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?
i can destroy any creationist in an arguement
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:
Understanding through knowledge and discussion
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?
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.
I could say the same thing about most reoccurring evolutionist.
hmm...i guess the only other option you have is to argue with a theologin or something.
I'd rather debate with an evolutionist, because unlike you, a evolutionist is open minded.
since with the supernatural there is NO evidence, NOTHING to verify it WHATSOEVER.
Thats what natural scientist believe... and I really consider them to be a pain in the ass, since they are selfish pointless debaters.
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.
stop assuming and start proving.
EvC Forum Guidelines writes:
5. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
Only because they're ignorant and/or stupid and/or entirely too brainwashed by religious dogma.
A person is ignorant to you, because he doesn't feel like dealing with your bullshit?
and your point is??
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.
According to the breeder, she's a full-blood golden retriever with a fairly long pedigree, including a few champions. However, from both her looks and her behavior, I find that hard to believe: there's GOT to be some Irish Setter in the woodpile somewhere. Regardless, she's definitely my best friend.
I have a few champions myself[about 4 out of 7]. :laugh:
Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, it didn't appear to answer my question. Maybe you could highlight the part that does (I freely admit I can miss stuff sometimes). Given the fact that I am both an "evolutionist" - in the sense that I accept evolution as the best current explanation for the diversity of life - and a "scientist" - in the sense that I "do science" for a living - I'm still not seeing the contrast.
I can see that there is a difference between "natural theology" (as practiced throughout most of the 18th and 19th Centuries), and "natural science" as currently practiced, but again I'm missing something. Natural science means to me "the study of the natural world". I guess it would exclude the supernatural by definition, but if that's the only issue I don't see the problem. After all, God (or whatever your particular conception relates to that term), isn't really evident in nature. You could probably argue that some conceptions of god (speaking generically) are compatible with the study of nature, but then you're moving over to deism (god the initial artificer) or even pantheism (nature IS god).
Obviously, this ain't the thread to go into depth on those issues. I don't want to get "purpled".
so, do you want me to reply to this or what? :confused: