Where is your evidence creationists?

[JediMobius]

That's cute. You guys all banding together to rip a concept you don't understand and refuse to try to understand because you think it's evil. Aw...

Jumping to conclusions to resolve some cognitive dissonance? Some of us spend plenty of time looking at the scientific evidence, albeit past the experimenter's bias that crops up in published articles, and other cognitive biases and presuppositions apart from the actual science.

Except, here's the thing... I'm more right than you are. And even if I'm someday proven wrong I'm still more right than you are. That's not an opinion or boasting. It's a proven fact. If you can prove you're reading these words then I can prove I'm more right than you are because only if the world exists in such a state that we're not really communicating by these words is it possible that I'm not more right than you are.

Wow. Hubris much? I'll bet you suffer from the Bias Blind-Spot effect as well.

 

[JediMobius]

I think evolutionsists, particularly atheists will believe anything they are told regardless of how silly and non plausible it may be.

The qualifier being: only if it confirms their preconceptions, vis-a-vis confirmation bias.

 

[USincognito]

Jumping to conclusions to resolve some cognitive dissonance? Some of us spend plenty of time looking at the scientific evidence, albeit past the experimenter's bias that crops up in published articles, and other cognitive biases and presuppositions apart from the actual science.



Wow. Hubris much? I'll bet you suffer from the Bias Blind-Spot effect as well.

The qualifier being: only if it confirms their preconceptions, vis-a-vis confirmation bias.

Poison the Well much?

The philisophical and metaphysical arguments against evolution and deep time aren't that impressive or profound. More often than not, they tend to have their own logical flaws as well.

Just look at Astrid, she repeats something she got from an unsourced Wikipedia entry at least 4 times and then, when called out on the content of a book she hadn't read - but I had, and I could prove I had - her only response is "I'll get the book and show you!" At least that's what I think it was, she includes so much self-congratulatory blather and annoying Aussie slang that it's sometimes hard to glean a point from her walls of text.

 

[Astridhere]

Poison the Well much?

The philisophical and metaphysical arguments against evolution and deep time aren't that impressive or profound. More often than not, they tend to have their own logical flaws as well.

Just look at Astrid, she repeats something she got from an unsourced Wikipedia entry at least 4 times and then, when called out on the content of a book she hadn't read - but I had, and I could prove I had - her only response is "I'll get the book and show you!" At least that's what I think it was, she includes so much self-congratulatory blather and annoying Aussie slang that it's sometimes hard to glean a point from her walls of text.

Darls, I have provided much more than wiki quotes. What's more I am still waiting for you to deny published research that suggests Lucy is too derived to be in the human line. I really enjoy evos not accepting recent research because it demonstrates evolutionary cherry picking.

What's more, those following this thread, are able to see you wollow in denial and avoidence. That's even better.

Now either Dawkins agrees Lucy is not human and suggests so in his book or your mate is an outdated goose full of woffle just like anyone else that worships him. Take your pick!!!!

Thanks to all that have given blessingings. Much appreciated.

 

[Astridhere]

The qualifier being: only if it confirms their preconceptions, vis-a-vis confirmation bias.

Absolutely. Cherry pick what suits, invent non plausible scenarios to hand wave away annomolies and ignore the obvious. That's USincognito and his cohorts motto.

 

[Astridhere]

That whale's offspring will only be able to fly if the genetic information for wings and hollow bones (among other traits) are already in its DNA. Under selective pressure, genes cannot be selected which do not exist. (Even in the experiment that produced citrate-utilizing bacteria, every permutation was expressed, and no trait alien to that bacteria's biological family was produced.) Same with the humans on the shrinking island. Only if their DNA can select genotypes under that specific pressure, but then a significant portion of the population would also carry such genes, and some freak occurrence of a human or small human population becoming aquatic or avian for survival should likely have been found by now.

I am still wondering if some little group of mankind will morph into mermaids or something in response to rising sea levels. After all creatures appear to do it all the time with ease according to evos.

 

[Psudopod]

Well done. You've not only showed that you cannot back up your claim that science says mouse deer poofed into whales, you've provided a claim that neatly points out the difference between Indohyus and Hyemoschus: "Hyemoschus [the African mouse deer] is not osteosclerotic and spends relatively little time in the water.” from Indohyus: Almost like a mouse deer? | Wired Science[bless and do not curse]| Wired.com

But I have, even your own resaerchers suggest Indohyus "is just like a mouse deer". Why you suggest you have established your point is beyond me.

