Summations Only

I do have to give you credit for one thing, Chuckles. Anyone who believed any of those things would be a foolish atheist; or a foolish Christian, Muslim, Zoroastrian or Pastafarian. Of course, since you've never met or heard of anyone who did believe any of those things, this is nothing more than your latest silly little straw man.

One of the first things that caught my eye in your list was that in #1, there was an indication of a footnote, but that you did not provide that footnote. Nor did you provide us any link to where you had gotten that nonsense from. Even though you clearly indicated that you are not the author, it is still your responsibility to provide us references to your source.You remind me here of one particularly stereotypical creationist on CompuServe back around 1990. He would make long posts that he had typed verbatim from some creationist book and, in "response" to our own well-thought out responses which we had written ourselves, he would just post yet another long, long verbatim passage from a creationist book. In fact, he was so slavish in his verbatim copying, that he would include all the marking for footnotes, though would never provide those footnotes. And when I was finally able to get him to write in his own words, it turned out that all he wanted to do was to convert us. He finally gave up and disappeared from sight when he tried to convert me by relating stories of amazing physical feats that his sect's founder, Ellen G. White, could perform while in a deep trance, and I replied that I and my fellow Aikido students used to do all those things and much more all the time and without ever having to fall into any kind of a trance.To compensate for your appalling lack of due diligence: Top Ten Signs You’re a Foolish Atheist. I skipped several other Google hits because they were in fora and hence were sure to be secondary sources, such as your own OP. That footnote was a link to http://www.infidels.org/.../fernandes-martin/fernandes4.html, entitled Closing Statement by Phil Fernandes, in The Fernandes-Martin Debate on the Existence of God (1997) between theist Dr. Phil Fernandes and atheist Dr. Michael Martin.That sign #1 is a direct quote from Dr. Phil Fernandes, a theist arguing against atheism in a debate. But wouldn't it be much more enlightening to read Dr. Martin's closing statement at http://www.infidels.org/...tin/fernandes-martin/martin4.html:

quote:

---

As I have shown again and again Dr. Fernandes' objections to atheism are based on either misunderstandings or question begging assumptions. Even though I have pointed out his misunderstandings and directed his attention to more accurate interpretations of atheism he has persisted in them. When I pointed out that he begged the question his defense was that he was merely putting forth hypotheses. But when I insisted that he had given no reasons to believe his hypotheses he was silent. When I countered with objections against theism--recall I brought up epistemological and ethical arguments--Dr. Fernandes managed to avoid them. They are beyond the scope of the debate, he said. When I showed that what he was saying was mistaken or unjustified he claimed he was not really saying it.

​

. . .

​

In his conclusion Dr. Fernandes boasts of the explanatory power of theism over atheism. However, theistic explanations of the problem of evil and of the existence of hundreds of millions of nonbelievers are problematic. Atheism has no such problems. Moreover, a theory such that is inconsistent and lacks rational support, such as theism, can hardly have great explanatory power. As I have shown, atheism is a consistent and a rationally supported position.

---

Please note that, unlike you, I have provided links back to my sources so that all readers are able to verify my statements about my sources against the sources themselves. What I have done, and you have failed to do, is nothing spectacular, but rather is something very mundane and is done every day without a second thought. It's called basic scholarship. If you cite a source, you provide a reference to it if at all possible. Now, true, many times in our discussions and attempts at discussion here (even though such attempts are too often obstructed by creationists) we may cite something that we remember having read or seen such that we do not have any means to provide the source at that moment. In those cases, most of us do try to identify that situation. However, in your case here you had at that moment access to the source because you copy-and-pasted it from there, yet you failed to cite that source. I have found this to be a frequent lacking among creationists.Edited by dwise1, : minor clean-up

As long as you've mis-posted a huge joke, albeit not one that had had much thought put to it, outside the Humor topic, I may as well add my assessments of each point to those assessments posted by others.Though if I may observe. This must be the saddest thing about being a fundamentalist, especially a fundamentalist who tries to advance creationism. They tell the most hilarious jokes and yet they have no inkling how hilarious they are. How incredibly tragic.

