‘Go to hell, creationists!’ (Evo tolerance in action)

CMI ^ | December 30, 2008 | Carl Wieland

[GodGunsGuts]

Information scientist, author and evangelist, Dr Werner Gitt, a close friend of CMI, told us that on 23 October 2008 he was subjected to the most strident opposition he had ever encountered...

[CE2949BB]

You stepped into the land of Free Republic and you demand that your questions be answered before you debate?

If someone is going to debate Creationism / Intelligent Design / evolution, I want a baseline.

Did Jim Robinson give you this authority over me to be able to demand this action?

Absolutely not.

That is a new rule for myself. If someone wants to debate Creationism, Intelligent Design, or evolution - they have to answer that question.

Jim Robinson has nothing to do with my prerequisites.

If not, then you have no authority to demand anything from me.

If you want to debate Creationism, Intelligent Design, or evolution with me, yes I do.

[do the dhue]

Believe me when I say you have no authority over me.

Now that you have prerequisites, so do I. I have the right to ask you to go back to post 256 and answer my questions.

Your silence will confirm my belief that your way of thinking is not for me.

[do the dhue]

And how can you avoid answering questions, but demand that others answer yours?

Again, I bring this question to the table: How can you observe the beginning of all life from which we have evolved?

Your silence will prove you have no answer and your belief is just that.

[CE2949BB]

Even Darwin would not accept this. If people actually read and understood the words of Darwin there would be no theory of evolution today.

Huh? Back that up, please.

Darwin stated that for evolution to occur, life must begin simple and then evolve to the complex.

Increased complexity is usually a product of evolution, but it is not necessary. An organism may evolve and lose complexity.

Life does not begin simple.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

Darwin would recognize this today.

Please, unless you are channeling Darwin, don't tell us what he would recognize or fail to recognize.

If a cell was blown up to the human scale it would be about seven blocks big and hold nine 'factories' inside. Each factory would produce something different and it gets its instructions from DNA.

Yay, evolution.

I worked for a business who mapped the DNA structure of the human being. They used nine different HP 9000 servers that do the work of thousands of men (or woman to be PC). It took those servers three and a half years to map the DNA structure.

Good for you.

If Darwin were to see this, he would say that it is the signature of God.

What are you basing that statement on? Where in Darwin's writings does it say anything that would even hint at that?

Why wouldn't some kind of new life pop up before my very eyes?

Life doesn't "pop" into existence.

I repeat: life doesn't "pop" into existence. You do not understand any aspect of the theory of evolution. You can't and ask such a question.

Is this what passes for scientific debate here? People that refuse to answer if they "believe" in geocentrism and people who claim to have worked for a company that did the HGP - or a related project - but ask why life doesn't "pop" into existence?

This is absurd.

[do the dhue]

I didn't answer you question and you are debating me. See, you have no authority over me.

Have you even read Darwin? Now, this isn't a real good question because there are over 20,000 papers written by Darwin. It would be hard for any of us to read it all.

I used Darwin's own words. I may not have stated it as he did, but that was the gist I received from what I read of him. That life must begin simple. I have some books in storage that I will have to dig out, but I have read it. BTW: I don't believe Darwin was convinced that evolution was true yet. He had an idea and could not prove it yet. He needed answers and testing to prove his theory.

Evolution evolved DNA? Where did DNA gets it's origin? Have you ever seen DNA? The cell and DNA are not simple entities. Some people believe it to be more complicated then I. Some people claim that the cell is a City the Size of New York (if scaled down). Complete with Power Stations, Refineries, Data Processing Centers, Transportation ‘Tramways’, Waste Management, Security, Maintenance, etc, etc, etc.

Statements like ‘good for you’ does nothing to further the debate.

You are understanding biological evolution. Now, you must ask the question how did it all begin and evolve from there. Biological evolution does not threaten the existence of God. What does, is the beginning of life from the start of time. The creation of life in the universe.

BTW: I kept those servers running. I knew the work that they were doing. Hence, I became curious and learned a few things. I learned enough to know that our DNA structure and cells are not simple items. I saw it as the signature of God.

[CE2949BB]

I didn't answer you question and you are debating me. See, you have no authority over me.