Where do either of your articles, let alone a scientific paper state that Indohyus is just a mouse deer? A creature similar to, is not the same as. Dolphins are similar to sharks on a superfical level, but very different when examined closely. And my point is made by the quote from one of the articles you linked to:
"Hyemoschus [the African mouse deer] is not osteosclerotic and spends relatively little time in the water.” (Bolding mine)

Nope, just showing your lack of understanding. You're putting the cart before the horse essentially - just because evolution has a random, chaotic part (not something anyone is disputing) doesn't mean evolution has anything to say on chaos theory.

I have provided the link from evolutionary theorists that says otherwise. The beauty of evolutionary theory is one can find contradictory research to back just about any claim.

Except you haven't. The article says there is a chaotic component to evolution, not that evolution can comment on chaos theory. He's not saying anthing contradicting evolutionary theory, just postulating that one part (the random chaotic part) is more influential than previously considered. Be aware that New Scientist is often fairly sensationlist - I'd be more interested in reading his papers.

Thank you for proving my point! Not only did you fail to back up your point with a scientific source that Tiktaalik is the first fishapod, you also ignore all I wrote about why Tiktaalik is important and why it doesn't matter if it is the first. And you are the one being insulting and patronsising.

You lot will now have to go find another intermediate older than 395myo, that is what that means and well you should know it. Deal with it or hide your head in the sand. The choice is yours.

No one is denying that there will be other creatures like this, older and younger; you are the only one claiming Tiktaalik is the the first. Whether we find them or not doesn't change a thing about tiktaalik. It's not me hiding my head in the sand, two posts now and you've refused to address the actual point I'm making about why tiktaalik is a valuble discovery.

No, Astridhere, I am correct. Humans will always be apes, mammals, vertebrates. This is evolution. If you think evolution claims any differently, then you do not understand evolution.

I understand that after 150 years your researchers are more confused than ever.

So do you understand this point or not? It's so hard to understand what you actually understand when you don't address points and go off on tangents. This is a very important, very basic point - you can't escape your clades.

So, that's a no then, you cannot back up your comment that "scientists say bacteria will grow legs". Didn't think so.

That was a funny. Sorry you do not have a sense of humour

There was no way I could tell. The comment wasn't funny; it wasn't coming across as a different tone to the rest of your peice; you've created similar strawmen that you actually seem to believe are what evolution says; other creationist have genuinely meant this in other discussions I have seen. I'm glad you don't actually believe this is what evolution teaches.

No you haven't and even if you had, how is that ridiculing theists. I have made no comments about your religion, I haven't even insulted you. Where as you constantly put people down with condecending language, insult them by saying they have nothing intelligent to say and call them names like pretender and delusionist.

While evolutionists continue to suggest flavour of the month is evidence I will continue to regard it as delusional

So again you cannot back up your argument that people are ridiculing theists rather than creationists.

Well actually delusion is an apt descriptor of what was once irrefuteable evidence for evolution tossed aside and falsified eg human knucklewalking ancestry. If every falsified evolutionary support was not heralded as factual and irrefuteable and only the stupid would deny it, I would not be so hard on you guys. However that is usually the line evos preach

[/quote]

I have never seen anything like this, certainly not from professional scientists. I've never seen knuckle-walking ancestory as considered irrefutable proof of evolution. As I said before, other than when the trait arose, nothing has really changed in our understanding.

There is absolutely no need to suggest Indohyus was anything more than a variety of deer with aquatic ability like a modern day mouse deer or chevrotain. It is on the assumption of common ancestry that evolutionists need to straw grab as they do when clearly a fossil resembles a species with us here today.

Except for a different skeletal structure. It's also a proposed very early whale ancestor, it's not certain that indohyus definitely is on the whale line.

Coelecanth was another example. If Coelecanth was not found alive and well today that would be yet another purported intermediate that creationsists would be saying is just a fish and we would be right despite anything evolutionists had to say about it.

1) - ancient coelecanths were an intermediate, just one that did not diversify.

2) - modern coelecanths are not the same as ancient ones
.
3) - nobody disputes that coeecanths are fish.

 

[Fastener]

Thanks to astridhere we all now know that every university IN THE WORLD has got it wrong even the Americans,
surly this deserves at least some recognition if not a Nobel prize, well done astridhere.
You can add it to all your other achievements and qualifications, what a resume you must have now, what's in it now?
you must have at least a Doctorate or more than likely a PhD in Biology because you are one smart woman.

This is certainly a coup for creationism, again well done astridhere.

