Creationists, why do you attack evolution?

[Starise]

You want me outta here don't you?

 

[McBell]

You want me outta here don't you?

I do not care if you stay or go.

I do, however, find your over reach to play the martyr quite entertaining.

 

[Starise]

I'm not playing the martyr. Look at what happened here. I simply stated what happened.

I can tell you don't know me very well. I am in no need of sympathy and even if I were this would be the very LAST place I would expect to find it.

 

[McBell]

I'm not playing the martyr.

I agree you are not very good at it.

Look at what happened here. I simply stated what happened.

If you do not want to learn from your mistakes concerning your strawmen presentations of evolution, that is on you.
But make no mistake that if you post false information or out right lies, you will most likely get called out on it.

I can tell you don't know me very well.

I only know what you post.
And so far it appears you are merely looking to play the victim card.

How about instead of whining about being corrected about evolution, you actually learn from your mistakes?

I am in no need of sympathy and even if I were this would be the very LAST place I would expect to find it.

And yet here you are ranting about atheists correcting your false narratives of evolution....

 

[Starise]

Oh so you one of them too. I sort of figured that.

Look, I DISAGREE with the THEORY of evolution. You can flap around endlessly on this. It doesn't matter to me.

 

[McBell]

Oh so you one of them too. I sort of figured that.

You do not know anything about me.

That was your narrative, right?

Look, I DISAGREE with the THEORY of evolution.

Um...
So what?
Is everyone supposed to ignore false information you present about evolution because you disagree with evolution?

You can flap around endlessly on this. It doesn't matter to me.

except here you are, whining excessively about it....

 

[Audie]

I think you would be very surprised at how much data I have poured over on both sides of the issue. Yes certainly there are some things in the bible symbolic and sometimes we have a statement that something happened with no detailed scientific explanation as in many narratives intended to be stories, yet truthful disclosures. I will say up front I believe we were created and I don't believe creation used a chain improvement method. I DO believe similar designs and materials were employed.

The water and oil here in is science which doesn't acknowledge anything other than science. Science is pliable and often changes. Assertions are rountinely made which are later changed due to the inaccuracy of such assertions. In the case of evolution, there's a lot of persuasive lit out there on the scientific end making insistent claims that have never been specifically proven to lead to the conclusions they draw.

A literal bible reading in most cases is a progression sequence of events leading up to a main event which changed the course of mankind and will continue until the completion. There is the romatic thought that science and this book can potentially agree. I believe this as well happen eventually when science finally catches up.

Adaptation is a fact. Depending on the proper scientific terminology, there are 'new species' that have come about. Using their classification system, technically they would be correct, but it's a different kind of duck or snail now classified as a new species. Never a duck to a snake which was my point going into this.

I'm not afraid of science I think many would agree science has it's limitations though. We never hear the word "prove" because due to the pliability of it, especially in regard to this subject, there are more empty holes than filled ones. Sure we have cell phones and computers because we have science, but all of it was solidly founded and provable in a lab. Neither does it delve into biology with those same credentials.

In all my studies science only reenforces my God.. Like any other study there are leanings and biases in science and those who make the claims.

Best,

Tim

I dont think I've much surprise coming.

The things you speak of..."all Ive found is hoaxes
and similarities"...arenthe clearest of sign that
you've very poured little, and that from crestionist sites.

Its ok not to know much; I dont know Frenvh poetry,
or American football.
If though at a post game show i held forth on
how the goalie didnt do his job, that would be,a tell.
A sign.
You go on to speak of "proof". Proof dors not
exist in science. You have no idea why.
Bur that is intro to basic science.
Its a tell if you dont know it.



There is no hoax anywhere in the ToE.
I can guess your creationist- site list.
At most, one may have been a hoax, but its
100% irrelevant to anything. Its not psrt of
any science.

Creationist arguments are full of hoaxes, as is the church.

Its all very trashy but a reason not to believe in god?
How stuoid would that be? Now flip it around.

What creatiionist sites nor anyone on earth has is
One (1) fact contrary to ToE.
You sure dont.

