How best to argue against creationists

[JustWondering2]

The " earlier Yellowstone eruption just after the flood" has been dated to 600,000 years ago! Does that mean the flood happened before that time? By the way they used the same methods to date the Yellowstone event as the Taupo event. OBTW Yellowstone has been erupting approx every 600K years for many millions of years. And were are currently overdue for another one!

 

[David M]

Today’s lava flows are small because the magma chambers below the volcanoes contain only small amounts of magma, and the continental plates are moving so slowly that they can’t facilitate the melting of much new magma.

See Jollybear, another example of AIG lying through their teeth. Someone with even vague google skills can easily verify that there is still an active magma chamber under Yellowstone containing about 15,000 cubic km of magma.

Todays lava flows are small because we have only seen small eruptions, when the next big one happens it will be big.

An AiG thread migt be amusing, there have been long-standing chellenges on other forums for someone to present any AiG article talking about science that is without error or dishonesty, so far no creationist has ever stepped up to the challenge.

 

[Jollybear]

ImmortalFlame

No I'm not. It says so right there in the statement:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information"

You even said so yourself, that they would not accept "evidence", only "proof". Now you're contradicting yourself.

I am ready to rip out my hair in frustration (just to clarify, NOT because I am stumped by what he says, but because I am amazed at the stupidness of what he says).

Notice the quote does NOT say “by definition, NO EVIDENCE in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.”

Notice the quote does NOT say that? Now, why is that significant? Here is why: if there was good solid evidence AGAINST the bible, they would probably accept it. But notice the quote says “by definition, no apparent, PERCIEVED or CLAIMED evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.”

Now notice the next part of the quote “of PRIMARY importance is the fact that evidence is ALWAYS subject to INTERPRETATION by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Funny how you keep ignoring what that clearly says. They don’t question SOLID evidence, they question interpretations and they point out if ALL information is not possessed.

YOU’RE THE one twisting it, and yet you call them dishonest and think I am dishonest too? YOUR SICK!

Also I am not saying I would refuse SOLID evidence. But any solid evidence you have for me, you better bet your life on it I will have a lot of solid questions for you.

Yes I do. Again, re-read the statement of faith. Doesn't exactly seem like the rules designed to generate honest and fair discussion now, does it?

Oh no you don’t, your not changing the argument here, we were not arguing about their statement there, I had told you “So you can show me they are dishonest OR……wrong? Which one are you going to SHOW ME, they are dishonest OR WRONG? I’m telling you that you cannot show me they are dishonest, that is not something you will know or prove. You may show they are wrong, but that’s it. You don’t know they are dishonest.”

And that is what you responded to, but you did not address it. Which is it, your going to show them wrong or show them dishonest if I present to you there arguments? We were talking NOT about there statement of faith page, we were talking about IF I present there arguments. YOUR SWITCHING the issue. So, which is it you will show, they are dishonest OR wrong? The fact that you say “or” shows you don’t truly KNOW they are dishonest! That makes YOU dishonest for saying you KNOW they are dishonest! YOUR SICK! Again, drink a good dose of medication called “stop it” and you’ll be cured.

For God's sake man, are you actually going to present some evidence or not?

If you're going to do it, do it and stop with this soapbox nonsense. If you're not going to do it, stop wasting my time.

I already told you I am not going to present it, because I was going to get back to redOne77 and we were going to discuss that evidence, me and him. But I could not hold back my intense anger from talking to you and try to persuade you to get away from doing things backwards, attacking motives and characters.

The best way for you to do that would be for you to present some honest science to me. So, why don't you do that?

Do you not realize that the more I ask and the more you refuse the more it looks like you're just avoiding doing so?

Again, I already told you why I am talking to you, it’s to get you to stop focusing on motives and characters. I was talking to redOne77 about the actual issues, but got away from it because you were making me mad, so I had to address you. Also your ASSUMING I am AVOIDING the talk about the actual evidence out of fear, listen man, no, your wrong, plus, your assuming AGAIN. Is that your favorite thing to do, assume things all the time on others?

And that avoiding doing so can only have one possible explanation: because you know I'm right and you cannot present anything.

Haha! surely you had to have said this to try to humor me, yes, no? Because if your serious, your more sick then I thought. Not to mention, it’s ANOTHER assumption. You ASSUME that I in my mind and heart THINK you are actually RIGHT and that I am PRETENDING to think I am right.

Your crazy. Seriously man, you’re out of your mind.

Listen I don’t THINK your right. Ok? I don’t, no, I don’t. Don’t make me laugh.

Now COULD you be right? Yea, you could be, I am open minded, but at present, I don’t believe you are right, no I don’t.

Now here is the explanation. It’s not a matter of “one possible explanation”, here is the actual explanation out of all possible explanations. The REASON I gave you no evidence YET is because I am not talking to you about evidence, I am talking to you for the purpose of trying to persuade you to get off the trip of focusing on motives and characters. Simple enough? Well, no, it’s not simple enough for you, you don’t BELIEVE me that this is MY purpose or motive for talking to you right now, you think my MOTIVE is something other then that. And that is your ASSUMPTION (wrong assumption at that). So your calling me a liar when I tell you I am talking to you for the express purpose of wanting you to get off the trip of focusing on motives and characters. Do you have PROOF that I am LYING about my purpose for talking to you right now? If so, can you PRESENT that proof? Nah, you won’t because you don’t have any against me lying, all you have is being ridiculousness about yourself.

 

[Jollybear]

I'm not telling that I'm jumping to that conclusion, I'm just telling you that by stalling, ranting and moralizing like you are rather than presenting science like I've requested, you're making yourself and AiG look more dishonest.

There is a BIG difference between LOOKING dishonest and BEING dishonest! Look man, this is not about LOOKS, this is about BEING. Who gives a crap about looks, ok? If this is about looks, you can choose to see anything you want to see, but this is about being, what is actually their.

Also I am not stalling, or ranting, I am telling you why I am talking to you, and what I am talking to you about, which is, to persuade you to get off the trip of focusing on motives and characters. Simple enough? I am not making myself LOOK more dishonest because I already told you I was not going to present to you their arguments, but that I was going to get back to redOne77 about those issues. I have been talking to you because you won’t get off the motive and character kick. So, it’s you that is moralizing.

So, either present something or stop wasting my time.