---

Not all atheists are the same, though you cannot allow yourself to realize that, nor to try to imagine how somebody else thinks. We have the figures from Christian youth ministers that 80% of children raised on fundamentalism reject their faith and even religion itself by the time they reach young adulthood. Of course, I think that it's because of their having been raised on the lies of creationism which causes everything to unravel when they grow up and learn the truth. However, I have also read (blog linked to very long ago on FaceBook by Ed Babinski, former creationist and ultra-fundamentalist) that it's the humanities, not science, that leads to such massive deconversion. It's not so much learning that everything they had taught you about science was a lie, but rather learning other perspectives, that there are other ways of looking at things, and by placing yourself in somebody else's shoes that their fundamentalist upbringing completely falls apart. As I've observed before, fundamentalism and especially creationism depend very heavily on maintaining believers' ignorance.Atheists are individuals and few think exactly alike nor hold to the exact same beliefs and ideas. The only common characteristic is that they do not believe in the gods. Now, a common theistic definition of "atheist" is someone who does not believe in that theist's own god, so that polytheistic Hindus would be considered "atheists" by that definition, even though they are obviously anything but. Now, I would think that most all atheists would also agree that the gods are human inventions, but then I could find myself surprised at some time.Now, as for "the existence of God", we of course realize that you are talking about YHWH. Or rather, about your own personal misunderstanding of YHWH. Both of which are of human manufacture, based soundly on our inability to know or understand anything about such a supernatural power and/or entity as could be termed "God". While some atheists would indeed deny the possibility of the supernatural and hence of any supernatural entities/powers/whatever, some atheists know that by its very nature (pun not really intended, but it is nice nonetheless), the supernatural both cannot be detected nor completely ruled out. But still, those atheists who realize that they cannot completely discount the supernatural also still realize that the gods are human inventions and nothing more; if they cannot study the supernatural, then nobody else can either.The second part of your joke is indeed laughable. Do you blame the other gods for anything that happens? Of course not! You wouldn't blame a god you don't believe in, so why would an atheist? It's your inability to understand how somebody else would think that's getting in your way here. Instead, you project your own mistaken ideas on everybody else, thus blinding yourself to the truth.Now, in discussions with theists you will see atheists show the conclusions that a theist must arrive at, in that a theist would be in a position of blaming their own god for natural disasters and other bad things that happen. But, again, those are things that a theist would believe, not an atheist. What the frak are you going on about? Your projection is getting really silly here.But so long as I'm responding to a monumental joke, I would like to share a joke with you. It's from a cartoon in a 1973 German humor magazine, Pardon, which was kind of like National Lampoon. In the opening frame, the protagonist who has a huge nose is looking up asking God why he was given such a monstrous schnoz. In the final frame, God peeks out behind a cloud, sporting an identical monstrous schnoz, and saying, "Because you were created in my image." We do indeed know a lot about the Bible and its history. Or rather, about the Bibles and their histories, including the many variant versions of each verse; ironically and hilariously, even the verse in Revelations promising the plagues described therein to be visited manifold on anyone who changes this Revelation even the slightest bit, also has a number of variant versions. Your particular copy of that book is not magic, no matter how much you want to believe that it is.And it is an outright lie to say that we "never question any of Darwin's writings or Richard Dawkins' books." As the scientific community started to learn about Mendelian genetics, they came to question Darwin. Indeed, many of creationism's quote-mined nuggets of "scientists questioning Darwinism" come from those geneticists in the early 20th century, before Fischer et al. devised the Modern Synthesis and neo-Darwinism by showing that genetics actually solved the problems that Darwin had about the mechanisms of inheritance. Darwin's approach was a provisional hypothesis of pangenetics, a view of heritable use/disuse that was pretty much a back-slide into Lamarckism. It was actually pangenetics that Mendelian genetics was disproving, not natural selection.It would be a lie that scientists never questioned Darwin, because they did. And it is a lie that atheists never question Darwin, in part because most atheists should and undoubtedly would question Darwin's pangenetic ideas.I am an atheist and have been one for about 50 years, ever since I was about 13 (close to the traditional age of confirmation, so does that make me a "confirmed atheist"? -- hey, as long as we're dealing with a joke!) I am also a Unitarian-Universalist. One catch-phrase associated with our church dating from the civil-rights movement of the 1960's is "To Question is the Answer". In the open-ended search for truth (a UU principle), one must be ready to question one's assumptions. Even a fundamentalist should be ready to question his own imperfect, fallible misunderstanding of his own theology. But much more importantly, the scientific method depends on constantly questioning our previous conclusions. And most atheists arrived where they are at by questioning, so why would they suddenly stop?Everything that any authority says needs to be questioned. In most cases, what we accomplish is to clear up our misunderstanding of what that authority said, since what we question is always what we understand was said. But we may also find problems with an authority's statements, problems which raise further questions which lead to further research. Are you beginning to see how this leads into how science works? Because until you start to question, you cannot know what you don't know and need to learn.It is an outright lie that atheists "never question any of ... Richard Dawkins' books." Because that is exactly what this atheist did. When I read Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker Chapter 3's section of his WEASEL program, I couldn't believe what he had written. I questioned it! So I took his description of the program and wrote my own, albeit in Pascal instead of in BASIC. And my program worked even better than his had (obviously, because of our choices of languages, my compiled code vs his interpreted). And I still questioned it. So I analyzed the probabilities involved in the program. And what I found was that with cumulative selection (what evolution uses and what creationist probability arguments always avoid) the probability of failure is far less than the probability of success. Though, in honor of Eddington's misunderstood statement, I named my program MONKEY: http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/monkey.html:

