Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Questions Creationists Never Answer
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 46 of 141 (240204)
09-03-2005 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Nuggin
09-03-2005 4:07 AM


Re: I'll post it here, since it's on topic for this thread
Why?
I feel no need at all to explain what creationists believe and their evidence. If you want to be educated, take the time to educate yourself.
But let me ask you a question.
Let's just pretend for a minute that no such thing as creationism exists, Ok? Would the criticisms of ToE be acceptable to you, or is it a matter of faith with you that it is wrong to criticize ToE? Is it a matter of faith with you that unless someone accepts ToE, they are not reasonable and therefore their critiques are unacceptable?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Nuggin, posted 09-03-2005 4:07 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Nuggin, posted 09-03-2005 4:29 AM randman has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 47 of 141 (240205)
09-03-2005 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by randman
09-03-2005 4:13 AM


Re: I'll post it here, since it's on topic for this thread
I have no problems with critisisms of ToE, when they are asked in a reasonable fasion, and when the explaination isn't countered with blind retoric.
If you have a question about a specific find (Piltdown Man), terrific. Let's discuss.
But what you and the other creationists are saying is this:
Out of 10,000,000 examples of evolution, I have a problem with these 3, so let's teach my religion to school kids (to the exclusion of ALL OTHER religions) even though I have 0 evidence for it.
Evolutionary biologists are CONSTANTLY critisizing each other's work. It's the easiest way to make a name for yourself. It's called "peer review".
Creationists have nothing like peer review. Why? First of all, it's impossible to peer review when they don't present any evidence. Second, they have a long history of burning people at the stake for questioning the allmighty power of their one true god.
The problem with your debates is that they always work out like this:
Thread -- Whale Evolution
Randman -- Pakicetus isn't a whale.
Random Evo -- Actually it's an ancestor of the whale.
Randman -- It's not a whale.
Random Evo -- Right, it predates what we think of as whales, it's a terrestrial animal.
Randman -- It's not a whale. To suggest it's a whale is silly. School kids shouldn't be taught this.
Random Evo -- Well, they should be taught that the family tree which includes Pakicetus evolved into what we think of today as whales.
Randman -- It's not a whale.
Random Evo -- Hello, is this thing on?
Randman -- People keep saying it's a whale, and it's not.
Random Evo -- Rand, who are you talking to? I've answered your question, I've given you links.
Randman -- Pakicetus is not a whale!
Admin -- Alright, time out for Randman, not responsive.
Thread -- Jesus, Barefoot or Sandels?
Theist -- Jesus definately wore sandels.
Randman -- Pakicetus is not a whale!!!
Theist -- what is he talking about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by randman, posted 09-03-2005 4:13 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by randman, posted 09-03-2005 4:42 AM Nuggin has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 48 of 141 (240206)
09-03-2005 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Nuggin
09-03-2005 4:29 AM


Re: I'll post it here, since it's on topic for this thread
I have no problems with critisisms of ToE, when they are asked in a reasonable fasion
That seems to suggest you believe criticisms of ToE should come in the form of "questions."
Gimme a break.
But what you and the other creationists are saying is this:
Out of 10,000,000 examples of evolution, I have a problem with these 3, so let's teach my religion to school kids (to the exclusion of ALL OTHER religions) even though I have 0 evidence for it.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Your's is less factual than most, it seems.
Evolutionary biologists are CONSTANTLY critisizing each other's work. It's the easiest way to make a name for yourself. It's called "peer review".
Only if the claims are made within the evo paradigm. All others are essentially prohibited a priori because evos are not willing to consider ID or creationism as science, and anyone daring to publish an ID paper is hounded. We've gone over this before. Occasionally an evo will admit they don't believe any ID or creationist paper should be printed in peer-review literature, but mostly you guys deny what most of the rest of America sees plainly about what's going on.
It's sort of pathetic you resort to lies but that's what I have come to expect. It'd be better if you would honestly listen to and discuss your critics' points, but like most evos I have run across, you'd rather lob false accusations.\
Btw, the following link contains some data that you claim does not exist.
http://www.s8int.com/dinolit1.html
This message has been edited by randman, 09-03-2005 04:43 AM
This message has been edited by randman, 09-03-2005 04:53 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Nuggin, posted 09-03-2005 4:29 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Nuggin, posted 09-03-2005 1:25 PM randman has replied
 Message 54 by ReverendDG, posted 10-18-2005 2:52 AM randman has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 49 of 141 (240260)
09-03-2005 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by randman
09-03-2005 4:42 AM


