Welcome, newbies!

This seems to be a slapstick site for beating up on creationists, and a meeting place for atheists to discuss their faith in no god. It is incredibly slanted towards the view of evolutionism being the only truth, with the evolutionists taking the key position they are the only ones in the world who understand absolute truth. Silly, really.SOme sad examples I've noticed from my recent lurking:1. Abiogenesis is not allowed to be discussed as part of evolution even though this site is defined as evolution against creation.2. The admin people here are not at all impartial and violate the forum guidelines themselves by posting under two names at the same time; one as a bully admin, the other as a prejudiced evolutionist.3. No one is changing sides, so why this site even exists to engage in feigned debate is perhaps the biggest joke for the objective observer to enjoy.4. What may be even funnier, however, is how stupid you all look arguing ad infinitum about irrelevant issues!!!GET A LIFE PEOPLE!!!!

quote:

---

The phrase "get a life" certainly does come to mind.

---

Is it appropriate to insult while posting in the Admin mode?I thought the purpose of being an Admin was to gently guide those who are being verbally abusive (insulting) back to being more respectful pursuant to the guidelines.Some example you are setting by being a Jackazz and a Sorryazz administrater.That you demonstrate uncommon hypocrisy was my point about how stupid you sound.Indeed, GET A LIFE!

quote:

---

Phillip Johnson are using you as pawns

---

Alrighty then... it's settled. Everyone who believes in creation is just a pawn of a world wide conspiracy led by Johnson. And no doubt Phillip Johnson is a dumbazz, right? Yeah, great argument. Fail to see how people who don't share the same beliefs as you are pawns though.If you could only see how stupid you look and foolish you sound, although such an epiphany would compromise the tomfoolery you project.As far as the truth is concerned, you couldn't accept anything other than evolution. Be nice to yourself and admit it. Ever considered Pangenesis though?Now run along little guy, and tell the world about how great atheism is, how open your mind is (except to creation), and how evolution is entirely consistent with your belief in no god.And get yourself a cookie for always following the status quo and jumping to conclusions so quickly.

Zephyr and Crashandburn,Maybe one of you could back up your bold assertions per forum guidelines by showing the rest of us precisely how Phillip Johnson has lied. I see Crashandburn backpeddled a wee bit when he or she was called out on the carpet for LYING about Phillip Johnson.It was the old "bait and switch" routine:

quote:

---

What I meant was, anyone who parrots and accepts without question the so-called "proofs" of Kent Hovind and a number of other creationist figureheads is the victim of knowing falsehoods propagated by those figures

---

Stop the tape!I mentioned Phillip Johnson solely in response to your deliberate and unethical slander of his person, allegedly based on your failure to understand his logical analysis of evolution in which he found it wanting. You, in turn, "switched" the issue and made up a story that I was "parroting" the proofs of Kent Hovind and a number of "other creationist figureheads" when I DID NO SUCH THING! Moreover, that you assume I would "accept without question" was quite the misplaced insult, not to mention another deliberate act of defamation and bold faced LIE.I see you have an interest in the metaphysical, and the God of the Bible is constantly on your mind. But, if you please, the analysis is the argument for evolution, which takes into consideration the evidence and proofs, but does not consider God. So stick to the issue of evolution and leave God out of it. Or are you so consumed with the God of the Bible that you can't get Him off your mind?But, anyway, I am sure YOU aren't guilty of swalling hook, line, and sinker any evolutionist canard and parroting the same without further inquiry as an unwitting pawn in propagating well-established falsehoods. Phrenology and the Nebraska Man were, of course, before your time.However, one of the current LIES you believe and "propagate" is that Phillip Johnson is a liar. You said that here. But you most likely heard that from someone else as it is doubtful you came to that conclusion on your own. But I am very much interested in seeing you establish that Phillip Johnson is a liar as you say.Take it one sentence at a time. Quote Johnson, then in YOUR OWN WORDS, expose his lying ways. Put up or shut up that lying pie-hole of yours.Or craw back under the propaganda hole from whence you came.

Crashfrog stated creationists were perpetuating lies and:

quote:

---

Phillip Johnson are using you as pawns

---

Mister Pamboli ignorantly responds:

quote:

---

Crashfrog has made no accusations, implied or otherwsie, of "knowing falsehood" against Philip Johnson.

