Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 1:39 am

Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Daystar
#91
RE: Daystar
Fair enough.
Reply
#92
RE: Daystar
(December 15, 2008 at 3:54 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Mods: I think you need to seriously consider banning Daystar (me too probably) because I don't think he is here to debate at all, at least not any more, I think his one and only purpose is to "fuck us up" in some way. He's not a troll in the classic sense but his behaviour does mimic some aspects of the troll.

Kyu
I see no reason to ban him. Yes, he is not overly generous with arguments and evidence. But what do you expect from faith based debate? I like his venom and his unrelenting beating around the bush. Come on, this isn't personal, it's a web forum. And this is not some deconversion mission.
"I'm like a rabbit suddenly trapped, in the blinding headlights of vacuous crap" - Tim Minchin in "Storm"
Christianity is perfect bullshit, christians are not - Purple Rabbit, honouring CS Lewis
Faith is illogical - fr0d0
Reply
#93
RE: Daystar
If he behaved more like CoxRox things would be okay. With CoxRox we can meet in the middle and work from there. An argument between us and Daystar is like two brick walls being smashed into each other at equal speed.
Reply
#94
RE: Daystar
The problem I have is I have to keep asking the same questions over and over again without any answer. And he just doesn't understand the burden of proof after me repeatedly telling him. How can I debate with him if he never addresses my questions? He repeatedly misunderstands the burden of proof.
Repeatedly having to ask the same things over and over. And never getting an answer. All this is not really debating.
The thing is: I am perfectly happy to debate with him if he'll either admit that he has "faith" and no evidence. Or he'll actually provide evidence.
If he doesn't have evidence. Then he should stop pretending he does and totally disrupting the debate!
If he just says its "faith" then fine. Its not based on evidence. We can talk about something elseTongue
It causes nothing but trouble if he won't give evidence and keeps pretending that he has it when he doesn't. And then attacking us atheists like the burden of proof is on us. When it obviously isn't.
I ask, Daystar, do you actually know what the burden of proof is? Or are you just ignorant or refuse to admit you have no evidence on the matter and only have "faith".
Reply
#95
RE: Daystar
(December 15, 2008 at 2:09 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: The problem I have is I have to keep asking the same questions over and over again without any answer. And he just doesn't understand the burden of proof after me repeatedly telling him. How can I debate with him if he never addresses my questions? He repeatedly misunderstands the burden of proof.
Repeatedly having to ask the same things over and over. And never getting an answer. All this is not really debating.
The thing is: I am perfectly happy to debate with him if he'll either admit that he has "faith" and no evidence. Or he'll actually provide evidence.
If he doesn't have evidence. Then he should stop pretending he does and totally disrupting the debate!
If he just says its "faith" then fine. Its not based on evidence. We can talk about something elseTongue
It causes nothing but trouble if he won't give evidence and keeps pretending that he has it when he doesn't. And then attacking us atheists like the burden of proof is on us. When it obviously isn't.
I ask, Daystar, do you actually know what the burden of proof is? Or are you just ignorant or refuse to admit you have no evidence on the matter and only have "faith".
I have debated on many fora (or is it forums in good english?) and I think you should never underestimate the number of silent readers. Although you may at times times feel desperate in trying to get the debate beyond the rain dance phase, many silent readers get the point. Convincing your opponent seldom is a sign of victory and not convincing your opponent seldom a defeat.
"I'm like a rabbit suddenly trapped, in the blinding headlights of vacuous crap" - Tim Minchin in "Storm"
Christianity is perfect bullshit, christians are not - Purple Rabbit, honouring CS Lewis
Faith is illogical - fr0d0
Reply
#96
RE: Daystar
I'm sorry for cross quoting between threads but this ties in to the recent conversation. Does the following surest to any one else that we could very well have a Phelp on our hands?

(December 15, 2008 at 12:14 pm)Daystar Wrote: When I was younger I was raised as a non religious non militant atheist. When presented with the choice of being a Xian I rejected that because I thought Xians were nuts, delusional, hypocrites. I made a choice based upon that. I chose not to believe in God even without any real knowledge of God. Later, when I studied the Bible in order to debunk it I realized that Xians were worse than the crazy, delusion, hypocrites they obviously were, they also fucked up the real meaning of the Bible for the sake of stupid pagan myth and Santy Clause. God and the Bible was true.
Hoi Zaeme.
Reply
#97
RE: Daystar
Hmmm...interesting point rjh.

