Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-19-2017 3:01 PM
350 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume:
Total: 819,103 Year: 23,709/21,208 Month: 1,674/2,468 Week: 183/822 Day: 58/69 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5Next
Author Topic:   Embarrassed Creationist
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 3550 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 46 of 69 (189427)
03-01-2005 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Vercingetorix
03-01-2005 8:58 AM


really? yes, really.
hey what ever you have to tell yourself to make yourself belive the lie, obviously reason has no part of it.

and good luck arguing that one in court.

Vercingetorix - have you stopped to think about why, in court cases, people are found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt", rather than "with absolute certainty"?

One reason - no one would ever be convicted, because you can never show with absolute certainty who committed a crime.

To quote Schraf's comment:

No, evidence leads to confidence and reliability, not absolute, 100% proof.

In the world of science, this is the case. That is why every great concept has "theory" in front of it - because it is not known with absolute certainty.

You can call it a lie if you like, but that doesn't make it so. You called some else immature above, I suggest you look at the content of your own posts in this thread.

I also suggest you learn a bit about the scientific method.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Vercingetorix, posted 03-01-2005 8:58 AM Vercingetorix has not yet responded

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 69 (189430)
03-01-2005 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Vercingetorix
03-01-2005 9:18 AM


Please stay on topic.
is thread jacking against the rules?
becuase if it is then why are you enforcing only some of the rules?
and if it isn't im gonna have fun here.

Rule one from the forum ruls is "#1 Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics."

Admins simply do not have the time to read every post in every thread. When something is brought to our attention or we notice something, we try to deal with it. But the underlying assumption is that the posters here are adults and as such, can discuss things in a reasonable manner.

Rule three of the forum guidelines is ' Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."' Your comments did not address a position but were instead directed at the idividual.

We hope you enjoy your stay here. Please check out the links at the bottom of this post for other tips.


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Vercingetorix, posted 03-01-2005 9:18 AM Vercingetorix has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 69 (189434)
03-01-2005 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Vercingetorix
03-01-2005 9:18 AM


Re: Buz on topic..
Everything I said in my post was in response to something you said in this thread, bar nothing. You came on this thread bashing creationists and it was you who spoke of wrong facts, so deal with it.


In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Vercingetorix, posted 03-01-2005 9:18 AM Vercingetorix has not yet responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 69 (189463)
03-01-2005 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Vercingetorix
03-01-2005 8:58 AM


Re: really?
quote:
wow now you are drawing straws.
hey what ever you have to tell yourself to make yourself belive the lie, obviously reason has no part of it.
and good luck arguing that one in court.


That is why someone is judged "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", not "guilty beyond any doubt". Even the court realizes that we can not be 100% sure of anything. It is very unreasonable to claim that a video was doctored or that evidence was planted. However, it is not impossible. This is also why science is never 100% sure. For all we know, the fossils were all planted in their particular sediments by a bunch of trickster aliens. However, the reasonable assumption is that they ended up in those sediments through natural mechanisms.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Vercingetorix, posted 03-01-2005 8:58 AM Vercingetorix has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by BarackZero, posted 12-12-2010 1:12 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 2382 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 50 of 69 (596024)
12-12-2010 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Lammy
02-25-2005 3:55 AM


Lam wrote:
quote:
If you haven't noticed, I've been trying to support creationism in some of my posts. The reason is because I've been trying very very hard to think like myself a few years back (christian fundy). I must admit that the result is very surprising.

Rule #1: There is a god.
Rule #2: God is actively influencing the world.


My sincere compliments. Your attitude is a refreshing and indeed profound breath of fresh air from the litany of repetitive responses from atheists on message boards and in books everywhere.

quote:
I ask you this. Are the atheists, who started out on the religious side, really putting these 2 rules into consideration when dealing with a "fundy"?

Now there you go again, with the epithet thing, as if anyone and everyone who does not march to your tune is a "fundy." It's all black or white in atheist-think. Do you think it is not remotely possible that people can be Christians and not believe the earth is 6000 years old? Is that possible? Must atheists so often invoke the "flat earth" and "gravity" and "ignorance" and countless other inane arguments? Why!

quote:
Fundies often have trouble understanding why we demand evidence for everything, and I think atheists often have trouble understanding why fundies have "faith".

I have absolutely no trouble understanding why atheists are so extremely condescending, pretending that they and only they rely on "evidence" and "science."

One need only ask a few simple questions to see atheists running for the doors, hurling insults and epithets as the flee in terror.