PS. I'm surprised they haven't asked you to join AiG or some other prestigious creationist web site,
I'm sure you would be a real asset.

 

[Astridhere]

Where do either of your articles, let alone a scientific paper state that Indohyus is just a mouse deer? A creature similar to, is not the same as. Dolphins are similar to sharks on a superfical level, but very different when examined closely. And my point is made by the quote from one of the articles you linked to:
"Hyemoschus [the African mouse deer] is not osteosclerotic and spends relatively little time in the water.” (Bolding mine)

There is no use in my replying to twisted asides. The point was that a mouse deer/chevrotain is very similar to a mouse deer and one of your researchers says so. The rest of anything you said is woffle based on speculation....

Indohyus, like some other early artiodactyls, has several features demonstrating an artiodactyl ancestry for the earliest whales. But now we can see a living form that may be very like Indohyus in size, form, and behavior. This is the water chevrotain.

The water chevrotain: almost like a whale « Why Evolution Is True

Here is the speculation below....

Admittedly this scenario is just as speculative as the one I criticized. For support it would rely on 1) more fossils and Indohyus and closely related creatures, and 2) the ability to determine (perhaps through isotopes in the teeth) whether individuals were feeding/spending time in the water more often than on land. (Istope values for living mouse deer might be helpful for comparison if this were done.) Given that we would be trying to get at behavior of an animal that can no longer be directly witnessed, however, this would be a rather sticky task.

In other words you are going on about nothing and have not addressed this...

If a fossil looks like a mouse deer could it be a variety of mouse deer? I say "Yes". Evos say "No", it must be something on its' way to becoming a whale.

I hold the upper hand here.

Both evo and my assertions are unfalsifiable because they are theoretical. However I strongly suggest that evolutionists in their desperation to find intermediates ignore the obvious and seek myths instead.

I have posted skeletons of both and the similarities are obvious. Indohyus sure looks more like a mouse deer than a whale.

This is what you need to address, not the nonsense you have gone on with.

Except you haven't. The article says there is a chaotic component to evolution, not that evolution can comment on chaos theory. He's not saying anthing contradicting evolutionary theory, just postulating that one part (the random chaotic part) is more influential than previously considered. Be aware that New Scientist is often fairly sensationlist - I'd be more interested in reading his papers.

Evolutionists never deny evolution. The reply was in response to some goose suggesting that I had invented the idea of a 'chaos theory' in relation to evolution. Get with the program Psudopod

No one is denying that there will be other creatures like this, older and younger; you are the only one claiming Tiktaalik is the the first. Whether we find them or not doesn't change a thing about tiktaalik. It's not me hiding my head in the sand, two posts now and you've refused to address the actual point I'm making about why tiktaalik is a valuble discovery.
I do not care if you lot maintain it as an important discovery. The point is It was an intermediate that was the first to land and heralded as such and that has been falsified by older tetrapod footprints and fossils. Get with the program.
[/color]

So do you understand this point or not? It's so hard to understand what you actually understand when you don't address points and go off on tangents. This is a very important, very basic point - you can't escape your clades.
I understand evos have invented the classification system, then placed mankind where they need to be according to a myth.



There was no way I could tell. The comment wasn't funny; it wasn't coming across as a different tone to the rest of your peice; you've created similar strawmen that you actually seem to believe are what evolution says; other creationist have genuinely meant this in other discussions I have seen. I'm glad you don't actually believe this is what evolution teaches.

The main point here is that similarity denotes ancestry except when you lot conveniently say that it doesn't. eg bipedal cockroaches and the independent evolution of eyes and just about everything else, it seems.

So again you cannot back up your argument that people are ridiculing theists rather than creationists.
"God did it" is a smear on theist evolutionists as well as creationists because theist evolutionists still evoke the power of God in their scenarios.

I have never seen anything like this, certainly not from professional scientists. I've never seen knuckle-walking ancestory as considered irrefutable proof of evolution. As I said before, other than when the trait arose, nothing has really changed in our understanding. Rubbish. Ardi has falsified all the nonsense related to mankind being chimp like. 150 years down the drain and new scenario to play around with that is also not irrefuteable

We are definitely agreed on this one. There is no irrefuteable evidence for evolution

Except for a different skeletal structure. It's also a proposed very early whale ancestor, it's not certain that indohyus definitely is on the whale line.

