Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9054 total)
75 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx (4 members, 71 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,322 Year: 5,968/14,102 Month: 116/438 Week: 48/112 Day: 3/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   There are easy creationist answers to problems evolutionists pose
Phat
Member
Posts: 15713
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 31 of 111 (885258)
03-30-2021 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by dwise1
03-30-2021 11:33 AM


I would call myself a Cosmological Creationist
As you know, I am not a creationist in the same manner as Mike and most Biblical Creationists are. I believe that there most definitely *is* a Creator of all seen and unseen Who is in essence the ground of all being and Who is the Source of all creativity, wisdom, and dare I say purpose for all living things. I respect the Bible as more than a human-authored book, though to be honest I find some of the stories clearly lacking what one would consider divine inspiration.

By the way, do you consider yourself a pessimist? I believe that the Just live by Faith. I believe in a better future and that humans can and will get stronger...not weaker. Where I differ from most of you is that I believe that through Communion with the Holy Spirit this becomes possible. I am optimistic that God wants a communion of creative thought with humanity, and it is the act of serving rather than ruling that will get us where we need to be. (which is where He wants us to be as well)

Edited by Phat, : subtitle


"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killo

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by dwise1, posted 03-30-2021 11:33 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by dwise1, posted 03-30-2021 3:16 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 34 by nwr, posted 03-30-2021 3:34 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15713
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 32 of 111 (885259)
03-30-2021 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by dwise1
03-30-2021 10:32 AM


dwise1 shows why he is a wise one
I was just thinking. So you have been discussing/debating creationism for 35 years plus! Thats something! What I like about your approach is your descriptive commentaries about feelings, events, and scenes where you grew up. That coupled with your professional career and the many things which you had your hand in getting accomplished. It was men like you that built America.

That being said, I respect honesty. Even drunken blunt honesty (to a degree,mind you) and I trust that biblical creationism frustrates you because you perceive so much of it as dishonest. I dislike being called dishonest and charged with being a liar, so I try extra hard to review what I post and ask myself if I am being honest.

If I were to break it all down, I think I believe in both evolution and creativity.
I believe that only an honest and purposeful (as opposed to mindless and random) creative force/flow/Creator actually creates anything that would be labled as good.|
(And God saw that it was good.)
Granted the Bible is human-centric. What do they call it in regards to God having human characteristics? Anthropomorphic? Thus I pray about this one. I believe that prayer and meditation can lead to wise answers if one is honest about what they receive.


"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killo

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by dwise1, posted 03-30-2021 10:32 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4744
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


(3)
Message 33 of 111 (885260)
03-30-2021 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Phat
03-30-2021 1:05 PM


Re: I would call myself a Cosmological Creationist
By the way, do you consider yourself a pessimist?

I read something some where. Gee, where was that? Oh yeah, in the Bible:

quote:
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
(KJV, 1 Thessalonians 5:21 )

Rather than a pessimist, I consider myself more of a skeptic: I have to test it out before I can accept the conclusion. After all, I became an atheist by having read the Bible and finding it unbelievable. But still, as I described it, being a pessimist is still the most satisfactory position to take: 99% of the time you have the satisfaction of having been right and occasionally you are pleasantly surprised.

Edited by dwise1, : cleaned up a bit


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Phat, posted 03-30-2021 1:05 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5838
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 6.1


(1)
Message 34 of 111 (885261)
03-30-2021 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Phat
03-30-2021 1:05 PM


Re: I would call myself a Cosmological Creationist
I respect the Bible as more than a human-authored book, though to be honest I find some of the stories clearly lacking what one would consider divine inspiration.

It is human authored.

If you find it more than human authored, that's because there is a selection process. Not everything human authored has been retained. Some bad parts have been dropped, though there are still plenty of them there.

I believe in a better future and that humans can and will get stronger...not weaker.

There won't be a better future unless we address climate change. There won't be a better future if we continue to elect people who believe in the nonsensical "trickle down" economics.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Phat, posted 03-30-2021 1:05 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
FLRW
Member (Idle past 20 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 10-08-2007


Message 35 of 111 (885263)
03-30-2021 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
03-28-2021 8:14 AM


Interesting comment by Tolstoy. His understanding of Christianity was not without problems. He may have been right in drawing attention to a neglected dimension of the Bible, but his interpretation of the metaphysics behind it remains unacceptable to many Christians today. Why? Because in his urge to purge what he saw as a corrupted version of Jesus’ teaching, Tolstoy imposed a very rationalistic approach to Christianity, one that does away with all mysteries, rituals or traditions.

