Calling all Creationists with some backbone - Creation (2009) Discussion

[–] LiftedX 14 years ago

What if you're a theistic evolutionist? Whose side should we be on? That's why I avoid debates of such disputes.

reply

[–] Elemental_Mind 14 years ago

Lifted, I've seen a few of your posts that discredit KiBL? Clearly you pick sides when it comes down to evolution.

reply

[–] knight-in-black-leather 14 years ago

Lifted, I've seen a few of your posts that discredit KiBL? Clearly you pick sides.

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] Elemental_Mind 14 years ago

^I edited my post because Lifted does speak for God as seen in his posting history, even if he doesn't agree with your view. This I never have seen bpierce do.

reply

[–] knight-in-black-leather 14 years ago

I edited my post because Lifted does speak for God as seen in his posting history, even if he doesn't agree with your view. This I never have seen bpierce do.

That's very big of you Elemental.

As for bpierce, it's very sad that he sides with atheists over his fellow Christians. He obviously has more allegiance to darwin than GOD.

There are other Christians on here whom I differ with regarding evolution/creation/I.D etc...yet we get along fine because we respect each other
and know that what REALLY matters is our faith in Christ.

God bless mon ami

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] murad23 14 years ago

" He obviously has more allegiance to darwin than GOD. "

Which god? If you are talking about the biblical "god" there are within obvious several gods combined into one by human editors.

reply

[–] jacowium 14 years ago

Writing "darwin" in all-lowercase and "GOD" in all-uppercase ... that's very subtle of you, Knight.

reply

[–] Ghostofthemorning 13 years ago

one question for knight here ,you are a "christian" i take it yet you have a name on here suggesting fetishism ,sex before marriage is a sin according to your faith so i do hope you are married ,then again ,if you are married and you practice such things ,then that is also a sin ,because it is an act of lust in that case ,so while you might love jesus christ ,you are still sinning .
Personally i am Wiccan ,and yes it might be a rebirth of the old pagan practices ,but it makes a lot more sense ,plus we have never attempted genocide because people won't convert and never burnt people at the stake because of some twisted viewpoint the church made .
There is a saying concerning the people who thrust their religions upon people such as your posts and tag do and it is along the lines of " yes you have a penis and many people do ,enjoy it all you want ,but please? Don't try and thrust it down my throat"
P.S
Evolution DOES make sense .

Don't scare me....i poop easily

reply

[–] sparrowisawesome 9 years ago

I know this is an old thread but I can't let this go unspoken.

Ghost, you make a somewhat valid point towards KiBL in terms of sins against lust and fetishism. I am not arguing that point, what I am saying is that you're targeting his beliefs based on an online username, which in itself is rather weak in terms of debate.

To begin with, a little historical accuracy. Knights, for one, are soldiers or men at arms consistently facing combat on a regular basis, in order to protect themselves they wore heavy iron/steel armour. Many Knights wore chain mail under their armour for added protection. Now because of the materials used this armour was quite costly so Knights where always looking for cheaper materials. It was not uncommon for knights to have worn armour made from tanned animal hide, or in other terms, Leather.

reply

[–] greg-233 9 years ago

"It was not uncommon for knights to have worn armour made from tanned animal hide, or in other terms, Leather."

The poster you're referring to took their name from a Bette Midler song - "Knight In Black Leather". Another account the poster had was ohmandy. (From the Barry Manilow song "Oh Mandy".)

It's been pointed out that KiBL has also claimed to be a Holocaust denier and a climate change denier AS WELL as an evolution denier. That should be enough to set off the troll alarm.

reply

[–] ContinentalOp 7 years ago

As for bpierce, it's very sad that he sides with atheists over his fellow Christians. He obviously has more allegiance to darwin than GOD.

As this is a debate fundamentally about science, he has no obligation to support ''fellow Christians'' who are wrong. Evolution is, in mainstream society, an undisputed fact. Creationism is provably false.

As an agnostic atheist, I have to say that I admire Christian who believe in science and have managed to balance faith and reason. I think the likes of Dawkins and, especially, Dennett give atheists a very bad name and I would like to point out not all biologists are like them. Stephen Jay Gould spent years disrediting their sexist, classist, racist and bigotted views and I, for one, think they do more harm than good for evolutionary biology and also atheist thought.

This damned burg's getting me. If I don't get away soon I'll be going blood-simply like the natives.

reply

[–] jthibs22 14 years ago

Once again KIBL, this is not about quote what other people have to say. Please just read both of those topics and weigh in with what you think instead of ignoring it completely

reply

[–] jthibs22 14 years ago

Of course the object of you game in this is that you really get answer back to any of what has been said. Instead you decide to change the subject to something else. I mean that is the common thing you do.

reply

[–] LiftedX 14 years ago

"Lifted, I've seen a few of your posts that discredit KiBL? Clearly you pick sides when it comes down to evolution."

Yes, I've been hard on KiBL when it is concerned with Evolution, but I do not engage him when he promotes Christian concepts. In all, I avoid lengthy debates about Evolution versus Creationism because it's as useless as debating whether the World is flat or a Sphere. Sometimes it's better to let the holder of such views figure it out them selves over time.

reply

[–] jthibs22 14 years ago

I agree with you LIFTED, but it is just so much fun watching KIBL run around in circles. I guess that the little bit of immaturity that comes out of me, but, hey this is just an imdb forum, mine as well have some fun.

reply

[–] knight-in-black-leather 14 years ago

Yes, I've been hard on KiBL when it is concerned with Evolution, but I do not engage him when he promotes Christian concepts. In all, I avoid lengthy debates about Evolution versus Creationism because it's as useless as debating whether the World is flat or a Sphere. Sometimes it's better to let the holder of such views figure it out them selves after delusion wanes over time.

As I have stated MANY times on here (although you may not have been around)
people are free to believe what they like...I have no problem with that.

My problem is that people are being bombarded with a biased, UNfalsifiable, one-sided story called 'neo-darwinism' and they are not allowed to hear the criticisms and arguments of the scientists who reject it.

God bless

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] jthibs22 14 years ago

KIBL - That is the point of the topics I just started and that you have seemed to ignore for the last 2 days. Creationists always cry about how they don't get a fare shot to debate their points to EVolutionist. So what I did was give you the 25 basic arguments Creationists make and the 25 rubuttals Evolutionists give for them. I thought that this would be something that you would have been very interested in, but instead you chose to completely ignore it which makes me suspect that you don't have a better arguement. Or that you were too lazy and didn't take the time to read the long post. But it is all there and I still have 15 more to go that I will post over the days. You seem so unafraid to express your views everywhere else on this board but when I give you a common sense debate you seem to avoid it. So what do you think I am suppose to think about you.

reply

[–] knight-in-black-leather 14 years ago

You're the one who stated: ...but, hey this is just an imdb forum, mine as well have some fun.
and now you're trying to to equate this with an actual debate between creation
or I/D scientists and evolutionists where a moderator
is present and where certain rules are laid down beforehand???

Like I said, your first point is a LIE, who why should I debate with you when you have shown you are not interested in an honest sincere debate???

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] jthibs22 14 years ago

Oh my god. Here you go KIBL again trying to divert the point. I said that it was "fun" only because I find the act of debatiing "Fun". Does that better explain it for you now. Can we continue or what other minor words are you going to pick out without actually reading and discussing the orinigal post.

reply

[–] knight-in-black-leather 14 years ago

I'm not diverting the point...those are your words.

You stated: but, hey this is just an imdb forum

Hardly the same thing as an open debate at Oxford between at Dr Cornelius Hunter and Richard Dawkins, wouldn't you say?

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] jthibs22 14 years ago

"Hardly the same thing as an open debate at Oxford between at Dr Cornelius Hunter and Richard Dawkins, wouldn't you say? "

I never said it was.

Now please can you read the post and form an opinion

reply

[–] knight-in-black-leather 14 years ago

I never said it was.

You implied it when you stated: Creationists always cry about how they don't get a fare shot to debate their points to EVolutionist.

if you don't know the differnece between people talking on IMDB and an official debate in the scientific community, then I can understand why you're a darwinist.

Now please can you read the post and form an opinion

My opinion is that you don't know what you're talking about because the first point you stated is aa LIE.

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] jthibs22 14 years ago

How about this KIBL. You are right. I am a liar and I have no idea what I am talking about. I honestly believe that with all my heart. Now will you go onto those 2 thread I created and actually read them. I know they are long but they honestly will only tak 5mins or each to read. Then will you give you opinion.

Once again, you are completely right. I am a liar and don't know what I am talking about. Can we at least get past this now and have you read those to topics. I mean the substance of those topics no the little blurb i wrote in the beginning of the first one. Because, remember, I don't know what I am talking about. But the information is valid and interesting and you should read it

reply

[–] knight-in-black-leather 14 years ago

There's something seriously wrong with you...I've told you over and over and OVER again that your first point (and also your second) in your OP is a LIE...how would I know that UNLESS I had read your post???

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] jthibs22 14 years ago

There is no moderador. If you had actually read the post you would have seen that this was take from an article where Evolutionist answered many of the common Creastionist Arguments. Please stop making everything so difficult and read the post and tell me what you think. That is all I am asking. No hidden motive or objectives. I just want to see how you can explain some of the Evolutionist Answeres....that's all!!!

reply

[–] knight-in-black-leather 14 years ago

I'm talking about a DEBATE...not your post.

You said we bemoan the fact that evolutionists won't debate those who reject darwin's myth...and then offered your thread as a chance to do so.

I'm saying, your biased thread (which you forgot to include the link for btw)
is hardly the same thing as allowing open debates in the 'scientific' community between darwinists and those who reject his myth.

Anyway, your post starts out with a lie...so you obviously don't care wbout the truth, just in promoting your myth.

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] jthibs22 14 years ago

"My problem is that people are being bombarded with a biased, UNfalsifiable, one-sided story called 'neo-darwinism' and they are not allowed to hear the criticisms and arguments of the scientists who reject it."

Again, that was the whole point of me posting the 25 Creationists Arguments/25 Evolutionist Anwers. It was to give you a platform to prove them wrong and give me some real facts that back up your agenda. So I ask again, why have you ignored it for that past couple of days. Are you afraid?

reply

[–] knight-in-black-leather 14 years ago

It was to give you a platform to prove them wrong and give me some real facts that back up your agenda...

Then why didn't you just ASK me in the first place, instead of making a thread that starts out with a LIE???

BTW, my only 'agenda' is making sure people hear the other side of the debate before they choose which to believe. But I can see why you would be against that.

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] jthibs22 14 years ago

Can you please just read the two posts and give your answer to them, Instead of trying to do everything in your power to avoid it.

reply

[–] Ghostofthemorning 13 years ago

Ok gimp (sorry bible boy but your name just leads itself to being called that) ,as you are seemingly all knowledgeable and have the absolute truth answer for everything,which you do repeatedly imply with how you speak down to people .
I have one very simple question for you .
Where do dinosaurs and fossils come from?
As they don't come into creationist theory at all and the existence has been repeatedly denied ,including by one person who i was doing my divinity degree with who came up with the response of
" they are made by men who working for the devil to debunk the faith in god"
while that is an amusing response ,it is about as laughable as pee wee herman becoming the king of the world .
Incidentally i am Wiccan and i do believe in evolution as do the vast majority of people in this religion .

reply

[–] Korios 12 years ago

He is not (or rather was not) afraid mate, he simply has no clue how to reply to you. All the other stuff he wrote was just pulling the wool over yours and other readers' eyes. It did not work though. It rarely does, right KiMBL?

sig. start:
The term "suspension of disbelief" was coined by LOLW, the League of Lazy Writers.

reply

[–] jthibs22 14 years ago

I don't have problems with theistic evolutionist. I actually thought about going that way for awhile. This debate is totally based on creationist arguments and beliefs between what evolutionists have to offer. I apologize if I left you guys out, but I really wanted to make it a specific debate otherwise if too many ideas got into the mix then the main points would become diluted and soon become meaningless

reply

[–] Zippy B 14 years ago

What if you're a theistic evolutionist?

