Summations Only

The post was, of course, meant to be funny. Most likely Chuck77 realizes that some of the statements were silly exaggerations.But like all such posts, it provides great insight into the mind of a person who thinks such stupid stuff is the essence of wit? An atheist blames bad things on God? Sure, Chuck. Sure. Edited by NoNukes, : title

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?

My guess is that you are the only person here who cannot figure out what my position on evolution is after reading a couple of my posts. It is simply untrue that I've been the least bit inconsistent about my view.Of course it would be easy to show that I'm wishy-washy. Just point to a couple of inconsistent posts made by me. You can start by pointing to a post in which I argued against macroevolution. I don't see the virtue in being loud and wrong, but okay.

I found this entire thread completely enervating from start to finish.Chuck77 posts a top ten list that was obviously intended by its authors to be humorous satire, and then commences with Buz's help to defend said list as being literally true. Eventually Buz is forced to admit that some things weren't quite literally true, but the whole exercise of getting the admission is like pulling hen's teeth. (Yeah, I see the mixed metaphor. I admit that I am not so great a writer)Then Buzsaw claims to have won the debate because the board's resident physicists have elected not to weigh in on abiogenesis. Well, why the hell should they? Other than that they happen to be smart dudes, why should their opinions on how life began be considered essential in any way?At least Chuck77 did admit that he has no intention of debating here anymore. As if anyone hadn't already figured that out. As if he ever did debate. At least now I can add 77 to the plonk list without feeling guiltySurely somewhere on earth, there are Creationists and ID proponents that have something thought provoking and scientific to say about their beliefs. But such discussion happens so seldom here as to make me question the time I spend on EvC. I find my own snark quotient increasing with each visit, and I fully expect that at some point Dr. A will be forced to ask me to tone it down a bit.If it wasn't for the fact that there are real physicists and biologists here, from whom I can learn something, and some non evo/creo subjects to participate in, I think I'd be spending more of my own line time elsewhere discussing programming or comics or physics.Edited by NoNukes, : Delete some duplicated words.