In his search for the meaning of life, Tolstoy’s only torch was the light of nineteenth-century reason. If he was won over by Jesus’ message, it was because he came to believe that Jesus was simply the most rational but human teacher ever to have walked the planet – not some incredible ‘son of God’ whose body was resurrected and actually flew back into heaven. Tolstoy believed that traditional mysteries such as Jesus’ divinity, Mary’s virginity, miracles and resurrections were either total nonsense or could be rationalised away.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 03-28-2021 8:14 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Phat, posted 04-10-2021 11:55 AM FLRW has not yet responded

  
FLRW
Member (Idle past 20 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 10-08-2007


Message 36 of 111 (885264)
03-30-2021 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by mike the wiz
03-28-2021 7:48 PM


Claim:
Known processes to remove sodium from the oceans account for only 27 percent of the sodium that is added. Given the accumulation of sodium this implies, the oceans could not be more than 62 million years old.
Source:
Austin, S. A. and D. R. Humphreys, 1990. The sea's missing salt: A dilemma for evolutionists. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Pittsburgh, 2: 17-33. The Sea's Missing Salt: A Dilemma For Evolutionists
Response:
Austin and Humphreys greatly underestimate the amount of sodium lost in the alteration of basalt. They omit sodium lost in the formation of diatomaceous earth, and they omit numerous others mechanisms which are minor individually but collectively account for a significant fraction of salt.

A detailed analysis of sodium shows that 35.6 x 1010 kg/yr come into the ocean, and 38.1 x 1010 kg/yr are removed (Morton 1996). Within measurement error, the amount of sodium added matches the amount removed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by mike the wiz, posted 03-28-2021 7:48 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by dwise1, posted 03-30-2021 10:48 PM FLRW has not yet responded
 Message 38 by dwise1, posted 03-31-2021 11:16 AM FLRW has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4744
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 37 of 111 (885265)
03-30-2021 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by FLRW
03-30-2021 6:01 PM


Decades ago on a different forum I responded to a creationist making that same tired old creationist claim with "why do you persist in in making such unconvincing claims?" Unable to respond to the rest of my disemboweling response to his claim, he replied with "you only think them unconvincing because you are not yet convinced yourself."

That was an epiphany for me about how creationists think. They are only convinced by their arguments, even the stupidest ones, because they are already convinced. That inspired my own still-unfinished page, Fundamental Differences Between Scientists and Creationists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by FLRW, posted 03-30-2021 6:01 PM FLRW has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Phat, posted 03-31-2021 10:41 PM dwise1 has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4744
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 38 of 111 (885274)
03-31-2021 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by FLRW
03-30-2021 6:01 PM


I don't know why mike mentioned nickel but neglected to mention aluminum. If he had actually read Dr. Henry Morris (which I did do despite mike's accusation that we don't) then he would have seen Morris mention that the residence time for aluminum is only 100 years. Morris immediately lost interest in that fact and just shrugged his shoulders with a "I wonder what that's supposed to mean."

BTW, do you remember that Steve Austin wrote geology articles in creationist magazines under the pseudonym of Stuart Nevins? That was while the ICR was paying him to earn his PhD Geology, just so they could have an actual PhD Geology on their staff. I read some of those articles in which he made false statements about geology which any first year geology undergraduate would know better than to say (and here Austin was already a post-graduate).

So Steve Austin makes false creationist claims despite knowing better. That makes him a professional liar, doesn't it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by FLRW, posted 03-30-2021 6:01 PM FLRW has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15713
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 39 of 111 (885278)
03-31-2021 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by dwise1
03-30-2021 10:48 PM


Already Convinced
dwise1 writes:

Decades ago on a different forum I responded to a creationist making that same tired old creationist claim with "why do you persist in in making such unconvincing claims?" Unable to respond to the rest of my disemboweling response to his claim, he replied with "you only think them unconvincing because you are not yet convinced yourself."

That was an epiphany for me about how creationists think. They are only convinced by their arguments, even the stupidest ones, because they are already convinced. That inspired my own still-unfinished page, Fundamental Differences Between Scientists and Creationists.

I see myself in your argument. To be honest, I am convinced that God exists, and was to a lesser degree convinced that demons existed based on my personal experience (though biased). Finally, when I heard Isaiah Saldivar and knew a couple of people who knew him personally, I judged him to be sincere and not a charletan and he talked about the supernatural and the events that occurred. I was at this point convinced of the possible reality of such a realm/event. You all may think im gullible, but I can read a person and know when they are lying and when they are truthful or believe themselves to be truthful.

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killo

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by dwise1, posted 03-30-2021 10:48 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 04-01-2021 7:07 AM Phat has responded
 Message 41 by dwise1, posted 04-01-2021 3:50 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33501
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 40 of 111 (885279)
04-01-2021 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Phat
03-31-2021 10:41 PM


Re: Already Convinced
Phat writes:

You all may think im gullible, but I can read a person and know when they are lying and when they are truthful or believe themselves to be truthful.

There it is yet again.

As long as you continue to place SOURCE over content and BELIEF over evidence you will continue to be unable to make reasoned arguments.

The fact that someone truly believes something is not evidence that the thing believed is real or true or factual or even exists.

It is only evidence that that person believes something.


My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Phat, posted 03-31-2021 10:41 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Phat, posted 04-10-2021 11:26 AM jar has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4744
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


(3)
Message 41 of 111 (885284)
04-01-2021 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Phat
03-31-2021 10:41 PM


Re: Already Convinced
If you didn't go to read my still-unfinished and hence unpublished page, Fundamental Differences Between Scientists and Creationists, then please do so (these links in messages and email are the only place that the URL shows up; none of my published pages link to it and it didn't show up in a quick search on Google for that specific title).

The response of "The only reason you find these claims unconvincing is because you are not yet convinced yourself" is not the only point, since it then led to further observations. Also, a very good reason for finding creationist claims unconvincing is because they're mostly crap, which is what I learned in my initial research and which has been confirmed repeatedly since then.

On that page, I formatted a other-forum discussion into table form. Scientists and creationists have very different motivations which shows in their work and in how they test and verify their conclusions/claims and eliminate the ones that prove to be false (done all the time in science, but virtually never in creationism, hence PRATTs, "Points Refuted A Thousand Times" in which we have to repeatedly refute the same old claims that were soundly refuted decades ago like having to deal with the Walking Dead (eg, DWISE1'S CREATION / EVOLUTION PAGE: Earth's Rotation is Slowing which was created around 1979 because the author didn't understand leap seconds and which was soundly refuted in 1982, yet it still lives on even to the point that creationist sites are willing to deliberately lie in order to keep it because it still sounds "convincing" to the general public who also do not understand leap seconds (I worked with GPS for two decades and hence also with leap seconds); the shrinking sun claim based on a 1979 abstract (but no follow-up paper) for research that involved historic data containing systematic errors -- science tested their results and found the problem, whereas creationists thought it sounded convincing and so still keep it four decades after it had been refuted (Kent Hovind has even expanded upon it with his claim about the sun's mass loss due to "burning its fuel" along with directly ordering his followers to never do the math to test his claim -- see my DWise1: Kent Hovind's Solar Mass Loss Claim)

So my table on the differences between scientists break down to questions and consequences:

  1. Science / Scientists ...
    1. What they are trying to do:
      The scientist is either trying to make a new discovery or to test or find corroborating evidence for a previous discovery, hypothesis, or theory.

    2. How they measure success:
      The success of the scientist's efforts depends directly on the quality of his research and on the validity of the studies that he bases his research on. Therefore, a scientist is motivated to verify his sources and to maintain high standards of scholarship.

    3. Scholarship
      Since scientists depend so much on the validity and quality of the work of other scientists, the scientific community is motivated to police itself against shoddy or fallacious research.

    4. How they handle dishonesty:
      Thus, a scientist who is discovered to be performing substandard or dishonest work loses his credibility and his standing in the scientific community. IOW, a career killer.

    5. How they handle mistakes:
      Mistakes and hoaxes will still happen in science, but the near-constant scrutiny and testing will uncover them.

      Please note that in the history of scientific hoaxes, they were all uncovered and eliminated by scientists, never by creationists.

