Jump to content


Photo

Micro & Macroevolution


  • Please log in to reply
156 replies to this topic

#141 IGE37

IGE37

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • North Dakota

Posted 31 May 2010 - 12:58 AM

I think you're mistaking a behavior that you say evolutionists "wrote the book on" with human nature.


Your confusing the sinful nature with human nature. Most people prefer evolution , even though logic and empirical testing contradict it, simply so they can enjoy the false self-exaltation of calling other people idiots. In the end, the fool is the one who could have done right but died because he refused.

View Post


I don't wish to derail this thread any further, but I would like some clarification on this.

Do you mean to say that anyone who gets "beat" in a debate and runs to colleagues that believe along the same lines they do are sinful (whether they be evolutionist/creationist)?

Or that believing in evolution in general is sinful?

I've seen examples of both creationists and evolutionists running away from debates, and I find the practice tiresome and, if caught, a true indication of the exposed party's character.

#142 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 31 May 2010 - 01:19 AM

I don't wish to derail this thread any further, but I would like some clarification on this.

Do you mean to say that anyone who gets "beat" in a debate and runs to colleagues that believe along the same lines they do are sinful (whether they be evolutionist/creationist)?

Or that believing in evolution in general is sinful?

I've seen examples of both creationists and evolutionists running away from debates, and I find the practice tiresome and, if caught, a true indication of the exposed party's character.

View Post


I don't want to get in the way, but if you are truly an agnostic, then aren't you saying there is no way to know or prove God for sure? So your question about evolution being sinful would be unknowable in your mind also -- correct? Because sin is in relation to God--it has nothing to do with what man thinks. It is what God thinks sin is. So if someone told you that something is a sin--you basically have no reference point to agree with that or not. You can't really disprove it, but you can't prove it either. It might be true or false in your mind. Because you don't know if God exists or not.

The belief in evolution is a symptom of the underlying line of thinking. It was presented to mankind as alternative to creation.

Now if God did create us, and we are made in his image. But we say we are not in his image, but in the image of apes. If God says he created Adam , and that Adam was a 'son of God' (as opposed to the Son), and we say no, we are the son of apes, then please--you tell me if it would be sinful in the eyes of God.

God said not to lie, but to speak truth.

#143 Guest_Raithie_*

Guest_Raithie_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 May 2010 - 06:00 AM

People see only what they want to see when they choose to have total faith in their belief. Rathie has the inability to think outside the evolution box. This is why he posts what is discussed here on another forum and blog. This whole thing is just entertainment to him. Which proves he is not looking for any more truth, he already has 100% total faith that evolution is the only truth out there. And he is here to sharpen his skills on evangelism for evolution.

http://www.atheistfo...149.html#503954
http://raithie.blogspot.com/

Science is about pondering all things. Rathie only ponders one thing, and that is how everything "must" conform to evolution. Conformity is not science.

View Post


Firstly, I find it quite funny that you googled me :rolleyes:

Secondly, you're forming an opinion of me based on your own prejudice - I defend evolutionism based on the evidence - not because I simply want to believe in it. It's much easier and a hell of a lot nicer to think that there's a god watching over me and has a nice spot in heaven ready for me, as long as I'm good and say my prayers.

Thirdly - you tell me that I ignore anything that points in the opposite direction of evolution and that I already have "100% faith" in evolution. That is far from the truth. If actual evidence was put forward disproving evolutionism, I would have no problem going along with it. I see no reason to believe in a god, so I look for naturalistic explanations to explain natural phenomena. I have no vested personal attachment towards evolution, only that I accept the evidence. Also, I don't see why you decided to replace a post in response to my original post with an ad hom and obvious derailment.

I decided to discuss the Miller experiment because I admittedly had no idea what Eocene was talking about when he referred to a "trap". I figured I'd get a clarification and then find a source for their claims, since the only thing I could find in regards to what Eocene was talking about was found on creationist sites, and not scientific ones. Saying I got "attacked" was a bit of an exageration, however, I said that because I was annoyed that we ended up discussing abiogenesis in a discussion regarding evolution.

#144 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 31 May 2010 - 06:25 AM

Saying I got "attacked" was a bit of an exageration, however, I said that because I was annoyed that we ended up discussing abiogenesis in a discussion regarding evolution.

