Jump to content


Photo

I'm In The Mood To Watch Evolutionists Squirm...


  • Please log in to reply
224 replies to this topic

#161 Guest_Thanos_*

Guest_Thanos_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 December 2009 - 05:43 PM

That's not evidence. Fossils, for example, can be interpreted to be arranged hydrologically by the flood. It depends on the assumptions.

View Post


Okay, this really gets on my nerves because I major in geology.

So here is a quick lesson on water and water movement. (This is gonna be long, skip if you don't want to learn/read or as just too lazy what ever floats your boat! no pun intended :lol: )
-----------------------------------
Terms:
Competence: The largest rock the method of movement can carry. ie, Glaciers have high competence while rivers have a medium to low competence. Wind has low competence.
Capacity: The amount of material a moving body can carry. ie, Glacier have medium to low capacity, rivers have medium to high and wind has low capacity.
Strata: layers of rock accumulated over a certain time period.
Graded Beds: a special type of deposition in which the largest rocks are deposited at the bottom and the smallest at the top, usually happens when water is covering a large area and is slowly either evaporated or retreated from that area.
Bed load: the amount of rock at the bottom of the river that is being moved, usually by dragging or rolling
Suspended load: the amount of rock that is being carried by the river due to the river's velocity.
Solution or dissolved load: the chemical composition in the river that allows the river to "absorb" the sediment and carry it where it will be deposited due to another chemical change in the water. (think of this as dissolving salt in water, then evapourating the water and you'll be left with the salt again)
Bed: bottom of the river
Settling velocity: the lowest velocity in which the river can hold a certain sized rock.
------------------------------------

Okay, so, let's "assume" that the fossils were deposited by the flood.
Firstly, from the Bible, it rained for 40 days and 40 nights.(PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG) What I'm getting out of that is that the water level just rose. So when the water level rises, the animals die.

So now we have dead things in the water, except for fish and such. The ability for the water to move the dead animals is very little as the water level just rose. So we have calm water that isn't moving that has flooded the earth. This means we should see the animals settle out around where they died for the big animals. The big animals would be like the bed load. The smaller animals would settle out where ever the current takes them. This would mean that you would see graded beds for your sedimentary rocks all around the world and "graded beds" for your fossils as well. This means largest animals would be found at the bottom of your sedimentary deposits and smallest on top. This is not the case as we know there are smaller fossils in the Cambrian Era than in the Jurassic.

But wait, what if it wasn't rain. It could be a massive flash flood. Okay, granted, that's how some of you think the Grand Canyon was form. Alright, let's have a crack at this one shall we?
Firstly, the largest animals would be moved as well, maybe not far but still moved some distance. Relatively, this would correlate to where the large animals are deposited. The smaller animals would have been deposited where the water slowed downs, below the settling velocity. This would mean we would find all the small animals to be deposited in one area. Which is not the case. We find small fossils throughout the place.

Secondly, the amount of erosion from a flash flood can not create something like the grand canyon. A flash flood almost always travels in a straight line from where it starts to the nearest base level (sea level).

Water erodes and deposits in different areas depending on how quickly the water is moving, at what elevation the water is moving and what the chemical composition of the water is.

Water flows differently depending on the slope of the land. It down-cuts if it is pretty high above sea level and downcutting is decreases as you get closer and closer to the base level. If it is at base level, a river tends to meander, and this allows geographic features like ox bow lakes and point bars and many more.
What does this have to do with a flood? well, relatively, a flash flood behaves similarly to the beginning of a river up in the mountains or at least elevated above sea level. They are fast, erodes quickly and are relatively straight assuming the material they're cutting through is the same and has not joints of areas of weakness.
While a flood produced by just rise in sea level behaves relatively like the meandering of a river, slow moving water and relatively stable.

Of course this is like quick, simple over view and there's a lot more to it, but you guys get the idea.

#162 JMcP

JMcP

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Scotland

Posted 20 December 2009 - 05:43 PM

I'm guessing that because you don't reply, you don't want to admit you're wrong?

Is it honest debate if you say you're right, but ignore everyone that disagrees?

View Post


I don't mind admitting that I might be wrong. In fact I have already done so. But I think the explanation given earlier is mostly if not totally right.

The point is, even if I'm 100% wrong about this point, it's not the blow you think it is against the ToE.

#163 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 20 December 2009 - 05:47 PM

But I think the explanation given earlier is mostly if not totally right.


So, in short, you're saying, "I know I'm right and their wrong so I'm going to ignore the refutations to my explanation."
Definitely true science...