Being a theist with a brain stem, you are at odds with fundamentalist Christians. Perhaps the line needs to be drawn there. Evolution itself is not at odds with Religion, just nut balls that insist that a dusty old book has to be correct and do not have the ability to recognize a story or a metaphor when they see on.

One problem religious types, and strictly speaking I an Christian if only marginally so, is that everything attributed to GOD seems to eventually have a naturalistic explanation.

reply

[–] im_in 14 years ago

there is more evidence for the theory of evolution than for the theory of gravity - it's one of the scientific theories with the most evidence to it in all scientific research to date

there are many theists that accept evolution and there is no reason not to if you don't take the bible literally -- the only way really to not accept it is to either be ignorant about it (the research) or to flat out be in denial cause all and i mean ALL arguments against evolution are laughable - you can read or view boatloads on the net and it's just ridiculous...

reply

[–] knight-in-black-leather 14 years ago

http://tiny.cc/6kogE

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] jthibs22 14 years ago

I beg all of you who might have read this thread. Am I going crazy, have I not asked a simple question to KIBL? If I haven't please tell we in what way I should ask him or her so that she/he will just read the arguments and answers and come up with a point of view. I don't want this to be about me at all like KIBL is trying to make it about. I am just trying to have him/her to read the 2 damn threads I created.

reply

[–] knight-in-black-leather 14 years ago

I did read your threads ...how do you think I knew your first point was a lie, as well as the second one???

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] jthibs22 14 years ago

so you think this is a lie

3. Since education is a process of learning all sides of an issue, it is appropriate for both creationism and evolution to be taught side-by-side in public school classrooms. Not to do so is a violation of the philosophy of education, and of the civil liberties of creationists. I.e., we have a "right" to be heard. Besides, what is the harm in hearing both sides?

The multiple sides of issues is indeed a part of the general educational process, and it might be appropriate to discuss creationism in courses on religion, history, or even philosophy, but most certainly not science, any more than biology courses should include lectures on American Indian creation-myths. Not to do so violates no rights, since nowhere in nature or the Constitution does it say everyone has a right to teach creationism in public schools. Rights do not exist in nature. Rights are a concept constructed by humans to protect certain freedoms, but have degenerated into pleas for special privilege by nearly every group and individual in America who want something they do not have. Finally, there is considerable harm in teaching "creation-science" as science because it is an attack on all the sciences, not just evolutionary biology. If the universe and Earth are only about 10,000 years old, cosmology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, et al, would be invalidated. Creationism cannot even be partially correct. As soon as supernatural causation is allowed in the creation of even one species, they could all be created this way, and the assumption of natural laws in nature is voided and science becomes meaningless.

WHY?

reply

[–] knight-in-black-leather 14 years ago

so you think this is a lie

3. Since education is a process of learning all sides of an issue, it is appropriate for both creationism and evolution to be taught side-by-side in public school classrooms. Not to do so is a violation of the philosophy of education, and of the civil liberties of creationists. I.e., we have a "right" to be heard. Besides, what is the harm in hearing both sides?

The multiple sides of issues is indeed a part of the general educational process, and it might be appropriate to discuss creationism in courses on religion, history, or even philosophy, but most certainly not science, any more than biology courses should include lectures on American Indian creation-myths. Not to do so violates no rights, since nowhere in nature or the Constitution does it say everyone has a right to teach creationism in public schools. Rights do not exist in nature. Rights are a concept constructed by humans to protect certain freedoms, but have degenerated into pleas for special privilege by nearly every group and individual in America who want something they do not have. Finally, there is considerable harm in teaching "creation-science" as science because it is an attack on all the sciences, not just evolutionary biology. If the universe and Earth are only about 10,000 years old, cosmology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, et al, would be invalidated. Creationism cannot even be partially correct. As soon as supernatural causation is allowed in the creation of even one species, they could all be created this way, and the assumption of natural laws in nature is voided and science becomes meaningless.

WHY?

Seek help, child.

I stated: I did read your threads ...how do you think I knew your first point was a lie, as well as the second one???

And you respond with number THREE of your points!

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] jthibs22 14 years ago

Being condescending gets you knowhere. I know that you said the first 2 points were a lie. So I decided to bring up the 3rd point which I just figured you would say would be a lie too. But instead you avoided it altogeather

reply

[–] jthibs22 14 years ago

But let's bring it back to the first 2 points anyway:

1. Creation-science is scientific and therefore should be taught in public school science courses.

Creation science is scientific in name only. It is a thinly disguised religious position espousing the doctrine of special creation, and therefore is not appropriate for public school science courses, any more than calling something Muslim-science or Buddha-science or Christian-science would require equal time. The following statement from the Institute for Creation Research, the "research" arm of Christian Heritage College and to which all faculty members and researchers adhere, is proof of their true beliefs. There is nothing scientific about "creation-science":

"we believe in the absolute integrity of holy scripture and its plenary verbal inspiration by the holy spirit as originally written by men prepared for God for this purpose. The scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, are inerrant in relation to any subject with which they deal, and are to be accepted in their natural and intended sense . . . all things in the universe were created and made by God in the six days of special creation described in Genesis. The creationist account is accepted as factual, historical and perspicuous and is thus fundamental in the understanding of every fact and phenomenon in the created universe."

Thus according to the fundamentalists, mental illness for example is demon posession, not a sickness treatable by drugs.

2. Neither creationism nor evolutionary theory is scientific because "science only deals with the here-and-now and cannot answer historical questions about the creation of the universe and the origins of life and man."

This, of course, undermines the entire superstructure of "creation-science" and argument #1, but is untrue anyway because science does deal with past phenomena, as found in the historical sciences of cosmology, geology, paleontology, paleoanthropology, and archaeology. There are experimental sciences and historical sciences, using different methodologies but equal in their ability to understand causality, and evolutionary biology is a valid and legitimate historical science. If this statement were true, much of science, not just evolutionary theory, would be sterile.

You say they are a lie but give no reasons as to why you believe so. That is far from an intelligent reply

reply

[–] caiazzo65 13 years ago

I am a creationist with some backbone. I am also familiar with Darwin and a philosopher. The decision to be a creationist has not come easy after years of atheism and agnosticism.

Why? Because the world reveals design at every turn.

I also have much experience debating evolutionists. I am never surprised at their own inability to see the myths they believe at the expense of an intelligent creator. At the same time, I get frustrated at fundamentalist Christians who refuse to educate themselves. Hopefully with this disclosure we can move this debate along.

Now, "Darwinism" as I understand it explains away perfectly the evolution of a particular species. These explanations, however, are not new with Darwin, and many thinkers before him stated the same basic rules. There was nothing new with Darwin, just a rehashing of old theories, starting with the ancient Greeks. Darwin was an emotionally disturbed half-wit of a thinker who luckily was related to big money and fame.

However, Darwinism CANNOT explain the separation of species, say, why some apes evolved to become men while others remained apes, or why some became lizards and others fish, all in the same ecosystem. In fact there is some truth to the rumor that Darwin denied the "Origin of Species" as a theory on his deathbed, that is, after several revisions already of his book of stolen-without-giving-credit ideas.

Evolutionists, also remember, stick to their guns like any dogmatic Christian, and despite evidence contrary to their beliefs. They also rely on questionable science (dating methods, theoretical presumptions, etc.) that just so happens to fit their theory.

Without question man has evolved over time, Plato and Aristotle knew this as well as many before and after them. But this penchant for adaptation in fact supports a creative element.

The arguments you will hear from arrogant Darwinists who scoff at any religion whatsoever (I have battled many of these misguided pseudo-intellectuals in the past (who are really looking for reasons to forget their transgressions...) are easily refuted. "Gravity" theory is often used to demonstrate the truth of science. Fact is, we don't know a damned thing more about Gravity than did the ancients, only instead of calling it "Atlas" we have renamed it "gravity". Renaming is not scientific advancement. And neither is recognizing we will do what we have to do regardless of the conditions, to survive.

Also you will hear the old "life on other planets" rigmarole about the odds. What about the odds of achieving life as we know it? The exact correct distance from the sun, the exact correct seasonal changes, the odds that some primordial slime of amino acids and proteins due to lightning bolts (the atheistic god, I dare say) evolved just right to achieve the ultrawide scope of species and variations that we have on this planet.

I am not Bible thumper. But I am disgusted that bad science and crap theory is taken as truth and good science and for reason to deny Creation. The world wreaks of creation...just look around you. Think about all the times you or someone you knew defied the statistics and the odds.

Which God? Why is the Bible so messed up? Why does God allow such mean things in the world. These too will be offered up by bitter atheists who have their faith in crap science instead. Theory is simply that--theory, and that is opinion, which may or may not be grounded in so-called scientific facts.

reply

[–] i_am_jokerman 13 years ago

The scientific case for evolution is extremely strong. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be the virtually unanimous acceptance of it that there is among the relevant scientists. In fact, evolution's case is so good that you've got some hardcore young earth creationists like Todd Wood saying stuff like this:

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

Wood is a YEC because of faith.

reply

[–] caiazzo65 13 years ago

Hi,

Actually the case for micro-evolution is strong, and also from BC times.

However the case for macro-evolution (one species into another) is pretty bad.

Check it out, objectively.

reply

[–] i_am_jokerman 13 years ago

I have checked it out, objectively. Common descent is considered a fact in the biological sciences. Even igoring the nested hiearchy of morphological characteristics, transitional fossils, vestigial structures, biochemical and genetic evidence of common ancestry and lots more, how can the case for "macroevolution" - if you're defining it as one species into another - be bad if we've actually witnessed speciation?

reply

[–] caiazzo65 13 years ago

I'll take your word on your being objective, ultimately what that means is determined by you, you must really only satisfy yourself. But what does it take to satisfy you? What's "good enough" reasoning for you?

Common decent is indeed considered a fact by those initiated into the new religion called the Cult of Science.

But that doesn't make it right. In fact much of what is wrong with science is due to myths it spins regarding, oh, calories, vitamins, the deterioration rate of carbon, the assumption of a constant atmospheric content, the amount of bodies in the universe...what is healthy, etc.

There's real science as there is real religion. And there is sham science, as much as sham religion. If really interested check out truthopia.wordpress.com is my personal blog/research diary. I have covered this in some detail.

The case for macro-evolution, in fact the whole scientific understanding from "Big Bang" (I still laugh every time I hear it) is laughable to me. What a story! Rock from nowhere breaks up (with no inherent plan!) and forms the heavens and everything in it in precise detail. Then, from inanimate life (mud), somehow by accident (again, no plan), this non-living matter produces a heartbeat, a mitosis, a movement in the prior dead thing. Pretty religious thinking, eh? Then, again somehow (and still...with no plan), everything in the desert becomes divided into mud that stayed mud, mud that goes on to become beaded lizards, mud that goes on to become cacti, mud that goes on to become scorpions, and their common ancestor is, what...the protoplasm? The slime?

In the case of the salamanders and ligers which you are thinking have us witnessing new species come to be (not) are based on mistakes in the scientific classification system itself, you know, "Kingdom" to "Species"...oh and sub-species, and variants not initially considered by Aristotle OR Linnaeus. If indeed the tiger and lion can breed, then they are related as any species and mere variants of the same species, evidence of only micro-evolution and mutation, or a species' natural inclination to better itself. This idea is as old as Anaxagoras. If a salamander of the dark can still breed with a salamander of the light (hmmm...interesting...) they are variants of the same species. And IF THEY DO NOT breed, you must first check whether one is defective...a freak if you will (like hybrid vegetables), that would die off in short work, or see its line revert to the parentage.