It’s more like YOUR wasting MY TIME because YOU focus on motives and characters rather then the issues. You do things backwards, assume bad motives and bad character and then address the arguments, rather then address the arguments and then depending on how that goes, conclude what the motives are. You see, I don’t do it backwards, I do it the right way. Screw your motives and your character and deal with your arguments, and if you attack my character or motives while I am addressing arguments, THEN I conclude your character is BAD.

That’s how it goes for me.

You need to stop doing it backwards.

Again, more double standards from you, saying "what I care about most at this moment is that you stop attacking the character and motives of the other position, it’s a waste of time and it HELPS NO ONE!" and "You think your better? You find some sick security in walking in this moral superiority attitude? Huh? That is SICK man, and I hate that. Get rid of it. Just stop it" in the same paragraph doesn't exactly make you look like the fairest or least hypocritical person on this forum. At this point, you're doing nothing but harming your own cause.

If you want me to debate the merits of the AiG's arguments PRESENT THEM. Do not rant at me about "avoiding their arguments" when you have utterly failed to present them.

I am not saying you are avoiding their arguments, I am saying you do things backwards, you assume the worst character when you don’t know this, and you assume it before answering all arguments. Stop doing things backwards.

Also where exactly did I make a double standard? I surely missed that one. Point it out please. Don’t just say it.

THEN PRESENT THEIR EVIDENCE.

How long are you going to continue wasting time?

NO, I’m not going to present the evidence TO YOU, the PLAN is that I go back to redOne77 and continue talking about that evidence with him, THEN you point out to ME where you THINK I am being dishonest TO HIM. That’s the plan.

YOU stop assuming the other is dishonest FIRST without knowing that. Because that is a waste OF MY TIME.

Are you serious?

“are you serious” is not a counter and does not address what I actually said which was: “The motives are not for the good of science? Come on man, get off the motives. Motives are not going to dampen science! Motives are not necessarily going to make someone choose to be dishonest! GET WITH IT MAN!”

And yes I am serious.

No, I didn't.

Yes you did misunderstand there quote, yes you did.

 

[David M]

Notice the quote does NOT say “by definition, NO EVIDENCE in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.”

Notice the quote does NOT say that? Now, why is that significant? Here is why: if there was good solid evidence AGAINST the bible, they would probably accept it. But notice the quote says “by definition, no apparent, PERCIEVED or CLAIMED evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.”

More lies and equivocation, are you really this rampantly dishonest in your tactics?

APPARENT evidence (the one you mendaciously didn't put in upper case) is good solid evidence, PERCEIVED evidence is good solid evidence. In both cases AiG are declaring that good solid evidence must be invalid if it contradicts scripture.

If there are facts to back up CLAIMED evidence then it is also good solid evidence, unless you are AiG when its only valid if it fits in with scripture.

 

[Jollybear]

Voice_Of_Reason

No. They are not "right". You have now been shown (repeatedly) that they are lying, and that they are NOT using science.

No, I have not been SHOWN they are lying, I have been TOLD they are lying. Big difference their. If you think that THIS has been SHOWN, that brings a pretty good revelation to why you think the theory of evolution has been SHOWN. Apparently you don’t know what “shown” means. Go get an education man.

Earlier in this thread, you put up a post in which you claimed that you wanted to find the truth, to examine your position. The truth is, you were lying when you posted that.

No I was not lying about that, I want the truth, whatever it may be. I just don’t believe AT PRESENT that your position is the truth. But examining my own position does not = stop believing in my own position. Get it strait man. You see, you ASSUME I was lying, that makes you an idiot. And a coward on top of it, because it’s the EASY way out, it’s more COMFORTABLE to believe I am lying, since to believe I am honest AND not willfully ignorant, would mean that you COULD be wrong. Your just as sick as immortalFlame

No. They are not doing science. You now know that, but you refuse to acknowledge the fact. Again, you are lying (to both yourself and us).

You’re a serious joke. I KNOW that now do I? Really? How do you KNOW that I KNOW this now? You have not shown that they do not do any science. I’m not lying to myself or you. The fact that you have NOT shown they do not do any science and the other fact that you don’t KNOW that I know they don’t do science yet you claim you know that I know they don’t do science, shows that YOUR lying to YOURSELF and ME. So it’s YOU that is dishonest. You’re a low down liar.

Either you are the most gullible human that ever lived, or you are intentionally ignoring obvious lies for the sake of defending your religious beliefs. I believe it is the latter. I think you are intentionally lying again.

Obvious lies? Are you kidding me? There NOT OBVIOUS at all. Actually it’s OBVIOUS that there is evidence they are not lying, but that we do not KNOW if they are actually lying or not. That is what is OBVIOUS. So if you don’t acknowledge the obvious, then YOUR lying, which you are.

So, if I claim that I believe in the Bible (even though I patently don't), that would mean that nothing I said after that would be a lie? Even you can see the stupidity of that position.

I see the stupidity of what you’re getting at here. If someone says they believe in the bible and they TRULY DO, then that means that whatever they say after that, WILL NOT BE A LIE, since they believe in the bible and the bible says don’t lie, well if they TRULY believe that, then they won’t LIE in what they say after.

So, your point is stupid.

To say you believe in the bible means to say you believe in God, you believe he made the universe, you believe in Adam and eve story, you believe they fell, you believe God intervened to make a plan of redemption. You believe God came in the flesh to die on a cross for our sins and rose from death and promised to return to make all things new. It also means you believe in his teachings and commandments, one of them is TO NOT LIE. That is what it means to believe in the bible, ok stupid?

Then I can only assume that you are.

So if I say it makes no sense to me that AIG is not deliberately lying, then your going to ASSUME that I am lying about that, and that I really think they are lying, but I am not admitting what I really think? Do you realize how stupid you sound?

Not only that, but you even ADMITTED that you are ASSUMING I am lying. WHY ASSUME if you don’t KNOW? That just makes you an ADMITTED IDIOT.

But I guess you like being that. Some people are just strange. You are truly a waste of my time not me a waste of yours, let’s get that strait up and clear, YOU are a waste of MY TIME, I’m NOT a waste of YOUR TIME.

On the off chance that you truly are this slow on the uptake, I'll walk you through it. She is telling you that not all people that understand and embrace evolution are atheists. At the same time, not all atheists embrace evolution.

Ok, great, my point was just simple, there are some atheists that are dishonest and some creationists that are dishonest. I am not paralleling none of them though in the areas where they agree on, accept in the areas of their dishonesty. That’s it. Some atheists believe in evolution WITHOUT KNOWING the evidence for it, so that makes them believe it for the wrong reasons.

