|
Silly Creationist
|
 (June 21, 2011 at 7:37 pm)Epimethean Wrote: So you guys are still that dumb. Why do you say things like this? Rather than actually try and prove your point you resort to this sort of nonsense, but why? Do you really think this adds credence to your position? If the creation position was really that "dumb", I would think it would be really easy to refute, and yet I see no such thing from you. Why? How old are you by the way?  RE: Silly Creationist
June 21, 2011 at 7:49 pm
(This post was last modified: June 21, 2011 at 7:50 pm by Epimethean.)
Listen, Statler. I think enough real science has shown that creationism is an utterly idiotic invention of knuckledragging misanthropes who have stuffed up the world for far long enough. If you expect to be taken seriously with statements that the Earth is 10,000 years old, you really should take your chariot over to some site where they don't extinguish burning bushes as a fire hazard. Why do I say that sort of stuff? Because it is true. Wasting time debating whether the earth is 10,000 years old is about as interesting as watching hair grow. Get over your god-inspired sense of seriousness. I came here trying to get away from wankers. Apparently, they come here for the abuse. So, there you have it.
Here, for reference. It is real science, the stuff that tries to solve riddles, not tell them: http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/tag/russ-humphreys/
Trying to update my sig ...
Negative again, chief, but my references for why the earth MUST be 4 billion years old will still have to be promulgated, just as would yours by your gurus, Sarfati and Humphreys, and since my gurus have already trodden the pseudoscience of your gurus to death (which means life after death, because you guys never give up), this would not be a debate between us but rather our resources.
Trying to update my sig ...
(June 21, 2011 at 7:55 pm)Epimethean Wrote: Negative again, chief, but my references for why the earth MUST be 4 billion years old will still have to be promulgated, just as would yours by your gurus, Sarfati and Humphreys, and since my gurus have already trodden the pseudoscience of your gurus to death (which means life after death, because you guys never give up), this would not be a debate between us but rather our resources. You sure talk a good game, but that’s pretty much it, when did this troddening happen? I thought you guys didn't debate creationists? In fact, the last time Dawkins did, it was in the 1980s and he got pummeled in front of his own students at Cambridge. Kind of funny how after this debate he refused to debate Creationists ever again, even though he has not fared much better against the ID guys like John Lennox since then. RE: Silly Creationist
June 21, 2011 at 8:19 pm
(This post was last modified: June 21, 2011 at 8:20 pm by Epimethean.)
Actually, Statler, he did debate creationists after that time (as recently as 2007), but was asked by colleagues not to bother, as the debates never get anywhere. When I say "trodden," I mean in serious academe, not public spectacle. which you seem to want here but which would prove meaningless on a further scale for the very simple and familiar fact that you believe god created the universe, and I see no evidence whatsoever that this is so. We cannot find a middle ground, nor would either of us yield to the other. You seem to want to provoke such a debate simply because I think your camp is dull. We may as well arm wrestle, and I think I'd beat you badly there.
Trying to update my sig ...
(June 21, 2011 at 8:19 pm)Epimethean Wrote: Actually, Statler, he did debate creationists after that time (as recently as 2007), but was asked by colleagues not to bother, as the debates never get anywhere. When I say "trodden," I mean in serious academe, not public spectacle. which you seem to want here but which would prove meaningless on a further scale for the very simple and familiar fact that you believe god created the universe, and I see no evidence whatsoever that this is so. We cannot find a middle ground, nor would either of us yield to the other. You seem to want to provoke such a debate simply because I think your camp is dull. We may as well arm wrestle, and I think I'd beat you badly there. Please name the young earth creationist Dawkins debated in 2007. Serious academe? Huh? Both sides have their peer reviewed sources so that's just silly really. You are right about one thing though; there is no middle ground on such things. If you feel you can’t defend your positions though, I completely understand.  RE: Silly Creationist
June 21, 2011 at 8:50 pm
(This post was last modified: June 21, 2011 at 9:05 pm by Genghis.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhmsDGanyes If you disagree with this Statler, you are a dolt. This is a primary source. Dawkins does not want to give credence to the sheep's side mainly because their arguments are faith based and are laughable. A debate with any christian about any thing is a lot of "Because God said so in the Bible, and that's that!" There is nothing else to their argument or, in fact, yours. RE: Silly Creationist
June 21, 2011 at 8:55 pm
(This post was last modified: June 21, 2011 at 8:57 pm by Epimethean.)
Intelligent design is just creationism lite. As far as the Dawkins/Lennox debate, that one was rather good and neither man came out of it decisively, but for further reference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4crCoBj2tA http://richarddawkins.net/articles/4047 (from 2009) Here is Dawkins telling you just what I have been telling you: Deleted because someone beat me to it. What sorts of serious scientific academic journals do you consider vetted worldwide, Statler? Let's look at that as a means to proceed.
Trying to update my sig ...
Given this evidence, Statler will dismiss this, and then he will bring up a new topic that sidesteps the issue. Whenever a believer has their question answered, they will quickly say, "Oh, yeah, but, umm, what about 'x'?" Really disheartening. They will never do this when you prove them wrong ------->
 |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
