(October 4, 2013 at 7:54 pm)Beta Ray Bill Wrote: Hey, I'd don't say much to this airhead (oh no, will he get banned, too?). Punching a pillow isn't a very fulfilling experience.

To me, this appears to be more like slamming your head against a brick wall.

(October 4, 2013 at 6:06 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote:

(October 4, 2013 at 6:00 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: I take it that you cannot refute the post.

If in a debate, the truth or facts do not support you, try anything else.

Clearly you are simply here to annoy the people on this forum.

Of all the various posts I made in reply to you in which I quote scientific papers and leave the explainations for the facts that refute your claims you dont reply to a single one!

Instead you reply to the post in which as a reaction to the behavior you display (ignoring replies, refusing to read through posts) demand an end to this silly game of yours.

Clearly you dont have the arguments nore the brains to participate in a debate. As such there is no space for you in a place where people come to for the purpose of debate.

Change your behavior! Reply to people when they post counterarguments! Dont ignore the arguments that adress you!

Or get off this forum and stop wasting peoples time!

The post you just made has no substance to it,

If you want to challenge the post for this topic, challenge it.

This topic started off challenged. Reality challenges it.

(October 4, 2013 at 8:25 pm)Stimbo Wrote: This topic started off challenged. Reality challenges it.

If you have a single thing to challenge it, you should post it.

The past seventeen and a half pages are filled with people doing exactly that.

You see what I mean? It's as if the refutations posted are in another language.

Ok. Go back and address my post on ERVs.

(October 4, 2013 at 6:00 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: I take it that you cannot refute the post.

If in a debate, the truth or facts do not support you, try anything else.

So you say you want a debate? Excellent!

This forum has special section, under Community>Philosophy, in which members can formally debate each other, and limit participation to only those whom they have agreed to debate. You have commented that you have difficulty responding to the volume of counter-argument presented in general threads, this will allow you to focus your arguments and rebuttals and only debate whom you agree to let participate (as few as one). A repaste of the rules is below, with links.

If you are interested and feel up to it, I suggest you formulate a question to debate, and then, solicit potential debate partners through private message (PM), accessed by clicking on the person's name and then, in their profile, clicking "send <user> private message". Or, if you like, post an invitation in one of your threads (including the question) and seeing who responds (via PM). I recommend that you actually pose a question that is relevant to theism, atheism, or evolution (or abiogenesis), as posting questions which themselves misrepresent, say, the theory of evolution, is not going to get many takers. (Because doing so is an example of the fallacy of many questions, and you will have lost before you have begun.) I am not personally offering to debate you, though if you need, I will assist in formulating a proper question. Zazzy is quite knowledgable in the field, and while I can't speak for her, she might assist you in developing the question or motion you wish to debate.

Once you have a formal question or motion, and have enlisted the participation of one or more opponents, contact one of the moderators or staff (identified by the red or green color of their name) and ask them to set up the debate for you. If you are having problems with one of the first two steps, you can also ask a moderator or staff member for assistance.

(link to )

Quote:Debate Area rules

This is not a forum for posting random debates where anyone is able to argue for or against a topic.

In order to post in this forum you must outline your debate motion, and name the people who will be debating in a Private Message to one of the administrators.

The people you mention will be the only ones who will be allowed to comment, unless everyone in the debate agrees to another member joining in. Nobody else is allowed to comment on the things being said (as in a standard debate). You may contact the contributors by PM or create a thread in the General Discussion forum if you wish to talk about something they have said.

Debating is to be civil, and can either be a point for point debate or one where many points are raised and discussed, with rebuttals from either side coming in at various times.

As finding a neutral moderator is going to be near impossible, there will be no declared winner of any debate, unless any team admits defeat.

(October 4, 2013 at 3:58 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:

(October 4, 2013 at 3:55 pm)Esquilax Wrote: So then find me a mainstream scientific source that says that evolution is one species giving birth to offspring of another species, and you might have a point.

Or can't you do that?

a mainstream source "says".
Are you saying actual observation or is it just a conclusion based on assumptions?

Also the definition of species is important.

How about chimps and humans? We have a common ancestor.

Quote: Happenings are sometimes organised at which thousands of people hold hands and form a human chain, say from coast to coast of the United States, in aid of some cause or charity. Let us imagine setting one up along the equator, across the width of our home continent of Africa. It is a special kind of chain, involving parents and children, and we will have to play tricks with time in order to imagine it. You stand on the shore of the Indian Ocean in southern Somalia, facing north, and in your left hand you hold the right hand of your mother. In turn she holds the hand of her mother, your grandmother. Your grandmother holds her mother's hand, and so on. The chain wends its way up the beach, into the arid scrubland and westwards on towards the Kenya border.

How far do we have to go until we reach our common ancestor with the chimpanzees? It is a surprisingly short way. Allowing one yard per person, we arrive at the ancestor we share with chimpanzees in under 300 miles. We have hardly started to cross the continent; we are still not half way to the Great Rift Valley. The ancestor is standing well to the east of Mount Kenya, and holding in her hand an entire chain of her lineal descendants, culminating in you standing on the Somali beach.

The daughter that she is holding in her right hand is the one from whom we are descended. Now the arch-ancestress turns eastward to face the coast, and with her left hand grasps her other daughter, the one from whom the chimpanzees are descended (or son, of course, but let's stick to females for convenience). The two sisters are facing one another, and each holding their mother by the hand. Now the second daughter, the chimpanzee ancestress, holds her daughter's hand, and a new chain is formed, proceeding back towards the coast. First cousin faces first cousin, second cousin faces second cousin, and so on. By the time the folded-back chain has reached the coast again, it consists of modern chimpanzees. You are face to face with your chimpanzee cousin, and you are joined to her by an unbroken chain of mothers holding hands with daughters. If you walked up the line like an inspecting general -past Homo erectus, Homo habilis, perhaps Australopithecus afarensis -and down again the other side (the intermediates on the chimpanzee side are unnamed because, as it happens, no fossils have been found), you would nowhere find any sharp discontinuity. Daughters would resemble mothers just as much (or as little) as they always do. Mothers would love daughters, and feel affinity with them, just as they always And this hand-in-hand continuum, joining us seamlessly to chimpanzees, is so short that it barely makes it past the hinterland of Africa, the mother continent.

Richard Dawkins, Ph.D.

I've become convinced that SBG must be a poe who's fucking with us. The total lack of responses to valid points and just regurgitating creationist straw man arguments means that it's highly unlikely this is the most incredibly stupid and brainwashed creationist fundie.