Re: I'll post it here, since it's on topic for this thread
That seems to suggest you believe criticisms of ToE should come in the form of "questions."
Gimme a break.
This is the MOST TELLING post of Randman's I have ever read. From the above quote it is obvious what your point of view is. It reveals completely the reasons you can not/ will not listen to reason.
You obviously want everything you post to be taken as a statement, accepted on it's face as fact (Truth).
If you have a question, raise it. If all you have are "statements" about your all powerful spagetti monster and his magic wand, take them to your temple.
We've gone over this before.
Yup, sure have, and once again, you haven't listened to a word of it.
If IDrs want to be considered scientists, then PRESENT DATA. I am STILL waiting for you to present evidence FOR your case.
You don't because you can't. There's no evidence for the "Magic Wand" theory.
Hell, you haven't even suggested what would be evidence for the "Magic Wand" theory.
Your's is less factual than most, it seems.
Randman, what country are you from? For a while, I assumed you spoke English as a 1st language, but now I'm not so sure. Which of the words here are you having trouble with? "Less"? "Factual"? "Most"? "Seems"?
Can you show me how "most" other theories of creationism are MORE "factual"? Or, does it "seem" that that would force you to post evidence?
As for your link, that's simply laughable. I can take a picture of a drawing on a sidewalk and claim it's from Mars, doesn't make it so.
Where's the context? Show me the entire wall of art, not a close up on chalk lizard.
Further, if "art" was considered proof, that kind of destroys your whole Whale argument doesn't it.
Oh, wait, that's right, you didn't present an "argument" because everything you say is Truth straight from the oraface of the Spagetti Monster himself

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by randman, posted 09-03-2005 4:42 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 1:09 AM Nuggin has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 50 of 141 (252566)
10-18-2005 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Nuggin
09-03-2005 1:25 PM


Re: I'll post it here, since it's on topic for this thread
For someone who claims to want to discuss data, you present and discuss none, nor respond to the data and link I have posted.
very telling...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Nuggin, posted 09-03-2005 1:25 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by nwr, posted 10-18-2005 1:50 AM randman has replied
 Message 53 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2005 2:21 AM randman has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 51 of 141 (252580)
10-18-2005 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by randman
10-18-2005 1:09 AM


Re: I'll post it here, since it's on topic for this thread
Hi randman. Glad to see you back.
As a favor, can I ask you to avoid the kind of almost empty post to which I am replying (empty = little or no science in a science forum).
I would prefer to not see you banned again.
Hmm, and this is an almost empty post by me. Sorry about that everyone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 1:09 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 2:02 AM nwr has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 52 of 141 (252585)
10-18-2005 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by nwr
10-18-2005 1:50 AM


Re: I'll post it here, since it's on topic for this thread
just responding in kind...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by nwr, posted 10-18-2005 1:50 AM nwr has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 53 of 141 (252587)
10-18-2005 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by randman
10-18-2005 1:09 AM


Re: I'll post it here, since it's on topic for this thread
I see you are back, and I see that the time off hasn't helped your reading skills.
Go back and re-read the post. You'll see that I actually looked at and responded to your link.
Additionally, you seem to have missed the topic "Questions Creationists Never Answer". I'm not the creationist here, you are. You suggest I'm not posting data, but it's not on my shoulders to do so.
The point I made, and I will make again -
Creationists / Intelligent Designers have no methodology, no data, no evidence.
What you do have are lies, distortions, and flat out fallacies.
***ALERT!!! I'm talking about your link ***
A close up of a chalk drawing on sandstone without any context whatsoever is not proof of dinosaurs being alive with humans. It's at best evidence that a webdesigner has a 6 year old and a digital camera.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 1:09 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 7:20 AM Nuggin has replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 54 of 141 (252593)
10-18-2005 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by randman
09-03-2005 4:42 AM


Re: I'll post it here, since it's on topic for this thread
I'm sorry but i would not consider anything from this site as evidence for anything, the guy who publishs this site is wrong about everything he posts
the junk about the stones has been proven wrong by a number of sources even by the people who found the stones for the collector
as for the anasazi art work, this has be shown to be a streach of credibility
though he has some odd things the fact that he claims on another page, that natural nuclear fusion sites are man made, when the people that found them say they are natural, shows he doesn't bother to do research
This message has been edited by demongoat, 10-18-2005 02:56 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by randman, posted 09-03-2005 4:42 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 55 of 141 (252637)
10-18-2005 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Nuggin
10-18-2005 2:21 AM