Expand your research to include an examination of the tools that scientists use themselves. How DO you know a prescription drug just invented last year is safe for humans---10 years down the road? It hasn't been tested in any human for so long. They rely on sped-up lifetimes by zapping generations of rats, mice, monkeys, chickens, and all that, to try to replicate an entire human life. In fact REAL research on a new drug SHOULD extend beyond one generation. Real computers should be mistake-free, real doctors should heed Hippocrates (nose job, anyone?), and scientists should stop spewing their HG Wells fairy tales as if they are scientific fact. DO you know the scientific estimates for the age of the universe vary by billions, sometimes trillions of years? Or better, ask them how many stars there are. My friend, science doesn't even know if the sun, our sun, is hot. How could they?

Prolly said too much for one post. Just realize how much faith you still continue to exercise, and the object of that faith, The Church of Science and its beliefs. You can do better than the fairy tales of white-collar mental masturbators.

You can email me [email protected] if you want to take it off thread. Hope to hear from you again.

reply

[–] i_am_jokerman 13 years ago

Common decent is indeed considered a fact by those initiated into the new religion called the Cult of Science.

But that doesn't make it right. In fact much of what is wrong with science is due to myths it spins regarding, oh, calories, vitamins, the deterioration rate of carbon, the assumption of a constant atmospheric content, the amount of bodies in the universe...what is healthy, etc.

There's real science as there is real religion. And there is sham science, as much as sham religion. If really interested check out truthopia.wordpress.com is my personal blog/research diary. I have covered this in some detail.

How do you tell "sham" science from "real" science, and how are you qualified to make the distinction?

The case for macro-evolution, in fact the whole scientific understanding from "Big Bang" (I still laugh every time I hear it) is laughable to me. What a story! Rock from nowhere breaks up (with no inherent plan!) and forms the heavens and everything in it in precise detail. Then, from inanimate life (mud), somehow by accident (again, no plan), this non-living matter produces a heartbeat, a mitosis, a movement in the prior dead thing. Pretty religious thinking, eh? Then, again somehow (and still...with no plan), everything in the desert becomes divided into mud that stayed mud, mud that goes on to become beaded lizards, mud that goes on to become cacti, mud that goes on to become scorpions, and their common ancestor is, what...the protoplasm? The slime?

None of this bizarre screed has to do with evolution. If you're being serious here then you don't even know the first thing about it.

In the case of the salamanders and ligers which you are thinking have us witnessing new species come to be (not) are based on mistakes in the scientific classification system itself, you know, "Kingdom" to "Species"...oh and sub-species, and variants not initially considered by Aristotle OR Linnaeus. If indeed the tiger and lion can breed, then they are related as any species and mere variants of the same species, evidence of only micro-evolution and mutation, or a species' natural inclination to better itself. This idea is as old as Anaxagoras. If a salamander of the dark can still breed with a salamander of the light (hmmm...interesting...) they are variants of the same species. And IF THEY DO NOT breed, you must first check whether one is defective...a freak if you will (like hybrid vegetables), that would die off in short work, or see its line revert to the parentage.

I wasn't thinking of salamanders or ligers.

Expand your research to include an examination of the tools that scientists use themselves. How DO you know a prescription drug just invented last year is safe for humans---10 years down the road? It hasn't been tested in any human for so long. They rely on sped-up lifetimes by zapping generations of rats, mice, monkeys, chickens, and all that, to try to replicate an entire human life. In fact REAL research on a new drug SHOULD extend beyond one generation. Real computers should be mistake-free, real doctors should heed Hippocrates (nose job, anyone?), and scientists should stop spewing their HG Wells fairy tales as if they are scientific fact. DO you know the scientific estimates for the age of the universe vary by billions, sometimes trillions of years? Or better, ask them how many stars there are. My friend, science doesn't even know if the sun, our sun, is hot. How could they?

None of this has to do with evolution. Btw, the estimates of the universe's age converge on about 14 billion, they don't vary by 'trillions'. We don't know if the sun is hot? I think you've gone clean off the deep end.

reply

[–] caiazzo65 13 years ago

Typical.

Arrogant, loaded with ad hominems, complete lack of addressing the point, calim your opponent is stupid or that he/she doesn't "understand" evolution. This tack is used time and again by the mesmerized children of Darwin and the other intellectual cripples who have really devolved man, imagine that. But how can I refute your claim that I "know not" without sounding like a braggart?

I understand Evolution alright. Studied it for many years, still try to keep up on the madness, but you know, it's like a movie that never ends...

I understand it is a doctrine for fools and loony birds, put it that way. If you believe it, you are a fool who believes the worst myth ever conjured up in the history of fairy tales. It leaves man no dignity whatsoever.

You have aligned your belief system with a pragmatic system, Mr. Jokerman, meaning your belief system is pragmatic. You cannot then use theoretical science as a basis for your pragmatic outlook. THERE IS NO PROOF for any of the claims of macro-evolution. This started this discussion...and you have yet to provide any proof for it.

reply

[–] bpierce 13 years ago

+++++++++++
Arrogant, loaded with ad hominems, complete lack of addressing the point, calim your opponent is stupid or that he/she doesn't "understand" evolution. This tack is used time and again by the mesmerized children of Darwin and the other intellectual cripples who have really devolved man, imagine that. But how can I refute your claim that I "know not" without sounding like a braggart?
++++++++++++

Well, you could demonstrate that you actually understand the science behind evolution, rather than simply repeating Creationist strawman arguments--which is what you've been doing up until now. Memorizing Creationist arguments against evolution is not the same thing as studying and understanding evolution.

Case in point:

You claim that there is absolutely "zero evidence" for "macroevolution." Now, according to the conventional definition of the word--genetic variation at or above the species level--macroevolution is an observed and documented fact. In fact, we've observed genetic variation, not merely at the species level, but at the genus and even the family level.

The standard Creationist response is, "That's not what we mean when we say macroevolution!"

Well and good. So please define "macroevolution" for us. What would need to be observed before you would consider it "macroevolution?"

+++++++++++++++++
I understand it is a doctrine for fools and loony birds, put it that way. If you believe it, you are a fool who believes the worst myth ever conjured up in the history of fairy tales. It leaves man no dignity whatsoever.
+++++++++++++++++

You might also want to refrain from predicating your arguments on "It's just stupid!" You especially might want to do this if you don't want to look like a hypocrite when you then turn around and complain about how "evolutionists" constantly resort to ad hom.

++++++++++++++++++
THERE IS NO PROOF for any of the claims of macro-evolution. This started this discussion...and you have yet to provide any proof for it.
++++++++++++++++++

...because Creationists refuse to commit to a clear and testable definition of "macro-evolution."

reply

[–] caiazzo65 13 years ago

Oh look, another parrot pseudo-intellectual has fell off his perch.

Darwin contributed nothing original to science.

Explain to me why I need to demonstrate what I know to you? In other words, who the *beep* are you? What is it that YOU know, other than of course what you've parroted? Regardless, I wouldn't ask you for credentials, on a movie website, don't condescend in your argument. But that is par for the course for the Church of Evolution and the Primordial Slime, isn't it? Peer review has done enough damage has it not?

re.
"...repeating Creationist strawman arguments--which is what you've been doing up until now. Memorizing Creationist arguments against evolution is not the same thing as studying and understanding evolution."

Gee, thanks for following, but do you even know what a strawman argument is, parrot? Have I memorized someone's arguments, or does what I have said come from careful research and reasoning? You are angry because you know your science is *beep* plain and simple, and you know very well it's not even good myth. Go do some reading, maybe look at the pictures of oh, 7 or 8 juvenile gibbons and other primates that that Leakey Incorporated claim are your "ancestor" and that you are too stupid to even consider questioning.

re.
"You might also want to refrain from predicating your arguments on "It's just stupid!" You especially might want to do this if you don't want to look like a hypocrite when you then turn around and complain about how "evolutionists" constantly resort to ad hom."

There you go again with your advice. Whether in a seminar or online, I'd tell you what you can do with it. Again it is par for the course for you yaps, to put on the authority charade to prop up your silly theses. And clearly, you have no idea what even an ad hominem argument is. You are looking for a different logical fallacy, try Aristotle. Sometimes things are just stupid, you know, like carbon dating, and the red shift as a measure of distance. Speaking or writing in this way, on a subject like this, is really the only way to break through the hypnosis-stricken students of hogwash, you know, like you.

But I understand why a person could get upset when you ridicule their (science) church and (nonexistent) god.

Have a nice life. Lives are very short, you know.

reply

[–] bpierce 13 years ago

+++++++++++
Oh look, another parrot pseudo-intellectual has fell off his perch.
+++++++++++

Pot, meet kettle.

++++++++++++
Explain to me why I need to demonstrate what I know to you?
++++++++++++

Oh, I'm sorry--when you said:

"But how can I refute your claim that I "know not" without sounding like a braggart?"

...I mistook that for a sincere question. My mistake.

+++++++++++++
In other words, who the *beep* are you? What is it that YOU know, other than of course what you've parroted?
+++++++++++++

Well, let's see. I can discuss evolution from the perspective of physical anthropology with some authority. I can discuss it with reasonable confidence in the areas of genetics and biology. I can also discuss Biblical exegesis with fair confidence in the area of Hebrew, though a bit less confidence when it comes to Koine Greek. I'm thoroughly conversant with the history of both the Creationist and Intelligent Design movements.

Now, care to actually discuss any of those, or are you content to cling to "I KNOW evolution is stupid lies and I don't have to prove it?"

++++++++++++++
Gee, thanks for following, but do you even know what a strawman argument is, parrot? Have I memorized someone's arguments, or does what I have said come from careful research and reasoning?
++++++++++++++

You've given no indication that that's the case--and, given that when asked to do so, you resorted to the same kind of namecalling and insults you previously whined about, I see no reason to give you the benefit of the doubt.

+++++++++++++++
You are angry because you know your science is *beep* plain and simple, and you know very well it's not even good myth.
+++++++++++++++

"It's just stupid! It IS so because I SAY so!" Yessir, that's some mighty fine research and reasoning you've got there!

As for "angry"...well, I'll leave it up to others to determine which of us sounds angry. "Mildly amused" would better describe my mindset when confronted with yet another diatribe like yours.

++++++++++++++++
And clearly, you have no idea what even an ad hominem argument is. You are looking for a different logical fallacy, try Aristotle. Sometimes things are just stupid, you know, like carbon dating, and the red shift as a measure of distance.
+++++++++++++++++

Riiiight. So your defense is "It's not ad hom when I attack a person because my attacks are all TRUE!"

++++++++++++++++++
Speaking or writing in this way, on a subject like this, is really the only way to break through the hypnosis-stricken students of hogwash, you know, like you.
++++++++++++++++++

...because, of course, telling someone their ideas are stupid and then refusing to explain why does just a DANDY job of convincing them that you're right. You must be a hoot in formal debate settings!

And I notice that you're going out of your way to confirm my characterization of your argument as "It's just stupid, and I don't have to explain why!" Thank you!

How very, tediously predictable. I've met Creationists who could actually debate, and I have a good bit of respect for them. I've also met a lot who couldn't get beyond bare assertion and got abusive when challenged to do so.

