Debating A Creationist... Yeah, Another Such Topic

[Haruko]

Okay, I've been debating a creationist and have been doing fine so far, but I now seek advice as to how I should respond to his latest post:

• It cant have "always been here" consider a number line that ranges infintly in both directions. Stick a random dot on it and cut it along the line. Call the dot "today" Now look at one half, this is "times past" and the other half is "times in the future". But say I take the two lines and lay them side by side. You can now not tell which is time past and which is time future. They are both infinily long. Hence everything that COULD have ever possibly happened before "today" would have possibly happened. A enxtra year makes no difference compared to the infinite number of years that have happened before us. Now clearly there is a big difference from year to year, and thus time must have no stretched infinitly before us. Instead, there had to be a point in which time began. At this point, sothing which exists outside of time(a god) had to create matter. It still couldnt have just exisited.
  
  But cant you use everything, including the sun and all the other bodies in space as your "closed system"? Im still not sure I totally understand your arugment....

I know my previous post -- the one that led to the above reply -- was far from the best, but here it is:

Accually ID has plenty of reasons to back it up, consider the scientific LAW(as in, way better than the hypotheis of maroevoultion which has NOT be tested and confirmed nearly enough times to be called a theory, much less a law) of thermodynamics which states that energy cannot be created or destoryed, it can only change forms. How could we then, get all the energy around us, if there was no creator to create all the energy in the first place?

Oh, wow... somehow, the scientific community has failed to realize that the widely accepted theories they adhere to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You should submit your findings. You'd be world famous.

• "Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
  
  This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
  
  However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
  
  The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.

• • -- Mark Isaac; Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

And your claim that the Creator aka God had to create all the energy around us begs the question of how God Himself came about in the first place.

Clearly something, somewhere, somehow had to great all the energy.

Perhaps it's always been. I mean, if God's always been, why can't energy?

Way better than when I look at the world today and try to comprehence the infintestamle odds that all of this couldve come togeather by chance.

Not merely chance but also natural necessity.

Btw Macroevolution is the bigscale stuff that noone ever has seen. Microevolution is the natural adaptation that all creatures do.

Evolution is not what you saw when you were watching X-men.

Those terms (microevolution and macroevolution) were invented by creationists, if memory serves. Macroevolution is simply microevolution dragged out in a longer span of time.

• The creationist invention of the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" is a good example of how they try to mutilate the terms of science to their own advantage. Biologists do not differentiate between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, any more than mathematicians differentiate between micro-addition and macro-addition.
  
  Their argument that there is no evidence for "macroevolution" is ridiculous because "macroevolution" is simply the result of adding a lot of "microevolution" together, and "microevolution" is, by their own admission, completely supported by various forms of evidence.
  
  The other problem for this argument is that there actually is evidence to directly support what they describe as "macroevolution", and it's called "the fossil record". It's evidence because it is consistent with prediction. Of course, that's not enough for the creationists- they demand direct observation of massive evolutionary change in living animals, even though they know that we would have to observe living animals for millions of years in order to obtain the evidence they seek. Can you see the problem with this demand? It's pretty obvious- they are deliberately asking for a form of evidence which is impossible to obtain (millions of years of direct observation), and ignoring a form of evidence (the fossil record) which is relatively easy to obtain.
  
  The universe operates on tiny processes, affecting tiny particles, which add up in tremendous numbers to cause large changes. If someone is going to claim that a slow, steady process cannot create large-scale changes given sufficient time, he had better provide some evidence and reasoning, rather than simply stating it as a fact and demanding impossible forms of evidence to disprove it. Are we to assume that all gradual processes eventually hit "brick walls" and stop, for mysterious and unknown reasons?
  
  Do we question tectonic plate theory on the basis that we've observed small-scale tectonic plate movement but not large-scale tectonic plate movement? Do we insist that no one should believe in tectonic plate theory until we've been able to observe it for millions of years, so we can see long-distance movements firsthand? Do we deny the possibility of large-scale rock erosion because we've only seen small scale rock erosion? Why would a gradual process like tectonic plate movement, rock erosion, or evolution suddenly stop after an arbitrary length of time? What would make it stop? Why make this ridiculous distinction between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution?" Where is the line drawn between the two? What causes the barrier? These are questions that the creationists don't attempt to ask or answer, because like O.J. Simpson's defense lawyers, they're not serious about uncovering the truth. They just want to create "reasonable doubt" in the minds of a gullible audience.
  
