My Human Chromosome 2 Challenge

[Cabal]

That's a good analogy.

You guys act like cars have been around longer than horses, and that auto mechanics is being encroached on by stable hands.

Which would be (a) wrong, as Anaximander (the ancient greek, not the forum user with the same handle, although it is an epic choice of handle I must say) proposed the idea, so it is not primarily a 19th century idea, and (b) stupid as supporting an outdated and inefficient mode of transportation (especially on such a basis as "but we REEEEEALLY believe it") would be the death knell for a society that did so.

Really, don't try analogies, AV - you're a creationist.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which would be (a) wrong, as Anaximander (the ancient greek, not the forum user with the same handle, although it is an epic choice of handle I must say) proposed the idea, so it is not primarily a 19th century idea...

Let's make this clear.

Creationism has been around much longer than evolution.

... and (b) stupid as supporting an outdated and inefficient mode of transportation...

I'm not going to get into a discussion on the example that SD used, except to say that calling that 'an outdated and inefficient mode of transportation' would be mislabeling.

Let's see you get your car through a forest or up a mountainside without a road to drive on.

(especially on such a basis as "but we REEEEEALLY believe it") would be the death knell for a society that did so.

Not hardly.

Really, don't try analogies, AV - you're a creationist.

It wasn't my analogy; but I like it -- I think it's a good one.

 

[Assyrian]

That depends.

Genesis 1 was taught as written for thousands of years, until evolution started teaching otherwise.

People who embrace/embraced evolution in favor of the order of Genesis 1 are the ones who are being led astray.

It's disingenuous to look back and accuse God of being the author of confusion, when He documented everything He did in such great detail.

...in two completely different chronological orders.

 

[Targ]

Let's make this clear.

Creationism has been around much longer than evolution.

Sounds like a fallacious appeal to tradition to me.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sounds like a fallacious appeal to tradition to me.

Sounds like a chronological fact to me.

 

[Cabal]

Sounds like a chronological fact to me.

Sounds still a totally irrelevant one for anyone with an ounce of logical thought in their brains.

 

[Cabal]

Let's make this clear.

Creationism has been around much longer than evolution.

And even if so, so what?

I'm not going to get into a discussion on the example that SD used, except to say that calling that 'an outdated and inefficient mode of transportation' would be mislabeling.

Let's see you get your car through a forest or up a mountainside without a road to drive on.

They're called Land Rovers.

Hooray for science, yet again.

Not hardly.

This is just ridiculous. Industrialisation was significant for a reason, and it wasn't because we started using more horses as the main source of energy. But hey, if you're so desperate to win, keep claiming otherwise - it's entertaining.

It wasn't my analogy; but I like it -- I think it's a good one.

I'm sure you would, when you mangle it out of shape like you do with the creation account.

 

[AV1611VET]

And even if so, so what?

So don't try and convince me that evolution is being encroached on by creationism, when in fact, it's the other way around.

 

[Cabal]

So don't try and convince me that evolution is being encroached on by creationism, when in fact, it's the other way around.

Why should it be?

It has a position it deserves. A joke of an opposition is trying to bypass the accepted avenues of acceptance of ideas and is trying to unseat it from that position and in some places has gotten stupidly far with it, at the expense of the quality of education in those areas. The age of the ideas can take a hike - evolution is not the one doing the encroaching.

I love how instead of actually trying to show the validity of your idea (you know, a REASONABLE criterion for whether or not an idea should be propagated) you're resorting to a playground "but we were here first" whinge. Just oozes with confidence about the strength of your ideas....

 

[SithDoughnut]

Let's make this clear.

Creationism has been around much longer than evolution.

Hinduism has been around longer than Christianity. Therefore Hinduism is better than Christianity.

 

[Cabal]

Hinduism has been around longer than Christianity. Therefore Hinduism is better than Christianity.

No, Christianity muscled in on Hinduism, those jerks.

 

[SithDoughnut]

No, Christianity muscled in on Hinduism, those jerks.

But Hinduism is still better. Because it's older. Christianity is western religion, not eastern religion, and God is obviously deceiving us with Christianity so Hinduism is easier to prove in the later times.

 

[AV1611VET]

It has a position it deserves. A joke of an opposition is trying to bypass the accepted avenues of acceptance of ideas and is trying to unseat it from that position and in some places has gotten stupidly far with it, at the expense of the quality of education in those areas. The age of the ideas can take a hike - evolution is not the one doing the encroaching.

Irregardless of whether you think creationism is a joke or a viable paradigm, it has been around longer than evolution.

I love how instead of actually trying to show the validity of your idea (you know, a REASONABLE criterion for whether or not an idea should be propagated) you're resorting to a playground "but we were here first" whinge. Just oozes with confidence about the strength of your ideas....

Again, whether you think I'm playing we-were-here-first or king-of-the-mountain, the only point I'm making is that creation came well-before evolution ever did.

It's a fact of history that you're going to have to deal with in your own way.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hinduism has been around longer than Christianity.

Not even close.

Therefore Hinduism is better than Christianity.

You guys are desperately trying to bury this point into obscurity, aren't you?

 

[Targ]

Not even close.

Hinduism has been around since around 5,000BC. So yeah, it kind of wins on the appeal to tradition argument.

Also, please, never use the word irregardless. I feel like smashing my monitor every time I see someone using that non-word.

 

[Cabal]

Irregardless of whether you think creationism is a joke or a viable paradigm, it has been around longer than evolution.

Again, whether you think I'm playing we-were-here-first or king-of-the-mountain, the only point I'm making is that creation came well-before evolution ever did.

It's a fact of history that you're going to have to deal with in your own way.

I have dealt with it. I have dealt with it by concluding that irrespective (irregardless is not a word) of how old creationism is, it is flatout wrong and therefore does not merit the level of respect its followers demand.

The thing is, such a way of dealing with inevitably brings a tirade of objections from creationists, who seem to have a hard time dealing with such a resolution. So maybe they are the ones who should need to deal with it

 

[AV1611VET]

Here we go again.

Hinduism has been around since around 5,000BC.

Now that's funny -- since the first Hindus came from Madai, Noah's grandson through Japheth.

QV: The Sixteen Grandsons of Noah.

Also, please, never use the word irregardless.

Interesting.

I didn't know it was a non-word.

What about "irrespective"?

 

[AV1611VET]

I have dealt with it. I have dealt with it by concluding that irrespective (irregardless is not a word) of how old creationism is, it is flatout wrong and therefore does not merit the level of respect its followers demand.

And yet again, Cabal -- irrespective of what you think of it -- hate it, love it, disdain it, ignore it, whatever -- it was here long before your evolution was.

You don't have to like it -- you don't have to believe it -- you don't have to embrace it -- but to deny its place on the time line is just showing misplaced contempt.

 

[Cabal]

And yet again, Cabal -- irrespective of what you think of it -- hate it, love it, disdain it, ignore it, whatever -- it was here long before your evolution was.

You don't have to like it -- you don't have to believe it -- you don't have to embrace it -- but to deny its place on the time line is just showing misplaced contempt.

I had contempt for it long before people started arguing this point - so little could really add to that.

The point is, when you brought this point up again, you connected it to people being led astray by evolution.

But now you've backed down to the point where it is an even more irrelevant matter.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Not even close.

Christianity: 2000 years (Even a literal interpretation of the Bible can't get you past that). Hinduism: Over 3000 years. Looks like Hinduism wins.

You guys are desperately trying to bury this point into obscurity, aren't you?

Ridiculous claims require ridiculous answers.