Given that, WHY THE HECK WOULD YOU KEEP INSISTING THAT 'A MALE RIB' IS YOUR ANCESTOR!!!

If you must, at least insist that YOU AND ALL WOMEN, have evolded immensely from the original 'MALE RIB'!!!

Thank 'god' for evolution!!!

:)

Given that, WHY THE HECK WOULD YOU KEEP INSISTING in believing THAT 'A MALE RIB' IS YOUR ANCESTOR!!!

If you must believe in the 'male rib' thing, at least insist that YOU AND ALL WOMEN, have evolded immensely from the original 'MALE RIB'!!!

Thank 'god' for evolution!!!

:)

I just don't understand the religious right's opposition to evolution, I just can't. While I have no religion (I used to call myself an atheist but now think that putting a label on a negative is counter productive), my dad is a Christian and he thinks all the anti evolution people are nuts. Most Christians I have met have no problem what so ever with evolution. "Intelligent design" is made up of false claims and very bad attacks on evolution. there is no use talking to creationists, don't bother. no matter what you tell them they'll plug their ears and go "how did the eye just form itself" which is something no biology scientist claims or "what about these hoaxes" that were exposed by scientists, not creationists, and ignoring the tons of other fossils that were not hoaxes.

if there's one thing I've learned about creationists it's that you shouldn't bother talking to them. The best thing to do is make sure they keep their intelligent design "theory" (it's not a theory, it's at best a hypothesis and at worst made up crap. it's not falsifiable and makes no observations or predictions) out of science class and keep it in religion class where it belongs.

I think they’re fascinating to observe. It’s kind of interesting to watch creatures react who have no ability to comprehend reason. I find it amazing that they can actually cope with everyday life. Although many of them don’t appear to be doing that very well either.

They are like the non-sentient form of hominids who haven’t fully developed.

They are the “missing links”.

They are the living proof that evolution did indeed occur.

Really?

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156


http://www.theory-of-evolution.net/intelligent-design-blog/index.php/2005/10/02/is-evolution-falsifiable-intelligent-design-is/

I agree except to one point, it's best to say anti evolutionists and leave creationism out of it. All those christians, including myself, who believe in evolution, are still creationists. We just believe evolution was and is a part of creation. Other than that I agree, I could sit & argue the people who think that if evolution is true that 200 years would be enough for a species to evolve, but it's not worth my time. The anti evolution people are like the truthers, they ignore the science all while claiming their false impression of science to back their arguements. From cosmic dust to modern man, true science is among Gods greatest gifts to us;^]

Really.

Abra "Gratuituos Assertion" cadabra strikes again!

The Theory of Intelligent Design includes falsifiable criteria and makes predictions, but if Abra -GS-cadabra says it doesn't, that's all that counts.

That's a bit of a misnomer and a play on words.

The word “Creationists” is traditionally used to me those who take a stance of a literal 6-day-creation, and reject evolution.

There are many people who believe in evolution and still believe that God created the world. But they don’t typically refer to themselves as “Creationists”.

The very term “Creationist” was coined to label religious fundamentalists who reject evolution in favor of a miraculous 6-day creation.

That’s what most people mean when they use that label.

It would be misleading to say that you are a 'creationist' if you accept that evolution occured. You can say that you believe that god created the world, but to say that you are a 'creationist' would be a misleading term.

As I said, I'm a creationist and an evolutionist, people can change the definition of "creationism" all they want, it's still a broad term used to label anyone that believes in creation, literal vs. symbolic take on the creation story has nothing to do with the word "creation". We will not be cut out by people who say you can't have it both ways, the bible says god created but not how;^]

Not using the Scientific Method it doesn't.

And I believe I already demonstrated why that is earlier in this thread.

The "Creationists" create their own definition of 'science'.

i.e. anything they have an opinion about is science.

And they claim that their opinions can't be falsified.

Why can't they be falsified? Because they are nothing more than opinions! That's why. You can't falsify an opinion that has no basis in evidence.

Like SkepticalBrian says, there’s no use in trying to talk to these missing links. They simply don’t have the sentient capacity to comprehend intelligent thought.

We all use labels differently.

I wouldn't call myself an 'evolutionist' anymore than I would call myself a relativistist. Just because I understand something doesn't mean I need to stick a feather in my hat and pin a label on it.

You guys always accept any gratuitous assertion made by Abracadabra. There are many people who believe in Theistic Evolution, not the least of which are 1.1 billion Catholics. In fact, the majority of Creationists are Theistic Evolutionists, which includes Catholics, the orthodox chruches and other scattered Christians throughout the world.

STRAW MAN FALLACY. You saw ONE person (who happens to be a professor of Science) offer a defintion of science with which you disagree (but you were unable to offer your own), so now you claim that's all Christianity has to offer. Then you completely misrepresent his defintion as " anything they have an opinion about".



Completely untrue.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/846


Prove one of those false and you have falsified Intelligent Design. That is their fasifiable criteria. You would have known that if you had been able to see your way clear to read the articles I posted earlier.

Excuse me? I've taken on Abra a number of times concerning religion. And I never said you literalists weren't creationists, I said that christians who believe in evolution are still creationists, the label says nothing about the specifics, would you say all police wear blue uniforms? You can't monopolise creation with anti evolution, if you want to get technical there are millions of creationists that aren't even christian, muslim or jew. As I said, I'm a creationist and an evolutionist;^]

You didn't understand what I said. Sad really.

I was pointing out that Creationists who believe that God used evolution, are very common. I was agreeing with you and showing that Abra is wrong in suggesting that most Creationists are Biblical literalists. Slow down your desire to find offense and actually take the time to understand what other posters are saying.

I see what you're saying, what I refer to as creationists in my post are anti evolutionists, people who try, and fail, to poke holes into one of the strongest scientific theories there is. so people like Answers In Genesis or the Discovery Institute. But I also think that creationism, in all forms, should stay out of science class and stay in religion class. Evolution and the origin of life are two completely different topics.

Who you calling a caveman!?

Remember, there were many species of caveman.

Oh, I just remembered Jesus once said that if your offended by something, make sure you retaliate, or something like that.

Wongo Caveman

Why do you keep posting these links? It's not helping your arguments, as that site contains nothing more than Presuppositional Apologetics propaganda poorly masquerading as science. Have you looked at the Board of Directors?

People who believe in a literal 6-day creation are natrually going to support any form of the word "Creationist" whether they agree with the mindset behind it or not. Because it makes their 'cause' appear to have more support.

And their 'cause' is to teach 6-day creationism in schools, and to denounce the teaching of evolution.

People who have accepted BOTH, have no need to denounce the teaching of evolution or that 'creationism' be taught in the schools. All they need to do is tell their childer,"Sure evolution occurred just like science says, but that fits in with our religious picture".

In other words, there's no need to 'teach' a literal 6-day creation side-by-side with evolution because there's no conflict when those 6-days are abtractly accepted to be 6 eons (periods of unknown duration).

I wouldn't adhere to either label (creationist or evolutionist).

In fact, when I was a Christian, I simply said that I'm a Christian who accept scientific knowledge including evolution.

No need to make up any additional 'labels'.

There was never a time when I denounced evolution even when I was a Christian. There's simply no need to reject the observed truth of the universe to support religious doctrines. Religious doctrines are supposed to be allegorical and parables. They were never intended to be precise scientific textbooks.