Babble from the Religious Front

vargo · Post by **vargo** » 2005-12-20 09:50pm

SOME Creationist uses a number of deceptive and dishonest rhetorical tactics in there efforts to TRY TO "win" Intelligent Desighn debates. Among other things, Creationist will make up answers off the top of there head; they will take another person's argument, make a caricature of it, and attack the other person on the basis of there misrepresentation; They will use insults to minimize those who disagree with Them; they will employ insults and bluster to dodge troublesome questions; they will make unreasonable demands in exchange for answering a question or questions that they do not want to answer; they will rewrite there responses in debates after the other person has already responded; they will claim to have answered a question or to have addressed an issue when in fact they has not; and so on and so forth. Not all of these actions are blatantly dishonest-but many of them are and all of them, taken together, reveal a basic dishonesty in there approach to discussion and debate.
Anyway, the fact that some Creationist engages in fibbery and deception is undeniable. Therefore, people who try to have honest, open and fair discussions with some Creationist should be forewarned and should take what they write with a very large grain of salt.

Heidi wrote- http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=19870
Sorry, but our responses come from facts, not our imaginations. It is simply a fact that humans breed humans, apes breed apes, and humans rule over the animals. It is also not a fact that the genes of animals turn into the genes of humans on their own. That comes strictly from the imaginations of evolutionists and contradicts the fact that one species cannot turn into another without being able to breed with that species. But since you cannot see those facts, then you do not have the capacity to be honest and an intelligent conversation is not possible with you or anyone else who cannot see that reality. I therefore have no further wish to converse with people who are that dishonest. It serves no purpose.
No discrimative thread titles are bad-Bean

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-12-20 10:13pm

Meh, standard creationist gibberish. Nothing new.

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba · Post by **Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba** » 2005-12-20 10:21pm

General Zod wrote:Meh, standard creationist gibberish. Nothing new.

Bah, you people have simply lost your sense in delight of the tried-and-true hilarity of mentally deficient people. You've become jaded, lost your joie de vivre.

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2005-12-20 10:22pm

Circular reasoning is funny when it's so blatant. "It's a simple fact that I'm right. Therefore I'm right. And if you're so deluded you think I'm using 'circular logic' or something, you're just delusional and sophistic, not to mention stupid and dishonest. W**ker."

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2005-12-20 10:43pm

I know about Heidi, she gets quoted all the time on FSTDT. Her problem is that she is either so stupid or so stubborn that she refuses to understand evolution no matter how many times it's explained to her.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2005-12-21 11:08am

OmegaGuy wrote:I know about Heidi, she gets quoted all the time on FSTDT. Her problem is that she is either so stupid or so stubborn that she refuses to understand evolution no matter how many times it's explained to her.

Excuse me, what is FSTDT?

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2005-12-21 11:33am

Molyneux wrote:
OmegaGuy wrote:I know about Heidi, she gets quoted all the time on FSTDT. Her problem is that she is either so stupid or so stubborn that she refuses to understand evolution no matter how many times it's explained to her.
Excuse me, what is FSTDT?

Fundies say the darnest things

Website where you can post/read fundie quotes. Quote amusing to read now and then

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-12-21 01:57pm

Most of her interpretations of evolution come from her own imagination, not from "evolutionists".

STFU, bitch.

vargo · Post by **vargo** » 2005-12-21 06:47pm

WOW it gets even worse...... LOL

Science is a tool or process of investigation. For something to be studied scientifically it must be: 1) physically observable, 2) measurable, and 3) repeatable or consistent in time. Based on these tenents evolution would not qualify as science any more than ID or creationism does. First it is not observable other than in a limited time frame that man has studied it. The last time I checked no time machine exists that allows scientists to go back and observe the large evolutionary changes they alledge to have occured over eons time. They are purely speculating on what occured millions, billions or gazillions of years ago based on limted data collected over a brief period of time. Second, evolution on a macro scale is not measurable in a laboratory the last time I checked. Oh I forgot about that time machine again that allows one to go back and document changes alledged to have occured over these vast time spans. I am not talking about micro changes (i.e., adaptation) which we know occurs over time within spefic limits. These have been studied and documented in the peer reviewed literature. I am talking about the big changes or "leaps of faith" (i.e., whales from hippos) that have been postulated but not proven to occur with any degree of scientific certainty. Show me some half evolved species or fossil and I might change my perspective. Third, the large evolutionary changes alledged cannot be repeated which allows confirmation or refutation of any previous scientific findings. I guess we just take it on faith that these things are true that all species evolved from other things over time because some scientist says so. I say science is a tool of investigating the physical universe - nothing more and nothing less - and must be taught as such. All scientific research rises and falls on the data supporting or refuting it. Students should be taught how to "freely" weigh good evidence as well as contrary evidence to any scientific theory without censorship by a hypocritical scientific community that believes they are right regarding a particular scientific paradigm and are not open criticism or other theories. They think anybody that disagrees with them is no scientific, a moron or just trying to advance some religous veiwpoint. If this is the case its a wonder that we still don't think sun revolves around the earth.