  The "microevolution vs macroevolution" argument is an example of creationists projecting their own mentality onto evolution, and then attacking the resulting strawman, ironically, for the very aspects that come from creationism. Creationism describes separate and distinct species: "each according to its kind". Creationists therefore make the same assumption: species are separate, indivisible, and disconnected. When they project this mentality onto evolution, they run into an obvious problem: there is no way for the process of evolution to "jump" over the invisible "barrier" between species. The problem is that they are assuming that this barrier exists! The terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are not found in biology; they are creationist inventions. Gradual changes eventually add up, and can turn one species into two, or they can cause a species to change so much that it becomes a distinct species from its predecessors.
  
  As a thought experiment, consider human beings. It is generally assumed that any male/female pair of healthy human beings can produce children. But biological reproduction is a complex process, and it requires great genetic commonality. We know that two modern human beings can produce children, but what about a modern woman and a man from ten thousand years ago? What about a modern woman and a man from fifty thousand years ago? Is there still enough genetic commonality? Species are not delineated by distinct, clear boundaries. Rather, they are defined by intersterility and overt physical characteristics, and there is no "barrier" between species for the process of evolution to hurdle.

• • -- Michael Wong; Pseudoscience

• "Evolution has never been observed."
  
  Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.
  
  The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.
  
  Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.
  
  What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

• • -- Mark Isaac; Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

You are right. "Evolution" has not been proven.

One man once said that truth is much too complicated to allow for anymore than approximations. Although Evolution is not "proven", it's a "fact" in that it has stood up against rigorous testing again and again and again and continues to be consistent with observations. Gravity hasn't been proven either. It might be that angels are pushing us down when we go up, but evidence suggests that gravity functions the way that the current scientific theory dealing with it argues.

Saying that a scientific theory should be dismissed or taken lightly as to allow for I.D. and other crackpot non-scientific theories to be considered equals because they haven't been proven is out-right ridiculous.

And before you say anything, yes, I know you're not so ignorant as to believe otherwise.

We have not been around (or we haven't been researching) for long enough to witness one species into another.

Outright lie, and a misrepresentation, there seems to be. See No Macroevolution.

Sure, there are fossilized remains of animals that suggest evolution, but hey, I bet they are fake!

Yeah, creationists like to shift goal posts. If you find the transitional fossils they ask for, they either claim they're not valid or ask for more. They're so fond of employng the (as Michael Wong put it) "'you must (instantly and without reference to sources) answer every question I have about every field of science in existence and solve every mystery in the universe or else I'm right' fallacy".

Its hardly at hypothesis stage if you ask me.

Yes, you, the average, scientifically illiterate layman, who is more qualified than those who've studied long and hard on their fields, whether they be biology, anthropology, astronomy, et cetera.

Scientist just pump it up and make it look like its a better arugment than it really is.

Yes, there is a conspiracy to make it seem that Evolution is more valid than it really is. Give me a break, creationist! Before Darwkin published his findings in On the Origin of Species, a great many scientists believed in alternative theories and a great many rejected the compiled findings initially until the evidence became too great.

Schools arnt supposed to be secualr.

If you're talking about religious schools, that's true. But if you're talking about public schools, that's false.

Thats violating seperation of church and state.

You're funny.

Selcuarism IS a relgion.

• The reason is that it's a conglomeration of assorted beliefs, not an actual system. The person who popularized the term "secular humanist" is none other than Isaac Asimov. He said if anyone wanted to know what a secular humanist was, come look at him. Well, him and a group of horny soccer-moms who saw gigantic phallus and breasts all over science text books and said that secular humanists were brain-washing their children with these photos.
  