It is very unscholarly to rely on epithets instead of explanations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Lammy, posted 02-25-2005 3:55 AM Lammy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Theodoric, posted 12-12-2010 1:15 PM BarackZero has responded

    
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 2382 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 51 of 69 (596025)
12-12-2010 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Loudmouth
03-01-2005 12:53 PM


Re: really?
Loudmouth wrote:

quote:

That is why someone is judged "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", not "guilty beyond any doubt". Even the court realizes that we can not be 100% sure of anything. It is very unreasonable to claim that a video was doctored or that evidence was planted. However, it is not impossible. This is also why science is never 100% sure. For all we know, the fossils were all planted in their particular sediments by a bunch of trickster aliens. However, the reasonable assumption is that they ended up in those sediments through natural mechanisms.


Macroevolution is never ever claimed to be "the reasonable assumption."
No, macroevolution is "fact, fact, fact."
It is "as certain as gravity."
All who do not comport to these demands, not "reasonable assumptions," but demands can only be, in atheist-talk:

- a fundie
- a bible-thumper
- ignorant
- one who knows nothing about science
- someone who does not understand evolution

There is no need for atheists and biologists to explain the gaps in fossils, or DNA synthesis from basic chemicals, or the mechanisms of producing polypeptides with spaces of 10 to the 200th or 400th power. Just run for the door and hurl "findie" and "bible-thumper" behind you as you dodge the question. That's real *science*.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Loudmouth, posted 03-01-2005 12:53 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by frako, posted 12-12-2010 1:25 PM BarackZero has not yet responded
 Message 54 by Admin, posted 12-12-2010 1:35 PM BarackZero has not yet responded
 Message 55 by Tupinambis, posted 12-12-2010 1:42 PM BarackZero has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 52 of 69 (596026)
12-12-2010 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by BarackZero
12-12-2010 1:05 PM


Topic?
Do you plan to post anything that is on topic?

You do realize you are responding to an almost 5 year old post,don't you. I don't think the poster has even been here in about that long. Then again your posts have shown that you are not interested in a rational discussion anyway.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by BarackZero, posted 12-12-2010 1:05 PM BarackZero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by BarackZero, posted 12-13-2010 1:00 PM Theodoric has responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2705
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 53 of 69 (596030)
12-12-2010 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by BarackZero
12-12-2010 1:12 PM


Re: really?
There is no need for atheists and biologists to explain the gaps in fossils

Omg we have not yet found every fossil there is to find and not every slight mutation that ever happened was preserved by fossils evolution must be WRONG. I am going to start believing in a magical fairy that has ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT right now

or DNA synthesis from basic chemicals

Um this happened before evolution took its course and there are models for this as well. Basically the same question for you would be where did god come from and provide evidence and a model please.

or the mechanisms of producing polypeptides with spaces of 10 to the 200th or 400th power.

again something before evolution took its course tough we do have rational explanations that do not include a magical being who loves you to make them.

http://molecularcreation.com/amino_acids.htm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by BarackZero, posted 12-12-2010 1:12 PM BarackZero has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12527
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 54 of 69 (596032)
12-12-2010 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by BarackZero
12-12-2010 1:12 PM


Re: really?
Hi BarackZero,

As Theodoric mentioned, you're replying to five-year old messages. When reviving an old thread it's probably best to just state your position, but after reading the opening post I don't think it was was very clear in defining a topic.

So let me make a clear statement of the topic. This topic is about creationists who accept creationism for reasons that are demonstrably wrong. If that's what you want to discuss then please go ahead, but after reading your posts to this thread I think it more likely that you want to discuss erroneous atheist attitudes and opinions about creationists. If that's the case then you should find a thread on that topic, or propose one yourself over at Proposed New Topics.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by BarackZero, posted 12-12-2010 1:12 PM BarackZero has not yet responded

    
Tupinambis
Junior Member (Idle past 2183 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 12-12-2010


Message 55 of 69 (596034)
12-12-2010 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by BarackZero
12-12-2010 1:12 PM


Re: really?
Oh man and I though I was necroposting in a 4-month old venomous snake thread....

quote:
BarackZero-
Macroevolution is never ever claimed to be "the reasonable assumption."
No, macroevolution is "fact, fact, fact."
It is "as certain as gravity."

