Jump to content


Photo

Frdb Forum Cannot Even Control It's Own Members.


  • Please log in to reply
158 replies to this topic

#21 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 12 August 2009 - 08:47 AM

Really? 

View Post

Yes

The antics at this forum typically only temporarily dissuade me.  Even after I am suspended for rules made up on the spot after I have rubbed particular moderators the wrong way (twice now in 3 years).

View Post


I'd like to see the evidence of that accusation.

#22 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 12 August 2009 - 11:08 AM

Can you provide a link that made the above suggestion Sphere? I have yet to see it.


Its the OP to http://www.freeratio...ad.php?t=272678

Which is:

I'll again make my offer to any YEC interested.

I am willing to engage in civil, ad hom free discussions on any topic concerning evolutionary theory of your choosing.

The only caveat is, we must both support our position with evidence taken from the primary scientific literature. Not Youtube videos, not "summary" site like TalkOrigins, not Christian Apologetic sites like AIG/ICR. The primary scientific literature.

I make this caveat so there can be no question about additional "spin" put on the data, or baseless propaganda, or quote-mining. Just the raw scientific evidence.

Let's see who wants to discuss the actual science.


So we get the raw data from the scientific papers (I assume that using the author's conclusion would be against the rules) and the two sides are argued just using that measured raw evidence from the papers (again not the conclusions). I like this idea.


Having said that, to pretend that the FDRB antics are the same as the treatment you have received here is baseless and false Sphere (and you know it, whether you care to admit it or not).
When you can show me statements like the below, then you might have a case:
Not to mentions Assists photo-shop attack against me personally. And the mod edited verbal loutish attacks that they (the mods at FRDB) allowed Assist to carry on for months before complaints about their own rules violations forced their hand.

If you go back there now, you’ll see where the mod’s has to edit the content so that they didn’t look foolish.


I didn't say that the antics were the same - I said that this forum antics only temporarily dissuade me. The antics you are complaining about have to do mostly with one poster who is simply not being heavily censored (censorship probably doesn't bode well over there). The antics I am complaining about are not from the posters here but rather the moderators. Surely you aren't under the impression that posters on a forum represent the moderators of the forum? A forum is supposed to be a relatively uncensored media for public debate on specific topics. The folks that maintain those forums should only be judged by their actions - not the actions of the forum posters. From what I can tell, the moderators shut the forum thread in question down because of the ad hominem and insults.

#23 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 12 August 2009 - 11:18 AM

Yes
I'd like to see the evidence of that accusation.

View Post



I was recently suspended for hijacking a thread by a moderator. Even after I told him that it wasn't my intention to hijack the thread. However, my supposed hijacking consisted of 1 post by me and many by him concerning mine - in reality he hijacked the thread and blamed it on me. Regardless, I don't see my offense listed on the rules. But there are a lot of them - I could have missed it :D .

I was also suspended by a moderator awhile back after commenting on a cosmology article - to this day I never knew why he did it. My suspension was immediately lifted after review of one of the other moderators.

I also received a private message from a moderator saying that one of my posts was complete garbage(conveniently one that was a rebuttal to his) so he deleted it. My post was strictly about cosmology. I immediately pm'd another moderator who agreed with me and told me he was having a bad week but my post wasn't put back.

I am not going to share the pm's or the name of the moderators involved unless they give me permission.

#24 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 12 August 2009 - 11:23 AM

Can you provide a link that made the above suggestion Sphere? I have yet to see it.

Having said that, to pretend that the FDRB antics are the same as the treatment you have received here is baseless and false Sphere (and you know it, whether you care to admit it or not).
When you can show me statements like the below, then you might have a case:
Not to mentions Assists photo-shop attack against me personally. And the mod edited verbal loutish attacks that they (the mods at FRDB) allowed Assist to carry on for months before complaints about their own rules violations forced their hand.

If you go back there now, you’ll see where the mod’s has to edit the content so that they didn’t look foolish.

View Post



Just a quick comment - I don't agree with the stuff you linked above - it was lame. I would never say that stuff about anyone here. The fdrb forum's rules are lightly enforced which is probably why it went on for as long as it did. I suppose the moderators were hoping that the thread would turn around and get back on track.

I invited a holocaust denier over there once and the forum was eventually closed but it took awhile.

#25 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 12 August 2009 - 11:30 AM

By the way - surely those of you who have read the two threads about EFT over at frdb also see that many evolutionist posters spoke out about the name calling and ad hominem?

Oh come now, Occam's behavior has devolved into blatant goading and baiting. IMHO, this thread should have been locked ages ago and just serves to further a pointless internet pissing match. It's downright embarrassing at this point.