  Still, it has never been a coordinated set of beliefs, a philosophy, or anything beyond a broad social movement encompasing many beliefs. Lamonte's Manifesto lists many religious people and groups that he considers humanists. It's a term so broad it can be meaningless.

• • -- NoMan; Secular Humanism: A Religion? Does It Matter?

why then should I have to pay to have other peoples kids pumped full of lies

This is funny coming from someone who would have a non-scientific theory presented in public schools.

Im not trying to empose it on others.

Says the person who wants I.D. taught alongside Evolution.

In a situation as touchey as this one I dont belive either side can ever prove themself as right.

Science won before it started. It's just that there's too many ignorant creationist smurf and scientifically illiterate persons out there for this stupid debacle to go away.[/quote]

[Haruko]

The idiot added more:

• As for not wanting to define macro and micro evolution, thats just scientist not wanting to be wrong. If you say "they are the same thing" then they can say that micro evolution has happened and therefor macroevolution can happen. But if you define micro and macroevolution to be the following:
  
  Micro: Small changes to a creature's offspring which allow the creature the better adapt to its life style.
  
  Macro: Large amounts of small changes over a long period of time which result in totally differnt species, ones with differnt gene codes, numbers of chromosones ect...
  
  then can you really say macroevolution has ever been known to happen?

[Haruko]

And more:

• Accuallys, theres a big reason why it wont go away. Evolution always has holes in it. And people will point out these holes and evolutionists will stretch to fill the holes, but in the process they make new holes.
  
  Secular Humanism is a relgion when it wants to be one. And According to the US sepreme court it is one

  Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be sondiered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.

  -- Toracso vs. Watkins, 1961.
  
  As long as it is in their interest to be a relgion, they are one.
  
  I dont want my views to the be only views taught. As I said, side-by-side or not at all. Teaching just one is like serving just Pepsi and no coke, or being ESPN and covering only baseball.

[The Nomad]

Micro: Small changes to a creature's offspring which allow the creature the better adapt to its life style.

Bullshit. The changes in a creature's offspring's genetic makeup are a byproduct of exterior phenomena ( radiation, chemicals ) and intrinsic ones ( DNA replication errors ), that are later breeded out due to outside conditions if they result in a disadvantage to said offspring, or passed on to the next generation if they are neutral or advantageous.
He here misrepresents part of the concept of evolution.

Macro: Large amounts of small changes over a long period of time which result in totally differnt species, ones with differnt gene codes, numbers of chromosones ect...

Look at somebody else if you want proof. I mean somebody normal : you and your creationist friends must not have evolved a lot since the first single-celled organisms.

then can you really say macroevolution has ever been known to happen?

Look at the fucking fossil record, dipshit.

I dont want my views to the be only views taught. As I said, side-by-side or not at all. Teaching just one is like serving just Pepsi and no coke, or being ESPN and covering only baseball.

Ok, so we should teach kids that handling poisonous snakes is fun and harmless because it is obviously quite the contrary, but all "opinions" are to be presented, not matter how demented ?
Face it. Science classes must teach firmly established theories supported by facts, and creationism is not one of those.

[Haruko]

Thanks for the response.

Of my third post, I can handle a good reply to that just fine. It's the first (at the very top) that I need much advice with.

[The Nomad]

Instead, there had to be a point in which time began. At this point, sothing which exists outside of time(a god) had to create matter. It still couldnt have just exisited.

Ask him to run his sentences through a spellchecker. Then ask him why God would have to be outside of time ( that would put him outside of spacetime, aka the Universe, aka "all that exists", aka God doesn't exists it's not exactly consistent, but it can annoy the buggers )

But cant you use everything, including the sun and all the other bodies in space as your "closed system"? Im still not sure I totally understand your arugment....

How can you drill through the fucker's head that stars have fuck diddle squat to do with the process of evolution ?

Anyway...
Here's a little demo : Earth outputs as much energy as it gets from the Sun, in the form of infrared ( it is a condition of Earth's thermodynamic stability : we'd be into deep shit if it were not the case, the temperature would perpetually increase ). Sun gives mostly visible and UV, which have shorter wavelengths than IR, ie more energy per photon. It is usable energy, for example it can be then used by plants to assemble organic matter and feed animals, and that energy is ultimately degraded into waste heat aka IR.

