Its time to admit evolution is a fraud

[Deanstar]

oh yeah! Lets burst that little bubble of delusion right here.

[EbbTide000]

DeanStar, thanx I Googled "The Atlas of Creation" talked about in those Youtubes. And Wow! I can read the whole book online for free, here: ★★★ Harun Yahya ★★★

[EbbTide000]

I have just read the Introduction and chapter1 - What is a fossil I was taught that if a plant or animal's "niche" is undisturbered then there is no pressure on it to evolve. That's why many plants and animals remain unchanged for millions of years. The polar bear has black hide. It was once a dark fured bear. But as ice advanced, dark fured bears starved, because prey animals could see them coming. But the "very rare" light fured bear, being more camouflaged, could merge with the white snow and catch something to eat. Isn't that a living example of an animal evolving?

[StephL]

Oh dear... I admit to having been deluded concerning my eventual having reached through to you a tiny little bit with my information. Ahm - nope - shame that. Are you going to put your announced rebuttal of my last before last post in kadie's god thread into this one? http://www.dreamviews.com/religion-s...god-you-5.html But good of you to transfer the matter into a thread of it's own - I guess, she is thankful for that! Concerning that first video: Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[19][20][21][22][23] In 1986, an amicus curiae brief, signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism (which the brief described as embodying religious dogma).[3] This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point, providing the "clearest statement by scientists in support of evolution yet produced."[23] There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution.[36][37][38][39] The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.[22] The prestigious United States National Academy of Sciences, which provides science advice to the nation, has published several books supporting evolution and criticising creationism and intelligent design.[40][41] There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about a third (32%) of the public."[42] These are the relevant numbers - not that the Muslim world happily jumps on the Creation bandwagon and not that school children can be deceived with something impressive looking like that Atlas. That's why it's so important to teach them about reality, not phantasms, they're impressionable. Do you really believe that you are more intelligent and informed than 97% of US scientists incl. 72 US Nobel Prize winners? If you'd ask outside of the US - the numbers are even more devastating for Creationism - problem is the uninformed and badly lied to public.

[Deanstar]

Oh dear... . StepL I don't see nobel prizes as any sort of measure of how true something is. You realize there is a known prejudice against women in these prizes? Obama also got the nobel peace prize before he even did anything. This shows how reliable 'prizes' are in the 21st century. I see a court case that rejects intelligent design as a mistrial, not something neutral. There is documentaries that look further into that. I did agree with an admin that I would no longer post in the other religious section. I'm sticking to a scientific position, without even preaching the gospel here. But you will still have problems because what you claim is science, isn't really science. It's time to just get the information out there, I don't think you are ready to accept this clarity or information, It's not a matter of 'proving evolution' it's a matter of accepting the work that shows it's a lie and illusion. In this technological age where the data has been collected we can easily see that evolutionists do have a religious belief, and that it is a cult with an agenda. They agressively push their agenda because without this false doctrine they are screwed including economically. Your only hope for this theory to survive is if people remain illiterate and willingly ignorant. Simple.... There's tones more articles and links I could add to this thread. I did give you an article StepL which was a good summary, which you really in essence did not end up facing in any responsible way (it was impossible cause it falsified the theory) You posted pseudoscientific concepts that do not make logical sense. Things from the internet that other evolutionist have tried to put together to pull the wool over other people's eyes. I guess the only thing to do is move on with showing the information that we have, and that sort of inaccuracy becomes clear in light of what we know. You did get your pat on the back and wonderment from atheists on the board. Though we know that sort of thing is just a popularity game, nothing to do with the material out there. I'm very comfortable with the information I have and confident in it's factual accuracy and reasoning. You havn't seen the end of this intellectual 'fight', and the fraudsters behind evolution are not about to just lay down and give up. People in my generation will continue to write books, and reference our material in support of creationism, and it will prevail because the truth will be known whether you like it or not. It doesn't matter how many institutions or lobbying for evolution that is attempted, it will collapse, that is it's fate.