Indeed. But does this relentless goading and baiting (and name-calling) serve any useful purpose whatsoever? Or does it just make the 'evolutionist' side look bad?


While I disagree with Occam's harsh treatment of the creationists, I think my above observation is enough to get people angry.


Oh come on. Posts like this are nothing but goading and baiting. Don't try to sling this <edit> to me, your own posts suggest otherwise.


You need a counterbalance. I think you are doing nothing but feeding some of their more esoteric conspiracy theories and making us look bad in the process. In short, you are doing more harm than good.

So no, I'm not going to put you on ignore, instead I'm going to continue to call you out on your own behavior. At least until you own up to the fact that you're not doing any good on behalf of "evolutionists" except feeding some <edit>.


There are many more.

#26 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 12 August 2009 - 11:35 AM

Its the OP to http://www.freeratio...ad.php?t=272678

View Post


Assists proclamation was:

The only caveat is, we must both support our position with evidence taken from the primary scientific literature.

View Post



To which Adam correctly assessed as:

Aftershave wants to define what is acceptable information and limit the discussion only to evolution propaganda

View Post


And you misquoted Assist by saying:

However, there was an interesting suggestion put forth multiple times that went unanswered over there - that is, why not start a formal debate where only raw scientific data may be used by the two opposing sides.

View Post


And we (you and I) both know

The “primary scientific literature” and “raw scientific data” are two different things!


I didn't say that the antics were the same - I said that this forum antics only temporarily dissuade me.  The antics you are complaining about have to do mostly with one poster who is simply not being heavily censored (censorship probably doesn't bode well over there). 

View Post


No, you said:

their behavior quite reminded me of some of the creationists on this forum. 

View Post


Which is accusing this forum of the same antics that were being allowed to go on at that forum. The rules violations that went on for months until the Mods were called on their hypocrisy, and forced to act.

The folks that maintain those forums should only be judged by their actions - not the actions of the forum posters.  From what I can tell, the moderators shut the forum thread in question down because of the ad hominem and insults.

View Post


From what you could have been able to tell, had you actually read the posts (before they were finally corrected by the mods) was exactly what I provided. The moderators were finally forced to shut the forum thread, because they were no longer able to turn a blind eye to what was going on.

#27 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 12 August 2009 - 11:38 AM

I was recently suspended for hijacking a thread by a moderator.  Even after I told him that it wasn't my intention to hijack the thread.  However, my supposed hijacking consisted of 1 post by me and many by him concerning mine - in reality he hijacked the thread and blamed it on me.  Regardless, I don't see my offense listed on the rules.  But there are a lot of them - I could have missed it  :D .

I was also suspended by a moderator awhile back after commenting on a cosmology article - to this day I never knew why he did it.  My suspension was immediately lifted after review of one of the other moderators.

I also received a private message from a moderator saying that one of my posts was complete garbage(conveniently one that was a rebuttal to his) so he deleted it.  My post was strictly about cosmology.  I immediately pm'd another moderator who agreed with me and told me he was having a bad week but my post wasn't put back. 

I am not going to share the pm's or the name of the moderators involved unless they give me permission.

View Post


I remember that thread, and you did attempt to hijack it with your subterfuge and clandestine pushing of atheist propaganda piece. Coming here to vent about it just goes to show that you cannot take the heat for your actions.

#28 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 12 August 2009 - 05:00 PM

Can you provide a link that made the above suggestion Sphere? I have yet to see it.

Having said that, to pretend that the FDRB antics are the same as the treatment you have received here is baseless and false Sphere (and you know it, whether you care to admit it or not).
When you can show me statements like the below, then you might have a case:
Not to mentions Assists photo-shop attack against me personally. And the mod edited verbal loutish attacks that they (the mods at FRDB) allowed Assist to carry on for months before complaints about their own rules violations forced their hand.

If you go back there now, you’ll see where the mod’s has to edit the content so that they didn’t look foolish.

View Post


Their interest in you is actually a good sign. Can you guess why?

#29 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 12 August 2009 - 05:14 PM

I'll again make my offer to any YEC interested.

I am willing to engage in civil, ad hom free discussions on any topic concerning evolutionary theory of your choosing.

The only caveat is, we must both support our position with evidence taken from the primary scientific literature. Not Youtube videos, not "summary" site like TalkOrigins, not Christian Apologetic sites like AIG/ICR. The primary scientific literature.

I make this caveat so there can be no question about additional "spin" put on the data, or baseless propaganda, or quote-mining. Just the raw scientific evidence.

