Summations Only

There's another possible reason other than Buz' (and the creationist community's as a whole) confusion about this "primordial soup" matter. Rather, their confusion may be due to their having concocted their own very peculiar definition of "evolution" which has no bearing at all to what we normals mean by that term. It would be the same old creationist trick of redefining terms without telling anybody, a trick that we've seen them use constantly.Buz' reference to evolution is probably not to the science of biological evolution, but rather to a strawman that the creationists have created, namely a completing "religion" and "atheistic" world-view which includes and depends on "from goo to you" kind of thinking. And by embracing that and other creationist strawmen (which they're certain must be right, since they all oppose what creationists mistaking believe evolution to be) they enter their own private world of delusion and self-deception which they must maintain at all costs, especially by not allowing themselves to understand anything that they are being informed of.

As far as I can see the only thing that Buz was right on was that he didn't confuse abiogenesis and evolution. Saying that abiogenesis occurs before evolution does make the distinction.But that hardly counts as "kicking ideological butt" - not given his utter failure to provide even a half-decent argument that the primordial soup was a prerequisite for evolution. Repeating assertions and flinging jeers at people who raise questions he can't answer is no victory at all. It's just a way of dragging out the discussion without making any progress. I suppose that Buz needs to exaggerate whatever small victories he can get to try to maintain the pretence that he is an effective debater.

But, to Buz, a victory is when he can obfuscate and be wrong and refuse to accept any correction until a thread reaches the end of it's life, usually at 300 posts. He sees the activity bar as some sort of metre to measure his effectiveness. Then he'll tout that as Buz holding off a horde of "atheists" with his "irrefutable" argument, declare victory and move on to another thread where he can start all over again with the same refuted, false and idiotic statements and cite the first thread as proof of his "unrefuted" argument.In layman's terms, its sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "la la la".

Well maybe we should stop feeding the troll. I am as guilty as the next, but all he has is crap. I can not think of one argument he has presented that eh backed with anything other than his say so. He refuses to even address when he is being told that the bible doesnt even say what he claims.He is an old bitter troll, nothing more.

Here's the way I think an informed Christian and believer in creationism should respond: But I doubt we'll see anything like this.This list about foolish atheists is perceived in different ways by the two groups. It is ha-ha funny to Christians because they believe the foolishness it describes is true, and it is very sad to atheists because they know Christians believe it is true.The list about foolish Christians is also perceived differently by the two groups. It is very sad to atheists because it is true. And it is cognitively dissonant to Christians because though it is true it is not presented in a Christian context where it would make sense.--Percy

That would depend on who he means by "we", because I'm pretty sure there are Christians who do think this list is accurate.

I think that a more sensible Christian response would be "Sorry guys, we forgot about Poe's law".

You ducked the question once again. For someone who claims to be kicking butt you sure are running away from questions. Wonder why that is? Here is subbie's question once again:"Now please explain, in detail, how the Theory of Evolution will change if it turns out that the current thoughts about the primordial soup are wrong, and life was seeded by an alien civilization billions of years ago, or arrived in a panspermic process on the backs of asteroids."Can you please answer the question this time?

Thanks Taq, for making my point to Admin and like-minded members, that I'm not the trollish one who posts nonsense ad nauseum in lengthy red hot threads.Yours and Subbie's posts are classic examples of what drags on threads with substanceless messages.What percentage of renowned scientists buy into the alien life hypothesis? So far as I'm aware, there are relatively few if any renowned ones.Now I said to Subbie and am saying to you that if I had allowed him and you to lead me off into a lengthy debate on alien nonsense, by and by it would be me who would get the blame for derailing this thread.This has been going on for years. Imo, it's high time to place the blame where it belongs. That's not saying that I'm squeaky clean. It's saying that I shouldn't get blamed for what others do most of in the long threads which I debate in.

Oh sweet dick sucking christ, answer the god damn question already. YOU made a claim. YOU need to back it up. Stop acting like a whiny 4 year old.

Considering that point 2 uses the term COSMIC slime, it is definitely not off topic. Therefore you can't be in agreement with point 2. So why are you defending it?We don't need you to officially retract your claim that the primordial soup is a prerequisite to evolution since it's evident to everyone reading this that you were wrong. I've given up trying to get you to see that what you post is nonsense. You will never see it because you don't want to see it - you'd rather be stubborn and wrong than learn and be right.

Cheers and jeers do not designate between false and true statements. Likely other members may cheer a lengthy message or list that has some errors in it.Members adverse to Biblical creation quite often cite Biblical data which is either totally erroneous, partially erroneous or not quite right.For example they often do what you did here. You said, "it's funny to Christians because they believe the foolishness."The fact is that I and many other Christians know that it was not technically factual. That has been born out in this debate, subsequent to when I cheered it. That is not to say we should throw the baby out with the bath water.You went on to say, "and it is very sad to atheists because they know Christians believe it is true,"In fact, rarely do I sense sadness by atheists debating over what they consider to be false.All atheists do not know Christians (perse) believe it is true. Some may know of some Christians who believe it is true. Some may think some Christians believe it is true. Some may know that some Christians consider it to be true in a broad sense. Any who have been aware of what I've debated over time regarding the bolt & nut specifics of primordial soup, abiogenesis and evolution know that I am aware that there is a difference between the three terms.Pertaining to the list about foolish Christians, I rarely sense a "very sad" attitude in atheist's messages debating foolish Christians. More often I sense glee, mean spiritedness and sometimes hate.You falsely implicate all Christians in alleging that Christians do not present it "in a Christian context where it would make sense."--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, this is not really what we're looking for when we ask that we keep discussion civil. Take a quick breather. 12 hours, I think.

Really? You don't recall arguing over and over that Point 10 about atheists blaming God for the ills of the world was correct?You're not aware that you're still arguing that Point 9 about evolving from slime by cosmic accident is correct? You've misinterpreted simple English again. I was talking about the list about foolish Christians that was written by atheists, as was clear by the paragraph beginning with, "The list about foolish Christians..." It was written from an atheist perspective, so of course it was not presented in a Christian context, and since no one with their wits about them could ever make such a foolish misinterpretation I'm sure you'll now explain that you didn't mean what you plainly said but will instead claim that you meant something else, and that when people point out how disingenuous you're being you'll claim that EvC is biased against creationists and that creationists never make misinterpretations and that's it's all part of the evolutionist master plan to discredit creationism.Anyway, if you've changed your mind and have now adopted the position that the criticisms of the factual misstatements in the list about foolish atheists miss the point because it was parody, then there's no need for further discussion. But otherwise I think its time to move on to Point 8, covered in Message 208.--Percy

which is completely undermined by your previous posts: If you are going to contradict yourself, then at least do it subtly.Your 32 posts in this thread fall in to two categories: attacking atheists and defending the OP.
To now claim that you knew all along that the OP was 'not technically factual' (AKA 'false') looks disingenuous at best.