Creation Movement Growing

[THE AMBASSADOR]

I have no response to you because it would be a waste of time. You obviously believe your views so fundamentaly that my words would be just going in one year and out the other. I don't debate with those who don't want to listen. You only want a response so you can rip at it. You have no intentions of trying to educate my as to why I'm wrong, only telling me I am and then calling me an idiot. It's the same problem with most scientists. I've heard you all say that when new evidence comes along that proves them wrong they embrace in the name of knowledge. What a blatent black faced lie! If anything comes along that challenges their view even if it is an undeniable truth they spit on it and refuse to accept it. It goes against them and so it must be false. Many times they won't even take a look at someone elses' evidence because they don't simply want to believe it and seing it might change their minds. And this includes Creationists as well as evolutionists.

[Darth Servo]

Yeah, I think the "fundie moron" title is appropiate in this case. Just look at his sig.

Agreed. Any bets on how long it takes before DW decides to FM the guy?

[Strafe]

I have no response to you because it would be a waste of time. You obviously believe your views so fundamentaly that my words would be just going in one year and out the other. I don't debate with those who don't want to listen. You only want a response so you can rip at it. You have no intentions of trying to educate my as to why I'm wrong, only telling me I am and then calling me an idiot. It's the same problem with most scientists. I've heard you all say that when new evidence comes along that proves them wrong they embrace in the name of knowledge. What a blatent black faced lie! If anything comes along that challenges their view even if it is an undeniable truth they spit on it and refuse to accept it. It goes against them and so it must be false. Many times they won't even take a look at someone elses' evidence because they don't simply want to believe it and seing it might change their minds. And this includes Creationists as well as evolutionists.

So in other words you realize you don't stand a chance in a debate and are running away...

[Strafe]

Oops, Double Post...

[Darth Servo]

I have no response to you because it would be a waste of time. You obviously believe your views so fundamentaly that my words would be just going in one year and out the other.

Since you provided NOTHING to support your claims, there was nothing to go in the ear in the first place.

I don't debate with those who don't want to listen.

Then you should ignore every creationist on the planet.

You only want a response so you can rip at it. You have no intentions of trying to educate my as to why I'm wrong, only telling me I am and then calling me an idiot.

Look at Darth Wong's long response to every sentence you wrote before making such false accusations.

It's the same problem with most scientists. I've heard you all say that when new evidence comes along that proves them wrong they embrace in the name of knowledge. What a blatent black faced lie! If anything comes along that challenges their view even if it is an undeniable truth they spit on it and refuse to accept it. It goes against them and so it must be false. Many times they won't even take a look at someone elses' evidence because they don't simply want to believe it and seing it might change their minds.

All of your "evidence" boils down to, "the evidence for evolution isn't perfect, so it MUST be divine creation". You have NOT provided one shred of evidence supporting creationism. Do you even know what supporting evidence is? YOu can't just attack the opposing theory without providing support for your own.

And this includes Creationists as well as evolutionists.

It only includes creationists. Evolution theory has been modified many times since Darwin proposed it nearly 150 years ago.

[Ted C]

I have no response to you because it would be a waste of time.

In other words, you can't produce any evidence for your claims or answer any of the questions put to you. You would simply keep repeating your unsupported claims, and that would be a waste of time.

You obviously believe your views so fundamentaly that my words would be just going in one year and out the other.

You are now trying to project your own behavior on to others. Everyone here accepts the Theory of Evolution based on the evidence that supports it, not based on fundamentalistic fervor.

I don't debate with those who don't want to listen.

We're happy to listen. We'd appreciate it if you had something useful to say.

You only want a response so you can rip at it.

You've been doing your best to "rip at" the Theory of Evolution. Why should you expect your own claims to be treated differently. The difference is that the Theory of Evolution can stand up to the ripping.

You have no intentions of trying to educate my as to why I'm wrong, only telling me I am and then calling me an idiot.

Quite the contrary. People have been telling you over-and-over why you are wrong. It's your refusal to accept any of their explanations that prompts them to label you an idiot.

It's the same problem with most scientists. I've heard you all say that when new evidence comes along that proves them wrong they embrace in the name of knowledge.

That's not entirely true. When new evidence comes along, every scientist in sight will start picking at it and trying to refute it. The evidence has to stand up to their scrutiny before they will accept it. Your Theory of Creation doesn't stand up to scrutiny; that's why it isn't accepted by scientists.

What a blatent black faced lie! If anything comes along that challenges their view even if it is an undeniable truth they spit on it and refuse to accept it.

