Creationists, may I ask you...

a reply to: Murgatroid

What cult? If you can disprove a theory or scientific notion, then do it. Prove it scientifically. Science isn't a cult. Politics and agendas may influence the direction of scientific fields. But that is it.

The fact that you think science is a cult makes you sound like a moron.

a reply to: Murgatroid

I really think that you don't understand science.

EDIT: Plus, if you're getting your facts from people like Hoffman you need to be aware that he's a seriously twisted, anti-Semitic, lunatic with delusions of adequacy.

originally posted by: blueman12
What cult? If you can disprove a theory or scientific notion, then do it. Prove it scientifically. Science isn't a cult. Politics and agendas may influence the direction of scientific fields. But that is it.

The fact that you think science is a cult makes you sound like a moron.

The fact that you believe science is telling you the truth makes you THINK like a moron.

Right back atcha': if you can disprove my posts, then do it instead of acting like the very moron you accuse others of.

I gave you plenty of evidence, you gave NONE.

Every cult member throughout history will tell you the same thing you just said: "What cult?"

Like I said, Science and education are nothing but very effective forms of mind control which blinds people to reality.

Your post only confirms this BTW.

If you've been brainwashed, you are NOT going to know it.

"In the entire history of man, no one has ever been brainwashed and realized, or believed, that he had been brainwashed. Those who have been brainwashed will usually passionately defend their manipulators, claiming they have simply been "shown the light" . . . or have been transformed in miraculous ways." ~ Dick Sutphen

The atheistic mainstream scientism establishment is becoming increasingly desperate in it's efforts to conceal the impending collapse of the erroneous theoretical structures upon which their imaginary Darwinian universe is built. You will find nothing but denial and vicious personal attacks on anyone who dares to point out these contradictions and offer alternative theories. Only a scientific crisis which forces them to face reality will change this and God will certainly provide it ! www.henrymakow.com...

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
When has Speciation ever been observed and tested???????????????

Considering there is no such thing as speciation....

Species is a Taxonomic classification it is not a process; therefore, you cannot have "speciation". Same with micro and macro evolution. They are taxonomic in definition not processes.

a reply to: Murgatroid

And now, having earlier cited that anti-Semitic lunatic Hoffman, you follow up by mentioning Expelled. Which is a piece of creationist claptrap. Bad creationist claptrap at that. Your cite-fu is lacking, young Padawan.

originally posted by: scorpio84
...why do so many of you not believe in evolution?

I honestly do not get it.

Evolution: Based on data that can be observed and tested.

Creationism: Based on an ancient book that has been consistently translated inaccurately and which contains several errors


I'm not looking for:
-defensive replies
-prolonged debate
-trolling
-rude behavior

This is an honest question and if it some how offends it, then I'm sorry...that you are so easily offended. But seriously, if anyone here can give a good (i.e. logical and valid) reason as to why creationism makes more sense (i.e. is more correct, not is easier) than the theory of evolution, I'd love to read about it.

BTW, if this has been answered before, pardon me. I'm not about to go through thousands of posts which are invariably interspersed with a bunch of bickering.

For goodness sake, it explains it all in Genesis 1 which for some reason everyone thinks is completed. It doesn't end until the End of Days, which is the end of the seventh day. Everything from Genesis 2 onwards is the latter part of the sixth day. I don't have much time so have scribbled the following. There is one spiral (the face of the waters, a whirlpool which looks like an open mouth) split into two, heavens and earth. That's the first thing that Genesis says. Creation runs along the grey spiral from the creation of light. The Bible runs from bottom to top. As you can see, time in the Bible doesn't distinguish where something happens on the spiral and condenses it altogether applying 'local tenses'.

From the creation of life to now has been part of the creation process. Evolution that you support has been managed by God from the start and is still continuing.

You can rekindle the evolution argument without God after the End of Days, but you'll have to wait a few million generations before postulating a theory.

Lack of valid scientific evidence,
It's more than evolution, it's about big bangs, star formations

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Lack of valid scientific evidence,
It's more than evolution, it's about big bangs, star formations

As you can see from the picture, our concept of time and time as described in the Bible are quite different. Time isn't linear. It has both angle and distance. Seeing as science has missed that altogether, relying on science for proof of everything is fundamentally flawed. Prove that time is linear and I'll retract my comment and the picture.

a reply to: MoshiachIusDei

Your picture makes no sense, regards the bible as being a major source that accurately describes the cosmos (it doesn't) and frankly... well, how can time be non-linear?