Hence, Earth leaks off "entropy" into space, to speak figuratively. The entropy of the system "Earth" ( including all the fucking suckers that dwell on it ) is relatively stable, and could even in theory decrease, since it is not a closed system. But the entropy of the Universe ( the all emcompassing closed system by definition ) is increasing, it's just that it is so freakin' big that nobody notices. And it has no bearing on the theory of tittyfucking evolution !
( this is vaguely inspired by a long-forgotten 2nd year post-high school thermodynamics course... don't bite me ( gaah I prefer odontology...) )

I feel the whole stuff I wrote is a stupid digression anyway, since the idiot misrepresents Thermodynamics from the start : simply feed them their own logic : "2nd Law : the complexity and disorder of a system can only increase, ergo organisms can only grow more complex, ditto evolution is true". Ludicrously illogical, but fun nonetheless

And for the last fucking time :

Code: Select all

[size=24]ORGANIC BODIES ARE NOT CLOSED SYSTEMS, AND IT IS ALL THAT MATTERS !![/size]

Tell the fucker : "You eat in order to live, you bring construction materials and energy supplies, your body is warm due to waste heat from chemical processes that degrade the energy you consume. When you pee and shit, you eject used-up materials from your bodily system, and your body heat is ejected waste energy, period ! Stars and the Universe have diddle squat to do with this, your body is not a closed system therefore the 2nd Law has no fucking bearing on the evolution of fucking biological systems like your fucking inbred body !"

And if he has the stupidity to tell you that old age is the ultimate victory of entropy, tell him that it disproves evolution only in his case, since normal people would have passed their genes on to the next generation before their demise, unlike the permavirgin he surely is.

[The Nomad]

Sorry if I'm a bit inconsistent, I have to get used to normal daily cycle before getting back to studying teeths and stuff.
I repeat : sorry for the gibberish.

[Rahvin]

It cant have "always been here"

Why not? Prove that it hasn’t.

Consider a number line that ranges infintly in both directions. Stick a random dot on it and cut it along the line. Call the dot "today" Now look at one half, this is "times past" and the other half is "times in the future". But say I take the two lines and lay them side by side. You can now not tell which is time past and which is time future. They are both infinily long. Hence everything that COULD have ever possibly happened before "today" would have possibly happened. A enxtra year makes no difference compared to the infinite number of years that have happened before us. Now clearly there is a big difference from year to year, and thus time must have no stretched infinitly before us. Instead, there had to be a point in which time began. At this point, sothing which exists outside of time(a god) had to create matter. It still couldnt have just exisited.

This has nothing to do with the universe. Big Bang theory states that the entirety of space (with all of the matter and energy contained therein) existed in a Singularity – essentially an infinitely dense single point. Since time is tied to space, time then existed also only as a single point. The universe has expanded from that early state, but time began as a single point. To bring this back to your geometry analogy, time is a ray, not a line. To suggest that something could “cause” the universe to exist implies that something could happen “before” time began – a logical impossibility. Nothing can exist “before” there is a timeline to define past, present and future. By definition, the universe has existed for the entirety of time.

But cant you use everything, including the sun and all the other bodies in space as your "closed system"? Im still not sure I totally understand your arugment....

This becomes irrelevant. Yes, the entirety of the universe is a closed system, and its entropy is increasing. But all that matters is life on Earth. Since the Earth is not a closed system (being fed energy by the Sun), additional “complexity” can form on Earth.

You began as a fertilized egg in your mother’s womb. If this was a closed system (and you therefore received no additional energy/nutrients from your mother) you would never have developed into the vastly more complex organism you are today. But since your mother’s body provided additional energy and nutrients, making your system not closed, you were able to grow. See the analogy?

As for not wanting to define macro and micro evolution, thats just scientist not wanting to be wrong. If you say "they are the same thing" then they can say that micro evolution has happened and therefor macroevolution can happen. But if you define micro and macroevolution to be the following:

Micro: Small changes to a creature's offspring which allow the creature the better adapt to its life style.