I leave it up to you to determine which category better suits you.

reply

[–] caiazzo65 13 years ago

I see from my mail you have responded, in however way, so I will consider this an offer to continue the "discussion", despite my second thoughts on the matter. As for my presentation (reason for which you have ignored, again typical of selective quotation to prove a thesis)...When you condescend, or attempt to diagnose a man's opinions by his station in life, or tell him what to say and how to say it, or judge someone by their degrees (I have several), you deserve to be insulted. Normally we only do this when we are talked down to, like you and those of your mindset. You have already decided on the matter with no door open, like most Evolutionists. Frigid in fact, and so anti-science.

Neither will I read off for you my areas of expertise because, like I said, I don't want to sound like I am bragging, as you have attempted to do for yourself. I have learned as much from "laymen" as I have from books and Professors. The arguments should stand or fall on their own merits. I own several websites, have several degrees, and my name is available on the internet. In fact the only way Evolutionists can even argue with me is to attack my protocol.

Also, had you read the thread better than I hope you read your textbooks, you would see I am not a typical Creationist. My argument is merely that Creationism makes more sense than Evolution, so far as the establishment of man, and indeed, new species, are concerned. Who did the creating, when and why, I have no clue. But I have respect for it, and I am convinced by matters and events I need not explain to you. You must educate yourself, and sometimes that means actually checking things out you might not like.

Again, nobody cares moths change color, or that viruses adapt. You can call this Evolution if you want, but we both know this is more properly called "micro-evolution", regardless of who coined the term. No new species is produced from hybrid corn with meat DNA, or when moths change color any more than a mulatto is a different species of human, or a man with an extra digit having his own species name. No, what 75% of scientists and less than 20% of lay people believe as Evolution means MACRO Evolution, you know, the reason the half-wit Darwin wrote his boring ass book, and which was hailed by ignorant atheists (I know...I was one...) as an alternative to Creation. You know, THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. Which species has Evolution in the large so far seen produced? You guys are a riot. When we question Evolution, you say it is "undeniable", meaning simple growth and mutation of genes. This had been known since Aristotle and probably before. Read Lamarck for instance, a much better writer and with much more interesting ideas.

Again, I don't try to convince you, probably that cause is lost. I just tire of you people speaking in public forums as if you are talking about the Truth, when your scenarios for the Origin of Life and Origin of Man are laughable fairy tales. AT least Creation allots a man dignity and free will to decide for himself.

Now if you are sincere abut learning, I can give you reasons and sources for all my views, But if you jerk my chain, you will get bit, guaranteed. I have no axe to grind, and if I thought (macro) Evolution true, I would admit it.

Don't pigeon-hole people, bunky. You have no idea what you're up against. :)

reply

[–] bpierce 13 years ago

+++++++++++++
When you condescend, or attempt to diagnose a man's opinions by his station in life, or tell him what to say and how to say it, or judge someone by their degrees (I have several), you deserve to be insulted.
+++++++++++++

...and yet you're baffled as to why the mean old evolutionists use ad hominem attacks against you.

++++++++++++++
You have already decided on the matter with no door open, like most Evolutionists.
++++++++++++++

What a fascinating sweeping generalization. So tell me: what, precisely, have I "decided?"

+++++++++++++++
Neither will I read off for you my areas of expertise because, like I said, I don't want to sound like I am bragging...I own several websites, have several degrees, and my name is available on the internet. In fact the only way Evolutionists can even argue with me is to attack my protocol.
++++++++++++++++

You're right; it DOES sound like you're bragging. Now, there's a difference between us: I listed the areas in which I'm able and willing to debate. Those are claims I can back up. You boast of "owning websites" and "having several degrees"--neither of which mean anything in this context, and neither of which you can back up.

+++++++++++++++++
Also, had you read the thread better than I hope you read your textbooks...
+++++++++++++++++

You managed to get lost in the syntax of that sentence. You hope I read my texbooks poorly? I think the word you were groping for there was "fear," not "hope."

++++++++++++++++++
...you would see I am not a typical Creationist.
++++++++++++++++++

I saw that you SAY you're not. I also see that you're making the same poor arguments and unsubstantiated assertions as a typical Creationist. So what makes you atypical? The fact that you accept evolution-as-adaptation? That's typical Creationism nowadays.

+++++++++++++++++++
My argument is merely that Creationism makes more sense than Evolution, so far as the establishment of man, and indeed, new species, are concerned.
+++++++++++++++++++

...so you reject universal common descent. Again, that's typical Creationism nowadays. How are you atypical?

++++++++++++++++++++
Who did the creating, when and why, I have no clue. But I have respect for it, and I am convinced by matters and events I need not explain to you.
++++++++++++++++++++

...so you're content to make claims and then not provide evidence. Again, how are you atypical?

+++++++++++++++++++++
You must educate yourself, and sometimes that means actually checking things out you might not like.
+++++++++++++++++++++

I've spent twenty years studying both evolution and Creationism. Can you honestly say the same?

++++++++++++++++++++++
Again, nobody cares moths change color, or that viruses adapt. You can call this Evolution if you want, but we both know this is more properly called "micro-evolution", regardless of who coined the term.
+++++++++++++++++++++++

...aaaand there it is! Somehow, I knew you'd bring up "micro-evolution." So, again, please DO give us the benefit of your vast experience and define "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution."

++++++++++++++++++++++++
No new species is produced from hybrid corn with meat DNA, or when moths change color any more than a mulatto is a different species of human, or a man with an extra digit having his own species name
++++++++++++++++++++++++

Again, from Creation Ministries International's "Arguments That Should NEVER Be Used":

"‘No new species have been produced.’ This is not true—new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the ‘kind’, and involves no new genetic information."

...so, again, you're using arguments that even CREATIONISTS reject as fallacious and without merit.

+++++++++++++++
No, what 75% of scientists and less than 20% of lay people believe as Evolution means MACRO Evolution...
+++++++++++++++

...which I'm sure you'll define for us any minute now, right?

++++++++++++++++
When we question Evolution, you say it is "undeniable"...
++++++++++++++++

"Question evolution?" When have you "questioned" it? You've declared that it's entirely false and stupid and evil (without any substantiation whatsoever). No questions were involved.

Oh, incidentally--I find it sort of amusing that you accuse others of treating evolution as a religion, and then capitalize it as if it were a divinity.

+++++++++++++++++
...meaning simple growth and mutation of genes. This had been known since Aristotle and probably before.
+++++++++++++++++

Really? Aristotle knew about mutation of genes? News to me.

++++++++++++++++++
Read Lamarck for instance, a much better writer and with much more interesting ideas.
++++++++++++++++++

Embracing Lamarck is also pretty typical of Creationists. What ideas do you not share with them, again? You may not be a CHRISTIAN Creationist, but so far, you seem to be pretty darned typical of Creationists in general.

+++++++++++++++++++
AT least Creation allots a man dignity and free will to decide for himself.
+++++++++++++++++++

...which has nothing to do with whether evolution took place or not.

+++++++++++++++++++
Now if you are sincere abut learning, I can give you reasons and sources for all my views...
+++++++++++++++++++

By all means, please do so.

++++++++++++++++++++
...But if you jerk my chain, you will get bit, guaranteed.
++++++++++++++++++++

By all means, please do so.

+++++++++++++++++++++
Don't pigeon-hole people, bunky. You have no idea what you're up against. :)
+++++++++++++++++++++

Oh, I think I have a pretty good idea.

reply

[–] caiazzo65 13 years ago

Stop cherry-picking Peirce; to me you will be Peirce. For you, consider it a compliment. Stop glossing over what is important. Again, typical for your ilk.

I am not baffled as to why ad hominem, or other less known logical fallacies are used. Desperate people do desperate things. They don't bother me anyway. Condescension and assumption bother me. So, if you begin your discussion with "you don't know what Evolution is" (it being capitalized because, well, it is a religion...), you should expect an insult in kind. Don't play stupid, just like when you yaps want to say Evolution is just special change.

Define macro-evolution? The belief that new species arise out of prior species. Maybe you missed it, so I will recap (you read like *beep* Darwin's book is called (briefly) the Origin of Species, not the Origin of Change. Any idiot knows individuals go through change. This is easy to prove. Saying new species come into being in this way is the real claim, which you like many Evolutionists (blessed be) claim need not be the case for "Evolution" to occur. Clearly then you are not talking about Darwin's idea of Evolution, you know, what caused all the fuss. You are talking about stuff already known in BC times.

Embracing Lamarck is typical of Creationists? So what. You know, me and the typical Creationists...we are of the same species, just of different colors (a clue for you).

"+++++++++++++++++++
AT least Creation allots a man dignity and free will to decide for himself.
+++++++++++++++++++

...which has nothing to do with whether evolution took place or not."

Clearly it does. We have a penchant to morality (or ability to reject same) which is not a product of our biological makeup. You can't just discard essential human elements to make your theory stick.

Oh I'm long past discussing Evolution or questioning it, I know it's horse crap. Maybe you glossed over when I told you I once embraced the nonsense. But this doesn't count for you.

Now if you are clearly eager to learn, I suggest you take my advice last time. Realize over 90% of what you know is wrong. Then when you are ready to make that assumption, I will assign you some reading. In it you will learn that not only Evolution, but also the Big Bang, and possibly the existence of other galaxies are pure fictions. Not a thing of use has come from all the video game toys being used either. Just boys playing with toys an calling it work, never producing a thing of real use, or any boost to man's predicament on this planet. Just sterile nonsense that attempts to justify atheism and agnosticism.

And you really do have no idea.

reply

[–] caiazzo65 13 years ago

re. Credentials (yours), to wit:

"Well, let's see. [1]I can discuss evolution from the perspective of physical anthropology with some authority. [1a]I can discuss it with reasonable confidence in the areas of genetics and biology. [2]I can also discuss Biblical exegesis with fair confidence in the area of Hebrew, [2a]though a bit less confidence when it comes to Koine Greek. [3] I'm thoroughly conversant with the history of both the Creationist and Intelligent Design movements."

1. You cannot discuss it. Clearly You can only parrot what you have been told. I will not ASK about a degree in physical anthropology (any other kind being merely a neologism of course...a victim of the subdividing of the sciences) because for me it doesn't matter. But for some it might...

1a. Says who? From whence do you derive said authority> Demonstration (holding my breath...)?

2. Interesting, an "almost expert" in (2a) "Koine" Greek (LOL...you must subscribe to MacMillan's new releases) AND (2) Hebrew, with an emphasis on Biblical texts (which may yet be Sumerian or Egyptian...perhaps even Hittite or Caucasian [Scythian?]) texts. Great, I am right now studying ancient inscriptions on one of my websites. Maybe I can use you as a translator? I really do want to argue about the words we have translated from the Hebrew...without vowels, without, often, any comparison. You know, like how we erroneously translate the word "heaven" when it should PROPERLY be "sky".

3. And so is my friend Jimmy every time he has a few beers. Or of course thinks he is.

But because you at least have staying power I will say this once and once only. I am a student of the Origin of Man. I am a trained ancient philosopher with a minor specialty in existentialism. I have traveled most of the world and delivered papers in a couple. As a hobby and for the benefit of my children, I run the website truthopia.wordpress.com but even doing this I feel like I am advertising, which I don't want or need, I get hundreds of hits not trying to get them. To me credentials do not impress, truth does.

I left a very good situation in a University because of the mindset of professionals I have met there. Because of how I know people prosper by jumping on bandwagons, and how new ideas suffer because of old gasbags who don't know their asses from their elbows. Additionally I am well-read and competent in (corresponding to your #3, above) all the subsidiaries of philosophy, the prodigals sons - anthropology, archaeology, sociology, psychology, etc., as well as the religions of the world and most of the extant sacred books. I am into everything ancient because I have no doubt God created the world and everything in it. But that doesn't mean I am not curious about who the first men really were.