It is as certain as gravity. Gravity is itself not 100% certain to be true, only 99.999999999999999999999999999999...% true. There's always that slight possibility that the FSM is pushing us down to Earth with his noodley appendages.

quote:
All who do not comport to these demands, not "reasonable assumptions," but demands can only be, in atheist-talk:

- a fundie
- a bible-thumper
- ignorant
- one who knows nothing about science



That's almost everyone who's an ardent creationist on the internet.

quote:
- someone who does not understand evolution

And that's pretty much everyone else. including you on account of the fact that you even mentioned "gaps in the fossil record".
This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by BarackZero, posted 12-12-2010 1:12 PM BarackZero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by BarackZero, posted 12-13-2010 1:05 PM Tupinambis has responded

    
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 2382 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 56 of 69 (596146)
12-13-2010 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Theodoric
12-12-2010 1:15 PM


Re: Topic?
Theodoric:
quote:
You do realize you are responding to an almost 5 year old post,don't you. I don't think the poster has even been here in about that long. Then again your posts have shown that you are not interested in a rational discussion anyway.

You do realize that the post was still carried on this brilliant forum, don't you? If five year old comments are too old, then tell the administrators to delete them at the time of your choosing, for of course your opinion is all that matters.

Now as to "rational discussion," what do pink unicorns have to do with science or evolution?
I bring this up because "scientists" here, like the guy in the cute little pirate's hat, are always pretending to be on the side of "science" even as they constantly invoke topics that nobody else has mentioned. Such irrationality by the Anointed Set. tsk, tsk


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Theodoric, posted 12-12-2010 1:15 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Theodoric, posted 12-13-2010 1:39 PM BarackZero has not yet responded
 Message 63 by Taq, posted 12-13-2010 5:16 PM BarackZero has not yet responded

    
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 2382 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 57 of 69 (596148)
12-13-2010 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Tupinambis
12-12-2010 1:42 PM


Re: really?
Tupinambis:
quote:

And that's pretty much everyone else. including you on account of the fact that you even mentioned "gaps in the fossil record".

Why don't you look up the Cambrian Explosion.

Then explain why there was yet another fraud when archaeologists faked a feathered flying lizard in China perhaps a decade ago. Why all these lies if evolution is so very factual?

One of the most enduring of frauds was Haeckel's drawings. This fraud was perpetuated for over 100 years. Biologists should be ashamed of themselves, but instead, simply come up with flimsy excuses.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Tupinambis, posted 12-12-2010 1:42 PM Tupinambis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 12-13-2010 1:20 PM BarackZero has not yet responded
 Message 60 by Wounded King, posted 12-13-2010 3:52 PM BarackZero has not yet responded
 Message 61 by dwise1, posted 12-13-2010 4:02 PM BarackZero has not yet responded
 Message 62 by Tupinambis, posted 12-13-2010 4:16 PM BarackZero has not yet responded
 Message 64 by Tupinambis, posted 12-13-2010 6:46 PM BarackZero has not yet responded
 Message 66 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-13-2010 9:39 PM BarackZero has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 69 (596151)
12-13-2010 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by BarackZero
12-13-2010 1:05 PM


One more PRATTfall
Why don't you look up the Cambrian Explosion.

Why don't you look it up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

Here's a quick question to test your comprehension - how many different species are represented by "Cambrian Explosion" fossils? Be specific.

quote:
The presence of Precambrian animals somewhat dampens the "bang" of the explosion: not only was the appearance of animals gradual, but their evolutionary radiation ("diversification") may also not have been as rapid as once thought. Indeed, statistical analysis shows that the Cambrian explosion was no faster than any of the other radiations in animals' history.

One of the most enduring of frauds was Haeckel's drawings.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB701.html

Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by BarackZero, posted 12-13-2010 1:05 PM BarackZero has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 59 of 69 (596153)
12-13-2010 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by BarackZero
12-13-2010 1:00 PM


Re: Topic?
Instead of being a condescending ass how about trying to say something that is on topic.

The Admin even clarified the topic for you.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by BarackZero, posted 12-13-2010 1:00 PM BarackZero has not yet responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1622 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 60 of 69 (596166)
12-13-2010 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by BarackZero
12-13-2010 1:05 PM


Embryo's still similar despite creationist bitching, news at 11.
One of the most enduring of frauds was Haeckel's drawings. This fraud was perpetuated for over 100 years. Biologists should be ashamed of themselves, but instead, simply come up with flimsy excuses.

Then the cover of this week's Nature should make your head a splode.

TTFN,

WK

Edited by Admin, : Fix link.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by BarackZero, posted 12-13-2010 1:05 PM BarackZero has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
5Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017