"Persecuting Christians again!"......in Texas...

[Muddy]

Originally Posted by FocalPoint

You make an excellent point here and given a good example of how funny and different the message becomes when it's passed around the room. Now take a very long message (The Bible) and pass it around the middle east, over several hundred centuries and what becomes of it? ...."The Babble"...

Not to mention throwing in a few languages.

[herman333]

They have their own basis why they do it. Learning science should be straightforward and should not be stained with any other beliefs that not based in facts.

[Ferre]

The real issue, which creationists usually don't tell you, is that "science" does not reject their hypothesis just because they are close minded.

The fact is that "science" accepts every hypothesis as soon as it confirms to the basic rules of science, also known as the scientific method.

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy...appendixe.html

Every single scientific theory is subjected to peer review and tests and only when tests and peer review confirms the theory it is accepted.

Science does not treat creationists/ID advocates any different, it does not discriminate and most of the theories and hypothesis that have been brought forth by creationists/ID advocates have been peer reviewed, tested and found not to stand the scientific method.

Instead of accepting that all their theories have been proven to lack substance, they keep repeating those same theories decades after decade, And act as if they never got peer reviewed at all.

Here is a list of failed creationists claims;

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html (A loooooong list)

Why do creationists keep repeating the same claims over and over again? Well, that's just to keep rallying their own fans, the scientifically illiterate religious folks, for those people institutes like the "Discovery Institute" carry authority, for them this is a real science institute that confirms their religion and gives it an aura of being legitimate like science is.

Creationists know that their claims are regarded as ridiculous in the science world but that's not the world they cater to, they cater to religious folks and their product is "the feeling of not being that crazy after all". They don't care that they are transparent liars and deliberately dishonest when they present their claims to the science world, it gives them only more credibility in the world they really cater to and for every new blatantly ridiculous claim they make they gain more supporters who repeat those claims on forums like this one.

[Muddy]

Originally Posted by ScriptMan

Thanks for your agreement.

*nods*

[marylane]

And then there is British Columbia Canada, where I live

Winston Blackmore and James Oler, both well-known polygamists from Bountiful, BC, werecharged with polygamy yesterday in BC. It has been no secret to anyone, especially law enforcement officials, that polygamy is practiced in Bountiful or that girls of child-bearing age are taken back and forth between a polygamist sect in Utah to ensure a larger gene pool. Section 293 of the Criminal Code bans polygamy, however there has not been a charge in 60 years, as lawmakers are worried that it conflicts with religious freedom guaranteed in the Charter.

This is exactly the defense that Blackmore says he will use, so this will be a very interesting case:


Quote:

VANCOUVER–B.C. polygamist leader Winston Blackmore once told CNN's Larry King that there was this "fun little Charter" in Canada.

That's the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Blackmore will be relying on it as his defence after being charged yesterday under the Criminal Code with polygamy.

"We have this fun little Charter," Blackmore said two years ago. "Every person has (these) basic rights, fundamental rights and freedoms and one of those is they can worship how they choose and they can associate how they choose."



B.C.'s Attorney General Wally Oppal had asked for and received two previous legal opinions that advised the government against proceeding with polygamy charges. He appointed a special prosecutor last summer who recommended charges after reviewing a lengthy RCMP investigation into activities at Bountiful that began in 2005.

"Our belief is that the (Criminal Code) section is a valid section," said Oppal. "The question is whether, under our laws, we were in a position to proceed and we have concluded that we are."

Daphne Bramham, who wrote a bestselling book The Secret Lives of Saints, about the polygamous sect in Bountiful, said Blackmore had expected to be charged and at first wanted to challenge the laws.

I am curious about what others think of this? Personally, I have always been torn. I believe strongly in religiously freedom, freedom of association etc. However, the way that girls and women are treated in this community is quite concerning. I think that if this makes it to the Supreme Court, Section 293 will be struck down as unconstitutional. If polygamy is legalized, would it be easier for the girls and women of the this community to leave if they do not wish to live this way? Also, as a former child protection worker, I can only imagine the legal complexities that would arise from child abuse, child custody and other such cases.

On a somewhat related note, I am very excited about the return of Big Love on January 18th!

[Muddy]

^ Nope...no agenda here.

[G10]

Ferre, you really need to stop tarnishing all creationists as transparant liars, closed minded and delibaretely dishonest as this prejudicial approach of yours is really wearing thin.

It is just like me tarnishing scientists as hoaxers, cheaters and liars just because some tried to hoax their way into finding the missing link only for it to be proved that they did it on purpose many years later.

You see, I respect some scientists and think others are idiots but I do not tarnish them all with the same brush do I?