Without any facts, all arguments are silly.

If it were false, disproof would be tribially easy.

But lets face it straight on. You so clearly know far far
too little science for any qualifird opinion.

Your choice is an emotional one. You prefer faith
to fact and reason. Your attempts to talk science
to make it look like facts and reason come off like
me trying to talk football.

Ask me. I will say i know nothing but it looks stuoid and boring. I wont try to find errors in it. My distaste is
emotion based.

You'd be best doing the same.
Be straight with yourself, dont try to mislead othrrs re
your expertise.

Just say ypu dont know much biology,
but choose your chosen reading of scripture

It will keep ypu out of the weeds.

 

[Starise]

If you do not want to learn from your mistakes concerning your strawmen presentations of evolution, that is on you.
But make no mistake that if you post false information or out right lies, you will most likely get called out on it.

I dont think I've much surprise coming.

The things you speak of..."all Ive found is hoaxes
and similarities"...arenthe clearest of sign that
you've very poured little, and that from crestionist sites.

Its ok not to know much; I dont know Frenvh poetry,
or American football.
If though at a post game show i held forth on
how the goalie didnt do his job, that would be,a tell.
A sign.
You go on to speak of "proof". Proof dors not
exist in science. You have no idea why.
Bur that is intro to basic science.
Its a tell if you dont know it.



There is no hoax anywhere in the ToE.
I can guess your creationist- site list.
At most, one may have been a hoax, but its
100% irrelevant to anything. Its not psrt of
any science.

Creationist arguments are full of hoaxes, as is the church.

Its all very trashy but a reason not to believe in god?
How stuoid would that be? Now flip it around.

What creatiionist sites nor anyone on earth has is
One (1) fact contrary to ToE.
You sure dont.

Without any facts, all arguments are silly.

If it were false, disproof would be tribially easy.

But lets face it straight on. You so clearly know far far
too little science for any qualifird opinion.

Your choice is an emotional one. You prefer faith
to fact and reason. Your attempts to talk science
to make it look like facts and reason come off like
me trying to talk football.

Ask me. I will say i know nothing but it looks stuoid and boring. I wont try to find errors in it. My distaste is
emotion based.

You'd be best doing the same.
Be straight with yourself, dont try to mislead othrrs re
your expertise.

Just say ypu dont know much biology,
but choose your chosen reading of scripture

It will keep ypu out of the weeds.

Look Audie I appreciate your comments, however do you see what you did here? You made comments with no support, at least that you gave here, and then proceeded to tell me I needed to have support behind my comments.

Your comments are very ambiguous and basically say you're right and I'm wrong and only suggest a vauge basis for your opinions. Mislead others? You guys came to me. I have an opinion. That's all.

Do you guys always attempt to talk those you don't agree with out of their beliefs?

If you believe in nothing why have a website discussing any of it at all? Seriously. Everything is stupid and made up, so what's left for you?
What compels you to feel so above me as to suggest you now everything I should know and why?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well I knew coming here I would always be wrong, so it comes as no surprise.

Yes, if you insist that something is true that has been shown to be false beyond a reasonable doubt you will be wrong.

What I find to be really odd is that on a religious forum of all places where most religions are concerning a god, there is no hint of one. Why don't you all call this the atheist forum instead? Just an observation It has been argued to me here atheism is not a religion, so why are you here?

There are serious discussions about God here too. But let me put it this way. how would you treat a Christian that insisted that the Earth was flat because the Bible says so?

Do you guys all hang out and wait for someone like me to show up

Yes, we have a fresh blood siren that goes off.

What gives you the right to say I am in error when you are not in possession of all the info needed to make the SAWG you are making? You argue a theory is true and then present another theory. I'm impressed

Because we are in possession of enough info to know that you are wrong. The first step in learning that is to not deny when someone explains to you how you are wrong about evolution. It is fine to ask for evidence, but when you post something rather ignorant and are called out for it denying the correction is the last thing that you should do.

Once again, it is always fine to ask "How do you know that?"

The lottery? Are you kidding me man?
We are EXACTLY created.