[Neo Neo]

It's time to just get the information out there, I don't think you are ready to accept this clarity or information, It's not a matter of 'proving evolution' it's a matter of accepting the work that shows it's a lie and illusion. In this technological age where the data has been collected we can easily see that evolutionists do have a religious belief, and that it is a cult with an agenda. They agressively push their agenda because without this false doctrine they are screwed including economically. Your only hope for this theory to survive is if people remain illiterate and willingly ignorant. Simple.... Isn't this the same thing as disproving evolution? Watched the "Evidence for Evolution fraud", but it seems to me is that a lot of assumptions are made, as well as pointing out plain old mistakes. The brontosaurus fossil for example, was a mistake made because of incorrectly classifying what was a apatosaurus. There was no conspiracy or intent to lie, and this revelation of the mistake was pronounced throughout the scientific community. However since the name "brontosaurus" had already been in use for some time, the name just stuck to it in popular culture. Plus it sounds more cool than saying apatosaurus lol. Anyway, this wasn't an attempt at fraud, but a mistake made based on the fossil remains at the time. The news article "Forget Extinct: The Brontosaurus Never Even Existed" by NPR summarizes what happens nicely. Also keep in mind this mix-up happened in 1877, so it is a very dated event to be pointing out. So again, how is evolution a lie and illusion? How is it wrong? I have to wonder why evolution sounds so threatening to people unless it is because it will unravel their religious or ideological framework. I would think things like the age of the Earth, red shifts from stars and galaxies, and things like M-theory would do more damage than evolution. Maybe since evolution is a simpler concept to grasp so it gets attacked more? In relation to Christianity specifically, I'm not sure what the big deal is. It has no mention of God, so maybe that's the kicker, but it seems like it leaves a lot of room for Christianity in terms of its conceptualization. I'm just wondering what the big fuss is about and why evolution is such a dangerous subject.

[DeviantThinker]

Mr. Star, I would advise you to watch this entire video series from start to finish: This and plenty more reasons is why I do not even bother engaging in debates with creationists unless if they are genuinely interested in alternative points of view. The inferential gap is usually too large to bridge without effort from both parties and most people are comfortable with sticking to their beliefs.

[StephL]

Yepp Mr. Thinker - that would be a mighty good idea, if he watched them all! But lo and behold - one of Thunderf00t's series is a direct rebuttal of video two of the opening post - how practical! The worst is really how Wells says that all of the major animals would have appeared in the form they currently present in the Cambrian explosion and then showing some small critters, who were all water-dwelling and are all of them extinct today. I mean WTF?? How can he say that with a straight face? Not one land animal was there back then and what he shows has died out!? Besides - how does he time all this? His version does not even concur with Creationist doctrine of the earth being only 6000 years of age...

[DeviantThinker]

It doesn't matter how many institutions or lobbying for evolution that is attempted, it will collapse, that is it's fate. Well seeing that in Britain it is now illegal to teach creationism in publically funded schools and evolution is now in the primary school curriculum, the evidence is not supporting that statement, just like much of what you say. America will likely follow suit or be left in the dust in terms of scientific accomplishments by other countries. Congratulations on dismissing StephL's posts as "pseudoscientific concepts" without a single specific point to make against them. If you want to convince people, rather than calling them fraudsters and cultists (a label that is woefully ironic for a fundamentalist Christian to use), why not debunk us directly. Don't post videos to us. If you are not bothered to view ours, then don't expect us to reciprocate. Post directly what your specific contentions against evolution are and not some vague rhetoric about brainwashing and agendas. Give us specific points on why creationism is more empirically valid over evolution and please don't use the bible as your only source. Assuming for the time being that the bible is the word of God and the bible points towards a creationist world view, is there any empirical pointers towards that in the natural world?

[StephL]

