest levels, we only have your word to go on.


  • #1991
    pauldla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    J C wrote: »
    There was no evidence that the Creationist was refusing advanced medical treatment ... and this is not a belief of Creationists.
    The general tone of the cartoon was that Creationists are old and don't deserve proper medical treatment ... when most are young people ... and they all deserve the best medical treatment, just like everybody else.

    The only funny line ... because of its irony, was the doctor saying that the new medicines were intelligently designed (because they are complex functional specific treatments) ... while he would be in denial that the patient before him was infinitely more intelligently designed!!!:)

    ... people should stick to poking fun at the ideas of Creationism ... if they wish ... and they should not engage in poking fun at Creationist people themselves ... and especially when it comes to such serious issues as medical treatment ... and ditto when it comes to Evolutionism.

    JC, the doctor offers him the choice of treatments. The Creationist patient becomes agitated at the mention of 'evolved'. This gives him pause in his desicion. Therein lies the joke. And, like I said before, I can see why you don't like it. Most people can be quite tolerant of being mocked, but it's when you mock their beliefs that they can fly into a blind fury.

    Which speaks volumes in itself, as any belief that cannot withstand a bit of mockery is probably hiding something.


  • Advertisement
  • #1992
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    I clearly said that I wouldn't care if a doctor was a believer in creationism, provided they were qualified and capable of doing their job. In fact, I couldn't care less about my doctor's religious beliefs. I accept that there are believers in creationism who are perfectly intelligent people and capable in their own fields, although I think the person who described it as "cognitive dissonance" hit the nail on the head.

    As for "creation scientists" (and I presume you are talking about young-Earth creationism?) who work at the highest levels, we only have your word to go on.
    Here you go again engaging in 'cognitive dissonance' yourself ... you claim to not care about your doctor's religious beliefs (because this is the PC and legal requirement) ... yet your doubts that Creation Scientists could possibly work at the highest levels indicates that you don't really believe that Creationists are really intelligent and capable people who could work at the highest levels within science. Indeed your placing of the words Creation Scientists in inverted commas indicates your rejection of them as valid conventionally qualified scientists ... when all Creation Scientists are conventionally qualified within their fields of expertise.
    When it comes to 'cognitive dissonance' I would suggest that you remove the great plank from your own mind ... before shouting about possible specks in the minds of Creationists.:)


  • #1993
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    pauldla wrote: »
    JC, the doctor offers him the choice of treatments. The Creationist patient becomes agitated at the mention of 'evolved'. This gives him pause in his desicion. Therein lies the joke.
    Creationists accept that bacteria 'evolve' in the sense that they develop 'resistance' to antibiotics via selection pressures on their pre-existing CFSGI ... so there would be no pause for thought by a Creationist about the validity of the Doctors statement about the TB Bacterium 'evolving'. Doctoremma, in fairness to her, has already pointed this out to you.
    The use of the phrase 'Noahs ark' treatment by the doctor indicates that it was the doctor who was thinking about prescribing an ineffectual outdated medical treatment ... and not the patient who was choosing it.
    pauldla wrote: »
    And, like I said before, I can see why you don't like it. Most people can be quite tolerant of being mocked, but it's when you mock their beliefs that they can fly into a blind fury.
    The opposite is true ... it is wrong to mock people ...that is what bullying is often about ... it's people's ideas that are 'fair game' for constructive criticism.
    pauldla wrote: »
    Which speaks volumes in itself, as any belief that cannot withstand a bit of mockery is probably hiding something.
    I agree ... and I have no problem with the ideas of Creationism being debated ... and even mocked ... if you wish ... but please don't complain when Evolutionist ideas are mocked in return!!!:)

    ... I don't think it is acceptable to mock either Evolutionist or Creationist people ... and hinting at refusing full medical treatment to either groups of people is totally unacceptable.


  • #1994
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    ... a Creationists beliefs do not include the rejection of cutting edge medicine.