quote:

---

A. S. Eddington. The Nature of the Physical World: The Gifford Lectures, 1927 -- about thermodynamics, not about biology (read Infinite Monkey Theorem):
... If I let my fingers wander idly over the keys of a typewriter it might happen that my screed made an intelligible sentence. If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters they might write all the books in the British Museum. The chance of their doing so is decidedly more favourable than the chance of the molecules returning to one half of the vessel.

​

Douglas Adams. The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy:
"Ford!" [Arthur] said, "there's an infinite number of monkeys outside who want to talk to us about this script for Hamlet they've worked out."

​

Lennon and McCartney:
Everybody's got something to hide, except for me and my monkey!

​

RFC 2795: The Infinite Monkey Protocol Suite (IMPS)
Abstract
This memo describes a protocol suite which supports an infinite number of monkeys that sit at an infinite number of typewriters in order to determine when they have either produced the entire works of William Shakespeare or a good television show. The suite includes communications and control protocols for monkeys and the organizations that interact with them.

---

Just having a little more fun, since I'm responding to a monumental joke. But it is still very true that I learned a helluva lot by questioning Dawkins. And what I had found confirmed what I had read elsewhere (too many years ago to track down right now), that the processes of Darwinian evolution make the improbable inevitable. The main difference between fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Christians is that Christians commit their religiously motivated murders in such a manner as to ensure their own personal survival. Evolution is a scientific idea. One which has been tested repeatedly over the past 150 years and always passing those tests.The Bible's record is somewhat sketchier. Some atheists do, while some don't. We're a mixed bag, don'cha'know? Now, if anybody could finally work out a workable methodology for dealing with the supernatural, we would really be interested in that. Especially since the ID lobby wants to reform science to include supernaturalistic hypotheses, we would be extremely interested in learning just how that is supposed to work. I even started a topic here seeking just that answer, which was never given.And probability arguments! Ha! Creationists keep coming up with probability arguments and none of them are any more than sick jokes. Most fundamental is the problem that they try to come up with probabilities for things turning out exactly the way they do. Idiotic! I never played with cards except for the ones with 80 columns (and you never wanted to shuffle those decks!), but let us use a card game that relies on each player receiving a hand of 5 random cards. You are in such a game and you have just been dealt a five-card hand. What is the probability that you would have been dealt that exact hand, in that exact order? 1:5251504948, or 1:311,875,200, AKA a probability of 3.20641e-9. Pretty low, and yet that is exactly the hand you were dealt! And what is the probability that you will be dealt the exact same hand you are dealt the next time around? The exact same very low probability! But what is the probability that you will be dealt a hand, any hand (assuming, of course, that you stay in the game)? 1.0, 100%, dead certainty.The point and the bottom line, besides the fact that creationist probability arguments are terminally fracked up, is both that in order to make probability calculations you need to know all the factors, and that your probability calculations are utterly dependent on your model. If your model is completely fracked up, then your probability calculations are worthless.For example, the main point of Dawkins' WEASEL program was to illustrate the difference between creationists' single-step selection method and evolution's cumulative selection method. Both Dawkins' WEASEL and my MONKEY took on the task of randomly selecting a predetermined target string, but with two very different types of selection. In single-step selection, you make repeated attempts, but you always start from scratch. In cumulative selection, you start from the previous best-guess. And while Dawkins' target string was a line from Hamlet, "Methinks it is like a weasel" (the play's characters were looking for shapes in the clouds), my target string was the alphabet in alphabetical order. For that to be produced through single-step selection, assuming a computer making 1,000,000 selections per second (conservative now, but reasonable when I worked the problem in the late 1980's) would have required 10²⁷ attempts to even approach a one-in-a-million chance for success, which at the stipulated rate would have required 10,000 times longer than the universe's estimated age of 20 billion years. And yet, with cumulative selection, we would succeed within a minute -- at the speed of today's computers, it's barely within seconds.Needless to say, creationists invariably choose the wrong models for their probability calculations. Of course, they have to, because otherwise they would have to face the truth that they persistently deny.And your " billions of years full of random mutations would result in the impossible" is completely and utterly bogus. For one thing, if something is impossible (ie, its probability is zero), then it is impossible. Period. That's all she wrote. What part of zero don't you understand? But if something is only improbable (ie, probability greater than zero), then that is an entirely different matter altogether. Didn't they teach you that in you