I do believe the Phelps family are all lawyers and ex-lawyers. Daystar has said he is an ex-detective. Of course he has not proved that so it could be yet another lie.
Reply
#98
RE: Daystar
(December 14, 2008 at 11:21 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: So I don't have to prove it then. You are claiming it. So you have to prove it or ignore me. And whenever you claim it I can ask for proof. I'm curious why you claim God exactly if you can't give evidence of him?

Oh, now I see what this is all about! You think that if I am made to realize that I can't proove that God exist by scientific explanaition then surely I will realize the error of my ways and turn away from these supernatural beliefs in the Bible! Right?
Reply
#99
RE: Daystar
Wouldn't that be nice Tongue
Reply
RE: Daystar
(December 15, 2008 at 3:21 am)Darwinian Wrote: Put simply, the pepper moth was a lightish brown and used to live on the bark of trees. As the industrial revolution took place and pollution became a real problem most of the natural habitats of the moth became darkened with soot and so many of the species lost their ability to camouflage and were eaten by birds.

Right, and as some scientist pointed out, disgusted at this lame attempt to claim this was a case of mutation, both moths existed and were recorded as having existed before the industrial evolution and this was simply a case of camouflage.

[Image: light.jpg]

(December 15, 2008 at 3:21 am)Darwinian Wrote: Mutation means that not every moth was born with this light colour. Some months that were born with darker colour avoided this fate and subsequently went on to produce the next generation, and so on.

As they had before. Nothing changed it only switched. The dark moths now had the advantage that the lighter moths had before the industrial age.

[Image: dark.jpg]

(December 15, 2008 at 3:21 am)Darwinian Wrote: For some time then, most pepper moths became very dark until we started to clean up our act and reduced the amount of pollution and therefore the darkening of trees etc.

No. See this is the ridiculous extent that 'science' has to go in order to try and prove evolution. The lighter moths didn't change into darker ones in order to survive, the darker moths only now survived and thrived because they were harder for the birds to see.

(December 15, 2008 at 3:21 am)Darwinian Wrote: Now the pepper moth has started to regain it lighter colour as the darker moths are now no longer properly camouflaged.

That is completely stupid. The darker moth is simply lost the advantage because the pollution is more under control. They could have easily demonstrated this, not that it would be necessary to do so for anyone other than a complete idiot or someone trying to convince a complete idiot of evolution.

(December 15, 2008 at 3:21 am)Darwinian Wrote: Scientists like to use the pepper moth as a good example of evolution, which of course it is, but creationists point out that this is only evidence of micro-evolution i.e. changes within a species and not macro evolution i.e. one species turning into another.

It isn't evidence of any kind of evolution, it is evidence of desperation and how stupid people can be.

(December 15, 2008 at 3:21 am)Darwinian Wrote: However, which ever way you look at it, it's proof of evolution. unless of course, God deliberately intervened and helped the poor old pepper moth out in it's time of trouble.

God wouldn't have to intervene. Anyone who painted the tree bark dark and watched the dark moths thrive as they were camouflaged and then painted the tree bark light and watched the same thing happen again with the light could tell you that it wasn't evolution.

Laughable.
(December 15, 2008 at 3:54 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Though I hold out no hope of a rational answer, one that is relevant or even an answer at all I remind you Daystar that have yet to answer my question properly.

I've also come to another conclusion about you (in addition to your being a Fundy Creationist who is boxing a bit clever) ... you've become a berserker! I don't use that in the classic sense of Norse warriors but in the sense of a science fiction book I once read where the human race, well advanced into space, had come across these planetoid sized ships whose purpose was purely and simply to cause chaos and destruction ... I think that is now your aim here and it's unfortunate (for me) that I do react badly to people like you.

Mods: I think you need to seriously consider banning Daystar (me too probably) because I don't think he is here to debate at all, at least not any more, I think his one and only purpose is to "fuck us up" in some way. He's not a troll in the classic sense but his behaviour does mimic some aspects of the troll.

Kyu

Here it comes. Right on schedule. Will he make it to 400?! I don't think so!
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)