SO there you are Peirce. Seems I had to disagree with another Peirce once in Grad school. Hey! Maybe you are KIN to that pragmatist.

Hey, whatever works. Just don't call it Truth.

reply

[–] bpierce 13 years ago

++++++++++++
1. You cannot discuss it. Clearly You can only parrot what you have been told.
++++++++++++

...says the person who has yet to advance a single original argument, or a single argument of ANY kind with any evidence. So your rebuttal to my claim that I can discuss the subject is "Nuh uh, you can't, 'cause I SAY so!" Duly noted.

+++++++++++++
I will not ASK about a degree in physical anthropology...
+++++++++++++

Naturally not; you don't ask much of anything. Instead, you make (wildly incorrect) proclamations.

++++++++++++++
Says who? From whence do you derive said authority? Demonstration (holding my breath...)?
++++++++++++++

How very interesting that I say I can discuss it with reasonable confidence and you read that as "authority." Now, an authoritarian mindset tends to be a hallmark of Creationism...but, of course, you say you're not a typical Creationist.

Who said anything about "authority?" I said I can discuss the subject with reasonable confidence. What would you like to discuss? The evidence for centric fusion translocations and their significance in human evolution? The potential evolutionary advantages of homochiral clusters over racemic clusters?
Something else?

++++++++++++++
2. Interesting, an "almost expert" in (2a) "Koine" Greek (LOL...you must subscribe to MacMillan's new releases) AND (2) Hebrew, with an emphasis on Biblical texts (which may yet be Sumerian or Egyptian...perhaps even Hittite or Caucasian [Scythian?]) texts. Great, I am right now studying ancient inscriptions on one of my websites. Maybe I can use you as a translator? I really do want to argue about the words we have translated from the Hebrew...without vowels, without, often, any comparison. You know, like how we erroneously translate the word "heaven" when it should PROPERLY be "sky".
+++++++++++++++

Oh, heck, let's not even go that far. Let's start with the word "raqiya" and the issues surrounding different translations of THAT word.

Also note that I never claimed to be an "almost expert" in Koine OR Hebrew--I said I can discuss Hebrew with fair confidence and Greek with less confidence.

++++++++++++++
3. And so is my friend Jimmy every time he has a few beers. Or of course thinks he is.
++++++++++++++

Good for your friend Jimmy.

+++++++++++++++
I am a student of the Origin of Man. I am a trained ancient philosopher with a minor specialty in existentialism.
+++++++++++++++

Ah, a philosophy major. Yeah, I knew a few of those in college. They were all very impressed with themselves, too.

++++++++++++++++
I have traveled most of the world and delivered papers in a couple.
++++++++++++++++

A couple of what? A couple of worlds?

+++++++++++++++++
As a hobby and for the benefit of my children, I run the website truthopia.wordpress.com but even doing this I feel like I am advertising, which I don't want or need, I get hundreds of hits not trying to get them. To me credentials do not impress, truth does.
+++++++++++++++++

You're right--your credentials don't impress. You're "a student of the Origin of Man" who runs a vanity blog with "hundreds of hits." I have students who can make more impressive claims than that.

(Oh, and incidentally--Von Daniken? Really? Seriously? "Chariots" was an amusing read, but c'mon.)

++++++++++++++++++
I am into everything ancient because I have no doubt God created the world and everything in it.
++++++++++++++++++

So much for your claim two posts ago: "Who did the creating, when and why, I have no clue."

++++++++++++++++++
SO there you are Peirce. Seems I had to disagree with another Peirce once in Grad school. Hey! Maybe you are KIN to that pragmatist.
++++++++++++++++++

You keep using the word "pragmatist" as if it were an insult. Do you understand what it means? And if his name was "Peirce," I kinda doubt I'm related to him, seeing as mine's "Pierce."

++++++++++++++++++
Hey, whatever works. Just don't call it Truth.
++++++++++++++++++

No, claiming a monopoly on capital-T Truth is much more the territory of Creationists.

So: are you going to actually debate, or are you going to continue to brag and say "Evolution is wrong, it's just obvious?"

Heck, if you like we can even discuss some of the claims you make on your blog. I'm only about halfway through your archives at the moment; I find your argument for the persistence of the trinity image interesting, but I'm a bit surprised that you don't seem to take into account the role geometry likely plays in recursive sacred numbers like three and seven.

However, I'd really love to hear your evidences for declaring that "macro-evolution" is wrong--starting with a clear definition of what you MEAN when you say "macro-evolution."

I'll be here when you make up your mind.

reply

[–] caiazzo65 13 years ago

re.:
"...says the person who has yet to advance a single original argument, or a single argument of ANY kind with any evidence. So your rebuttal to my claim that I can discuss the subject is "Nuh uh, you can't, 'cause I SAY so!" Duly noted."

You guys are experts at half-truths, really I think "liars" is the correct word. I have advanced several arguments, you have entertained not one. I take this as being because you have no answer, just as you have no missing link, and never will have one.

re.:
"I will not ASK about a degree in physical anthropology...
+++++++++++++

Naturally not; you don't ask much of anything. Instead, you make (wildly incorrect) proclamations.

Why the ellipses? Habit? What about the rest of that sentence? In other words, I won't question the truth of your credentials. But as I said, I don't give two *beep* about them. It doesn't matter to me.

re.:
"How very interesting that I say I can discuss it with reasonable confidence and you read that as "authority." Now, an authoritarian mindset tends to be a hallmark of Creationism...but, of course, you say you're not a typical Creationist."

Really, I may be of authoritarian mindset. What would be the opposite? Don't misread what I wrote. I can have stuff in common with Creationists and do, without being typical. Talk about the STRAW MAN, maybe you don't have a brain, Dorothy?

"Who said anything about "authority?" I said I can discuss the subject with reasonable confidence. What would you like to discuss? The evidence for centric fusion translocations and their significance in human evolution? The potential evolutionary advantages of homochiral clusters over racemic clusters?
Something else?"

Well shucks them I can discuss NEARLY ANYTHING with "reasonable confidence". So you are expert in absolutely nothing. LOL "centric fusion translocations"? homochiral clusters? racemic? Just listen to the specialized language, by virtue of which you consider yourself educated. You should really be ashamed, you pissants don't even know what gravity is, you just renamed Atlas, and call it advance. You don't date what you find, you date the rocks. Tell the people the truth. Tell them where the chimp Lucy's remains came from. Let the people see the whole studies, not the nice neat conclusions you have memorized in their stead.

re.:
"I have traveled most of the world and delivered papers in a couple.
++++++++++++++++

A couple of what? A couple of worlds? "

I think you know what I mean, and why I said it despite why I told you I didn't want to. If you want to just play, come on over I;'ll kick your ass at pool while I school you in science too. Again, you bring this on yourself.

Here now, a typical example, and why I am nearly sure now that you are just a typical arrogant, self-absorbed, probably atheistic clown who worships at the altar of Evolutionism, and who probably has photos of Carl Sagan and that fairy-tale telling cripple around your Wal-Mart desk. But first to this:
"Ah, a philosophy major. Yeah, I knew a few of those in college. They were all very impressed with themselves, too." Nice sweeping generalization. But an insult was expected. Really though you should be impressed. You are getting thrashed by a mere "philosophy major" (and make that teacher...there, feel better about yourself?) Anyway-to the expected insults USED EVERY TIME AN EVOLUTIONIST GETS STUCK:

Re:
"To me credentials do not impress, truth does.
+++++++++++++++++
You're right--your credentials don't impress. You're "a student of the Origin of Man" who runs a vanity blog with "hundreds of hits." I have students who can make more impressive claims than that."

A VANITY blog? LOL it doesn't always bring me pleasure, I can tell you that, and surely it doesn't make me any money. I told you what it is for, to help my college-age children see perspectives other than those shoved down their throats. If 3 degrees, 2 advanced, numerous publications, lectures abroad, and first hand experience with matters of ancient concern (just for starters...) don't impress you, why ask about them. I could lie and say I am a trained anthropologist. You would believe it too. Would that alone satisfy you, Bunky the Lapdog Peirce? What are you trying to prove? Why not give me the proofs I have asked for since I joined this thread, instead of just trying to kill the messenger because you have no recourse? Once again:

1. Where is the missing link?
2. Where did the FIRST species come from?
3. Which animal "in transition" have we evidence for?
4. Why did Darwin question his own thesis when he got ready to die?
5. Why are different colored moths, or mutated viruses proof of MACRO (special creation) Evolution?
6. What is believable about Evolution's fairy tale about the Origin of Man?
7. What is the evidence for the ages of the fossils you dig up?
etc.

(Oh, and incidentally--Von Daniken? Really? Seriously? "Chariots" was an amusing read, but c'mon.)

Coming back to him after many years because he relevant with what I am doing now. He predates much of Stitchin and several others. Really, if you want to think biologically strictly, Bunky, mull this one over in your pea brain. Man looks like a chimp, in a way, no? Now what would a chimp have to mate with to produce something like us? Anyway, I realize this is too much for you, darn near heresy probably. The answer is a creature higher than us. This is where extraterrestrial origins, "Sons of God", "Annunaki", and etc. come together to offer another explanation for Man's Origins.

So far you have attacked my grammar, my education, my interests, and my blog. All I have insulted is your religion Evolution, and manifestly therefore, your stupidity. But really I don't think you are stupid. I think you are brainwashed and need a cleansing. Chuck it all, and ask WHAT DO I KNOW FOR SURE?

I can help you Bunky Peirce, but you gotta wanna learn. Now being as it is my birthday today (46) let's continue...

re.:
'"I am into everything ancient because I have no doubt God created the world and everything in it.
++++++++++++++++++
So much for your claim two posts ago: "Who did the creating, when and why, I have no clue."'

I stand by both. There is no conflict. That you see one merits a thrashing from my whipping stick, grasshopper. It is no conclusion to say God created the world. This is a myth propagated by your kind, as if there was no science when science embraced the concept of God. Inquiry continues anyway, science continues, we still want to know how and why.

re.:
"You keep using the word "pragmatist" as if it were an insult. Do you understand what it means? And if his name was "Peirce," I kinda doubt I'm related to him, seeing as mine's "Pierce.""

You don't know Peirce! LOL. Then you don't really know pragmatism. It's not really an insult, it is what it is - useful. But not Truth. It is what works, the best we can do at the time. Again, you're Peirce to me until I say otherwise.

re.:
"No, claiming a monopoly on capital-T Truth is much more the territory of Creationists."
Wanting to know Truth with the capital (amazing you recognize what that is) is nothing less than the greatest aspiration a man can have in life. Once tasted, everything else can only compare. It is what drives even your idea of science, the problem is too often experiments are made to prove a thesis, rather than just doing the experiments and then drawing conclusions. Nobody has a monopoly on Truth, those some like to think they do.

For your reading today: Try Feyerabend, specifically his ideas about the nature of scientific revolutions. Read it? OK, try Thomas Kuhn. Not a big fan but either way you will understand: YOU are a victim of placing your belief in a dying theory known as Evolution. Soon, the many holes it has tried to patch up (as does the Big Bang, thereby changing the theory each time) will render it unsustainable, indeed to many in even in the fields of concern this is already the case, amazingly EVEN though they have a a hard time getting their views heard because of the current paradigm, Chairmen, Committees, and Editorships. These books can help you to understand that.