Also if some atheists question evolution, what does that tell you? Their motives are certainly not to defend the bible! You guys are nuts. That just goes to show you your wasting your time calling people dishonest or focusing on their motives. GET OFF THE TRIP.

You are continuously interchanging the two terms, as if they apply to one group of people. Try to keep up.

Dude, you’re not getting me, some atheists are dishonest and some are not, some creationists are dishonest, and some are not. But who cares, get off it, and stop assuming you KNOW WHICH ONES are dishonest or not. Mr KNOW IT ALL. You being a naturalist and all, I thought you would not believe in being Psychic now? But you sure ACT like you are.

 

[Jollybear]

Well that's very sweet of you, but in the real world, we try to use words and terms as they are already defined. Simply using your own definition of words leads to a total breakdown of our language. If you don't know what a word means, they have these books out now, called a "dictionary". You can even Google up a word online, and go to the Merriam Webster Online dictionary. Give it a whirl.

Apparently you don’t know what some words mean, like FACT and evidence and PROOF. And also the one above like “SHOWN” can’t forget that one can we?

Or maybe you ARE like a dictionary since you’re the KNOW IT ALL. MR INFORMED one. Haha!

Give me a break.

No. For the fortieth time, you have been shown that AIG is being false, and that they openly admit to their bias in considering data and facts. I submit that it is you, now, who is being fake.

Having a BIAS does not mean having DISHONESTY. Apparently you also need to get out that dictionary again and look up the word honesty and bias and dishonesty, a few more words you don’t understand. Learn them, please.

It’s not me being fake, NOR AIG, which you assume both me and them are being fake. It’s YOU being fake because YOU assert we are being fake without knowing this, thus your fake with yourself because that makes you more comfortable, you find more security in lounging in that accusation against us, it makes you feel better, because then you feel that there is no way we could be right.

You coward, your just sick with cowardness. You need some of that medication I prescribed to ImmortalFlame called “just stop it” drink some of that and you’ll be good. You’re a evil servant of the devil.

You posted this on page 4 of this thread. Since then, you have demonstrated (repeatedly) that you are both willfully ignorant (by continually ignoring posts that cause you heartburn).

That’s way too funny! Ignoring posts that cause me heartburn! Haha! You crack me up man! Listen, I was not ignoring any posts, if I did not respond to ALL posts, it’s because I want to save TIME, already I have been on this stupid computer all day long with you all, if I responded to every post, I would be on here ALL NIGHT TOO, which I don’t plan on that, I had enough for one day!

If you don't like being called out for your intellectual dishonesty, then stop doing it.

Oh wait there, hold on their, your misunderstanding there and I have to correct you on it. This is something you DEFENATELY have to understand so your EGO does not blow up like a balloon. Let me tell you WHY I don’t like being called dishonest or willfully ignorant, but first let me tell you why it’s NOT. It’s not because I will have my confidence shaken in my character, absolutely not. I KNOW WHO I AM, and I KNOW I am honest. There can be 100 people RIGHT NOW post on this thread saying “jollybear, your dishonest” and my confidence in my honesty would STILL not be shaken ONE IODA bit! Because I KNOW who I am, and you don’t know and that is simple as it gets. I am in the position to know if I am being dishonest, I can see in my mind, in my heart, and in my life. I know if I am willfully ignorant or dishonest OR STUPID too. I know what the real answer is in this case, you don’t, you can just assume. Now that being said, you know what the reason IS NOT, now let me tell you the actual REASON WHY I don’t like being called dishonest, here is why: I consider those who call me dishonest when they don’t KNOW this, I consider it VERY COWERING. I consider them doing things backwards, they make an assumption BEFORE hearing the person and before KNOWING the person. They usually say “this group is dishonest because of this and that” before actually hearing an individual and getting to know them. When they call you dishonest, it actually shows FEAR on their part, it’s just easyer to say that person is dishonest, because if there honest and not willfully ignorant, and not stupid, and yet they still think there right, well that just means there view could be right now, or just as strong as the other persons view who thinks they are dishonest. So for them to realize we are honest and not willfully ignorant, nor stupid, SCARES THE HELL OUT OF THEM. So, to call us dishonest is VERY COWERING on there part. And it’s a COP OUT on there part, it is a DEBATE STOPER because it comes to the debate table with a closed mind toward the person and a disrespect toward the other person who disagrees with them. This cowardness and disrespect is a MAJOR darkness in the world that causes this world to be SO messed up, and THAT is why it bothers me. It don’t bother me one bit in shaking my confidence in who I am. I know I am honest, you could have a gun to my head, everyone in the WORLD could have a gun to my head and say “David, your dishonest, admit it, or else your going to die” I would look at them and say their all sick, because I know I am honest.

So put that in your darn pipe and smoke it, you cowering liar.

The post above this one goes through it quite nicely. You do lie, you have lied, and I'm fairly certain that you will continue lying.

I have not lied, I am not lying, and I am not going to lie. It’s you that have done this.

But, of course you won’t admit that. Because, well, you’re a coward, liars are cowards, they won’t admit it, because they don’t have the courage too, like you.

You traded your credibility when you chose to repeat the lies from AIG, even after you have been shown that they are using pseudo-science to make their points.

I traded my credibility huh? I don’t think so, I think you’re sick. You have not SHOWN that they are knowingly lying about anything.

If you want credibility, then earn it.

I am honest weather you believe me or not. I don’t have to EARN honesty, I AM honest. Now do I have to EARN your trust? No, I am TRUSTWORTHY. You don’t have any proof against me being dishonest.

If you think that, you surely don’t know the nature of evidence or proof.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I think jolly is going to blow a gasket


Careful with all the insults or you will probably end up banned, which would suck because your posts are always good for a laugh. Laughter - the best medicine!

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Notice the quote does NOT say “by definition, NO EVIDENCE in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.”

Notice the quote does NOT say that? Now, why is that significant? Here is why: if there was good solid evidence AGAINST the bible, they would probably accept it. But notice the quote says “by definition, no apparent, PERCIEVED or CLAIMED evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.”

Pointless semantics. AiG has it right there in black and white that they will not consider any evidence that contradicts the scripture. The second part of their statement is simply a guideline for their cop-out.

"Your evidence contradicts the bible, eh? Well, clearly, you don't have all of the information."

Funny how everyone else sees this except you. Why are you trying so hard to make AiG look legit?

YOU’RE THE one twisting it, and yet you call them dishonest and think I am dishonest too? YOUR SICK!

