Experiments that demonstrate creationism.

[DramaQueen]

What's with the god of the gaps?
Is ID a new religion or what?
Isn't half of Brazil's population homophobes? Is Argentina their Canada?
Why do you need to teach that god was behind evolution? What's the big deal?
Isn't calling atheists sexist like a pot calling the kettle black?

[genkaus]

So there is this website called http://www.evolutionnews.org

And one would assume that is a site filled with a bunch of evolutionary facts and data to support evolution. But hey guess what. Its actually the other way around. It's a bunch of (apparently scientific) data to debunk atheism.

Kind of like this thread. Judging by the title, one would assume that some creationist had actually come up with facts and data and experiments to support creationism. But hey guess what. Its actually the other way around. Its a bunch of arguments to debunk creationism.

[RobbyPants]

I'll be happy when society as a whole stops letting these mouth-breathers talk at the grown up table.

[Anomalocaris]

Evolutionary Studies Suggest that Atheists, Whatever They Say to the Contrary, Really Do Believe in God

So even theists think belief in god is nothing more than a wished-for lowest common denominator that might make them feel less inferior to atheists.

[Angrboda]

The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to defeat materialism, naturalism, evolution, and "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."[2] The strategy also aims to affirm what it calls "God's reality."[3] Its goal is to change American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values.[4] The wedge metaphor is attributed to Phillip E. Johnson and depicts a metal wedge splitting a log to represent an aggressive public relations program to create an opening for the supernatural in the public's understanding of science.[5]

Wikipedia | Wedge strategy

The Discovery Institute (DI) is a non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of the pseudoscience "intelligent design" (ID). Its "Teach the Controversy" campaign aims to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses alongside accepted scientific theories, positing a scientific controversy exists over these subjects.
. . . . . . .
The Discovery Institute has registered over two hundred website domain names. More than a dozen are related to the Institute's campaigns promoting intelligent design. The use of these sites is often in conjunction other intelligent design-related sites registered and operated by Discovery Institute fellows and associates. William A. Dembski, for example, registered and operates UncommonDescent.com, OverwhelmingEvidence.com, and DesignInference.com while the Institute's Casey Luskin set up IdeaCenter.org; all link to each other.

The use of these sites is often in conjunction other intelligent design-related sites registered and operated by Discovery Institute fellows and associates.

1. IntelligentDesign.org
   
2. EvolutionNews.org
   
3. IDTheFuture.com
   
4. DissentFromDarwin.org
   
5. DarwinAndDesign.com
   
6. DarwinismAndID.com
   
7. IconsofEvolution.com
   
8. FromDarwinToHitler.com
   
9. PrivilegedPlanet.com
   
10. DarwinDayInAmerica.com
    
11. JudgingPBS.com
    
12. FaithAndEvolution.org

Wikipedia | Discovery Institute

[Zidneya]

So there is this website called http://www.evolutionnews.org

And one would assume that is a site filled with a bunch of evolutionary facts and data to support evolution. But hey guess what. Its actually the other way around. It's a bunch of (apparently scientific) data to debunk atheism.

Kind of like this thread.

Excuse Me?!…

What about this thread?

Judging by the title, one would assume that some creationist had actually come up with facts and data and experiments to support creationism.

But instead I mention of a website that claims how creationists had actually come up with theories and info that they claim support creationism. So I dunno what are you complaining about.

But hey guess what. Its actually the other way around.

I name my threads the way I want them to. Oh and guess what I like to make funny titles. I like to make interesting thread names. It gets more views. That's the reason and no offense but I don't think that is a secret to anyone. And I'm not the only one who does that nor I think is wrong doing that.

Its a bunch of arguments to debunk creationism.

What are those arguments exactly? Because all I do is mention a website sponsored by creationists that claim(and I say claim because since I'm not gonna read all those articles nor I have a PHD to refute what's exposed in them I neither confirm nor deny what's written in them) shows evidence of intelligent design and flaws in atheism. And also suggest to my fellow atheists that in the maybe in the future they may hear of this website as evidence from creationists. How does that debunks creationism?

Don't get me wrong I'm all into debunking creationism so if I imply this in one of my previous statements please explain it to me in which and how.
Because as far as I'm concerned I'm willing to make threads to debunk creationisms however this ain't one of them.

And what if I decide to debunk creationism? Who are you to lecture me what I should and shouldn't do? And why you say debunking creationism like if it's a bad thing? Who the hell are you to tell me how to make my threads? Ha?

[Tonus]

It's a bunch of (apparently scientific) data to debunk atheistm.

I'm guessing that the one piece of data that would 'debunk atheism' for once and for all is missing from the site.

[genkaus]

But instead I mention of a website that claims how creationists had actually come up with theories and info that they claim support creationism. So I dunno what are you complaining about.

Not complaining - just drawing a parallel.

I name my threads the way I want them to. Oh and guess what I like to make funny titles. I like to make interesting thread names. It gets more views. That's the reason and no offense but I don't think that is a secret to anyone. And I'm not the only one who does that nor I think is wrong doing that.

Misrepresenting the content through a provocative title to increase viewership - hmm... where have I seen that before?

What are those arguments exactly? Because all I do is mention a website sponsored by creationists that claim(and I say claim because since I'm not gonna read all those articles nor I have a PHD to refute what's exposed in them I neither confirm nor deny what's written in them) shows evidence of intelligent design and flaws in atheism. And also suggest to my fellow atheists that in the maybe in the future they may hear of this website as evidence from creationists. How does that debunks creationism?

Don't get me wrong I'm all into debunking creationism so if I imply this in one of my previous statements please explain it to me in which and how.
Because as far as I'm concerned I'm willing to make threads to debunk creationisms however this ain't one of them.

And what if I decide to debunk creationism? Who are you to lecture me what I should and shouldn't do? And why you say debunking creationism like if it's a bad thing? Who the hell are you to tell me how to make my threads? Ha?

Except, I didn't tell you what to do or how to do any of that? I simply drew a parallel between this thread and the website - the titles in both cases misrepresent the content.

[Zidneya]

Misrepresenting the content through a provocative title to increase viewership - hmm... where have I seen that before?

I don't know. I don't care
I don't want to know. I don't want to care.

I simply drew a parallel between this thread and the website - the titles in both cases misrepresent the content.

I also made threads titled:
Conservative atheists are better than you.
Gay in not only a choice, but a mind control influence in children.
Stop Masturbation Now! And Help Preventing Self Rape.
Atheist are doomed.

And belive me I don’t think any of that and I’m also enraged bye people that think that atheism is doomed or that people think gay can be a mind control influence.
The title of the thread doesn’t have to describe the content as long as is aboard the topic that’s all it requires.

[genkaus]

I don't know. I don't care
I don't want to know. I don't want to care.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

I also made threads titled:
Conservative atheists are better than you.
Gay in not only a choice, but a mind control influence in children.
Stop Masturbation Now! And Help Preventing Self Rape.
Atheist are doomed.

And belive me I don’t think any of that and I’m also enraged bye people that think that atheism is doomed or that people think gay can be a mind control influence.
The title of the thread doesn’t have to describe the content as long as is aboard the topic that’s all it requires.

So, your point is that this thread is not special and you always misrepresent the content of the thread in the title?

Besides, the irony here was too good to pass up. You make a thread misrepresenting the content in the title, and in that thread you point to and criticize a site for misrepresenting their content in their title.