Posted on 12/17/2005 3:58:48 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Santa
"Your standard for "proof" is way too low. Try again next millennium."
Most idiotic, indeed.
Between you creating existing matter and God creating it, I'll pick God. I'm sure most non-idiotic people would also pick God.
LOL!
That's, oh so typically stupid of you. Between me and your god, I am the only one who is real.
"They came from the same place as the always existing deity many people believe in. "
I take it you don't believe in Him?
So IF it is the "always existing deity many people believe in", is there some reason why what He says isn't true? Such as creating all we see and don't see in 7 literal 24 hour days? If these people can believe He always existed, why can't they also believe what He states about what He created and how He created it?
Oh, the two characters involved were much too brazen to bother trying to change their identities; they just banged away at the VOTING button hundreds of times to queer the poll in favor of the anti-Evos. When their excess votes were detected, and subsequently subtracted from the totals, the results showed Evos outnumbered anti-Evos by a 2:1 margin here on FR.
Well, obviously from the way you act, you are not interested at all in a discussion, but want to act like a little baby...grow up...and get some reading comprehension skills while you are at it...
The poll you cited certainly does not show what you claim it shows...what it shows is that 42 percent believe in a strictly creationist view, that God created things exactly as they are now...26 percent say that they believe God started things but things evolved along biological lines, directed by God(but still a belief in evolution)...and 17 percent believed in evolution along biological lines without a creator or designer...so add it up...26 percent plus 17 percent equals 43 percent...evolution about equal with creationist...which square with the conclusion given, that there is not a clear cut majority on what people favor(which does contradict what I have read in earlier polls), but nevertheless is much more believeable than the assertion that creationists outnumber evolutions...
And that is it for me tonite...arguing with folks who want to act like little bitty babies is boring and tiring...
And the point of mentioning the creationists skewing a poll, is that creationists like to boast of what great Christians they are(while patting themselves on their own backs)...great Christians indeed...skewing a poll is lying...now creationists often holler and scream and hold their breath until they are red in the face about the evos lying...and then they act as if this is par for the course, because of course the evos dont believe in God, have no moral compass, and therefore lying comes easy to them...I have seen that sentiment posted enough times...
The point about the creationists lying on a poll, to skew things their way, is that they enjoy and take great pride in their 'Christianity', yet will 'lie', their 'lying for God' mode...seems that they forgot all about the Bible stating that God hates liars, as Satan is their father...And you yourself make a joke out of that...that alone, speaks volumes about you, something for the lurkers to take note of...I imagine the creationist thinking goes something like this:
Evos lying...Oh thats to be expected, as they have no moral compass to rely on...They are nothing but Godless people and so will go to hell....
Creationists lying...oh, excuse us, we are lying for God, Hes so weak we need to lie for Him so we get a pass...we can go straight to Heaven...
And I suppose those two characters self labeled themselves as professed Christians, all the while lying and lying over and over again, and then boasting about it...'lying for God' seems to be a great excuse...
Hey, now! At least they haven't threatened to track us down and beat us up.
On this thread anyway.
And I am glad to see that the evos outnumber the anti-evos by a 2:1 margin, here on FR...that is encouraging...
They were well-known anti-Evo posters here on FR; their IP addresses gave them away; the poll website logged all the votes and IP addresses, and when one IP address showed up casting something like 900 votes for "Creationism" and another IP address had several hundred votes for it, it was pretty obvious that two people hadn't taken their "honesty pills" that morning....
Some of these folks get so nasty and worked up, that it would not surprise me at all, if violence was threatened...scarey...
"I hear, there was even a poll done here on Fr, ,which showed as you have asserted, ,until someone did a very thorough researching job, and found out that the poll, even on FR, was skewed because two Creationist posters, took on several identities, and tried, to skew the poll.."
Poll spamming on FR? Tell me it isn't true!!!
Internal Poll Freeping. Isn't that like peeing in your own bathwater. If so don't suck on the face cloth.
G'night Mommy. Don't forget to take your Ambien.
Aw heck, honesty did not matter...'lying for God' was more prominent in their minds...as if God needs some piddley little weak minded human to defend Him...God does fine, without someone lying with the false claim that they are defending him...by their lying, ,they showed who they really belonged to...
Hey Andy's mom, like I said, if you have a problem with the Catholic church rejecting the bible, or PARTS OF IT, take it up with them, not screech at me.
I KNOW that I believe it, front to cover, without apology.
The RCC knows that it doesn't.
Oh, so now you are a doctor?
It's interesting to note that someone defending the RCC rejecting the Bible is the one drinking.
Figures.
Heavens! I struck a nerve.
Behaving like a loon and spewing falsehoods has a tendency to do that.
Piltdown---No fewer than 500 doctoral theses were written on the subject (as per Muggeridge's "The End of Christendom, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1980, p. 59.)
Another blatant creationist falsehood! You're on a roll!
Now the big question is, did you *know* you were posting a falsehood, or were you just gullible enough to actually trust in the reliability of a creationist source?