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
And now, having earlier cited that anti-Semitic lunatic Hoffman, you follow up by mentioning Expelled. Which is a piece of creationist claptrap. Bad creationist claptrap at that. Your cite-fu is lacking, young Padawan.

So says the guy who cites one of the biggest propaganda sites in existence.

Like a quote says below, "RationalWiki" is the Stormfront for intellectuals.

If you want to believe the propaganda knock yourself out.

I simply choose not to....

"We all know that RationalWiki is a liberal propaganda site..." Link

"a horrible piece of establishment propaganda... littered with false statements and ad hominem. I imagine that the whole of the wiki is a collection of gatekeepers for consensus science and PTB doctrine...." www.fmotl.com...

"...anyone can anonymously write whatever they want (but correction of the tripe written will be considered “vandalism”!) RationalWiki is one of those sites. RationalWiki is a project of Trent Toulouse, who has the stated objective of “exposing conspiracy theories”. He once implied that he considers a conspiracy theory everything that disagrees with mainstream dogma, making RationalWiki a platform for anyone with an agenda to attack researchers struggling to bring important facts to public attention." owndoc.com...

"RationalWiki is now just another outlet for #FTBullies ideology... they are totally baboon property. Monkeys dancing for the organ grinder... the "talk" pages for their hatchet job/character assassination wiki entries show how utterly corrupt it is..." twitter.com...

"Their alternative weapon is called "rational wiki" (an oxymoron) and it is allegedly ran by a student named Toulouse, from Hamilton, Canada. He is as real as that shady guy who runs wikipedia.org, with an added character feature of inferiority complex. Of course, it is possible that he too does not exist (a made-up character), or that he has been co-opted by intelligence services, as they do draft students.

RationalWiki is a genetic-egalitarian race-denialist propaganda website that is run by Ontario resident Trent Toulouse. RationalWiki is a wiki founded by secular humanists in response to Conservapedia. They regard Richard Dawkins as their messiah. It is based on MediaWiki, like Metapedia. The wiki has around 4200 English pages middle of May 2010. The information is inaccurate and sparse. The wiki begs for donations. The site is extremely anti-Christian and anti-Conservative and promotes sodomy and gun restriction.

The website fraudulently portrays itself as being “rational”, and opposed to “pseudoscience”, yet promotes exactly the thing that they claim to oppose: the irrational spiritual pseudosciences of genetic egalitarianism and race denialism. On top of such deceptiveness, Trent Toulouse solicits donations (on the website’s main page) under these false pretenses. That fits within the definition of criminal fraud." A note on "Rational Wiki"

"Some of the most untrue bunch of lies that could ever be written in the entire world were written by RationalWiki. They claim that they are the truth and the holy appointed protectors of science and their subjects. They do not tell the truth. RationalWiki is the biggest con job on the internet. It is the National Enquirer of skeptical thought.

They are like Stormfront for intellectual people that pimp a platform of hate and scorn for those that they hate, no matter how wrong and biased that they are and kudos for those that they DO like. RationalWiki is the most biased thing out there on the internet today. They are NOT rational or intelligent. RationalWiki is a fraud factory. It is a quack’s encyclopedia. They are pseudo-intellectual quackery at its finest. RationalWiki is a joke!" Source

Take, for example, the RationalWiki article on pseudoscience. One merely has to lightly read through it to see some of the most arrogant statements that can be made. ...there is no excuse for passing this kind of blithely arrogant and shallow material off as anything other than trash, and that’s not even dealing with the factual inaccuracies.

The entire site is plagued by trash (the only suitable term) of this nature. I have no doubts that RationalWiki is just a front for Left-Wing Progressivism (a type of Socialism, basically), based on the style of the writing and the methods of argumentation used.

RationalWiki is a Front for Socialist Indoctrination

originally posted by: MoshiachIusDei

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Lack of valid scientific evidence,
It's more than evolution, it's about big bangs, star formations

As you can see from the picture, our concept of time and time as described in the Bible are quite different. Time isn't linear. It has both angle and distance. Seeing as science has missed that altogether, relying on science for proof of everything is fundamentally flawed. Prove that time is linear and I'll retract my comment and the picture.