Let's see who wants to discuss the actual science.


This challenge is still tilted in the evolutionist direction.

Primary scientific data = anything that supports:

1) Evolution. Because that is all that you will find.
2) Temporal evidence. Because supernatural is taboo.
3) And what they say will be considered golden, so the debate is lost even before it gets started.

This type of rules would be like me saying: You can only use scripture to prove what you claim. Would I not be slanting the whole thing in my favor from the very beginning? Why do you think OCAS has no fear in this challenge? He has already won by making the rules totally winnable by him.

Being allowed to ue only claims and evidence that supports only one thing, makes that one thing the winner. So to make it fair, why don't we issue the same challenge and make OSAC only be able to use the Bible to prove what he claims? It would get as far as the debate over there would.

#30 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 12 August 2009 - 06:00 PM

This challenge is still tilted in the evolutionist direction.

Primary scientific data = anything that supports:

1) Evolution. Because that is all that you will find.

View Post


Funny how that works :D

This type of rules would be like me saying: You can only use scripture to prove what you claim. Would I not be slanting the whole thing in my favor from the very beginning?...So to make it fair, why don't we issue the same challenge and make OSAC only be able to use the Bible to prove what he claims? It would get as far as the debate over there would.

View Post


Actually I think that would be really fun :). Use scripture to disprove scripture. I'm interested enough to give it a shot. Anyone else up for it? I doubt I can do it justice on my own, but if there's any other evolutionists who want to play, why don't you start a new thread Ike?

Regards,

Arch.

#31 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 12 August 2009 - 11:25 PM

Funny how that works :D

View Post


I guess you did not understand. Using evidence that is done by evolutionists only to prove evolution only, will only prove evolution.

Like one evolutionist said:

Let's see how far, and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes without "EVER" invoking the supernatural. [Involving God] in the explanation constitutes a form of intellectual cheating. A chess player is perfectly capable of smashing his opponents king on the floor during a tournament, but this does not make him a champion because the rules were not followed. Evolution is not promoted because of overwhelming evidence in it's favor, nor is creation rejected for lack of evidence. The biblical creation model is simply ignored because scientists are trained to ignore this possibility. They would be accused of "cheating" if they did accept the evidence for creation.

Richard Dickerson (Biochemist-evolutionist) Member of National Academy of science . February 1, a closer look at the evidence.

Basically this is what OCAS is trying to do. Remove what ever is for creation to make sure creation will not win. Because for science to ever publish anything that supports Biblical creation is not only taboo, but is considered cheating. This is because scientists are paranoid of being accused of the using "God did it" excuse which destroys their credibility.

Here is a list of God did it type answers, or questions that require the power of God or a conditon that allows anything to happen (God did it situations), or bias in order to answer.

1) Where did the matter for the Big Bang come from? Requires a god did it situation to answer.
2) How does one break all known laws of the universe to compress all known matter of the universe into a dot? Requires a god did it situation to answer.
3) What was the source of the energy that made the dot to spin? Requires a god did it situation to answer.
4) How fast does the dot have to spin to overcome the gravity that compressed all known matter of the universe? Requires a god did it situation to answer.
5) How come not one piece of said matter dates back to the original source which is claimed to be over 13 billion years old? Requires admission that age dating is not accurate.
6) How does something come from nothing? Can this be demonstrated? Requires a god did it situation to answer.
7) Miller's experiment made he building blocks for life, but life did not form in his experiment. Why is this considered proof of abiogenesis? Requires admission that life does not come from non-life.

Abiogenesis: a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter.

Nothing walked out of Miller's experiment did it?

8) How does micro-evolution to infinity = macro-evolution when the process can never be observed? Requires a god did it situation to answer.
9) How do interdependent systems in humans or animal evolve if they cannot work separately? Requires a god did it situation to answer.
10) How can a theory be falsifiable if it is always made to change and conform? Shows bias to answer correctly.
11) How can evidence prove evolution wrong if it is always made to work with evolution or be rejected just because it don't? Shows bias to answer correctly.
12) How come no other theory, on the deversity of life, is allowed to exist and collect evidence so that truth can be found? Shows bias to answer correctly.
13) Is science only about allowing winning theories while rejecting every other idea that does not conform to evolution? Shows bias to answer correctly.
14) How can a true fact be falsifiable? Correct English would make both claims about the samething a oxymoron. Because if I can flasify something that is said to be true, then being true was not appliable.

etc....

#32 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 August 2009 - 12:01 AM

I guess you did not understand. Using evidence that is done by evolutionists only to prove evolution only, will only prove evolution.