    Of course not, Creationists are hypocrites who happily denigrate and insult the scientists who work in evolutionary biology, saying they are immoral liars and frauds, but then happily take the products of their research.


  • #1995
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Of course not, Creationists are hypocrites who happily denigrate and insult the scientists who work in evolutionary biology, saying they are immoral liars and frauds, but then happily take the products of their research.
    Creationists do not denigrate and insult the great work being put into medical research by scientists of all beliefs and none. We welcome it and give full credit for it to the people who are doing it.
    ... but somebody holding your incorrect belief about what Creationists think of Evolutionists, could possibly justify in their own mind not 'going the full nine yards' in providing full medical treatment to Creationists ... and that is why the record needs to be set straight on these issues.
    Just think about it ... if I thought that somebody was a hypocrite who denigrated and insulted everything I stood for and thought of me as a liar and a fraud ... it could be quite difficult for me to 'go the exra mile' for such a person.

    Creationists fully support the right of scientists to pursue research into Evolutionary Biology ... and indeed some Creationists are involved in this work. Much of Evolutionary Biology is totally valid scientifically ... for example, when it is evaluating Natural and Sexual Selection phenomena.

    Creation Scientists disagree that Natural and Sexual Selection of mutations will ever lead to the increase in CFSGI requird to 'evolve' pondkind into mankind ... but whilst holding this disagreement with Evolutionsts ... we in no way claim that they are liars or frauds ... because they are not liars and frauds .... but such prejudicial comments are sometimes made by Evolutionists on this thread against Creationists.

    This is what academic freedom used be about ... the freedom to research different ideas without a threat to ones career ... or indeed ones life, through the availability of proper medical treatment, irrespective of ones research interests.
    It's pretty basic stuff ... to respect the right of others to be different ... without fear to their jobs or their lives ... but this principle obviously isn't shared (to varying degrees) by some of the posters on this thread.


  • #1996
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    J C wrote: »
    Here you go again engaging in 'cognitive dissonance' yourself ... you claim to not care about your doctor's religious beliefs (because this is the PC and legal requirement) ... yet your doubts that Creation Scientists could possibly work at the highest levels indicates that you don't really believe that Creationists are really intelligent and capable people who could work at the highest levels within science. Indeed your placing of the words Creation Scientists in inverted commas indicates your rejection of them as valid conventionally qualified scientists ... when all Creation Scientists are conventionally qualified within their fields of expertise.
    When it comes to 'cognitive dissonance' I would suggest that you remove the great plank from your own mind ... before shouting about possible specks in the minds of Creationists.:)

    I have no way of knowing whether a doctor or anyone else believes in creationism or not, unless they were to tell me. And I'm not being politically correct in saying that I really don't care, although the last time I checked people are free to choose their doctor and were they to do so on the basis of their doctor's religious beliefs, there is no law against it, although I think it would be pretty stupid.

    You also accuse me of rejecting creation scientists - I simply haven't come across any. I would suggest that the onus is on you to give some examples of such people and then it can be discussed whether they are conventionally qualified or not?


  • #1997
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    I have no way of knowing whether a doctor or anyone else believes in creationism or not, unless they were to tell me. And I'm not being politically correct in saying that I really don't care, although the last time I checked people are free to choose their doctor and were they to do so on the basis of their doctor's religious beliefs, there is no law against it, although I think it would be pretty stupid.
    You could find out your doctor's religious persuasion in many other ways in addition to the doctor telling you themselves.
    I think that if it was made clear to a person that they were being discriminated against because of their religious beliefs, this would be illegal. I agree with you that most people wouldn't be that silly ... and they would quietly discriminate ... and the law would be powerless to act, as a result.