Nonsense. Scientists demand that you show that evidence and how you arrived at your conclusions. They'll want to see where you found your evidence and look for supporting evidence. They'll want to know how you tested the evidence so they can examine your methods and duplicate your test to see if they get compatible results. It is hard work to get a new theory accepted by the scientific community, since they're professionally skeptical.

It goes against them and so it must be false. Many times they won't even take a look at someone elses' evidence because they don't simply want to believe it and seing it might change their minds. And this includes Creationists as well as evolutionists.

Again you're trying to project. If you present evidence to scientists, you can expect them to subject it to a storm of criticism and scrutiny, but valid evidence will stand up for itself. You, on the other hand, look at mountains of scientific evidence that supports the Theory of Evolution and dismiss it simply because it doesn't support the beliefs you were taught as a child in Sunday school.

Of course, the tone of your last post suggests that you may already have run away without seeing this response. To bad you aren't willing to stick around and take the heat; you might actually learn something.

[Superman]

The education system, in most instances, IS weak. Students are not taught to think critically. Look at the success of all of the pseudo science crap that is out there. Combine this with an unethical media, such as FOX (search for Noah's Ark, Moon landing was a hoax, etc.) and you get a public that cannot tell the difference between real science and pseudo science.

[Joe]

I have no response to you because it would be a waste of time. You obviously believe your views so fundamentaly that my words would be just going in one year and out the other. I don't debate with those who don't want to listen. You only want a response so you can rip at it. You have no intentions of trying to educate my as to why I'm wrong, only telling me I am and then calling me an idiot. It's the same problem with most scientists. I've heard you all say that when new evidence comes along that proves them wrong they embrace in the name of knowledge. What a blatent black faced lie! If anything comes along that challenges their view even if it is an undeniable truth they spit on it and refuse to accept it. It goes against them and so it must be false. Many times they won't even take a look at someone elses' evidence because they don't simply want to believe it and seing it might change their minds. And this includes Creationists as well as evolutionists.

Congratulations, you have not yet said anything to make your case, you have only bitched about how close-minded we are to your stupid bullshit.

[Wicked Pilot]

FM! FM! FM! FM!

[Darth Wong]

I have no response to you because it would be a waste of time. You obviously believe your views so fundamentaly that my words would be just going in one year and out the other. I don't debate with those who don't want to listen.

Your points were smashed and you had no comeback, so you say this. Simply pathetic.

You only want a response so you can rip at it. You have no intentions of trying to educate my as to why I'm wrong, only telling me I am and then calling me an idiot. It's the same problem with most scientists.

I explained quite thoroughly where you went wrong.

I've heard you all say that when new evidence comes along that proves them wrong they embrace in the name of knowledge. What a blatent black faced lie! If anything comes along that challenges their view even if it is an undeniable truth they spit on it and refuse to accept it.

You ignore the small detail that what you presented did NOT challenge any scientific theories.

It goes against them and so it must be false. Many times they won't even take a look at someone elses' evidence because they don't simply want to believe it and seing it might change their minds. And this includes Creationists as well as evolutionists.

It includes you.

[Darth Wong]

He made his argument. It was torn to shreds. He responded by refusing to debate any further.



The "Fundamentalist Moron" title will be granted shortly.

[Joe]

Did he ever actually post arguments anywhere, or just the above tripe?

[Darth Wong]

He made a long post earlier (see my last post on the previous page, dealing with it in detail).

He tried to post an argument (standard Creationist feeble-minded nonsense), it was refuted in many ways, so he simply ignored all the rebuttals and pretended that we had no answer except to dismiss him.

Predictably, he completely ignored detailed, reasoned rebuttals and seized upon some people who were rude and blew him off as an excuse to generalize that none of the rebuttals contained any arguments.

[SirNitram]

You know, next fundie that comes through, I'm going to demand they refute that Saturn made the universe with his fellow Titans.

[Cyborg Stan]

So we're simply plugging our ears and not addressing your points, eh? Let me give a short summary of the various responses to point of yours that posters here made since things started heating up :

Colonel Olrik :

Points out that evolution is a science that's modifiable if needed.

Points out the Wallace also developed evolutionary theory and that it has been improved over the years by hundreds (I'd say thousands myself) since then.

Asks where's the wall between evolution of different species and different branches.

Points out the differences between species lines through reproductive isolation.

Points out that C14 dating is not used for fossils, because it doesn't work for large enough time scales. Also points out that DNA is not used with fossils either.

