Creation evangelist derides evolution as ‘dumbest’ theory [Kent Hovind Alert!]

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Post ^ | 17 December 2005 | Kayla Bunge

[editor-surveyor]

"I am sure you can provide this evidence for the libel you have made against Dimensio."

We all know that Jim can. And you are really the one to talk about libel. In this thread alone you've got the rest beat.

[Dimensio]

Poor pumpkin, nothing left to say except that? Too funny.

No, too sad that it's true. All indications are that you are a liar. I mean, repeating the claim that the peppered moth study was a "fraud" even after having it explained why gluing the moths was not an attempt at or an act of fraud cannot be described as anything but fundamental dishonesty on your part. You lied. You are a liar.

Don't whine to me that you don't like the label that you have so clearly earned.

[Ichneumon]

They prefer evolving lies that later blow up in their faces.

Example?

It takes a hell of allot of FAITH to believe in evolution

Nonsense. It doesn't take any "FAITH" at all. It takes understanding, knowledge, evidence, and a familiarity with the processes involved. You know -- that "learning" thing you might have heard about in passing.

Evolution is a religion that defies logic and lacks evidence.

I suppose it may look that way to someone who doesn't know a freaking thing about the subject...

Meanwhile, could you explain to me why the most insulting thing a creationist can think of to say about evolutionary biology is to call it a "religion"? Is religion really something so bad that you freely use it as an insult, to imply something irrational and unreliable? Fascinating...

[Dimensio]

Jim Robinson posted personally regarding the banning of effdot, which was done because f.Christian was making personal attacks. At least, Jim seemed to think so. Honestly, I couldn't tell what f.Christian was trying to say, because his posts always looked like incomprehensible gibberish to me.

[Ichneumon]

Says the poster who lied about Antony Flew, then lied about ever commenting on Antony Flew in the first place.

I swear, one of these days I'm going to wade through my archives and make a big-ass list of lies by Freeper creationists, complete with links to the relevant posts... Then we can repost it every time anyone accuses *us* of being the liars.

[Full Court]

I was not drunk last nite, I am not drunk now, I have no children here at home,

Instead of your calling me a liar, lets look at what you said and what I said.

You said you were drinking. You later said you were going to keep drinking. You then started making posts to me claiming I was prescribing medicine to you and other such total nonesense. YOU WERE MAKING POST THAT WERE OFF THE WALL AND HAD NO BASIS IN REALITY.

I can and will presume that your tippling had something to do with that.

My comment to someone else that I abhor people who drink in front of kids in general has nothing to do with you.

That remains: I abhor people, any people, who drink in front of kids. No apologies.

And while I am sorry you have a child that died, I really don't think it's wise assume that other people have not been through the same thing. Back to my original contention: You brag about drinking, you brag about not believing parts of the Bible and YOU want to attack me because I do believe the Bible, and YOU want to tell me that I am not a Christian.

YOU are not at all in a position to even know.

[editor-surveyor]

"Yes, that's a fact. Stalin killed Darwinists, and Hitler was a creationist"

What an ignorant statement. Hitler was one of the worlds most famous eugenicists, which is definately evolutionist, and he was also a member of the Thule society, which also is evolutionist-humanist. The morals of Hitler and evolution go hand in hand. The defilement of this country is directly attributable to evolutionists plying their stock in trade.

[Full Court]

You are a bigot who hates the Bible or what? Why are you attacking my faith? I believe the Bible and why does that enrage you and cause you to say such horrible things????

[tallhappy]

What "argument" would you think I am making or there is to make at all on this topic?

[Dimensio]

The morals of Hitler and evolution go hand in hand.

How do you get from "diverse life on earth is the result of descent from common ancestry with heritable traits becoming more prominent in subsequent generations due to environmental reproductive pressures, leading to increasingly distinct divisions between populations" to "kill Jews"? Be specific.

If you can't provide an answer, then you are lying.

[tallhappy]

I've told you. I don't take you or the others here seriously.

I have tried, but you fellows never want to step up beyond the puerile laugh at the rubes level of this thread.

[metmom]

see post #238

[Ichneumon]

As usual, "Dimension", no one listens to a rabid liar like yourself.

ROFL! He didn't "lie", son, he just posted links to your own posts where you blatantly contradicted yourself (and sounded rather unhinged, frankly).

In the future I will TOTALLY ignore you. You're a VERY sick person.

Yeah, how *dare* he point to your own posts!

Making up lies about me to hide the fact that you are a very viscous liar.

