Are you a creationist?

[Wootah]

Hi all,

The thing about creation is that we do it every moment.

- I look at a lump of matter and make it into my wife every day of my marriage.

- Apparently, there is a bunch of atoms that I recognise every day how to get back to and I call it my home.

The day you are not a creationist, you likely have lost your mind.

Are you a creationist? Thoughts?

[Clownboat]

Clouds don't create snowflakes.

Could you be more pointless if you tried? How is it that you quote my words, but then make some odd statement about how clouds don't create snowflakes as if someone has suggested such a thing?

We create clouds and snowflakes when we see them and name them.

This is false as clouds and snowflakes pre-date humans. Humans played no part in their forming, nor did humans create them.

This is a debate site. Your desperation ("what snowflakes?" and "you actually need to be a creationist to debate") is palpable.

In meteorology, a cloud is an aerosol consisting of a visible mass of miniature liquid droplets, frozen crystals, or other particles suspended in the atmosphere of a planetary body or similar space.

I'm sure those reading are not insulted... What other nuggets you got for us?

Then we go deeper until we get a massive soup of fundamental particles.

Oh please, do go deeper!

Then we might as well ask what is the difference between a cloud and a frog?

Well holy monkeys, I was just about to ask the difference between a cloud and a frog! You are truly on to something!
In case you didn't know, in meteorology, a cloud is an aerosol consisting of a visible mass of miniature liquid droplets, frozen crystals, or other particles suspended in the atmosphere of a planetary body or similar space. A frog, not so much...

When we give something a name, we create it. That is my point.

Your point is wrong, but you will undoubtably continue to hold it!

I feel terrible for the guy that named and therefore created cancer. What a jerk! And let's not forget the guy that named mosquitoes!

Readers, do you even have to ask yourself if cancer and mosquitoes existed before we named them or do we just have another religious person being fast and loose with words and their meaning. Why is it that we generally see the religious doing this and not the godless heathens? Makes me wonder if there is a correlation between god belief and being deceptive.

Deception or falsehood is an act or statement that misleads, hides the truth, or promotes a belief, concept, or idea that is not true. It is often done for personal gain or advantage.
http://encyclopedia.uia.org/en/problem/ ... -deception

[Wootah]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #61]

I feel terrible for the guy that named and therefore created cancer. What a jerk! And let's not forget the guy that named mosquitoes!

There is a thread on the naming of the blastocyst that touches on this and the tragedy of misnaming.

The rest of your post is beneath the standards for this site but I'll leave it to others to fight for them.

I personally can't dialogue with that level of uncivility, although I will reply to anyone if I see value.

[Wootah]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #59]

Ok thanks for your input.

Have a nice day.

[Wootah]

I honestly think I triggered a lot of cognitive dissonance.

I can't recall one reasoned response post.

Apologies if I missed yours.

[Miles]

I honestly think I triggered a lot of cognitive dissonance.

No, just a lot of frustrated responders.

I can't recall one reasoned response post.

My guess is that it's because you fail to understand what a reasoned response is.

.

[Purple Knight]

The day you are not a creationist, you likely have lost your mind.

Are you a creationist? Thoughts?

I do agree with this. But at the same time I disagree.

I'm a cat breeder. I tend my cats carefully, I treat them well, look after them, take them to the vet when sick, and yes, when I produce an exceptional individual of my breed, I say proudly, "I made that."

But I don't think I snapped my fingers and made matter where there was not matter before. That would make me just as crazy as the fellow who scoffs at my ribbon and says I did nothing.

I also don't think I can dictate morality for the beings I create. If they ever become morally self-aware and they think something is wrong, I can't tell them it's right. I can punish them for behaviour I don't like or even remove balls off of cats who spray and deny them reproductive success and give them pet homes, but it is NOT the same thing. Spraying is not morally wrong just because it causes damage to my house. It just causes damage to my house and won't be allowed in my house.

Proof I believe this: I've said as much.

Why are we assuming that the universe - the allstuff I'll call it, that everything is made up of - originated at all?

We don't see things originate, we see them change. If I obtain a litter of kittens, there is not more allstuff than there was yesterday, it's just, more of it is making up things we call kittens. Causality is needed for why there are more kittens. It doesn't apply to the allstuff.

