Asian Darwinist Profs Call Creationists Barbarians

CEH ^ | October 22, 2009

[GodGunsGuts]

Oct 22, 2009 — “We have kept the creationist barbarians from the gate,” announced a professor at Hong Kong University triumphantly. A news article in Science this week described tensions in the city over the teaching of evolution. The Darwinists won a vote over a change in wording in the science curriculum that would have “opened the door to teaching creationism and intelligent design in secondary schools.” The door must be shut tight, apparently. Even the possibility of this happening created a furore.

Reporter Richard Stone said, “As a year of honoring Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution draws to a close, scientists in Hong Kong are celebrating a partial victory in what is likely to be an ongoing war against proponents of teaching creationism and intelligent design in secondary schools.” He called the partial victory “bittersweet” because it did not revise the guidelines, nor did it rein in “the few dozen schools in Hong Kong that openly espouse creationism.”

Stone said that most schools in Hong Kong, though publicly funded, are run independently – and many are affiliated with churches. The author of the “barbarians” comment, David Dudgeon (faculty board chair at U of HK) complained...

[betty boop]

This one seems to have your name written all over it bb!

LOLOL!!!

So, what do you expect me to say? What instantly comes to mind is: Every barnyard must have its braying ass.

And I gather that the braying asses from the various barnyards have invoked a communal colloquium of braying, in which each competes with the other for the loudest-braying prize. But in the end, this motley crew can all agree about one thing: It is the donkeys of the world that get to prescribe what is right and just for humans.

'Nuff said.

[Mr. Silverback]

We have one mind. Not two.

And one universe...about which the Son of God makes certain claims.

[Mr. Silverback]

I didn’t say or presume you were attacking Christianity. I was pointing out that if one believes the Bible and believes evolution is responsible for the world around us, one is disagreeing with very explicit statements by Christ and His apostles.

Click the link in my post to you and tell me that I’m wrong about that.

[TexasAg]

I was pointing out that if one believes the Bible and believes evolution is responsible for the world around us, one is disagreeing with very explicit statements by Christ and His apostles.

So then you are a YEC? Because you can't believe in the Big Bang and a billion year old earth and then insist that man's creation in Genesis is literal.

[Tax Government]

Keep your pomposity that passes all human understanding under wraps, lest it embarrass you further.

[tpanther]

You didn’t know that about like you didn’t know the sun rises in the east.

OK...whatever.

I have 3 science degrees...I make a living at science.

You should understand by now virtually everyone on these threads recognize you for the not so closet liberal you are.

We also recognize that liberals have no shame, so “credibility” is just another word to you with no real meaning.

Just like trying to waste metmom’s time with your stupid question about scientific degrees being the “new” credibility standard, having no shame when it comes to your defense of a flaming liberal troll lecturing people about science who has no understanding of science, let alone a science degree.

So we have one liberal troll with no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to science (and everything else) and another liberal troll daring to speak about credibility.

NO thanks.

[count-your-change]

” Because you can’t believe in the Big Bang and a billion year old earth and then insist that man’s creation in Genesis is literal.”

Why not?

[TexasAg]

Because if you insist that Genesis is literal for the creation on man, it appears massively hypocritical to not insist that Genesis is literal for the creation of the planet. Or is this a case where the science has been convincing enough to say that the earth wasn’t created in a few days?

[tpanther]

Evolution is the liberal position. Period. Especially how evolution is taqught (indoctrinated) in public schools.

ANY conservative understands what these threads are about...and in a nutshell, conservatives don’t defend the secular humanist NEA/ACLU.

I’m sorry but there’s simply nothing Christian or biblical about a belief that demands we’re all here for no reason whatsoever, out of sheer happenstance, from a single accidental cell, via no design and no intelligence.

Can you name a single liberal that supports creationism or ID?