Lagmonster :

Points out that true scientists are open-minded, but will only accept things with suffient evidence.

Points out that in science, what other people believe is irrevalent, and the tired old arguments are tired old fallacies.

Alyeska :

Points out that Creationism gets to be taught way before school.

Points out the so-called 'tired-old-arguments-that-work' are 'tired-old-arguments-that-don't-work'.

Points out the originator of a theory making mistakes does not invalidate the entire theory. (Espically considering how science self-modifies theories based on evidence, this should be EXPECTED with ALL theories.)

Points out that the entire Earth wasn't covered in volcanoes nessarialy for a St. Helen's canyon series to form in all places.

Points out that we have more evidence than Darwin had in his day.

Points out scientists do not say that decay rates change with time.

Points out how ice layers are formed in the discussed tests.

Points out how your claims on radiometric dating are false (done eariler), how sediments are not evenly distrubuted (giving how and why of mountains as an example), and how it would be a false conclusion based on false data.

Points out that if you gouge downward, you also dislodge and gouge the sides.

Points out there is no real missing links. (Probably meant the ones that are really needed to prove evolution exists, since to get a literal no missing links you need the corpses of everything that ever had babies up to now.)

Points out that idiocy is granted to people that he thinks are stupid.

Points out the burden of proof for the existence of God lies with you.

Cyborg Stan (Me) :

Points out how the mindset of a Fundamentalist is dangerous and would lead to close-mindedness.

Points out that Darwin alone didn't make up the entire theory of evolution, pointing out his main contribution is evolution via natural selection. Points out Lamarck and Wallace as others who worked on evolution.

Points out that the decay rate is constant, a fact that military and commerical applications have to rely on.

Points out that thinking C14 is used for fossil records as a ridiclous idea.

Points out that Uranium dating is only useful for things with uranium in them, and questions your knowledge on the subject.

Points out that sendimentary layers themselves are rarely directly dated.

Points out that polystrata fossils are not a mystery to mainstream geology.

Points out that fishes morphing into birds is a strawman. Corrects it by using population modification over successive generations.

Darth Wong :

Points out that he's been in alot of debates with Creationists. (Considering he has a whole website dedicated to it, along with a hate-mail section.)

Points out the Creationist arguments have been disproved years ago and most rely on gross misinterpretations of science and fact.

Points out the differnce between the mindset of a fanatic and a scientist, along with why the willingness to die for a belief also means you're likely to ignore evidence against the belief.

Points out that the TOE was formulated by Darwin but based on evidence, not on Darwin himself. Points out this is an ad-hominem fallacy.

Points out that it's not really a flaw to say a process that causes small changes in small amounts of time can cause large changes over large periods of time. Asks for what the heck would cause it to stop.

Points out that Darwin didn't formulate the old age of the Earth. Points out multiple factors that only make sense with an old age, giving examples.

Points out that a process happening over a small region of Earth does not translate it to happening over the entire Earth. Points out that something happening does not disprove another thing happening. Points out that it wouldn't prove flood geology.

Points out that Mt. St. Helens did not make something resembling the Grand Canyon. Quotes an article talking about the many varied layers of the Grand Canyon.

Points out that the volcano scenario does not work for the entire Earth at once. Points out that physics on small and large scales would have to be thrown out for flood geology to even have the remotest chance, and that it still wouldn't explain the progression of fossils, or the shape of canyons, or the composition.

Points out that simply having a small canyon-like feature formed quickly does not translate to all canyons being formed in a similar way, and that even if it was the case still wouldn't mean that TOE was incorrect.

Points out that inaccuracies in dating are not by a factor of a million.

Points out that methods must not always be either perfect or useless, that imprecise answers still can give you a rough picture.

Points out that it is creationists, not scientists that propose decay rates change with time. Points out that you're accusing of scientists of being hypocrites for holding a belief they don't have.

Points out that even if the dating method is only 50% accurate, it still wouldn't too much of a young earth.

Points out that ice-core dating uses isotope concentrations in layers that work annually, and idiots that do it wrong don't invalidate the entire process if done right.

Points out a global flood would deposit sendiments in low-lieing areas, rather than uniformly. (Thus flatening the Earth.)

Points out you're confusing ash and tar with sendimentary rocks.

Points out that flood geology would have to explain why fossils in different layers correspond to different radiometric ages. Points out the failure of flood geology to explain what happened to the water before and after it happened. Points out that the biomass needed to form the rocks would be too much for the Earth to support at once.