StepL I don't see nobel prizes as any sort of measure of how true something is. You realize there is a known prejudice against women in these prizes? Obama also got the nobel peace prize before he even did anything. This shows how reliable 'prizes' are in the 21st century. I see a court case that rejects intelligent design as a mistrial, not something neutral. There is documentaries that look further into that. I did agree with an admin that I would no longer post in the other religious section. I'm sticking to a scientific position, without even preaching the gospel here. But you will still have problems because what you claim is science, isn't really science. These 72 laureates give credibility, something for common sense to chew on. Most people would agree, that this "demographic" is over-proportionally intelligent and highly educated, whatever else they might be - or not be. They also tend to be male, and have a high percentage of Jews among them, but neither lessens the impact of the above mentioned criteria in any way. That's why it's okay that they probably didn't only count science laureate's signatures. And of course you didn't address the number of 97% of scientists, nor the list of scientific institutions having petitioned. Who do you think does the actual scientific discovering and technology inventing - the actual work? If you want to know about science and it's body of knowledge - ask scientists. Did you read the numbers? Which institutions have all partitioned? The scientific community has intervened by the millions in America alone - and the law decided in their favour. How can 97% of scientists be a cult? It's time to just get the information out there, I don't think you are ready to accept this clarity or information, It's not a matter of 'proving evolution' it's a matter of accepting the work that shows it's a lie and illusion. In this technological age where the data has been collected we can easily see that evolutionists do have a religious belief, and that it is a cult with an agenda. They agressively push their agenda because without this false doctrine they are screwed including economically. Your only hope for this theory to survive is if people remain illiterate and willingly ignorant. Simple.... There's tones more articles and links I could add to this thread. It's about trying to get it into one or the other Creationist head, be that you or somebody reading, that evolution has been proven zig thousand times already, and that zig different scientific disciplines are doing it! Once you start with the 6000 years you're so absolutely out of touch with this technological age you invoke - it's baffling. And yes - what is proven, that's the relevant thing. If you want me to simply "accept" something, because you and other Creationists say so and the bible says so, then you got the wrong person, I'm afraid. What I can do is provide you with the information, you claim would be missing, and rebut what your article says, as I already begun. That was up to now the one source of yours worthy of consideration and step by step rebuttal, because at least it sounds scientific and intelligent. So it's to be considered potentially harmful to impressionable minds. Being exasperated by the first two videos of this thread, I spare myself the rest. As Deviant says - I'd like to hear back from you on your source and my replies. But if you're not willing to consider evidence - you should stop to invoke science. That's completely the wrong playing field for you then. You could instead just say, god or Satan tried to lure people into falling from grace by making it all look and work as if evolution has been and is taking place. One of them buried the fossils, manipulated radioactive decay, made it snow in special divine/evil magic ways etc., but in truth, it's all only façade, you are supposed to witness evolution being actually and really proven, but decide to believe in Creation anyway. Funny how it could have been either one of these trying to test people's faith by Christian logic... Like this you would be all done with the pesky truth determination and could in peace say goodbye to scientific thinking and logic altogether. It's all about being afraid of hell and wanting to go to heaven in the end right? You're so deeply indoctrinated that you believe a little doubt, a little critical, skeptic thinking directed at your own faith will bring you damnation. I did give you an article StepL which was a good summary, which you really in essence did not end up facing in any responsible way (it was impossible cause it falsified the theory) You posted pseudoscientific concepts that do not make logical sense. Things from the internet that other evolutionist have tried to put together to pull the wool over other people's eyes. I guess the only thing to do is move on with showing the information that we have, and that sort of inaccuracy becomes clear in light of what we know. You did get your pat on the back and wonderment from atheists on the board. Though we know that sort of thing is just a popularity game, nothing to do with the material out there. I'm very comfortable with the information I have and confident in it's factual accuracy and reasoning. You havn't seen the end of this intellectual 'fight', and the fraudsters behind evolution are not about to just lay down and give up. People in my generation will continue to write books, and reference our material in support of creationism, and it will prevail because the truth will be known whether you like it or not. It doesn't matter how many institutions or lobbying for evolution that is attempted, it will collapse, that is it's fate. Oh - fine. It wasn't me leaving kadie's thread - I'll transfer what I had already written on that article in here and I'll go on to go through it - as said before - in my own time!

[Deanstar]

