If creationism was ever taught in the science class.

[AV1611VET]

Nope, I sincerely do believe that "scientatheist" is an idiotic term.

You tried to sound clever.
You failed.
This can't be a new experience for you by now, AV.

Well, I hate to say this, but I plan to go back to it. And I really, seriously wasn't using it to be clever. I just don't want to include Molal and Arunma, et.al. in posts like this.

It's simply a ligature of the words scientist and atheist --- nothing more.

 

[TheManeki]

Still waiting for where the Bible calls atheists nature worshipers. We know it ain't in Romans 1.

Perhaps AV should tell the Bible to take a hike.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

Still waiting for where the Bible calls atheists nature worshipers. We know it ain't in Romans 1.

Perhaps AV should tell the Bible to take a hike.

He already did... you know, the whole 'reality can take a hike' bit of his.

 

[EecoErin]

I'm still reading page 2 - has anyone discussed:

Why did God create the universe in the order that He did?

Isn't that interpretation and assumption about the text? Or is there a scientific reason why certain events had to happen in a certain order? And isn't that limiting God?

And how is this

What did God create on the 5th day? 3rd day? 7th day?

resolved with chapter 2 of Genesis?

Name the constellations in order, starting with Virgo, and explain how they relate to the plan of salvation.

Offtopic, but that sounds rather like astrology.

Explain what is going to happen to the elements according to the Apostle Peter.

?!?!?!

 

[Nathan Poe]

Well, I hate to say this, but I plan to go back to it.

I don't mind saying this, but I'm not surprised.

And I really, seriously wasn't using it to be clever.

Thankfully so.

It's simply a ligature of the words scientist and atheist --- nothing more.

Nothing more, and a whole lot less -- a "ligature" only applies to combining forms of individual letters, not words.

A combination of two words as you have done is known as a linguistic blend, commonly known as a portmanteau word.

 

[AV1611VET]

A combination of two words as you have done is known as a linguistic blend, commonly known as a portmanteau word.

Okay, thanks for the info.

 

[AV1611VET]

Anyone want to tackle EecoErin's Post 124?

(Especially any of you guys who think teaching Creationism would be a snap?)

I've covered all this over the course of two years - (amid jokes and laughter, of course).

Now let's see if you learned anything.

 

[Tomk80]

I realize that, but I'm trying to refrain from going back to the term 'scientatheist'. I'm assuming the exceptions (like you and Arunma) know who they are.

You could just use scientist when you mean scientist, and atheist when you mean atheist. You know, everyday language suffices in these cases. There is no need for you linguistic spielerei, other than you making yourself look like a liar and an idiot.

 

[AV1611VET]

You could just use scientist when you mean scientist, and atheist when you mean atheist.

But there are posts I make in the which the two words could be interchangeable --- such as this one:

If you're having trouble with the word "scientists" --- simply use the word "atheists" instead.

I would assume born-again scientists such as Arunma and Molal would recognize my challenge to build such a machine, and the futility thereof in doing so, as a legitimate point.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Say, AV, now that you're here and again spouting your unbiblical nonsense about atheists worshipping nature, don't you want to take a look at what happened the last time you did that?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Anyone want to tackle EecoErin's Post 124?

(Especially any of you guys who think teaching Creationism would be a snap?)

I've covered all this over the course of two years - (amid jokes and laughter, of course).

Now let's see if you learned anything.

Actually, AV, I'll be the first to say that a course in Christian Creationism could be very insightful -- I'm thinking along the lines of looking at it from a sociological perspective -- in what ways did this creation myth shape the culture and attitude of ancient peoples, and compare and contrast it with the Creation stories of other cultures. I could probably make a course out of it, if I were so inclined -- it's more or less my field of study.

In case you've forgotten, my field of study is literature and mythology. Now let's see if you've learned anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

Say, AV, now that you're here and again spouting your unbiblical nonsense about atheists worshipping nature, don't you want to take a look at what happened the last time you did that?

You think you're going to wear me down with that beg-and-deny tactic? I could put you on IGNORE if I wanted to - (but I don't want to) - but VIRTUAL IGNORE is so much easier.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, AV, I'll be the first to say that a course in Christian Creationism could be very insightful -- I'm thinking along the lines of looking at it from a sociological perspective -- in what ways did this creation myth shape the culture and attitude of ancient peoples, and compare and contrast it with the Creation stories of other cultures. I could probably make a course out of it, if I were so inclined -- it's more or less my field of study.

But your legitimacy comes from comparing it to other religions, which is getting into the field of Comparative Religion. If that's what you want to do, knock yourself out.

In case you've forgotten, my field of study is literature and mythology. Now let's see if you've learned anything.

In case you've forgotten, my [major] forte is the Creation. So if you want to compare the Creation Story from the Bible to various creation myths of other cultures --- fine --- but I'll be right there to pwn them.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

You think you're going to wear me down with that beg-and-deny tactic?

Oh, I have no illusions about wearing you down - I intend to wear everyone else's respect for you down - assuming such a thing exists, of course - and what better way to accomplish that than to keep demonstrating your dishonesty.

I could put you on IGNORE if I wanted to - (but I don't want to) - but VIRTUAL IGNORE is so much easier.

Or you could give me that Bible verse you claimed exists in this very thread and we'd be done. I mean, it does exist, doesn't it? You wouldn't actually lie for King James, would you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, I have no illusions about wearing you down - I intend to wear everyone else's respect for you down - assuming such a thing exists, of course - and what better way to accomplish that than to keep demonstrating your dishonesty.

Fair enough --- as John the [fundamental independent] Baptist said:

He must increase, but I must decrease.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Fair enough --- as John the [fundamental independent] Baptist said:

Whatever. Now show us the verse or admit that you lied.

 

[Tomk80]

But there are posts I make in the which the two words could be interchangeable --- such as this one:

In that one atheist and scientist were not interchangeable. You meant atheists. You should have said atheists. This was picked up quickly enough by others.

I would assume born-again scientists such as Arunma and Molal would recognize my challenge to build such a machine, and the futility thereof in doing so, as a legitimate point.

I told you this "machine" already exists. It's called a mushroom. Especially a fresh one, although dried ones also give strong effects.

 

[Nathan Poe]

But your legitimacy comes from comparing it to other religions, which is getting into the field of Comparative Religion. If that's what you want to do, knock yourself out.

What did you have in mind? Discussing Christian Creationism on its own merits with the a priori assumption that it's actual fact? There's no legitimacy in that approach.

In case you've forgotten, my [major] forte is the Creation.

Good -- we both specialize in mythology. This should be an interesting discussion.

So if you want to compare the Creation Story from the Bible to various creation myths of other cultures --- fine --- but I'll be right there to pwn them.

Clearly, your [minor] forte is self-importance. Apparantly, "pwn" has become a synonym for:

1. "Attempt (and fail) to obfuscate with petty semantics and pseudosophistic 'challenges'"
2. "get hopelessly embarassed by,"
3. "Sent scurrying to /thread by, while still attempting to maintain some semblance of ego.""
4. All of the above, in order.

Because frankly, AV, it's the only thing I've ever seen you do around here.

Nevertheless, I'll humor you -- Would you like to begin the discussion with what, if anything, makes the Hebrew Creation story unique?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Whatever. Now show us the verse or admit that you lied.

You know AV can't do either of these things -- the facts prohibit the former; ego prohibits the latter.

 

[AV1611VET]

You know AV can't do either of these things -- the facts prohibit the former; ego prohibits the latter.

Oh, I'm sure that if I hadn't have done it, he wouldn't be making such a fuss. He knows where I'm coming from.