A question I don't think creationists will answer.

[PsychoSarah]

No, it succinctly explains one view of how mankind was created. It's a great term, IMO.

Use a different term, there are too many pointless arguments resulting from this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just out of curiosity I used the search function to see if I ever called justlookinla a "liar". I could not find any cases. The closest that I could find were response to him where I explained that I would be a liar if I followed through with his request.

 

[justlookinla]

But you haven't and we have explained how and why you are not being respectful.

Having differing views isn't being disrespectful.

Most creationists bring mockery and ridicule upon themselves. They get treated more politely here than they deserve. If you want to debate science you should stick to science, when you don't you can get rudeness as a result. Be honest and debate respectfully and you will get the same in return. You were even told many times that you were being rude and disrespectful before others started to act the same way towards you. Now that you are reaping the ridicule that you started you are as bhsmte pointed out playing the victim card.

No, I'm just pointing out the obvious, and somewhat common, behavior of those who oppose those who embrace the viewpoint that God is creator.

And yes, I would like to see a couple of posts where I call you a liar. Remember pointing out the fact that you lied is not calling you a liar.

Of course it is. 'You lied but you're not a liar'? Are you serious?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Having differing views isn't being disrespectful.

That is correct.

No, I'm just pointing out the obvious, and somewhat common, behavior of those who oppose those who embrace the viewpoint that God is creator.

No, you aren't. You are trying to insult people. Your term means nothing to others. It is only an obvious attempt to insult and is against the rules of this forum.

Of course it is. 'You lied but you're not a liar'? Are you serious?

Once again, it is not against the rules of this forum to point out a lie and to say in that instance that you lied. That is not the same as calling someone a "liar". The second is a very general attack. It is quite different to point out one case of lying to calling someone a liar in general.

 

[justlookinla]

And yes, I would like to see a couple of posts where I call you a liar. Remember pointing out the fact that you lied is not calling you a liar.

post # 381 "Now you know that you are lying too when you do this."

post # 327 "You are trying to lie by playing semantic games."

post #310 "Tsk tsk, lying by using improper terminology."

 

[justlookinla]

Use a different term, there are too many pointless arguments resulting from this.

No, as I explained, it's a term which reflects the creationist viewpoint of Darwinism.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No, as I explained, it's a term which reflects the creationist viewpoint of Darwinism.

Except no one agrees with you, and you can use a different term

 

[Subduction Zone]

And justlook, when I pointed out your lies in the past I also explained why your statements were lies. Calling someone a liar is generally just an inflammatory statement and does not aid in the debate at all. If you can point out specific wrongs when done that can actually bring the debate back on topic.

 

[justlookinla]

Once again, it is not against the rules of this forum to point out a lie and to say in that instance that you lied. That is not the same as calling someone a "liar". The second is a very general attack. It is quite different to point out one case of lying to calling someone a liar in general.

Of course saying that someone is lying is calling them a liar. Doesn't matter to me though, that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

post # 381 "Now you know that you are lying too when you do this."

post # 327 "You are trying to lie by playing semantic games."

post #310 "Tsk tsk, lying by using improper terminology."

Please note that I explained how those were lies each and every time.

If you cannot understand how that is different from calling you a liar I don't think that I can help you past that.

Anyone else?

You should have also have provided a link. There is a general rule with creationists and quotes. They don't have a very good history when they quote people.

 

[justlookinla]

And justlook, when I pointed out your lies in the past I also explained why your statements were lies. Calling someone a liar is generally just an inflammatory statement and does not aid in the debate at all. If you can point out specific wrongs when done that can actually bring the debate back on topic.

Say whatever you wish to say about me, doesn't matter as far as I'm concerned. My focus stays on the issues, not the behavior of others.

 

[bhsmte]

Except no one agrees with you, and you can use a different term

That much is quite clear, but he needs to use it for his own benefit, just as he added words to the definition of Darwinism like; solely, completely etc. etc. from natural causes and he also invented Darwinist Creationism, when Darwinism says nothing at all about creationism.

He refuses to admit he made up the term Darwinist Creationism or to provide an outside source that defines Darwinist Creationism specifically.

I think that is all we need to know and the accurate points have been made.

On, to bigger and better things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course saying that someone is lying is calling them a liar. Doesn't matter to me though, that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

You are wrong. If the specific lie is pointed out along with an explanation it is totally different from using the general term liar.

I don't see why you are having such a hard time understanding this. Let me try one more time.

It is against the rule to say "YOU ARE A LIAR!!" Once again, that is simple an insult without cause and without correction. It is not against the rules to show how someone is lying. It shows both cause and by avoiding that you correct the behavior.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Say whatever you wish to say about me, doesn't matter as far as I'm concerned. My focus stays on the issues, not the behavior of others.

 

[pyramid33]

You're either honored by people or you're not honored.

or...

 

[pyramid33]

Aint buying it.

 

[Delphiki]

or...

Robots?

 

[DerelictJunction]

Yes, it addresses the mechanism of the creation of all life forms very specifically.

Look! I can make up definitions too!

From: Wikipedia
Creationism is the belief that the Universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation.

Darwinist is of or pertaining to Darwinism which justlookinla states:
Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce."
So, Darwinist creationism is:
The belief that living organisms originate from the specific act of divine creation which was the ensuring that all species of organisms arise and develop through natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individuals ability to compete, survive and reproduce.

That's not what justlookinla says though. I think mine matches the words better.

 

[justlookinla]

Look! I can make up definitions too!

From: Wikipedia
Creationism is the belief that the Universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation.

Darwinist is of or pertaining to Darwinism which justlookinla states:
Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce."
So, Darwinist creationism is:
The belief that living organisms originate from the specific act of divine creation which was the ensuring that all species of organisms arise and develop through natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individuals ability to compete, survive and reproduce.

That's not what justlookinla says though. I think mine matches the words better.

Yep, the Darwinists are upset with the revelation that they are creationists. Darwinist creationism.

 

[RickG]

Yep, the Darwinists are upset with the revelation that they are creationists. Darwinist creationism.

Nope. That's just your made up idea with the intention of taunting, in my opinion. BTW, so called Darwinism has nothing to do with creation.