Okay, I'll bite -- where exactly did he "lie" in the following? It seems to be a very accurate description of the contents of your posts (which he conveniently linked so that people could read them for themselves):

And, finally, my personal favourite recent example involves nmh. Earlier this year philosopher Antony Flew announced that he was no longer an atheist. Even still, he said that he did not accept the Judeo-Christian God, and -- the article specifically stated this -- "He accepts Darwinian evolution" (note that the original article is only excerpted on FR, and the link is to a dead page now, but the full article was available for some time, and the original text is archived on multiple places, including here).

Known creationist and liar nmh popped in to say " Those poor atheists. Another one abandons their godless and ridiculous hypothesis of evolution."

Kind of odd given that the article specifically stated that Flew accepts evolution. I corrected his mistake and nmh responded by telling me to " Read the article. He rejects it."

So I re-read the article, see the "He accepts Darwinian evolution" line, and quote the relevant section in my reply. Nmh's response is nothing more than a snide comment wherein he tells me to read the article once more even though absolutely nothing in the article supported his completely false claim.

But the story doesn't end there. Nmh has proven himself a shamless, brazen liar, and I'm not shy about bringing that up when he tries to discuss issues in the future -- after all, he's demonstrated that he's willing to lie to "prove" a point, so why should anything that he says be trusted? So in response to my bringing up of the story of nmh claiming -- falsely -- that Antony Flew rejected evolution, after saying in direct response to an article about Flew that he had "rejected" the "godless and ridiculous hypothesis of evolution", nmh denied ever having heard of Flew and said that he'd never posted anything about the man, even though I could directly link to nmh's posts on the matter.

You'll have to pull someone else's chain for attention.

Nah, it's *so* much fun to watch you go ballistic when your own past self-contradictions are pointed out.

None will be coming from me anymore.

Uh huh. Sure. We believe that.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I feel the need to take a shower.

Be sure to mutter, "Out, damned spot!" while you do.

Thinking about you gives me the creeps and makes me feel very unclean.

Being reminded of your past lies *should* make you feel uneasy.

There is something VERY WRONG with you ... .

What is "VERY WRONG" with documenting your lies?

[Watching creationists go ballistic because they can't admit their errors is *so* much fun.]

[Full Court]

I mean, repeating the claim that the peppered moth study was a "fraud" even after having it explained why gluing the moths

Dead Moths Glued To The Trees![And More Evolution Frauds Exposed!]

[darbymcgill]

Ok, it took me a while but here goes... for the sake of time and band width I will only post evidence where we disagree... and all but one from this thread alone... well done....

My apologies in advance to any whose posts I referenced but failed to ping.

1. First make the obligatory comment that the un-washed obviously are not aware of the scientific method.

I have seen this argument used. Most commonly when the creationist poster is obviously not aware of the scientific method.

2. In your most condescending tone respond to the un-washed using demeaning phases like "you obviously are not up to speed on blah blah" or "anyone who ever studied 8th grade blah blah should know that", etc.

This argument is also used, usually when the poster throws in a comment that a bright and reasonably well-educated 12 year old would see through. You aren't doing badly so far.

wrong, see post #180 when argument was lost.. as a last resort claimed TOE never said that.

3. If the un-washed dares to continue the futile inquiry, simply respond with a terse, "The theory never said that" or "what is your source for that misguided statement".

Not bad. This is quite a good response to people who think that the theory of evolution is about morality, the existence of a deity, or abiogenesis.

4. If the first 3 steps fail to convince the un-washed they are out of their league, ping 50 or so of your distinguished scientist buddies and have them join the thread. The shear number of insults should begin to discourage the provocateur and others.

Don't get that one I'm afraid. Typically I'd much rather discourage the provocateur (excellent use of language BTW) by showing them where their ideas are misguided. These are open forums that anyone is free to join, and there never seems to be any shortage of creationist posters backing each other up, curiously even when the more bizarre strictures of Leviticus are endorsed in public.

#4. this is an easy one see post #2, this always appears in these EVO/CREVO threads, even ones not initiated by PH.

5. Make cute little insulting comments on the open forum to your pinger buddies so the unwashed can see how clever you are behind their backs.

You're losing it now. "open forum", and "behind their backs"? You're getting more incoherent, I'm afraid.

It is customary when making a comment about a specific post or poster to ping that poster instead of making cute derogatory remarks that the poster may not see otherwise. Call it an open forum if you like but unless you ping them, in my opinion you're taking about them behind their backs. Some posters don't appreciate being pinged this way (see post 584) but most do.

See post 1093... cowardly or rude.... you make the call

6. If an un-washed requests sources. Send them a link which contains no useful information, but does allow them to easily purchase books authored by you and your buddies.