Points out that Flood geology would have a canyons running everywhere from a high place to a low place, in all directions. Points out rivers change sizes.

Points out that a flow despite elevation still does not support flood geology.

Points out that no missing links is a lie.

Points out that attacking one theory does not validate your theory, that you must also explain why your theory would explain it.

Points out that multiple independant sources leading to the same conclusion is a pretty good indicator that the conclusion is true.

Points out that calling scientists liars is an insult and thus you have no right to ask for no insults back.

Points out that your ideas requires the power of faith before anyone even takes them seriously.

Points out that your points were smashed beyond repair.

Sir Sirius :

Points out why people would be afraid of god, the correct burden of proof, and that there is no rational reasoning behind such.

Darth Servo :

Points out you provided nothing to back up your claims. Points out that creationists are guilty of not listening. Points out Darth Wong's response as a rebuttal to yours. Points out that your argument lies on the flawed idea discrediting one idea automatically validates another. Points out the TOE was and is being modified constantly, for 150 years, coming to unchangning Creationism.

Ted C:

Responds that your refusal to keep responding as an admission of defeat. Points out that people here accept TOE based on evidence, not faith or fervor. Points out that people here listen but appreicate it if the speaker has anything useful. Points out your entire posts up to this point are ripping at evolution, so you shouldn't be suprised if you're ripped back. Points out that TOE can stand up to the ripping, unlike your posts. Points out people have been telling you WHY you are wrong, instead of simply saying it, thus us giving you your label. Points out that scientists will pick and analyze things every time a new piece of evidence comes along, before they accept it. Points out that Creationism fails this.

Durran Korr :

Points out you have not made your case, and instead resorted to bitching about us.

***

Pretty impressive for people that apparently made no effort to respond to your points, huh?

[Coyote]

Is it gone? I missed it? Or is it still about? He seemed like a guy who just shows up, spouts a bit o' rhetoric, then marches off declaring righteous attempts to enlighten...

[Alyeska]

Well that was the quickest concession I have seen since Mike6002 conceded a debate to E1701 after E1701 gave his opening statement.

[HemlockGrey]

Ouch. The bastard never stood a chance.

[LadyTevar]

You know, next fundie that comes through, I'm going to demand they refute that Saturn made the universe with his fellow Titans.

Now now, Nitram, tell the truth.

You know that Midgard was created from the defeated body of Ymir the Frost Giant after Odin slew him in battle. His body became the ground, his blood became the oceans, his hair the trees and grasses, and his eyebrows became the clouds in the sky. His semen spilled out and became the fishes in the sea and the creatures of the earth.

And man and woman were made from the ash and the birch trees.

[Ted C]

Now now, Nitram, tell the truth.

You know that Midgard was created from the defeated body of Ymir the Frost Giant after Odin slew him in battle. His body became the ground, his blood became the oceans, his hair the trees and grasses, and his eyebrows became the clouds in the sky. His semen spilled out and became the fishes in the sea and the creatures of the earth.

And man and woman were made from the ash and the birch trees.

Don't forget that Odin's father, Bor, was licked from the ice of Nifleheim by Ymir's cow, Audumlha.

[Darth Servo]

Is it gone? I missed it? Or is it still about? He seemed like a guy who just shows up, spouts a bit o' rhetoric, then marches off declaring righteous attempts to enlighten...

Sounds a lot like a particular obnoxious VI Trektard by the name of Sovereign.

[LadyTevar]

Now now, Nitram, tell the truth.

You know that Midgard was created from the defeated body of Ymir the Frost Giant after Odin slew him in battle. His body became the ground, his blood became the oceans, his hair the trees and grasses, and his eyebrows became the clouds in the sky. His semen spilled out and became the fishes in the sea and the creatures of the earth.

And man and woman were made from the ash and the birch trees.

Don't forget that Odin's father, Bor, was licked from the ice of Nifleheim by Ymir's cow, Audumlha.

Thank you! I'd forgotten that!

It wasn't Odin that killed Ymir, it was Bor.

Although I'm still trying to figure out how Bor got into the ice in the first place...

[Joe]

You also must remember, Athena was born from a lump on Zeus' head, proving that men CAN give birth.

[THE AMBASSADOR]

I have conceded nothing for there is nothing to concede. I have not given up for apparently there was nothing to give up on in the first place. This discussion was over far before I ever showed up.

[HemlockGrey]

Yeah, you really are that wrong.