View Post


Who said it was only evolution evidence? The request was for "primary scientific literature" or "raw scientific evidence" E.g peer review journals. I was under the impression creation scientists had some of those? Personally I haven't seen any, but I keep being told they exist. Are you now saying they don't?

Basically this is what OCAS is trying to do. Remove what ever is for creation to make sure creation will not win.

View Post


No, the request was to not use "Youtube videos, not "summary" site like TalkOrigins, not Christian Apologetic sites like AIG/ICR". Is youtube and AiG the only resources available to Creationists?

Because for science to ever publish anything that supports Biblical creation is not only taboo, but is considered cheating. This is because scientists are paranoid of being accused of the using "God did it" excuse which destroys their credibility.

View Post


Personally I agree with this statement, but Creationists on this site keep assuring me there are journals out there with the Creationists swing on it. Do they not exist?

Here is a list of God did it type answers, or questions that require the power of God or a conditon that allows anything to happen (God did it situations), or bias in order to answer.

1) Where did the matter for the Big Bang come from? Requires a god did it situation to answer.
2) How does one break all known laws of the universe to compress all known matter of the universe into a dot? Requires a god did it situation to answer.
3) What was the source of the energy that made the dot to spin? Requires a god did it situation to answer.
4) How fast does the dot have to spin to overcome the gravity that compressed all known matter of the universe? Requires a god did it situation to answer.
5) How come not one piece of said matter dates back to the original source which is claimed to be over 13  billion years old? Requires admission that age dating is not accurate.
6) How does something come from nothing? Can this be demonstrated? Requires a god did it situation to answer.
7) Miller's experiment made he building blocks for life, but life did not form in his experiment. Why is this considered proof of abiogenesis? Requires admission that life does not come from non-life.
8) How does micro-evolution to infinity = macro-evolution when the process can never be observed? Requires a god did it situation to answer.
9) How do interdependent systems in humans or animal evolve if they cannot work separately? Requires a god did it situation to answer.
10) How can a theory be falsifiable if it is always made to change and conform? Shows bias to answer correctly.
11) How can evidence prove evolution wrong if it is always made to work with evolution or be rejected just because it don't? Shows bias to answer correctly.
12) How come no other theory, on the deversity of life, is allowed to exist and collect evidence so that truth can be found? Shows bias to answer correctly.
13) Is science only about allowing winning theories while rejecting every other idea that does not conform to evolution? Shows bias to answer correctly.
14) How can a true fact be falsifiable? Correct English would make both claims about the samething a oxymoron. Because if I can flasify something that is said to be true, then being true was not appliable.

etc....

View Post


I'm pretty confident I can give you an answer the every one of those questions, but it's irrelevant to this thread. If you would like an answer feel free to make another thread with those questions and I'll give it a shot. You can add any of your 'etc' questions as well :D.

Regards,

Arch.

#33 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 13 August 2009 - 06:10 AM

Is it just me, or do these infractions speak for themselves? It seems that I can go over to FRDB and speak as freely as I please as long as I don't actually behave like a Christian. I can be as Christian as I please as long is it doesn't come out in any of my posts. :blink:

http://www.freeratio...332#post6053332

Dear Adam_777,

You have received an infraction at FRDB.

Reason: -Generic Warning
-------
Hello Adam_777:

Your post:

It's like asking God "Why did you make such a messed up world"

He'd reply, "I didn't"

Well why are things the way they are? He wanted us to love Him and in order to make love an option for us it... well... had to be an option. We instead chose to use and abuse his stuff for our own lusts and then we blame Him for the mess we made.

Edit: ...or we blame God for the mess someone else made.


Has been edited and infracted due to preaching. If you have any issues with this infraction, please direct your comments to Private Feedback. Any private correspondence in regards to this infraction will be ignored.

Regards,

Jo


Here is another one from the same thread:

Dear Adam_777,

You have received an infraction at FRDB.

Reason: -Generic Warning
-------
Hello Adam_777:

Your post:

It's amazing that God could conceive of a design that actually benefits most from regular use. What an awesome God we have.


Has been edited and infracted due to preaching. If you have any issues with this infraction, please direct your comments to Private Feedback. Any private correspondence in regards to this infraction will be ignored.

Regards,

Jo



#34 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 13 August 2009 - 06:31 AM

I was a somewhat active member at FRDB before I came over here ( oh noes not another one lol), but I will tell you why I came here.

It had nothing to do with the behavior, it had to do with the topics being discussed.

I found that I was agreeing with too many of the OP's there and I found that boring. I find it much more interesting to discuss things with people that don't agree with me.