The point being evolution and its supports are no more solid than any crearionist paradigm


1) - ancient coelecanths were an intermediate, just one that did not diversify.
Then what is it intermediate to????????? This is a nonsense statement
2) - modern coelecanths are not the same as ancient ones

It is often claimed that the coelacanth has remained unchanged for millions of years but in fact the living species and even genus are unknown from the fossil record. However, some of the extinct species, particularly those of the last known fossil coelacanth, the Cretaceous genus Macropoma, closely resemble the living species.
Coelacanth - Who or What is Coelacanth? Find out more

In other words, when Coelecanth first appeared is speculation and the fossils that are actually observed, Macropoma, closely resemble the living species.
.
3) - nobody disputes that coeecanths are fish.
Good. They are also no more an example of anything more than a frog. Similarity only denotes ancestry, except when you lot say it doesn't

[/quote]

I can see Indohyus is more similar to a mouse deer than a whale. This is just another example of the myths that are offered as support for evolution. None of it is irrefuteable and all of it is flavour of the month.

Psudopod now suggests that evidence for evolution, 150 years of sprooking to human knuckelwalking ancestry, was never irrefuteable. I say this should be remembered whenever evos put up evidence for evolution and imply creartionists are ignorant.

What makes any flavour of the month any different? Hence TOE is theoretical and not factual as many evos suggest.

Evolutionists simply cannot handle all of Lucy's humanity being thrown into the great garbage bin of evolutionary delusions. They have squirmed, posted pictures of outdated zoologists, taken every aside and not addressed an important point that if so much humanity was atrributed to an ape then effectively researchers have no idea what they are looking at.

The very fact that well credentialed evolutionary researchers have published peer reviewed papers challenging Lucy's humanity is proof irrefuteable that evolutionary researchers and their followers have no idea what they are talking about. The 150 years of falsified human knucklewalking ancestry is just the icing on the cake.

That is the point, no matter how it is said and no matter what evos say.

Biblical Young Earth Creationism

So the evidence above is just as robust and credible as anything an evolutionist can produce. However, observation will continue to support creationist paradigms better than evolutionary ones.

Evolutionary researchers will not let real science and observation get in the way of a good story.

 

[Psudopod]

I am still wondering if some little group of mankind will morph into mermaids or something in response to rising sea levels. After all creatures appear to do it all the time with ease according to evos.

Another important thing to note - populations evolve, not individuals. One creature never morphs into another.

 

[Astridhere]

Thanks to astridhere we all now know that every university IN THE WORLD has got it wrong even the Americans,
surly this deserves at least some recognition if not a Nobel prize, well done astridhere.
You can add it to all your other achievements and qualifications, what a resume you must have now, what's in it now?
you must have at least a Doctorate or more than likely a PhD in Biology because you are one smart woman.

This is certainly a coup for creationism, again well done astridhere.

PS. I'm surprised they haven't asked you to join AiG or some other prestigious creationist web site,
I'm sure you would be a real asset.

Evolutionists and their contradictory theories about the how, when, where and why of evolution cannot all be right but they can all be wrong.

 

[Astridhere]

Another important thing to note - populations evolve, not individuals. One creature never morphs into another.

Go tell that to your evo researchers that cite different species cohabiting with their supposed ancestors.

Maybe island populations will morph into mermaid like creatures with rising sea levels..Do you think?

 

[Psudopod]

Where do either of your articles, let alone a scientific paper state that Indohyus is just a mouse deer? A creature similar to, is not the same as. Dolphins are similar to sharks on a superfical level, but very different when examined closely. And my point is made by the quote from one of the articles you linked to:
"Hyemoschus [the African mouse deer] is not osteosclerotic and spends relatively little time in the water.” (Bolding mine)

There is no use in my replying to twisted asides. The point was that a mouse deer/chevrotain is very similar to a mouse deer and one of your researchers says so. The rest of anything you said is woffle based on speculation....

What's twisted? This is a quote from the very source you posted. I'm not, and no one is distuting that Indohyus is a very similar creature to the modern mouse deer. What we're saying is it is not a modern mouse deer, and one of the differences is indohyus is osteosclerotic. Because of this aquatic nature, it has been proposed as part of the route from landbased (we can tell that indohyus mostly ate non-aquatic material) to fully aquatic mammals like whales.

If a fossil looks like a mouse deer could it be a variety of mouse deer? I say "Yes". Evos say "No", it must be something on its' way to becoming a whale.

It's not enough to look like it superficially. No one is denying that this was a small mammal of similar shape and size to the modern mouse deer, that probably behaved in a similar fasion. But that doesn't make it identical to the modern mouse deer. And no one has said it has to be on it's way to being a whale. It's a proposed transition between solely land based and aquatic. We can see this from their bone structure. Whether these creatures were the very distant relations of whales, or whether something else was, we don't have enough information from what I've read.

I hold the upper hand here.

No you don't. You are just claiming indohyus and the modern mouse deer are the same thing, despite there being differences, and saying that there is a problem if indohyus is not in the whale ancestory. Again, no, there is not, not to evolution as a whole, and not to our current understanding of whale evolution.

Both evo and my assertions are unfalsifiable because they are theoretical. However I strongly suggest that evolutionists in their desperation to find intermediates ignore the obvious and seek myths instead.

Nope, for example I would have thought if we could get suitable genetic material for indohyus, we should be able to compare with modern whales and see if there is a genetic match. However simple biology will tell you the indohyus is not the same as a modern mouse deer, as it is not classified as such. They are similar types of creature occupying a similar niche, but they are not the same thing.

I have posted skeletons of both and the similarities are obvious. Indohyus sure looks more like a mouse deer than a whale.

Yes it looks more like a mouse deer than a whale. Has anyone claimed otherwise? Remember, this is being preposed as a very distant whale ancestor, pretty much the first step from fully terrestrial living on the way to fully aquatic. There's no way it should look anything like a modern whale.

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] evolutionists never deny evolution. The reply was in response to some goose suggesting that I had invented the idea of a 'chaos theory; of evolution. Get with the program Psudopod

It was to your comment that evolution should be able to comment on chaos theory. I never suggested that you had invented the idea of a chaos theory of evolution, just that evolution can't comment on chaos theory, chaos theory comments on evolution.

I do not care if you lot maintain it as an important discovery. The point is It was an intermediate that was the first to land and heralded as such and that has been falsified by older tetrapod footprints and fossils. Get with the program.

Again, you had stated that is the first, but failed to back it up with a scientific source. And again, even if it wasn't, does this change anything about tiktaalik morphology? Does it stop having both fish and amphibian traits? Does it stop being found in the geological and historical location that such a creature was predicted to live?

So do you understand this point or not? It's so hard to understand what you actually understand when you don't address points and go off on tangents. This is a very important, very basic point - you can't escape your clades.

It's very easy to show if the classification system is wrong. All you have to do is show which of the ape traits humans lack. Surely if humans being apes is such as mistake, someone should have been able to point this out by now.

The main point here is that similarity denotes ancestry except when you lot conveniently say that it doesn't. eg bipedal cockroaches and the independent evolution of eyes and just about everything else, it seems.

Similarity is often superficial when just looking at photos of two things side by side. You need to examine all of it. Sharks and dolphins look very similar if just looking at pictures. If you knew nothing about either and looked up two pictures on the internet, you might not spot that they have different breathing methods, that dolphins only give birth to live young, that only dolphins feed their young milk. This is why looking at two pictures is not enough.

So again you cannot back up your argument that people are ridiculing theists rather than creationists.

"God did it" is a smear on theist evolutionists as well as creationists because theist evolutionists still evoke the power of God in their scenarios.

I'm not sure what you mean. The only ones I've heard using God did it as scientific answer are some creationists. It's not a smear on anyone to point out this is not scientific. And no, theistic evolutionists don't tend to use God when discussing science, they just know that when studying science they are studying the handiwork of God.

I have never seen anything like this, certainly not from professional scientists. I've never seen knuckle-walking ancestory as considered irrefutable proof of evolution. As I said before, other than when the trait arose, nothing has really changed in our understanding.

Rubbish. Ardi has falsified all the nonsense related to mankind being chimp like. 150 years down the drain and new scenario to play around with that is also not irrefuteable

We are definitely agreed on this one. There is no irrefuteable evidence for evolution

No one but you has suggested that the ancestor looked like a modern chimp, any more than it looked like a modern human. Modern English and Italian are two different languages, that share a common origin in Latin. What you are suggesting is is the equivalent of if English and Italian share a common origin language, then that ancient language must be like Italian. It's like neither, but both languages share some of the same features. .

And yes, there is no irrefutable evidence, because science has to be falsifiable. Being falsifiable doesn't mean it has been falisfied though.

Except for a different skeletal structure. It's also a proposed very early whale ancestor, it's not certain that indohyus definitely is on the whale line.