Sorry moshiac
I was replying to the op

I think you could be wrong but I am unsure, interesting picture

Einstein proved time isn't linear I think

a reply to: Murgatroid

I don't need to disprove your posts. There is no benifit in trying to make idiots understand science if they refuse to read a beginner science book.

Jesus man, Do you even know how a cell works? Or is the inner workings of a cell just a "belief" by scientists?

I really can't argue much further if you think science is a cult. A cult doesn't have arguments, unbias studies, differing views, methods for testing ideas, ect...

I don't know if you are a good troll, or just really really really really stupid.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Well, your new cites are.... amusing. And wrong. But let's look instead at something that's far, far, more interesting: your total lack of any kind of response to the fact that I have called you out on using Hoffman as a source. Fascinating. Let me point at that. And I await your response.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: MoshiachIusDei

Your picture makes no sense, regards the bible as being a major source that accurately describes the cosmos (it doesn't) and frankly... well, how can time be non-linear?

How can time be linear? Nothing else in creation is of just one plane. Even light isn't mono-planar. Gravity isn't. Are you saying time is the exception to the rule? That seems unlikely.

Why do we use circular clocks and then use linear calendars? Circular clocks are more accurate. They aren't linear.

If you are in a car going round a slow curve at a slow speed with your eyes closed do you notice the change in direction?

As we get older time seems to go faster. That's because the distance between now and your childhood is increasing at a slower pace than when you were a kid thus feeling like a shorter period than it actually was. When we are born we have a time/space reference point imprinted in the brain that we calculate linearly from. If you imagine time is curved long enough you will start to calculate on a curve. Time will then seem to be evenly spaced through your life.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Oh, and by the way, every single one of your cites were so ridiculous that they actually made me burst out laughing. Seriously? Yes, even your Google-fu is weak, Padawan. Oh, who am I kidding? You're not even a Padawan.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: MoshiachIusDei

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Lack of valid scientific evidence,
It's more than evolution, it's about big bangs, star formations

As you can see from the picture, our concept of time and time as described in the Bible are quite different. Time isn't linear. It has both angle and distance. Seeing as science has missed that altogether, relying on science for proof of everything is fundamentally flawed. Prove that time is linear and I'll retract my comment and the picture.

Sorry moshiac
I was replying to the op

I think you could be wrong but I am unsure, interesting picture

Einstein proved time isn't linear I think

Einstein got E=mc^2 from Genesis 1. 'Elohim said light. There was light. He saw it was good (as is Elohim).' E=m is Elohim. He called his theory 'relativity', not after Genesis, but after the last book in the Bible, Revelation. Then he declared he was atheist to cover his tracks.

a reply to: blueman12

Thanks for confirming what most of us already knew...

The atheistic mainstream scientism establishment is becoming increasingly desperate in it's efforts to conceal the impending collapse of the erroneous theoretical structures upon which their imaginary Darwinian universe is built. You will find nothing but denial and vicious personal attacks on anyone who dares to point out these contradictions and offer alternative theories. www.henrymakow.com...

a reply to: scorpio84

Creationism: based on a historical text (the validity of which has been attested to by many scholars and historians) that is the word of the living God. Noah's ark has been found--and it's the exact thing the Bible describes (yes, down to the exact measurements and materials). It was found about a decade ago--very surprised that everyone hasn't heard of this by now.

Evolution: Darwin's theory was bastardized by Herbert Spencer who invented the whole humans evolving from apes malarkey (btw Spencer is a eugenicist)--Darwin didn't believe any of that. Natural selection definitely exists. So does adaptation. So, to that end, evolution exists (at least, the evolution Darwin spoke of). Herbert Spencer's archaebacteria/invertebrate/vertebrate/fish/monkey/human fantasy is totally unfounded and there is absolutely no evidence of this type of thing being even remotely true.

I hope that answered your question

a reply to: scorpio84
What observable data is there to support evolution again I must have missed it. No fossil data actually supports evolution so the whole idea is really a theory.

a reply to: rukia

You mean the thing on Mt Ararat?

Everyone knows about that... you might notice the "team" that went up there were from a "Christian ministry"

Most actual experts in the field are not so convinced as said team... it really adds no validity the fable

news.nationalgeographic.com...