Your techniques of judging creationists as liars, closed minded and dishonest is tantamount to mental bullying just because they do not accept everything science claims.

I will say one thing here, macroevolution is not fact.

[Ferre]

Go to that list of claims by creationists and find me one that's not based on deceit, lies, misinterpretations, logical fallacies or blatant stupidity Gio, and I will apologize to you and everyone else.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

I swear.

[Muddy]

Ferre, a list of claims is not the same as a list of creationists. G10's point is that it's no more fair to say that all creationists are intentional liars, etc. than it is to say all Dutch men have black frizzy hair.

[marylane]

Originally Posted by Muddy

Dutch men have black frizzy hair.

You mean they don't?
Seriously, this argument will go on forever. There is no answer, at least a definite answer, so arguing the points is moot.

(I tried to find a funny creationist/evolutionist joke, but apparently they are either too dirty or too boring:0)

[G10]

Originally Posted by Muddy

Ferre, a list of claims is not the same as a list of creationists. G10's point is that it's no more fair to say that all creationists are intentional liars, etc. than it is to say all Dutch men have black frizzy hair.

Thank you

The talkorigins article is good and some creationists do say those things yes but then again there are evolutionists that have lied and said things to twist it in their favour also.

At the end of the day we are human and in every field we are going to encounter people that lie and decieve dude.

Ok, regarding talkorigins, that is a good site but it does show it's lack of understanding towards biblical teachings etc.

Example: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA652.html

Any Christian worth their salt will tear that one apart easily and I know you have read the bible and believe you can also.

[G10]

btw, just as an aside Ferre dude, I just wanted to ask - do you think that I am a Christian or follow a religion?

Just curious is all.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by G10

btw, just as an aside Ferre dude, I just wanted to ask - do you think that I am a Christian or follow a religion?

Just curious is all.

Yes, although you repeatedly state that you are not a believer, but the manner in which you always defend even the wackiest creationist ideas gives you away.

Just as good as my collective posts during the years give away the fact that I am not a believer your collective posts give away the fact that deep down in your heart you are, you do not dare to "not" believe and hold to the idea for your own peace of mind that you are "agnostic" and that you only keep the possibility open.

For example, please check all the arguments you have deposited in favour of creationism and the existence of god on this forum during the years and check them on the list of creationists arguments I provided. If you want I'll digg up a dozen of arguments used by yourself that are on that list, I even think it is going to be difficult to find an argument of yours that's not on that list.

Non believers do not defend creationism and the existence of god Gio, and certainly not as fanatic as you do.

See, if it walks like a Duck, quacks like a Duck and looks like a Duck, and tells you it's not a Duck, one wonders...

[G10]

Oh no, I have openly admitted many times that my path has led me to believe in God more than macroevolution. No need to find the posts as I will just say it right here again.

That said, I do dare not to believe and feel that it will serve me no purpose to just bury my head in the sand like a lot of creationists and evolutionists do and do like to keep an open mind.

The moment I change my tune on that is the moment I start dealing with fanatics on either side of the fence and I will also openly admit that I have seen what I believe to be some creationist fanatics in here and also some macroevolution fanatics.... When they speak, I do admit to switching off a little as whatever they say is going to be biased.


Just as an aside, a creationist in the other thread that said that 'They KNOW that God exists", my reply was.

Originally Posted by G10

hmmmmm, I can't say one way or the other and am always open to new ideas but if you know then that is good for you.

^ Is that the talkings of a fanatic creationist vehemently defending God and Creation or does it sound like somebody that is a little more open minded?

One of us calls the 'other people' liars, dishonest and deceitful and the other one is a lot more respectful towards others teachings and does not say any of the above and yet I am the fanatic?...... Interesting

[Muddy]

Marylane, I couldn't agree more. I also applaud your intention to introduce some levity.

[marylane]

Thanks Muddy, and may I say I like your signature? How do I do that?

Death to all fanatics!

[Muddy]

Originally Posted by marylane

Thanks Muddy, and may I say I like your signature? How do I do that?

Death to all fanatics!

Marylane, I'm sorry I missed this somehow.

In the upper left-hand area of your window, click on "User CP". Then in the column on the left side called "Control Panel", click on "Edit Signature". There is where you will be able to place that picture you have of SITA lurching out of his wardrobe.

[MCSally]

Persecuting Christians for the sake of science is actually very bias.

[FocalPoint]

Originally Posted by MCSally

Persecuting Christians for the sake of science is actually very bias.

Persecuting Christians for the sake of anything is not a great idea...

[searchbliss]

Regardless of how anyone feels...keep in mind...IT IS TEXAS.
After all, Texas is it's own planet.