statistics class, or wherever you had learned probability? What? You never learned anything about probability? Why am I so not surprised? When will you ever learn to not rely so much on abject ignorance?And if it is not "random mutations" that result in the improbable (to correct for your earlier egregious mistake), but rather those mutations and other genetic factors working in conjunction with natural selection. Evolution is not just mutations; that is more the anti-Darwinian genetics view of the early 20'th century (but only anti-Darwinian because of his erroneous pangenetic hypothesis). Rather, evolution is genetic variation plus natural selection. If you do not understand that, then you cannot understand evolution. And if you cannot understand evolution, then anything you try to say against it is meaningless. A joke, even, which is the post I'm responding to right now. Well, fundamentalist Christians are indeed intolerant, judgmental, and hateful. Let me check now. ... No, not a single speck of foam. We're just speaking the truth.Now of course, the discussion can get heated. And it can become infuriatingly frustrating for us normals as we try to conduct a discussion with fundamentalists. "Freaking lunatics", "weak-minded", "stupid" ... those aren't really what comes to my mind. "Ignorant", yes, because you repeatedly display abject ignorance about those things that you pontificate on. "Hateful bigots", yes, we see that all that time.Please think of how much of this situation is of your own making. You want to create the image of being persecuted, so you engineer all public encounters to provide you with that outcome. We are all familiar with self-fulfilling prophecies. If instead you were to act like a Mensch, then you would be treated like a Mensch, nu? Atheists do not ignore science. Rather, it is creationists who ignore science and misconstrue scientific terms to their whim.Plus, "your" talk here of defining what a closed system is in re: thermodynamics is disingenuous at best. The majority of creationist thermodynamics clap-trap deals specifically with trying to treat the open earth-sun system as if it were closed, which it is not. Let's put it this way. Evolution is what happens when life does its thing, so if evolution is supposed to violate the laws of thermodynamics then so does life, which according to the creationists means that life should not exist. And yet life does exist and does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. Uh, no, all evidence, logic and reasoning does not point to "a Creator and absolute truth." Your premise is false and hence the rest of your statement is not supported. Welcome to logic, which I am sure you are also abjectly ignorant of.OK, I think I can appreciate the lure of your position. You don't have to know anything. You don't have to think about anything. All you have to do is to parrot what your leaders/handlers tell you to. It is different for us normals. We have to learn things, to know things. We have to actually think. But you are released from all that responsibility.The theory of evolution deals with biology, whereas cosmology deals with cosmology. And the concepts of good, evil, and morality are human concepts, so they exist because our species, humans, exists. Duh? Well, as I covered in a previous post, that is a quote taken from a theist who was not able to make his case in an on-line debate (The Fernandes-Martin Debate (1997)). It is mere piffle.

---

Think for a moment. What is "foolishness"? Doesn't it involve not thinking about your position? Atheists have thought about their position. A lot. Usually, that is what had led to their having become atheists.What about your position? Have you given it thought? I didn't think so.Edited by dwise1, : last sectionEdited by dwise1, : minor clean-up

Well, i'm not sure where to start. To many responces.This site needs more Creationists. Anyone know why no Creationists stick around here?My opinion is because the moderation is so bad and doesn't allow for debate.I was accused of running away from a few threads that I was participating in just fine. Then Percy pretty much didn't want my thoughts, ideas or opinions on the subject. He insists I/we provide other evidence than the evidence we have.That I can't understand. You want Scientific evidence from peer reviwed or whatever from Scientists who are against Creationism? So when I provide Creationist' evidence it isn't good enough. I would have gotten around to presenting the evidence Creations have but it can't ever get there because of the complete and utter bias this site has.It's such a great debate site with great moderation supposedly, that it only lets one side of the debate express itself? Why can't Creationists express themselves here without being shot down? We are Creationists. Do you want our views and evidence or not? The answer is no, you don't. It's obvious this site isn't about learning thru discussion because if it was the non-Creationists here would be willing to learn about our sides views and accept our arguments on the entire forum, not just in certain sections.If the Creationist is not willing to accept evolution and it's explanations those Creationists are considered ignorant and unwilling to learn. What about the evolutionist' learning about Creationism?It's unfortunate that Creationists aren't allowed to argue/debate their positions here the way they want to. There would be much more debate.It's Percy's site, who is an evolutionist. His rules. It took me to long to realize no Creationists are allowed to be themselves here.Ask Buz, Mazzy and all the Creationist members who either left or are currently suspended.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