Re: I'll post it here, since it's on topic for this thread
Numerous accurate depictions of dinosaurs by people who should never have seen a dinosaur is dismissed by you with a waive of the hand, eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2005 2:21 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by nator, posted 10-18-2005 8:07 AM randman has not replied
 Message 57 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2005 8:58 AM randman has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 56 of 141 (252654)
10-18-2005 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by randman
10-18-2005 7:20 AM


Re: I'll post it here, since it's on topic for this thread
quote:
Numerous accurate depictions of dinosaurs by people who should never have seen a dinosaur is dismissed by you with a waive of the hand, eh?
I can show you "numerous accurate depictions" of lots of unverified stuff, randman.
Where is the scholarly article that has been published by experts in a professional journal?
Seriously, that site is clearly a crackpot source if it lists no outside verification from scholarly sources.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 7:20 AM randman has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 57 of 141 (252670)
10-18-2005 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by randman
10-18-2005 7:20 AM


Re: I'll post it here, since it's on topic for this thread
Well, scraf beat me to it on the response but...
If you really want, I can start posting links to all sorts of sites giving equal, if not better, evidence for Lock Ness, UFOs, Bigfoot, Ghosts, Chupacabra, etc.
Not to mention the fact that the site you give seriously distorts reality, and simultaneously shows an amazing amount of imagination and a complete lack of it.
First of all, the fact that we assign the word "Dragon" to several different creatures in different cultures does not mean that they are the same creature.
Second, if you were living in inland China 3000 years ago and found a Meglodon tooth, where would you think it came from?
Third, a chalk drawing on a sandstone rock is not evidence.
I MIGHT be willing to give the site some thought if it were to show the petraglyph in context, but it does not. There are plenty of places in the southwest where you can see ancient rockart right next to "Led Zep Rulez". Now, while I completely agree that they rule, I don't think that the Anasazi knew that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 7:20 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 11:54 AM Nuggin has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 58 of 141 (252728)
10-18-2005 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Nuggin
10-18-2005 8:58 AM


Re: I'll post it here, since it's on topic for this thread
You and Shraf have a different opinion on "scholarly sources" being willing within the evo camp to discuss evidence that severely contradicts evo paradigms.
As far as the web-site, the data is the data, period. Pictures, written accounts, etc,...are no less real just because a web-site dedicated to the anomalous or strange stuff publishes them.
Also, modern science often has a difficult time reconstructing dinosaurs accurately from fossils, and there are often quite a few mistakes. The argument that ancient people just accurately created reproductions based on old fossils and then let their imagination get carried away just doesn't hold water. It's a nice try, but doesn't work because it isn't logical.
The question is why are there numerous reports, written accounts, drawings on pottery and elsewhere of quite specific anatomical details matching so precisely with what we know of many dinosaurs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2005 8:58 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2005 12:28 PM randman has replied
 Message 60 by Modulous, posted 10-18-2005 12:32 PM randman has not replied
 Message 63 by nator, posted 10-19-2005 8:04 AM randman has not replied
 Message 64 by nator, posted 10-19-2005 8:08 AM randman has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 59 of 141 (252734)
10-18-2005 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by randman
10-18-2005 11:54 AM


Re: I'll post it here, since it's on topic for this thread
matching so precisely
You are seeing things. Go back and look at the site.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 11:54 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 12:33 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 60 of 141 (252735)
10-18-2005 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by randman
10-18-2005 11:54 AM


Evos are frauds, but anti-evos are saints?
As far as the web-site, the data is the data, period. Pictures, written accounts, etc,...are no less real just because a web-site dedicated to the anomalous or strange stuff publishes them.
I don't doubt they are real, but are they genuine? A lot of these pictures look stylistically different from their contempories. It would be nice to see a reliable source (an archaeologist as opposed to a creationist) discuss them to see what they have to say.
The question is why are there numerous reports, written accounts, drawings on pottery and elsewhere of quite specific anatomical details matching so precisely with what we know of many dinosaurs.
The question is, if dinosaurs were contempory with humans, why are so many of the drawings, reports and written accounts blatantly unlike dinosaurs? Creatures with chimeric qualities, or hexapods such as winged dragons, or winged snake-like creatures? Why do we see so many of these monstrosities as compared to a couple of things which look like dinosaurs?
The problem you face of course is even worse. It doesn't matter if dinosaurs lived contemporously with humans 6,000 years ago. It would be surprising, and unusual, but not impossible. Natural History would have it that they went extinct, but evolution doesn't require it at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 11:54 AM randman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024