The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

ISAW wrote: »

A team at Trinity College Dublin in Ireland has found evidence that at least six new human genes have arisen from non-coding DNA in the 6 million years or so since humans and chimps diverged.

...only SIX genes in 6 MILLION years ... when speciation is observed to occur INSTANTANEOUSLY????:)
...

ISAW wrote: »

Part of the answer could be the recent discovery that even though at least half of our genome is junk, as much as 90 per cent of it can be accidentally transcribed into RNA on occasion.
...
This means it might not be that uncommon for random bits of junk DNA to get translated into a protein. Since most random proteins will probably be harmful, natural selection will eliminate these DNA sequences, but just occasionally one will strike it lucky,

...the so-called 'junk DNA' is a measure of OUR ignorance of its FUNCTION ... and not indicative of lack of function.
Its just like the 'vestigial organ' controversy of the 19th Century ... when critical organs like the endocrine glands ... were assumed to be vestigial simply because they were 'ductless' ... in some cases they were even surgically removed with DISASTEROUS results!!!!!
...and you can read all about the Vestigial Organs ... that are no longer considered vestigial here:-
http://books.google.com/books?id=khEUYMtmuOQC&pg=PA307&lpg=PA307&dq=endocrine+glands+%26+vestigial+organs&source=bl&ots=Km7zZ5KgVu&sig=uZuUARD1ahk_TWlgUSGTmxyvg3E&hl=en&ei=nBdzS-u2BMq6jAeT37SzCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=endocrine%20glands%20%26%20vestigial%20organs&f=false

J C

oceanclub wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/10/brand-cross-christian-science-teacher

"Science" teacher teaches creationism in class, says science can't be trusted, burns cross into pupil's forearm, gets Minutemen to chase family out of town. Just an everyday story of whacko fundies.

P.

... The article DID say that the teacher taught what the textbook demanded to be taught about Evolution .. he taught the 'whole nine yards' ... billions of years, Darwin worship, and every other story that Evolutionists confuse themselves with ... and his main 'crime' was to mention the dreaded ID word in passing ... and presto there goes 21 years teaching service 'up in smoke'!!!:eek:

BTW it has been announced that the study of Atheistic Humanism is to form part of the syllabus for a GCSE course in religious studies, for the first time.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ed...es-811232.html
……..as Spontaneous Evolution is the Humanist 'Origins Explanation'........ I therefore expect that it will also be included in this religious studies programme.

...so not only have Atheistic Humanists taken over MOST of the science classrooms in Britain with their depressing and unfounded philosophy ... they now intend to take over the religion classrooms as well!!!

...in America they have pursued a different strategy ... the banning of all religion classes ... safe in the knowledge that they would have THEIR (and only their) religious position taught in the science classes instead!!!


... and finally they can use gross job discrimination with apparent impunity based on a self-serving Materialistic definition of science to further consolidate their nihilistic philosophy ... and they can then tax Christian parents to pay for the enforced indoctination of their own childen with a philosophy that is at 180 degrees from the parents worldview!!!:eek:

...great craic ... if you can get away with it ... and they appear to be able to get away with it.

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

... BTW it has been announced that the study of Humanism is to form part of the syllabus for a GCSE course in religious studies, for the first time.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ed...es-811232.html
……..as Spontaneous Evolution is the Humanist 'Origins Explanation'........ I wonder will it also be included in this religious studies programme ???
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/humanism-to-be-added-to-gcse-religious-studies-811232.html

...so not only have Atheistic Humanists completely taken over MOST of the science classrooms in Britain with their depressing and unfounded philosophy ... they now intend to take over the religion classrooms as well!!!

...in America they have pursued a different strategy ... the banning of all religion classes ... safe in the knowledge that they would have THEIR (and only their) religious position taught in the science classes instead!!!

Eh, JC.
Humanism is a religion.
Atheism isn't.

doctoremma

doctoremma wrote: »

FFS, is there are scientifically-literate creationist out there?

Oh lol, the irony of ranting about literacy in a post with such random grammar. I don't quite know what happened there...

Edit: Sorry, boys. You got there before me

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

...only SIX genes in 6 MILLION years ... when speciation is observed to occur INSTANTANEOUSLY????

Any chance you can justify that statement? As it blatantly isn't what any scientist believes, I assumes it's one of yours, no?