#35 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 13 August 2009 - 09:28 AM

Assists proclamation was:
To which Adam correctly assessed as:
And you misquoted Assist by saying:
And we (you and I) both know

The “primary scientific literature” and “raw scientific data” are two different things!
No, you said:
Which is accusing this forum of the same antics that were being allowed to go on at that forum. The rules  violations that went on for months until the Mods were called on their hypocrisy, and forced to act.
From what you could have been able to tell, had you actually read the posts (before they were finally corrected by the mods) was exactly what I provided. The moderators were finally forced to shut the forum thread, because they were no longer able to turn a blind eye to what was going on.

View Post



The data should be accesible in the paper - like I said you do not have to use the conclusion of the authors. The OP went on to use the phrase "raw evidence" which is I assume the data from the papers and not the conclusion.

#36 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 13 August 2009 - 09:32 AM

The data should be accesible in the paper - like I said you do not have to use the conclusion of the authors.  The OP went on to use the phrase "raw evidence" which is I assume the data from the papers and not the conclusion.

View Post

You really don't get it do you, A.Sphere? The moment I draw any alter interpretation of the 'raw data', what will be required of me? They will say which scientific journal did this idea come from?

Are you understanding the implications of what they want? I can't say anything without siting my conclusions in a science journal because my conclusions will become the body of discussion and then I'll be liable to demonstrate my conclusions through their science journals as the new topic of discussion.

#37 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 13 August 2009 - 10:41 AM

The data should be accesible in the paper - like I said you do not have to use the conclusion of the authors.  The OP went on to use the phrase "raw evidence" which is I assume the data from the papers and not the conclusion.

View Post


Don’t skirt the issue A.Sphere. You and I both know the difference between “Raw Data” and opinioned papers. And assumption is what got you here in the first place. We know this from the “Biz” we work in.

#38 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 13 August 2009 - 10:43 AM

Funny how that works :)

View Post


It sure is Arch, that's why I laugh out loud when I see it coming. :lol: :lol:

The evolution revolution in evolutheisim. :o

#39 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 August 2009 - 04:34 PM

It sure is Arch, that's why I laugh out loud when I see it coming.  :)  :lol:

The evolution revolution in evolutheisim.  :o

View Post


You laugh because there are no scientific journals that support creation? Well good on you for taking it in your stride, but I'd find it really annoying :lol:

Regards,

Arch.

#40 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 13 August 2009 - 08:04 PM

If you have good, primary, sources with evidence that supports a young earth, then please present it, so that we can all cease with the tedious semantics.


It's funny to me they make that claim and when shown evidence, their only way to debunk it is call it:

1) A fraud.
2) Faked by the person who found it.
3) Carved by a creationist.
4) It's a basking shark (my favorite).
etc...

Attached File  image003.jpg   26.46KB   4 downloads
I have yet to see anyone "scientifically" disprove the evidence above. All I have heard is that a creationist carved it, but yet there are no witnesses. It broke up into something that now looks like a dino print, so now it's debunked. AIG backed off so it must be fake. So what part of each claim makes the evidence "scientifically debunk? Zero. So science now debunks evidence on hearsay, and false accusation, and majority opinion. I guess if you really are desperate to disprove something, anything will do.

Attached File  doorknobs_clump.jpg   33.46KB   10 downloadsAttached File  brunette_slider_coal.jpg   87.29KB   9 downloads
And coal is supposed to take millions of years to form. And I have often heard said that not one piece of coal will ever have any human artifacts. In fact just because some were remove for examination, they were accused of defrauding it. But here we have where door knobs from a shipwreck were found embedded in coal. Now can anyone tell us who faked this one? Also, who is the witness to this fraud? Or will hearsay prevail again as the scientific means of debunking evidence that does not support or conform to the evolution theory?

Attached File  dino_skin_compare1.jpg   29.42KB   11 downloadsAttached File  Dino_skin3.jpg   33.53KB   11 downloads

Then we have the Ica stones. Kinda funny that the pattern of a stone carved before the petrified dinosaur skin, some how just happens to match the pattern. I seem to remember several evolutionists making the claim that the Ica stones made the dinosaurs look like they had turtle shells. Not realizing tat this was actually skin armor. Like how the crock has extra tuff skin. But none can explain how the ica stone carver knew the pattern of the dino skin. Maybe he saw it in a dream? :)

Attached File  dino_faker.jpg   30.58KB   4 downloads
Question: Does someone who makes duplicates of original things make the original things fake? Like: Does a painter who paints a copy of the original make the original fake?

etc...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users