Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 30)

Following Casey Luskins flapping on the video Challenging the Discovery Institute to Discover, Luskin has earned himself the honor of being the subject of Why do people laugh at creationists Part 30.

The Discovery Institute has all but abandoned intelligent design (the rebranding of creationism- see video) as a lost cause, they even go on record saying they dont think it should be taught in schools!

They initially set up a peer review journal of their own (Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design) but abandoned it after they got called out on the lineage of intelligent design to creationism.

Luskin helped set up intelligent design and evolution awareness clubs, but stated that the management believed the designer was the God of the Bible, and then happily goes on camera and states that intelligent design has nothing to do with religion, despite all the diagrams he has connecting the two on the IDEA webpage.

What really astounds me about these guys is they have utterly lost, and yet they dont have the dignity to accept that they were wrong graciously. Instead all you get is a bunch of bitter misfits doing their best to sow disinformation and throw as much mud as possible but for what gain? All I see is a bunch of jerks committing spiteful intellectual vandalism for their personal gratification. Really what do these people hope to gain by pretending there is controversy where none exists?

• Category

  Education

[cyber151]

"your dumbass"

With a degree in Biotechnology.

"can spout claims by other scientists"

Not claims, proven scientific fact, backed by evidence and research.

"I can't go to creation sites made by other scientists with Phd's"

You can but it makes you look foolish.

Those scientists aren't doing any scientific research to back their creation claims. They have degrees but don't follow science when it comes to creationism. They don't even attempt research or find evidence. ^_^

Strike 3. You're out.

[helmedon1974]

Matter can't be created? It's the inverse of particle annihilation, converting massless particles into one or more massive particles. We can do this in particle colliders. First you need to except that you don't "know" anything, you assume and rationalize. Next, you look at the evidence to form a hypothesis. After that, you test and verify over and over, to form a theory. Then you continually test the theory. What you do is take the end result, ignore the evidence and form a conclusion.

[Xnerdz1]

No sir. From your poor level of education, you DO NOT deserve that we do ALL the homework for you. You're not WORTHY of it.

bit(DOT)ly/10esfJg

[bob gruden]

ouch! well done sir

[helmedon1974]

Dr. Joyce and a graduate student, Tracey A. Lincoln, now a researcher at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, evolved a molecule in a test tube that could replicate and evolve all by itself.

Through a rather simple chemical reaction, chemists at the University of California, San Diego, and Harvard University have created self-assembling cell membranes.

Scientists have synthesized DNA, created a new chromozome, transferred it to an emty cell and watched it multiply. "It's alive!"

[patricksname]

You have evidence for a god? Really? Please publish it as soon as possible, worldwide fame and acclaim await you.

Before you do though, you might want to brush up on the old physics, it seems you are a bit rusty.

[Johnny A]

Correct. I don't know. I do have evidence for God and I know from the laws of physics that matter can t be created and that matter had a beginning. Thus I do know that matter had a beginning and a Beginner that was not matter. I call that first non matter cause God.

[Johnny A]

observational evidence of current processes"

Give an example and then show how one is justified in taking any pattern from the present and retracting the past from it.

[patricksname]

Did you observe god creating these laws? No? Well then according to your methodology he couldn't have.