The point is, even if I'm 100% wrong about this point, it's not the blow you think it is against the ToE.


That's nice. You haven't answered my argument so I'm just going to treat your opinion like what it is, a mere opinion.



*snip*


You should read up on the Hydroplate theory. The flood waters were most definitely not still.
This is off topic, but answers in Genesis I think covers the flood pretty well.
http://www.answersin...#/topic/geology

#164 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 20 December 2009 - 05:49 PM

http://en.wikipedia...._from_ignorance

I don't think he meant to be rude. Basically, just because you or I can't see how something might occur, that is no premise for saying that it couldn't possibly occur.

Even if no-one could answer the question (and I think I have already), then that wouldn't mean that the ToE is in trouble, because the answer may already be known, or the answer might become clear through further research.

View Post

This is not accurate. The creationist position is not that the configuration could not occur. The position is that evolutionists need to demonstrate that it could occur by the means evolutionism claims it did - generally as the result of the mutation and selection goddesses.

#165 JMcP

JMcP

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Scotland

Posted 20 December 2009 - 05:53 PM

So, in short, you're saying, "I know I'm right and their wrong so I'm going to ignore the refutations to my explanation."
Definitely true science...
That's nice. You haven't answered my argument so I'm just going to treat your opinion like what it is, a mere opinion.

View Post


Nope, I am saying that I think the explanation given is probably correct, but I am not totally certain that it is 100% correct. But even if it isn't correct then that doesn't prove that the ToE is incorrect.

What if two people were discussing an electrical storm in AD 50. One thinks it's God's wrath, and the other thinks it's a natural phenomenon, but is unable to explain exactly why. Does that mean that the lightening actually IS God's wrath?

#166 JMcP

JMcP

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Scotland

Posted 20 December 2009 - 05:56 PM

This is not accurate. The creationist position is not that the configuration could not occur. The position is that evolutionists need to demonstrate that it could  occur by the means evolutionism claims it did - generally as the result of the mutation and selection goddesses.

View Post


Yes, and since we know that we are descended from fish-like creatures, and ultimately bacteria-like organisms, with tetrapods along the way, then the explanation I gave makes sense. It only doesn't make sense if you insist that goddidit.

#167 Guest_Thanos_*

Guest_Thanos_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 December 2009 - 05:59 PM

Everyone has their bias. Nobody looks at something with a fully open mind.
No.
Covered in this forum before. That is off topic, though.
Posted Image
There you go. Photograph of atoms.

Any second semester chemistry course will tell you that's not how atoms look like. :lol:

once agian, no one has seen an atoms. by the way, atoms are not round.

The trochlea does contradict evolution. It is what this topic is about. I'd appreciate it

Let me state my argument again:
Because the trochlea could not have evolved, and evolution states everything evolved, evolution is wrong.

evolution states that small mutations over time, can add new structures.

Therefore, according to evolution, the trochlea was formed slowly by mutations that were beneficial and selected for

However, it could not have evolved because the muscle would have to form through the sling, which would have no purpose until the muscle goes through it. However, the muscle would have to have gradually moved to its new location. It would be detrimental to survival if the muscle was lengthened because it would be unable to contract as much as it could if it were shorter.

View Post


http://forum.richard...103731#p2565489


Quoted here:
"This one is an example of Creationists asking how something originated in a way that presumes that there must once have been species/individuals which were the same as the modern ones in all ways except the one trait they're asking about, such as people in whom there's no muscle making this wacky U-turn. The hope is that, because that presumption is built in to the question but not stated directly, the evolutionist who is being challenged will forget to think of the hidden presumption and fail to bring up the fact that other things were different in the past, too, not just this one trait, so its original development could have been in a quite different context.

The bone in question here is a part of the frontal bone. In humans, that's the forehead, which starts above and mostly in front of the eyes and extends almost straight up from there. But the early tetrapod ancestors didn't have foreheads, and their eyes weren't pointed forward. Their eyes pointed out to the sides (and possibly also upward) rather than forward, and the equivalent of the forehead was behind and between the tops of the orbits and extended back horizontally, forming the top of the cranium, not the front of it. Posted ImageIn this image, to see where things were back then, you have to picture the eye rotated "clockwise" in terms of the image's directions, the muscle's insertion point on the eye swung around "left" and "up" (more medial and anterior) with that rotation, and the trochlea "lower" (more posterior). That takes out the U-turn.