Macro: Large amounts of small changes over a long period of time which result in totally differnt species, ones with differnt gene codes, numbers of chromosones ect...

then can you really say macroevolution has ever been known to happen?

This is just stupid. You’re moving the goalposts. If you admit that microevolution happens, you need to provide some provable mechanism to show that macroevolution does not. Walking happens one small step at a time. Bt if I continue walking long enough, I’ll wind up on a different continent. So it is with evolution – we observe many small changes (including small changes that result in speciation, where the progeny are unable to reproduce with their ancestors). You propose that, somehow, these small changes cannot add up to very large changes. What mechanism prevents this?

Scientists do not differentiate between micro- and macro-evolution because it is the exact same process. There’s nothing to differentiate except for a timescale. Would you differentiate between walking next door and walking to the next state? Should we call it micro-walking and macro-walking? Many processes occur over timescales that humans cannot directly witness. Do you propose all of our conclusions about those mechanisms are similarly incorrect?

Without a mechanism to separate micro- from macro-, you’re just talking out your ass.

Accuallys, theres a big reason why it wont go away. Evolution always has holes in it. And people will point out these holes and evolutionists will stretch to fill the holes, but in the process they make new holes.

Irrelevant. Nobody ever claimed evolution theory, as it exists today, is a Final Product, or an absolute truth. It’s a highly accurate description of an observed mechanism. Those holes you speak of have been gradually filled since Darwin wrote his book by additional evidence, and the theory has been altered to continue to be an accurate model. The fact that more holes exist simply means we need additional data to either verify that the model is accurate (in the case that the new data fits exactly with the current theory), or to modify the theory so that it fits the new data. That’s the beauty of the scientific method – theories can be changed or even disproved entirely with evidence. Only religion is so insipid as to draw a conclusion before examining evidence, and stubbornly refuse to change that conclusion in the face of contrary evidence.

Secular Humanism is a relgion when it wants to be one. And According to the US sepreme court it is one

The supreme court defines many things differently from the rest of us. This is an appeal to authority – just because the Supreme Court says so, doesn’t make it true.

The Supreme Court, after all, upheld slavery as constitutional and considered blacks to be sub-human for many years. They were wrong then, too.

s long as it is in their interest to be a relgion, they are one.

I dont want my views to the be only views taught. As I said, side-by-side or not at all. Teaching just one is like serving just Pepsi and no coke, or being ESPN and covering only baseball.

I see. So you would like Hindu creation myths, the Greek, Roman, Norse, and Egyptian myths, the Babylonian myths, and the myriad Native American creation myths to all have equal time? Please. Stop lying. You want your Christian ideas taught in school. You don’t want the others. To teach the Christian myth under the banner of “equal time” means that you must give equal time to all other beliefs as well.

Of course, this is all irrelevant. Christianity, Hindu, Buddhism, none of them have anything to do with science. Go ahead, teach your Christian creation myth along with the others – in a religion class, where they belong. Science class is for science, as the name implies.

[drachefly]

Why not? Prove that it hasn’t.

No need to shift the burden of proof.

Forget total proof, just give me one inkling of a reason to suspect the universe is not eternal.

[Haruko]

I grew bored of the creationist and didn't even bother responding to this:

• And you want YOUR secular ideas taught it school, same thing. Please give me a defintion of relgion that including Buddhism and Taoism, both of which dont revolve around a god figure, and doesnt include Secular Humanism. (and please dont tell me you arnt knowleged enough in relgions to do this. If thats the case, then by saying Secular Humanism isnt a relgion you are saying a relgion is "Whatever the 'smurf' I feel like calling a relgion"
  
  So if the supreme court was wrong then, whos the say they were wrong when they drove an axe between the church and the state in the first place?
  