Yes, the lottery. The lottery is best used against bad odds arguments. And what did I just tell you about denial. If you can prove an idea wrong that is great! Do so. But denial without support is no different from you admitting that you are wrong, though the latter is the honest way to go.

Your mistake is to focus on a particular winner and wondering about what the odds were of him winning and then denying that he could be the winner since the odds are so high. That is what you are doing with man. But if one looks at the lottery you will see that a winner is almost guaranteed given time. The same goes for evolution. That new successful species is all but guaranteed. One can never predict ahead of time what the winter will be.

 

[Audie]

This is exactly the opposite of that. In order to have an ape to a man we have nothing but random with a hope something unrandom will occur to cause organization.

I don't 'need' anything from you. I have my studied position. You are certainly free to disagree.

Oh, and if you guys aren't on the offensive because I have a view then what do you call it?

If your sincere belief is that i am on the
offensive because you have a view, well, Im
a touch hurt, a touch disappointed in you, but,
just say so.

I will move you to ignore and no futther
contact will ever occur.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You want me outta here don't you?

No, quite the opposite. It would be nice if you asked serious questions and tried to learn why and how you are wrong. Or even better if you learned enough of the basics of science so that you could follow the arguments for or against evolution for yourself without others explaining where you messed up.

 

[Starise]

If your sincere belief is that i am on the
offensive because you have a view, well, Im
a touch hurt, a touch disappointed in you, but,
just say so.

I will move you to ignore and no futther
contact will ever occur.

What would you call it then? Oh never mind you ignored me.

 

[Starise]

No, quite the opposite. It would be nice if you asked serious questions and tried to learn why and how you are wrong. Or even better if you learned enough of the basics of science so that you could follow the arguments for or against evolution for yourself without others explaining where you messed up.

That wasn't the point of this thread now was it? The thread was asking why creationists attack evolutionists.

I responded to say that no, I don't attack them. Now you try to drag me into a Q&A session inferring I need to "learn" something.

 

[Audie]

What would you call it then? Oh never mind you ignored me.

Im asking if you would just say one way
or the other. If it is how you see me,
then, too bad, and i wont trouble you agan.

Ive been polite.
Youve no call to be snippy sarcastic with me.

 

[Starise]

Yes, if you insist that something is true that has been shown to be false beyond a reasonable doubt you will be wrong.

And you alread know this is highly subjective based on your criteria.

There are serious discussions about God here too. But let me put it this way. how would you treat a Christian that insisted that the Earth was flat because the Bible says so?

I understand your point, this is why I absolutely made sure I clarified that I do indeed agree with several of the things under the evolution classification. I don't concur with ape to man. You may think I missed something,but really that goes both ways here.

If you see my stance similar to a flat earther I would say your assesment of my views is highly off.

es, we have a fresh blood siren that goes off.

I knew it You can't fault me for thinking it...really.

Because we are in possession of enough info to know that you are wrong. The first step in learning that is to not deny when someone explains to you how you are wrong about evolution. It is fine to ask for evidence, but when you post something rather ignorant and are called out for it denying the correction is the last thing that you should do.

Just imagine for one minute that I am in possesion of the same info and see it another way. Hmmmmmm?

Yes, the lottery. The lottery is best used against bad odds arguments. And what did I just tell you about denial. If you can prove an idea wrong that is great! Do so. But denial without support is no different from you admitting that you are wrong, though the latter is the honest way to go.

Your mistake is to focus on a particular winner and wondering about what the odds were of him winning and then denying that he could be the winner since the odds are so high. That is what you are doing with man. But if one looks at the lottery you will see that a winner is almost guaranteed given time. The same goes for evolution. That new successful species is all but guaranteed. One can never predict ahead of time what the winter will be.

Oh here we go again, keeper of the mistake files. Do you get credit for those? Bonus points possibly

If it makes sense to you ok. To me it sounds like a convenient extrapolation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That wasn't the point of this thread now was it? The thread was asking why creationists attack evolutionists.

And I understand that. But the fact is that your reasons for attacking are demonstrably wrong.