    ... and discrimination can potentially work both ways ... doctors are quite entitled to refuse to see patients who are not registered with their practice ... and the decision to register a patient with a practice is a joint decision between a patient and a doctor.
    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    You also accuse me of rejecting creation scientists - I simply haven't come across any. I would suggest that the onus is on you to give some examples of such people and then it can be discussed whether they are conventionally qualified or not?
    There have already been lists on this thread ... and others, listing conventionally qualified Creation Scientists who, because of their positions, and/or their bravery, are willing to allow their names to be published.
    The bulk of Creation Scientists do not find themselves in such a fortunate position -and as a Christian, does that not concern you? ... rather than trying to 'winkle out' the names of Creation Scientists ... with the likely possiblity that these people would suffer adverse consequences for their scientific careers, as a result.


  • #1998
    Masteroid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    J C wrote: »
    Creationists accept that bacteria 'evolve' in the sense that they develop 'resistance' to antibiotics via selection pressures on their pre-existing CFSGI ... so there would be no pause for thought by a Creationist about the validity of the Doctors statement about the TB Bacterium 'evolving'. Doctoremma, in fairness to her, has already pointed this out to you.

    Changing the subject a little, why would intelligently designed CFSI need to adapt to selection pressures in an intelligently designed ecosystem?

    You must remember, species do go extinct.

    And if God created species with a shelf-life, 'designed' them to go extinct, why should adaptation take place at all?


  • #1999
    Masteroid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    J C wrote: »
    There have already been lists on this thread ... and others, listing conventionally qualified Creation Scientists who, because of their positions, and/or their bravery, are willing to allow their names to be published.
    The bulk of Creation Scientists do not find themselves in such a fortunate position -and as a Christian, does that not concern you? ... rather than trying to 'winkle out' the names of Creation Scientists ... with the likely possiblity that these people would suffer adverse consequences for their scientific careers, as a result.

    This is ridiculous.

    Having creationists involved in scientific research is like having a Muslim involved in research of Christianity.

    Where there is a conflict of interests such as this then there is a very real possibility of 'sabotage' by those who would pervert experimental data in order to support their 'faith based views' of the subject being researched.

    Creationists should not be involved in science any more than paedophiles should be involved in child-care.

    And having creationists in important scientific positions would be like having an Islamic pope. Would Christianity accept that?


  • #2000
    pauldla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    J C wrote: »
    Creationists accept that bacteria 'evolve' in the sense that they develop 'resistance' to antibiotics via selection pressures on their pre-existing CFSGI ... so there would be no pause for thought by a Creationist about the validity of the Doctors statement about the TB Bacterium 'evolving'. Doctoremma, in fairness to her, has already pointed this out to you.
    The use of the phrase 'Noahs ark' treatment by the doctor indicates that it was the doctor who was thinking about prescribing an ineffectual outdated medical treatment ... and not the patient who was choosing it.

    The opposite is true ... it is wrong to mock people ...that is what bullying is often about ... it's people's ideas that are 'fair game' for constructive criticism.

    I agree ... and I have no problem with the ideas of Creationism being debated ... and even mocked ... if you wish ... but please don't complain when Evolutionist ideas are mocked in return!!!:)

    ... I don't think it is acceptable to mock either Evolutionist or Creationist people ... and hinting at refusing full medical treatment to either groups of people is totally unacceptable.

    JC, the doctor is telling the patient about the two choices. He is offering a choice. The keyword 'evolve' triggers the reaction in the Creationist patient. Can a twelve panel cartoon be this confusing?

    Now, sir, I have a bone to pick with you.
    The opposite is true ... it is wrong to mock people ...that is what bullying is often about ... it's people's ideas that are 'fair game' for constructive criticism.
    I did not say that it is OK to mock people. I said that people are usually more tolerant of being mocked personally, than they are of having their beliefs mocked. You are employing a most unsavoury tactic, and I am calling you out on it. For shame, sir.

    I must confess that I have no idea of what you mean by 'Evolutionist', a term which I noticed before you teamed with 'Geology'. I presume that the Evolutionist is a brother to the Gravitite or the Photosythesisist. Regardless, please feel free to mock away. I await with interest: links are acceptable, if you do not have material to hand yourself.


