Dear George,
I’m trying to interpret what you were saying.

Were you agreeing with Severin that someone was making an idiot of themselves?

Do you agree with Severin and Rusty that descending to such schoolyard language is useful, and contributes beneficially to this debate?

Severin,
It’s true that I have been around OLO several years now.

Part of the beauty of the Internet, especially OLO, is its lack of censorship. A creationist, or anyone else, is able to put their case freely. It isn’t like the mainstream commercial stations or the ABC, which filter views inconsistent with their philosophy. Usually you’re not allowed to hear the creationist viewpoint on these media outlets as their editorial policies are controlled by a precious few, largely evolutionists. Yet you don’t seem to be reacting well to this new openness.

We’ve heard quite a bit about Creationism on OLO (much of it Dawkins et al inspired). This article by Zimmerman is only one of several that have been put forward criticising the creationist position. So I didn’t start the issue, but I do have a right to contribute my opinion towards it. And it’s definitely a hot topic judging by the amount of traffic it attracts here.

You seem to think (like most ABC supporters) that this and certain other topics could only have one possible viewpoint. Topics don’t usually appear here on this opinion based website unless there are at least two competing viewpoints to be aired.

Though I am no expert, I try to put the case for the other side in good faith, and I substantiate my opinion to the best of my ability when I am challenged. If I wasn’t saying something of worth, people would simply ignore me, which they are free to do. Yet this topic is not one that people want to ignore.

Engagement is not, as you suggest, a form of disrespect. I think it is respectful to try and engage with someone who has put together a carefully crafted argument.

So, I repeat, this is not an issue or debate of my making. Would you like me to list the OLO articles that have been put forward by other contributors that have focused on the issue of creationism or the creation/evolution debate?

Rusty,
If we’re going to think scientifically, let’s use the necessary tools of science – logic and observation.

The consequences of mutation are indeed obvious.

Here we could list the many human diseases that directly relate to genetic mutations.

If we examine the effect of mutations currently on the body, many are neutral in the sense of causing harmless genetic ‘noise’. Some bring disastrous effects. Yet from what we observe, we see overwhelmingly that mutations are not creative agents (to use Oliver’s words).

So why think that they are? We put call again to David F’s maxim – “There is no absurdity that a thinking person cannot rationalise.”

That evolution could be threatening to those who make a living from religion is not an argument. Not unless you are willing to also accept the corresponding argument, that the possible demise of evolution could be a financial or psychological burden on those who are directly employed in or have invested heavily in this argument. The established view is the one with more to lose.

Oliver,
The questions: ‘Does god exist?’ and ‘Does existence require God?’ are more or less the same question with different wording.

It’s all still hovering around the question of what is at the foundation of things. Was the universe created or did it make itself?

And at the pointy end of that discussion is the creation/evolution debate.

I think you may be mis-attributing here, Dan S de Merengue.

>>And it’s definitely a hot topic judging by the amount of traffic it attracts here.<<

It may have escaped your notice, but you are pretty much the Lone Ranger on the creationist beat here.

I suspect the continuing conversation with you has far more to do with you as a poster here, than with the "arguments" you present. None of which, by the way, bears more than the most cursory scrutiny. It is more your command of the language, and your consummate ability to use it to obfuscate the most simple fact that keeps your fans coming back for more.

As it has done for me.

But if you were to analyse the discussion at more than the most superficial level - the topic here being creationism, not religion itself - you might find Dr Johnson's observation, duly amended, most apposite.

"Sir, Dan S de Merengue's defence of creationism is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."

And with almost the same degree of can't-look-away fascination.

aj/quote..<<..Sophisticated/Christianity is,..in a sense,..more delusional and dishonest/than the Biblical literalist’s interpretation,..because they don’t really/believe..in any god at all.>>i largly agree with you..but

while they have miss-represented jesus/as god..
the concepts[mercy/love/grace]...are still there...
although...severly limited..to..''his'..own...
when ALL MESSENGERS/are sent by him..[the true god/father/creator..sustainer of life]

when it comes to the other delusions/judgment-day..reserction/day..
it is clearly demon-statable..these are whole-sale deceptions

god dosnt/seek believers..
he seeks those who do/like the father does..ie serve...

[serving each living our very lives..via a natural/proces..man call autonimous.../nature/natural

and clearly..as evidenced..by some of the truelly/vile living..that lives..god clearly is NOT a judge..indeed serves to live/equally..all living..

but such is as people/chose to believe/..god gives all freewill

<<..it’s not-yet possible/for an atheist..to be..“naive..in their rejection of religion”,>>

it is ok to reject/religion...but rejecting the self-evidence..of a living loving god/good..[how can you/miss the clear-signs?]

science...HAS/NEVER..made a life...
never made a cell membrane..
never''EVOLVED'..a new genus..
has not made a SINGLE NEW GENUS..
cannot replicate its theories...

every living/gives a clue..of the life-giver/..sustaining it-to..live[if only/you could realise..how much you/lot..have been tricked]

just..<<because..theists/have-not/yet..presented..any good reason to believe..>>is bull-dust...

how hard/have you tried..to test the alternative theories...we are gifted here/..living by a gift..but/to squander the gift..thats shamefull

<<..that anything/like..what they’re proposing exists.>>>is of such importance..you SIMPLY..CANNOT TAKE ANYONE/elses..WORD..for it

if only you/could realise..the gift..of love..
the living god has gifted all of you...
WITH ABSOLUTLY NO CATCH..except if we decieve ourselves...

let him/..who would be decieved/..be decieved..

its a harsh-law..but/such is the way..of freewill...
ie..that WE OURSELVES SOUGHT TO BELIEVE..we LOVED..to believe

those believing../CHOSING TO BELIEVE...decievers...
only sought/to believe..that they/..loved to believe..in their heart

it is/was..of their own..free-choice/freewill

why decide..to believe anything?

as jesus revealed...love neighbour
simply by loving neighbour...you love god

THAT YE/DID..TO THE LEAST
ye did to him...!

why chose/to believe decievers

you were gifted an amasing gift

what did you do..
to give good value..in return?