View Post


A “bit of an exaggeration” is a complete understatement (to the extent of almost total fabrication on your part), and in no way excuses the act. You weren’t attacked, but you did cause spurious attacks at the other forum by your very accusation. And, it seems by the reaction at the forum, and your feigned innocent act, that the reaction was the intent.

And, unfortunately, you’ll most likely continue pretending that there was nothing wrong with what you did, and the ramifications of said action.

You’ll most likely continue in your not understanding of the correlation between the Miller experiment and the attempted explanations for abiogenesis by its proponents.

And, no doubt, you’ll attempt to accuse me of attacking you with this rebuttal as well. So, if this rebuttal “annoys” you, please understand, that was not the intent.

Post #'s 136 and 137 address the issues of your actions quite well.

#145 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 31 May 2010 - 06:38 AM

I don't wish to derail this thread any further, but I would like some clarification on this.

Do you mean to say that anyone who gets "beat" in a debate and runs to colleagues that believe along the same lines they do are sinful (whether they be evolutionist/creationist)?

Or that believing in evolution in general is sinful?

I've seen examples of both creationists and evolutionists running away from debates, and I find the practice tiresome and, if caught, a true indication of the exposed party's character.

View Post


All, except the last paragraph are nothing more then a series of non sequiturs (and are exposed as such), and are an attempt at derailing not only the thread, but are an intentional twisting of what was said. Nowhere in jason777’s post (that you were addressing) did he say or insinuate want you are accusing him of in your baiting questions.

Either directly address what was said, or don’t reply at all. Deliberate misrepresentation, and equivocation, are violations of the forum rules.

#146 IGE37

IGE37

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • North Dakota

Posted 31 May 2010 - 07:16 AM

All, except the last paragraph are nothing more then a series of non sequiturs (and are exposed as such), and are an attempt at derailing not only the thread, but are an intentional twisting of what was said. Nowhere in jason777’s post (that you were addressing) did he say or insinuate want you are accusing him of in your baiting questions.

Either directly address what was said, or don’t reply at all. Deliberate misrepresentation, and equivocation, are violations of the forum rules.

View Post


Here:

Your confusing the sinful nature with human nature.


The fact that he said I was confusing sinful nature with human nature was a point I did not understand. I asked for clarification because I am interested in the thought process of creationists (the original reason I joined this forum).

As I had put in my original post, I didn't want anything more than a one-post response from jason clarifying what he meant. However your accusations of "baiting" have now successfully turned this into what was going to be a quick Q&A into a larger derail. Clearly, as I had stated earlier in my post, something I was not interested in doing.

And, for the record, I find this particularly offensive:

"but are an intentional twisting of what was said"

So you are accusing me of attempting to slip jason into some line of questioning (I'm not sure what) and baiting him by asking for clarification. How dare you accuse me of such things. I've gone out of my way to be as polite as possible, and have even gone to PM's with responses to some of the posts in an attempt to derail threads as little as possible (I did thank AFJ for his thoughtful response), and you claim to be a mind reader, obviously capable of seeing an underlying scheme that even I am unable to see as of yet.

Surely though, with my next few posts, the devilish intentions you think I have will eventually come to me.

#147 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 31 May 2010 - 07:56 AM

To be fair, it happens a lot on evolution forums when creationists come in and lose a debate.

I think you're mistaking a behavior that you say evolutionists "wrote the book on" with human nature.

View Post


Well how many creationist do this compared to evolutionists? Do you see anybody here constantly trolling evo forums and posting about it? I see it all the time at atheist-evo forums. In fact I would not allow members here to troll other forums, post here to find ways to cause trouble there. We don't have a list of questions here to ask at other forums to make.

We have a higher standard because of the one we represent, I have yet to see any standard at those forums. It's usually:

1) Hate others as much as you want.
2) Cause as much trouble at the places of the ones you hate.

Do you see that here? That is why so many come here and get banned. They come from a place where the freedom to hate runs rampant to a place where we don't allow it. That is also why members like Rathie have to post such hateful things elsewhere because it's not allowed here. So while he is here, it boils over so a place to vent is needed so that the hate can be shown.

So is this what evolution teaches it's followers?

#148 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 May 2010 - 07:57 AM

Here:
The fact that he said I was confusing sinful nature with human nature was a point I did not understand.  I asked for clarification because I am interested in the thought process of creationists (the original reason I joined this forum).