  • #2001
    Masteroid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    My view is that if God did create the universe for a purpose then the process has still got a long way to go.

    Against that background, I think that God is as interested in the trials and tribulations of man as a baker is in the bubbles of steam that exist in the cake he is baking in the oven.

    It's the cake He wants. And evil adds flavour.


  • Advertisement
  • #2002
    Lelantos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,612 ✭✭✭Lelantos


    Masteroid wrote: »
    My view is that if God did create the universe for a purpose then the process has still got a long way to go.

    Against that background, I think that God is as interested in the trials and tribulations of man as a baker is in the bubbles of steam that exist in the cake he is baking in the oven.

    It's the cake He wants. And evil adds flavour.
    So god is Auld Mr Brennan! :)


  • #2003
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Masteroid wrote: »
    Changing the subject a little, why would intelligently designed CFSI need to adapt to selection pressures in an intelligently designed ecosystem?

    You must remember, species do go extinct.

    And if God created species with a shelf-life, 'designed' them to go extinct, why should adaptation take place at all?
    God created life perfect ... and designed to live forever ... but after the 'Fall' death and 'earning your survival by the sweat of your brow' entered the equation ... and that is why species go extinct, selection of the 'fittest' and death of individuals occurs.


  • #2004
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    Creationists do not denigrate and insult the great work being put into medical research by scientists of all beliefs and none. We welcome it and give full credit for it to the people who are doing it.

    Oh praise be to the glory of the Boards.ie search function -
    J C wrote:
    Not a conspiracy ... more an open, 'in your face' bias.
    J C wrote: »
    it is OVERT suppression of Creation Science using the Law and all economic 'levers' available, in a manner and to a degree that makes the Mideval Inquisition look positively 'liberal' in comparison!!!
    J C wrote: »
    .this isn't a (secret) conspiracy ... it is (open) naked and unapologetic discrimination and professional hostility against conventionally qualified colleagues
    J C wrote:
    the Atheists have ACTUALLY erected Materialist 'safeguards' to maintain a Materialistic BIAS in 'Origins Science' ... and they are prepared to do almost anything to preserve these 'safeguards'!!!!!
    J C wrote:
    Evolutionists bias towards 'millions of years' comes in
    J C wrote:
    the vast majority of Evolutionists simply accept Evolution as an ‘Article of Faith’.
    J C wrote:
    it is obvious that ‘not finding evidence for Genesis’ isn’t a conspiracy amongst Evolutionists – it is merely a result an obvious and overt bias on their part.
    J C wrote:
    The reality is that Evolution is an ill-defined load of baloney
    J C wrote:
    evolution is a 'weasel' word ... that is given whatever meaning suits the evolutionist
    J C wrote:
    .you would ALSO need to be as gullible as an Evolutionist ... to fall for that one

    But you still go to these gullable, inquisition loving, weasely, biased, baloney pushing, blind faith believing "evolutionists" when you actually want a medical cure that works ... hilarious :p

    Well done JC, even by your standards of faux-Christian trolling that was a beauty ... slow hand clap

    the_rock_clap_clap_gif_170181014.gif


  • #2005
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Masteroid wrote: »
    This is ridiculous.

    Having creationists involved in scientific research is like having a Muslim involved in research of Christianity.
    Why? ... are you saying that science is some kind of 'religion' for Atheists?

    Creationists are excellent scientists ... so why shouldn't they, and people of all faiths and none, be scientists???
    Masteroid wrote: »
    Where there is a conflict of interests such as this then there is a very real possibility of 'sabotage' by those who would pervert experimental data in order to support their 'faith based views' of the subject being researched.
    There is every bit as much a risk that Atheists ... or any other faith position, could 'pervert' science to their own purposes ... and the defense to this is peer-review, academic freedom and protection to research alternative ideas ... and the requirement to justify scientific conclusions with evidence ... and repeatable experiments.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    Creationists should not be involved in science any more than paedophiles should be involved in child-care.
    Totally outrageous ... first you try to justify the killing of Creationists with medical neglect ... and now you are comparing them to paedophiles!!!!:(