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

... The article DID say that the teacher taught what the textbook demanded to be taught about Evolution .. he taught the 'whole nine yards' ... billions of years, Darwin worship, and every other fairytale that Evolutionists confuse themselves with ... and his only 'crime' was to 'zap' an atheist with a spark of static electricity ... and mention the dreaded ID word in passing ... and presto there goes 21 years teaching service 'up in smoke'!!!:eek:

1. The demands of the curriculum have been backed by the long arm of the law.
2. See what happenes when you let unscientific mumbo-jumbo impinge on your ability to do your job as a science teacher?
3. Perhaps I'll drop him a line about the fallacy that the eye is irreducibly complex. Hey, I guess you have been learning something JC, as I assume you have dropped your ramblings about this by now....

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

...and you can read all about the Vestigial Organs ... that are no longer considered vestigial here:-

JC, why did God give us an appendix?

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Oh lol, the irony of ranting about literacy in a post with such random grammar. I don't quite know what happened there...

Edit: Sorry, boys. You got there before me

...I thought it was ironic myself ... no problem Emma ... to err is Human ... and I certainly don't claim to be perfect myself either!!!:)

The Mad Hatter

doctoremma wrote: »

JC, why did God give us an appendix?

It came about because of the fall, or something.

What's more interesting is that, concluding from J C and wb's claims that before the fall we were "perfect," and all the various flaws in design we've listed for them on various occasions didn't exist then, we used to have blowholes.

ISAW

J C wrote: »

...only SIX genes in 6 MILLION years ... when speciation is observed to occur INSTANTANEOUSLY????:)

Only one black swan is needed to prove the statement "all swans are white" is false.
That fact that six swans were found - even in six million years is more than sufficient!

...the so-called 'junk DNA' is a measure of OUR ignorance of its FUNCTION ... and not indicative of lack of function.

This would depend on whether you mean "function" means "according to a master handbook written by God" or "according to the actual active genetics we measure"

Its just like the 'vestigial organ' controversy of the 19th Century ... when critical organs like the endocrine glands ... were assumed to be vestigial simply because they were 'ductless' ... in some cases they were even surgically removed with DISASTEROUS results!!!!!

Indeed. an incorrect assumption! But what about the appendix? It can be removed from ANY human without the removal causing ANY disaster (save the risk involved in the surgery)!

...and you can read all about the Vestigial Organs ... that are no longer considered vestigial here:...

and you can look up "off topic" and "false negatives"

ISAW

J C wrote: »

...so not only have Atheistic Humanists completely taken over MOST of the science classrooms in Britain with their depressing and unfounded philosophy ... they now intend to take over the religion classrooms as well!!!

What has that got to do with anything. Militant atheistic regimes may have killed more than anyone else in history. So what has that got to do with fundamentalist Biblical creationism? It is just argument ad Hitlerium. It makes no difference to the bomb if a religious zealot or an atheist set it off!

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

JC, why did God give us an appendix?

...the short answer is that it performs a very useful function in neo-natal and early infant health.

The long answer is as follows (courtesy of AIG):-

Functions Of The Human Appendix

The appendix completes most of its functions at the early end of the spectrum of life. The vital aspects of these are probably complete at least by early infancy. While it is freely admitted that the precise functions of the human vermiform appendix are still unclear, so much more is now known that clarification is at hand. It is my intention to discuss this further under the following headings:

Embryological
Physiological
Microbiological (Bacteriological)
Biochemical
Immunological
1. Embryological
During the fifth foetal week it is the appendix which develops from a bud at the junction of the small and large bowel and undergoes rapid growth into a pouch. In the sixth week there is a transient nubbin surmounting the pouch indicative of being involved in the rapid development of the pouch which is very strategically placed near the apex of the highly significant mid-gut loop. It is only after the fifth foetal month that the proximal end of this pouch, which has appeared to be a very insignificant structure up until this stage, starts growing differentially to give rise to the true caecum which continues to develop into infancy.

The embryonic appendix has finger-like projections (villi) on its inside surface and it is only around birth that the long ribbons (taeniae) causing the sacculation of the large bowel start to develop. These ribbons, of course, converge on the base of the appendix.

2. Physiological
The goblet cells lining the appendix and adjacent caecum and colon secrete a special type of mucus which can be regarded as an antibacterial paint controlling the organisms which develop in the bowel in the region. The paint contains a high concentration of IgA type immunoglobulins, secretory antibodies produced for mucosal or surface immunity and part of the bowel-blood barrier .