As I had put in my original post, I didn't want anything more than a one-post response from jason clarifying what he meant.  However your accusations of "baiting" have now successfully turned this into what was going to be a quick Q&A into a larger derail.  Clearly, as I had stated earlier in my post, something I was not interested in doing.



I think he was just saying sinful nature & human nature are the same. The term sin simply means to miss the mark of perfection. We are all imperfect, hence we ALL fall short of any type of perfection. Hence again, the biblical definition of sinful nature becomes today's common human nature, hence your mention of both sides getting the hackles on the back of the neck up in either sides forum is probably correct. :lol:

Now again, according to the biblical historical account, had Adam and Eve NOT taken a direct course of selfdetermined disobedience, then human nature would have been defined entirely different. Again, looking at this from a Bible perspective of course. ;)



And, for the record, I find this particularly offensive:

"but are an intentional twisting of what was said"

So you are accusing me of attempting to slip jason into some line of questioning (I'm not sure what) and baiting him by asking for clarification.  How dare you accuse me of such things.  I've gone out of my way to be as polite as possible, and have even gone to PM's with responses to some of the posts in an attempt to derail threads as little as possible (I did thank AFJ for his thoughtful response), and you claim to be a mind reader, obviously capable of seeing an underlying scheme that even I am unable to see as of yet. 

Surely though, with my next few posts, the devilish intentions you think I have will eventually come to me.

View Post



Yeah I don't understand that either or what he meant , but it seems this conversation within the confines of "Micro vrs Macro Evolution" has gotten way off track. Maybe it's best for everyone just to bow out and zip it at this point. :rolleyes:

#149 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 31 May 2010 - 08:08 AM

To be fair, it happens a lot on evolution forums when creationists come in and lose a debate.

View Post


Having debated at many-many evo-forums IGE37, I have yet to see any where near the vitriol at sites like this one, that you will see at the evo sites. And, if you don't believe me, I could pull up innumerable quotes from evo sites (most of which cannot be posted here due to language and hate speech) as prime examples. In fact, all you have to do is look at the very site posted above for examples: http://www.atheistfo...149.html#503954

And, I have yet to see a creationist lose a formal debate to an evolutionist. If fact, it got so bad, that Eugenie Scott suggested evolutionists not even debate Creationists.

#150 IGE37

IGE37

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • North Dakota

Posted 31 May 2010 - 08:43 AM

Having debated at many-many evo-forums IGE37, I have yet to see any where near the vitriol at sites like this one, that you will see at the evo sites. And, if you don't believe me, I could pull up innumerable quotes from evo sites (most of which cannot be posted here due to language and hate speech) as prime examples.  In fact, all you have to do is look at the very site posted above for examples: http://www.atheistfo...149.html#503954

And, I have yet to see a creationist lose a formal debate to an evolutionist. If fact, it got so bad, that Eugenie Scott suggested evolutionists not even debate Creationists.

View Post


A public forum is in no way a "formal" debate (with exception, of course, to the "formal debate" section on this forum).

If you wish to see a creationist lose in discussions as well as formal debates, I belong to one other forum that you guys do not particularly like, but is a good place for learning the evolutionist side of the debate. If you truly wish to see what happens when a dishonest creationist takes on a scientist, I can link you several discussions of such behavior via PM (it as on par, at least, with the type of behavior you guys see from extreme evos here), as they have no relevance to this topic.

This, by Eocene...

I think he was just saying sinful nature & human nature are the same. The term sin simply means to miss the mark of perfection. We are all imperfect, hence we ALL fall short of any type of perfection. Hence again, the biblical definition of sinful nature becomes today's common human nature, hence your mention of both sides getting the hackles on the back of the neck up in either sides forum is probably correct. laugh.gif 


...was the answer I was looking for along with the point I was trying to make with my original post. I received a similar response from AFJ, and I do appreciate you guys giving me a thoughtful response.

Now, if Ron is done trying to demolish my character, I will officially get out of this discussion. If anyone wishes to continue anything further, I'm open to PM's, and hopefully will be starting another thread soon, where I look forward to your thoughtful discussion.

#151 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 31 May 2010 - 08:44 AM

Firstly, I find it quite funny that you googled me :rolleyes:


Someone sent me a pm giving me the links.

Secondly, you're forming an opinion of me based on your own prejudice - I defend evolutionism based on the evidence - not because I simply want to believe in it. It's much easier and a hell of a lot nicer to think that there's a god watching over me and has a nice spot in heaven ready for me, as long as I'm good and say my prayers.