These 72 laureates give credibility, something for common sense to chew on. Most people would agree, that this "demographic" is over-proportionally intelligent and highly educated, whatever else they might be - or not be. They also tend to be male, and have a high percentage of Jews among them, but neither lessens the impact of the above mentioned criteria in any way. That's why it's okay that they probably didn't only count science laureate's signatures. And of course you didn't address the number of 97% of scientists, nor the list of scientific institutions having petitioned. Why do you always make apeals to authority, institutions, jews, whatever it is....that's not how you verify a theory. We are talking about evolution. Lets focus on a simple direct thing, Why can we never see one type of animal develop into another, considering they can't ever reproduce? This should be a no-brainer. It astounds me the time wasted on trying to back this theory. So I'll say what others have said, since there is this unwillingness to even address anyone's work that I reference. Who do you think does the actual scientific discovering and technology inventing - the actual work? If you want to know about science and it's body of knowledge - ask scientists. Did you read the numbers? Which institutions have all partitioned? More apeals to authority, this shows desperation I think. You in no way need to be an evolutionist to be a scientist. Otherwise I wouldn't be allowed my degree! lol. It's about trying to get it into one or the other Creationist head, be that you or somebody reading, that evolution has been proven zig thousand times already, and that zig different scientific disciplines are doing it! You mean, like a scientologist, just brainwash and harass them until they say yes? Once you start with the 6000 years you're so absolutely out of touch with this technological age you invoke - it's baffling. No, what is out of touch, is the dating methods used to assume the earth is "billions of years" it sounds so ridiculious, like something out of an Austin powers movie. What's even worse is that you assume the sensible conclusion is the backwards thing. It makes a lot of sense to me the earth is around 6000 years old. And you know what makes even more sense to me? That others wouldn't believe it, just like they use to refuse to believe the earth was round. All through history man has been decieved by pseudo science for political agendas (mostly world government!) and this is not a new accasion. And yes - what is proven, that's the relevant thing. If you want me to simply "accept" something, because you and other Creationists say so and the bible says so, then you got the wrong person, I'm afraid. You were the one that refused to debate the actual theory itself. You had to resort to things like "science says, and scientists say" without engaging the material, which by the way you have posted none other than dust clouds, bits and parts from different animals, and assumptions about how they must have 'evolved' including dinosaur feathers. It's not that I don't understand the theory, it's that the theory makes absolutely no sense. I know it's a long held tradition in school systems, I know it is essential for all the tradgey in human history, and I just don't care to support it, because I am for humanity, not against humanity. Humans do have purpose and meaning from a designer, a creator which is God. I have a very real connection to Jesus Christ, the son of God. He fights all my battles and his spirit teaches and instructs me to live, and because of that you will never convince someone like me, that evolution is real. I am well and truly beyond childish notions about chance, and I think you should be too, or you are in significant danger. I care that you come to the right conclusion, but I can't force you. What I can do is provide you with the information, you claim would be missing, and rebut what your article says, as I already begun. That was up to now the one source of yours worthy of consideration and step by step rebuttal, because at least it sounds scientific and intelligent. So it's to be considered potentially harmful to impressionable minds. Being exasperated by the first two videos of this thread, I spare myself the rest. As Deviant says - I'd like to hear back from you on your source and my replies. I'll keep looking into what you say about it, because I care. Just let me catch up in between breaks when I get the chance.

[juroara]

It's not that I don't understand the theory, it's that the theory makes absolutely no sense. I know it's a long held tradition in school systems, I know it is essential for all the tradgey in human history, and I just don't care to support it, because I am for humanity, not against humanity. Humans do have purpose and meaning from a designer, a creator which is God. I have a very real connection to Jesus Christ, the son of God. He fights all my battles and his spirit teaches and instructs me to live, and because of that you will never convince someone like me, that evolution is real. I am well and truly beyond childish notions about chance. There it is, you've finally come to the truth of how you really feel! This has got nothing to do with the science of evolution making no sense to you. At the end of the day the reason why creationists such as yourself battle against evolution is because you have somehow convinced yourself evolution takes God out of your life. So now you are fighting a holy war! The holy war against evolution! But at the end of the day, the problem here isn't the science behind evolution, the problem is YOUR view of God doesn't allow for evolution. You have LIMITED your own God to a being that must be fundamentally separate from nature. You have LIMITED God to a being that cannot use a natural process, such as evolution. You have LIMITED God to only using "magic" that must be outside of nature and unexplained. That Gods work is in the "unexplained" which becomes problematic when that "unexplained" becomes the explained. Now what? What an internal struggle. But its all in your head. You're the one telling yourself that God can't use evolution to create life. You're the one telling yourself that evolution means your life has no deeper meaning. But if you really believe in an omnipresent and all powerful God *the fundamental Christian God*, then who are you, a mere human, to LIMIT how that God can or can't create life? Do you not realize there are literally millions of people that believe in God and evolution at the same time? AT THE SAME TIME? Do you even fit these millions of people in your world view or ask how can they do this? As a christian, you must be familiar with the concept of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a part of the trinity right? Therefore, a fundamental form of God. And arguably, the most IGNORED in Christianity. Where is the Holy Spirit found in christianity? In a book? NO. The bible is clear, the Holy Spirit is only found in LIVING beings. The belief literally translates the Holy Spirit as: The Spirit of God inhabiting a Living Being. The bible is also very clear that not a damn human has the right to tell the Holy Spirit whom to inhabit, what to say, or what to do. The burning bush is an example of the Holy Spirit inhabiting a bush. Thats GOD inhabiting a BUSH. Could the Holy Spirit have also inhabited the first fish-like thing to walk on land? Why not? This is why the Catholic church has NO NEED to be against evolution. Evolution does not in any way diminish the Catholic God. I wish you could understand this view point, because this religious fight against evolution is silly and pointless. It doesn't have to take away your God, in any way. If you want to discuss further, evolution can easily co-exist with spirituality. The theory of evolution literally states that all life on earth has ONE origin. We are all related. And we all come from the same source. This is both a spiritual and a scientific truth. And that's a really really nice union.