---

I know, Pamboli doesn't see it, but in truth he does and rather DENIES seeing it in a continuing fabrication of so-so storytelling...
Guess Pamboli would agree that everything Johnson says about evolution is, in fact, not a lie at all. And that was my point. Thanks for making it for me!Wonder who we get next, AdminPamboli, the playground bully, or "Mister Pamboli", resident dumbazz?As to this being an alleged "beginners" forum, Pamboli sure made his presence known here in multiple split personalities. IF you guys suck this bad at debate on a "beginners" forum, you must be telling real whoppers in the "expert" forums. Hoo-boy BTW, Professor Pamboli, you're not as competent in the English language yourself, given that you misspelled "otherwise", supra, after at least one attempt at editing. In fact, I'd say your not competent at all to discuss with authority anything scientific unless you can prove you have the proper credentials and education, relevant experience, and published works from which one may conclude otherwise. Cut and paste, citing other websites, and general paraphrasing of others' ideas is not wholly impressive.And the funniest thing about it all is you truly DO NOT SEE how stupid and irrational you sound.Take a logic class, guy. Maybe you will wake up someday from that foggy delusion.

Well, we can only hope that AdminMinisterPamboli will learn from your list. And each will apply it to his or herself.However, it goes too far to conclude that every noted phrase were viable logical fallacies. Affirming the consequence perhaps, but the others are my mere observations, not intended for logical argument, and labeling the same as the actual fallacies one must be on notice of when critically analyzing a text purporting to be a logical argument is quite the misnomer. The distinction is one of degree, and the umbrella of logic does not stretch over every written word. Consider it like poetry, and poetry, though it provokes THOUGHT, is not logical much less an argument.In short, your list would be helpful if only it were relevant. You did learn about relevance in your logic class? Isn't there some latin word for the official name of that oft repeated fallacy?Anybody gonna show me how Phillip E. Johnson is a liar, or are all you punks just P-O-S-E-R-S???

Interesting, you claim to be able to read Duane Gish's mind, and also Kent Hovinds', but Phillip E. Johnson's you cannot. Yet, YOU (not the "we" you attempt to diffuse the situation into) still proclaim Johnson spreads "falsehoods".Again, what precisely are they? I would really like to know because I believe YOU DON'T KNOW and are quite the pawn of pawns. Be specific by quoting his very words one sentence at a time and demonstrate, in your own words, his assertions and analysis are false. It is becoming increasingly obvious you never actually read any of Johnson's work, and are "parroting" what others have told you. That would mean you are participating in the same behavior you despise in others. It would mean you are simply defaming, slandering, and generally spreading false rumors about Johnson without backing up your assertions per forum guidelines.Even better idea: I bet we could hook you up with an online debate with Johnson if your analysis warrants any further thought. I can get his email address for you. He teaches at UCLA. Seeing you eat some crow would be grand. As you are neither a scientist nor a lawyer, your analysis must be taken in context of your education and experience. In other words, Johnson is smarter than you by many leaps and bounds, and you sound rather silly to allege Johnson is far beneath your randomly given powers of intellectual prowess by lacking the cognitive discernment to distinguish a "known" falsehood.As to your so-called evidence "for" evolution, you got a little too excited a little too fast by getting the cart before the horse. This is so because, obviously, I don't know what evolution is, and it would therefore behoove you to define "evolution" before you get started on proving it. Until then, your "evidence" is meaningless. Make sure it's one of those definitions of evolution that all evolutionists agree on so you might have to cite a peer reviewed journal on that one. (btw, on at least one of your alleged "evidences" *for* evolution, you pit yourself against a false dilemma, and then go on to cite an observation of "no evidence" for a flood in a certain geographical region on the planet as valid evidence for evolution! Non-sequitur, my man).I'm STILL waiting for you to show me how Johnson is a liar, or, as you succinctly stated in another way during one of your signature backpeddling events, "spreading falsehoods"(as you recall, this was the reason I chimed in). Unless you wish to be recognized as one who "spreads falsehoods", you best get started on showing the world how Johnson is a liar. So far you've refused.PS to Quetzel:Thank you for helping me with my insults. However, "poser" means "one who poses" and the term is interchangeable with "wannabe". It applies to people like Crashfrog who poses as a know-it-all and makes unfounded assertions about people they don't know and have never met "spreading falsehoods". "Posers" never actually do get around to showing us HOW they know-it-all however...