Another way to look at it is in this one, in which you have to picture the eye rotating on an axis that's vertical within the picture so the outside, the side nearest you (including points 5 and 11 and the superior rectus's insertion point) goes "left" (back) and the opposite surface of the eye (the inside, one you can't see) goes "right" (forward). Posted ImageThat would also move the superior oblique's insertion point farther from you as the viewer of the image (medially) and then "right" (forward), passing "behind" (medial to) the superior rectus's insertion point, while the frontal bone leans over to the "left" (back), taking the trochlea "down and left" (down and back). It's another angle from which to see the same thing: the U-turn is naturally taken out by the changes in the shape of the head as you visualize starting with a human head and making it more like our ancestors'.

Of course, this is the reverse of the actual flow of time. What it really means is that if you start with a flat-headed ancestor that has outward-pointing eyes and no U-turns a few hundred million years ago, then crank its eyes around to point forward and shove the top of its head up and foreward to make a forehead, then superior oblique's insertion point on the eye moves back and out (laterally) while the trochlea holds on to the middle of it on its way up and forward, thus creating a U-turn in what had been a perfectly ordinary linear muscle before.

I think the annulus of Zinn would also have been farther forward back then than it is now, which, if that is the case, would also contribute to the same effect as the annulus migrated back.

It's pretty much the same deal as the biceps brachii being wrapped around from one side of the limb to another because the original orientation of our arms was like pointing our elbows out and back, with the palm inferior and the thumb medial... or the sternocleidomastoid crossing over from front of the chest/neck to the back of the neck/head because both ends were closer together back before we tilted our heads roughly 90° off from the original orientation.

The only question then, since the U-turn issue is solved, is why one of the muscles originating at the annulus of Zinn ever went through a little loop of bone in the first place while the others didn't. Maybe back when this muscle was still mostly in-line but the changes around it were just beginning, a slight adjustment of that muscle's angle of action was selected for while the difference was still incremental. Or maybe they all went through the trochlea originally and the others came out of it but that one didn't make it. Or maybe the trochlea was left over from having served some other purpose originally. But that seems to be a minor trifle to me; I'm thinking the U-turn shape is the issue here, and that's not hard to see coming from an original straighter shape as I described above. In fact, given what we know about the changes in the skull since our earliest tetrapod ancestors, the fact that the superior oblique must have been straighter is pretty much inescapable anyway, because there's no way it could fail to have been straighter when you take the different skull shape back then into account."

#168 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 20 December 2009 - 06:00 PM

Nope, I am saying that I think the explanation given is probably correct, but I am not totally certain that it is 100% correct. But even if it isn't correct then that doesn't prove that the ToE is incorrect.


Yet your explanation has been refuted, and you are ignoring the refutations. Yet you still think it's true.

Just answer the refutations, stop wasting our time.

What if two people were discussing an electrical storm in AD 50. One thinks it's God's wrath, and the other thinks it's a natural phenomenon, but is unable to explain exactly why. Does that mean that the lightening actually IS God's wrath?


That is not my argument. Don't make be have to quote it. Again.

So far, you've tried to go off topic, declare Occam's razor, ignore an argument because you think it's biased, imply that creationists are uneducated, ignore refutations to your explanation yet still claim it is correct, and continually present a straw man.


Thantos, that is the same thing jmcp quoted. It's been refuted before in this topic.
http://www.evolution...indpost&p=46650
That is where he posted it.

Oh and about atoms, if you haven't seen atoms, how do you claim that isn't what they look like? Makes no sense.
http://www.google.co...ved=0CAsQ9QEwAA
is where I got it from. Not exactly "seeing" them but it is observing them.

#169 JMcP

JMcP

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Scotland

Posted 20 December 2009 - 06:05 PM

Yet your explanation has been refuted, and you are ignoring the refutations. Yet you still think it's true.

Just answer the refutations, stop wasting our time.
That is not my argument. Don't make be have to quote it. Again.

So far, you've tried to go off topic, declare Occam's razor, ignore an argument because you think it's biased, imply that creationists are uneducated, ignore refutations to your explanation yet still claim it is correct, and continually present a straw man.

View Post


There's no point in addressing the refutations, because they are all along the same lines of "you just made it all up, and there are too many assumptions, and in any case we know goddidit because it's all so intricate". People are entitled to their opinions, I don't have to agree with them all.

There is no straw man.

#170 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 20 December 2009 - 06:10 PM

Argument from incredulity? This is impossible according to evolution.
If the sling came first, the muscle would have to form through the sling, but it would have to depart from the eye itself to do so, therefore it would lose it's use and be ruled out by natural selection.
If the muscle came first, the sling would have to form around it, then move to it's new position while lengthening the muscle as to not make it detrimental to survival by stretching the muscle, limiting it's movement. The chances of two mutations, one lengthening the muscle, another slightly shifting the sling, happening at the same time, are too small. Two beneficial mutations at the same time have never been observed, so saying they came at the same time is not scientific.