[Alric]

Lets focus on a simple direct thing, Why can we never see one type of animal develop into another, considering they can't ever reproduce? This should be a no-brainer. It astounds me the time wasted on trying to back this theory. So I'll say what others have said, since there is this unwillingness to even address anyone's work that I reference. We do, in fact there has experiments done to show just this very thing. One well known one is with fruit flies that were split into two groups, and they were fed slightly different diets. After many generations they were put back together and it was found that the vast majority of the flies would only mate with other flies that were in the same subgroup as they were. Seeing how the thing that separates one species from another is the ability to mate and produce offspring, this would be the first step in two separate species branching off from each other. There are other animals in the wild that have shown to be very closely related, yet also split off into different species over time. The classic example is with the finches that Darwin found and now thanks to modern technology we can even take DNA from the birds and compare them, and it backs up evolution even further. Also there are fossil records showing gradual changes among some animals, and even today you can find things like vestigial organs that are remains from our ancestors. There are also weird animals like fish that walk on land and stuff, which would be some transit point from a fish going into an amphibian. No, what is out of touch, is the dating methods used to assume the earth is "billions of years" it sounds so ridiculious, like something out of an Austin powers movie. What's even worse is that you assume the sensible conclusion is the backwards thing. It makes a lot of sense to me the earth is around 6000 years old. And you know what makes even more sense to me? That others wouldn't believe it, just like they use to refuse to believe the earth was round. All through history man has been decieved by pseudo science for political agendas (mostly world government!) and this is not a new accasion. We know for a fact the earth isn't 6000 years old. The entire field of science of astronomy and geology proves that, but we also have human made tools that also date older than that, and archaeological evidence showing human settlements prior to that time period. Then of course we have fossil evidence as well. You were the one that refused to debate the actual theory itself. You had to resort to things like "science says, and scientists say" without engaging the material, which by the way you have posted none other than dust clouds, bits and parts from different animals, and assumptions about how they must have 'evolved' including dinosaur feathers. It's not that I don't understand the theory, it's that the theory makes absolutely no sense. I know it's a long held tradition in school systems, I know it is essential for all the tradgey in human history, and I just don't care to support it, because I am for humanity, not against humanity. Humans do have purpose and meaning from a designer, a creator which is God. I have a very real connection to Jesus Christ, the son of God. He fights all my battles and his spirit teaches and instructs me to live, and because of that you will never convince someone like me, that evolution is real. I am well and truly beyond childish notions about chance, and I think you should be too, or you are in significant danger. I care that you come to the right conclusion, but I can't force you. So basically you are going to believe what you want, regardless of the evidence presented? Hmm I wonder why someone wouldn't want to debate you?

[snoop]

Why do you always make apeals to authority, institutions, jews, whatever it is....that's not how you verify a theory. I thought to you, God is the only authority in the universe, and you constantly make appeals to his direct word (the Bible) as evidence for his existence and for evolution's impossibility. I guess by your own logic, you cannot, therefore, be verifying your theory that God truly exists and is the authority of the universe and evolution is impossible, then? Lol, do you ever think about what you say or is throwing eggs at your own face something you just enjoy doing?