In science, when a theory is shown to be wrong on even one point that theory is no longer supposed to be valid. To get around this Evolutionists (and Big Bangers) introduce "factors" and specialized uses of mathematics or interpretation, special tools and formulas, and so change the theory, to account for the problems. Instead of just scrapping the Junk Heaps that are Evolution and its brother DA BANG, instead they keep trying to fix them. Each time it breaks down again. When is enough enough. Maybe we cannot prove God, but you can't even explain electricity, or gravity, or hairy men in hot climates, or why an animal would acquire the traits for wings, or language, or a sense of morality, or why a baby is born completely dependent, at odds with the rest of the animal kingdom. It's a joke really, this Evolution, for SO MANY reasons. Are none valid, to you? Good enough for you to at least DOUBT what you have been parroting for oh, I am guessing, the last 20 or so years? (and tick tick tick...)...

Finally:
"So: are you going to actually debate, or are you going to continue to brag and say "Evolution is wrong, it's just obvious?"

I think I'll brag, since you asked me to. I am obliging like that. But, just read..and reread. But don't lie to me, I have no time for games.

"Heck, if you like we can even discuss some of the claims you make on your blog. I'm only about halfway through your archives at the moment; I find your argument for the persistence of the trinity image interesting, but I'm a bit surprised that you don't seem to take into account the role geometry likely plays in recursive sacred numbers like three and seven."

My buddy does that, I'm not a number man. I'd prefer to discuss the blog there if you don't mind, but again, thanks for reading. All the more reason I should be charging you per word of education.

"However, I'd really love to hear your evidences for declaring that "macro-evolution" is wrong--starting with a clear definition of what you MEAN when you say "macro-evolution."

Yassah massah I give it to you boss, boss must read, boss must stop being *beep*

You have faith in a fairy tale. Just recognize it for what it is, of same kind as any religious faith: unquestioned, non-believers, merely infidels.

WAKE UP PEIRCE

reply

[–] bpierce 13 years ago

++++++++++
Why the ellipses? Habit? What about the rest of that sentence?
++++++++++

Well, to be honest, it wasn't particularly interesting.

+++++++++++
Really, I may be of authoritarian mindset.
+++++++++++

Big shocker there.

++++++++++++
What would be the opposite?
++++++++++++

Well, "rationalism" comes close.

++++++++++++
I can have stuff in common with Creationists and do, without being typical.
++++++++++++

Of course, we have yet to see a single way in which you're ATYPICAL.

++++++++++++
Talk about the STRAW MAN, maybe you don't have a brain, Dorothy?
++++++++++++

I see what you did there. 'Cause, see, the straw man was the Scarecrow, and, uhm...yeah.

+++++++++++++
Well shucks them I can discuss NEARLY ANYTHING with "reasonable confidence".
+++++++++++++

And somehow, I'm pretty sure you do, whether you know a blessed thing about it or not.

+++++++++++++
LOL "centric fusion translocations"? homochiral clusters? racemic? Just listen to the specialized language, by virtue of which you consider yourself educated.
+++++++++++++

You could just say "I don't have a clue what any of those are," you know.

+++++++++++++
You should really be ashamed, you pissants don't even know what gravity is, you just renamed Atlas, and call it advance.
+++++++++++++

...and now, you're repeating talking points from your earlier posts. An asinine claim doesn't become less asinine with repetition.

++++++++++++++
You don't date what you find, you date the rocks.
++++++++++++++

...says the man who thinks "carbon dating" is used to date fossils.

+++++++++++++++
Tell the people the truth. Tell them where the chimp Lucy's remains came from. Let the people see the whole studies, not the nice neat conclusions you have memorized in their stead.
+++++++++++++++

I'm almost afraid to ask where you think they came from. Given some of the other "theories" you're espousing, I half expect that you'll say they were planted by aliens.

Or are you going to repeat the old "Lucy's knee was found over a mile away from the rest of the skeleton!" chestnut?

++++++++++++++++
I think you know what I mean...
++++++++++++++++

Oh, sure I do--I just enjoy poking fun at someone who boasts about his writing credentials and can't even put together a coherent sentence.

++++++++++++++++
...and why I said it despite why I told you I didn't want to. If you want to just play, come on over I;'ll kick your ass at pool while I school you in science too. Again, you bring this on yourself.
++++++++++++++++

Bring WHAT on myself? Do you really, seriously think you're scoring points here? The pigeon has crapped on the board, knocked over the pieces, and is now boasting about how he defeated me at chess!

+++++++++++++++++
Here now, a typical example, and why I am nearly sure now that you are just a typical arrogant, self-absorbed, probably atheistic clown who worships at the altar of Evolutionism...
+++++++++++++++++

Blah, blah, blah. Wrong on most counts. You're right about the arrogance--but, of course, I can back up my arrogance, which is something you apparently can't do.

++++++++++++++++++
Nice sweeping generalization.
++++++++++++++++++

Given the number you've made, you should be an expert on the subject.

+++++++++++++++++++
But an insult was expected.
+++++++++++++++++++

An insult was deserved.

++++++++++++++++++++
Really though you should be impressed.
++++++++++++++++++++

When you have to tell other people that they should be impressed by you, it's a pretty good sign that you're not particularly impressive, Sparky.

++++++++++++++++++
You are getting thrashed by a mere "philosophy major"
++++++++++++++++++

...and when you need to tell your opponent that you're winning, it's a pretty good hint that you're not winning.

+++++++++++++++++++
(and make that teacher...there, feel better about yourself?)
+++++++++++++++++++

Well, pretty thankful that I don't have to suffer through one of your "classes." It's enough of a chore listening to your asinine bloviation for free; any student who PAID for it would be entitled to ask for a refund.

+++++++++++++++++++++
Anyway-to the expected insults USED EVERY TIME AN EVOLUTIONIST GETS STUCK:
+++++++++++++++++++++

You'd actually have to make a point in order for someone to get "stuck." "Hurr hurr hurr ebilution r teh stoopid" doesn't count.

+++++++++++++
A VANITY blog? LOL it doesn't always bring me pleasure, I can tell you that, and surely it doesn't make me any money.
+++++++++++++

Oh, I didn't think it did--hence "vanity blog." You DO like to hear yourself talk, that much is obvious.

++++++++++++++
If 3 degrees, 2 advanced, numerous publications, lectures abroad, and first hand experience with matters of ancient concern (just for starters...)
++++++++++++++

...but you don't like to brag, really, honest!

+++++++++++++++
...don't impress you, why ask about them. I could lie and say I am a trained anthropologist. You would believe it too.
+++++++++++++++

Why? I don't believe most of your other boasts.

++++++++++++++++
Would that alone satisfy you, Bunky the Lapdog Peirce?
++++++++++++++++

Now, I have to ask: are you DELIBERATELY misspelling my name at this point, because you think it's somehow clever and witty, or are you just such an incompetent speller that you can't get it right even after being corrected?

+++++++++++++++++
1. Where is the missing link?
+++++++++++++++++

"The missing link" is a term used by people who don't understand evolution and think that there's some magical single Bigfoot-like fossil that will prove evolution took place. We're filling in "missing links" all the time. Of course, every time we fill in a "missing link," th

++++++++++++
2. Where did the FIRST species come from?
++++++++++++

Almost certainly from a slightly-less-complex organic machine that didn't quite have all the characteristics of life. You DID know that life isn't an on/off switch, right? And that there are, in fact, "transitional forms" between non-living and living?

+++++++++++++
3. Which animal "in transition" have we evidence for?
+++++++++++++

All animals are in transition. What would you accept as valid evidence? (I don't expect you to actually answer that question--it's another one that Creationists avoid like the plague, because when they DO try to answer it, they invariably demand something that either exists and has been observed, or something that is impossible according to evolutionary theory. But, hey, prove me wrong!)

+++++++++++++
4. Why did Darwin question his own thesis when he got ready to die?
+++++++++++++

Scientists always question their own theses. The idea that a viewpoint is capital-T immutable Truth which may not be questioned is a hallmark of authoritarianism and Creationism.

++++++++++++++
5. Why are different colored moths, or mutated viruses proof of MACRO (special creation) Evolution?
++++++++++++++

Again, what do you mean by "macro-evolution," and why are you sticking "special creation" in the middle of it? Is that your definition of "macro-evolution?"

I can certainly give you examples of macro-evolution, but I have no doubt that you'll just say "That's not what I mean by macro-evolution!"

The fact that you make the typical, tedious Creationist excuses when asked to define "macro-evolution" simply confirms that suspicion.

+++++++++++++++++
Man looks like a chimp, in a way, no? Now what would a chimp have to mate with to produce something like us? Anyway, I realize this is too much for you, darn near heresy probably.
++++++++++++++++++

It's always funny when a Creationist comes up with a really idiotic question and imagines he's somehow brilliant and visionary and nobody's ever asked that idiotic question before.

The answer is that a chimp couldn't mate with ANYTHING and produce something like us. That's not how evolution WORKS, and that's the big problem Creationists have--they're trying to argue against something they don't understand.

You have this comic-book concept of evolution. Until you get rid of it, you'll continue to make a fool of yourself. Evolution isn't Transformers.

++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is a creature higher than us. This is where extraterrestrial origins, "Sons of God", "Annunaki", and etc. come together to offer another explanation for Man's Origins.
+++++++++++++++++++++

Oh, dear heaven, you're one of THOSE. So how long will it be before you tell me that the Ica Stones prove extraterrestrials visited Earth?

++++++++++++++++++++++
So far you have attacked my grammar, my education, my interests, and my blog.
++++++++++++++++++++++

...and your integrity, your pompous mannerisms, and your utter lack of anything resembling substance.

+++++++++++++++++++++++
I think you are brainwashed and need a cleansing. Chuck it all, and ask WHAT DO I KNOW FOR SURE?
++++++++++++++++++++++++

Naturally. Would-be Great Internet Visionaries ALWAYS think that. Naturally, they're the ones who see clearly, and everyone who disagrees is stupid and ignorant and brainwashed.

Puts you right up there with Gene Ray in my book.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
I stand by both. There is no conflict. That you see one merits a thrashing from my whipping stick, grasshopper.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Oh. Ow. Owie. Stop. The pain, the pain.

It is no conclusion to say God created the world. This is a myth propagated by your kind, as if there was no science when science embraced the concept of God. Inquiry continues anyway, science continues, we still want to know how and why.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++
LOL. Then you don't really know pragmatism.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well, yeah, I do, but given your performance to date, I really wasn't sure you did.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Again, you're Peirce to me until I say otherwise.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ah. You DO think it's clever and witty to misspell my name. Given that that's your standard of wit, I'm not surprised that you imagine you're "thrashing" me. No doubt, you'll follow it up with an utterly devastating knock-out punch like "You're a big stupid-head, neener neener neener!"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wanting to know Truth with the capital (amazing you recognize what that is) is nothing less than the greatest aspiration a man can have in life.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

...and believing that one DOES know capital-T Truth is the hallmark of pretentious twits with delusions of grandeur.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Once tasted, everything else can only compare.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

...by which, of course, you mean that you have "tasted" of capital-T Truth. See my above comment. And again, you're aiming and missing--the phrase you were groping for is "Nothing else can compare."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nobody has a monopoly on Truth, those some like to think they do.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yep. They're called "Creationists," and it's pretty clear that you're one of 'em.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Soon, the many holes it has tried to patch up (as does the Big Bang, thereby changing the theory each time) will render it unsustainable...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Creationists have been saying that for a hundred years now. Every time they say it, they suffer another humiliating setback. A hundred years ago, they banned the teaching of evolution in schools and said "Evolution is about to fall!" Twenty years ago, they demanded equal time for Creation Science and said "Evolution is about to fall!" Five years ago, they claimed that, okay, maybe Creationism isn't science, but Intelligent Design is...and said "Evolution is about to fall!"

Creationism has lost ground and lost ground and lost ground, and all the while, the Creationists keep swearing that they're winning the fight and "Evolution is about to fall!"

