The Five Failed Predictions of Creationism

Crevo thread: Professor Dumped Over Evolution Beliefs ^ | 24 March 2003 | PatrickHenry

[gore3000]

Attacks on creationism do not equate to attacks on Christians.

You constantly attack fellow Christians. Fundamentalists are Christians, they are followers of Christ and you constantly attack them. A good Christian does not visciously attack fellow believers.

Anyway, let's do it again. What part of Christianity do you believe in? What part of the Bible do you agree with?

[gore3000]

Ah, but that's precisely what he has been claiming. Over and over, he says that Christianity is creationism. Were that even remotely true, Christianity

Nope, what I claim is that evolution is atheism and I can back it up unlike you who just hurl totally unfounded garbage.

[Junior]

Idiot. I attack the views held by some Christians -- namely the literal interpretation of Genesis. You are a different case. You're constantly wrong on so many things (should I dig up your famous "circles are not elipses" argument from last year?). You are one of the densest folks to ever post on these threads, and your inability to differentiate between an attack on a view and an attack on a person proves that you lack even the fundamental reasoning skills required of these discussions.

[PatrickHenry]

You are one of the densest folks to ever post on these threads ...

Consider how he first invents his own fantasy version of evolution, one where all members of a species decide one day to all switch together into something else, with not a single member of the old species left behind. Then he carries on and babbles and screeches for a year or two about how ridiculous [his perverse version of] evolution is, and how only an idiot could believe such a thing. It never penetrates his intellect that no one but him thinks of that as evolution.

Then he invents a private version of Christianity, one in which creationism is central, and Genesis is really good, solid science, and anyone who doesn't blindly accept his silly notion of things is not only an atheist, but is actually attacking Christianity. (And is also a fraud, slimer, liar, communist, Hitler supporter, etc.)

So, in his mind, he is the sole judge of what evolution is (although he knows nothing about it, not even what it is); and he is the sole judge of what Christianity is (presumably he thinks that he alone follows the true path to heaven); and as all the world can clearly see, he is utterly confused, misguided, and incurably wrong in both matters.

[longshadow]

So, in his mind, he is the sole judge of what evolution is (although he knows nothing about it, not even what it is); and he is the sole judge of what Christianity is (presumably he thinks that he alone follows the true path to heaven); and as all the world can clearly see, he is utterly confused, misguided, and incurably wrong in both matters.

So, what did you expect from someone who thinks that:

1) "a circle is not an ellipse"

2) the planets have "wildly elliptical" orbits

3) "1⁷²⁰" is a really big number

His behavior is somewhat curious, until one realizes that we now can, for the first time anywhere, reveal his likely identity:

Remember how we've all noticed that English is not his native language? Notice how he's been MIA for the past few weeks until today.

It's obvious who he really is: the Iraqi Minister of Dis-Information, "Baghdad Bob." Both use English as a second language, and both misrepresent the truth over and over again, even when the "evidence" is shoved right under their noses.

Notice the similarities:

LBB: "The evolutionists are running like rats; they have been thrashed by the Brilliant Creationists every-time they challenge us."

"Baghdad Bob": "The infidels are running like rats; they have been thrashed by the Republican Guards every time they cahllenge us."

I rest my case.

[PatrickHenry]

Notice the similarities ... I rest my case.

The similarities are very striking, especially in style and reasoning ability. But I don't think they're the same person. Baghbad Bob at least had the good sense to vanish when the US took over Baghdad. He knows when he's beaten. If he were really LBB, he would still be there in the square, where the toppled statue of Saddam once stood, and he would still be declaring victory, even while surrounded by the infidels. So you see, I think you dishonor Baghdad Bob when you declare that he is LBB.

[PatrickHenry]

Daily bump for my lonely thread.

[PatrickHenry]

Why I No Longer Debate Idiots.

[Junior]

Jesus knew the audience to whom He spoke. Also, you seem to be saying that, even if evolution is true and Genesis is an allegory, to believe so means we marginalize God. In other words, it would be better for our eternal souls to believe a lie. Are you certain you and I worship the same deity?

[f.Christian]

Baghdad patrick (( secret science // weapons ))!

[f.Christian]

In most circles that is called, cognitive dissonance.

In "The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy," he argues that the prevailing vision in the press, academy and politics has become so ... dogmatic --- that it has lost touch with reality.

Mr. Sowell labels the competing visions "constrained" and "unconstrained." The constrained vision argues that perfection is impossible, that social policy consists of structuring incentives for self-centered men, that life is a series of trade-offs. This vision is represented by the likes of Adam Smith, Edmund Burke and Alexander Hamilton (and of course, Dick Cheney and the Bush administration mindset).

[m1-lightning]

Interpretations of the bible, time, and translations have all either destroyed the clear truth to what really happened or we're slowly understanding it as we gain new technology. For instance, the translation from the hebrew version has given us 'rib' as what was taken from Adam to make Eve. Because no one could understand what curve God was talking about, the translation was left as rib. The true Hebrew to English translation is 'curve'. Now we can take newly learned technolgy and accurately interpret it as the cuvre of the helical 'DNA' rather than 'rib'. It would make more sense. With the help of science, the Bible gives a lot of hints that science may have been involved. If you read real closely in Genesis you will see that God created 'man' twice. He first created man then he created Adam. Adam was the bloodline to Jesus. It's really hard to understand being thousands of years later when even English has changed many of the meanings of it's words and has even lost some words from the language. You will truly know all the answers when you die or you will know nothing. It's up to you if you want to believe or not.

[f.Christian]

Evolution is a quagmire !

[m1-lightning]

Evolution has yet to be proven. Darwin only showed similarities between species of the past. Man has been trying to fly forever and has yet to sprout wings. And yes evolution is a quagmire.

[Junior]

It is apparent that you have already believed the lie of evilution.

Rationally, evolution does a far better job at explaining the evidence than creationism does. Why do you think creationists are fighting a rear-guard action? It isn't because of some "conspiracy" -- face it, no conspiracy of such monumental proportions could survive. Instead, rational people, Christian and non-Christian alike, have looked at the evidence and accepted the theory of evolution as the best fit for that evidence. Hell, even the head of my church, the Pope, has accepted the scientific validity of evolution.

Creationists do not even have a dog in this hunt; y'all are reduced to sitting on the sidelines carping at the folks actually doing the research (we posted a thread last year on why creationists do not do research. We could resurrect it for your edification, but I'm not sure you'd appreciate the conclusions). Until such a time as creationists come up with a theory that is a better fit for the evidence, you won't be taken seriously. And, BTW, nit-picking evolution is not considered evidence for creationism. It ain't an either-or game.

[Junior]

What I meant by "Jesus knew His audience" and which you could deduce given a few minutes of actual thought: just as a kindergarten teacher would use a well-known fairy tale to illustrate a point to her students, Jesus would have used the stories known and understood by his audience. This does not mean the fairy tale had any corporal validity, and the same could be said of Genesis.