Not to mention most "beneficial mutations" known today are simply losses of information that caused a problem in the first place.

Argument from incredulity is "I don't know how this can happen, so it can't happen."

My argument is "This cannot happen by means suggested by evolution, so evolution is wrong."
And no, you didn't answer the OP. OP asks to explain how it came. You are just squirming around it.

View Post

Sorry Cata - I probably wouldn'tve bothered if I'd read through to your excellent response. This threads growing too fast to keep up with.

#171 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 20 December 2009 - 06:11 PM

There's no point in addressing the refutations, because they are all along the same lines of "you just made it all up, and there are too many assumptions, and in any case we know goddidit because it's all so intricate". People are entitled to their opinions, I don't have to agree with them all.


"there are too many assumptions," is exactly the reason why you are wrong. :lol:
If it's your opinion, keep it that way. Don't say it is true.

Also,

Growing these would be an inefficient expenditure of resources. The bone itself would be an obstacle until it evolved a hole for the muscle to pass through. This might "justify" the evolution of the jacket, but it's all clearly and obviously problematic if the selection goddess is on duty. Anything can be "explained" by a just-so story if evolution is posited to take her off duty, and that is the trick employed here.

This is not one of those things you said they were all along the lines of.


Sorry Cata - I probably wouldn'tve bothered if I'd read through to your excellent response. This threads growing too fast to keep up with.


Really? I thought I was doing badly. Thanks though.

#172 JMcP

JMcP

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Scotland

Posted 20 December 2009 - 06:18 PM

"there are too many assumptions," is exactly the reason why you are wrong. :lol:
If it's your opinion, keep it that way. Don't say it is true.

Also,

Really? I thought I was doing badly. Thanks though.

View Post


The problem with your various replies and refutations is that they all carry with them the basic (and incorrect) assumption that mankind's forbears all had forward-facing eyes.

If you can get away from that false premise, it is very easy to see how the trochlea probably developed. Once again: chimps have a trochlea, and horses don't.

#173 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 20 December 2009 - 06:18 PM

Hi there,

I have an explanation, found elsewhere:

The bone in question here is a part of the frontal bone. In humans, that's the forehead, which starts above and mostly in front of the eyes and extends almost straight up from there. But the early tetrapod ancestors didn't have foreheads, and their eyes weren't pointed forward. Their eyes pointed out to the sides (and possibly also upward) rather than forward, and the equivalent of the forehead was behind and between the tops of the orbits and extended back horizontally, forming the top of the cranium, not the front of it. In this image, That takes out the U-turn.

Assuming we have an ancestor, and assuming that lineage can be verified.
Yes please add more assumption. You write as if this is all uncontestable fact.
And more assumptions to follow, I'll just cut them out.
Oh? Solved. Great, glad that is done, now what? A perpetual motion machine?
I added the bold on what appears non-factual claims in just this one paragraph. Why do we need to accpet such a litany os assumption and presumption? Each one taken as a single item seems insignificant. But the whole of your argument is based on such, and therefore fails.

Your assumptions also appear to follow a line of developement inspired by creativity, planning and forethough. I'm sure I misread that though.

View Post

This is where things often get confusing - for both sides.

It is one thing to propose that x might have evolved a given way; it is another to assert that x did indeed evolve a given way.

In the context of the customary "is this consistent with evolutionism?" question, it is generally presumed to be sufficient for the evolutionist to posit a plausible scenario involving the evogoddesses.

Now the minute the claim changes to x did indeed evolve, the burden of proof changes enormously. Context must be closely monitored.

#174 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 20 December 2009 - 06:22 PM

The problem with your various replies and refutations is that they all carry with them the basic (and incorrect) assumption that mankind's forbears all had forward-facing eyes.


Growing these would be an inefficient expenditure of resources. The bone itself would be an obstacle until it evolved a hole for the muscle to pass through. This might "justify" the evolution of the jacket, but it's all clearly and obviously problematic if the selection goddess is on duty. Anything can be "explained" by a just-so story if evolution is posited to take her off duty, and that is the trick employed here.


Where do you see that in there?

If you can get away from that false premise, it is very easy to see how the trochlea probably developed. Once again: chimps have a trochlea, and horses don't.

So what if chimps have it and horses don't? There's still no way the trochlea can form by evolution.


Oh, and you have yet to answer my argument. I'm waiting.