Another personal attack. If I were ImmortalFlame I'd report this.

I already told you I am not going to present it, because I was going to get back to redOne77 and we were going to discuss that evidence, me and him. But I could not hold back my intense anger from talking to you and try to persuade you to get away from doing things backwards, attacking motives and characters.

Thought you said you didn't get emotionally invested?

Haha! surely you had to have said this to try to humor me, yes, no? Because if your serious, your more sick then I thought.

Another personal attack. Why all the ad homs, JB?

Your crazy. Seriously man, you’re out of your mind.

Yet more personal attacks.

Is your position so weak that this is the only avenue you have available?

 

[Jollybear]

Satans_serated_edge

I think jolly is going to blow a gasket

At least someone on here gets me and sees me correctly at the moment.

Careful with all the insults or you will probably end up banned, which would suck because your posts are always good for a laugh. Laughter - the best medicine!

They don’t have to worry about me reporting them, I will not do it. I know how it feels to be banned and it’s not nice. Well in my case I was banned unjustly, in this case they would probably get banned JUSTLY, but even that, I don’t want them to be banned, so I will not play any part in trying to get them their. If a moderator comes by and tells them to stop calling me dishonest, know this all, I did not tell them to do it.

They may Insult me all they wish, I know who I am.

Evelyonian

Pointless semantics.

Funny, pointless semantics that you did not ADdRESS. Isn’t that strange?

AiG has it right there in black and white that they will not consider any evidence the contradicts the scripture. The second part of their statement is simply a guideline for their cop-out.

Your twisting it.

"Your evidence contradicts the bible, eh? Well, clearly, you don't have all of the information."

It’s more like “your evidence contradicts the bible, eh? Let me examine that evidence and see how your INTEPRETING IT and also see if you really DO have all the information or not.” Is more like it.

Funny how everyone else sees this except you. Why are you trying so hard to make AiG look legit?

Funny how those “everyone else” is people that agree with you, lets ask all the other young earth creationists what they think. Actually better yet, lets skip it all and ask AIG themselves what they meant. Because everyone knows what they themselves meant by their own statement, obviously. But I gauss like what immortalFlame said, even if we did ask them, they would answer dishonestly according to him. So even if AIG puts there own words in proper meaning, you still won’t believe them and apologize for taking their words out of context because of your PRIDE.

Another personal attack. If I were ImmortalFlame I'd report this.

If he is allowed to call me dishonest (personal attack) then I am allowed to call him sick. Simple as that.

Plus, cowardness IS sick.

Thought you said you didn't get emotionally invested?

No, you took my words out of context, NOW your going to get it. You may take AIG words or statement out of context, but MY WORDS, no, you can’t do that, I DEFENATELY know my own words. I had told you and everyone else what I DON’T get emotionally invested in. When I am debating the actual issues, I don’t get emotionally invested, but when someone is attacking motives and characters, THEN I get emotionally invested. THAT is what I said. So, stop taking what I said out of context or twisting my words. If you twisted my words here, that ruins your credibility to be able to keep AIG words in their proper context and meaning.

Another personal attack. Why all the ad homs, JB?

I told you I am emotionally invested when it comes to people wanting to focus on motives and characters. So, if he wants to say I am dishonest (ad hom) I feel JUSTIFIED in saying he is sick and dishonest back, since I think calling me that is a cop out, so there is ONE instance I feel justified in calling someone dishonest, it’s when someone calls me it. Pretty much. Because I consider it cowering and backwards in doing that in conversations.

Yet more personal attacks.

Is your position so weak that this is the only avenue you have available?

No, MORE LIKE is YOUR case so weak, that you have to FOCUS on motives and characters? THAT is what I am trying to get some on here to get away from. To focus on motives and charectors that in itself is a bad motive and a bad character UNLESS you KNOW for sure that other character is bad and if that other motive is bad. And, you don't know if AIG character and my character is bad.

 

[Jollybear]

P.S. I am taking a break from the computer for the rest of the evening and night. I am going to catch up on some reading in a book I want to finish. Thank you for your time, any posts responded to me further into this night, will have to be answered by me some other time, or other day. I will get back to you when I can or choose.

 

[Autodidact]

ImmortalFlame

I am ready to rip out my hair in frustration (just to clarify, NOT because I am stumped by what he says, but because I am amazed at the stupidness of what he says).

Notice the quote does NOT say “by definition, NO EVIDENCE in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.”

Notice the quote does NOT say that? Now, why is that significant? Here is why: if there was good solid evidence AGAINST the bible, they would probably accept it. But notice the quote says “by definition, no apparent, PERCIEVED or CLAIMED evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.”

No, Jolly, you're the one whose interpretatio makes no sense. They would not accept any evidence that contradicts the Bible, because they have decided in advance that no matter how apparent it may be, not matter whether you might perceive or claim that, if it contradicts the Bible, then by definition it must not be valid. They have defined "evidence" so as to exclude anything that contradicts the Bible. Get it?

Now notice the next part of the quote “of PRIMARY importance is the fact that evidence is ALWAYS subject to INTERPRETATION by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Yes of course. That applies to all of science. Science is always fallible, always provisional, always subject to change. Do you reject all of science?

Funny how you keep ignoring what that clearly says. They don’t question SOLID evidence, they question interpretations and they point out if ALL information is not possessed.

They reject all evidence that contradicts the Bible, no matter how solid it may appear, be perceived as or be claimed, because they have defined evidence so as to exclude it.

YOU’RE THE one twisting it, and yet you call them dishonest and think I am dishonest too? YOUR SICK!

No, Jolly, you're twisting into pretzeldom.

Also I am not saying I would refuse SOLID evidence. But any solid evidence you have for me, you better bet your life on it I will have a lot of solid questions for you.

Great. Why don't you toddle over to the evidence thread and we'll discuss it.

Oh no you don’t, your not changing the argument here, we were not arguing about their statement there, I had told you “So you can show me they are dishonest OR……wrong? Which one are you going to SHOW ME, they are dishonest OR WRONG? I’m telling you that you cannot show me they are dishonest, that is not something you will know or prove. You may show they are wrong, but that’s it. You don’t know they are dishonest.”

And that is what you responded to, but you did not address it. Which is it, your going to show them wrong or show them dishonest if I present to you there arguments? We were talking NOT about there statement of faith page, we were talking about IF I present there arguments. YOUR SWITCHING the issue. So, which is it you will show, they are dishonest OR wrong? The fact that you say “or” shows you don’t truly KNOW they are dishonest! That makes YOU dishonest for saying you KNOW they are dishonest! YOUR SICK! Again, drink a good dose of medication called “stop it” and you’ll be cured.

