THE STATE OF THE CREATION MOVEMENT [Hysterically Amusing]

Institute for Creation Research ^ | July 2004 | John D. Morris

[PatrickHenry]

Most agree that the modern creation movement began in 1961 with the publication of The Genesis Flood, the classic work on flood geology. God has marvelously blessed in succeeding decades, and now there are scores of creationist organizations worldwide, with books and videos and seminars and websites multiplying rapidly. Not only has creation information become widely available, but the face of science has swung dramatically toward creation positions (i.e., recognition of the lack of transitional fossils, the acceptance of catastrophism in geology, etc.).

[Snip]

ICR remains distinct from other creation groups in its graduate-degree programs and staff of research scientists researching and gathering information made available to all the groups. Sometimes I wonder what could be accomplished if we had access to the huge government grants available to our evolutionary colleagues at universities, but we're winning without these grants.

The rather new Intelligent Design (ID) movement has also emerged, and has been quite effective in demonstrating the exquisite design in living things, quite beyond the ability of natural processes to produce, and the religious, naturalist underpinnings of evolution. Their membership spans a wide spectrum of viewpoints, from evolutionists, to New Agers, to Bible-believing Christians. As a tactical strategy, ID has chosen to be scrupulously secular in their presentation.

While ICR applauds the work of ID, sells their materials, and supports their efforts, we cannot join them. As a Christian, Bible-based organization, our goals are different. [Snip]

[Note: the article is copyrighted, so I've excerpted some portions.]

[PatrickHenry]

This oldi-goldie is amusing right to the end: Teaching Alternative To Evolution Backed. The last 100 or 200 posts are when we got into "dark and stormy night" mode, inspired by gumlegs' fedora. Not to mention that I got post 666, 777, 888, and 999 all in the same thread.

[PatrickHenry]

I have reason to believe that Gumlegs is lurking.

[Heartlander]

The Failed Predictions of Naturalism

1. Chaos made the cosmos.
2. Life should be common throughout the universe.
3. Consciousness comes from mindlessness.
4. DNA should not contain compressed design.
5. Since nature has no morality, morality is relative only for survival.

[longshadow]

The last 100 or 200 posts are when we got into "dark and stormy night" mode, inspired by gumlegs' fedora.

"Festival of the Noir Nerds"

[Dimensio]

1. Chaos made the cosmos.

Not a prediction of naturalism.

2. Life should be common throughout the universe.

1) This is a prediction of naturalism?

2) This has been falsified?

3. Consciousness comes from mindlessness.

Proof that this prediction has failed?

4. DNA should not contain compressed design.

And?

5. Since nature has no morality, morality is relative only for survival.

Can you show that this is false?

[PatrickHenry]

I found the original Gumlegs fedora pic:

It was a dark and stormy night ...

[Heartlander]

Not a prediction of naturalism.

Really? It came from design and order?

This has been falsified?

This has been verified?

Prove that this prediction has failed?

Prove it has succeeded.

DNA should not contain compressed design.

Why should this happen and for what ‘reason’?

Since nature has no morality, morality is relative only for survival.

Show that it is true and we will 'vote' for our survivability.

[PatrickHenry]

I'm gonna sit back and let you deal with this.

[Dimensio]

Really? It came from design and order?

You didn't say "no design and chaos", you just said "chaos".

This has been verified?

There is a difference between "not verified" and "falsified".

Prove it has succeeded.

I don't have to. You're the one who claimed that it failed, therefore the burden of proof is upon you to show that it has failed.

Why should this happen and for what ‘reason’?

Why shouldn't this happen according to naturalism?

Show that it is true and we will 'vote' for our survivability.

Once again, you made the claim that it is false, therefore the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate your claim to be accurate.

[Heartlander]

Well, let us start with and deal with, “Chaos made the cosmos”.

What created the cosmos? Was there design and order?

Naturalism! What an incredible faith based belief system. It allows for times of ‘correction’ only when it must ‘admit’ it is wrong. It knows it is wrong about many things now but not the fact science is correct.

It’s a cute religion… (with the ability to admit its many faults)

[Dimensio]

What created the cosmos?

I don't know.

Was there design and order?

I don't know.

Naturalism! What an incredible faith based belief system. It allows for times of ‘correction’ only when it must ‘admit’ it is wrong. It knows it is wrong about many things now but not the fact science is correct.

Non-sequitur. You don't have an actual argument, do you?

[Heartlander]

Chaos

Design

Compare the two and decide your origin… LOL!

[Dimensio]

Chaos and Design are not direct opposites.

You STILL have yet to put together a coherent argument.

[Heartlander]

Fine... Where did the universe that we live in come from according to your naturalistic religion?

[PatrickHenry]

This is your brain on drugs:

And this is your brain on creationism:

[Heartlander]

Savior of stupidity with festival graphics --- placemarker

[Gumlegs]

Hoping for improving weather ...

[Dimensio]

Where did the universe that we live in come from according to your naturalistic religion?

1) I don't have a "naturalistic religion".

2) I already told you what I believe regarding the origin of the universe: I don't know.

You're so stuck on your false dichotomies that you refuse to accept when someone doesn't tell you what you want them to believe.

[Heartlander]

OK. So answer to number 1:
Did “Chaos make the cosmos?”
Is, “I don’t know and I’m dogmatic about it!”

So let’s move on to number 2
“Life should be common throughout the universe.”

[Dimensio]

No, the answer to number 1 is "I don't know, why do you keep asking me after I already gave you that answer?"

And what about number 2?