3. Bacteriological
Through the cells within and overlying the lymphoid follicles and their production of secretory and humoral antibodies the appendix would be involved in the control of which essential bacteria come to reside in the caecum and colon in neonatal life. As well it would be involved in the development of systemic tolerance to certain antigenic agents within the alimentary tract whether they are derived from bacteria, foodstuffs or even the body’s own proteolytic enzymes.

4. Biochemical
One in three hundred or so appendectomy specimens contains a carcinoid tumour composed of a highly specialised type of cell rich in vaso-active peptides such as serotonin. The exact function of such agents in the entire bowel is still being elucidated, but the fact that the majority4 of such tumours occur within the appendix is indicative that the appendix could well be involved in some way with such substances.

5. Immunological
This is the area where the appendix would seem to have its predominant functions due to its content of lymphoid follicles, which are highly specialised structures. Although it was thought the appendix itself could be the site for B-lymphocyte induction (a Bursa of Fabricius equivalent)26 the latest opinions favour this programming being more centralised in the bone marrow. The appendix may still have a role in this highly significant function, but not alone, and its lymphoid tissue is known for certain to be involved in antibody production (the function of B- type lymphocytes). These antibodies are of two types:

IgA type immunoglobulins for secretory or mucosal surface immunity, and
IgM and IgG immunoglobulins for humoral or bloodstream immunity.
The above type functions have proven the appendix to be part of the G.A.L.T.2,4,23,25 (Gut Associated Lymphoid Tissue), but it has also been shown that the appendix after the neonatal period is dispensable, meaning that normal G.A.L.T. functions remain after appendectomy. This result is not unexpected as similar lymphoid tissue is distributed up and down the alimentary tract, there being a considerable reserve potential. Experiments in rabbits have shown that the appendix alone can provide normal humoral antibody levels if necessary27 and also replenish depleted lymphocyte populations secondary to neonatal thymectomy.28

These results have been in rabbits, and the rabbit appendix is not exactly the same as the human. Studies of the functions of the human appendix, however, have tended to concentrate on extrapolating across from animal models where it is difficult to escape evolutionary overtones and possibly repeating the errors Darwin made when using homology.

Other studies on the human appendix have tended to concentrate on tissue from young adults when the appendix has probably completed its major role. Recently the topography14 of immune cells and their products in the appendix have been described both in the presence and absence of acute inflammation, as well as it becoming evident that lymphocytes individually move into the appendix between the tenth and twentieth foetal week.14 Such studies have also highlighted the mode of immune cell reactions both with each other and other cells in the area in a detail not known before and quite significant advances have been made. Of course, lymphoid follicles do not actually appear as such in the appendix until two weeks after birth4 at the same time that colonisation of the large bowel with bacteria which are safe to their host begins. The follicles increase steadily in number to a maximum of two hundred at about fifteen to twenty years of age and decline back to about one hundred by thirty years of age and decline further, even to disappearance, throughout the rest of life. The peak incidence of acute appendicitis coincides very well with the peak number of lymphoid follicles and their enlargement with infection, whether it be initially viral or bacterial, probably contributes significantly to the luminal obstruction29 so important in the initiation of acute appendicitis.

In the past decade we have increased our knowledge considerably of the cells lining the gastrointestinal tract, especially in the small bowel and ileocaecal region, where new hormones and their functions have been discovered and so have received a lot of attention in appropriate journals. Clarification of B-lymphocyte induction9,13,26 and topography of the cells in foetal and neonatal appendiceal tissues is awaited with interest.

In summary therefore, the human vermiform appendix appears to be a complex and organised structure both in its development and maturation, and almost certainly has corresponding complexity in its functions which, like most gastrointestinal functions, are still awaiting further clarification. It would appear that the functions of the appendix would be most important when the organ itself has most prominence, and this is in the developing foetus and early existence after birth. The inside of the bowel is outside the body and the area where substances foreign to it have their greatest chance of attack. The appendix appears to be strategically placed and structurally composed of tissues which are vital in establishing and maintaining the various types of body defences or immunity necessary in recognition of such assaults and having a part to play in their repulsion. The appendix is thus one of the guardians of the internal environment of the body from the hostile external environment.

