Philo,

I would appreciate if you would inform me where exactly you stand with all this, because you seem to be swaying back on forth from Creationist to someone who accepts evolution.

I think you need to clear this up first if we are to have a productive discussion here.

<<Your argument is obviously lost when you resort to personal attacks on my intelligence.>>

As Severin pointed out, I did not attack or even mention your intelligence, just your ability to think critically on this particular topic.

<<That is - belief in an intelligent design force is a mental disorder...>>

If by “belief in an intelligent design force” you mean someone who accepts science but believes that a God triggered the events, then no, I don’t think, and have never said that this is a mental disorder. Irrational? Yes, because someone who thinks like that has no way of telling the difference between their God and something that doesn’t exist, but not a mental disorder.

But if by “belief in an intelligent design force” you mean a Creationist who has had the evidence presented to them and still rejects it, then yes, absolutely this could easily be classed as a mental disorder - without question.

<<I have phycologist clinicians within the family, and they are Christian.>>

I’m not sure what you point is here, sorry.

Are these people Creationists? And if so, are you saying that they can’t possibly have a thinking disorder because they’re psychologists? Ever heard of Hannibal Lector? (No, I’m kidding there, sorry.)

You’ve also told me once before that you know an astronomer who bases his calculations on a static universe despite the absolute and irrefutable fact that the universe is expanding. So excuse me if I’m a little cynical about these psychologists that you know.

<<You have presented no evidence that the unseen Creator designed the principles of matter and its behaviour.>>

Nor did I intend to.

Continued...

...Continued

<<In an interview done by Bern Stein with Dawkins in the film "Expelled" ... he almost concluded that there were some intelligent design that was not a result of natural selection i.e. a god force.>>

Yeah, I’ve seen that dishonest documentary and that interview had been seriously hacked and edited to make it look like Dawkins believed that aliens designed us, when in fact, all Dawkins was saying, was that if we had been designed, then it’s possible (but unlikely) that an alien race designed us. But that alien race would still have had to come about by some means of Darwinian natural selection.

<<I do not agree with much that fundamentalist creationists hold too and have been denied from the Creation site. However it has not determined that because of their emotive views and action that I will now become an atheist.>>

You don’t have to.

There are many sophisticated Christians out there who accept science and instead rely on obfuscation and mental gymnastics to maintain their belief rather than ignorance and a literal interpretation of the Bible.

<<Hitler is the best example of one who demonstrated faith in Darwinism with his attempt to breed a superior race influenced through natural selection, and euthanise any who got in his way.>>

Wrong.

Eugenics is based on a misunderstanding of evolution (a misunderstanding that Creationists help to perpetuate), since evolution tells us that artificially narrowing the gene pool is detrimental to our survival as a species.

That’s why the ignorance bred by Creationists can be so potentially dangerous.

Your beef is not with evolution, but with selective breeding. So why aren’t you up in arms about those who pioneered selective breeding thousands of years ago? Because it doesn’t affect your religious beliefs.

By the way, Philo, the answer to my questions before is “no”. They are all steps of abiogenesis that are very credible; some have even been repeated in labs. This is why your claim that abiogenesis “is as rational as the primitive theory that sour milk can of itself create maggots” is total rubbish.

TurnRight- are you serious?

I think when somebody is convinced that people were all the descendants of two gingerbread men that a powerful spirit created out of clay, and that all animal species from penguins to alligators lived within walking distance of noah's house and were stored on a wooden boat (including freshwater fish) that could fit two of every 3-or-so million animal species on the planet (remember, no evolution) and distributed in specific ecosystems around the world- ALL despite even the simplest logic disproving it, NOTHING is going to convince them otherwise.

Every bit of evidence or deviant thinking was fabricated by Satan.

End of story.

I am serious King Hazza, mainly because I don't think the many, many creationists out there can simply be explained as a mental illness. In many cases, it's because they've been raised that way.

Runner's protestations demonstrate his inability to explain why evolution is flawed. He can't explain the existence of these other humanoid species so he goes on the attack. Instead of having an enquiring mind, he goes on the defensive.

There are few things that get me riled up, but one of them is people who refuse to try to understand other points of view.

As an example, although I don't really believe in a god, I can't rule out a god - provided it doesn't contradict what exists in the world around us. The idea of a god, even the Christian god seems possible if they're the kind of god that sets in motion things like evolution.

However, the 5,000 year-old-garden-of-Eden story clearly has holes in it. It doesn't seem to mention hominids, nor dinosaurs and logic tells us we can't cram all of the world's animals on one boat.

If someone can tell me where I'm wrong, then I'm happy to consider that and attempt to find answers. The problem here, is that some creationists won't, which seems to undo all of the good deeds performed by enquiring minds such as Aquinas in bringing Christianity out of the dark ages.

Makes you wonder if there's some kind of 'intervention' for lack of a better term, which would work in these cases.

It seems that as societies become more educated they generally become less religious. Part of this, was that with each scientific discovery that challenged the core creationist fable, churches seemed to lose ground. It makes me wonder whether the resurgence of creationist beliefs in modern times is an organised endeavour or merely a widely held belief set.
If it is organised, then I wonder whether those capable of running such an operation, some of whom must have strong analytical skills given their success, believe in these fables or not.

Various Creationists are academics excelling in their science or archeological fields, at the same time growing and learning daily, sharing their beliefs and knowledge gained via their studies and observations [using evidence, intelligence and their spirituality].

It is only fair to say that many Creationists do acknowledge the evidence in front of them as opposed to ignoring hard evidence or concocting fantasy.

There of course are fanatical Creationists as there are fanatical attributes in every individual relating to certain things. All of us are fanatical about something in our lives or misinterpret things in our lives. Thats another story.........

We are unique only a fool would infer all catholics are evil, or even miss lead.
You will however be aware some Church's would have us believe they are the anti Christ.
I do not claim either but am less than impressed with their self belief.
In Ireland and maybe other poor country's, adherence to church teachings is often the biggest part of education.
Such people often believe in the infallibility of the church, and protect it always.
That is not unique but cult like and a factor in my view of every follower of every God.
I as you are aware, understand the great good in the hearts of most Christians.
But philo and others refuse me the right to my views another defensive thing, rather not let me think as I wish than offend a God that if he existed plans a life on your knees as a reward for total unquestioned obedience in this one.
A slavery few would want , no ability to think or act for your self.