If you represent Conservatism and/or Republicanism, I may have to - for the first time in my life - reconsider my party affiliation.

I simply cannot be part of political party that has geocentrists and other luddites in large numbers.

You, Metmom and the rest of the Creationists have forced me to look at a side of the Republican Party that I never wanted to believe existed to any significant degree.

I am truly heartbroken tonight. My faith in my party is dying.

[do the dhue]

And the reason I saw that evolution does not threaten the existence of God is because there is not link between me and the ape or any other animal.

In my belief, evolution makes a monkey out of you and I.

BTW: Since we share 99% of the same DNA as a mouse, we could have evolved from mice (IF evolution was law).

[NinoFan]

Dude, are you serious? There are plenty of us that don’t think like that. What the heck, man?

[NinoFan]

And I don’t see how a guy like you could ever vote for the Dems, man. Being an objectivist and all. WTH?

[do the dhue]

The Religious right has sided with Republicans for a long time and a lot of us are reconsidering our position because of more and more folks like you joining our ranks.

The feeling is mutual.

[do the dhue]

Only evil will rejoice when God is removed from our public view. Only evil will rejoice when the unborn baby is murdered in the mother's womb. Only evil will rejoice when I can not use the 2nd Amendment to protect my family. Only evil will rejoice when America's military is not strong enough to protect herself from an outside threat. And only evil will rejoice when the people are dependent upon the Government from the cradle to the grave. This is why I don't vote for Demorats and why I vote Republican.

What are your convictions that make you vote Republican?

[do the dhue]

BTW: some scientist are saying that the universe is expanding in all four directions in equal proportions from Milky Way. That could very well place you and I in the middle of the universe.

And I work on computers, how could I be a luddite?

[valkyry1]

Claiming to be about science seems to be an effective means (at least on this forum) to adopt liberal secularist god-hating values and still maitain a pretense of being conservative.

[do the dhue]

I call them Christianphobes.

Funny how we can be tolerant of them, but they are in no way tolerant of us. And not funny haha, more like peculiar.

Did I misunderstand, or has the Religious Right been a fixture of the Conservative movement? Now, we have to give up our ground because people in our own party won't tolerate us? Horsehockey, I say. Makes me want to stand my ground even more.

[tacticalogic]

Are you asking me because you don't know whether or not it's smart to mouth off to me? You know, you can always play it safe and go harrass the folks in the trailer park.

You came to me. Is there something about living in a trailer park you think makes people "safe targets"?

You mean as long as I "acknowledge" that religion is subjective ethno-cultural moral philosophy illustrated by mythology and has no bearing whatsoever upon the "real world?"

I mean exactly what I said.

Suppose I demand that secularists keep their secularism to themselves? After all, it's not as if there were any obligation or even merit in "scientific truth" in a meaningless world.

Do you disagree with the Constitutional restraints on making religious tests a requirement for holding public office?

[tacticalogic]

Why would you look for more meaning in something that is written as a declarative sentence?

Because written and spoken language is limited and fequently ambiguous, particularly when translated.

As an historical reference, first person accounts of events are generally considered to be accurate, but Genesis is not a first person account.

[DevNet]

Theories are greater than laws. That is why the Theory of Relativity is greater than Newton’s laws of motion.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

[The Ayn Rand Cultist CC294] I believe and hope, most Christians in America will accept God as the ultimate Creator and embrace evolution as the tool/method He used.

[do the dhue] Even Darwin would not accept this.If people actually read and understood the words of Darwin there would be no theory of evolution today.

That's correct. And if people understood the words of Ernst Haeckel, they would recognize monistic ideology masquerading as biology. In fact they would recognize where the arguments and attitudes of the so-called 'FR evolutionary scientists' come from.

[DevNet]

I have noticed that those who say evolution is wrong - evil - whatever have absolutely no problem using the products of evolutionary research to help keep themselves healthy or recover from illness.

Why don’t they stick to their guns in those instances?

[metmom]

However, I must point out that the meaning of the word ‘theory” is often used casually by some of you guys here. Precise definitions are important.

We're not the ones using the term "theory" interchangeably with the word "fact".