Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: More Funny Creationism from Those Debates!

Expand Messages
  • SH
    ... Tin: Propaganda-Dan now has to resort to playing dumb again. After getting his squarely between the eyes with the raw facts --- yet again. He can t seem
    Message 1 of 119 , Jan 5, 2013
      --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, Dan Carlton wrote:
      >
      > ** **
      > >
      > > On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 9:32 AM, SH wrote:
      > >
      > > ****
      > >
      > > *CRS Statement of Belief*****
      > >
      > > * *****
      > >
      > > *All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:*****
      > >
      > > ****
      > >
      > > 1. The *Bible* is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired
      > > throughout, all its assertions are****
      > >
      > > historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the
      > > student of nature this means****
      > >
      > > that the account of origins in *Genesis* is a factual presentation of
      > > simple historical truths.****
      > >
      > > ****
      > >
      > > 2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct
      > > creative acts of God during ****
      > >
      > > the Creation Week described in *Genesis*. Whatever biological changes
      > > have occurred since Creation ****
      > >
      > > Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.****
      > >
      > > ****
      > >
      > > 3. The great flood described in *Genesis*, commonly referred to as the
      > > Noachian Flood, was an historic ****
      > >
      > > event worldwide in its extent and effect.****
      > >
      > > ****
      > >
      > > 4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept
      > > Jesus Christ as our Lord ****
      > >
      > > and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man
      > > and one woman and ****
      > >
      > > their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the
      > > necessity of a Savior for all mankind. ****
      > >
      > > Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our
      > > Savior.****
      > >
      > > ****
      > >
      > > Hmmm... sounds pretty scientific to me... NOT!****
      > >
      > > ** **
      > >
      > > Where, in that Statement of Belief is it "requiring them to swear an oath NOT
      > > to be scientific if that ****
      > >
      > > conflicts with the 'correct doctrine"'?****
      > >
      > > ** **
      > >
      > > JM> Hmmm... That doesn't require a degree in rocket science to figure
      > > out, Danny... Disagree with the SoB and you get kicked out of the club...
      > > So any scientist who states... Ya know, MAYBE this flood thing was LOCAL..
      > > or MAYBE it took a little longer than 6 literal days 6000 years ago gets
      > > his arse booted from the YEC club. That ain't science it's a cult.
      > >
      >
      > All they are doing is confirming their statement of belief in order to be a
      > member. Where, in that Statement of Belief
      >
      > is it "requiring them to swear an oath Not to be scientific if that conflicts
      > with the 'correct doctrine"'?



      Tin: Propaganda-Dan now has to resort
      to playing dumb again. After getting
      his squarely between the eyes with the
      raw facts --- yet again. He can't seem
      to quite figure what the facts are
      what day it is or which way is up.


      The oaths required by creationists
      organization are ANTI-science. They
      are clearly and explicitly required
      to conform to religious beliefs
      and NOT allow the facts to determined
      conclusions.


      Creationism is religion not science.


      Obviously.
    • SH
      ... Tin: Propaganda-Dan now has to resort to playing dumb again. After getting his squarely between the eyes with the raw facts --- yet again. He can t seem
      Message 119 of 119 , Jan 5, 2013
        --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, Dan Carlton wrote:
        >
        > ** **
        > >
        > > On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 9:32 AM, SH wrote:
        > >
        > > ****
        > >
        > > *CRS Statement of Belief*****
        > >
        > > * *****
        > >
        > > *All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:*****
        > >
        > > ****
        > >
        > > 1. The *Bible* is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired
        > > throughout, all its assertions are****
        > >
        > > historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the
        > > student of nature this means****
        > >
        > > that the account of origins in *Genesis* is a factual presentation of
        > > simple historical truths.****
        > >
        > > ****
        > >
        > > 2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct
        > > creative acts of God during ****
        > >
        > > the Creation Week described in *Genesis*. Whatever biological changes
        > > have occurred since Creation ****
        > >
        > > Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.****
        > >
        > > ****
        > >
        > > 3. The great flood described in *Genesis*, commonly referred to as the
        > > Noachian Flood, was an historic ****
        > >
        > > event worldwide in its extent and effect.****
        > >
        > > ****
        > >
        > > 4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept
        > > Jesus Christ as our Lord ****
        > >
        > > and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man
        > > and one woman and ****
        > >
        > > their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the
        > > necessity of a Savior for all mankind. ****
        > >
        > > Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our
        > > Savior.****
        > >
        > > ****
        > >
        > > Hmmm... sounds pretty scientific to me... NOT!****
        > >
        > > ** **
        > >
        > > Where, in that Statement of Belief is it "requiring them to swear an oath NOT
        > > to be scientific if that ****
        > >
        > > conflicts with the 'correct doctrine"'?****
        > >
        > > ** **
        > >
        > > JM> Hmmm... That doesn't require a degree in rocket science to figure
        > > out, Danny... Disagree with the SoB and you get kicked out of the club...
        > > So any scientist who states... Ya know, MAYBE this flood thing was LOCAL..
        > > or MAYBE it took a little longer than 6 literal days 6000 years ago gets
        > > his arse booted from the YEC club. That ain't science it's a cult.
        > >
        >
        > All they are doing is confirming their statement of belief in order to be a
        > member. Where, in that Statement of Belief
        >
        > is it "requiring them to swear an oath Not to be scientific if that conflicts
        > with the 'correct doctrine"'?



        Tin: Propaganda-Dan now has to resort
        to playing dumb again. After getting
        his squarely between the eyes with the
        raw facts --- yet again. He can't seem
        to quite figure what the facts are
        what day it is or which way is up.


        The oaths required by creationists
        organization are ANTI-science. They
        are clearly and explicitly required
        to conform to religious beliefs
        and NOT allow the facts to determined
        conclusions.


        Creationism is religion not science.


        Obviously.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.