Driewerf writes:
It was a shock, to say the least. I looked stuff up on the Internet, soon landed on Drdino.com and what i saw there was even worse than what I had in mind from Gould's description of creationism. Watching creationist clips on Youtube, or debates between Hovind and Aron Ra, or King Crocoduck showed me creationism's true face
Gould has been dead a while so this would be the genetic fallacy as it wouldn't pertain to today's argument from creation scientists which has grown since the early noughts.
Did you know creation scientists have addressed the panda's thumb argument? If you think Hovind and Dr Dino are, "creationisms true face" then you are a stereotypical example of an ignorant evolutionist that thinks laymen like Hovind represent the official creationist position.
Evolutionists always want to pick these people as their examples of creation, what they never want to do is actually read the creationist scientist arguments because they know they won't be able to refute them.
Anyone can pick the worst arguments as their example of creationism in order to falsely portray that as, "creationism", but it's a lot more difficult and requires true intelligence and knowledge to pick the BEST creation scientists as your example and deal with THEIR arguments.
Which reveals the truth, that most internet evolutionists are just laymen like you that don't really have the intelligence or science knowledge to address the best of creationism so can only falsely portray creationist as Kent Hovind and the likes.
What is the geologist creationist model of BEDS, Driewerf? What does that acronym stand for? You are logged on now, can you answer quickly without searching for it? Give me an example of an inselburg argument from geologists. what about progradation in flume experiments? What can you tell me that creationists have argued in regards to the creation facies? What can you tell me about the oldest flat gap and what would that say for creationists, scientifically speaking?
Conclusion; you know little to nothing about creationist arguments.
Drewerf writes:
Why? Because I was curious what the average creationist had to say. I was so baffled by the stupidity of the arguments of "professional creationists", that I wanted to watch the grass root creationist.
So yes, I have learned a lot about the mouvement and the people in it. I just don't know if ignorance couldn't have been a bliss this time.
Those aren't the arguments from professional creationists. laymen creationists with little to no knowledge don't represent the official creationist stance, that would be like me judging evolution based on some atheists at EvC forum that shout insults at me and think a crocodilomorph is a character from pokemon.
You never addressed any arguments from professional creationists. When we discussed whale evolution on evolutionfairytale you didn't understand it well and were refuted fairly easily. Later on for bad behaviour you were banned, because all you could offer like here is question-begging epithets and name-calling.
All you ever shown was RHETORIC. Like here you simply call the official creationism, "stupid".
That's all you ever done Driewerf, because you are nothing more than the average atheist troll.
CONCLUSION: You're a prime example of what most evolutionists seem to be online, people that basically just HATE on creationists and call them names.
Here is a good example of Driewerf folks, instead of addressing or understanding anything I said properly, here is how he responded to my post, a bunch of insults like in this thread here; (which is all most evolutionists ever seem to do to my mind, offer insults and epithets but nothing of any intellectual merit)
Bot Verification
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