  2. Creation Science / Creationists ...
    1. What they are trying to do:
      A creationist is normally not trying to make a new discovery, nor to test or find corroborating evidence for a previous claim. As rustyb (a creationist denizen of that other forum) puts so succinctly in his signature, "I already know the Truth." There's little use in trying to discover something new about the "Truth" that you already know a priori, nor is there any use in testing it (which would probably be sacrilegious anyway), nor to try to add to its Completeness. Rather, what a creationist is normally trying to do is to come up with convincing claims and arguments against anything that appears to contradict "the Truth" that they already know.

    2. How they measure success:
      It doesn't matter whether that creationist had done a proper job of researching the claim, or had even researched it at all (though it does help to make it more convincing if there's something in the bibliography, even if that source had never actually been looked at -- remember that NASA document?). It doesn't matter if the claim or argument is valid, just that it sounds convincing; after all, the creationist already "knows" that it must be true.

    3. Scholarship
      When you research some other creationist's claim, you're not depending on that claim being true or valid; you're only depending on that claim sounding convincing.

    4. How they handle dishonesty:
      And if a claim is discovered to be false or a creationist is discovered to practice questionable methods, none of that matters, just so long as they still sound convincing. A creationist is far more likely to face censure for theological lapses than for shoddy or questionable scholarship.

      Of course, if a claim starts drawing too much negative publicity, then it is no longer convincing and must be dropped, as quietly as possible, until everybody has forgotten about it, whereupon it can be resurrected and received as a "new" claim.

    5. How they handle mistakes:
      Mistakes and hoaxes will also happen in creation science, but in this case there is no mechanism in place to uncover them; indeed, there is much resistence to uncovering creationist mistakes and hoaxes.

One of the interesting side-effects of the shoddiness of creationist claims is that these claims pretty much take on the form of urban legends, rumors which get circulated about within the community. That can make researching into creationist claims very difficult.

For the most part, all that most creationists, including the professionals, do is to repeat another creationist's claim as if it were their own (basically plagiarism, which is a huge crime in academia). Since having scientific sources can make your claim look more convincing, creationists normally don't cite their actual creationist sources but rather instead just list their actual sources' "scientific bibliography" as if that were their own -- in my "Earth's Rotation is Slowing" page above, I cite a very rare instance when the creationist (Kent Hovind no less, so color me gob-smacked at that surprising event) cited his actual creationist sources, which enabled me to track it back to Walter Brown, the most likely "Creationist Zero" source of that leap second mistake and its resultant false claim.

For another case of what happens when creationists claim their actual sources' sources as their own, refer to my page, MOON DUST, which details my own original research into a creationist claim which included corresponding with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). Basically, I attended a 1985 debate pitting SDSU professors Awbrey and Thwaites (who ran the only true "two-model" class I know of with members of the then-nearby ICR gave half the lectures -- they did such a good job of exposing creationist claims that the class was eventually shut down due to strong protests from campus Christian clubs) and Drs Henry Morris and Duane Gish of the ICR. Morris responded to the criticism that they depend on outdated sources by citing a "1976 NASA document written well into the space age" (quote reconstructed from memory) of "direct measurements of meteoric dust" (the implication seemed to be that those direct measurements had been taken from the lunar surface) supporting that a 4-billion-year-old moon should be covered a layer of dust about 240 feet thick.

I wrote to Dr. Morris at the ICR and got a reply from Dr. Gish which included a letter by creationist Harold Slusher (a piece of work in himself) which detailed that claim -- here is a PDF of that letter (with personal info redacted) as well as an HTML-ized version for greater readability; BTW, he signed that letter as a PhD even though that was an honorary degree or else that was his other "PhD" from a diploma mill (he was on the faculty staff in the Physics Dept at UT El Paso where the directory at first listed him as a PhD, but then later it dropped his "Dr" title and maybe just cited his MS Physics (I have received a few emails of complaint against him from his students)).

Two glaring problems:

  1. The letter clearly shows that the much-cited "expected" 284.8 ft-thick dust layer on the moon was not given by that "cited" NASA document (scare-quotes fully explained on my page with a summary below) but rather was the result of a calculation performed by Harold Slusher based on a formula that he had contrived himself and presented in that letter.

    In contriving that formula, Slusher had inserted two extraneous factors (which implies multiplicative effect) which inflated his figures by a factor of about 10,000. So take his 284.8 feet of dust and correct for his extraneous factors and you arrive at about a third of an inch of dust, which I do believe we did actually find. Again, do please read my pages on that research, though the real zinger hasn't been revealed here yet.

