Oh. My. God.

Taft2016 said:
Like Albert Einstein and his similarly weak mind, I believe in a Creator.

I am not a Calvinist, and do not believe my fate is pre-ordained by a Superior Being.

The funny thing is, by reducing my positions to a caricature of what you presume to all Creationists to be, you have made this discussion so easy for me by arguing like the caricatures your side inevitably proves to be.
Click to expand...


Bullshit. Einstein was an agnostic and the only concept of God he entertained (Spinoza's) is very different than yours. For instance, Spinoza did not see God as a creator but merely a cause.
 
Taft2016 said:
Unthinking libtards will never give up on the false premise that creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

Except we aren't talking about creationism vs evolution.

We are talking about a nutcase who believes DINOSAURS fought humans and GIANTS in gladiatorial combat.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
Bullshit. Einstein was an agnostic and the only concept of God he entertained (Spinoza's) is very different than yours. For instance, Spinoza did not see God as a creator but merely a cause.
Click to expand...

You're assuming you know what my concept of God is, just like you've pre-assumed you were having a discussion here with a Dinosaur Theme Park theologian.

It hasn't worked out for you yet, but stick with it laddie. Like Socialism, success is juuuuuuuust around the next corner.
 
Taft2016 said:
You're assuming you know what my concept of God is, just like you've pre-assumed you were having a discussion here with a Dinosaur Theme Park theologian.

It hasn't worked out for you yet, but stick with it laddie. Like Socialism, success is juuuuuuuust around the next corner.
Click to expand...

I am assuming nothing. You clearly expressed a notion of God as creator. As I noted, that conflicts with Einstein's or Spinoza's concept of God.

You are far more supportive of socialism than I am.

But back to the point, you reject evolution which is the theory that all living things are related. This is not a disagreement on a minor point. You have unambiguously rejected the high level executive summary of the theory of evolution.

You only want to pretend that you are less of a moron than Ham but I have much more respect for Ham.
 
Taft2016 said:
I believe other species have evolved, but man is on such a higher plateau (again, putting Rune aside), with no other species even closely within our range, that the evolution of every other species fails to explain how *we* got to this point.

You portray the Theory of Evolution as some sort of fundamentalist belief, that if you don't accept universal application one is some kind of an infidel.

Hmmm, sounds like man made global warming science, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Funny guy. Arrogant as well as stupid. Bad combo, cretin.
 
Taft2016 said:
No, it does not.



No, I do not. You reject non-fundamentalist evolutionists. Perhaps you wish to behead me?
Click to expand...


Yes, it does. Again, Spinoza's concept of God is not as a creator (like yours) but as a cause (not like yours).

Again, you are not differing on some minor point. You flatly deny what the theory suggests in the simplest terms possible.

You deny that all living things are related. You deny evolution. It's just that simple.

Again, I don't give a fuck about your views. Just quit lying. Quit smearing Einstein.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
Yes, it does. Again, Spinoza's concept of God is not as a creator (like yours) but as a cause (not like yours).
Click to expand...

Let me try and walk you through this.

AFAIK, Spinoza never even delved into the question of Creation. Why? Because it was NOT even a QUESTION at the time.

He lived 200 years before Darwin, and even longer before theories like the Big Bang.

Seriously bro, you are so weak. Use your head.
 
The way Taft, and the PiMPle always play this is through using equivocation or a bait an switch.

The theory of evolution, in simple terms, is the idea that all living things are related, have a common ancestor and have reached their present form through natural processes and natural selection. Of course they reject that idea, but they want to pretend that they are not totally nuts so they pretend to agree with it, while making fundamental changes to what it means.

Creationists, as used in the context of this thread, seems to mean young earth creationist but more generally means anyone that believes that humans and or other living things were created in their current form. Of course, that is in conflict with the REAL theory of evolution and not supported by any one worthy of respect in the scientific community. So to get around the last problem they make a subtle and unstated redefinition of creationists so that they can include Einstein. But he rejected the idea of a God as creator and never showed any indication that he agreed with the definition of creationism previously given.

In short, they are lying for God. It's okay, they can redefine the ten commandments to cover their ass.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
The way Taft, and the PiMPle always play this is through using equivocation or a bait an switch.

The theory of evolution, in simple terms, is the idea that all living things are related, have a common ancestor and have reached their present form through natural processes and natural selection. Of course they reject that idea, but they want to pretend that they are not totally nuts so they pretend to agree with it, while making fundamental changes to what it means.

Creationists, as used in the context of this thread, seems to mean young earth creationist but more generally means anyone that believes that humans and or other living things were created in their current form. Of course, that is in conflict with the REAL theory of evolution and not supported by any one worthy of respect in the scientific community. So to get around the last problem they make a subtle and unstated redefinition of creationists so that they can include Einstein. But he rejected the idea of a God as creator and never showed any indication that he agreed with the definition of creationism previously given.

In short, they are lying for God. It's okay, they can redefine the ten commandments to cover their ass.
Click to expand...

I'm so disappointed.

I was waiting for your explanation of how Spinoza was an evolutionist.:awesome:

You know my type... we reject the theory of time travel and all...
 
Taft2016 said:
Let me try and walk you through this.

AFAIK, Spinoza never even delved into the question of Creation. Why? Because it was NOT even a QUESTION at the time.

He lived 200 years before Darwin, and even longer before theories like the Big Bang.

Seriously bro, you are so weak. Use your head.
Click to expand...


Uh, yes he certainly delved into the subject of creation. Of course, it was a question at the time. WTF??

He lived before Darwin or the Big Bang.... So?
 
Here is another strawman from the lying sack of shit.

Taft2016 said:
I'm so disappointed.

I was waiting for your explanation of how Spinoza was an evolutionist.:awesome:

You know my type... we reject the theory of time travel and all...
Click to expand...


I never claimed Spinoza was an "evolutionist." Please note or quote the post where I made this claim.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
Uh, yes he certainly delved into the subject of creation. Of course, it was a question at the time. WTF??

He lived before Darwin or the Big Bang.... So?
Click to expand...

I probably should have used the word "questioned" instead of "delved."

He did touch upon up, but not to question it, only to analyze it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top