Evolution has been Disproven

well maybe before firing your mouth off, you'd do a bit more reading and find out that all threads are closed at the @300 post mark - nothing at all to do with content.

quote:

---

I notice some warnings by some administrators...but it always seems to be on one side?

---

Pure bollocks - I'm what you would refer to as an Evo - I have been suspended a number of times as have many others. In addition a numbers of the moderators here are creationists.I would suggest that if this is an indicator of your research skills that you think long and hard about your posts. The lions around here will eat you alive.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 02-Jul-2005 03:05 PM

I haven't seen any lions so far I should be afraid of. But nevertheless, I am a new member...so still learning the system around here.

Let me tell you about the lions - many of our posters are either doctoral level in the sciences or have long-term hobby interests in scientific areas that means, that for our purposes, they are basically experts in the area.(I am not accusing you of this).. Every so often someone will turn and start making statements like

quote:

---

how is the information transmitted?

​

how does something come from nothing?

​

It's a theory not a fact!

​

We've Found Noah's ark! (but then we lost it...)

---

We have a very high attrition rate for christians in the scientific forums*.Why? Because many of those are so confused by the nonsense they find on creationist websites, they they repeat it parrot fashion with no real understanding of what they are saying. Generally most quickly disappear off to another site where the level of debate is not so high and so requiring.* the forum is basically in two sections -faith (where you don't have to present scientific evidence and the bible can be a "valid" source)science (where the bible is generally not cited and good quality evidence is all).This message has been edited by Flash Gordon, 02-Jul-2005 03:16 PMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 02-Jul-2005 03:18 PM

Nice try but not great. Your posting privileges can be restored by contacting Admin and explaining why d_yankee would register under a new name and pretend he was a new user.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 07-02-2005 03:01 PM

---

In a word, yes.

And the board is also frequented by the occasional antievolutionist nutter who post copious volumes of unsupported assertions and run away from actual evidence. And they are usually so divorced from reality that they consider everyone and everything which is in opposition to their own positions to be biassed whilst they are the epitome of unbiased objectivity.

CK:
Contrary to popular belief, evolutionists don't have a corner on scientific objectivity. I've found through personal experience that when an evolutionist gets backed into the wall he relies on arrogant condescending rhetoric. From my observations, creationists are more prone to stick to the objective facts.

wow, i just had to post for this one, what world are you living in?
it must not be the real one, because i've seen plenty of creationists babble on about nonsense or junk science more than any evo. hell most of the fresh creationists and some of the old ones say the same thing they have been since they started herewhat does that tell you?, by the way when you say objective facts, do you really mean anything that agrees with what i believe

Springer, I don't recall that you've actually posted a fact yet. Did I miss it?Assertions without a foundation do not facts make.Since you are, apparently, a creationist perhaps you can give us a few objective facts to mull over?Of course, real science deals with all the facts but we'll just start with a few for now eh?

Absolutely! People like us who spend years after years studying and researching in the fields of science are just deluding ourselves. We spend all our time sitting on our butts making up stuff, like the theory of evolution and theory of gravity. We like to feel important, so as soon as we notice that someone is a creationist we immediately proceed with our little inquisition and ban him. There is a group, about 30 or so, scientists who spend all day censoring the posts made on this board and delete any post that doesn't go hand in hand with our make belief nonsense.Like I said, we like to feel important. So, if you really want to go to a forum where people accept the bible as a science text book, I strongly suggest you go elsewhere. We, the inhabitants of the EvC, are just too self-deluded to know the difference between Earth and Middle Earth.

Nobody expects the Evolutionist Inquisition!This message has been edited by demongoat, 09-30-2005 02:18 AM

---

"Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it."

You'd have to refer to the specific threads for anyone to comment.We have a general rule that we close a thread at about 300 posts. This sort of refocusses the discussion (if anyone wants to open a continuation thread) and is a tradition from when the software used to choke up when there were too many (somewhere over 300) posts on a thread.As for warnings they vary a lot. The site has "science forums" (this is on) and other forums. In the science forums posters are required to apply the methodolgy of science. If an assertion is made then it must be backed up with fact and reasoning and supported against criticism.Frequently we find that individuals come here thinking they know a lot about the sciences involved because they have read stuff on creationist web sites like AIG and ICR. When the errors are pointed out not all of them can deal with it very well and recieve warnings for not following the guidelines of the site.I think if we actually quantified the warnings etc. we would, as you suggest, find that more of the creationist side receive them. That is partially because they are more likely to have some trouble with unfamiliar ways of thinking.Your post about God and faith was, by the way, off topic in this thread it is not one for discussing faith and beliefs derived from it. Lots and lots of warnings are given for getting off topic. We all do it all the time. It is very hard to stay on topic but with a little administrative warning and good will we keep the discussions a little bit focussed.

I noticed that rhetoric (using language persuasively) is the prime (but not sole) field of creationists. Try going to see (or download and watch) Gish or Hovind debates. The evolutionists they debate generally get exasperated by the shear number of things the creationists say. Gish and Hovind speak at a thousand miles an hour, and sprinkle their debates with charisma, charm, and humour. This is called fast talking and is a sales technique. It is employed by people that are trying to convince you of something.Their opponents talk slower, and get confused about what issue to tackle and how.These creation debaters rarely get involved in written debate, because in written debate there is time for evidence to be presented so the 'evolutionists' can demand that this happen. Written debates are heavier on actually presenting an argument using logic and evidence and not on oration skill.Thus, creationists often get trounced in debates in written form because they rely on style over content and diversionary tactics are easier to call.Sure, some evolutionists become condescending and rely on persuasiveness and insult, but that is on both sides of the fence. Indeed, I will happily debate you one-on-one relying soley on evidence and not rhetoric.

quote:

---

From my observations, creationists are more prone to stick to the objective facts.

---

Ha ha ha ha. I'd be interested in knowing where you made these observations; I have yet to see any actual facts in a creationist post.Speaking of facts, I am waiting for your reply to a post I wrote that gave a couple of objective facts and detailed how one scientifically deals with these objective facts. I am very interested in your response to this.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Umm, hello. I would like to say, that I feel bad for creationists. They are a minority and they get bad representation by, as one person in this forum quoted, in parrot fashion. I've seen a few Evolutionists that do the same but generally I find evolutionists are more informed. (Which sucks cuz I'm a IDer)But back to what I wanted to say, someone here said it's been proven you can't get life from non-life. This is false and I'll tell you why in a second.
It's also been said can't prove their is no god, this is true. Why, because you can't prove a negative, only a positive. But anyway, that's my two cents.