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

...the short answer is that it performs a very useful function in neo-natal and early infant health.
The long answer is as follows (courtesy of AIG):-

All well and good, honey. I hope you are not trying to equate "useful" with "important and necessary". You can argue that something can perform a job, but that doesn't mean it is required to do that job. In developmental biology, we use the phrases "necessary" and/or "sufficient". A demonstration of sufficiency i.e. it can do the job, doesn't usually get past reviewers.

Given that:
1. Any human can function perfectly well without an appendix
2. There must be a certain metabolic and genetic load associated with producing an entirely unecessary structure
3. These things have a propensity to blow up in fatally infectious explosions...

Do you, on reflection, think that:
1. God shouldn't have bothered
2. Well, that's all I can think of.

J C

equivariant wrote: »

Yet again, for the fourth time now, J C has completely refused to say anything about a paper that comprehensively debunks CSI (his key concept). You asked for a paper to review on CSI. Lets have your review.

I suspect that you do not have the ability, expertise or qualifications required to understand a real scientific paper, but I would enjoy seeing you embarass yourself further by attempting to do so. Of course it is far more likely that you will run away from the issue and continue to spout nonsense about having defeated your opponents on this thread.

Interestingly, in the appendix of this article the authors present a correct formulation of some interesting ideas concerning complexity. In these three pages there is more genuine scientific reasoning than in the entire YEC literature.

...I asked for a paper proposing Materialistic mechanisms to produce CSI ... not a 54 page critique of ID. I am certainly not going to waste my time critiquing a critique!!!

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

All well and good, honey. I hope you are not trying to equate "useful" with "important and necessary". You can argue that something can perform a job, but that doesn't mean it is required to do that job. In developmental biology, we use the phrases "necessary" and/or "sufficient". A demonstration of sufficiency i.e. it can do the job, doesn't usually get past reviewers.

Given that:
1. Any human can function perfectly well without an appendix
2. There must be a certain metabolic and genetic load associated with producing an entirely unecessary structure
3. These things have a propensity to blow up in fatally infectious explosions...

Do you, on reflection, think that:
1. God shouldn't have bothered
2. Well, that's all I can think of.

...Emma, you are quite entitled to your point of view.:)

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Eh, JC.
Humanism is a religion.
Atheism isn't.

...it is Atheistic Humanism.

RepublicanEagle

fatmammycat wrote: »

Ah yes, trying to understand things is 'futile' especially since 'god done it' is such a terrific blanket. Seriously, try read at least something of this thread before you blunder in and embarrass yourself by making such a daft comment.

When did I mention God?

I "apologise" for my punctuation,I assume now I will receive a warning from a mod for feeding the trolls or in this case,militant atheists.

PMSL

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

1. The demands of the curriculum have been backed by the long arm of the law.
2. See what happenes when you let unscientific mumbo-jumbo impinge on your ability to do your job as a science teacher?
3. Perhaps I'll drop him a line about the fallacy that the eye is irreducibly complex. Hey, I guess you have been learning something JC, as I assume you have dropped your ramblings about this by now....

... All the 'pseudo-liberal' pretensions and claims that we live in a 'pluralist' society that is 'tolerant of difference' is certainly 'blown out of the water' by the way that this teacher was treated in an American town where the MAJORITY of the population are Christian Young Earth Creationists!!!

...you also need to remember that Laws may change ... but Human Rights and Justice do NOT!!!!

...and pride comes before a fall ... God is watching all this anti-Christian activity and religious persecution and discrimination masquerading as 'science' ... and He is NOT amused!!!!:(

..would you be happy if the Law was changed to have YOUR children forcibly taught Christian Doctrine in religion class ... or ONLY Creation Science in Science Class - and if a teacher even mentioned Evolution that s/he would be sacked?

...I bet you wouldn't !!!
...and I wouldn't be happy either, that your worldview and that of your children would be 'trodden down' in such a crass and illiberal fashion.

... and please remember that Atheistic Humanism (and its pet Materialistic Evolution Theory) is NOW claiming to be a fully-fledged RELIGION!!!!!

...and could I point out the other great 'hobby horse' of the Atheist Humanists ... the so-called 'separation of church and state' targets ONLY ONE religion (Christianity) ... it should now be called 'the separation of religion and state' ... including the separation of the RELIGION of Atheistic Humanism (and it's pet Materialistic Evolution Theory) from state protection ... and the use of the 'long arm of the law' ... as Emma has so eloquently put it, to protect Materialistic Evolution from critical evaluation in school, when it is not much more than an Article of Religious Faith in Materialism !!!!

