Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2019 2:08 AM
19 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,006 Year: 5,043/19,786 Month: 1,165/873 Week: 61/460 Day: 3/58 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
161718
19
2021Next
Author Topic:   Post your short questions here. No need to start a thread everytime.
jar
Member
Posts: 30935
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 271 of 304 (416609)
08-16-2007 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Ihategod
08-16-2007 11:38 PM


Re: I might get nuked...
Please.

If you think that Young Earth Creationism, Biblical Creationism or Intelligent Design can be supported, present your best arguments in defense of those positions.

It might be refreshing.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Ihategod, posted 08-16-2007 11:38 PM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Ihategod, posted 08-17-2007 12:20 AM jar has not yet responded

Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4137 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 272 of 304 (416611)
08-17-2007 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by jar
08-16-2007 11:57 PM


Re: I might get nuked...
Alright here I go.

Based on the evidence I have studied from both sides, creation and evolution I have come to the conclusion that evolution dogma should be used only for wiping crusty bung.

The idea that life evolved because gross organisms look similar and there has been some philosophizing of what would have evolved into what (phylogenic hierarchy tree of life) is completely outrageous and unscientific.

Age of the Earth, evidence for evolution- radiometric dating, geologic column, fantastical fantasies.

radiometric dating assumes too much and discounts theories to explain the numbers in creationist terms.

geologic column is so hilarious. roflmao.

fantasy- what evolutionists think and then speak and then categorize as science.

can i get my debate now?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by jar, posted 08-16-2007 11:57 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-17-2007 12:53 AM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 274 by kuresu, posted 08-17-2007 12:55 AM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 275 by molbiogirl, posted 08-17-2007 1:23 AM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 281 by Shtop, posted 08-17-2007 6:03 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 273 of 304 (416615)
08-17-2007 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Ihategod
08-17-2007 12:20 AM


Re: I might get nuked...
Hear, hear! So glad to see someone here finally making sense! Strongly seconded! Let all say 'Amen!'

Oops--my mistake. For a second I thought the title read 'I might get naked'...

___


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Ihategod, posted 08-17-2007 12:20 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

kuresu
Member (Idle past 620 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 274 of 304 (416617)
08-17-2007 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Ihategod
08-17-2007 12:20 AM


Re: I might get nuked...
vashgun writes:

the few I read disgusted me due to the lack of debate prowess and ignorance presented mainly by the creation minded.

The post I'm replying to is nothing more than an argument of incredulity. You complained about the lack of debating prowess of other creos. You are worse than several creos here.

Where is your evidence that:

radiometric dating assumes too much

geologic column is so hilarious

The idea that life evolved . . .is completely outrageous and unscientific

See, in debates here, we ask for evidence to support one's assertions. Further, as I mentioned previously, you've used the fallacy of an argument of incredulity. (hint: when you claimed evolution is outrageous).

Oh, and please do try to separate biology from geology and both of those from physics. radiometric dating is not evidence for the ToE. Neither is the geologic column.

Funny, you claiming that other creos debated poorly. Or do you think that this post of yours is actually of a higher caliber?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Ihategod, posted 08-17-2007 12:20 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 749 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 275 of 304 (416620)
08-17-2007 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Ihategod
08-17-2007 12:20 AM


Re: I might get nuked...
There are any number of threads on radiometric dating, the age of the earth, the geologic column, etc.

By searching radiometric, I found the following open forums:

Geology- working up from basic principles.
Was there a worldwide flood?
Radioactive carbon dating
Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory
Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)
The dating game
100 Categories of Evidence Against Noah’s Flood
Evolution vs. Creation Interpretations (Jazzns, nemesis_juggernaut) (NOW OPEN TO ALL)
Destruction of Pompei is 1631 year.
Potassium Argon Dating doesnt work at all
Correlation Among Various Radiometric Ages
Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
Dating methodology for the Vishnu Schist
Feedback about reliability of dating
How the geo strata are identified as time periods
Incompatibility of Geology with YEC
How the geo strata are identified as time periods
Young-earth theories
Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?
Undermining long-held paradigms
The great breadths of time.

Hell. There's a science forum called Dates and Dating.

Why don't you jump right in and prove alla us evil-utionists wrong?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Ihategod, posted 08-17-2007 12:20 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4137 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 276 of 304 (416624)
08-17-2007 1:48 AM


......
I am aware of my brevity on the topics stated. If I would have listed in detail with sources it would have taken all night. I'd much rather debate one on one.

Most threads are longer than I care to read, I would like to debate someone, anyone who is willing.

I'm just a stupid YEC, please purge me of my delusions! One on One preferably.

I would like to start at the beginnings of the TOC and then progress from there, including all of your definitions. pe, abio, whatever.


Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Doddy, posted 08-17-2007 1:57 AM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 278 by ringo, posted 08-17-2007 1:57 AM Ihategod has not yet responded
 Message 282 by Admin, posted 08-17-2007 6:41 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

Doddy
Member (Idle past 4017 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 277 of 304 (416627)
08-17-2007 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Ihategod
08-17-2007 1:48 AM


Re: ......
I'd be glad to, Vashgun. I fancy myself as an educator, and so if you are willing to learn, I'm willing to teach. Have you a background in science?

Do you want to start a thread, or shall I?


Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic.

Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Ihategod, posted 08-17-2007 1:48 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16350
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 278 of 304 (416628)
08-17-2007 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Ihategod
08-17-2007 1:48 AM


Re: ......
Vashgun writes:

Most threads are longer than I care to read, I would like to debate someone, anyone who is willing.

