Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design

The Royal Society ^ | 11 Apr 2006 | Staff (press release)

[Dimensio]

Because atheism has to do with the dark, abyssmal depths of human society. Atheism is a religion unto itself. A mystery that even the darker spots of Hell have not fully comprehended yet. That is..the Satanic power to pervert..to corrupt..that which is initially a Good thing.

I believe that you have confused atheism with something else. Atheism is a lack of belief in deities. It is nothing more than that.

[Dimensio]

If we are but animals there is no morals there are no rules, we are but beasts. If I were but an animal I would only know to react through instincts. So there are no consequences for my actions. It is basically eat drink rape and pillage for tomorrow we may die.

Appeal to the consequences is a logical fallacy. Moreover, your claims themselves are not justified. That we are animals does not mean that actions lack consequence.

Man is not an animal and no argument is the world will convince me that he is.

So you admit that you will willfully ignore reality when reality produces results that you do not wish to believe?

[John 6.66=Mark of the Beast?]

Are we not part of the animal kingdom according to the theory of evilution?

If not did little green men bring here?

[Dimensio]

Are we not part of the animal kingdom according to the theory of evilution?

Actually, human classification in kingdom Animalia predates the theory of evolution. Charles Linneaus, himself a creationist, classified humans as primates in the mid 1700s.

[John 6.66=Mark of the Beast?]

I really don't care what a man has classified man as. You want to use the argument of what predates Darwinism and say it is valid. My source predates that.

[Dimensio]

I really don't care what a man has classified man as.

The classification is based upon observed physical traits of human organisms as compared to primates. It is an accurate classification as far as the criteria go. It appears that the only basis for your rejection of the classification is that you are uncomfortable with it. This, however, does not invalidate the classification based upon the criteria used.

You want to use the argument of what predates Darwinism and say it is valid. My source predates that.

The age or novelty of the source does not affect the truth value. I merely mentioned the age of the source to demonstrate that the classification does not, as you suggested, derive from the theory of evolution.

[John 6.66=Mark of the Beast?]

Like I said I don't care how man classifies man. If he believes that we are animals that’s his belief not mine.

[andysandmikesmom]

placemarker

[Dimensio]

Like I said I don't care how man classifies man. If he believes that we are animals that’s his belief not mine.

And like I said, thus far you have not provided a logical reason for rejecting established biological taxonomic classifications.

[John 6.66=Mark of the Beast?]

I GUESS THAT NOT BEING LOGICAL AT TIMES IS MY PREROGATIVE IT JUST PART OF BEING A WOMAN.

[Dimensio]

I GUESS THAT NOT BEING LOGICAL AT TIMES IS MY PREROGATIVE

It is your perogative to be illogical whenever you choose. However, understand that your perogative to be illogical does not affect reality, or the fact that reality clearly contradicts your claims.

IT JUST PART OF BEING A WOMAN.

I do not believe that a lack of logical thinking ability is gender-related. I have encountered women who are quite capable of logical thought, and I have encountered men who seem incapable of grasping even the most basic logic.

[PatrickHenry]

Festival of degenerating threads placemarker.

[Thatcherite]

Like I said I don't care how man classifies man. If he believes that we are animals that’s his belief not mine.

Out of interest:

Do you believe that men are mammals?

Do you believe that men are vertebrates?

[Gumlegs]

There you go again, Fester. You don't like the rules. You don't know why they're there. Fine. Either learn why we have them and what they mean, or forget them. But if you want to forget them, forget about convincing anyone who actually knows what science is that what you are spouting is science.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Why accuse me of refusing to learn when you have not answered my questions?

[John 6.66=Mark of the Beast?]

I beleive that man was made in the image of God. There is nothing that any man can say that will change my mind on this subject.

[PatrickHenry]

Open-minded placemarker.

[Dimensio]

I beleive that man was made in the image of God.

This does not answer Thatcherite's question.

[John 6.66=Mark of the Beast?]

Do you beleive there is a God?

[Gumlegs]

Why accuse me of refusing to learn when you have not answered my questions?

Your questions have been asked and answered repeatedly.