BTW, ironically, I have no problem with my children being taught about Materialistic Evolution in either science or religion class ... I think that it is actually ESSENTIAL to do so for a proper and full education.
However, I do have a problem with it being taught as the ONLY 'origins' explanation and without its obvious deficiencies and weaknesses also being taught. I also have a problem with teachers being sacked for merely mentioninng that Evolution may not be a perfect explanation.

Look, science is continuously progressing ... and new theories are emerging all of the time ... and children are exposed to these ideas in the real world ... so school should also expose them to these ideas in a balanced and fair way.
For example, on BBC 2 last night there was a programme examining a new theory that the Universe, is infinite in size ... even though it originated in a 'Big Bang' ... it is supposed to have 'inflated' to infinity INSTANTLY. Sounds like a perfect discription of Direct Creation to me BTW !!!
Anyway, some children may raise the content of this programme in science class today ... and I would hope that a science teacher wouldn't have their 'hands tied' to the point where they would have to ban all discussion on the programme ... or lose their job ... as seems to be the case with ID in America!!!

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Oh America what's happening to you? Once you were at the centre of scientific thought and research now you are losing that ground to China. We need you to sort this mess out before China distorts science to suit its own agenda.

I read recently that you can criticise Darwin in China - but not the Government ... while you can criticise the Government in America - but not Darwin!!!!

...and BTW America lead the world in science and innovation when it was still a predominantly Christian Country and proud to serve both God and Country.

...and another irony is that the the national motto of the United States is "IN GOD WE TRUST" ... yet all mention of God is banned in Public Schools !!!
Indeed the money used to pay for the schools has the motto "IN GOD WE TRUST" ... yet the schools themselves don't trust in God or even allow His name to be mentioned.

A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, that declared IN GOD WE TRUST as the national motto of the United States.

America is also regarded as the 'Land of the free' and the 'home of free speech' ... yet the ability to speak freely doesn't apply to science teachers in Public Schools ... because the Atheistic Humanists want their pet Materialistic Evolution Theory protected by force of Law from any criticism!!!!

Strange but TRUE!!!:eek:

Eros_Panties

J C wrote: »

... you are a Child of God with free-will.
... God loves you like a Father ... and He is waiting for you with 'open arms' for you to make the decision to believe on Him.

I cant stand this nonsense. PICS or GTFO.

oceanclub

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

When did I mention God?

I "apologise" for my punctuation,I assume now I will receive a warning from a mod for feeding the trolls or in this case,militant atheists.

PMSL

Trying to make out that evolution is only supported by "militant atheists" is ridiculous. Evolution is supported by most mainstream Christian churches, particularly the Catholic church, as is cosmological research, something you seem to find useless. (I find it ironic that someone who calls himself a "scholar" elsewhere feels that knowledge has no value in itself.)

P.

equivariant

J C wrote: »

...I asked for a paper proposing Materialistic mechanisms to produce CSI ... not a 54 page critique of ID. I am certainly not going to waste my time critiquing a critique!!!

Waste your time??? LOL. The paper calls into doubt one of the key concepts of your argument, namely "complex specified information". Its hardly a waste of time to defend one of the central tenets of your argument.

How very typical of creationism that you can waste everyone else's time with your nonsensical criticisms of evolution, yet when someone writes a well thought out and rigourously devastating destruction of a creationist "idea", you plead that you can't be bothered to waste your time.

Of course the real reason that you won't "waste your time" is that you haven't got a clue about any of the information theory that you claim knowledge of. This exposes once again your complete lack of expertise and lack of qualification to comment on information theoretic ideas like complexity.

Your mention of the number of pages in the paper is telling. In the real world J C, scientific papers are often 50 or more pages long. Not like in the fantasy world of creationism, where the typical 'papers' are 4 or 5 pages of drivel.

You asked for a paper by non creationists on on CSI. It is ludricous to demand a paper from non creationists on "materialistic mechanisms that produce CSI" when the non creationist position is that CSI is a nonsense concept. Can you understand even that simple piece of logic?

So, I repeat my challenge - here is a paper by non creationists that discusses one of your central concepts. If you are in any way serious about defending your interpretation of science, this is precisely the type of paper that you should be willing to review. Or are you just afraid to admit your obvious ignorance of the topic at hand???

