Common Creationist Arguments - Pseudoscience

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Arguments/Pseudoscience.shtml ^

[gore3000]

"Spontaneous formation of amino and fatty acids has been observed in the laboratory.

Not sure the above is true as stated however, even if the experiment did produce the above how can it be called a simulation of actual conditions? How can it be considered the atheistic solution to life without a Creator? With no life around yet, only God could have been the one to turn off the bunsen burner.

[gore3000]

Perhaps he has posted it a few times, in fact, I know that he has posted it more times than that. However, let's face it - who can argue with Dirty Harry? More to the point though, how many intelligent responses has he gotten to this posting. Let me tell you the answer: ZERO. Instead of complaining, moaning and wasting your time counting how often he posted the message, why don't you try to refute it?

[gore3000]

Spam is in the eye of the beholder. To evolutionists any post that refutes their ideology is to be ignored. Sort of reminds me of the Clintonites, every crime he committed was "old news". There is one truth, the number of lies is almost infinite.

[gore3000]

After awhile, having to refute the same tired arguments gets a little bothersome.

This is the same nonsense I get all the time. I am always told by evolutionists that my statements have been refuted elsewhere. However, I never seem to see a refutation for most of them on any thread I am on! Of course the evos do not give any references for their statement, that would be beneath them. They also do not bother to give the refutation which would seem the easiest thing to do and get on with things. Instead the evos just carp and whine.

Let's also remember that there are always new people reading these threads. Perhaps they have not seen your "refutations". It would be much better if instead of carping and whining you would just refute the arguments again so. This would put an end to what you call "spamming" - if, and only if you were indeed able to refute your opponents arguments.

[gore3000]

You posted the following in your defense:

"No one outside of the willfully obstinate questions the idea that new life forms evolved from older ones, a process conclusively illustrated in biology and the fossil record.

We've got a whole lot of these folks on this forum"

Actually, it seems to me that the first paragraph was even worse than the one medved quoted. Just because someone continues to disagree with your ideology does not mean they are willfully obstinate. In addition, there is absolutely nothing factual in your post that refutes anything dealing with the evolution debate. It is all an ad-hominem tied to a totally unsopported statement that science backs your view. It is not a statement of opinion that persuades others but facts and reasoning and I do not see any of that in your post.

[JediGirl]

Ow. I'm blind.

[Bob J]

Radio Free Republic Presents

The Banana Republican Hour

With your host Luis Gonzalez

This week’s guest:

Brothers to the Rescue founder, José Basulto

---

On February 24, 1996, three light aircraft left Miami on a routine flight. Their missions, to search the waters off the Florida Coast for rafters trying to reach the US shores, and bring them help by guiding the US Coast Guard to their location. That day in February, only one plane would return to its home base in Miami.

Tune in to Radio FreeRepublic this Thursday, March 14, at 9 PM EST, and listen to the actual sounds of a terrorist in action, murdering unarmed American citizens.

Sr. José Basulto, founder of Brothers to the Rescue and pilot of the surviving Cessna, will shed light on the events of that day, and detail how the Clinton administration withheld advanced knowledge of the attack from the humanitarian volunteer group, helping seal the fate of these four courageous flyers.

Radio FreeRepublic, fearless talk radio.

Click on Banner to hear broadcast of Show Thursday, March 14, at 9PM EST/6PM PST


RadioFR Every Thursday at 9PM EST/6PM PST

RadioFR Archives, Hear the shows you missed

[JediGirl]

Um...excuse me, but what the heck was that all about??

Some people are on special medications. f.Christian often forgets to take his. We try to humor him. It's difficult.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker (so I don't have to scroll through that blue stuff again).

[medved]

Actually medved is not spamming these threads. He is waiting for an intelligent response to it from the evos.

I'm not holding my brathe though; better ways to die than lack of oxyten....

[Phaedrus]

Bumping your #216, medved. This is "right on the money":

The people doing the crybaby acts here amount to a little clique of a half dozen evolutionists who attempt to dominate these evolution/creation threads by ganging up on other posters.

[Phaedrus]

Some people are on special medications. f.Christian often forgets to take his. We try to humor him. It's difficult.

Now JediGirl, this is ad hominem attack. It's not permitted, so knock it off. This is your father surrogate speaking, so pay attention . . . And if this last comment is in any way bothersome, just know that it is an expression of my marvelous, witty sense of humor.