Fossils only tell you 3 empirical things:

1) Their age.
2) The layer.
3) The species if known.

Now if you think there is anything empirical beyond that, list it and we will test it to see if meets the criteria of being empirical.

Thirdly - you tell me that I ignore anything that points in the opposite direction of evolution and that I already have "100% faith" in evolution. That is far from the truth. If actual evidence was put forward disproving evolutionism, I would have no problem going along with it. I see no reason to believe in a god, so I look for naturalistic explanations to explain natural phenomena. I have no vested personal attachment towards evolution, only that I accept the evidence. Also, I don't see why you decided to replace a post in response to my original post with an ad hom and obvious derailment.


Who makes the decision that evidence is evidence? Evos do. Now if the creationists had that power and rejected "all" evo evidence, what would you say, or would you just accept it? I know exactly what you would say. And it's exactly what we say and is the very reason you have no outside unbias source checking how you determine things is because evo has to have total control in order to reign supreme, and continue that reign. So your point of real evidence is mute as long as an outside source is never allowed to keep you guys inline and make sure your so called laws of how science works are being followed.

If such laws were being followed every idea that came up would get the time and resources to prove itself like evolution has. And I'm not referring to creation. Not allowing this shows that evolution is:

1) Unfalsifiable. So it's not even a theory anymore.
2) An implied absolute where absolutes are not supposed to exist.
3) Is accepted as an actual law like the laws of physics which supports 1 and 2.

In fact, what idea has ever been allowed to get even 1% of what evolution does on everything to prove itself to some degree? Can you name 5? Can you name 2? Can you name 1?

ZERO is the answer.

In fact if this were a horse race evolution would be the only idea allowed in the gate, therefore the only one to always run it, and win it. And all bets, all the time and money, plus all the evidence would have to go towards evolution. Not because it's so provable, but because it's the only idea allowed.

It's also the very reason why those who believe in evo feel a need to protect it. Even from things that are not scientific, as they will admit. It's why evos feel a need to troll forums that are religious based. any idea is a threat to an idea that is based more on the protection of it than it's actual evidence.

If you disagree, make the list of observable processes and empirical evidence and we will start another thread and test your claims. I doubt you will because then you will have to face "real" reality.

I decided to discuss the Miller experiment because I admittedly had no idea what Eocene was talking about when he referred to a "trap". I figured I'd get a clarification and then find a source for their claims, since the only thing I could find in regards to what Eocene was talking about was found on creationist sites, and not scientific ones. Saying I got "attacked" was a bit of an exageration, however, I said that because I was annoyed that we ended up discussing abiogenesis in a discussion regarding evolution.

View Post


For life to evolve, life first has to came from lifeless matter. Not our problem you guys cannot overcome this obstacle and therefore feel the need to separate it from evolution so it's problems are not a part of evolution even though evolution cannot happen without it,

#152 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 31 May 2010 - 08:57 AM

A public forum is in no way a "formal" debate (with exception, of course, to the "formal debate" section on this forum). 

If you wish to see a creationist lose in discussions as well as formal debates, I belong to one other forum that you guys do not particularly like, but is a good place for learning the evolutionist side of the debate.  If you truly wish to see what happens when a dishonest creationist takes on a scientist, I can link you several discussions of such behavior via PM (it as on par, at least, with the type of behavior you guys see from extreme evos here), as they have no relevance to this topic. 

This, by Eocene...
...was the answer I was looking for along with the point I was trying to make with my original post.  I received a similar response from AFJ, and I do appreciate you guys giving me a thoughtful response.

Now, if Ron is done trying to demolish my character, I will officially get out of this discussion.  If anyone wishes to continue anything further, I'm open to PM's, and hopefully will be starting another thread soon, where I look forward to your thoughtful discussion.

View Post


LOL Dishonest creationist?

What was the actual evidence that got evolution into our schools? What is it today?
What did Haeckel do to get people to believe in evolution because there was not enough evidence?
What did Dawson do that was so honest?

That's right, truth is relative and absolutes don't exist. So deceptions are allowed and accepted. And is the very reason none of these people are ever used as a "what not to do" because it continues even today.

Question: When a evo calls a creationist a liar over evidence today that is proven wrong tomorrow. Are they only a liar today, or are they liars regardless?

