Even Younger Earth Creationism

Hey, the Nat. Your humor meter is apparently malfunctioning. Check the batteries. This is a tongue-in-cheek thread trying to "out-creationist" the creationists. Welcome to EvCForum, by the way.

lol well, my humor can be good. hey, look in the "new topics" forum and see my post about "impossibility of infinite abilities".and, if you have a myspace account, why not look at my account? actually...hmm...its hard to find mine but, ill find yours if you give me some infoi can destroy any creationist in an arguement

But will the creationists realize that they have been destroyed, or will they keep on arguing and assuming that they are right?Edited by nwr, : fix typo

---

Let's end the political smears

correct, and well you see, there is certainly a group of people that will not be convinced in any arguement. Some insane people believe that satan, the easter bunny, or anything is speaking to them, and no reasoning will mitigate their thoughts of such. Some creationists are no exception.unfortunately it is impossible to have any arguement which convinces every last person of the intent of it...but such isnt necessary entirely, i'd say

correct, and well you see, there is certainly a group of people that will not be convinced in any arguement. Some insane people believe that satan, the easter bunny, or anything is speaking to them, and no reasoning will mitigate their thoughts of such. Some creationists are no exception.
unfortunately it is impossible to have any arguement which convinces every last person of the intent of it...but such isnt necessary entirely, i'd sayThis was of course, a reply to nwr's last message, message #33

Well, Pahu justed posted on another forum I go to the same garbage he posted here.And in my experience, most reoccurring creationists just wash, rinse repeat the same arguments verbatim once they think people forgot that such arguments were refuted.Also, the most diehard creationists tend to be extremely paranoid and have a warped sense of reality. For instance, they claim that all of science that supports evolution is a conspiracy, that journals deliberately ignore creationist's work, and all of the science for evolution is fabricated, yet when asked about those sciences in the the context of geology (particularly fossil fuels) they just run.

eh, where the fuck is your proof? I didn't know this was a site called "how many creationist can you destroy in an argument".
The purpose for the EvC Forum is: I doubt you could destroy me in an argument. Why not? it's very simple.
1)I dont argue with Natural science atheists, who are taught to Deny any supernatural force/being, because Natural scientist study things that are Natural, not supernatural.
2) you seem to be a science jock, always counting how many people who, in your case, probably really didn't want to deal with your bullshit and just said "fuck it" and left. thats not really destroying a creationist kid, its just, you probably annoyed the hell out of them.1) are you really out to see how many creationist you can destroy or do you not really want to gain knowledge from a debate? I could say the same thing about most reoccurring evolutionist.sincerely yours, Amen.

"I doubt you could destroy me in an argument. Why not? it's very simple.
1)I dont argue with Natural science atheists, who are taught to Deny any supernatural force/being, because Natural scientist study things that are Natural, not supernatural."and your point is?? hmm...i guess the only other option you have is to argue with a theologin or something. Anyways, since I could make up anything supernatural with no evidence for it and yet have my arguement every bit as plausible as yours, why even argue? It becomes pointless. I could make up anything natural, like that I beat up Chuck Norris or killed a bear with a single head-butt, and it would be implausible, but not as implausible as the supernatural, since with the supernatural there is NO evidence, NOTHING to verify it WHATSOEVER.TN writes:
And by the way, the earth is'nt "thousands and thousands" of years old. It's billions, around, say, 4.55 billion.eh, where the fuck is your proof?Research it. You have to be ignorant and/or scientifically inept to not realize that earth is actually very old, billions of years old, not young.2) you seem to be a science jock, always counting how many people who, in your case, probably really didn't want to deal with your bullshit and just said "fuck it" and left. thats not really destroying a creationist kid, its just, you probably annoyed the hell out of them.Only because they're ignorant and/or stupid and/or entirely too brainwashed by religious dogma.

I'd rather debate with an evolutionist, because unlike you, a evolutionist is open minded. Thats what natural scientist believe... and I really consider them to be a pain in the ass, since they are selfish pointless debaters. stop assuming and start proving. A person is ignorant to you, because he doesn't feel like dealing with your bullshit? you wont even provide links for me, when I asked you "where is your proof?". You didn't provide me with anything useful for the debate and I don't see why anyone would want to deal with you kid. seriously TN, your a selfish debater and a waste of time.sincerely yours, Amen.

TN,In the lower right hand corner, you'll see a "Reply" button. When responding to a particular post, click that button. It lets us see (in the lower left hand corner) all the important info.Also. When posting a response, on the left hand side of your screen you'll see "dbCodes On (help)". Click "help" and you'll notice there are a couple of different ways to quote someone. I like to use (qs) stuff I want to quote (/qs) cause I like the blue boxes. (Note: the parens should be replaced by square brackets [ ]).You can click the "Peek" button (lower right hand side) to see how we do what we do (quoting, italics, bold, whatever).One last thing. A lot of creos on this site steadfastly refuse to provide evidence of their nonsensical assertions. Badgering them does no good.Amen is of that ilk. So are Buzsaw and Nemesis Juggernaut.Keep that in mind. Edited by molbiogirl, : sp

you mean here?

... You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it. type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

I keep a cheat sheet of codes and common linksEnjoy

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I poked around earlier this evening trying to find this exact post!What is that, a screen grab?And what is all that & # 91 stuff?

[ is code for [ - it allows you to get in that character without html or dbcode interpretation.

---

Let's end the political smears

Amen,Please refrain from using inflammatory language.
Argue the position, not the person.If you continue this type of language, you will suffer a short suspension.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Thank you

I have to admit your post title about the "science jock and his pet dog" caught my attention. Although you are evidently taking exception to TheNaturalist, I can't figure out how you knew he had a pet dog, and since I'm a "science jock", and my avatar has a picture of my pet dog, well... Anyway, caught my attention whether you meant to or not.I don't have much to say, given the vitriol of your responses to TheNat. However, I'd like to ask you about this statement: I thought all modern scientists were "natural scientists". I've never seen the term used as an epithet before, tho'. I've also never seen the differentiation you make between them and "evolutionists" (unless you're making some subtle distinction that is beyond me). Could you possibly elaborate on your meaning? For instance, is there a different kind of scientist other than "natural"? Are there scientists of your knowledge or acquaintance that study something other than nature? What is the difference between "evolutionist" and "scientist" (natural or otherwise)?Enquiring minds want to know.