[gore3000]

There's quite a few things wrong with the materialistic idea that the basic materials of life can arise at random from non-life. However, regarding the experiment, I only wish to ask one little thing. If it was designed to reflect the real conditions in the primoridal earth:

WHO TURNED OFF THE BUNSEN BURNER?

[beckett]

Without doubt one of the worst rebuttals of creationism I have ever read. I confess I didn't read the whole thing --- my gag reflex (a physiological saftety feature, after all) prevented me from going passed the stuff about the second law of thermodynamics. The smart-alec who wrote it couldn't possibly be more than an undergraduate; at least I hope not. The condenscension that drips from his pen, the certainty that rings from his rhetoric, is the hallmark of a little man with a little mind.

[Phaedrus]

...nonexistence [of God] need not mean that humans have no purpose.

Care to expand on that? I think it's flat wrong. But let me take a step back. Do you think purpose is inextricably linked with consciousness? If not, why not? Do you think consciousness is real? It's certainly not material. Is anything real that is not material? And purpose certainly cannot be defined in mechanical terms -- that's a closed loop. Bottom line is you said a mouthful, with certitude, in a very few words but I don't think it will fly (to mangle my metaphors).

[general_re]

But don't ever say that the debate was pointless. I must have scored at least 312 points. This makes me the winner, and I'm really happy about that.

Har har har. Where shall we send the plague plaque? ;)

More on point, you asked me about a hundred and fifty posts ago whether I'd noticed the flaw in the article on my first reading, or only after you pointed it out. But don't you see? Kinsman is right. Nobody really reads these articles, pro or con. And the posting following afterward is largely a pro forma affair, as nearly as I can tell.

I've been reading the crevo threads for some time now, and only posted to a few, all very recently - within the last few weeks. And after this, I think I'll slink back into the shadows, because watching this is becoming a lot like that silly movie, "Groundhog Day".

Really, it's got all the regularity and organization of a well-worn symphony - the conductor flicks his baton just so, and there's Archaeopteryx. A slight wave to the percussion, and there's a tidal wave of a post purporting to be the be-all and end-all of the debate. A lifted eyebrow to the brass, and there's a whale's hips. A wiggle to the piccolos, and a post springs forth showing that Darwinism invariably leads to lesbian abortionist Nazis. A quick flick of the wrist, and the strings shout out with the geologic column. A wink and a nod, and the oboes burst forth into a song of statistics. And so it goes, gradually growing more and more dissonant, as the proxy arguments over the toes of sloths and the lengths of genomes and such slowly give way to the same futile question every time - "Is there a Goddammit?"

All in perfect rhythm, two separate circles, not talking to each other so much as near each other.

So, I propose we lock the crevo_list. We find the best representative of this orchestral arrangement - call it "Thread" - and remove all the lesser candidates. Then we simply link to Thread as being the best we all can possibly manage, and just call it a day. We can even write "The End" at the end...

[Junior]

The first paragraph was written by someone else. I was simply responding.

[Junior]

Okay, how about your most recent and egregious example: your claim that scientists proved whales are not related to hippos? VadeRetro chased you all over one thread asking you to address this point and you ignored him. Now you come back and say no one has ever addressed your points? Now do you understand our frustration?

You may honestly think your points are not being addressed. For a few months I worked as a magazine editor for an import/export compliance firm. My boss would hold hours-long meetings going into exquisite detail over what he wanted to see. I'd sit there scribbling notes furiously, then I'd turn his vision into print. I'd show it to my co-workers and they agreed it looked exactly like what the boss wanted -- but when the boss saw it, all he could say was "it's all wrong." He did this to everyone. After three months I quit. The day I walked out (I gave two weeks notice), the rest of the production department quit. Later on I heard my boss was sued by his creditors and one former partner. All agreed he was a bit of a nutcase.

Your inability to see what's in front of you reminds me a lot of him.

[Junior]

To evolutionists any post that refutes their ideology is to be ignored.

[f.christian mode] Pot----kettle. Whales/HIPPOS! Bearing False WITNESS [/f.christian mode]

[Junior]

Of course the evos do not give any references for their statement, that would be beneath them.

Okay, now you're just being silly. Not only have I included oodles of references in many of my posts to you, I've taken to excerpting the first paragraph of each because you complained that you didn't have time to read the links and should be provided with a synapses of the reference. Hell, just the day before yesterday on another of these threads I linked the duplicate monkey gene thread to you.