Having the ability to alter truth and present it as truth, and change it while all along calling people out right liars means that what you have only makes it okay to lie when one side is held to a much higher standard. which is ironic that while your rules allows you to fudge to give the appearance of truth, that creation would be such a thorn in your side.

#153 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 May 2010 - 09:00 AM

In fact if this were a horse race evolution would be the only idea allowed in the gate, therefore the only one to always run it, and win it. And all bets, all the time and money, plus all the evidence would have to go towards evolution. Not because it's so provable, but because it's the only idea allowed.

It's also the very reason why those who believe in evo feel a need to protect it. Even from things that are not scientific, as they will admit. It's why evos feel a need to troll forums that are religious based. any idea is a threat to an idea that is based more on the protection of it than it's actual evidence.

View Post



On a humorous note, almost from the very beginning Darwin had Thomas Huxley who proclaimed himself "Darwin's Bulldog". Over in Chicago, Illinois their is an atheist organization called "Darwin's Pitbulls". :rolleyes:

Can anyone think of another scientist in the whole of human history who ever needed "Pitbulls" & "Bulldogs" to defend themselves like Charlie Darwin does ???????? :lol:

#154 Guest_Raithie_*

Guest_Raithie_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 May 2010 - 09:44 AM

A “bit of an exaggeration” is a complete understatement (to the extent of almost total fabrication on your part), and in no way excuses the act. You weren’t attacked, but you did cause spurious attacks at the other forum by your very accusation. And, it seems by the reaction at the forum, and your feigned innocent act, that the reaction was the intent. And, unfortunately, you’ll most likely continue pretending that there was nothing wrong with what you did, and the ramifications of said action.
You’ll most likely continue in your not understanding of the correlation between the Miller experiment and the attempted explanations for abiogenesis by its proponents.
And, no doubt, you’ll attempt to accuse me of attacking you with this rebuttal as well. So, if this rebuttal “annoys” you, please understand, that was not the intent.

Post #'s 136 and 137 address the issues of your actions quite well.

I did not “feign an innocent act”, I wanted clarification and hoped they would give me some citation. I don’t see where you’re getting “that the reaction was intent” from. I realize my mistake, and for that I apologize, but it does not deserve the attention that it’s getting (in such an unrelated thread, may I add). I did it in the hopes of learning what “trap” Eocene was talking about.
I don’t see how creationists here are allowed to have such attacks such as ikesters generalization that most atheists are addicted online gamers who have no bearing on reality, and hence resort to evolution, or Eocenes claim that I had committed “attacks” on bobabeliever, and yet no eyebrow is lifted. But when I ask for atheists to point me in the right direction as to what a "trap" is, you leap at me. Also, this thread has been completely derailed from ikesters post, and for no good reason. I have seen "derailing threads" as a reason for banning evolutionists here, and yet that obvious completely unrelated post wasn't even acknowledged as invalid to the discussion.
And Ikester – I did not “vent” on that site. And for the record – evolution teaches nothing but evolution to its “followers”.
Also, I already responded to your fossil listing in the thread “why do evolutionists persist?”, so I will not relay it here again. And to your claims about evolution:
Evolution is falsifiable. There are alot of things that would disprove it. It’s not an “implied absolute”. The evidence supports it; hence it’s the leading theory.
Also – science is what validates evidence and the evidence for evolution. It’s not the “only idea that’s allowed”. It’s the leading theory in the field because of the evidence that supports it. If you could provide an alternative and realistic explanation as to how complex life arrived, without resorting to a supernatural deity – your theory would be recognized.
To your last point. I came here to discuss evolution, not abiogenesis. Using that logic, you can’t talk about anything without referring to its initial origin. It’s like accusing people of talking about the weather because they don’t understand the physics behind it.


Also, I recommend you reply to my original response to you, as opposed to continuing this unrelated topic.

#155 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 31 May 2010 - 09:58 AM

Evolution is falsifiable. There are a lot of things that would disprove it.


And a lot of things have; you simply ignore those things and continue evangelising anyway with comments like this:

The evidence supports it; hence it’s the leading theory.


If scientists have to constantly change the theory to accomodate new evidence, then it means that no evidence supported it to start with.