[TexasAg]

Evolution is the liberal position. Period. Especially how evolution is taqught (indoctrinated) in public schools. ANY conservative understands what these threads are about...and in a nutshell, conservatives don’t defend the secular humanist NEA/ACLU. I’m sorry but there’s simply nothing Christian or biblical about a belief that demands we’re all here for no reason whatsoever, out of sheer happenstance, from a single accidental cell, via no design and no intelligence.

Yawn. Let me summarize your post: Liberal, liberal, liberal. Second verse, same as the first.

And since you hadn't bothered reading my prior posts, let me re-post what I said earlier: I don't care if humans evolved over time or popped into being. My sister-in-law likes to say she wonders how long Adam and Eve were in the garden. However it happened, the hand of God was involved.

The hand of God is involved, whether evolution is true or not.

[Fichori]

“When he left on vacation he asked the others to carry his weight. Not a single YEC thread till he came back.” [excerpt]

Which vacation would that be? (ie, when?)

Do articles from CEH count?

[count-your-change]

Not everyone who reads Genesis is of the YEC persuasion.

And afterall, the account was writen for humans to read and understand. We use a mixture of the very literal and a variety of devices in our language quite confortably everyday with no problem, why should not another language do so also?

[tpanther]

So...you can’t undedrstand defending the NEA and ACLU is the liberal position and you can’t name a single high profile liberal that supports creationism/ID and you’re not understanding what these threads are about.

OK.

[tpanther]

Better than I imagined bb! :)

[TexasAg]

And afterall, the account was writen for humans to read and understand. We use a mixture of the very literal and a variety of devices in our language quite confortably everyday with no problem, why should not another language do so also?

I agree, but you're really starting to have trouble if you admit that Genesis isn't literal when it says the earth was created in a few days, then insist that just a few verses later it is literal. I don't know if man just popped into existence, other creatures evolved before/during/after Adam and Eve were in the garden, or if man evolved slowly over time. Whatever happened, Jesus Christ came here to die for our sins.

So...you can’t undedrstand defending the NEA and ACLU is the liberal position and you can’t name a single high profile liberal that supports creationism/ID and you’re not understanding what these threads are about.

Your only real argument is that anyone who disagreed with you is liberal, isn't it? I don't care if evolution without reference to God is supported by liberals, because it isn't supported by me. There are plenty of conservatives (including on this board) who believe evolution is true or aren't sure. I've already said repeatedly that I don't know if evolution is true or not, but if it is it affects my faith in Jesus Christ not one bit. The hand of God could just as easily be involved in evolution. I don't care if those of us who are unsure fall outside your requirements for conservative or Christian. Fortunately, you don't get the judge my faith in the end.

[count-your-change]

” Whatever happened, Jesus Christ came here to die for our sins.” Quite so! Good evening.

[TexasAg]

Quite so! Good evening.

Same to you!

[tpanther]

The only one I see who is hurling pre-teen insults is you. I have read a few of your posts, just from today, and not one seems to have any substance to them. I’ve posted a few of them below. Can you, by chance, tell me how any of them added to the threads they were on? You also have this fascination with calling anyone who disagrees a “liberal”. Don’t liberals tend to throw labels on those who disagree?

“Uhhh you ARE the joke ‘dumb...the only people that don’t get you are your fellow DC/DU liberals”

“You’re still an order of fries short of a happy meal ‘dumb!”

“No, you just continue to marginalize yourself with lazy liberal scholarship.”

---

Your credibility got trashed when you came running to defend the biggest liberal troll on FR.

Well, certainly in the top 3 anyway.

BTW...can YOU post any post you’ve provided that’s “added” to these threads?

Are you seriously going to pick out a handful of posts from threads ongoing for months, years and single out mine while ignoring posts like “Christian taliban” from the left?

OK.

I bet you’ll even think your post about being a Christian and on the fence about creation and evolution will seem credible too.

OK.

[ColdWater]

I have 3 science degrees...I make a living at science.

Great! What is your area?

[ColdWater]

Just like trying to waste metmom’s time with your stupid question about scientific degrees being the “new” credibility standard,

She brought it up. I was just asking for clarification.