(November 16, 2014 at 9:48 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: His_Majesty

You say WLC is your hero right? Apparently he thinks your embarrassing.

First off, I don't recall myself saying that I am a young earth creationist. Second, the age of the universe and the interpretation of Genesis is an "in house" Christian problem. Third, I am open to the evidence and right now I don't know which is true, but if I had to choose, I could choose Old earth.

Hey, good thing you mentioned that, because I rather enjoyed this debate between two of my favorite Christian apologists, Kent Hovind vs Hugh Ross on the Old earth/ Young earth subject.

This debate was very engaging and stimulating, the two went at it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYUvSL2qk8E

The amusing bit is that regardless of whether you chose old earth or young earth creationism, you'd be wrong for precisely the same reasons. If you were open to evidence, you wouldn't be choosing between either- let's not kid ourselves.

(November 17, 2014 at 6:37 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: H_M, what's an "evolutionist"?

It's like a Darwinist without invoking Darwin's name. In other words it's just a creationist way of discrediting their opponents by giving them a non scientific/non recognised name.

Just so we're clear on one of HM's latest heroes. Jonathan Wells. He's a Moony, member of a particular branch of crazy. He also only studied molecular science to debunk Darwinism. His publications are rejected by the scientific community because of outright lies, misquoting among other issues. He's only published in outright appologist journals or in rightwinger publications.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_We...dvocate%29

(November 17, 2014 at 6:57 pm)abaris Wrote: Just so we're clear on one of HM's latest heroes. Jonathan Wells. He's a Moony, member of a particular branch of crazy. He also only studied molecular science to debunk Darwinism. His publications are rejected by the scientific community because of outright lies, misquoting among other issues. He's only published in outright appologist journals or in rightwinger publications.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_We...dvocate%29

A lying creationist?

Tell me it isn't so!

Oh boy....
You're just the gift that keeps on giving!

(November 17, 2014 at 6:30 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 16, 2014 at 8:12 pm)pocaracas Wrote: fossil record, mostly.

When you find a fossil, why are you determining anything other than "this once living thing has now died". Why are you bringing extra stuff in to it??

See, evolutionists already presuppose evolution, so when they find a fossil, they let their presupposition interpret the finding.

I see you're unaware of what the "extra stuff" is...
Dilemma.... should I tell you about all the research done on the surrounding area where the fossils are found? Or should I leave you ignorant?
What do you think?

(November 17, 2014 at 6:30 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 16, 2014 at 8:12 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Have you ever been to a Natural History Museum?

Nope.

Why am I not surprised?...
Are you not curious to go to a natural history museum?

(November 17, 2014 at 6:30 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 16, 2014 at 8:23 pm)pocaracas Wrote: dogs and hamsters are different species.

They are different kinds of animals, too.

(November 16, 2014 at 8:23 pm)pocaracas Wrote: But let me see if I understand you... you are a different kind of human than me.

If you aren't African American, then we are different varieities of the same "kind"..mankind.

Oh.... ohh..... oh, boy....
It's "varieties", now?

What if I'm...oh, you're going to like this


You want to define "variety", after you define "kind"?
There's this awesome way to classify living organisms that biologists came up with a few years ago and it relies on something called "species".
Even so, the concept of species is a bit fuzzy and you can never ever find an element of a given species giving birth to an element of a different species.
But the offspring of the offspring of the offspring... (a few thousands of generations)... of the offspring of an element will be a different species.
You've been told this several times now. I don't expect you to acknowledge it this time, but... it's one more.

(November 17, 2014 at 6:30 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 16, 2014 at 8:23 pm)pocaracas Wrote: oh, oh, oh...
My kids are a different kind of human, too. There you go. I've successfully presented new kinds of humans being born every day.
Now, I wonder if my wife was Asian...our kids would be an even different kind!

Knock it off.

LOL
I was on a roll! what can I say?

(November 17, 2014 at 6:57 pm)abaris Wrote: Just so we're clear on one of HM's latest heroes. Jonathan Wells. He's a Moony, member of a particular branch of crazy. He also only studied molecular science to debunk Darwinism. His publications are rejected by the scientific community because of outright lies, misquoting among other issues. He's only published in outright appologist journals or in rightwinger publications.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_We...dvocate%29

So to be clear, His_Majesty has referenced three people now: William Lane Craig, a presuppositionalist who has stated outright that if he could confirm his religion to be wrong, he would still believe it. Kent Hovind, a convicted tax fraud. And now Jonathan Wells, a quote mining, nonsense spewing AIDS denialist.

What wonderful company you choose to keep, H_M. These are truly the people you wish to represent your views?

(November 17, 2014 at 6:24 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: If your end conclusion cannot be verified based on observation or repeated experiment, then it isn't science...neither macroevolution nor abiogenesis have been observed and/or experimented on...so it isn't science.

Wrong, Go read your Popper, and report back. D-.

(November 17, 2014 at 6:54 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(November 17, 2014 at 6:37 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: H_M, what's an "evolutionist"?

It's like a Darwinist without invoking Darwin's name. In other words it's just a creationist way of discrediting their opponents by giving them a non scientific/non recognised name.

You could have just said "A person that believes in evolution". That would of worked too.

---

(November 17, 2014 at 6:57 pm)abaris Wrote: Just so we're clear on one of HM's latest heroes. Jonathan Wells. He's a Moony, member of a particular branch of crazy. He also only studied molecular science to debunk Darwinism. His publications are rejected by the scientific community because of outright lies, misquoting among other issues. He's only published in outright appologist journals or in rightwinger publications.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_We...dvocate%29

Who said anything about hero? I just said he is educated. So show me something disputing his education level and then you will be talking some shit...until then, continue to waste your time posting wiki articles for nothing.

---

(November 17, 2014 at 7:29 pm)Esquilax Wrote: What wonderful company you choose to keep, H_M. These are truly the people you wish to represent your views?

I bet you are a huge fan of Michael Shermer, aren't you?

(November 17, 2014 at 7:40 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 17, 2014 at 6:54 pm)Beccs Wrote: It's like a Darwinist without invoking Darwin's name. In other words it's just a creationist way of discrediting their opponents by giving them a non scientific/non recognised name.

You could have just said "A person that believes in evolution". That would of worked too.

Yeah, but it wouldn't properly convey the dishonest poisoning of the well you were going for with it.

Quote:Who said anything about hero? I just said he is educated. So show me something disputing his education level and then you will be talking some shit...until then, continue to waste your time posting wiki articles for nothing.

Just bringing up his level of education is an argument from authority. The content and bearing of his arguments also matter, and it's there that Wells falls down. Just a cursory glance at his motivation for getting his degree, and the reasons behind his doubting evolution demonstrates that the man is just as fallacious when it comes to his denying basic biological fact as any other creationist.

Quote: I bet you are a huge fan of Michael Shermer, aren't you? :ROFLOL:

No, not particularly. Interesting that you leaped to that though. Were those allegations ever seriously investigated or brought to some form of conclusion? I can't remember, though of course it also doesn't matter, since I'm not familiar with the man beyond that he's a skeptic.