  2. I believe it was Dr. Gish's letter that pointed me to Dr. H. Morris' page in his "Scientific Creationism" book on moon dust, a footnote of which (2nd ed., page 152) mainly just repeats the claims and "sources" of Harold Slusher's letter. I did already have a copy of that book, so I committed the unthinkable and unforgivable sin by looking it up.

    In that footnote, Dr. H. Morris (to differentiate him from his son, John, who has since inherited the shop) cited that NASA document as his primary source. No, Harold Slusher was Morris' primary source, not that NASA document. Furthermore, I am very certain that Morris had never ever seen that NASA document (and I've become highly suspicious that even Slusher had never ever seen it).

    But still, Dr. Henry Morris did deliberately lie to his public by claiming that NASA document as his primary source. How do I know that? Because I have personally seen that NASA document myself, so I know the rest of the creationist lie about it.


I was doing some Computer Science post-graduate work at my old university (Cal-State Fullerton; I had earned my BS Computer Science at the University of North Dakota while on active duty), so I would return to my old haunts in the library (now that everything's online, I'm lost there -- plus the campus has been closed for about a year now). While wandering through the government document stacks looking for other documents about meteoric-dust collection experiments on Gemini windows, I spotted the pertinent NASA document, the "'1976' NASA document 'Meteor Orbits and Dust' (NASA SP-135, Smithsonian Contributions to Astrophysics Vol. 2)".

Except when I pulled it off the shelf and actually looked at its cover that was not at all what it actually said. First, it was "Vol. 11" ("Volume Eleven"), not "Vol. 2" That is actually one of my clues that Slusher had probably gotten his claim from yet another unknown creationist who had communicated with him in hand-written format. The document was a collection of papers submitted at an August 1963 conference which was printed in 1967 (nineteen sixty-seven, not nor ever "1976") Far from being "well within the space age", that was years before our very first soft landing on the moon on 02 Jun 1966.

I replied to Dr. Gish about this with xerox copies of the pertinent pages from that NASA document. He replied insisting that that NASA document was from "1976". I replied again explicitly point his attention to the xerox copies of the actual pertinent pages from that NASA document. No response from the ICR.

At about the same time there was another attempt by PhDs through a parallel channel to talk with Dr. H. Morris about this. Again, within three exchanges there was no further response from the ICR.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Phat, posted 03-31-2021 10:41 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by WookieeB, posted 04-07-2021 12:56 PM dwise1 has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4744
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 42 of 111 (885286)
04-01-2021 6:28 PM


An Easy Creationist Question Mike Cannot Answer
From Message 22:
DWise1 writes:

A fact is for example the C14 we find in diamonds and coal.

Please explain exactly why you think that to be important enough to have mentioned it.

What are you trying to say?

And please refrain from hand-waving. The more specific you can be, the better.

He has ignored it since 28-Mar-2021 13:07. And I predict that he will continue to ignore it in perpetuity.

Such are creationists.


  
jar
Member
Posts: 33501
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 43 of 111 (885288)
04-01-2021 6:40 PM


As Predicted.
Mikey was once again simply a hit-n-run troll; failing to provide anything resembling support for his assertions, reasoned arguments or any 'easy creationist answers to problems evolutionists pose'.

Like all Christian Apologists, all Creationists, all so called Creation Scientists (an oxymoron at best) and all of the CCoI Mikey is just another Carny Barker, a Side Show exhibit, a Snake Oil Salesman.


My Website: My Website

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 44 of 111 (885352)
04-07-2021 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by dwise1
04-01-2021 3:50 PM


Re: Already Convinced
Define what a "creationist" is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by dwise1, posted 04-01-2021 3:50 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-07-2021 1:07 PM WookieeB has not yet responded
 Message 46 by dwise1, posted 04-07-2021 2:49 PM WookieeB has responded
 Message 57 by dwise1, posted 04-10-2021 8:14 PM WookieeB has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2627
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.4


(3)
Message 45 of 111 (885353)
04-07-2021 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by WookieeB
04-07-2021 12:56 PM


Re: Already Convinced
Define what a "creationist" is?

Wrong.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by WookieeB, posted 04-07-2021 12:56 PM WookieeB 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 © 2021