I'd be real interested if you can provide five citations of that ever happening on FR. Hell I'll be real interested if you can provide one, as actually you've just made that one up because you were struggling to extend your list once you'd got past the descriptions of reasonable behaviour on the part of evos.

#6. If you are suggesting that I "out" FREEPERS who post links to their personal websites or others which contain offers to buy their books, I will decline. I may not have the most high moral ethics on this forum, but I'm no MD4BUSH. I'm sure you've probably already received some personal email to "not go there" on this one so I won't press it because I'd hate to have it known they were "fleecing the sheeple".

But I will ask you to think logically about what PHDers do in academia. And if there are as many as claim to be on this thread the statistics alone will lead you to answer your own question.

7. Are they still out there? If so it's time to impress them with all the letters you have following your name and all the places you went to school. Challenge them to attend 14 years of grad school so they can be as smart and broke as you are. That should convince them.

You are continuing to struggle here. I've never seen any evo on here try to impress with the letters after their name. On the contrary that particular argument is occasionally used as a proxy by the creationist, as in, "My uncle/friend/neighbour is a real smart top scientist with a ton of letters after his name and loads of peer reviewed publications and he says, 'Evolution is bunk'". Curiously the uncles/friends/neighbours never appear to post here themselves to explain why they think evolution is bunk. It is true that to understand the details of evolutionary biology you'll need to put a few years of study in. The idea that somehow those who haven't studied it can see grade-school objections that haven't occurred to those who have studied it is frankly just risible.

See post 656 and 651

8. For the really difficult cases just to prove how smart you are and how dumb they are, without responding to their inquiries or arguments, start listing all the words they misspell.

Argumentum ad mis-spelling is used by both sides. From where I'm standing most of you seem to have difficulty with the Queen's English. ;)

See post 661

9. If you are asked a question you don't know the answer to or if proved you've made an error in a response. Do not acknowledge the error. Challenge the grammar and intellect of the un-washed. Try to convince them that if they weren't so dumb and illiterate they would have phased the question properly. Upon understanding the issue you would have obviously provided them proper enlightenment.

Please provide examples of evolutionists actively ducking an issue where they were in error by attacking intellect or grammar. Be specific, explain what error the evo was ducking.

how about this one from a thread some time back...

now if you could show a fish Genus that never ever had armor to develop it you would have a better case."

you seem to have forgotten the "develop it" part

No, the problem was, your sentence is ungrammatical, and I hadn't figured out what it was you were trying to say. My mistake; I should restrict myself to replying to posts written in English.

and see your response to #8 above.

I'm sure you can provide lots of examples of evos swearing at creationists. Tell you what, for each one of those you provide I'll provide you with an example of a creationist threatening evos with eternal damnation. I'll have an easier time finding my cites than you'll have finding yours.

See post 634

[Thalos]

it's their morals-free religion that's at stake, and the ends justify the means..

Why should we let you claim the moral high ground? Do you really believe the world would run rampant with stealing and murder if you stopped fighting evolution? You're the ones who believe that anything you say or do in the name of God is justified. Who cares about breaking some of the Commandments? You're saved if you accept Him, no matter what you do, right? So, you can lie, or threaten to burn people at the stake, or take the Lord's name in vain, or do whatever else it takes to stamp out what you see as a threat to your beliefs.

Anyway, evolution isn't a religion. It's possible to have a religion and still believe in evolution.

[Hacksaw]

I am sure there are many things you didn't know. Stalin had Darwinists killed.

Many hisorians, such as Oxford University prof Alex de Jonge, believe that Darwin influenced Stalin in a different way than you imply. Jonge stated that Stalin was "a theological student who had lost his faith; Stalin would always maintain that it was Darwin who was responsible for that loss."

[Dimensio]

No one denied that moths were glued to trees, liar. The issue is that the act of gluing the moths to trees did not constitute fraud. You have been told this before, but because you are too much of a coward to admit your mistake, you just repeat the same tired old lies over and over again.

[Dimensio]

wrong, see post #180 when argument was lost.. as a last resort claimed TOE never said that.

Last resort? The poster in #180 said that the ToE doesn't address the ultimate origin of life. That's correct. The ToE has never addressed the origin of life. That was not a "last resort", that was a statement of fact. Are you saying now that it's a cop-out for us to point out that creationists are mistaken about what the ToE states? We're not allowed to explain how they are wrong?

[Senator Bedfellow]

I find it rather amusing that you apparently object far more to the use of that term than you do to the blatant lies to which it was applied. Apparently you can spin stuff out of thin air all day long and still get the McG stamp of approval, but don't you dare use the s-word. None of that 9th commandment business for us - we've got bigger fish to fry here. LOL.