[snoop]

Lets focus on a simple direct thing, Why can we never see one type of animal develop into another, considering they can't ever reproduce? This should be a no-brainer. It astounds me the time wasted on trying to back this theory. So I'll say what others have said, since there is this unwillingness to even address anyone's work that I reference. So, I guess domesticated dogs and cats aren't a thing anymore? Last time I checked, dogs are not the same things as wolves, nor are cats lions or tigers. Humans caused this domestication and without us they would not exist. They are clearly different animals, as well. Mind explaining this?

[Deanstar]

Well seeing that in Britain it is now illegal to teach creationism in publically funded schools and evolution is now in the primary school curriculum, the evidence is not supporting that statement, just like much of what you say. According to this logic, gay marriage is wrong because it's illegal in Australia. So this means you no longer support gay marriage? That's fine because I don't support it either haha. I do support intelligent design in schools because then we might actually get some intelligent education. Just because some laws change, that's not what determines truth. I hope you realize this atleast. I hope you realize that man made laws as the result of culture not science. Science does not deal in morality. Laws deal with morality. Congratulations on dismissing StephL's posts as "pseudoscientific concepts" without a single specific point to make against them. Not a single point except for hours of work and research that I have already posted on it (which you failed to address) I don't know if you notice this but I did reply to StephL, many times. It would be your issue that you cannot read properly. why not debunk us directly You don't know when you are debunked. The fact you are asking this question is evidence of this. Care for a game of online chess? We can see who wins and report the result back here. Just don't want you to start calling me intellectually inferior based on your own hypocrisy. Post directly what your specific contentions against evolution are If I was any more direct with my information, it would actually bite you on the butt and you wouldn't know it. Assuming for the time being that the bible is the word of God So you admit you need the bible for this discussion, I'm fine with that, I agree, but you might have to convince the mods that it's on topic.

[OpheliaBlue]

So you admit you need the bible for this discussion, I'm fine with that, I agree, but you might have to convince the mods that it's on topic. I checked. It's still on topic.

[DeviantThinker]

According to this logic, gay marriage is wrong because it's illegal in Australia. So this means you no longer support gay marriage? I never made any such claim. You said: It doesn't matter how many institutions or lobbying for evolution that is attempted, it will collapse, that is it's fate. I gave an example of where such lobbying in fact was successful. If you are unable to counter my real points, don't create fictitious ones to counter instead. Not a single point except for hours of work and research that I have already posted on it (which you failed to address) I don't know if you notice this but I did reply to StephL, many times. It would be your issue that you cannot read properly. Hmmm, let's see. StephL showed widespread consensus among scientists of all fields supporting the validity of evolution including nobel prize winners and you decided to nitpick by giving an example of Obama, who won a nobel prize for peace because hey, surely all nobel prize winners have equivilent scientific credibility. It could not be that Ms L was pointing out that most scientists, including the most acclaimed of our times support evolution, which may suggest that there is good reason to believe it once you have been educated to that level. No! It must be that to her, it's the shiny prize that is important. I'm sure that with those "hours of work and research" that you put in, you had unearthed countless examples of nobel laureates with unsavory deeds including Fritz Haber who won one in chemistry and had been instrumental in the development and proliferation of chemical warfare during World War 1. It was only once you were done with all that meticulous research that you decided that the most relevent prize would be that in the field of politics and who would be more deserving of being singled out than that bastard Obama. Henry Kissinger? Meh, he's a small fry! You are a highly dishonest debator who likes to use emotional manipulation and misdirection. I do not see any evidence of genuine research or response in your posts. You just rattle on and on like a broken recorder. The rare times you have a point that can in fact be falsified (as in a substantial one), it always turns out to be wrong and when we point that out, you seem to ignore it altogether or dismiss the rebuttal as "brainwashed" or fruadulent. You don't know when you are debunked. The fact you are asking this question is evidence of this. Care for a game of online chess? We can see who wins and report the result back here. Just don't want you to start calling me intellectually inferior based on your own hypocrisy. Yeah, the fact that you can beat me at online chess would somehow counteract your demonstrably huge ignorance of biology, physics, geology, maths (yes, I was reading that thread) and total lack of intellectual honesty. I never made a single insinuation about your intellect or lack of in a post before but if you are going to go there, I'm not going to feign humility for the sake of appeasing your huge ego. If I was any more direct with my information, it would actually bite you on the butt and you wouldn't know it. Well if your idea of being direct with information is directing it at someone's behind, that would explain a great deal. So you admit you need the bible for this discussion, I'm fine with that, I agree, but you might have to convince the mods that it's on topic. No, I just said that so we will leave theology out of this and discuss purely what the empirical observations suggest, as in not in a book but rather in nature. We are not discussing God here, just the natural world or rather we were. Now, I'm not so interested. I tried to give you a chance but I don't think you are really interested in a debate. You just want to toot your own horn. Well toot away but don't expect us to move that caravan forward.

