Oh for fucks sake…
Posted: 14 January 2008 06:14 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  892
Joined  2007-12-04

... http://www.intelligentdesignversusevolution.com/

 Signature 

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 January 2008 08:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  892
Joined  2007-12-04

Note how they completely without guilt posts the fraud video of Dawkins and passes is off as truth.
Couldn’t he sue them for that?

 Signature 

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 January 2008 10:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  805
Joined  2007-08-28

Cameron and Comfort would crucify Jesus if they had the chance. They are evil incarnate. Satan and the antichrist. In fact, as an atheist, you cannot know how truly loathsome they are.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 January 2008 03:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
mcalpine - 14 January 2008 03:44 PM

Cameron and Comfort would crucify Jesus if they had the chance. They are evil incarnate. Satan and the antichrist. In fact, as an atheist, you cannot know how truly loathsome they are.


Well, most atheists may not hate them as much as believers of competing franchises, but we more than likely have a much sounder appreciation for the particular evil they represent, because believers of competing franchises are effectively all guilty of the same evil, just to a lesser extent in many cases. They fail to recognize that evil, which is part of its insidious nature, and why it’s a singularly nasty manifestation.

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2008 05:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  200
Joined  2007-06-08

These two idiots are sick!

Show proof of a dog having kittens or one animal turning into another. Are they misrepresenting evolution on purpose?

“Sicko” and “whacko” come to mind. Do they really believe this shit? Can anyone be so dishonest and misleading?

Dom

 Signature 

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

Steven Weinberg

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2008 10:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  949
Joined  2007-10-08
The anti-theist - 23 April 2008 09:29 PM

These two idiots are sick!

Show proof of a dog having kittens or one animal turning into another. Are they misrepresenting evolution on purpose?

Dom

Of course they are Dom.

Dawkins, in my estimation, (whatever that’s worth)  is smart enough not to pursue a libel (or malicious intent to misrepresent? ) lawsuit because as a public figure it’s far more costly and difficult… but I agree unbeliever, he really ought to.

Anyone want to get together to put together ‘a proof of evolution’ for the ten grand? Scientists and veterinarians have witnessed micro-evolution in microbes… seems evidence enough.

[ Edited: 24 April 2008 06:28 AM by isocratic infidel]
 Signature 

“Proving the efficacy of a methodology without defining the word ‘efficacy’ can come back to bite you in the assertion.”—Salt Creek

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 April 2008 04:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  156
Joined  2007-11-04
isocratic infidel - 24 April 2008 02:08 AM
The anti-theist - 23 April 2008 09:29 PM

These two idiots are sick!
Show proof of a dog having kittens or one animal turning into another. Are they misrepresenting evolution on purpose?
Dom

Of course they are Dom.
Dawkins, in my estimation, (whatever that’s worth)  is smart enough not to pursue a libel lawsuit because as a public figure it’s far more costly and difficult… but I agree unbeliever, he really ought to.
Anyone want to get together to put together ‘a proof of evolution’ for the ten grand? Scientists and veterinarians have witnessed micro-evolution in microbes… seems evidence enough.

I acctually think they just look for attention. We should try to ignore most of those guys and not give them publicity by suing them etc. It could however be very helpful to show the most extremists so that they discredit themselfs.
I think I have heard way too much useless drivel from priests, rabbies, imams etc. just because of this notion that they had to be debated. That gives them way too much credit.

 Signature 

“We may be confused about the distinction between tolerance and the refusal of evaluation, thinking that tolerance of others requires us not to evaluate what they do.”
Martha Nussbaum
  —Cultivating Humanity

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 April 2008 06:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  949
Joined  2007-10-08

Indeed Mel.

Doesn’t Sander have a name for people like C. and C? Let’s see… what is it?...  fuckwits. Yeah, that’s it.

Fuckwits.

 Signature 

“Proving the efficacy of a methodology without defining the word ‘efficacy’ can come back to bite you in the assertion.”—Salt Creek

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 April 2008 04:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1814
Joined  2006-11-10
isocratic infidel - 24 April 2008 10:24 AM

Indeed Mel.

Doesn’t Sander have a name for people like C. and C? Let’s see… what is it?...  fuckwits. Yeah, that’s it.

Fuckwits.

Well, fuckwit is an abbreviated term.
These guys should be properly classified under Homo Fuckwitus Retardus.

 Signature 

“You know I’m born to lose, and gambling is for fools.
But that’s the way I like it baby, I don’t want to live forever.”

From the autobiography of A.A.Mills, ‘The passage of time, according to an estranged, casual tyrant.’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2008 05:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24

Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron serve kind of like the shepherd moons or bodies in a planetary ring system. Believers with even the slightest shred of functional honesty regarding their religious beliefs are quickly repulsed by the knuckleheads. Only truly and deeply dishonest believers can muster up the levels of self-deception and intellectual depravity required to do otherwise, so Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron (et al) serve to better define the lines of the truly lost causes and those that at least have some level of genuine concern for what’s real and true (i.e. those who have at least a shred of honesty and integrity).

If a given believer actually admits to being a Comfort/Cameron fan in terms of their apologetics I pretty much know there’s just no functional mind to deal with there, and most of the time such fans are actually proud both of their fandom and of their non-functional mind. Utter intellectual depravity is a badge of honor to the truly faithful and the deeply, seriously religiostupidified. After all, it does take some serious devotion and effort to pull it off. You have to develop that devotion to the point that you’re willing to essentially relinquish your own humanity in a very key sense—rejecting the primary means by which we’ve survived as a species (a species without much in the way of solid, physical, natural survival tools—no decent natural weapons or shelter). We have to understand the environment we live in and adapt it to us to a significant degree in order to survive, so the means by which we accomplish this effectively is pretty central to human nature. This is why religious faith is a very deep self-betrayal.

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 April 2008 08:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2492
Joined  2008-04-05

Here is the 10 year old answer to this from talk origins. This is creationist claim 102.1

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102_1.html

Bogus, as always.

 Signature 

‘Every reflecting mind must acknowledge that there is no proof of the existence of a Deity’

‘If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature destroys them’

Percy Bysshe Shelley

Profile
 
 
   
 
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed