Something I find typically annoying with atheists.

[Rydrum2112]

Rydrum2112

MOD EDIT: NO NEED TO MAKE IT PERSONAL. PORTIONS REMOVED.

Well sum1 ... You claim to know more about evolution than us because you read a book on it (what book by the way?), which is interesting since you think evolution is about the origin of life and its not, and never has been. You don't apply nuclear theory of the atom to talk about electromagnitism- it doesn't apply.

Why do you have to know how life started to be able to study it? I don't know the free market started and I can study it.

And to agree with others I am glad you are no longer posting here and spreading lies & misinformation about evolution.

And you still dont even understand what a null hypothesis is nor do you understand how scientific research works- which is why you claiming blood in the river & other things mentioned in the bible that didn't really happen, makes no sense.

If you want..., read one of the books I have read and mentioned in a previous post. Otherwise this is going nowhere ... .

Suppose I should wrap up some last things. I did put a lot of work into this debate, if being the only one who actually did. But after this post, I'm done. And it will be short:

You missed the point. How can you serve a billion year string of evolution without knowing how life even started? That's why I left out a remaining 10% of evolution as tangible. The rest is unimpressive and far fetched.

It speaks on both evolution and the age of the Earth.

I have. Why do you think I know more than you all do about it

Never said it was a hoax. Simply said what the bulk of it is: theory. You all battle that like it's not the most obvious thing as soon as it's studied upon. Two big things within science that make a habit of this is physics and evolution. The thing with physics, though, is that it actually advances.

I wish I could share that same opinion of you all, but that statement is just not true. I don't even want to post within the same thread anymore. This is the most redundant, immature debate I have ever been in.

And for the Genesis verse: I don't see what relevance that has, but it doesn't matter anyways because quoting Bible verses is probably the most asinine way to argue science. Well, besides the ways you all have argued.

Well I think that about wraps it up. Adios.

 

[Jquestionmark]

Suppose I should wrap up some last things. I did put a lot of work into this debate, if being the only one who actually did. But after this post, I'm done. And it will be short:

And our efforts to use sound logic and trying to get you to make some sense weren't work?

You missed the point. How can you serve a billion year string of evolution without knowing how life even started? That's why I left out a remaining 10% of evolution as tangible. The rest is unimpressive and far fetched.

Well, I have a pretty easy answer to your question: It's pretty easy to talk about how organisms have evolved over time since they exist and reproduce. Where life came from has never factored into evolution, and your efforts to make it do so just aren't effective. I'm not sure we're talking about the same evolution.

It speaks on both evolution and the age of the Earth.

So, you actually think that evolutionary theory addresses the origin of rocks? We're definitely not talking about the same thing here. I'm talking about evolution (the theory that addresses how life changes over time), and you appear to be talking about Creation Science's view of evolution (which is all of science that contradicts the Bible, especially creationism, as near as I can tell).

I have. Why do you think I know more than you all do about it

Nice try. When people recommend that you look into how scientific research is actually conducted, and you say: "That never interested me." or "You clearly don't understand how science works." it makes it clear that your knowledge is lacking.

You have yet to demonstrate how science is not working the way that we have said it is. You are taking a conspiracy theory view of science, and acting like the world of science is out to fake everything. That's right, a bunch of people interested in knowledge for knowledge's sake are out to fake the knowledge. That doesn't make you look like you know more than us, it just makes you look paranoid and uninformed.

Never said it was a hoax. Simply said what the bulk of it is: theory. You all battle that like it's not the most obvious thing as soon as it's studied upon. Two big things within science that make a habit of this is physics and evolution. The thing with physics, though, is that it actually advances.

Yes, science is theory. Theory supported by facts, not by a room full of scientists making things up to further their own views. Scientific theories are supported, and many of them are shown to work in a practical sense (gravity, carbon dating, germ theory, etc).

Your source said "Men can guess; they can apply their assumptions, come up with some dates, announce the consistent ones, and hide the rest, which is exactly what evolutionist scientists do!" This is a conspiracy theory. This is not how science actually works. Unless you don't agree with your source, in which case I'm not sure why you posted it. Regardless, I'd love to see some EVIDENCE that this is how science works.

I wish I could share that same opinion of you all, but that statement is just not true. I don't even want to post within the same thread anymore. This is the most redundant, immature debate I have ever been in.

Yes, things have been pretty redundant (in that you refuse to answer our questions over and again, and constantly make baseless claims) and immature (in that ad hominem seems to be on of your favourite argument techniques), glad you noticed. I have to wonder if people have never actually challenged your lacking logic before. We are not so cruel: we want to give you reason to think about the things you say and the sources you rely upon.

And for the Genesis verse: I don't see what relevance that has, but it doesn't matter anyways because quoting Bible verses is probably the most asinine way to argue science. Well, besides the ways you all have argued.

Actually, it's very relevant. You claimed: "My intent was never to claim that biblical events occurred, but simply to examine how one shouldn't deny it simply by science alone."

Or more specifically: "one shouldn't deny it simply by science alone."

Fun fact, Genesis 30:37-39 is an event in the Bible. I'm asking how science alone isn't enough to refute the absurd scenario that takes place in those verses.

If it's asinine to ask you to clarify on something that you have claimed and I have a solid refutation for, then please call me an ass. Personally, I don't think it's that asinine to quote a Bible verse if you've made such a claim as you did (seeing as the verse and science in relation to it are directly relevant to your claim).

Well I think that about wraps it up. Adios.

But you never answered my question! How will I ever know how science alone shouldn't deny Genesis 30:37-39 like you said? You're really bumming me out, man.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Wow, talk behind my back and try to falsify the entire debate, huh? This is nothing personal for me, but I feel it only necessary to bring the reality of this to light.

Evolution: remains a null hypothesis because how life began cannot be accounted for.

The fact that we can't even theorize on how life began practically hogties the more complex theories on evolution. Am I right or am I right?

I'm right, so evolution becomes a non-intriguing subject for me. I read the constructs of it, educated myself on it's claims, and found it ridiculous and unimpressive.
If any of you actually ventured upon it with logic instead of trying to deny theism passage, you wouldn't be sitting here running in circles and trying to mash the reasonable one here.

It's an embarrassing subject, that is why you do not hear much about it. Besides, the big focus in science right now is physics, as well it should be.

It is no secret that scientists do exactly as I claimed. In fact, thinking otherwise, especially after being enlightened, is..
pretty damn ignorant.

It's what got me off the debate in the first place, that little claim. The reason why I was answering all the questions is because both you simply just don't know shit about science, both the subjects and the field.
I'm sorry I have to put it that way, but one notices when people mass together out of me kicking their ass in a debate.

It was just a big circle, as I said. You all were not debating. You all were presuming to be right and I was the one who was wrong. Like I'm supposed to be playin 20 questions and whatnot. And adding insult to injury that this debate is, you all run off with what I've claimed like it didn't originate with me.
yeah....

And who still pwned? It's laughable. So I would suggest crawling out of that biased crap you all claim as 'logic' before attempting to debate with me again.

 

[CassinoChips]

"The fact that we can't even theorize on how life began practically hogties the more complex theories on evolution. Am I right or am I right?"

You're wrong. The two events are mutually exclusive. One can be discussed without ever involving the other.

"If any of you actually ventured upon it with logic instead of trying to prove theism wrong, you wouldn't be sitting here running in circles and trying to mash the reasonable one here."

I've seen much more logic out of everybody else than I have out of you. Your arguments basically consist of you throwing out vague, unfalsifiable statements, supported by nothing but your own opinion.

"It's what got me off the debate in the first place, that little claim. The reason why I was answering all the questions is because both you simply just don't know about science, both the subjects and the field."

Again, insults are not necessary, and have no place in a debate. And they clearly do know something, considering they're the ones who have actually brought science into the discussion, which you have yet to do.

"I'm sorry I have to put it that way, but one notices when people mass together out of me kicking their ass in a debate."

You've clearly never taken a class on debate. You're the only one claiming your victory.

"It was just a big circle, as I said. You all were not debating. You all were presuming to be right and I was the one who was wrong."

Of course they are. Just like, as you've said in just about every post, you think you're correct and everyone else is incorrect. Short of playing devil's advocate, most people aren't going to argue a point they don't agree with.

"But who still pwned? It's laughable. So I would suggest crawling out of that biased crap you all claim as 'logic' before attempting to debate with me again."

Rrrrrrriiiiiiiigh............ t.

 

[der Astronom]

Wow, talk behind my back and try to falsify the entire debate, huh? This is nothing personal for me, but I feel it only necessary to bring the reality of this to light.

It would be behind your back if it were done in private on MSN or PMs, but since it's out in the public where everyone can see it, I fail to see how we're backstabbing you. The fact that you choose not to answer our questions is your problem; not ours.

Evolution: remains a null hypothesis because how life began cannot be accounted for.

And once again, evolution says nothing about how life began, nor do I see any reason why it has to. You don't expect gravity to explain light physics, do you?

The fact that we can't even theorize on how life began practically hogties the more complex theories on evolution. Am I right or am I right?

No, you're completely wrong; see above. Stop patting yourself on the back.

I'm right, so evolution becomes a non-intriguing subject for me. I read the constructs of it, educated myself on it's claims, and found it ridiculous and unimpressive.

And you still have yet to demonstrate what evolution has to do with the original argument.

If any of you actually ventured upon it with logic instead of trying to deny theism passage, you wouldn't be sitting here running in circles and trying to mash the reasonable one here.

And I don't think your "logic" deserves any merit until you explain what evolution has to do with your original argument.

It's an embarrassing subject, that is why you do not hear much about it. Besides, the big focus in science right now is physics, as well it should be.

No actually, evolution has hogged the spotlight in science for quite some time because of the ignorance and misinformation coming from people like you. Ironically, evolution is becoming more credible because of it.

It is no secret that scientists do exactly as I claimed. In fact, thinking otherwise, especially after being enlightened, is..
pretty damn ignorant.

If you're referring to creation scientists, sure, maybe I might believe that. But they're not scientists that typical people refer to, so might I suggest you take your claims of ignorance back.

It's what got me off the debate in the first place, that little claim. The reason why I was answering all the questions is because both you simply just don't know shit about science, both the subjects and the field.
I'm sorry I have to put it that way, but one notices when people mass together out of me kicking their ass in a debate.

And answering those questions has simply demonstrated your ignorance of science, not the other way around. Once again, stop patting yourself on the back and answer the questions, or you're not furthering the debate.

It was just a big circle, as I said. You all were not debating. You all were presuming to be right and I was the one who was wrong. Like I'm supposed to be playin 20 questions and whatnot. And adding insult to injury that this debate is, you all run off with what I've claimed like it didn't originate with me.
yeah....

You have not offered one unique or valid argument that is worth being considered--that's why we think you're wrong. We're asking you these questions either because you have made your positions on certain issues unclear, and we can't have much of a debate until you answer them (well, think about it: are you arguing that the stuff in the bible happened, or are you arguing against it? I haven't gotten a clear answer from that one yet. And no, arguing that science doesn't prove the plagues didn't happen is an absurd argument, and I think we've already shot that to shreds.)
And no, your arguments aren't special. I'm sorry if you've never seen similar arguments as yours before, but I can assure you, I've seen people claim they knew what science and evolution were, and they were wrong, and I've also seen people resort to ad hominems, sophistry and just beating around the bush.

And who still pwned? It's laughable. So I would suggest crawling out of that biased crap you all claim as 'logic' before attempting to debate with me again.

Or how about you just answer the questions, or this debate is pointless. Do you or do you not believe the events in the bible happened, and please explain why.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Yeah, a mod comes on here with the same exact bullshit that I have dismantled and made obvious of being unintuitive.

Yeah, it's obvious that some mods don't deserve authority in keeping the peace, as these ignorant fucking arguments have no logic at all.
That's probably why nobody else has bothered with these two redundant individuals.
It has been nothing more than presumption, biased thought, and extremely shallow claims. I have demonstrated 10 goddamn times the amount of reason and to no avail.
So, TTT, read the entire thread- and the last where it originated (and where half of what explained is on), before making bullshit claims against me. I don't really care if you're a mod or not, that doesn't make you a damn bit more claim-worthy.
And before stating anything about 'well this not the same thread'- I was fuckin followed here with it.
People want to act all disgruntled now, but I'm the only one that has a right to be angry. I'm ashamed of even wasting my good knowledge on this childish 'debate'. Asking me 100 goddamn questions and dismissing it with no input other than 'im wrong' IS NOT A DEBATE.
So what rationale are seeing TTT?

I am not going to lose my credibility on the forums because a mod wants to be a group pleasure.
Of course, my esteem for this site has gone down dramatically, so I could care what 'line' I cross. I try hard to show discretion, god knows I have shown that hrough this drawn out, ugly fuckin debate, but I don't take shit from nobody either.

 

[der Astronom]

Actually, it's not really 100 questions, it's just the same few questions asked repeatedly because you refuse to provide any answer for them, and instead complain. It doesn't matter what you say, it still doesn't change the fact that you haven't answered them.

So if you really have nothing else to contribute to this debate by answering the questions, you might as well just go away, and this debate with you is over.

So, I'm asking you again. Do you or do you not believe the events in the bible happened, and why?

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Actually, it's not really 100 questions, it's just the same few questions asked repeatedly because you refuse to provide any answer for them, and instead complain. It doesn't matter what you say, it still doesn't change the fact that you haven't answered them.

So if you really have nothing else to contribute to this debate by answering the questions, you might as well just go away, and this debate with you is over.

So, I'm asking you again. Do you or do you not believe the events in the bible happened, and why?

I have answered the questions. You do not believe them. You tell me why.

That last part- DOESNT FUCKING HAPPEN

 

[der Astronom]

I have answered the questions. You do not believe them. You tell me why.

That last part- DOESNT FUCKING HAPPEN

Then this debate with you is over. Since you refuse to give an answer for that last question, I am going to suppose, based on the information you have given me, that you believe the events in the bible happened, and that you believe they happened based on nothing more than faith.

If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me. You should have answered the question when you were asked to do so.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Then this debate with you is over. Since you refuse to give an answer for that last question, I am going to suppose, based on the information you have given me, that you believe the events in the bible happened, and that you believe they happened based on nothing more than faith.

If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me. You should have answered the question when you were asked to do so.

Good, the debate is over. Should have been over because most of the people in it are fucking ridiculous.
I have issued time and time again that the happenings in the bible are permanent uncertainties and that I am agnostic.
This is the idiot shit that I am so very glad you have brought up, because it shows why this stupid ass debate should be over.
So lets be done with it_

 

[der Astronom]

That still doesn't answer the question, since I am asking what you believe, not what you know about the validity of the events in the bible.

And it's not over because we're being ridiculous; it's over because you're not willing to play by the rules of logic and debate. I don't care if you think you're being logical, and that you're the only person that's right; all you've demonstrated to us in your arguments is that you can't even put up a logical argument that's worth our time. You're done. Goodbye.

 

[blakstang98]

Goodbye indeed, this thread is done. I asked nicely twice that we keep this debate civil, and it went completely ignored.

*Thread Closed*