  There IS a bigger difference between macro and micro evolution other than the time scale. A new species is one that couldnt reproduce if it mates with another species. This of course assumes the two species could mate in the first place, a dauchund cant carry a baby that is half german shepeard, but it if could, those two could still mate. By that standard, I have yet to seen a case in which two "species" which could mate, have live young which could produce their own offspring(so no mules, ligers or other mutants like that), and yet somewhere down the road their offspring cant. And from what I udnerstand of the scientific method, you need to be able to confirm your hypothesis for it to become a theory, macroevolution has not been confirmed, it cannot be considered a theory and thus should carry as much water as "The alternative view point to the creation of the universe was that a supernatural being, a God, desgined the earth and everything around it. Although differnt religions have differing views on how this was accomplished, this idea on the creation of the world tends to give it a much younger date, mesured in the tens of thousands instead of the trillions"
  
  And you still havnt answered why I should pay tax dollars to have children taught what I belive to be a lie. You just said you didnt want to sepdn tax dollars for them to be taught what you belive to be a lie. Why not just not teach about earth orgins in science class? That way no one is upset.

But I did respond to what the administrator said about what I said in one of my posts.

Note: I'm using the username Hyperion there.

The administrator's post:

Accually ID has plenty of reasons to back it up, consider the scientific LAW(as in, way better than the hypotheis of maroevoultion which has NOT be tested and confirmed nearly enough times to be called a theory, much less a law) of thermodynamics which states that energy cannot be created or destoryed, it can only change forms. How could we then, get all the energy around us, if there was no creator to create all the energy in the first place?

Oh, wow... somehow, the scientific community has failed to realize that the widely accepted theories they adhere to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You should submit your findings. You'd be world famous.

Even if that was sarcastic, that seemed to be a bit uncalled for.

My response:

• Then I shall refrain from making such comments in the future, Ms. Rune, but I did find it even much more uncalled for for someone to claim that the scientific community and therefore a great many very learned men and women who've worked long and hard in their respective fields missed something seemingly so obvious, and that's why I thought my response called for.

[Haruko]

As you can see, they weigh on you for even the slightest sign of behavoir by which has the potential to be insulting. And yet they say nothing about the rudeness of those who make unsupported claims, spouting shit out of their rear end, and continuing to regurgitate the same stupid crap.

[Haruko]

It seems the administrator deleted her post and my response along with it.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Secular != secular humanism.

[wautd]

Haruko, can you PM me the link of that forum. I'd like to do some lurking there

[McC]

I second wautd, though I'm tempted to be a little more vocal than a lurker.

[Haruko]

Haruko, can you PM me the link of that forum. I'd like to do some lurking there

Sure, though, if you want to read what's posted in their debating forum, you have to sign-up to the appropriate usergroup. It may take a few days before getting accepted. By the way, it's a neopet forum, but I'm only there for the debating and misc. discussion. For a forum about some game I consider silly, there are quite a few interesting people there.

[defanatic]

Btw Macroevolution is the bigscale stuff that noone ever has seen. Microevolution is the natural adaptation that all creatures do.

What defines a "kind"? An entirely new species of mosquito (Good god no) has undergone evolved in the london underground (through isolation). So it does happen. Or am I taking something out of context?

[wautd]

Haruko, can you PM me the link of that forum. I'd like to do some lurking there

Sure, though, if you want to read what's posted in their debating forum, you have to sign-up to the appropriate usergroup. It may take a few days before getting accepted. By the way, it's a neopet forum, but I'm only there for the debating and misc. discussion. For a forum about some game I consider silly, there are quite a few interesting people there.

bah, too lazy for that. I'll just keep lurking here then. Or did the debate ended already?

[Haruko]

Haruko, can you PM me the link of that forum. I'd like to do some lurking there

Sure, though, if you want to read what's posted in their debating forum, you have to sign-up to the appropriate usergroup. It may take a few days before getting accepted. By the way, it's a neopet forum, but I'm only there for the debating and misc. discussion. For a forum about some game I consider silly, there are quite a few interesting people there.

bah, too lazy for that. I'll just keep lurking here then. Or did the debate ended already?

It's been on and off. That sirlucky person already dropped out because he didn't like the way we were debating (Translation: OMG! You don't agree with me? You're all evil and don't know how to debate!).