As I said before, if they're wrong, and it's pointed out to them that they're wrong, and they persist in repeating it, what do you call that?

I already told you I am not going to present it, because I was going to get back to redOne77 and we were going to discuss that evidence, me and him. But I could not hold back my intense anger from talking to you and try to persuade you to get away from doing things backwards, attacking motives and characters.

I could have sworn you said you were going to present evidence.

Again, I already told you why I am talking to you, it’s to get you to stop focusing on motives and characters. I was talking to redOne77 about the actual issues, but got away from it because you were making me mad, so I had to address you. Also your ASSUMING I am AVOIDING the talk about the actual evidence out of fear, listen man, no, your wrong, plus, your assuming AGAIN. Is that your favorite thing to do, assume things all the time on others?

You're the one who seems obsessed with their motivations. I've told you several times I neither know nor care. What matters is, they are not a reliable source.

Haha! surely you had to have said this to try to humor me, yes, no? Because if your serious, your more sick then I thought. Not to mention, it’s ANOTHER assumption. You ASSUME that I in my mind and heart THINK you are actually RIGHT and that I am PRETENDING to think I am right.

Your crazy. Seriously man, you’re out of your mind.

Try to focus on the content without insulting the poster--before someone alerts the mods.

Listen I don’t THINK your right. Ok? I don’t, no, I don’t. Don’t make me laugh.

Now COULD you be right? Yea, you could be, I am open minded, but at present, I don’t believe you are right, no I don’t.

Now here is the explanation. It’s not a matter of “one possible explanation”, here is the actual explanation out of all possible explanations. The REASON I gave you no evidence YET is because I am not talking to you about evidence, I am talking to you for the purpose of trying to persuade you to get off the trip of focusing on motives and characters. Simple enough? Well, no, it’s not simple enough for you, you don’t BELIEVE me that this is MY purpose or motive for talking to you right now, you think my MOTIVE is something other then that. And that is your ASSUMPTION (wrong assumption at that). So your calling me a liar when I tell you I am talking to you for the express purpose of wanting you to get off the trip of focusing on motives and characters. Do you have PROOF that I am LYING about my purpose for talking to you right now? If so, can you PRESENT that proof? Nah, you won’t because you don’t have any against me lying, all you have is being ridiculousness about yourself.

Well I don't think going on and on about someone's motive and character is the best way to get the focus away from motive and character, but that's just me.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Funny, pointless semantics that you did not ADdRESS. Isn’t that strange?

Actually, I did address it. Read my post again.

Your twisting it.

No, actually, I'm not. It says it right there in their mission statement:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Read it again:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

There it is, right in front of you. AiG considers any evidence that contradicts scripture invalid. The rest is simply a guideline for others to use to justify ignoring said evidence:

"Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

See, that part is their justification. "Well, if someone's evidence contradicts the bible then it's not because the bible is wrong. It's simply because they don't have all of the information."

It doesn't matter how much evidence there is, how solid it is, whatever. AiG has already made it quite clear that they'll consider it invalid as long as it contradicts their preconceived conclusion. That is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

It’s more like “your evidence contradicts the bible, eh? Let me examine that evidence and see how your INTEPRETING IT and also see if you really DO have all the information or not.” Is more like it.

And yet they've already admitted that they won't consider it as long as it contradicts the bible. They have reached their conclusion before examining the evidence. That is the antithesis of science.

Funny how those “everyone else” is people that agree with you, lets ask all the other young earth creationists what they think. Actually better yet, lets skip it all and ask AIG themselves what they meant. Because everyone knows what they themselves meant by their own statement, obviously. But I gauss like what immortalFlame said, even if we did ask them, they would answer dishonestly according to him. So even if AIG puts there own words in proper meaning, you still won’t believe them and apologize for taking their words out of context because of your PRIDE.

Hows about I send Kenny an email and ask him what he meant? Would that make you feel better?

If he is allowed to call me dishonest (personal attack) then I am allowed to call him sick. Simple as that.

So he hurt you so now you're going to hurt him back, eh? Ever thought about trying to be the bigger man? Plus, you're kinda throwing the whole "do unto others...." thing under a bus.

If you twisted my words here, that ruins your credibility to be able to keep AIG words in their proper context and meaning.

How so? Just because I (according to you) twisted your words I must, therefore, be twisting everyone else's? Come on, JB. You can do better than that.

I told you I am emotionally invested when it comes to people wanting to focus on motives and characters. So, if he wants to say I am dishonest (ad hom) I feel JUSTIFIED in saying he is sick and dishonest back, since I think calling me that is a cop out, so there is ONE instance I feel justified in calling someone dishonest, it’s when someone calls me it. Pretty much. Because I consider it cowering and backwards in doing that in conversations.

So, you consider name calling cowering and "backwards". Yet, in the same post, you continue the ad homs. What does that say about you?

No, MORE LIKE is YOUR case so weak, that you have to FOCUS on motives and characters? THAT is what I am trying to get some on here to get away from. To focus on motives and charectors that in itself is a bad motive and a bad character.

You aren't helping your case here when you continue to attack other posters motives and slander their character.

If you want us to take you seriously then you need to stop committing the same crime that you're condemning.

 

[Autodidact]

Voice_Of_Reason



No, I have not been SHOWN they are lying, I have been TOLD they are lying. Big difference their. If you think that THIS has been SHOWN, that brings a pretty good revelation to why you think the theory of evolution has been SHOWN. Apparently you don’t know what “shown” means. Go get an education man.

I showed you myself. Do I need to repeat it? Other posters have shown you repeated instances of them making false claims, having the falsehood pointed out to them, and them persisting in those false claims. What do you call that?

No I was not lying about that, I want the truth, whatever it may be. I just don’t believe AT PRESENT that your position is the truth. But examining my own position does not = stop believing in my own position. Get it strait man. You see, you ASSUME I was lying, that makes you an idiot. And a coward on top of it, because it’s the EASY way out, it’s more COMFORTABLE to believe I am lying, since to believe I am honest AND not willfully ignorant, would mean that you COULD be wrong. Your just as sick as immortalFlame

Well, I'm starting to have my doubts. When people post stuff, and then you claim no such thing was posted, and we can see right in the thread it was, it will cause us to doubt your credibility.