PS It seems from your comment that you didn't even bother to read the abstract. The paper is not a "critique of ID". It is a critique specifically of Dembski's writings on CSI.

santing

For those who have time spare and live in the West of Ireland (well, the invite says everyone is welcome, so even if you live elsewhere and do not have time):
Philip Bell (CEO, Creation Ministries Int.) will speak on DEFEATING DARWINIAN DELUSIONS and GOD IS GREAT! ANSWERING AGGRESSIVE ATHEISM
Saturday 13th February @ 2pm and 4 pm
The Menlo Park Hotel, Headford Road, Galway
COME WITH YOUR QUESTIONS. EVERYONE WELCOME

RepublicanEagle

oceanclub wrote: »

Trying to make out that evolution is only supported by "militant atheists" is ridiculous. Evolution is supported by most mainstream Christian churches, particularly the Catholic church, as is cosmological research, something you seem to find useless. (I find it ironic that someone who calls himself a "scholar" elsewhere feels that knowledge has no value in itself.)

P.

I never mentioned that evolution is only supported by "militant atheists",I was referring to the fact, that it would appear that this thread seems to attract a certain type of fundamentalist atheists.Which is obvious by the fact people are implying that I am some kind of uneducated radical religious zealot to deliberately ridicule what I mentioned and support,not to mention my "poor punctuation", very pathetic.

Sam Vimes

santing wrote: »

For those who have time spare and live in the West of Ireland (well, the invite says everyone is welcome, so even if you live elsewhere and do not have time):
Philip Bell (CEO, Creation Ministries Int.) will speak on DEFEATING DARWINIAN DELUSIONS and GOD IS GREAT! ANSWERING AGGRESSIVE ATHEISM
Saturday 13th February @ 2pm and 4 pm
The Menlo Park Hotel, Headford Road, Galway
COME WITH YOUR QUESTIONS. EVERYONE WELCOME

Is he going to speak about all of the other scientists who are "delusional" because their disciplines contradict creationism such as geologists, astronomers, cosmologists, anthropologists, historians, archaeologists, chemists and physicists or like the rest is he going to pretend that the enemy is evolution and not everything we've learned since the dawn of reason?

And is he also going to mention that the vast majority of religious people and religious authorities accept evolution or like the rest is he going to pretend it's an atheist conspiracy?

Sam Vimes

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

I never mentioned that evolution is only supported by "militant atheists",I was referring to the fact, that it would appear that this thread seems to attract a certain type of fundamentalist atheists.Which is obvious by the fact people are implying that I am some kind of uneducated radical religious zealot to deliberately ridicule what I mentioned and support,not to mention my "poor punctuation", very pathetic.

What is a "fundamentalist atheist" if you don't mind me asking? It seems to me that anyone who ever mentions anything about atheism falls into that category. Can someone talk about atheism, or in this case defend science, without being branded a fundamentalist?

RepublicanEagle

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What is a "fundamentalist atheist" if you don't mind me asking? It seems to me that anyone who ever mentions anything about atheism falls into that category. Can someone talk about atheism, or in this case defend science, without being branded a fundamentalist?

In most cases a fundamentalist atheist is one who ridicules and sneers at another individual who has substance to his or her's opposing arguements.As I mentioned before this thread attracts A LOT of them.

Sam Vimes

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

In most cases a fundamentalist atheist is one who ridicules and sneers at another individual who has substance to his or her's opposing arguements.As I mentioned before this thread attracts A LOT of them.

So you're using the same term that is used for people who blow up abortion clinics and fly planes into buildings to describe people who make fun of your arguments because they don't think they have as much substance as you think they do?

Is everyone who makes fun of your arguments a fundamentalist or is it just when the topic is religion?

Edit: personally when someone tries to ridicule an argument I've made I prefer to explain the mistake they've made in their reasoning rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks, ie calling them names

doctoremma

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

In most cases a fundamentalist atheist is one who ridicules and sneers at another individual who has substance to his or her's opposing arguements.As I mentioned before this thread attracts A LOT of them.

If you think using terms like "smells like BS" and some handwaving at "missing links" is substance, you're going to find this thread fairly hard-going.

Sam Vimes

doctoremma wrote: »

If you think using terms like "smells like BS" and some handwaving at "missing links" is substance, you're going to find this thread fairly hard-going.

Exactly. I love the logic here: "If I say something and everyone laughs at me it must be because they're.....emmm.....fundamentalists, yeah! It of course can't be that they're ridiculing me because I've just said something ridiculous"