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2005-12-21 07:48pm

I notice that that paragraph conveniently ignores the fossil record.

vargo · Post by **vargo** » 2005-12-21 07:54pm

OmegaGuy wrote:I notice that that paragraph conveniently ignores the fossil record.

I did mention about Fossil records, and this is what i got in return.

It is not in the fossil record. The fossil record proves nothing about the evolution of species from one to another and where that has been proven with scientific certainty. It is pure conjecture at this point. Show me the proof or data on examples of transitional species changing from one to the other. I want journal citations and other peer reviewed articles showing such to be the case that I can review. As far as future confirming the past - that remains to be seen. Until it proves to be the case you have an untested or nomological possibility not a proven or epistemic fact. How long do we have to wait for confirmatory proof - another gazillion years. No because there is not one shred of proof of macroevolution.

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2005-12-21 08:04pm

Ask them to define 'transitional species'

vargo · Post by **vargo** » 2005-12-21 08:04pm

Holy cow this person is on a Rampage

Essential List of Scientific Weaknesses of Evolution TheoriesThe following weaknesses of evolution should be discussed at appropriate points in every text from the viewpoint of a skeptic as well as a proponent of current evolutionary theory.Origin of Life Weaknesses: The extreme improbability of obtaining any specific amino acid sequence needed for the proteins of life systems. The high probability of breakdown by hydrolysis of amino acid chains if they were to form in the first place. No known way to achieve 100% left-handed amino acids in proteins or the 100% right-handed sugars in RNA and DNA - all of which are universal to life systems. All natural processes are known to produce a 50-50% mixture of left-handed and right-handed molecules. Photo dissociation of water vapor has been a source of oxygen since the Earth formed, and there is substantial geologic evidence that a significant amount of oxygen existed in the atmosphere prior to the advent of photosynthesis. Oxygen breaks down amino acids and sugars that are postulated to have formed! There is no known natural source of the information that is present in all life systems. Random processes are never known to produce information.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2005-12-21 08:04pm

Show me the proof or data on examples of transitional species changing from one to the other.

Archaeopteryx - transition between reptile and bird
eusthenopteron foordi - transition between fish and amphibians
seymouria - transition between amphibian and reptile
Australopithecus araferensis and 17 other transitional fossils for hominids.

This woman is a fucking moron who demands high level of evidence but refuses to put forward the same level of evidence.

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2005-12-21 09:01pm

I believe this woman also refuses to believe in returnstrokes or paragraphs. Perhaps being as difficult to read as a bible verse is part of her 'debate' strategy?

Wyrm · Post by **Wyrm** » 2005-12-21 10:03pm

Nephtys wrote:I believe this woman also refuses to believe in returnstrokes or paragraphs. Perhaps being as difficult to read as a bible verse is part of her 'debate' strategy?

Noticed that too, did you? Note the lack of carriage return aptitude of another fundie moron. (Perhaps they think returning carriage has some funky connection to abortion...)

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2005-12-21 10:33pm

Ouch...please ask her to fix her keyboard? Or at least learn to use the 'return' key? Those blocks of text hurt my eyes.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-12-22 02:34am

They think anybody that disagrees with them is no scientific, a moron or just trying to advance some religous veiwpoint. If this is the case its a wonder that we still don't think sun revolves around the earth.

...

UN-BE-FUCKING-LEIVABLE!

Hey bitch, ever think about the fact that it was your religion that promoted this viewpoint for hundreds of years? Ever think about how it mercilessly crushed and smothered opposing viewpoints, forcing Copernicus to hold off on his publication till his death? Ever think about how it was those who defied the Church who brought forth modern science?

By the way, you should ask her to provide citation and a detailed explanation for her Big Hunk O' Criticisms of Evolution.

Lord of the Abyss · Post by **Lord of the Abyss** » 2005-12-22 03:19am

IIRC there are species of seagulls that live up in the Arctic Circle that "blend into" each other. With no natural barriers, each group breeds with the one nearby, and each group differs just a little. Go far enough east or west, and the local seagulls will be different enough from where you started that they can't interbreed; a different species, in other words. However, there is no neat bounderies, only gradual change. So, not only do we have here some transitional species, they are all transitional.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2005-12-22 04:58am

Lord of the Abyss wrote:IIRC there are species of seagulls that live up in the Arctic Circle that "blend into" each other. With no natural barriers, each group breeds with the one nearby, and each group differs just a little. Go far enough east or west, and the local seagulls will be different enough from where you started that they can't interbreed; a different species, in other words. However, there is no neat bounderies, only gradual change. So, not only do we have here some transitional species, they are all transitional.