There's even a rating system here that shows the bias of the site. Yeah, learning thru discussion. Keep telling yourselves that.I'm not here to debate anymore. This site doesn't allow for the Creationist to debate their postion from their perspective.

The word is "too". And the other word is "responses" -- the forum software even does spell-checking so that you would have known immediately that there is no such word as "responces". Words mean something. Well, the thing is that creationists have nothing, so they don't last long. Anywhere they go, except for a specifically creationist site, though the side-effect there is that such sites are virulently opposed to any and all non-creationists. I have been to such a site. Completely arbitrary. EVC is a haven to members of both persuasions. Dude! You have absolutely no clue whatsoever! The moderation here is so even-handed that creationists are allowed to get away with all kinds of stupid shit.And, no, creationist stupid shit does indeed not cut it. Ever. Oh, we have indeed learned about creationism. Far more and better that you would like. I personally have been involved in this since circa 1981. I know far more about creationism that you would ever want me to know. I'm sure that many other regulars have put in almost as much time as I have. How much more do you want us to learn? Bullshit! Just do it already! What the frak is stopping you?You got something to present and actual evidence to back it up? So present it already! Nobody is holding you back. Except for your own sorry lack of any actual evidence.So prove us wrong!

We want your views IF THEY ARE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.Else we can just scream at each other how our spagetie monster, pink unicorn and the giant tea pot are better then your magic man, because it says so on this site where every word of every atheist is true because the pink unicorn says that every word of every atheist is true.

Young Earth Creationists like yourself face the same problems all over the Internet. Because we don't actually inhabit a world that is less than 10,000 years old, there isn't and never will be any real evidence to support the position.Because it's personally and emotionally impossible for you to accept that you are wrong, you end up extending the delusion of the young earth belief into other areas. That includes the necessity to believe that the scientific world is biased against you, and the necessity to tell yourself that the failure of YECs to make their case and win arguments on this or any other internet forum is to do with technical bias, unfair moderation, etc.Here's another group with the same problem. The Flat Earth SocietyTheir view of the world, like yours, cannot be supported by evidence because it's incorrect. But like you YECs, they try to make their case, and this leads them to invent and describe widespread fictional conspiracies which are ostensibly pushing the "false" view of a spherical earth. They are genuinely capable of deceiving themselves that these conspiracies exist, that the intellectual world is biased against them, and that they are right.Looking at them might help you understand your own capacity for self-deception. But somehow, I doubt it.Edited by bluegenes, : adjusted for clarity

Hi Chuck,I think you're blaming the wrong people. You should be casting your accusations at the church that has taught you untruths about the facts of the real world.You began with such promise. You were invited to join the moderator team. You accepted and were outstanding, for example, posting one of the best reviews of a topic proposal that I've ever seen. Hey, everyone, check out AdminChuck's response to Alfred Maddenstein thread proposal (The wealth of esoteric knowledge behind the nonsensical pronouncements.). I think you'll agree it's outstanding. I particularly liked this part: But then it all went wrong. I don't know what happened. I miss the old rational and analytical Chuck and wish he would come back to us.Chuck, your top 10 list was childish, idiotic, and said almost nothing that was actually true. It begins by claiming that atheists blame God for the ills of the world. Are you daft?A lot of people put a lot of time into thoughtful responses to your opening post, far, far more time than you did in cut-n-pasting it. I know it's an enormous volume of posts for one person to respond to, but why don't you pick just a couple of the better responses and reply to those.--Percy

Well, man!That's a pretty good list you've got going there so far. But I really, really think you need to add in a couple more points. Perhaps we can have "2. You enjoy ripping children from their mothers' womb and eating them". Or maybe that would go better between 4 and 5.Either way, I know you certainly need an 11, "11. You actually bothered to respond to the OP in this thread with something resembling reasoned arguments instead of the snide and sarcastic ridicule such a list rightfully deserves".Jon