    Can I remind you that nobody 'owns' science ... the evidence falls where it falls ... and if some people want to live in a 'dreamworld' believing themselves to be spontaneously generated through a combination of blind chance and selected mistakes ... then they shouldn't be surprised if somebody comes along ... and 'bursts their bubble'!!!
    ... and throwing unfounded and outrageous comparisons around about the 'bubble bursters' being equivalent to paedophiles ... or making veiled hints that they should be killed through neglect ... just shows that Evolutionists have no evidence for Spontaneous Evolution ... or you would be presenting, it instead of threatening Creationists with career anhialation and using unfounded name-calling.

    Masteroid wrote: »
    And having creationists in important scientific positions would be like having an Islamic pope. Would Christianity accept that?
    That would only be the case if science is some kind of Atheistic religion.
    While I would accept that the belief in Spontaneous Evolution is a type of 'religious faith' ...
    ... I don't accept that science is a religion ... it is a fact and evidentially based enterprise ... that all of Humanity can legitimately engage in.

    ... and it's just tough, if it doesn't support your 'pet' theory that you are descended from pondkind ... with nothing added but deep time and selected mistakes!!!:(


  • #2006
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Oh praise be to the glory of the Boards.ie search function -

    But you still go to these gullable, inquisition loving, weasely, biased, baloney pushing, blind faith believing "evolutionists" when you actually want a medical cure that works ... hilarious :p
    Dogmatic Evolutionists are only a tiny minority of Humanity ... and they are largely found within Evolutionary Biology ... rather than Medical Science.
    I also distinguish between the 'religious' bias of Evolutionists ... when they are considering 'origins' issues ... and the fact that, just like Creationists, most of them are rational, hard working Human Beings, ... who manufacture high quality medicines ... and provide 'cutting edge' medical services ... that I am entitled to avail of ... and I have no problem in purchasing from them ... irrespective of whether they are people of faith, or none.

    the_rock_clap_clap_gif_170181014.gif


  • #2007
    Masteroid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    J C wrote: »
    God created life perfect ... and designed to live forever ... but after the 'Fall' death and 'earning your survival by the sweat of your brow' entered the equation ... and that is why species go extinct, selection of the 'fittest' and death of individuals occurs.

    Solve this paradox for me will you?

    God created man perfect and since specation can't take place, He also created the viruses and bacteria perfect. How could these things live with each other forever?

    Old people must have looked very messy and must have stunk to high heaven as immortal parasites fed off their immortal bodies.


  • #2008
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    J C wrote: »
    Creationists are excellent scientists ... so why shouldn't they ... and people of all faiths and none be scientists???
    No they aren't, and the reasons why they are have been pointed out to you countless times.
    J C wrote: »
    Totally outrageous ... first you try to justify the killing of Creationists with medical neglect ... and now you are comparing them to paedophiles!!!!:(
    Overreact much? You have been told repeatedly since this cartoon has most recently be posted, and previously when it was posted before IIRC, that it does not suggest neglect. The medic in the cartoon is clearly offering a choice to the idiot patient. He is not attempting to withhold a particular course of treatment, merely asking the patient which he would prefer, so you can quit the faux outrage, intentional misunderstand and strawmanning.