#156 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 31 May 2010 - 11:43 AM

I did not “feign an innocent act”, I wanted clarification and hoped they would give me some citation. I don’t see where you’re getting “that the reaction was intent” from. I realize my mistake, and for that I apologize, but it does not deserve the attention that it’s getting (in such an unrelated thread, may I add). I did it in the hopes of learning what “trap” Eocene was talking about.
I don’t see how creationists here are allowed to have such attacks such as ikesters generalization that most atheists are addicted online gamers who have no bearing on reality, and hence resort to evolution, or Eocenes claim that I had committed “attacks” on bobabeliever, and yet no eyebrow is lifted. But when I ask for atheists to point me in the right direction as to what a "trap" is, you leap at me. Also, this thread has been completely derailed from ikesters post, and for no good reason. I have seen "derailing threads" as a reason for banning evolutionists here, and yet that obvious completely unrelated post wasn't even acknowledged as invalid to the discussion.
And Ikester – I did not “vent” on that site. And for the record – evolution teaches nothing but evolution to its “followers”.
Also, I already responded to your fossil listing in the thread “why do evolutionists persist?”, so I will not relay it here again. And to your claims about evolution:
Evolution is falsifiable. There are alot of things that would disprove it. It’s not an “implied absolute”.  The evidence supports it; hence it’s the leading theory.
Also – science is what validates evidence and the evidence for evolution. It’s not the “only idea that’s allowed”. It’s the leading theory in the field because of the evidence that supports it. If you could provide an alternative and realistic explanation as to how complex life arrived, without resorting to a supernatural deity – your theory would be recognized.
To your last point. I came here to discuss evolution, not abiogenesis. Using that logic, you can’t talk about anything without referring to its initial origin. It’s like accusing people of talking about the weather because they don’t understand the physics behind it.
Also, I recommend you reply to my original response to you, as opposed to continuing this unrelated topic.

View Post


LOL, you got caught in the act of why you are here. And to save face you are trying to blame everyone else for what "you" were doing? How ironic.

Basically what I see is that you are a big time waster. And equivocate every chance you get. and when caught in a lie you cannot dodge, you really see nothing wrong but believe that an apology fixes everything.

An apology works when the deed done stands as a correction example. If not an apology is just words because the deed will be repeated. That is why when I get apologies for what ever, they are hallow words until I see that the person learned from their mistake and will not repeat it. I don't get that from you, what I do get is that you will happily do it again. This is because you have ZERO respect for "all" creationists.

This is why you came to this forum with an attitude of how people were going to respond to you by telling them how to respond. And that you were not going to repeat an answer you already answered in another thread. Well that's to bad. How would you like it if I kept tabs on every time and everywhere I answered the usualy Bible scoffing question, and instead of answering your questions in the thread I either complained, or left you links where you had to go to other threads to find stuff?

And you refuse to answer questions and claim that you did in another thread when what you said was clearly a dodge of the question. You are basically wasting everyone's time. Your motive has been clearly shown as you being a troll for your blog and forum entertainment. And because you basically already know it all, there is no correcting you in any way shape or form. So happy trails you are now banned.

#157 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 31 May 2010 - 12:05 PM

A public forum is in no way a "formal" debate (with exception, of course, to the "formal debate" section on this forum). 

View Post

It sounds as if you are contradicting yourself in your own rebuttal.


If you wish to see a creationist lose in discussions as well as formal debates, I belong to one other forum that you guys do not particularly like, but is a good place for learning the evolutionist side of the debate.  If you truly wish to see what happens when a dishonest creationist takes on a scientist, I can link you several discussions of such behavior via PM (it as on par, at least, with the type of behavior you guys see from extreme evos here), as they have no relevance to this topic. 

View Post


As I previously mentioned, I have debated at many-many evo-forums (If I mentioned my moniker, you’d know who I am. But that is neither here nor there, because that was a while ago. And I received threatening pm’s and e-mails from members of those sites because they didn’t like their religion being exposed). I am very familiar with the evolutionist debate tactics (in fact, Ikester has some pretty good links to evo-trickery in his signature). And you’re use of the prejudicial statement “dishonest creationist takes on a scientist” further strengthens my case. Well, that and the fact that I work in the fields of science and education, therefore rendering your false accusations as ringing hollow.

Now, if Ron is done trying to demolish my character, I will officially get out of this discussion.  If anyone wishes to continue anything further, I'm open to PM's, and hopefully will be starting another thread soon, where I look forward to your thoughtful discussion.

View Post

If exposing your fallacious and misleading statements is demolishing your character, then I suppose I am guilty.

You have, thus far, failed to disprove, or rebut anything I’ve stated.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users