Because the trochlea could not have evolved, and evolution states everything evolved, evolution is wrong.

evolution states that small mutations over time, can add new structures.

According to evolution, the trochlea was formed slowly by mutations that were beneficial and selected for.

However, it could not have evolved because the muscle would have to form through the sling, which would have no purpose until the muscle goes through it. However, the muscle would have to have gradually moved to its new location. It would be detrimental to survival if the muscle was lengthened because it would be unable to contract as much as it could if it were shorter.


#175 JMcP

JMcP

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Scotland

Posted 20 December 2009 - 06:24 PM

I hate to say this, and please don't take it the wrong way and get angry with me, but how much do you know about the evolution of land mammals from fish? If the answer is not much, then honestly, a little reading will help you understand where I'm coming from.

#176 JMcP

JMcP

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Scotland

Posted 20 December 2009 - 06:27 PM

So what if chimps have it and horses don't? There's still no way the trochlea can form by evolution.

View Post


<sigh> Well, if you say so, then it must be true, Cata. Submit your thesis to "Nature", and we will all watch this site:

http://nobelprize.or..._announcements/

#177 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 20 December 2009 - 06:30 PM

I hate to say this, and please don't take it the wrong way and get angry with me, but how much do you know about the evolution of land mammals from fish? If the answer is not much, then honestly, a little reading will help you understand where I'm coming from.

View Post


What a nice way to dodge my argument.
In case you forget,

Because the trochlea could not have evolved, and evolution states everything evolved, evolution is wrong.

evolution states that small mutations over time, can add new structures.

According to evolution, the trochlea was formed slowly by mutations that were beneficial and selected for.

However, it could not have evolved because the muscle would have to form through the sling, which would have no purpose until the muscle goes through it. However, the muscle would have to have gradually moved to its new location. It would be detrimental to survival if the muscle was lengthened because it would be unable to contract as much as it could if it were shorter.


#178 JMcP

JMcP

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Scotland

Posted 20 December 2009 - 06:32 PM

Oh, and you have yet to answer my argument. I'm waiting.

Because the trochlea could not have evolved, and evolution states everything evolved, evolution is wrong.

evolution states that small mutations over time, can add new structures.

According to evolution, the trochlea was formed slowly by mutations that were beneficial and selected for.

However, it could not have evolved because the muscle would have to form through the sling, which would have no purpose until the muscle goes through it. However, the muscle would have to have gradually moved to its new location. It would be detrimental to survival if the muscle was lengthened because it would be unable to contract as much as it could if it were shorter.

View Post


Sorry for keeping you waiting Cata. Your argument is based on the assumption that homo sapiens is descended from homo sapiens. That is not the reality.

If you knew where homo sapiens actually came from, you would not be making the above argument.

HTH.

#179 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 20 December 2009 - 06:36 PM

That's not evidence.

Sure it is, and what makes all the evidence for evolution really powerful is that it all matches up! Transitional fossils are found in rocks of just the right age and location, matching up with both the evolutionary timeline and the ancestral migration path of species. Fossils are not randomly scattered. The fossil record also shows us evidence in their structure of an evolutionary "family tree" branching out from a common ancestor. The discoveries in genetics and DNA also show us an evolutionary family tree, one that matches up exactly with the fossil record. The evidence found in embryos and vestigial organs both illustrate this same family tree. Dating/age, migration paths, fossil record, embryos, vestigial organs, genetics and DNA all independently tell the exact same story, exactly as the Theory of Evolution predicted! Denying the evidence does make the evidence supporting Evolution go away. Nor does waving away evidence help support your own assertions for a biblical flood, 6000 year old earth etc..

View Post

That's where you have to keep a sharp eye on 'em. Conclusions are not evidence. Conclusions are not evidence. Conclusions are not evidence.

They'll make you sound like a broken record, if you call 'em on it every time.

View Post



#180 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 20 December 2009 - 06:40 PM

Sorry for keeping you waiting Cata. Your argument is based on the assumption that homo sapiens is descended from homo sapiens. That is not the reality.

If you knew where homo sapiens actually came from, you would not be making the above argument.

View Post


So, you say that my argument proving evolution wrong, is wrong, because evolution is right.
Definitely no circular reasoning in that...

And I fail to see how it is based on that. My argument's purpose is to prove evolution wrong. Does that make it any less right?

So far, you've tried to:
-go off topic
-declare Occam's razor
-ignore an argument because you think it's biased
-imply that creationists are uneducated
-ignore refutations to your explanation yet still claim it is correct
-use circular reasoning




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users