    As for the paedophile I think Masteroid was merely trying to show unfitness for a particular role. I am sure you would agree that a paedophile would be unsuitable for working in childcare. I would suspect that Masteroid merely believes that someone with the idiotic beliefs of a creationist should not hold certain positions. Again, fairly simple stuff.
    J C wrote: »
    Can I remind you that nobody 'owns' science ... the evidence falls where it falls ... and if some people want to live in a 'dreamworld' believing themselves to be spontaneously generated through a combination of blind chance and selected mistakes ... then they shouldn't be surprised if somebody comes along ... and bursts your bubble!!!
    Of course no one "owns" science, but it does have certain rules. You and your kind can't complain at the treatment you get when you choose not to following those rules because the results you get contradict you goat herder scribed textbook.
    J C wrote: »
    ... and throwing unfounded and outrageous comparisons around about these people being the equivalent to paedophiles
    Meh, it is simply about fitness for the job. Would you prefer alcoholic in charge of a bar? Or perhaps perhaps a convicted fraudster in charge of a religious organisation... oh wait...
    J C wrote: »
    [...]or killed through neglect ...
    No JC, just no. Grow up.
    J C wrote: »
    just shows that you have no evidence for Spontaneous Evolution ... or you would be presenting it instead of threatening me.
    What is this spontaneous evolution you speak of?
    J C wrote: »
    ... tough, if it doesn't support your 'pet' theory [...]
    Are you completely immune to irony?

    And for the record, I would not attend a doctor that was a creationist. The fact that a person is a YEC is, as far as I am concerned, evidence of a deficiency or some other mental disorder. There. I said it.

    MrP


  • #2009
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Masteroid wrote: »
    My view is that if God did create the universe for a purpose then the process has still got a long way to go.

    Against that background, I think that God is as interested in the trials and tribulations of man as a baker is in the bubbles of steam that exist in the cake he is baking in the oven.

    It's the cake He wants. And evil adds flavour.
    This is dualism and deism ... all wrapped up in one ... it's a point of view ... but it isn't Biblically supported.


  • #2010
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Masteroid wrote: »
    Solve this paradox for me will you?

    God created man perfect and since specation can't take place, He also created the viruses and bacteria perfect. How could these things live with each other forever?
    Bacteria, viruses and other organisms and now often 'agents of disease and death' ... as a direct result of death entering the universe at the 'Fall'.
    Prior to the 'Fall' bacteria and all other organisms lived symbiotically with each other.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    Old people must have looked very messy and must have stunk to high heaven as immortal parasites fed off their immortal bodies.
    Old age is part of the process of death ... as God put it to Adam ... dying, you shall die.


  • Advertisement
  • #2011
    Masteroid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    J C wrote: »
    Why? ... are you saying that science is some kind of 'religion' for Atheists?

    No, I am saying that a pacifist should not be put in charge of assembling the detonation device for a bomb. Ridiculous.
    J C wrote: »
    There is every bit as much a risk that Atheists ... or any other faith position, could 'pervert' science to their own purposes ... and the defense to this is peer-review, academic freedom and protection to research alternative ideas ... and the requirement to justify scientific conclusions with evidence ... and repeatable experiments.

    Yes... yes... yes ... and yes.
    J C wrote: »
    Totally outrageous ... first you try to justify the killing of Creationists with medical neglect ... and now you are comparing them to paedophiles!!!!:(

    Can I remind you that nobody 'owns' science ... the evidence falls where it falls ... and if some people want to live in a 'dreamworld' believing themselves to be spontaneously generated through a combination of blind chance and selected mistakes ... then they shouldn't be surprised if somebody comes along ... and 'bursts their bubble'!!!
    ... and throwing unfounded and outrageous comparisons around about the 'bubble bursters' being equivalent to paedophiles ... or making veiled hints that they should be killed through neglect ... just shows that Evolutionists have no evidence for Spontaneous Evolution ... or you would be presenting, it instead of threatening Creationists with career anhialation and using unfounded name-calling.

    Way to interpret experimental data, J C.


    the_rock_clap_clap_gif_170181014.gif

    J C wrote: »
    That would only be the case if science is some kind of Atheistic religion.
    While I would accept that the belief in Spontaneous Evolution is a type of 'religious faith' ...
    ... I don't accept that science is a religion ... it is a fact and evidentially based enterprise ... that all of Humanity can legitimately engage in.

    ... and it's just tough, if it doesn't support your 'pet' theory that you are descended from pondkind ... with nothing added but deep time and selected mistakes!!!:(

    I'm not looking for support, I'm looking for the correct explanation.


Advertisement