Or when I explained to you that creationist vs. atheist is not an accurate categorization, and you persist in using that. Why do you do that? Dishonest? Stubborn? Incapable of learning? What? You tell me.

You’re a serious joke. I KNOW that now do I? Really? How do you KNOW that I KNOW this now? You have not shown that they do not do any science. I’m not lying to myself or you. The fact that you have NOT shown they do not do any science and the other fact that you don’t KNOW that I know they don’t do science yet you claim you know that I know they don’t do science, shows that YOUR lying to YOURSELF and ME. So it’s YOU that is dishonest. You’re a low down liar.

I have shown you definitively that what they are doing is not science, by the definition of science. I explained it to you in terms a freshman could understand, using their own words to prove it. So have other people. Do you not understand us, or what is the problem here?

Obvious lies? Are you kidding me? There NOT OBVIOUS at all. Actually it’s OBVIOUS that there is evidence they are not lying, but that we do not KNOW if they are actually lying or not. That is what is OBVIOUS. So if you don’t acknowledge the obvious, then YOUR lying, which you are.

What is obvious is that they make false statements and persist in repeating them after it's shown they're false.

I see the stupidity of what you’re getting at here. If someone says they believe in the bible and they TRULY DO, then that means that whatever they say after that, WILL NOT BE A LIE, since they believe in the bible and the bible says don’t lie, well if they TRULY believe that, then they won’t LIE in what they say after.

Are you serious? Are you seriously trying to assert that people who believe the Bible lie less than people who don't? Wow. O.K. provide a source for that claim, because I'm not buying it. My experience has been exactly the opposite.

So, your point is stupid.

To say you believe in the bible means to say you believe in God, you believe he made the universe, you believe in Adam and eve story, you believe they fell, you believe God intervened to make a plan of redemption. You believe God came in the flesh to die on a cross for our sins and rose from death and promised to return to make all things new. It also means you believe in his teachings and commandments, one of them is TO NOT LIE. That is what it means to believe in the bible, ok stupid?

So Christians don't sin?

btw, where is that commandment not to lie?

So if I say it makes no sense to me that AIG is not deliberately lying, then your going to ASSUME that I am lying about that, and that I really think they are lying, but I am not admitting what I really think? Do you realize how stupid you sound?

No, I think you're sincere, but it's hard to see how. People have shown you actual falsehoods from their site. I have to think you're biased in their favor, because their religion is similar to yours.

Not only that, but you even ADMITTED that you are ASSUMING I am lying. WHY ASSUME if you don’t KNOW? That just makes you an ADMITTED IDIOT.

But I guess you like being that. Some people are just strange. You are truly a waste of my time not me a waste of yours, let’s get that strait up and clear, YOU are a waste of MY TIME, I’m NOT a waste of YOUR TIME.

Again, please focus on the message, not the poster.

Ok, great, my point was just simple, there are some atheists that are dishonest and some creationists that are dishonest. I am not paralleling none of them though in the areas where they agree on, accept in the areas of their dishonesty. That’s it. Some atheists believe in evolution WITHOUT KNOWING the evidence for it, so that makes them believe it for the wrong reasons.

So your point was just totally irrelevant then?

Also if some atheists question evolution, what does that tell you? Their motives are certainly not to defend the bible! You guys are nuts. That just goes to show you your wasting your time calling people dishonest or focusing on their motives. GET OFF THE TRIP.

Please try to focus on the substance. It's getting hard to ignore your constant insults.

Dude, you’re not getting me, some atheists are dishonest and some are not, some creationists are dishonest, and some are not. But who cares, get off it, and stop assuming you KNOW WHICH ONES are dishonest or not. Mr KNOW IT ALL. You being a naturalist and all, I thought you would not believe in being Psychic now? But you sure ACT like you are.

Why did you bring up atheists? They're irrelevant to our discussion. Some Chinese people are dishonest, and so are some bassoonists.

Your sick man. You need some help. You guys crack me up.

If you cannot refrain from spewing insults, I will not continue to converse with you, and I will report you to the mods.

 

[Autodidact]

For someone who wants to steer the discussion away from character and motive, Jolly Bear spends an awful lot of time attacking other people's characters and motives. What do you call that, Jolly?

 

[Jollybear]

ImmortalFlame

Now you're just clutching at straws.

No I wasn’t. address what I said

“Yea, my case is that you have no case they are lying. Your calling them liars, you have to prove that or be quite. And I don’t assume you have no past involvement with them. Did I say “you don’t have any past involvement with AIG” did I say that? Huh, did I? no I didn’t. So YOU assumed (you assume a lot don’t you?) that I assumed that you had no involvement with AIG. Why don’t you just QUIT the assumptions all together and get off it?”

No, I called you hypocritical on the grounds that you continue to accuse me of making unfair assumptions about people's character, while you do the same to me.

I am not ACCUSING you of making unfair assumptions about peoples character, I KNOW you are making unfair assumptions. The fact that they are ASSUMPTIONS, is ENOUGH in itself to tell you that you should stop doing it. The only thing I am accusing you of is that YOU DOING THIS IS a BAD THING. Forget motives and characters, focusing on that is BAD UNLESS you have proof they are a bad character, which you don’t have that proof. So I consider THAT a bad character on YOUR part to do that, so I point it out and tell you to stop, so your character may become GOOD.

I am not being hypocritical here because I am not DOING THE SAME THING THAT YOU DO. I do not FOCUS on motives and characters UNLESS the other person is focused on it, then I put my focus on trying to get them to STOP focusing on it, because by them focusing on it, THAT to ME is a BAD character. You see? I don’t do the SAME thing that you are doing. If I did, and then told you to stop it, THEN I would be a hypocrite, which I am NOT because I am not doing the SAME thing you do. Get it strait.

You also continually accuse me of ignoring the merit of AiG's arguments, while continually refusing to present those arguments. These are hypocrisies on your part.

No, your misunderstanding, I’m sure you probably will NOT ignore their arguments, but what you need to stop focusing on is motives and characters, you got things backwards. Address arguments FIRST, FORGET motives and characters, only address those if you have PROOF. Which you don’t have proof there lying. Not even good evidence really. You MAY have evidence they are wrong, but that’s about the extent of it.


Again, YOUR misunderstanding. This is NOT hypocrisy on my part, I did not say you are IGNORING AIG arguments, I am saying you should STOP FOCUSING on motives and characters if you don’t have definitive proof they are lying, which you clearly don’t have this proof Nor evidence they are lying. You can say you have evidence they are wrong, but you don’t have evidence they are lying.

