Calling out Robbie Carobbie.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Right, but they disguise its creationistic ideas with fancy scientific words. Making it sounding better.

I think, if I'm right on this, that because creationism is not science, it mustn't be thaught to school children in biology classes. Rightly so. And the juridical system in US was about to forbid these religious thoughts in school. So they, tada, re ...[text shortened]... but a different name. Hallelujah.

Robbie is one of those who has been tricked in this way.

That's about it.

It's just 'sexy' creationism.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
That's about it.

It's just 'sexy' creationism.

But the thing is the an Intelligent Designer can be any god, not neccesarily a christian god, but a hindu god, Allah, or even one of the Nordic or Greec ancient gods. So by not calling him Jehovah they think it's science, but instead it became a pan-religious movement. 🙂

Only Creationism is specific it is the christian god. The muslim creationism it is Allah. The jewish creationism it is Jahve. Well, they have their fun. But science? Not.

mary of the substantive points now?

I bet you won't do either.

I eve be clear to everyone that you can't defend your cherry picking (if it isn't already).

Actually i do not know if you noticed but i, as i have now for the third time stated, did not give any type of figurative nor metaphorical value to the passage that BBarr cited while ascribing a purely materialistic one elsewhere. I have merely stated that God, in his wisdom, has initiated self perpetuating systems of which this was a poetic description of. It was Bbarr and now you who insist that i have attempted to provide any type of literal or figurative interpretation of one system and then to suspend it when describing another, assigning to me values that i do hold and basing your reasoning on your self assigned values, never the less, i forgive you

The book of Job is full of poetic of expressions, for example,

(Job 38:8) . . .And who barricaded the sea with doors, Which began to go forth as when it burst out from the womb;

the sea does not have literal doors does it, it did not originate in a womb did it?

(Job 38:9-10) . . .When I put the cloud as its garment And thick gloom as its swaddling band,  And I proceeded to break up my regulation upon it And to set a bar and doors,

the clouds do not have literal bars and doors do they? it is a simple poetic device stating that God has put natural laws and mechanisms in place.

(Job 38:22) . . .Have you entered into the storehouses of the snow, Or do you see even the storehouses of the hail. . .

snow does not have storehouses, nor does hail, its once again a simple poetic device.

now lastly Bbarrs citation, in immediate context,

(Job 36:27-28) For he draws up the drops of water; They filter as rain for his mist,  So that the clouds trickle, They drip upon mankind abundantly. . .

Naturally God does not have hands, although the Bible speaks of the hand of God, its in a metaphorical sense, why? because God is a spirit and not a physical entity. therefore if he does not have hands, he cannot literally draw up water, it is a simple figurative statement detailing the water cycle.

thus what is in fact happening, is a real meteorological process being described in poetic or figurative terms. Now hopefully you can see just how erroneous the claim is to either literal or metaphorical interpretation, for the process is clearly physical, its description figurative, thus there is not a preponderance of one over the other as you and BBarr have erroneously tried to assert.

Now Sharky my man, you shall be no doubt wondering why one can attribute a purely materialistic designation to the evolutionary process, and the real simple answer is, that there is no scriptural references to it , and thus no inference can be drawn, which , for the evolutionists is a real pain, because they have no valid scriptural point of reference to link it remotely to God, but for me on the other hand, i go away gleeful knowing that they can never ever ever slither zither claim a divine basis for it and the statement stands, there is no scriptural nor scientific basis for accepting that God has instituted and utilised the evolutionary process and they know i am correct and become mad.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
That's about it.

It's just 'sexy' creationism.

umm the problems you Noobs are facing is that many of the proponents of intelligent design, irreducible complexity and creationism are eminent and well educated scientists, philosophers etc etc who simply are unconvinced by the contemporary evolutionary hypothesis.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Actually i do not know if you noticed but i, as i have now for the third time stated, did not give any type of figurative nor metaphorical value to the passage that BBarr cited while ascribing a purely materialistic one elsewhere. I have merely stated that God, in his wisdom, has initiated self perpetuating systems of which this was a poetic descrip ...[text shortened]... has instituted and utilised the evolutionary process and they know i am correct and become mad.

You use "figurative" when it works for you and you use "literal" when it works for you, thus no one is ever right in your eyes.

Originally posted by kirksey957
You use "figurative" when it works for you and you use "literal" when it works for you, thus no one is ever right in your eyes.

(Proverbs 26:12) Have you seen a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for the stupid one than for him. . .

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
(Proverbs 26:12) Have you seen a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for the stupid one than for him. . .

Then let us all check our brains at the door.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
umm the problems you Noobs are facing is that many of the proponents of intelligent design, irreducible complexity and creationism are eminent and well educated scientists, philosophers etc etc who simply are unconvinced by the contemporary evolutionary hypothesis.

Why is that a problem for me?

There are also many educated, scientific based theists who accept the theory of evolution. Prof Behe being one of them.

The problem with ID is that it wants to be accepted as scientific, but as i stated earlier not one published ID journal has ever been peer-reviewed.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
That's about it.

It's just 'sexy' creationism.

The story goes, according to Wikipedia:
"After the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court barred the required teaching of creation science from public schools but allowed evolutionary theory on the grounds of scientific validity, some creationists felt that new strategies and language were necessary to return religious notions to science classrooms. The supplementary school textbook Of Pandas and People was altered to change references to creationism to use the term intelligent design."

So of course robbie is a creationist. Just wanted to be 'sexy'. Didn't work.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
The story goes, according to Wikipedia:
"After the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court barred the required teaching of creation science from public schools but allowed evolutionary theory on the grounds of scientific validity, some creationists felt that new strategies and language were necessary to return religious notions ...[text shortened]... nt design."

So of course robbie is a creationist. Just wanted to be 'sexy'. Didn't work.

no that is not strictly true, i do not accept the young earth creationist point of view, nor do i accept that the creative process took a mere six days of a twenty four hour periods.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Why is that a problem for me?

There are also many educated, scientific based theists who accept the theory of evolution. Prof Behe being one of them.

The problem with ID is that it wants to be accepted as scientific, but as i stated earlier not one published ID journal has ever been peer-reviewed.

Thats because its a case of the emperors new clothes!

i loathe evolutionary theory, it has been used as a premise for horrendous acts of genocide, slavery, eugenics, whole cultures have been systematically wiped out under its guise, wars fought on its basis, soon as we get rid of it the better.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no that is not strictly true, i do not accept the young earth creationist point of view, nor do i accept that the creative process took a mere six days of a twenty four hour periods.

Who says anything about those funny Young Earth Creationists? I refer to the other funny creationists.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Who says anything about those funny Young Earth Creationists? I refer to the other funny creationists.

its was used to point out that your rather favourite devise, the broad generalisation, labelling and categorising of people and their beliefs needs some tweeking, for not all fit comfortably in the jar marked , creationist.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I loathe evolutionary theory, it has been used as a premise for horrendous acts of..

me too, Robbie (no pun intended)..but don't forget that religion (incl. Christianity) and its track record is not much better..

p.s.
you must have the skin of a rhino to withstand the bullies like Fab.. 😉

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its was used to point out that your rather favourite devise, the broad generalisation, labelling and categorising of people and their beliefs needs some tweeking, for not all fit comfortably in the jar marked , creationist.

I don't deny that the bunch of funny creationists are in fact several sub-branches of funny sub-creationists. We all know what funny kind you belong to, and further which funny kind you think you belong to.

And about labelling: Don't you talk about atheists (a label), evolutionists (a label) and many other groups that you label appropriately? Yes, you do. When you complain about me labelling others, to you mind not to label any other person too? See how many posts you can avoid doing that.