The point being evolution and its supports are no more solid than any crearionist paradigm

Except that's not true. Evolution explains for example, why all veribrate are tetrapod; why we see a nested hierachy of living creatures; why monkeys and apes are a better match for disease modelling than mice and rats; why such crazy "designs" like eating and breathing through the same whole persist; why humans have an apendix - an organ that can be perfectly safely removed, showing it is not necessary, and which carries a risk of death if infected; why sometimes offspring are born with atavistic features like humans with tails, whales with feet etc.

 

[Psudopod]

Originally Posted by Psudopod

Another important thing to note - populations evolve, not individuals. One creature never morphs into another.
​

Go tell that to your evo researchers that cite different species cohabiting with their supposed ancestors.

A) evidence for species co-habiting with their ancestors
B) how does this refute populations evolving not individuals

 

[mdancin4theLord]

Some of this lot aren't even employed. They are here day in and out. What a life getting onto Christian and theist forums and going on with the same old gobble going on about outdated evo support eg Tiktaalic. Many are fanatical.

They are here to preach their philosophy of naturalism. They are not open minded and have lost all power of observation.

At least theist evolutionists have belief in God. Most of the time it is one creationist having to deal with a plethora of atheists, some of which pop in going over the same old evo arguments.

I see the evidence for creation, no matter which variety, is the irreduceable complexity of a living cell eg Bacteria. Naturalists suggest dead elements poofed into a complex factory. Creationists believe the power of God created.

Of the two I see creationists having the upper hand.

It is unreal the anger with which they evangelize their beliefs. I wonder where this anger comes from really.

They claim to beleive that God does not exist and yet according to their unscientific studies they tend to be the people most angry at God.

Why such anger? How can people be so angry at God if they do not even believe in His existence? As I said...they preach with evangelical zeal....

What gets me is the way in which they discuss this. They look down and think themselves smarter, more educated...than believers. Just like Dawkins when he decided to throw the term athiest out in order to draw more people to his ministry. I think he refers to himself as a "bright." He is saying I am more bright than you are......and we have some here that feel the same way. But the fact is the existence of life, the first cause and matter demands an explanation that can't be rationally explained by this group. Something did not come from nothing. They are desparately depending on their own finite minds to determine INFINITE TRUTHS.

Anger........just look at it. This group reminds me of something I saw last year. It was a skit that Cobert did on The Colbert Report.....comedy central. This is similar to what went down.

Jesus' Body Tastes Better Transubstantiated as a Dorito! - YouTube

This is way more than just a dislike or mocking. This is a viewer friendly spoof on Christ....but the message says a lot more.

The hatred runs deep as you can see there and here.

 

[CabVet]

Only on Fox News... It's the war on Christians!

 

[Belk]

It is unreal the anger with which they evangelize their beliefs. I wonder where this anger comes from really.

They claim to beleive that God does not exist and yet according to their unscientific studies they tend to be the people most angry at God.

Why such anger? How can people be so angry at God if they do not even believe in His existence? As I said...they preach with evangelical zeal....

What gets me is the way in which they discuss this. They look down and think themselves smarter, more educated...than believers. Just like Dawkins when he decided to throw the term athiest out in order to draw more people to his ministry. I think he refers to himself as a "bright." He is saying I am more bright than you are......and we have some here that feel the same way. But the fact is the existence of life, the first cause and matter demands an explanation that can't be rationally explained by this group. Something did not come from nothing. They are desparately depending on their own finite minds to determine INFINITE TRUTHS.

Anger........just look at it. This group reminds me of something I saw last year. It was a skit that Cobert did on The Colbert Report.....comedy central. This is similar to what went down.

Jesus' Body Tastes Better Transubstantiated as a Dorito! - YouTube

This is way more than just a dislike or mocking. This is a viewer friendly spoof on Christ....but the message says a lot more.

The hatred runs deep as you can see there and here.

So, still not going to address the refutations to your post I take it?

 

[Fastener]

They look down and think themselves smarter, more educated...than believers.

We don't think that, you think that, but as it happens it's true.

Ask yourself this, "how stupid must I be to believe the rubbish that is creationism? it contradicts everything the rest of the world knows is true and I'm not even well educated, I know nothing about evolution and I'm trying to tell people that it's wrong, who's pulling my strings?".

 

[JediMobius]

It's amazing how self-contradicting that post is, Fastener.

 

[Psudopod]

We don't think that, you think that, but as it happens it's true.

Ask yourself this, "how stupid must I be to believe the rubbish that is creationism? it contradicts everything the rest of the world knows is true and I'm not even well educated, I know nothing about evolution and I'm trying to tell people that it's wrong, who's pulling my strings?".

Blanket statements are wrong on both sides Consul