<p>Not strictly a question, but the fact that people spend so much time on these arguments. I just stumbled across it and found it amusingly relevant.</p>
<p>can we stick a fork in this post?
Thank god I say yes.</p>
<p>Why the hell would you bump this.</p>
<p>Well, I guess this is the end. This thread has been very interesting. Thanks to everyone who contributed!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep, you believe in pedophilia and inbreeding, and I don’t.</p>
<p>Have a good day!</p>
<p>Hahahahhaha!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Its funny how you just randomly post after this thread’s been dead for over a month just to be the last one who posted. But yeah, it has been interesting. Especially watching you get thoroughly pwned on every point when mifune was here.</p>
<p>But I came across a website that reminded me of you the other day… [url=<a href=“http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page]Main”>CreationWiki]Main</a> Page - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science<a href=“That%20and%20answersingenesis%20I%20guess.”>/url</a></p>
<p>I went through a few pages and it had to be the most worthless website on the internet - at least in terms of factual information. Do you have an account to edit that website? Some of the writing styles seem just like yours.</p>
<p>^ I posted that because the mods just changed the terms of service to outlaw debates.</p>
<p>And no, I don’t have an account of CreationWiki. Never even heard of it. But given the low quality even on real Wikipedia (which I do edit), it doesn’t suprise me that CreationWiki has trouble keeping up.</p>
<p>Regarding Creation Wiki:</p>
<p>In terms of academic merit, I thoroughly abhor that website, as should any individual seeking factual information. It largely contains nothing more than an irritating assortment of blatant religious propaganda, misleading assertions, fundamentalist Christian bias and other religious prejudice, subtle scientific conceptual misunderstandings, egregious misconceptions over the nature of science, inappropriate conflations, religious contentions dressed up as science, references to revelation, erroneous conclusions, use of obsolete or invalidated data, inexpert or minority viewpoints, deceptive use of scientific terminology, exclusion of opposing lines of evidence, galling straw man arguments, and other fraudulent and argumentatively insolvent creationist tactics.</p>
<p>In other words, it’s designed as nothing more than another means of propagating the ancient, tenacious tales, distortions, and biases motivated by a strict reading of Genesis. </p>
<p>Also, the site strives for a “peer-reviewed” accumulation of creationist knowledge, which is a blatant lie, given that creationism shamelessly fails academic peer review under systematic inquiry. Accordingly, the nature of the site is inherently restricted, with contributions from a small cluster of conservative know-nothings. Moreover, CreationWiki is fundamentally discriminatory. Non-supportive members of conservative Christian opinions are excluded in order to preserve the dogmatic convictions of creationist thought. It is, however, a valuable reference for anyone interested in viewing common biblical literalism arguments. But oftentimes, it’s nothing more than a source of intense irritation.</p>
<hr>
<p>Also, who cannot help but be annoyed by these contentions from the “Humanism” page?</p>
<p>“Both sex education in schools and the homosexual movement are designed to destroy Christian morality.”</p>
<p>***</p>
<p>*“In 1964, The Humanist magazine states that ‘Darwin’s discovery of the principle of evolution sounded the death knell of religious and moral values. It removed the ground under the feet of tradition religion.’”<a href=“For%20anyone%20even%20remotely%20privy,%20it%20is%20quite%20obvious%20that%20this%20quotation%20was%20flagrantly%20spun%20out%20of%20context.”>/i</a></p>
<p>***</p>
<p>*“Humanism is arguably the oldest religion in the world, although many modern humanists attempt to deny the fact. Their religious status is not contested on philosophical grounds, but is almost certainly due to other motivations, such as avoiding separation of Church and state restrictions and perhaps for fear of awakenings the Christian masses to their demoralizing influence.”<a href=“Underlined%20portion%20is%20my%20emphasis%20on%20a%20crassly%20bigoted%20assertion.”>/i</a></p>
<p>***</p>
<p>“However, in recent years, many have begun to claim that Humanism is not a religion, and instead refer to their belief system as “Scientific humanism”…This is explained by some as the maturation of their belief system, and by others as a desire to downplay the obvious religious nature of their beliefs and instead portray themselves as “objective” and “scientific”. The ultimate purpose can be seen as two fold - to distance themselves from theistic groups and circumvent restriction imposed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution…By allowing their position to be redefined, humanism has been allowed to reap the protections of the Establishment Clause by preventing evangelism by other religions while themselves being able to promote religious secular humanism in schools through evolutionism.”</p>
<p>***</p>
<p>For more displays of the website’s ignorant discourse, I would recommend viewing the “Evolution” page. Also, on the “Atheism” entry, perhaps the most irritating claim was that atheism is/was responsible for “Nazi Germany, Maoist China, Leninist-Stalinist Russia, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, Vietnam, and North Korea, among others are never going to be fully known” and that the historical atrocities committed in the names of these campaigns directly proceed from Neo-Darwinism. Even if this were true, it neglects the fact that scientific understandings are entirely independent of their philosophical implications.</p>
<p>^ I entirely agree with you as to the quality of CreationWiki. I looked through it after reading Adenine’s post, and yes, much of the content seems spurious and the quality of the writing is generally poor.</p>
<p>But I am not CreationWiki. I don’t base my beliefs on it.</p>
<p>I am simply a skeptically-minded person who has considered the issue and reached a different conclusion than you have.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, it would be unfair to state that you are an ideological carbon copy of CreationWiki.</p>
<p>Can I join the discussion?</p>
<p>No, forsooth.</p>
<p>^^Yes, please.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It seems that you already have.</p>
<p>omg, it seems that religion-atheist debates have become so much more sophisticated ever since I last succeeded at escaping from them at the ripe old age of 14.</p>
<p>Time to stir the pot. </p>
<p>Bump :D</p>
<p>^ **** no.</p>
<p>This thread was annoying, but a point of CC history that was enjoyable.</p>
<p>I am an atheist myself, but I’d like to see an answer to this question I’ve had for a while: It always seems that the debate is “Science vs Religion.” But under the assumption that God is real, didn’t God create science? So let’s say the Big Bang theory is proven true. Well then any Christian say the creation of man via Big Bang was done by God.</p>
<p>After 2157 posts, I don’t think that there’s anything to say that hasn’t already been said before.
I was going to say “After 144 pages”, but I didn’t want to be TCBHed</p>