Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-17-2019 7:04 PM
23 online now:
JonF, ringo, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Happy Birthday: lopezeast0211
Post Volume:
Total: 856,887 Year: 11,923/19,786 Month: 1,704/2,641 Week: 213/708 Day: 40/40 Hour: 0/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15204
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 87 of 323 (524918)
09-20-2009 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Archangel
09-20-2009 7:02 AM


Re: Neanderthals are apes!!!
It is perfectly clear that you regard one of the items of "evidence" you posted as a complete falsehood. You could have omitted it (you probably should not have used so long a quote anyway). You could have admitted that you did not consider it valid. You did neither.

Clearly you do not care if your "evidence" is true or false - in fact from other posts it seems clear that you do not care if you have evidence at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Archangel, posted 09-20-2009 7:02 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15204
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 106 of 323 (525027)
09-21-2009 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Archangel
09-21-2009 7:58 AM


quote:

I can see that this is a waste of time since you evo proponents are more interested in going after me and insulting me rather than objectively considering the truth of my arguments.

Of course, this isn't true. You have admitted to using an argument that you consider false - and pointing that out shows a concern with the truth of your arguments, and should not be taken as an insult.

You have also admitted that you feel "certain" that your accusations are true even in the absence of evidence. These facts show that you are not interested in the objective truth of your arguments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Archangel, posted 09-21-2009 7:58 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15204
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 170 of 323 (525340)
09-23-2009 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Archangel
09-22-2009 8:58 PM


Re: "True" science and other evolution fantasies:
quote:

Once again you generalize my rejection of evolution science as a rejection of all science so I must again preempt my response by correcting your misrepresentation of my views. With that said, here's a reality check which goes against everything you believe, but is true anyway. IF EVOLUTION WAS A TRUE SCIENCE THAT WAS TRULY SUPPORTED BY SCIENTIFIC FACT, THEN IT WOULDN'T CONFLICT WITH THE GENESIS ACCOUNT. AND IF IT DIDN'T CONFLICT WITH THE GENESIS ACCOUNT, WE WOULDN'T BE ON OPPOSING SIDES AT ALL.

Of course it is only your assumption that the evidence MUST fit with your interpretation of Genesis. Indeed that is your whole modus operandi - you assume that you are right and just throw baseless accusations at others who dare to disagree with you, regardless of the truth,


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Archangel, posted 09-22-2009 8:58 PM Archangel has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Peepul, posted 09-23-2009 9:30 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15204
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 185 of 323 (525418)
09-23-2009 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Archangel
09-23-2009 10:05 AM


quote:

What is relevant about it being promoted in Nat Geo is its highly respected standing and wide exposure to the general public as a must read science magazine. What you are ignoring is that people trust that if it is published in Nat Geo, it is Peer Reviewed and documented information, WHICH THIS ALLEGED EVIDENCE OF THE "Archaeoraptor" WAS.

You've just shot yourself in the foot. National Geographic is NOT subject to peer review. That is the very distinction that Peepul was pointing out.

quote:

"Archaeoraptor" is actually being defended by evolutionists on other threads in this very forum as we speak.

Who, and on which threads ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Archangel, posted 09-23-2009 10:05 AM Archangel has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019