Common Creationist Arguments - Pseudoscience

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

[kinsman redeemer]

You are a very talented writer.

You gave an excellent summary of what happens with each flick of the baton.

I have just re-read all of your posts in this particular thread and I conclude that (although we disagree) you are fair and tolerant. Nothing less should be expected in a forum such as this.

I really appreciate the way that you have conducted yourself (pun intended, but not meant to imply anything) during this iteration of the debate.

It is nice to meet you.

Russ

[gore3000]

As usual you refer to things not in the discussion, not in the current thread - on four posts. The fact is that strong anti-evolution arguments made in this thread have gone totally unchallenged by the evolutionists. The only arguments they have made is character assassination and charges of spamming. Can't you folk defend your theory on its merits?

[VadeRetro]

Be sure to flag me if you ever get the slightest acknowledgement out of that boy. Whatever it is, he has it bad!

[oldcats]

"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."
You seem to be doubting the facts of her statement, yet what you return with is faith based. Would it be fair to ask for proof of your statement back?
Not that I disagree with you, but if you ask for facts, you should have facts as a rebuttal.
Oldcats

[oldcats]

I beg to differ....in other topics, I have seen rebuttals of his "facts" yet he ignores them or turns the discussion personal.
Plus, I would love to debate some of his ideas, if
1. he would follow the basic rules of debate...making his point in clear concise statements, giving time for rebuttal. 2. Stop using statements like...God hates idiots too. If he is indeed speaking for God, then there would be no room for discussion, that is hardly a statement of fact, is it?
Oldcats

[medved]

I beg to differ....in other topics, I have seen rebuttals of his "facts" yet he ignores them or turns the discussion personal.

The basic reality here is that the diffeence of perceptions is so great that you and I basically have nothing to talk about. Anything I post on this forum is obviously intended for people other than yourself.

[oldcats]

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".
I have never ignored any well thought out post that differs from my opinion. I do ignore a post filled with non-facts and filled with assumption statements with an endless line of "if this and if that" statements.
As for your second statement, must everything turn into a political argument? See my earlier point about staying on the subject?
Oldcats

[Junior]

You are the one who said we never present you with any evidence or references and I simply pointed out that was incorrect. And, I pointed out for those who may not be familiar with your style that on several other threads you have not only been answered, but you were answered with references -- which you claimed never happened. Not only that, I gave a concrete example of you ignoring the evidence presented to you (the hippo/whale thingy). You raise the frustration factor of these debates considerably by these tactics.

These crevo debates are not individual duels with not relevance to one another -- they are part of an overarching, for want of a better word, war. Remember when I said (on another thread) that you appeared to be incapable of seeing the forest for the trees? Your posting above is evidence of that.

[oldcats]

Great rebuttal yourself...not one fact in it. Good job!!
Oldcats

[kinsman redeemer]

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story [of the big bang] ends like a bad dream. For the past three hundred years, scientists have scaled the mountain of ignorance and as they pull themselves over the final rock, they are greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Robert Jastrow

[VadeRetro]

As usual you refer to things not in the discussion, not in the current thread - on four posts.

It is somewhat off topic, but as someone pointed out already, the main article is frequently ignored on the crevo threads to dive instantly into the standard back-and-forth. The article of this one seems particularly neglected and I don't wonder, since it nicely analyzes many creationist arguments and finds them deluded.

Speaking of delusions, I guess it's the psych. major in me that makes me wonder what the heck is going on with people. That's the real reason I keep asking you about your bold, blue-highlighted pronouncement that DNA testing had conclusively eliminated hippos as the nearest relative of whales.

I'm not asking because I'm wondering if that's right. I know it's wrong. Everyone knows it's wrong. Interestingly, AndrewC has spun a line of logic that uses the close relationship of hippos to whales as an anti-Pakicetus, if not anti-evolution, argument. (It's bogus, but it's worth noting that everything disproves evolution when you're a Data Lawyer dazzling the jury.)

No, I'm asking because you never admit error in your egregiously ill-informed posts. This is perhaps more self-discrediting than the original making of the errors, but you either can't see or can't help yourself.

You've let it go on a long, long time. Why?

[Junior]

See post #282 for his answer.

[kinsman redeemer]

Here's a ORIGIN MODELS CATEGORIZATION by Dr. Gary Chiang. He provides a summary of the 5 theories of origin.

1: Atheistic evolutionism (naturalistic evolutionism)

2: Deistic evolutionism

3: Theistic evolutionism

4: Old Earth Creationism

4a: The Gap Theory

4b: The Day/Age Theory

5: Young Earth, Recent creationism (Scientific creationism)

I am, as you may already know, an adherant to the last category.

Which are you? Is there another theory? Are Chiang's descriptions adequate?

[oldcats]

The basic reality here is that the diffeence of perceptions is so great that you and I basically have nothing to talk about. Anything I post on this forum is obviously intended for people other than yourself."
Typical schoolyard tactic there bud..."I'm not gonna talk to you no more." Did you stick out your tongue after typing that?
And you talk about others whinning? Sheeesh. Guess I wasn't dealing with an adult afterall.
Oldcats

[VadeRetro]

Anything I post on this forum is obviously intended for people other than yourself.

He literally means it. The medved spam post is uncorrected from the last twenty times, despite all the criticisms those postings generated, because he's simply trolling for idiots (perhaps to tell them that God hates them).

If you have the critical thought capacity to deconstruct a medved post, it isn't for you.

[VadeRetro]

The last category is an oxymoron. I'm still an agnostic evolutionist, although these discussions drive me ever closer to atheism.

[kinsman redeemer]

I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made:
marvellous are thy works;
and that my soul knoweth right well.
My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret,
curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

[kinsman redeemer]

An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven, for example, but rather holds that one cannot know for certain if they exist or not.

[Kyrie]

Re: your post #276

I have been leaning that direction myself. On the other hand, if I hadn't posted on one of these hopeless threads, I would not have discovered a Freeper with a common interest. That was refreshing.

Sometimes I think I'll never bother posting on one of these again. Then I'll read something that draws me out again. Not that it matters. My posts are often ignored, even though I don't post medved-style articles.

If for nothing else, however, posting on these threads provides some practice in writing, something I seldom otherwise get these days.

[oldcats]

Per the rules....."NO personal attacks"
Guess that only applies to people you agree with eh?
I would love to dispute his claims, but how can I come up wioth a rational argument for statements like "God hates idiots" too? How can I argue (discuss) with some a direwct line to what God's feelings are?
Oldcats