And yes, you have made several unfounded assumptions about me. One of them in this very paragraph: "you don’t know what hypocrisy is apparently". Others include calling me "sick" and "dumb".

Yet again, you're a hypocrite.

No, you STILL apparently don’t understand what hypocrisy is. This is not a UNFOUNDED assumption on my part. Hypocrisy on my part would be to do the same thing you yourself are doing. I am not doing the same thing I am asking you to quite doing. All I am doing is asking you to quite focusing on motives and characters. I don’t FOCUS on motives and characters, YOU do, I am asking you to stop that, I think it’s a WRONG approach. You see? I don’t do the SAME thing I am asking you to stop. I am not a hypocrite. Get it strait.

But at the same time I do realize motives and characters exist and that some can be good and some bad. What I consider a bad character to be when it comes to debating is when they focus on motives and characters, THAT is a bad character when it comes to debate. This is not hypocrisy on my part, this is a balanced perspective of reality.

I've read dozens of AiG articles. I think that's pretty obvious by the fact that I have repeatedly told you I have dealt with them in the past. If you feel that there are any articles I may have not read yet, then please present them.

That’s not what I asked you, I asked you did you read all of them? VERY specific question with a VERY specific purpose behind it.

Could you give me some examples, then, of creationists responses to scientific refutations of, say, irreducible complexity?

If I give you an article, I don’t’ wish to discuss it because I want to get done with this conversation so I can get back to redOne77.

Here is a simple short one just to PROVE to you that I am NOT resisting out of FEAR. http://creationwiki.org/(Talk.Origins)_Even_the_simplest_life_is_incredibly_complex

See? You're displaying the exact same attitude as the creationists. Irreducible complexity has not only been disproven entirely, but thrown out by the very person who founded the concept AND thrown out of court years ago. And yet you still believe it exists. You're not keeping up with science, and you're not even trying.

Micheal behe did not throw out the concept of irreducibly complexity. He still believes in complexity to my knowledge. If you think otherwise, give me a source.

Also I watched this video before and this guy did not disprove complexity.

Also you assume I am not TRYING to keep up with science. Another baloney assumption of yours. You don’t know what I am TRYING or NOT trying to do. AT the MOMENT I am TRYING to do ONE thing, can only do ONE thing at a time, and at THIS moment I am TRYING to get you to STOP focusing on motives and characters. Right now I am NOT trying to focus on keeping up with science (although I am trying to do that as well, just not at the MOMENT) at the moment I am focused on YOU. Get it?

No, that is not a personal attack. I can call a claim dishonest, but that is not the same as calling a person dishonest.

By calling a claim that is GIVEN by a person dishonest, you by default call the claimer dishonest. DUH.

And yes, you're right. I don't trust young earth creationists. With reason.

By not trusting young earth creationists, your by default calling them all dishonest. That is PERSONAL now.

No, you did not "correct" it. I clearly demonstrated how you twisted it.

No, wrong, I did correct it, and I demonstrated how you twisted it. Your wrong in saying that I twisted it, it was you that did that.

No, because those "assumptions" have a basis in fact. Case in point: their complete inability to present any valid science.

They do present science.

 

[Jollybear]

Want to contest that? THEN PRESENT SCIENCE.

With RedOne77 when I get back to him. Yes, I will then.

Calling someone "dumb" is not the same thing as calling someone's argument dishonest. One is a personal remark, the other is not.

Understood?

No, it’s not understood, calling someone dishonest, their argument dishonest, is calling them dishonest, and that is a PERSONAL attack on their character. You know that, come on.

To call someone dum is a personal attack on their intelligence, YES, I ADMIT THAT. But why don’t you admit that calling someone dishonest or their argument dishonest is a personal attack on their integrity and character? By not admitting it, that makes YOU dishonest. And it also makes you a hypocrite because you call someone else dishonest when you are BEING IT yourself by not admitting it. So two strikes against your character right there by pure evidence alone, not just accusation alone.

Ok?

Except you called me "dumb". I like how you're now changing your own words.

That's almost... Dishonest.

Which is it, I am ALMOST dishonest or I AM dishonest? PICK ONE and stop bull crapping and being a coward because of the RULES. Don’t worry by the way, I am not going to report it.

Also having EVIDENCE for someone being dishonest is different then having no evidence and just accusing them of being dishonest. Having evidence is not accusing, it’s KNOWING.

So if I have evidence you’re not being to bright, then that is a not a accusation, that is self evident. Unless you ARE bright but your acting Dum, which would then make you dishonest because then your ACTING.

The very fact that in their statement of faith they tell their adherents to dismiss facts that contradict their preconceived notions is pretty strong evidence that facts aren't what's important to them.

Your twisting there words, they are not asking people to DISMISS FACTS. But rather dismiss false interpretations of facts, or get ALL of the facts or information.

And the fact that you refuse to acknowledge that just goes to show the lengths to which you're deluding yourself about them.

So it’s you diluting yourself.

Firstly, I never once called anyone stupid or ignorant, I just questioned their motives.

What? Quit bull crapping me. Your calling AIG willfully ignorant and dishonest and that their motives are bad. You also say GENERALLY that creationists use dishonest arguments and that you don’t trust them. Usually this is how it goes “either they are dishonest, ignorant, or stupid, because they are wrong, and if they’re wrong, they are ONE of these three”. So, get off this bull crap. Your just afraid of the rules, I told you already, don’t bull crap me, you have nothing to fear, I’m not going to report you. All I am asking is just stop focusing on things that are not NOBLE to focus on in a debate. But even if you CONTINUE to focus on it, I STILL won’t report you. Ok? Good gosh. It’s not good what your doing, and it makes me mad, I admit it, it makes me mad, yes, because it’s not right, simple as that. It don’t matter who does it, some others on here are doing it too, and it’s not right, and I am pointing it out because it’s a darkness that messes up this whole world. It’s not the theory of evolution or creation that messes up the world, it’s THAT kind of attitude that messes it up! And I have an emotional investment of hatred against it. And I ADMIT that hatred of it, and I am GLAD I have a hatred of it, otherwise I may PARTAKE of the poison of it myself.

Secondly, the best way to show someone that their assumptions about something is wrong is to demonstrate that they are wrong.

Right, I agree. That is what you need to FOCUS on, nothing else. That is what everyone needs to focus on, nothing else.

