So from all of their websites, and forums. I have come up with a current evolutionist Hit List:
Individuals separated by education and belief.
1. Atheist-evolutionist.
2. Atheist only.
3. Theistic evolutionist (evolution plus God).
4. Old earth creationist (OEC).
5. Creationist.
6. Young earth creationist (literal belief in God's word).
Where they are considered by evolutionists.
1. Close to pure human, and always well educated.
2. Predominately human, and mostly well educated.
3. Half human, and moderately educated.
4. A little less than half human. Slightly educated.
5. Predominately animal. Not very intelligent.
6. Almost pure animal. Un-educatable.
56 comments
Where they are considered by reality.
1. Evolution pretty much proved; atheism an unproved hypothesis; unrelated to each other.
2. An unproved hypothesis, but with no good counter-argument. Unrelated to evolution.
3. Possible but unprovable - the "God fiddles the dice" hypothesis is untestable.
4. Unlikely but unprovable; simple alternative explanation involving natural laws available.
5. See above.
6. Absolutely false; disproved by almost all science, including biology, astronomy, geology and physics; most major Christian sects have denied a literal interpretation of Genesis since the 4th century.
No no honey, that's what you WISH we would say. You know, like "There is no God so I have a license to kill" and "Our lord Darwin teaches us to exterminate Christians in the name of survival of the fittest." We talked about this distinction, remember?
Individuals separated by education and belief.
1. Atheist-evolutionist.
2. Atheist only.
3. Theistic evolutionist (evolution plus God).
4. Old earth creationist (OEC).
5. Creationist.
6. Young earth creationist (literal belief in God's word).
Where they are considered by evolutionists.
1-6. Homo sapiens.
Wow dude, you got some serious self image issues.
I would never insult my dog by telling you, you were pure animal. Un-educatable yes, but that's because of wilful stupidity.
6. Young earth creationist (literal belief in God's word).
6. Almost pure animal . Un-educatable.
Apart from the animal bit, truth sucks doesn't it?
This isn't right at all. Belief or disbelief in religion doesn't determine your species; your DNA and chromosones do that. Even what you believe doesn't change whether or not you're a pleasant person to be around; your attitude determines that. So, yeah, I'd have no problem with a YEC provided that they don't shove it down my throat, are willing to talk about a wide variety of other subjects and are overall a kind, pleasant and fun-loving person.
Strange list.
2 and 5 don't really make sense.
How would an atheist believe in creationsim if they don't believe in god.
And what's a "Middle" Creationist. "Middle Earth Creationist?" Think the world was created by Tolkin?
Okay, I'm sorry, but I was reading that site, and I just can't believe for one iota of a second that it is serious. I don't know, maybe I haven't lost all hope in humanity yet, but I just can't believe this.
@Adam
I don't think they're being 100% serious. Obviously there are people who would otherwise hold rational views if they hadn't been indoctrinated. However, those that hold to YEC even after being given evidence AND continue to erect strawman version of ToE are willingly ignorant and thus ineducable. My biggest qualm with this list (aside from the obvious objection to the human/non-human grouping) is that I don't think being an atheist automatically makes one more educated and rational and we (unfortunately) have plenty of idiots too (i.e. David Icke and Raelians). However, I do agree that those who are more educated tend to accept ToE while those that are less educated tend to hold to YEC.
Well, aside from the human/animal bullshit, you're right, and hell, you're the living proof, aren't you?
While I seriously doubt that "evolutionists," whoever they are, are classifying people in this manner, it would appear that you've labeled them perfectly.
Well, this looks legit.
1=1
2=2
etc. etc.
Ken Ham - does he look familiar to you guys in this pic?
image
"Four score... and seven years ago...."
XD :P XD XD XD!!!!
Although this wouldnt be a case of animal/subhuman/or evolution... more like... reincarnation?
"From all my thoughts, which I borrowed from Kent Hovind, William Lane Craig, and Conservapedia, I've built this straw man of how I think my enemy thinks:"
Oh, I wouldn't consider them animals. Children, perhaps, that need to be kept away from sharp objects. But not animals.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.