Books By Creationists?

To slevesqueYou are not even discussing. You are making grandiose claims that you and only you have the entire truth on evolution and atheism and that only your definitions are correct and anybody else are being dishonest when they don't agree with you. You are not even considering real evidence to show you are wrong, you can't not conceive of what atheism is and that it is not a requirement to believe in evolution to do so as one example. So what did the Pope really mean when he said this: And as well as: Edited by Tram law, : fixed quotesEdited by Tram law, : fixed quotesEdited by Tram law, : No reason given.

Well it is obvious the Pope is not a true christian.I must agree with Slevesque on one thing.Please use the reply button on the bottom of each post. When you make a general reply it is more troublesome for us to find the post you are actually responding to. Also, the person you are replying to will get an email saying they have a response. Sleve has requested you do this numerous times and I see you are still not doing it.If you continue to make general replies I will assume you are just being an asshole and will consider that whenever you post anything.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Well you are very clearly wrong about that. Dr Adequate also has a mathematical background. I kinda doubt that he and Berlinski would find much to agree on.I further doubt that you have as much in common with Berlinski as you seem to think. You are not a professional contrarian, making a career out of controversy. You don't strike me as being an arse. Berlinski does. Yeah, I know that I am somewhat contradicting myself here. I still maintain that you should challenge any theory with which you disagree. I just don't want you to sabotage your scientific career before it has even begun.It may or may not be fair, but that fact is that your YEC beliefs are laughed at by most scientists. Publicly doubting the Big Bang, one of the most important ideas in physics, is only going to mark you out as a crank. Rightly or wrongly, that kind of talk is something that I would advise you to keep separate from your academic and professional life. It would be naive to do otherwise. I offer this as friendly and well meant advice rather than as something for debate. If you listen to nothing else I say in this thread, please take that advice. Yes. And you have ably demonstrated that it's not very many at all. Seriously though, can you point to any YECs who have abandoned their religion but still retained a vigorous skepticism of evolution? I can't think of any. I can think of quite a few though who have abandoned their religion because they realised that evolution was real and that YE Creationism was a delusion.I also notice that you have not come up with any more evo-doubters who are not strong theists. I would suggest that there is a reason for this paucity. People who are in denial rarely perceive that they are in denial.I know that you think you are right. It's something we'll have to agree to disagree on for now. Okay then. My advice is that you stop wasting time with me on this thread, take those reasons and start some new threads on them. Bring your biggest concerns to the table and we'll see what we make of them.You're a smart guy Slevesque, but if you will forgive me for being blunt, I see you talking a lot about philosophy and definitions and kind of talking around the issue. I see you talk far less about the actual science of evolution. I suspect that if you were to shift your emphasis a little more toward the hard facts, you might just come to realise that evolution rests on firmer foundations than you think.Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

Their list of "scientists" includes Jack Cuozzo. If they have to pad their list with someone who is NOT a scientist, and is in fact nuts, how can the list be taken seriously ?But here's better evidence. The evolution train’s a’comin which attempts to argue: Which in fact means "Natural Selection works in exactly the way evolutionists say it does" Yes, it's the old "natural selection doesn't create" argument (complete with the pretence that evolutionists say that it does). So the article is actually claiming that natural selection works in the RIGHT direction for evolution. True the article does claim that mutation doesn't produce "new information" but that's another dishonest creationist claim. (Creationists have never produced any sensible measure of "information" for this argument so strictly speaking it is nothing more than a vague assertion which cannot even be tested). And in fact we know of a mechanism - genetic duplication and diversification - which adds information by any reasonable standard.So, while CMI might be better than other YEC organisations, saying so hardly paints a rosy picture of YEC. It seems that the best that can be said of them is that they recognise that some arguments are too weak to be used (true they got into a fight with Kent Hovind over that and it might have contributed to the acrimonious split with the U.S. branch but that only reinforces my point.).

Then I'll have to consider you a retard for not being able to follow a discussion when I am directly quoting a specific point. You want to be an asshole, I'll just be an asshole right back. Especially when I am not trying to be an asshole and there are no rules in the FAQ that says I must use the general reply button. And I'll treat you accordingly. In other words, screw you.No, the fault is yours and I will respond how I see fit.You can consider that being an asshole if you wish.

Hardly.Peruse the articles in their so-called journal. Nutball city. Sleve's response will be.
But he studied Neandertal teeth.Here is a small sample of Cuozzo's cluelessnessChris Stringer responds to Jack Cuozzo

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I rest my case.

No, you don't.

Whom are you addressing? We have no way of telling unless you reply by clicking the Reply button, in which case your reply will indicate the message you are replying to and hence also to whom.Basic common courtesy.

Hey, I apologize to you and other members of this board. I was not trying to be an asshole, but I will not be insulted over something extremely petty such as not responding with a reply thing, especially when there are no hard rules in the FAQ that says I must do so.You guys are far smarter than I am. I am just a layman and you guys are the intellectual elite. You should be smart enough to realize that I am using a direct quote and you should be smart enough to figure out who that quote belongs to.Now, other than this post, because one person got really upset over this insignificant and petty issue and insulted me for no reason, I feel no need to comply with this request.

Tram law seems to think he is above the need to use basic common courtesy.According to him we are all retards if we cannot instantly figure out who he is replying to. I wonder when he is going to resort to saying nah nah nah booboo and start swinging his dick around.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Fair enough. However, I'm not one of the intellectual elite and it would be nice to see to who you reply without having to search a thread of hundreds of messages looking. It also makes following the chain easier since all I have to do is click "This message is a reply to ..." for each message as I backtrack the chain.It's not done for any other reason than to help follow the chain of long tangled discussions. Please help.

You sure as hell are not using common courtesy through your continued insults that I simply do not deserve.All you're doing is browbeating me, and I will not respond to being browbeaten or bullied into submission.And it ceases to be common courtesy when it becomes hard rules. Common courtesy is a request, not a hard rule.And a request does not have to be granted or followed. You are the one who's created this, not me. And I will not comply with your request because of your continued attacks against me.You want me to treat you with respect, you treat me with respect and stop insulting me. I refuse to be in a one way relationship.And I do not deserve these insults.I was not being an asshole in the first place.Thank you for derailing the subject.Edited by Tram law, : No reason given.

All right, I will, thank you for asking.But how does one reply when there are multiple posts to reply from.