I responded to say that no, I don't attack them. Now you try to drag me into a Q&A session inferring I need to "learn" something.

But then you did that in this thread itself. And yes, if you want to claim that others are wrong you need to know if they are wrong or not. Even your Ninth Commandment requires that. I used to be a Lutheran, but at least Catholics are taught this too. The Ninth Commandment is more than just a ban on lying. In fact it does not really ban lying. What it bans is bearing false witness against your neighbors. What does that mean? Well today your "neighbor" is practically anyone. And bearing false witness is merely saying false things about someone else. That means that if you claim that the scientists are wrong (and you have shown that you do not even understand what you are arguing against) then the odds are very very high that when you make comments against them you are at a very high risk of having already broken the Ninth Commandment. It does not matter if you really believed what you said or not. If you are wrong, and in many of your claims so far you can be shown to be wrong, then you have broken the Ninth.

 

[Starise]

Im asking if you would just say one way
or the other. If it is how you see me,
then, too bad, and i wont trouble you agan.

Ive been polite.
Youve no call to be snippy sarcastic with me.

Look Audi,

I haven't hardly ever met a person I didn't appreciate. I haven't been snippy in my thinking. If you took it that way I'm sorry. You are the one who threatened to block me. That outdoes snark 10 to 1.

What do you mean by say one way or the other??

If you're reading this have a good weekend. I really mean no harm.

 

[Starise]

And I understand that. But the fact is that your reasons for attacking are demonstrably wrong.

But then you did that in this thread itself. And yes, if you want to claim that others are wrong you need to know if they are wrong or not. Even your Ninth Commandment requires that. I used to be a Lutheran, but at least Catholics are taught this too. The Ninth Commandment is more than just a ban on lying. In fact it does not really ban lying. What it bans is bearing false witness against your neighbors. What does that mean? Well today your "neighbor" is practically anyone. And bearing false witness is merely saying false things about someone else. That means that if you claim that the scientists are wrong (and you have shown that you do not even understand what you are arguing against) then the odds are very very high that when you make comments against them you are at a very high risk of having already broken the Ninth Commandment. It does not matter if you really believed what you said or not. If you are wrong, and in many of your claims so far you can be shown to be wrong, then you have broken the Ninth.

Sorry, I'm leaving a location right now. Not failing to respond. I'll try to get back here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you alread know this is highly subjective based on your criteria.

No, it is not. Scientific evidence is very well defined. It is part of what makes the scientific method work so well. And only those that are ignorant, oh and liars too, of the sciences deny the fact that evolution has more scientific evidence for it than any other concept in the sciences.

I understand your point, this is why I absolutely made sure I clarified that I do indeed agree with several of the things under the evolution classification. I don't concur with ape to man. You may think I missed something,but really that goes both ways here.

The evolution of man is no different than the evolution of any other animals. In fact it is better understood because of personal interest in it. You may not concur, but that just means that you are wrong. Just as you would be wrong if you claimed that a granite boulder that you just lifted over your head was going to float away.

If you see my stance similar to a flat earther I would say your assesment of my views is highly off.

Really? How is it any different?

I knew it You can't fault me for thinking it...really.

Well we are always interested in new arguments, but no one can ever seem to make one. We are almost always dealing with PRATT's.

Just imagine for one minute that I am in possesion of the same info and see it another way. Hmmmmmm?

Then you should be able to make a case for yourself. But what you have revealed is just a misunderstanding of the limited material that you have.


I often try to teach creationists the concept of scientific evidence. It is a very easy concept to understand, but I doubt if you have any clue as to what makes an observation evidence.

Oh here we go again, keeper of the mistake files. Do you get credit for those? Bonus points possibly

No, but I really should.

If it makes sense to you ok. To me it sounds like a convenient extrapolation.

Analogies are used to help people to understand complex ideas. They are generally more useful in pointing out a person's errors but you do not seem to have understood it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, I'm leaving a location right now. Not failing to respond. I'll try to get back here.

No!! We demand a 24 hour break in period!

Okay, have a nice day. There is no need to spend too much time here.