[Tcg]

The rest of your post is beneath the standards for this site but I'll leave it to others to fight for them.

I personally can't dialogue with that level of uncivility, although I will reply to anyone if I see value.

Moderator Clarification

I'll remind you once again of rule: 17. Do not comment on any rule infractions made by others. Ignore any rule violations made by others and only respond by reporting it to the moderators.

If you suspect someone is being uncivil or has broken a rule the proper procedure is to report it not to complain about it publicly as you have done here.

Please review the Rules.


Rules


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #59]

Ok thanks for your input.

Have a nice day.

I honestly think I triggered a lot of cognitive dissonance.

I can't recall one reasoned response post.

Apologies if I missed yours.

Pure fingers in the ears denial.

Woot, chum, do you think this is impressing anyone, even Believers who are watching with dismay.Atheists are looking far the more reasonable, and you are the ones saying we are doing cognitive dissonance. About what? That we are in denial about clouds not being frogs?

Was this about that Blastocyst nonsense I saw and left alone like a plastic bag labelled 'Medical waste, untreated"? Trying to prove that two different things are the same?

[Wootah]

The day you are not a creationist, you likely have lost your mind.

Are you a creationist? Thoughts?

I do agree with this. But at the same time I disagree.

I'm a cat breeder. I tend my cats carefully, I treat them well, look after them, take them to the vet when sick, and yes, when I produce an exceptional individual of my breed, I say proudly, "I made that."

But I don't think I snapped my fingers and made matter where there was not matter before. That would make me just as crazy as the fellow who scoffs at my ribbon and says I did nothing.

I also don't think I can dictate morality for the beings I create. If they ever become morally self-aware and they think something is wrong, I can't tell them it's right. I can punish them for behaviour I don't like or even remove balls off of cats who spray and deny them reproductive success and give them pet homes, but it is NOT the same thing. Spraying is not morally wrong just because it causes damage to my house. It just causes damage to my house and won't be allowed in my house.

Proof I believe this: I've said as much.

Why are we assuming that the universe - the allstuff I'll call it, that everything is made up of - originated at all?

We don't see things originate, we see them change. If I obtain a litter of kittens, there is not more allstuff than there was yesterday, it's just, more of it is making up things we call kittens. Causality is needed for why there are more kittens. It doesn't apply to the allstuff.

Ok. How come Purple Knight can see a point?

[TRANSPONDER]

The day you are not a creationist, you likely have lost your mind.

Are you a creationist? Thoughts?

I do agree with this. But at the same time I disagree.

I'm a cat breeder. I tend my cats carefully, I treat them well, look after them, take them to the vet when sick, and yes, when I produce an exceptional individual of my breed, I say proudly, "I made that."

But I don't think I snapped my fingers and made matter where there was not matter before. That would make me just as crazy as the fellow who scoffs at my ribbon and says I did nothing.

I also don't think I can dictate morality for the beings I create. If they ever become morally self-aware and they think something is wrong, I can't tell them it's right. I can punish them for behaviour I don't like or even remove balls off of cats who spray and deny them reproductive success and give them pet homes, but it is NOT the same thing. Spraying is not morally wrong just because it causes damage to my house. It just causes damage to my house and won't be allowed in my house.

Proof I believe this: I've said as much.

Why are we assuming that the universe - the allstuff I'll call it, that everything is made up of - originated at all?

We don't see things originate, we see them change. If I obtain a litter of kittens, there is not more allstuff than there was yesterday, it's just, more of it is making up things we call kittens. Causality is needed for why there are more kittens. It doesn't apply to the allstuff.

I agree all that. Yes, humans make things, we 'Create', physically, mentally or both, or as you say, morally. But that is a different kind of creation from Cosmic origins, nuclear power and 'naming' - shall we say? sub - atomic particles. But I get the feeling I missed what the argument was really about. I thought it was about being able to 'create' things made humans Creator, yes, but that did not make us Creationists, (in any regular usage of the term) nor did it make everyone 'creationists' (as I recall was the OP). It looked to me like an equivocation fallacy designed to make 'Creationism' accepted as fact by foisting the term on things it had nothing to do with.