Inquisitor:
Anybody gonna show me how Phillip E. Johnson is a liar...?Crashfrog:
"Since nobody made the assertion "Phillip Johnson is a liar" ...I did say that he spreads falsehoods"

quote:

---

Oxford American Dictionary(ISBN:0-380-60772-7):

​

false'hood n. 1. a lie
2. telling lies

​

liar n. a person who tells lies.

---

Now Crashfrog, you can continue to argue along for argument's sake, but you will look like a complete fool for doing so unless you first admit your error.Thanks for playing.

Crashfrog on Phillip Johnson, in response to me asking for the specific falsehood Phillip Johnson is parroting:

quote:

---

Well, for instance, creationism, which is false in my belief, and therefore to spread it is to spread a falsehood. That's why I said I believe he spreads falsehood. Also he appears to believe that science can be accurately judged on legal grounds - another falsehood.

---

You've never read Phillip Johnson, have you? Thus, under your reasoning, it is unfair to continue calling you a liar, since you are merely "spreading falsehoods" about Johnson and are just ignorant of what you are saying. If it pleases you to be this ignorant about perpetuating lies, why should I engage in further debate on your alleged 100% proof of evolution? Especially since you won't define the term.Unlike you, I consider having an agreed upon definition of a theoretical concept nailed down prior to engaging in critical analysis of your so-called undisputable evidence for the theoretical concept. Such is the foundation of critical thinking. So don't define evolution, fine by me. You are one hell of a critical thinker. Gives you an easy way out of the debate, doesn't it? Feels good to bow out for a reason other than being exposed as a pawn parroting UNTRUE things about Phillip Johnson, solely because he makes a rather compelling argument against the viability of evolution and you heard some other evolutionist talk smack about him.Show me where Johnson spread creationism. I recall Johnson specifically stating in Darwin on Trial that he was NOT arguing for creation. The position he took was that evolution was an invalid conclusion based on what was being alleged as evidence. You therefore err in your thinking that someone is arguing for creation by exposing the fallacy of evolution. Evolution is either correct or not, and stands or falls on its own; creation is irrelevant to the ToE. You are just too insecure to be left without a pet theory. Unfortunately, you won't even define the theory. Evolution is not as self-evident as you have led yourself to believe, unless you define the theory as such, which is what I expect in a future definition if you ever get around to working one up.Show me as well where Johnson "appears to believe" science can be judged on legal grounds, and please articulate precisely those legal grounds because I don't recall him saying that either. Even if he did say that, you would call that a falsehood? Have you never heard of Forensic Evidence? Everyday, science IS ACCURATELY judged on what you call legal grounds, whatever it is you mean by "legal grounds". So, you are quite wrong again, and you are being used as a pawn to spread another falsehood. I sense you are a very dishonest person who doesn't even know what evolution truly means, and certainly is clueless as to Johnson's argument.Why you called Johnson a liar is the real question...To any reasonable person, saying that one is "spreading falsehoods" would mean the same thing. Didn't anyone ever tell you that telling another lie to cover up the first one doesn't work very well?

Ok, Crashfrog. Read Johnson's book and get back to me. It would've been nice to debate with you the precise words of Johnson you take issue with but, alas, you are content with speculation, mere beliefs, guesswork, and ignorance, failing to quote a single word of Johnson.You've raped the word liar by diminishing the depravity of someone who "spreads falsehoods", aka lies, saying they aren't really liars if they are ignorant of the lie. In other words, Ignorant Liars aren't really liars...Finally, you admit you couldn't tell me what scientists agree evolution is or even define the theory yourself, but you are ready to show me all this undisputed, undeniable, and uncontested evidence of evolution??? You evos play the semantics game all the time, and it is hardly unreasonable to define the very thing you are debating. As I mentioned before, it does give you an easy way out to state that defining evolution is not important and it is just a game of mine. Whatever.Be gone now son. You are the weakest link.