The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[Bad Writer]

What the fuck giant text...? But yes, I will take my time. Thanks for giving me your permission, smartass.

EDIT: That was in reply to Statler, not you, Max-Kolbe.

[Lemonvariable72]

Unfortunately this isnt the result of one find ( although im inclined to thibk your wrong because because the colors kf the plumage was extracted fron that cologen) so you will have a lot to discredit. http://news.discovery.com/animals/dinosa...130131.htm
http://www.theguardian.com/science/lost-...rs-fossils
http://m.livescience.com/21353-predatory...thers.html

[Foxaèr]

Theists find it quite easy to discredit that which they are uncomfortable accepting as fact. They simply close their eyes and chant, not in the bible.

[Lemonvariable72]

Theists find it quite easy to discredit that which they are uncomfortable accepting as fact. They simply close their eyes and chant, not in the bible.

But when it is in the Bible they just chant "Context"

[Chas]

No, not censorship - I said it's not about the ideas but about the behavior of the poster.

I’ve never received an infraction on here or an official warning, so it must be the ideas and not the behavior.

You should quote me completely:

Why do y'all keep Statler and ronedee around? What do they contribute here except incredible ignorance, delusion, and stupidity?

Are these your pet theists? If I had dogs this stupid, I'd have them put down.

Your theses have been completely destroyed, but you carry on as though you never heard a thing. You clearly don't understand the scientific method, the nature of evidence, the evidence from nature, or why your presupposition blinds you.

So, yes, it is your behavior. You are relentlessly ignorant and stupid.

[Whateverist]

I'd like to nominate this thread's title as the best one ever.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Citation.

EDIT: I see this is a lie that has been debunked already . Your evidence is dismissed as nonsense. Thanks for playing.

Calling this a lie is rather harsh, it’s just an older argument that creationists do not recommend using anymore (thus refuting the silly claim that creationism never progresses or changes).

http://creation.com/the-extinction-of-th...ick-freeze


"“Woolly mammoths were snap frozen during the Flood catastrophe.” This is contradicted by the geological setting in which mammoths are found. It’s most likely that they perished toward the end of the Ice Age, possibly in catastrophic dust storms. Partially digested stomach contents are not proof of a snap freeze, because the elephant’s stomach functions as a holding area—a mastodon with preserved stomach contents was found in mid-western USA, where the ground was not frozen."- Creation.com[/size][/size][/size]

Hi Stat, long time no speak. Hope you're well.

Anyway, the [creation] thesis regarding these mammoths has been debunked. The fact that orangebox
Used it to support his theory kind of lends weight to the notion he was being disingenuous, or somewhat ignorant, or both.

[Statler Waldorf]

Translation = "too stupid even for creatards..." which is pretty fucking stupid.

Real translation= creationists value good arguments and will relinquish using poor ones unlike the other side (i.e. Pepper Moths and Bacterial Resistance).

What the fuck giant text...? But yes, I will take my time. Thanks for giving me your permission, smartass.

Actually that was just medium text.

Unfortunately this isnt the result of one find ( although im inclined to thibk your wrong because because the colors kf the plumage was extracted fron that cologen) so you will have a lot to discredit.

That’s the only find that seems to ever get used as supposed evidence. I personally do not have to discredit anything; the scientific literature on the subject has already done that. According to Lingham-Soliar’s article “The evolution of the feather: Sinosauropteryx, a colourful tail” published in 2011, the presence of the eumelanosomes and pheomelanosomes organelles that produce such pigments were actually an optical illusion created by low image reproduction of the scanning electron micrograph. I realize you guys really want dinosaurs to have had feathers but the evidence to support such a notion is rather dubious at best.

Theists find it quite easy to discredit that which they are uncomfortable accepting as fact. They simply close their eyes and chant, not in the bible.

Actually what is interesting is the nonsense atheists will accept as evidence when it supports something they desperately want to be true, such as feathered dinosaurs (as if a feathered dinosaur proves anything anyways).

You should quote me completely:

Yeah yeah, we get it. You think we’re stupid so therefore you want us banned from the forum. Clearly we’re not stupid though, so it has to be more that you just do not like our beliefs.

Your theses have been completely destroyed, but you carry on as though you never heard a thing.

What theses and destroyed by whom?

You clearly don't understand the scientific method, the nature of evidence, the evidence from nature, or why your presupposition blinds you.

You clearly do not understand why a baseless assertion proves nothing. Do you actually have any specifics or will you continue to persist on masking your ignorance with meaningless generalities and platitudes?

So, yes, it is your behavior. You are relentlessly ignorant and stupid.

That hurts my feelings.

Hi Stat, long time no speak. Hope you're well.

Hanging in there! Hope you have great Christmas plans.

Anyway, the [creation] thesis regarding these mammoths has been debunked.

Yes, it’s an out dated argument.

The fact that orangebox
Used it to support his theory kind of lends weight to the notion he was being disingenuous, or somewhat ignorant, or both.

I do not think it proves he is either of those. It’s difficult to stay current on every issue and Lord knows we all have presented an out dated argument at some point or another. I still catch people trying to use the Pepper Moth example or the Vestigial Organ example even on here.

[Ksa]

^ Listen, you're a Bible man. If you can prove from the Bible that you're a true christian by passing the Mark 16:17-18 confirmation test, we take your word for it without argument.

[Bad Writer]

^ Listen, you're a Bible man. If you can prove from the Bible that you're a true christian by passing the Mark 16:17-18 confirmation test, we take your word for it without argument.

Why does he need to show us he's a true Christian? He doesn't need to show us in the Bible where it says his Christianity is true; simply telling us that he's one should suffice anyone. Do you need me to show evidence as to my atheism? Am I also to come up with silly evidence for a claim that needs no investigation? (I think your heart is in the right place, but incendiary challenged won't go anywhere in this type of discussion, especially with someone like SW.)