Quote# 34470

Originally Posted by billwald
[To me, the so-called "intelligent design" movement is an illustration of "non-reason." The answer to any interesting problem has become "God poofed it." ]

You have got to be kidding. Evolution is my perfect example of non-reasoning. If it were so reasonable, why do we have to forcibly indoctrinate children into believing it, and why are evolutionists so terrified of allowing creationists' to even state their cases?

jiminpa, Christian Forums 55 Comments [2/4/2008 12:03:45 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Kelmon

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 3 | bottom

Doctor Whom

The germ theory of disease is my perfect example of non-reasoning. If it were so reasonable, why do we have to forcibly indoctrinate children into believing it, and why are germ-ists so terrified of allowing crystal healers to even state their cases?

2/4/2008 12:09:12 AM


Because you have no f*cking case.

2/4/2008 12:09:14 AM


"Wah! Evolution! Lies!" is not a case to be stated. Contrary to being scared of it, I'd love for Creationist 'Science' to do some actual, you know, science, but I haven't seen any yet.

As to why children have to be 'indoctrinated' to it, we call that 'education'. You may have heard of it.

2/4/2008 12:12:42 AM


What case? Like he said, your case is "God did it".

2/4/2008 12:13:24 AM


What case?

2/4/2008 12:26:17 AM


Osiris beat me to it.

2/4/2008 12:26:33 AM


"Evolution is my perfect example of non-reasoning."

That's because your reasoning is non-perfect.

2/4/2008 12:28:27 AM

cool cats

The Subaru Telescope people would appreciate the return of their mirror.

2/4/2008 12:36:04 AM


"why do we have to forcibly indoctrinate children into believing it"

You mean like the same way we "forcibly indoctrinate" them into believing 2+2=4? Or that the earth revolves around the sun? There's a big difference between indoctrinating and teaching actual verifiable facts. But you and your ilk should know all about forcibly indoctrinating children,don't ya?

2/4/2008 12:36:17 AM


"If it were so reasonable, why do we have to forcibly indoctrinate children into believing it..."

And churches do not practice indoctrination? Please. The reason we don't want creationism taught in science classes is because it ISN'T SCIENCE. It's as simple as that

2/4/2008 12:47:33 AM


WTF? Cretinists have a case?

2/4/2008 12:47:35 AM


We have the fossils. We win.

2/4/2008 12:52:17 AM

Reverend Davidius

what are you talking about? you have all the time outside of government funded schooling to indoctrinate your kids.

For the record, it was my time outside of class that killed my faith.

2/4/2008 1:04:42 AM


Nobody's "terrified" of allowing creationists to state their cases. The US Constitution forbids the government to indoctrinate children in religion. Creationism, whether the Bible's version or the Hindu version or the Iroquois version or the Flying Spaghetti Monster version, is religion with no basis in science.

2/4/2008 1:12:29 AM


Indoctrinated you say? Religious people do it all the time. Plus evolution has been tested and retested. animals adapt to their environments. No one is stopping you from beliving nor trying to teach your kids. But it isn't a science.

2/4/2008 1:16:51 AM

Mattural Selection

Haha, cool cats wins the internetz.

2/4/2008 1:19:05 AM


Because "creationists" cases are easier to explain to children. Its "simpler" to think about creationism than it is to comprehend evolution. However evolution is a phenomenally elegant theory.


You are trying to explain evolution to small kids. You don't explain in a lot of detail because evolution is a phenomenally hard subject. Its like not explaining quantum physics beyond the basics. Creation is easy to understand and indeed at "school level" creation will piss all over evolution. However when we start bringing in the university level science, evolution shows its robustness.

This is why we have morons like Jiminpa. They have taken a baseball bat to the evolution they were taught in schools despite that being a simplified version of a very sensible theory.

For starters, its not survival of the fittest. Its the survival of life by any means. Be it fitness, cunning and indeed sexiness.

We will teach creationism if people will provide us with a scientific theory of creationism that can be subject to testing. Its not a case of "ah you can't explain this so your entire theory must be wrong and mine must be right". Its a case of "while your theory cannot explain this, I have no theory to speak off".

2/4/2008 1:19:38 AM


Jiminpa, go back to remedial science class. You obviously fail at science and at life.

2/4/2008 1:33:27 AM


Your first question: No one has to force children to believe it. I always believed it without question and so did everyone else I know. It's just science.
Your second question: Evolutionists aren't terrified of creationists stating their cases. You're projecting here because it is the Creationists who are scared of new ideas and would rather cling to stories made up around a campfire thousands of years ago.

2/4/2008 1:45:34 AM

Old Viking

Your case was stated in the trial at Dover. It was torn to shreds. The judge -- a Christian and a Republican appointed by Bush -- said unequivocally that ID is not science.

2/4/2008 2:20:11 AM

1Burning Stake

"...why are evolutionists so terrified of allowing creationists' to even state their cases?"

Because scientific reasoning is not the same thing as brainwashing.

2/4/2008 2:22:26 AM

Winston Jen

Alternate Bizzaro Universe Award, no question!

2/4/2008 2:30:39 AM

Creationists get to state their case every Sunday in church or the religious institution of their choice. Quit trying to force it on others who do not share your beliefs.

2/4/2008 2:37:06 AM


Next we'll be teaching them how to rationally think! And prepare them for making their own decisions

Where will the horrors end?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

2/4/2008 3:01:25 AM


Ho-hum. Go ahead; state your case.

2/4/2008 3:06:16 AM

1 2 3 | top: comments page