[snoop]

I gave an example of where such lobbying in fact was successful. If you are unable to counter my real points, don't create fictitious ones to counter instead. This is his modus operandi, it's not going to change. It's literally the only way he can argue. Deanstar, seeing as how you posted all videos and actually stated nothing about evolution itself, and you failed to cite any kind of corroborating evidence (read: empirical data, specific examples, etc.) supporting your argument, this debate pretty much isn't even a thing. In order for a debate to work, you must present your side of the argument and give supporting evidence and references for your claims. Then the other side does the same. Then you rebuttal, then they rebuttal, etc. If you can't even do more than post a few videos of monologues and call evolution a delusion, then you do not have an argument. Simple as.

[StephL]

If I was any more direct with my information, it would actually bite you on the butt and you wouldn't know it. Well if your idea of being direct with information is directing it at someone's behind, that would explain a great deal. spiltmydrinklaughing.jpg Made my day! Going to do the transferring tomorrow... Edit upon seeing posts: Yes we do have an ongoing conversation, Deanstar - but how about quoting my last before last post in the above linked through thread as an opening post? Or a compilation from that thread, say. That would have made it crystal clear, where we are coming from. As announced above - I'll do that in some way or another, so that it can be found by potential wavering Creationists in here.

[Deanstar]

Deviant I don't even know where to begin. Your post is so out of this world and ridiculiously wasteful that if I replied to such rhetoric I would become part of the nonsense. I think I'll just go back and consider StephL's post and work through those misconceptions when I get more time. where such lobbying in fact was successful *facepalm, don't you understand that lobbying is not based on science, it's a financial political practice that should be illegal.

[Deanstar]

Then you rebuttal, then they rebuttal, etc. . I don't think you understand what's going on. The primary thing was my paper, StephL replied to that on another thread, I replied, gave information, and we are having an ongoing discussion about it.

[snoop]

I don't think you understand what's going on. The primary thing was my paper, StephL replied to that on another thread, I replied, gave information, and we are having an ongoing discussion about it. I watched the first 15 minutes of the DNA video and I've got to say I don't know if I've seen anybody use as many logical fallacies and misinformation to try and prove something ever. This guy truly takes the cake, I seriously couldn't force myself to watch the rest of the video because I felt like I was watching a satire. You're telling me and expecting me to believe, Deanstar, that you truly believe everything this man says? You don't disagree with a single point? If this is the case just go back to church with the rest of your people and get back to circle jerking. Leave the debating to the people who have sensible, rational, and credible arguments. Unless you really are a troll, you're just embarrassing yourself and discrediting the words of creationists capable of real debate everywhere. It's people like you and the DNA video guy that ruin it for them.

[EbbTide000]

DeanStar I'mnearly 55 and from infancy I have yearned ... umm ... well I have searched and researched for truth. NOT just intellectually. I have several belief systems. And since I am a fully diagnosed "multiple personality". (Discociative Disorder with imaginative reconstructive and boarderline personality) is my full diagnosis. I'm on the disability pension because of it. And, because of my many personalities I can easily believe all my different belief systems without discomfort. The best arguement for Creationism has not been mentioned in your links. So I spect U R saving that one for later (hahaha) Oh!!! I just caught up with this thread iust now when I came here to post the above. I don't think you understand what's going on. The primary thing was my paper, StephL replied to that on another thread, I replied, gave information, and we are having an ongoing discussion about it. DeanStare please link your paper in this thread ... Maybe that argumemt I was refering too is in the paper you wrote.

[Alric]

That first video is flat out lying propaganda. They are not even misrepresenting facts or misunderstanding the subject, they are flat out lying. There is overwhelming evidence that supports evolution, and none that supports creationism. No real scientist doubt evolution, and creationism is dropping in popularity all across the world because it is a stupid nonsensical belief. Believing in creationism instead of evolution is like believing the the earth is flat. You are totally wrong and the only way you could believe such a thing is if you ignore all the evidence all around you.