[From: Piltdown Man]So no, there were not "500 doctoral theses" on Piltdown. There may not even have been *any*. It's just yet another example of a creationist falsehood that one creationist fabricates, and then dozens repeat it uncritically without having any clue whether it's accurate or not -- as you have done here.
500 doctoral dissertations were written on Piltdown man
This claim appears in creationist sources. Gary Parker's pamphlet "Origin of Mankind", Impact series #101, Creation-Life Publishers (1981) makes the claim without qualification or source. Lubenow's Bones of Contention (1992) remarks that it is said that there were 500 doctoral dissertations but does not give a source.
This claim is clearly in error. When one considers the small number of PhD's in paleontology being granted currently and the even smaller number 80 years ago and the diversity of topics chosen for PhD theses a figure of half a dozen seems generous; in all probability there were none whatsoever. John Rice Cole notes that in the 20s there were about 2 dissertations per year in physical anthropology in the entire US on ANY topic.
Robert Parson made a systematic search of the bibliographies of The Piltdown Forgery by Weiner, The Piltdown Inquest by Blinderman, Piltdown: A Scientific Forgery and The Piltdown Papers by Spencer, The Antiquity of Man (1925) and New Discoveries Relating to the Antiquity of Man (1931) by Sir Arthur Keith. Spencer and Keith's works have extensive references and bibliographies of the primary research literature. There are no references to any doctoral dissertations. Likewise Millar's bibliography contains no references to any doctoral dissertation.
It is not clear whether this claim is a simple fabrication or whether it is an erroneous transcription from another source. In the introduction to The Piltdown Men (1972), Millar says "it is estimated that some five hundred essays were written about [Piltdown man]".
There have been more than 500 *articles* on Piltdown, sure, but the vast majority have been about the *debunking* of the hoax, not (as you falsely imply) by scientists falling all over themselves attesting to its validity.
Have you no shame?
How about Orce Man --first human..then not human.
How about it? It's a fragment of bone small enough that opinions differ on what it might be. Is *this* the best you can come up with? Yeah, I guess it is!
If you're trying to imply that this is some sort of "hoax", since that's what you've been lamely trying to accuse biologists of allegedly doing on a regular basis, then this is yet *another* lie from you, because there's no indication that it's a hoax in any way, it's just a hard-to-identify bone. Some researchers feel it might possibly be hominid, some feel it may be equid. Where's the "hoax"? Oh, right, there isn't any. Did you have some sort of point to make, or did you just want to make slanderous implications with no shred of justification? If so, that would be called "lying".
More dissertations.
Name a single dissertation on the Orce fragment. We'll wait. Oh, there *aren't* any? Then you're lying.
More PhD's out there teaching numbskulls this mind numbing rubbish.
Please document a single case of any PhD anywhere teaching that the Orce fragment is conclusively a hominid. We'll wait. Until then, it's clear that you're just lying again.
The fraud list goes on...
No, actually, it doesn't, as made entirely clear by your scraping the very bottom of the barrel in order to have a dishonest excuse to list a NON-FRAUD as an alleged example of the "gosh too many to list" frauds you falsely claim evolutionary biology is riddled with. STOP LYING, it only makes you look like a scumbag.
it's really funny how so called "scientists" have for so long been able to demand respect from the general population of uneducated serfs. Fortunately, right wing radical Christians have stormed the walls of imperious sceence. The walls are coming down like Jericho's.
Let me know when you're finished ranting, and are able to either a) support your false accusations, or b) are willing to become an honorable person and retract your falsehoods.
Also, you could do us all a favor and explain to us why creationists are such unabashed liars. I've never been able to figure out why, but almost every one I've ever had a conversation with lied repeatedly and often, and never showed any shame when caught at it.
Here are just a few hundred creationist falsehoods for you:
Summary of the ability of the two creationists (Hovind and Havoc) to present information they *know* is false, and to *fail* to retract when reminded of their falsehoods, is presented here, along with links to all appropriate documentation.
(Quick aside -- eleni121, do you condone this behavior of your fellow creationists? Yes or no? Is lying for the "cause" of creationism acceptable to you?)
This sort of behavior, unfortunately, is *typical* of creationists. Here, want dozens of more examples of their distortions? A few more for the road? Another? Still more, perhaps? How about even more? Ooh, here are some good examples. And there's lots more where that came from, like this and this and this and lots more here and *tons* here and countless more here and yet more here, a goodie... Wait, there's more over here, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., *ETC.*, etc., etc., etc., . How about 300 more creationist misrepresentations? Not enough, you say? Well then visit Creationist Lies and Blunders. Hey, what about Freeper metacognative's (he's a creationist) ability to accuse Daniel Dennett (evolutionary scientist) of wanting to put Christians into concentration camps for their beliefs, when Dennett was *actually* clearly writing about how RADICAL ISLAM may need to be contained? The ugly details here.
eleni121, do you condone all *those* creationist misrepresentations of the evidence, and their misquotations of what scientists have actually said?
So keep telling lies about science, eleni121 -- it'll make it *very* clear to the lurkers which side is *actually* the one that engages in falsehoods, frauds, and misrepresentations.
Hardly a ripple, if that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.