I can't recall the name of the species of seagulls at present. These type of species are called "ringed" species. Richard Dawkins mentions them in "The Ancestors Tale". Another type of "Ringed" species is a salamander living in california.

Essentially think of them as population A, B, C, D, E, and so on located in a geographical ring. A is adjacent to B, B is adjacent to C ends up E being adjacent to A. As Lord of the Abyss mentioned each population has similar features to each other, but more different as you go from A to E.

A can interbreed with B, B can interbreed with C who can interbreed with D who can interbreed with E. However E does not interbreed with despite being next to A. More evidence of the transitional species. Suck it down stupid Creationist.

Magnetic · Post by **Magnetic** » 2005-12-22 10:05am

But those aren't the same 'transitions' that they talk about. Reptile to bird. . . .

I have to say that there have been some pretty 'wild' theories given out there. I actually saw one that had the ancestory if dolphins coming out of the ocean, eventually becoming similar to a canine, then going back to the oceans to be what is now our current dolphin species. Unless I misunderstood what was being said, . . . that is bordering on fantasy, IMHO.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2005-12-22 10:40am

Magnetic wrote:But those aren't the same 'transitions' that they talk about. Reptile to bird. . . . .

So what transitions do they talk about? Let me guess, they will define a transitional species totally different form what biologists do, and proclaim victory when biologist cannot come up with such a mythical animal. To be a transitional species, it just needs to be well, between species. Birds and reptiles are above the species level of classification. To summarise, the example of the gulls is a valid example of transitions between different species of birds.

The creationist usually use the definition of "kinds" which doesn't match any biological classification, in fact they can't define it properly. For example a dog is a kind (in biology they would be below the species level) while cat is a kind (in biological, they belong to a Family, which is above the species level).

Magnetic wrote: I have to say that there have been some pretty 'wild' theories given out there. I actually saw one that had the ancestory if dolphins coming out of the ocean, eventually becoming similar to a canine, then going back to the oceans to be what is now our current dolphin species. Unless I misunderstood what was being said, . . . that is bordering on fantasy, IMHO.

Don't know specifically about the dolphin, but marine mammals like whales and dolphins would have had ancestors which left the ocean, became land animals and then went back into the water. This explains their inability to breath underwater, since they lost the water breathing ability when they went on land. They couldn't simply regain the water breathing ability, since evolution doesn't go backwards (or rather the probability that an animal would favour going in a "backwards" direction is less than the more numerous "forward" directions ).

Thus they has to go through "descent with modifications", and the species which became marine animals would have to modify themselves to allow them to live in the water in other ways (such as being able to hold their breaths for long periods). I believe the whales are actually closely related to cows. This is derived from molecular biology, where we count the mutations in various genes. The less number of mutations, the closer the relation.

Magnetic · Post by **Magnetic** » 2005-12-22 01:51pm

mr friendly guy wrote:Don't know specifically about the dolphin, but marine mammals like whales and dolphins would have had ancestors which left the ocean, became land animals and then went back into the water. This explains their inability to breath underwater, since they lost the water breathing ability when they went on land. They couldn't simply regain the water breathing ability, since evolution doesn't go backwards (or rather the probability that an animal would favour going in a "backwards" direction is less than the more numerous "forward" directions ).

Thus they has to go through "descent with modifications", and the species which became marine animals would have to modify themselves to allow them to live in the water in other ways (such as being able to hold their breaths for long periods). I believe the whales are actually closely related to cows. This is derived from molecular biology, where we count the mutations in various genes. The less number of mutations, the closer the relation.

I just think that there has to be some other reason as to why they have no water breathing abilities, . . . . . if they came out of the water for a period of time, first they would have to develope the means TO survive outside of the water, but to say that it would be "de-evolving" for them to return to the water and reform water breathing abilities again, when they obviously had reason to return to the oceans, that's where I don't follow the logic. It would seem to be a better survival tactic to regain the abiblity to breath underwater if that's where you again reside. . . . . . . rather than having to take gulps of air every so often.

Magnetic · Post by **Magnetic** » 2005-12-22 01:52pm

abiblity???

ability.

drachefly · Post by **drachefly** » 2005-12-22 03:53pm

Actually, going in a 'backward' direction is favored in the short run -- that's what we keep a lot of our junk DNA for. However, once the shape of the network has changed, it becomes tremendously unlikely to take steps backwards.

(in other words, they have a very short 'undo' stack)