+++++++++++++++
In science, when a theory is shown to be wrong on even one point that theory is no longer supposed to be valid.
+++++++++++++++

...at which point it is revised. If you seriously think that the scientific method involves throwing out everything and starting from scratch every time, I'm glad you don't teach science.

++++++++++++++++
Maybe we cannot prove God, but you can't even explain electricity, or gravity, or hairy men in hot climates, or why an animal would acquire the traits for wings, or language, or a sense of morality, or why a baby is born completely dependent, at odds with the rest of the animal kingdom.
+++++++++++++++++

"Magnets, man, how do THEY work!?"

Jokes aside, there are explanations for most of those--it's just that Creationists don't bother to read them, because they've already decided it's all "Evolutionist lies."

+++++++++++++++++++
Are none valid, to you? Good enough for you to at least DOUBT what you have been parroting for oh, I am guessing, the last 20 or so years?
+++++++++++++++++++

Well, given that every single Creationist claim I've investigated in those last twenty years (not much of a "guess," given that I came out and TOLD you that's how long I've been studying the issue) has turned out to be simply, demonstrably false--no.

Provide me with a single credible, testable argument against evolution.

++++++++++++++
"So: are you going to actually debate, or are you going to continue to brag and say "Evolution is wrong, it's just obvious?"

I think I'll brag, since you asked me to.
++++++++++++++

Yeah, I kind of figured that. That, after all, is the ultimate hallmark of the typical Creationist--empty boasting and bare assertions, and NO interest in honest debate.

Thanks for confirming that you're a typical Creationist in all respects.

+++++++++++++++
Yassah massah I give it to you boss, boss must read, boss must stop being *beep*
+++++++++++++++

Translation: "No, of course I can't provide a firm definition of macro-evolution, so, just like ANY typical Creationist, I will prevaricate and make excuses."

Soo...since we've established that, let's go back to the original topic. Any Creationists with backbone out there? Any at all?

reply

[–] caiazzo65 13 years ago

Look here champ, I'm gonna have to let you go. Take your cherry-picking selective citation ass and OH SO TYPICAL Evolution yin-yang and find somebody you can really bully into buying the nonsense. You HEAR what you want to hear. You can't write, can't read, can't reason, and when you GET what you ask for, you say NEXT because your ass was handed to you. You want to instruct ME about Evolution, or Creation, or WRITING, or anything else? LOL what a friggin joke.

You clowns have been bullying Creationists for too long with your babble you like to call science, and wasting every penny of University and tax dollars going to your causes and producing jack *beep* of benefit to anyone. When given answers to the questions you propose, you pretend not to here them. When told facts, you make fun of them, and when asked questions you are unable to answer, you avoid them. Less than 25% of the population believes the crap, but you do. The elite assclowns.

As I say, I gotta let you go Bunky Peirce, the Evolution clown with the evolving belly and big red nose. Proof for evolution?

Go now, leave your mom's house, maybe find a girlfriend to get you off the internet. Like the rest of your geek nerd pals.

HAVE A NICE LIFE! You will find out the truth soon enough! LOL!

reply

[–] bpierce 13 years ago

++++++++++++
Look here champ, I'm gonna have to let you go.
++++++++++++

Translation: "Oh, crap! He actually wants to DEBATE! I'd better run away with my tail between my legs while claiming victory!"

+++++++++++++
Take your cherry-picking selective citation ass and OH SO TYPICAL Evolution yin-yang and find somebody you can really bully into buying the nonsense.
+++++++++++++

Translation: "DOUBLE crap! He wasn't impressed by my claims, he actually wants me to BACK UP what I say!"

++++++++++++++
You can't write, can't read, can't reason...
++++++++++++++

Translation: "Nuh-uh YOU'RE the one who can't write! I'm rubber, you're glue, neener neener neener!"

+++++++++++++++
You want to instruct ME about Evolution, or Creation, or WRITING, or anything else? LOL what a friggin joke.
+++++++++++++++

Well, no, I really don't--I like to instruct people who are actually willing to learn, not arrogant, pretentious bloggers who think they're the world's foremost authority on life, the universe, and everything.

Now, on the other hand, I DO want to use you as an example of typical Creationist tactics--empty boasting, insults, bare assertions, and an utter inability to engage in honest debate or admit to being wrong--and you've been very obliging in that respect. Thank you.

++++++++++++++++
When given answers to the questions you propose, you pretend not to here them.
When told facts, you make fun of them, and when asked questions you are unable to answer, you avoid them.
++++++++++++++++

This is what's called "projection." It's particularly egregious in this case--and I suspect deliberately so--given that our good buddy caiazzo, here, is guilty of every one of these in this very thread, whereas I am guilty of none of them. Creationists take malicious pleasure in accusing others of their own shortcomings.

Oh, and it's "hear," not "here."

+++++++++++++++++
Less than 25% of the population believes the crap, but you do.
+++++++++++++++++

Less than 25% of the population has actually studied evolution.

++++++++++++++++++
As I say, I gotta let you go Bunky Peirce, the Evolution clown with the evolving belly and big red nose.

Go now, leave your mom's house, maybe find a girlfriend to get you off the internet. Like the rest of your geek nerd pals.
++++++++++++++++++

Translation: "Yeah? Well, well, well, you're a big fat meanie stupid-head and I win, so NYEAH! And, and, and, you're a NERD! So there!"

All the debating acumen of a junior high student. And you're in your forties? At least a twelve-year-old has an excuse.

+++++++++++++++++++
HAVE A NICE LIFE! You will find out the truth soon enough! LOL!
+++++++++++++++++++

Buh-bye, now. Don't let the door hit you in the butt on your way out.

Now, where were we? Oh, right--any ACTUAL Creationists with backbone? Any who actually have the guts to debate?

reply

[–] Pope_Bucky 13 years ago

I loved it when he asked you to accept that 90% of what you've learned so far is crap! Only when you were ready for this would you be ready to learn from his expansive knowledge base.

Comedy gold!

Nope, he's not authoritarian at all.
Thank God I'm an atheist.

Be pompous, obese, and eat cactus.

reply

[–] bpierce 13 years ago

Yeah, I have to say, he was entertaining. He's also an interesting specimen of the "I'll believe anything just as long as it's not mainstream science" variety of Creationist. The strict Biblical Creationists tend to get all the press, but a sizable minority seem to fall into the "I believe in God, UFOs, pyramid power, and the end of the world in 2012, but I'm too smart to believe in evolution!" camp.

It's textbook anti-intellectualism, really. They WANT to be intellectual elitists, but they don't have the training or knowledge to actually do so. Rather than actually acquire that knowledge, they declare that it's invalid and that their ALTERNATE "knowledge"--which usually consists of a mish-mash of fringe beliefs and pseudoscience--is REAL knowledge, and it's just that those stupid old physicists and biologists and geneticists aren't brilliant enough to recognize it.

reply

[–] Pope_Bucky 13 years ago

As I read this thread, I kept expecting his next post to reference "The New Paradigm" by George Green.

http://www.alternativescentral.com/HndbkNewParad-MainPage.htm
http://www.projectcamelot.org/george_green.html

Fringe beliefs, indeed.
Thank God I'm an atheist.

Be pompous, obese, and eat cactus.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] knight-in-black-leather 14 years ago

And did you not notice my FIRST post in this thread?

It's a link to my post on the other thread where I stated your first point was a lie, so why should I engage you in a debate over a biased, self-serving, false article you found on the net??? The fact it 'answers' its own arguments is proof they know nothing about Creation or its proponents.

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] jthibs22 14 years ago

Ok since you have decided to give no intelligent opinion or point of view on the first two. Besides the fact you say it's a lie without giving any reason or explaining to me, such a lowly individual, the details as to why its a lie. How about the 3rd

reply

[–] knight-in-black-leather 14 years ago

Ok since you have decided to give no intelligent opinion or point of view on the first two. How about the 3rd

They are lies...I told you twenty times..what more do you want???

Since education is a process of learning all sides of an issue, it is appropriate for both creationism and evolution to be taught side-by-side in public school classrooms. Not to do so is a violation of the philosophy of education, and of the civil liberties of creationists. I.e., we have a "right" to be heard. Besides, what is the harm in hearing both sides?

This is only partly true. I understand the separation of church and state issue, and we must abide by the law. Teachers (unless it's a Christian school for example) cannot teach Biblical creation because it would violate the law.
They COULD teach students that there are scientists who hold different views on life, and give the pros/and cons for each of those arguments and then let the student decide for themself which is right.

What's wrong with that???

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] jthibs22 14 years ago

Did you even bother reading the rebuttal. Or is that your tactic. To pick out the few things you can argue about and then claim that the whole statement is a lie. Let me give you the Evolutioinists point of view again.

"Finally, there is considerable harm in teaching "creation-science" as science because it is an attack on all the sciences, not just evolutionary biology. If the universe and Earth are only about 10,000 years old, cosmology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, et al, would be invalidated. Creationism cannot even be partially correct. As soon as supernatural causation is allowed in the creation of even one species, they could all be created this way, and the assumption of natural laws in nature is voided and science becomes meaningless."

I do agree with you that Creationism could be taaught in classes of religion, history, or philosophy at a college leven. But it would be damageing to put it alongside actual scienc, calling it a science for the exact reasons above. Don't you understand that if any part of Creationism is correct that we basically as a scientific culture have to go back to the stone ages with virtually every other field of science. And you call that a lie. That is not being bias, that is fact.

reply

[–] knight-in-black-leather 14 years ago

You mean the biased rebuttal of a baseless claim based on lies from darwinists that answered their own 'argument'???

Pay attention, I will refute your 'rebuttal'

"Finally, there is considerable harm in teaching "creation-science" as science because it is an attack on all the sciences, not just evolutionary biology. If the universe and Earth are only about 10,000 years old, cosmology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, et al, would be invalidated. Creationism cannot even be partially correct. As soon as supernatural causation is allowed in the creation of even one species, they could all be created this way, and the assumption of natural laws in nature is voided and science becomes meaningless."

"Finally, there is considerable harm in teaching "evolution-science" as science because it is an attack on all the sciences, not just biology. If the universe and Earth are as old as about 4.2 billion years old, cosmology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, et al, would be invalidated. Evolutionism cannot even be partially correct. As soon as 'blind, random chance' causation is allowed in the creation of even one species, they could all be created this way, and the assumption of design in nature is voided and science becomes meaningless."

If you believe your 'rebuttal' refutes my argument, then you have to accept that by the same 'logic' I just refuted your 'rebuttal'

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] jthibs22 14 years ago

Do you have any sources to your claim that teaching creationism as science wouldn't effect countless other subjects in the scientific community, such as the ones listed above. Because if you do I would love to see.

And why is it that anytime an Evolutionists answers a Creationist Argument it is automatically bias. By your logic then I could say the same thing, that Creasionist Arguments and Answers are just as bias(which I am not so juvenile to actually claim) Everything is a one side road with you. You talk like a conspiracy theorists. Like everybody is out to get you. Well they are not. The creasionist community consists of .01% of the scientific community. Scientists could really care less what you guys are trying to do.

But anyway let me give you another argument and answer. And will you please give me some facts to back up your claims this time. To resort to the term bias everytime really diminishes your argument

19. The dating techniques of evolutionists are inconsistent, unreliable, and wrong. They give false impressions of an old Earth, when in fact it is no older than 10,000 years, which is proven by Dr. Thomas Barnes from the University of Texas at El Paso, who demonstrates that the half-life of the Earth's magnetic field is 1,400 years.

