We have done this dance before and you and everyone else knows what I mean when I say creationist. I mean they think some things were created SPECIAL. Such a proposition is completely useless in terms of explaining or predicting the natural world. Why, what possible practical application do you suppose it has? Other than selling books and such to the cretarded?
"cretarded"??
You know, you've just really set a new low for yourself and destroyed whatever little credibility you may have had among people who didn't know you any better.
You continue to exhibit a level of bias and bigotry that demonstrates you are completely incapable of being objective about anything. A real handicap for someone who claims to be a scientist. With that kind of attitude and inability to be more objective, your scientific work would be suspect and certainly anything you say about science is also suspect.
Most people get over calling others retards in 6th grade.
Grow up.
You’re dancing alone. I don’t dig your jive.
“everyone else knows what I mean when I say creationist.”
Certainly, we all know what you mean. The prostitution of meaning and of human communication in this forum is your objective. Just as we all know what Goebbels meant when he opened his bigoted mouth.
“Such a proposition is completely useless in terms of explaining or predicting the natural world. Why, what possible practical application do you suppose it has?”
If we were to make inquiries of Scientists to the effect: Are all men created equal? Are they, then, endowed with unalienable rights? Do governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed? To what scientific protocol would these scientists turn to guide them in the experiments necessary for them to formulate their answer? To what peer-reviewed journals might we turn to view their findings?
What protocol violation or breach of scientific practice brought about the abrupt termination of the Tuskegee Experiment?
Without the concept “freedom of inquiry” would the Science you tout as the fount of all wisdom even exist? What of “freedom of association,” without which Scientists would not even have a forum on which they could gather and exchange ideas and information? Yet both are concepts of the Creationist ideals of our Founding Fathers.
I know of no Judeo-Christian who does not, as an article of faith, believe that God created Mankind and the Universe, and that the Judeo-Christian God is relevant to all “human activities.” Do you deny this?
When Jefferson wrote that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights (the most famous words since the words of Christ), he was speaking the thoughts of a whole people. God, the creator of Natural Law; God the giver of law to Man; the equality of all Men the gift of The Creator; unalienable rights the gift of The Creator. All the Founding Fathers make it undeniably clear that the Creationist philosophy of Judeo-Christianity is central to their public and private perspectives regarding liberty.
In the past I have urged you to look up the etymology of the word “Creator” (with a capital “C”), and its development following the printing of the KJV. But, you can not bring yourself to do that. Such an endeavour would be poison for you. It would be like Count Dracula viewing a Cross.
Do you believe that liberty is the design of nature? Do you believe that liberty is the direction of history? Do you believe that human fulfillment and excellence come in the responsible exercise of liberty? And do you believe that freedom is not for us alone? That it is the right and the capacity of all mankind?
The Constitution itself is the philosophical product of the Creationist beliefs expressed in the Declaration of Independence. For you this must be a cause for acute gastric distress. Take a Tums and learn to live with it.
It is the labors of Christian Western Civilization in the last two thousand years that has produced efforts to regulate the issues of the meaning of lawful war, the origins of war, the avarice and cruelty of war, the treatment of prisoners, when the right of conquest and the claiming of the spoils of war are just and when they are not, the rights of discovery and the treatment of native peoples, the securing of peace as the prime objective of war, questions of maritime law, redress for injuries, restitution of property and recompense for wrongs done, and the laws of embassy and envoys. No competing civilization, or philosophy, or scientific theory has even approached that accomplishment – ever.
From what experiment, or field study, or science textbook did any of these ideas come? Instead these ideas, many of our scientist friends say, are mere useless, nay even harmful, philosophical concepts, and so inferior therefore as to be unworthy of contemplation at all. And you apparently know of no “practical application” for any of them.
Cheers!