Hi Chuck, Sure we do. It's because the pressure of always being wrong gets to you after a while. Cracks begin to appear in your anti-reality armour. Naturally, this is an uncomfortable sensation, so you blame us for being a bunch of mean meanies and flounce out in a huff. Yeah, he insists that you provide evidence that is true. What a rotter.Instead, on the rare occasions that you have provided us with something to get our teeth into, it turns out to be a mixture of lies and delusions, just like that living fossil article you sent me. Now that article was chock full of lies. Is that my fault? Is it the fault of evolutionists that creationist literature is full of lies?Disagree? Well then, pick a topic, pick your evidence and damn well debate it.But you won't do that. Instead, you'll just whine about how your inability to find a non-specious creationist argument is the fault of everyone except creationists. Please! The average evolutionist on this board knows far more about creationism than you do. It's not our lack of understanding that forms your obstacle; it's your lack of any coherent argument or valid evidence. That's not our fault. It is the fault of your creationist lie-masters, who've led you down the path of ignorance and foolishness.Mutate and Survive

Hilarious.If being yourself means avoiding science and logical argument at all costs, with the avoiding being a strategy you've practiced since, and likely during high school, then no, you cannot be yourself here.I think you are being quite dishonest about not knowing the rules here up till recently. I seem to recall you asking for a place where you could "be yourself" and being allowed to post what passes for Creationist evidence. Percy and I pointed you to some existing forums on this board; forums in which scientific evidence is of essentially no use. But as near as I can tell, you haven't elected to post in forums like 'Theological Creationism and ID' ever.Your problem appears to be that there is discussion and debate going on that you want to participate in but are ill equipped to do so. And rather than taking the time to learn more about your opponents arguments or to hone your own debating skills, you want to whine about being mistreated and then claim some solidarity with creationists like Buz. Mazzy?Well Buz is ten times the debater you've shown yourself to be here. Um, because this is a debate site? Anything you post here is subject to being 'pinned to the glass'. Do you think you should be able to claim that 5,000,000 flash frozen woolly mammoths were found with fresh lunch in their stomachs without being called on it?

That word, "just" is the just of your argument. It's an incessantly repeated blind assertion that there is no evidence. The Exodus threads are good examples, evolutionists all in chorus, flanked by Admin, claiming than none whatsoever has been produced.None of your marine scientists have an interest in falsifying the evidence so abundantly cited via observable photography supported by the numerous cited corroborative evidences by me. Two more unsupported assertions. There are more hateful bigots on your side of the isle than the creationist side. The terminology of many of you describing creationists, such as yours above depict that hateful bigotry. Too much of your alleged evidence is based on abstract manipulative quantum and relativistic arguments. As an artist can paint an abstract modern art painting into just about any form of image that he desires, so with abstract means of claiming evidence.On the contrary, again, you and your relativistic forum majority simply waive off the physically observable cited evidences, such as fulfilled prophecies, archeology and complexity that is supportive of the existence of the Biblical supernatural, etc.

quote:

---

This site needs more Creationists.

---

Yes please! This site would be no fun without you.

quote:

---

Anyone know why no Creationists stick around here?

---

My favourite reason that I have seen and have some documentary evidence for (Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC) is that they realise that everything they were taught about creation has no basis in observable fact and is actually contraindicated. They stop being creationists.

quote:

---

It's unfortunate that Creationists aren't allowed to argue/debate their positions here the way they want to. There would be much more debate.

---

If putting forward well argued points backed up by documented evidence is not the way to do this, what have you got in mind? We could all stand in a room and throw rocks at each other but I doubt that this would be helpful in advancing the debate.Tell me Chuck, how should we be debating? I honestly want to know what you think the rules should be.

quote:

---

I would have gotten around to presenting the evidence Creations have but it can't ever get there because of the complete and utter bias this site has.

---

Are you saying that you have been censored? I sincerely hope not.Are you saying that you were interrupted while you were typing your well argued and fully researched position? Are we making too much noise for you to concentrate?Ok, everyone shut up so Chuck can compose his thoughts and get around to presenting the evidence.

Thanks, NoNukes. Thanks much for making Chuck77's previous point (which I cheered) that effective creationists are banned and silenced too often from debating Biblical creationism, here on this site. Thus, the scarcity of effective creationists.I happen to be the dogmantic determned and thick skinned one who cares enough about you people to disuade you from the darkness which you are groping about in, a bum who found bread, telling fellow bums where I found it, as an old preacher once said.