Total nonsense. Linear progression really doesn't work in earth sciences (except for radioactive decay) and is often used by the environmental lobby and fundamentalists to confuse and distort issues. A good example of this is hot water. Water at 1000 degrees is 100% fatal to one million people. So at 100 degrees (one-tenth the temperature) it's fatal to one-tenth of one million people or 100,000 deaths. This is asinine because a hot bath doesn't kill anyone unless they drown.

Their scare tactics over radon and nuclear plants uses this same nonsense. They fact is radiation is common in the environment in the form of sunlight, radioactivity in common rocks such as granite, and even common potassium pills in health food stores. By the way, the hot springs that millions flock to, for their healing properties, contain lots of radon, etc. Same thing with global warming: the earth was in an ice age 12,000 years ago and the average temperature has always varied for many reasons. The environmental wackos are like the fundamentalist wackos; they distort the facts to serve a political agenda.

First of all, Barnes' magnetic field argument falsely assumes that the decay of the magnetic field is linear when in fact geophysics demonstrates that it fluctuates through time. In addition, it is amusing that creationists dismiss all dating techniques with the sweep of the hand, except for those that purportedly support their position. The various dating techniques, however, are found not only to be quite reliable, but there is considerable independent corroboration between them. For example, there are radiometric dates for different elements from the same rock that all converge on the same date.

reply

[–] jthibs22 14 years ago

Oh and after this discussion we have with this last argument(where I will probably say things and you will probably just typically say "LIE" or "BIAS")I am done for the night. Next time will you please just respond on the 2 topics I started instead of me having to force you to read them on this topic. I know it's a lot to read but I trust that you can do it. I believe in you I should say. Because I really started them just so we could cut through all the BS and get down to the basic points for both sides. I thought I was doing a good thing. Even if you think they are all "lies" or "Bias" or "Lefty brainwashing", can you at least do so on those threads instead of me spoonfeeding them to you like a little kid to you. It would be a great help and maybe just maybe we could have some good discussion, not just with me and you but with the public on IMDB.

reply

[–] knight-in-black-leather 14 years ago

Do you have any sources to your claim that teaching creationism as science wouldn't effect countless other subjects in the scientific community, such as the ones listed above. Because if you do I would love to see.

Sure...there is no evidence that anything is older than what Biblical creation states otherwise you wouldn't have any YEC's...we would be OEC's.
It doesn't matter to me if creation or evolution is true...I have nothing to lose because I would still believe in GOD. It's atheists who have EVERYTHING to lose if the evolution MYTH were rejected...which is why they fight so hard for it despite the lack of evidence.

And why is it that anytime an Evolutionists answers a Creationist Argument it is automatically bias.

For starters, the evolutionist is the one who made the argument...a false one at that.

But anyway let me give you another argument and answer. And will you please give me some facts to back up your claims this time. To resort to the term bias everytime really diminishes your argument

Why???? You didn't. I simply reposted your 'rebuttal' with a few changed words. Why was it okay for you to present that nonsense as a refutation, but not me?

The dating techniques of evolutionists are inconsistent, unreliable, and wrong.

The dating methods per se (if we wish to get specific) are not the problem...the problems are the unknown variables that may have contaminated or affected the samples to be dated and the old earth bias. The dating methods will say how much of "X" is present...but we don't know if the sample was altered by outside influences causing "X" to deplete quicker than it should have.

Ask yourself this: Why did evolutionists assume soft tissue would not be present in dinosaur fossils? Why did they not bother to look for it?
The ONLY reason the tissue was discoverd was because the T-rex leg fossil was too big to transport and had to be cut...VOILA! Soft tissue (proteins) inside.

So, Schweitzer, the one who made the discovery, decided (later on) to cut open a hadrosaur fossil she had in her office...and what do you think she found? YEP..more SOFT tissue.

Now, had this been a human fossil, they would have carbon-dated it right away
...so why didn't they do that with the dinosaur fossils? I think you know the answer, but if you don't, here it is: evolutionary BIAS and assumptions. They were already committed to the myth that dinosaurs died out 70 million years ago DESPITE the fact the evidence (SOFT tissue from TWO of their fossils) was sitting right on front of them.

They give false impressions of an old Earth, when in fact it is no older than 10,000 years, which is proven by Dr. Thomas Barnes from the University of Texas at El Paso, who demonstrates that the half-life of the Earth's magnetic field is 1,400 years.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i4/magnetic.asp

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] jthibs22 14 years ago

You are hopeless and foolish. I am actually starting to think that you are a troll. Goodnight

reply

[–] knight-in-black-leather 14 years ago

Nighty night

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] jthibs22 14 years ago

Those Creasionist Arguments were not created by Evolutionists. A survey was done asking Creasionists what they thought the most important arguments were to their beliefs. So I don't know where you got the idea that Evolutionist came up with the arguments, they simply answered them after they were collected.

As for sources. What I want is actually scientific links that I can go to that prove some of your beliefs. Please don't give me creasionist links because they are far too bias. Give me something that is respected amongst the science community. You just spouting whatever you believe doesn't prove anything to me. I'm sorry but you are just not credible enough for me to take your word for it. So please, next time give me some links (not quotes that you pasted on here) actually links I can click on so that I can make up my mind for myself.

And remember one last things. Scientists and Creationists both have methods and they are very telling. They go like this:

Scientific Method - "Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them."

Creationist Method - "Here's the conclusion. What facts can we find to support it"

And that right there is the difference between what a real science does and a religious belief does. It is very basic but it is very telling.

reply

[–] jthibs22 14 years ago

Well I am going to bed I will just accept KIBL's responce's as this:

KIBL - "This is all bias and lies. Plus you said the word fun so how am I suppose to take you seriously. Oh and, no, I'm not going to give you any facts or sources because its all lies and bias anyway."

Goodnight KIBLE, and everyone else that is actually decent.

reply

[–] jthibs22 14 years ago

And you do realize don't you that you just quoted the Creationist Argument not the Evolutionists with that above comment don't you

reply

[–] jthibs22 14 years ago

You say that both points are a lie but give no explanation as to why they are. That is not a way to have a debate. You could easily say the Yankees won the world series last year and give me all the facts and stats that support it. But then I could just trun around and say that all of that is a lie without giving you any reason as why I believe that. How do you even have a conversation with someone like that.

reply

[–] geode 14 years ago

...do not even bother to try with the presence I only see as [ignored]

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

reply

[–] jthibs22 14 years ago

Geode - I am really starting to realize that. Its just I have had many great debates with friends and loved one who believe in some of the variations that KIBL does and they have been very fruitful and interesting. But KIBL is just so petty I am just about done. I an going to finish my series that I will post for the next 3 days and then I am done. KIBL has yet to actually post on those threads. Ive actually had to paste some of them on here just so I could get at least some sort of opinion out of him. But I am really starting to realize how fruitless it really is. Anything I post from a respectable scientific magazine is automatically called bias to him, so insead he harps on that instead of actually looking at the facts and details being presented. It is so tiring and I can't wait to be done.

reply

[–] jthibs22 14 years ago

Geode - Also the funny thing is. Is that the people I have debated that believe or somewhat believe in I.D. or Creationism, I have actually gotten some really good information and points-of-views from them. I mean they didn't change my belief in science but they did know what they were talking about and I could see where they were coming from. But with KIBL, I have learned absolutely nothing constructive. He really does a diservice to the group he is involved with but making something that should be a serious converstaioin into something that is petty and repititious and goes around in circles.

reply

[–] geode 14 years ago

Geode - Also the funny thing is. Is that the people I have debated that believe or somewhat believe in I.D. or Creationism, I have actually gotten some really good information and points-of-views from them. I mean they didn't change my belief in science but they did know what they were talking about and I could see where they were coming from. But with KIBL, I have learned absolutely nothing constructive. He really does a diservice to the group he is involved with but making something that should be a serious converstaioin into something that is petty and repititious and goes around in circles.

For doing what you accurately post here I concluded that he is a troll and not a serious creationist or Christian. He is an attention whore who thrives on stirring things up.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

reply

[–] jthibs22 14 years ago

Sorry I was just rereading some of the posts on here and I missed this

"It's a link to my post on the other thread where I stated your first point was a lie, so why should I engage you in a debate over a biased, self-serving, false article you found on the net??? The fact it 'answers' its own arguments is proof they know nothing about Creation or its proponents

How do you know it is a lie and how do you know it is false. It isn't by the way. But since you make such claims do you have any facts to actually back that up. Or are you just vomiting out of the mouth as usual.

reply

[–] Zits- 14 years ago

"But since you make such claims do you have any facts to actually back that up. Or are you just vomiting out of the mouth as usual."

reply

[–] monolith_monster 14 years ago

I am a devoted Catholic. I believe God began the evolutionary process. So I believe in both creation and evolution.

Chutzpah is when you kill your parents & ask for mercy in the court 'cause you're an orphan!

reply

[–] MrSuave56 14 years ago

I'm a deist,god started the evolutionary process. Cheers to monolith_monster.

"You can always trust Americans.In the end,they will do the right thing,after they have eliminated all the other possibilities."

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] blueweb 14 years ago

You can still believe in the god factor without giving a sheait about the bible since it was written by drunk homeless bastards with nothing to do but rant so they wouldn't get beaten up by Bigus Dickus.

reply

[–] monolith_monster 14 years ago

I am catholic and bi. I see no contradictions in my mind. Those things you are talking about are human reasoning out what God says. Interesting that lesbians are not condemned in the Mosaic Laws.

Chutzpah is when you kill your parents & ask for mercy in the court 'cause you're an orphan!

reply

[–] surround_sound 14 years ago

"sadly, if you believe in god you condone the murder of gays and adulterers. "

false. actually read the bible. Jesus said nothing of the sort.

reply

[–] bpierce 14 years ago

"false. actually read the bible. Jesus said nothing of the sort."

If the entire Bible is the inerrant Word of God, He did--or do you deny that the Father and the Son are one?

reply

[–] surround_sound 14 years ago

Good one. God was creating a new nation out of Israel so he was merely spelling out what is acceptable and what is not. God is not trying to spoil anyone's fun, but perhaps these laws against certain lifestyles and relationship choices are given to protect the individual and society not only from personal harm, but also relationship breakdown, health problems, financial burden. People complain about the level of punishment as being excessive but people need to think about how sin damages individuals and society. There was no social security in those days.

We live in a largely secular society where those sins are not sin, they're kind of fun and salacious, they make good news and entertainment, good plots for songs and movies. The punishment seems excessive to our minds in some way, but we also live this side of Christ who offers forgiveness and salvation and eternal life to all who would repent and believe.

reply

[–] caiazzo65 13 years ago

...and AFTER you've achieved adulthood, really search and you will find that human free will accounts for crimes of which you speak. Don't involve God or creation in what is man's cup o' tea.

reply

[–] surround_sound 14 years ago

Is the debate about origins or methods? Is it science or philosophy?

Do you mean
Evolutionist = atheistic naturalism
Creationist = theistic young earth creationist

or one of the many variants of both?

To which branch of evolution are you referring?
Cosmological?
biological?
molecular?

thanks for clarifying.

reply

[–] soslow 14 years ago

Hey, where'd you get those backbones? Let me see those... ha! I knew it! You got them from natural selection!

reply

[–] north_falcon 14 years ago

Backbone?

Guess they should be easier to locate than a Creationist with intelligence.

I mean ... Adam and Eve? 7 days? 4000 years ago?

Seriously ... did these people sleep through every science class and do they still believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus?

reply

[–] surround_sound 14 years ago

Ah so you are referring to the young earth creationist variety.

reply

[–] caiazzo65 13 years ago

Naw, they listened to all the nonsense and realized..."ya know...it's all *beep*

You don't have to take the Bible literally or as your source to believe in Creation.

Sincerely,

These People, the Sleepers.

reply