Why would anybody want to debate you one-on-one when you can't be bothered to read the threads? You need to show us what you can do before anybody's likely to invest much time in you.

Edited by Ringo, : Spwlling.


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Ihategod, posted 08-17-2007 1:48 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

Doddy
Member (Idle past 4017 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 279 of 304 (416633)
08-17-2007 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Ihategod
08-16-2007 11:38 PM


Re: I might get nuked...
Vashgun writes:

Whilst reading many threads I have come to perhaps, a premature conclusion based on the review of the last few days. And that conclusion is that the majority of the users here and also the admins and mods are evolutionists.

This is true.

Vashgun writes:

It is as if all the creationists have either deserted or been blasted away by the mighty power of the Law of Evolution. I have seen only 3 creationists post, and subsequently many evolutionist attack the poster with disdain and arrogance more fitting a small child.

Rather, I assume it because rhetoric doesn't work too well in a forum setting. You need evidence.

Vashgun writes:

I however, did not come to read volumes of pages of previous debates and the few I read disgusted me due to the lack of debate prowess and ignorance presented mainly by the creation minded.

Aww, that's a shame. There are some real gems in those old threads. As for the creation minded being lacking in debate prowess, I would have to agree. In fact, this is one of the reasons for the creationists being so rare - they get banned because they can't debate sensibly and rationally, while following the few rules this site has.

Vashgun writes:

The lack of warmth and obvious monopoly coupled with the arrogance I since in every post leads me to the conclusion that this site is more an evolutionary think tank and not a open forum debate.

It is getting that way, yes. It's supposed to be a debate forum, but it is sliding towards complete one-sidedness. This doesn't suprise me for the same reasons as it may you, as I believe that evolution is the only acceptable scientific view. But it is a concern.

There is certainly a sense of arrogance in many of the evolutionists here. They've just had these debates so many times that they're getting tired and need a nap. :p Try to forgive them.


Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic.

Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Ihategod, posted 08-16-2007 11:38 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Nighttrain, posted 08-17-2007 3:03 AM Doddy has not yet responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2101 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 280 of 304 (416634)
08-17-2007 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Doddy
08-17-2007 2:34 AM


Re: I might get nuked...
Hi, Dod, I think part of the problem is that the same old material gets re-cycled every few months. We need attacks on new slants, fresh insights from the opposition, different approaches to previous topics. IOW, what we need is an articulate, informed creationist. And friends.
However, when the indefatigable Damien Mackey turns up, his religious position get questioned. I`m not supporting him just because he`s an Aussie. (o.k., I AM supporting him because he`s an Aussie :D) Still he looks to have covered his subject matter in depth. I know his opening posts read like the first half of War and Peace, but give the lad a chance. AICs are getting thin on the ground.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Doddy, posted 08-17-2007 2:34 AM Doddy has not yet responded

  
Shtop
Junior Member (Idle past 433 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 07-19-2007


Message 281 of 304 (416644)
08-17-2007 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Ihategod
08-17-2007 12:20 AM


Re: I might get nuked...
Hi Vash

Jar asked you to present supporting arguments for creation. You respond with arguments against evolution.

Even if evolution is wrong, that doesn't automatically make creationism right. If you want to build a case for creationism, you'll have to present supporting evidence.

This has been attempted (not very succesfully) in this thread. If you have anything new, start a thread!

I had been lurking here for ages before I finally registered, and even now I'm wary of posting. Some people here are very well informed and have had these discussions many times before. The tone can be intimidating, but if you have genuine arguments and obey the rules, you can have fruitful debates.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Ihategod, posted 08-17-2007 12:20 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12589
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 282 of 304 (416646)
08-17-2007 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Ihategod
08-17-2007 1:48 AM


Re: ......
To Vashgun: Any member may participate in any discussion in any discussion thread, with few exceptions. This thread is one of them. This is not a discussion thread. It is a "short questions" thread, as in "What's the value of pi?", "3.14!", "Thanks." This thread was created so that people with simple questions don't have to begin new threads that end up being only a few messages long.

My suggestion to you, Vashgun, is to peruse the recent threads in the discussion forums and begin participating in a couple that are interesting to you.

To everyone, a short question: Why is there a discussion taking place in the "short questions" thread?

Hint: this is a rhetorical question.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Ihategod, posted 08-17-2007 1:48 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 749 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 283 of 304 (416990)
08-18-2007 11:16 PM


Is it possible to request a warning for refpunk?

He's trounced on 3 threads today, posting off topic repeatedly.


Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Ihategod, posted 08-20-2007 2:19 AM molbiogirl has not yet responded

Ihategod
Member (Idle past 4137 days)
Posts: 235
Joined: 08-15-2007


Message 284 of 304 (417286)
08-20-2007 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by molbiogirl
08-18-2007 11:16 PM


amazed
Why aren't you the devious devil? Jockeying for a Mod position molbio?

You must think you know everything so you don't need to post any threads? You follow me around and wave the rules list under my nose like you have some form of authority? And then this! lol

You should be officially warned. Is there a reason for your presence?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by molbiogirl, posted 08-18-2007 11:16 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 27 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 285 of 304 (417586)
08-23-2007 11:48 AM


Was this site down atll?
It doesn't seem that way, since ppl have been replying while I was unable to access the site, for the last 2-3 days.

It happened on 2 different computers (same internet connection).

What was really weird, was that yesterday, no matter what link I clicked on, when the site finally did come up, it gave me a login screen.

I deleted all my cookies and stuff.

This is not the first time I could not get on the site, but the first time anything like the login screen problem has occurred.


Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Taz, posted 08-23-2007 12:06 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
161718
19
2021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019