In this case, by providing honest scientific inquiry.

I agree. Focus on that. Yes. And STAY focused on it.

It is NOT to do as you have done: repeatedly get on your soapbox declaring that I was wrong without presenting any actual reason for me to change my mind.

No, that is not what I was trying to do WITH my conversation with you, with you I was ONLY trying to get you to STOP focusing on motives and characters and tell you WHY that is bad. I am not saying to you at this moment that the theory of evolution is wrong, just that you focusing on the motives and character of creationists, THAT is wrong. I have no emotional investment against debating the theory of evolution, I do however have an emotional investment against others focusing on motives and characters, it’s WRONG to do that. It’s dark, it’s evil, it helps no one, it’s cowering, it’s all around NOT GOOD.

And no, until you give me valid reason not to, I have no reason to assume that AiG are anything other than a dishonest organization based purely on forcing their beliefs into science. Again, their OWN statement of faith strongly supports me on this:

The AiG Statement of Faith - Answers in Genesis

Read them. Especially numbers 1:1, 2:1, 4:5 and 4:6.

Ok, well you can believe that, just please, don’t focus on it, it’s not helpful. And whatever you do, if you debate a young earth creationist, don’t focus on their motive or their character UNLESS you have PROOF that there character is dishonest, if you don’t have that, DON’T go there. That will bring the conversation down a dark hole.

Firstly, what do atheists have to do with anything?

Secondly, how can I focus on their arguments if you refuse to present them?

My point was this “I’m not saying every creationist is honest, but also not every atheist is honest either. What I am saying is, stop focusing on that and just focus on the arguments they have. That is what matters. Its funny that you said above that I should get off the moralizing and get to the issues, yet that is what I have been trying to get you to do all this time, get off the motives and character, stop focusing on that.”

Atheists have to do with this because if I focused on their motives and character that does not address the issues. It does not help anything, it actually ****** people off. And would be cowering at the same time. That is my point in bringing up atheists, like what if I treated them how your treating us? What if I said I don’t trust ALL atheists or all scientists, or all evolutionists? You see, this is why you need to get off that trip. Because it’s pathetic and immature.

 

[Jollybear]

I do have proof of them lying. I could show you examples if you'd like?

And no, one statement that suggests the minimal degree of academic honesty does not suddenly exempt them from the dozens of lies and misinformation they intentionally have spread in the past. You seriously need to re-evaluate your criteria for assessing honesty.

Give me ONE example for now of them LYING? This better be good.

Note: I am not wanting an example of where they are WRONG in their argument, but where they are LYING? Let’s make that clear what I want.

Then why you keep continually insulting me and questioning my character when I have not done the same to you?

Again, you're being hypocritical.

You are doing that, you distrust, you think we are lying, or willfully ignorant or stupid, one or the other, and that our motives are wrong. That is what your FOCUSED on, and I am trying to get you to FOCUS on the RIGHT thing in debating and get your focus OFF these things. Focusing on these things IS having a BAD character. I am not being hypocritical because I am not FOCUSED on the same thing you are, I am trying to get you to focus OFF these things otherwise YOU’RE THE one being hypocritical because YOUR character would be BAD while you are so FOCUSED on other’s so called bad characters. And THAT is hypocritical on your part. I am trying to get you AWAY from having this hypocrisy and bad character and focus ONLY on the issues and OFF these things. Your only justified in focusing on these things If you have proof of them having a bad character. I have proof you are having a bad character right now, which is, your focused IN a SUSPICIOUS way others having a bad character when you don’t have proof. This is WRONG, you need to get away from that. I am not doing the same thing your doing, I am not being hypocritical.

No, again, you're assuming I'd never dealt with them before reaching my conclusion. I have dealt with them, I know they are dishonest, I know they have lied, the statement of faith is basically a licence for it's members to lie or ignore the truth.

Again, your assuming that I assume you did not deal with them in the past. Your assumption is just that, an assumption, you don’t KNOW this, you assume things ON ME, which you should NOT assume, you got to quite that. Not to mention, your assumption is incorrect, I don’t DOUBT that you dealt with them in the past.

You are the one who invented a series of things that you believed they MEANT to say in order to avoid addressing what they actually did say. I, on the other hand, repeatedly quote them. The meaning is extremely clear,

Apparently the quote is not extremely clear to you, it is to me though. I am willing to contact AIG and ask them to clarify it if you wish, or should we ALL contact them just so you know I am not screwing any information since you don’t “TRUST” me.

as anyone with even a basic grasp of the English language can see.

Well apparently then you don’t have a basic grasp of the English language then.

Just because you refuse to accept it - and have to twist everything in order to avoid doing so - does not change the fact of what they are advocating.

Just because you refuse to accept the REAL meaning behind what they say and have to twist everything in order to avoid calling them honest, does not change the fact of what they are saying.

Come on, you're not illiterate. You know what they're saying as well as I do, and you know you're just denying it. Just admit it.

Come on, your not illiterate. You know what their saying as well as I do, and you know your just denying it. Just admit it.”

NOW I am going to be done for the night and go read my book. Sorry, I clicked back and saw this post and was too tempted to respond.

But I am definitely done for the night now.

 

[Autodidact]

Knock knock. Jolly. We've taken individual AIG claims, shown you that they're wrong (which is all that really matters) and further shown you the claim being corrected and AIG nonetheless persisting in making it. For some reason that doesn't interest you.

No one is twisting their mission statement but you. They make it crystal clear that they will not accept any evidence, no matter how apparently valid, if it contradicts their interpretation of the Bible. Then they go on to say they're doing science. Their mission statement makes it clear they could not possibly be doing science.

So your position is that they're wrong over and over, and don't correct their errors, but they're not deliberately lying, there's some other explanation, such as that they're all incredibly stupid, they're skilled at deluding themselves, they're completely nuts, or they're just really ignorant. O.K. I'm fine with any of those. You agree that they're an utterly unreliable source who should not be cited, and I'm sure we'll be happy to agree that we can not know whether or not it's because they're deliberately lying. At least, I will. Deal?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Jolly, my boy. Why the anger?

Wouldn't it be better to just admit that you are wrong about AIG and evolution, that the clowns at Answers in Genesis are incapable of telling the truth, that you don't understand what science is or how it works, and that you simply have no intention of objectively listening to anything that does not reinforce your religious belief in creationism.

Inner peace is much easier to come by, when you shine the light of the truth in your life.

No need to thank me - I do what I can when someone like you so clearly needs help.