Adolf Hitler - The World's Most Infamous Creationist

[AV1611VET]

You definition failed the test I proposed.

Groovy!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Groovy!

Good, so no one to date has found a working definition of "kind".

AV and dad both have failed. When you have to retreat to biblebabble that is the same as openly admitting that you have nothing.

At least AV is a cheerful loser.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

If they have different common ancestors, they are different kinds.

If the common ancestor of the horse and the elephant is the unicorn, then the horse and the elephant are the same kind.

This means only a unicorn had to board the Ark.

Same for birds.

Who're their common ancestor? the dragon?

If so, only dragons had to board the Ark.

Now we have two kinds aboard the Ark: the dragon and the unicorn.

Later, after the Flood, they will populate the earth with birds, horses and elephants.

See how that works?

You are going to have to give a complete phylogeny then, because without that, the term "kind" as used by creationists and ID proponents is still meaningless.

 

[dad]

AV and dad both have failed.

At least I am honest about winning. Your little tests got brought to the cleaners. You could not even address the creatures in the pics, so resorted to the usual claiming you didn't really lose tricks.


Not too late, you can totally redeem your lost case here any time. Good luck with that!

When you have to retreat to biblebabble that is the same as openly admitting that you have nothing.

No one asks you to vote on whether God's stuff is good. Really. You must take it or leave it.

At least AV is a cheerful loser.

If that were true, that would be admirable. I think I would be also if it ever came to that, but I guess I can't know at this time. Knowing how you try to dress up defeat as you do, though, I take the AV losing claim with a grain of salt.

 

[dad]

Good, so no one to date has found a working definition of "kind".
..

You need a working time machine first! meanwhile to work with what we have here and now, it might be best to stick to the small limits of science!

 

[Subduction Zone]

At least I am honest about winning. Your little tests got brought to the cleaners. You could not even address the creatures in the pics, so resorted to the usual claiming you didn't really lose tricks.

Sorry, you are not. You have lost here again. You failed the test. Do you want to take it again? I could use a few more laughs. I addressed the creatures in the pictures twice now. Do you need to have me go over it a third time? Meanwhile the actual test was for you to develop a working definition for "kind" so far you have totally failed to do so.

No one asks you to vote on whether God's stuff is good. Really. You must take it or leave it.

You have yet to show anything is "God's stuff". When you show something to belong to God I will heartily agree with you. So far you have failed there too.

If that were true, that would be admirable. I think I would be also if it ever came to that, but I guess I can't know at this time. Knowing how you try to dress up defeat as you do, though, I take the AV losing claim with a grain of salt.

AV admitted it himself. Or are you claiming that AV was lying when he did so? That is against the rules of the forum. Watch your step dad, you don't want to get another temporary banishment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You need a working time machine first! meanwhile to work with what we have here and now, it might be best to stick to the small limits of science!

Do you realize that you just admitted that your definition of "kind" is worthless?

Do you even know what you mean when you use the word. It seems that you don't.

And dad does not realize it but he admitted defeat again.

A denial will be coming from him shortly.

 

[dad]

.. I addressed the creatures in the pictures twice now. Do you need to have me go over it a third time?

You boast of nothing. If you would like to apply your relatedness test to the pics, go ahead?

You have yet to show anything is "God's stuff".

You have yet to recognize it. Big difference.

AV admitted it himself. Or are you claiming that AV was lying when he did so? ...

Well, we can let that ride I guess. If what you say is not true about AV, I suppose we would find out.

 

[dad]

Do you realize that you just admitted that your definition of "kind" is worthless?

No. I do admit science is pretty well worthless on the created kinds issue.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You boast of nothing. If you would like to apply your relatedness test to the pics, go ahead?

Alright a third and final time. My test was designed for creatures that were fairly closely related that might be able to breed. Now seriously, do you think the two creatures that you chose could produce viable offspring together? If so you need to go back to first grade and start your education all over again. You might even have a viable lawsuit, though your church would have to be a codefendant.

You have yet to recognize it. Big difference.

Wrong, there is nothing to recognize. See, the truth is an interesting thing. If an idea is true people will not be able to debunk it. Like the theory of evolution. For over 150 years Christian zealots of low faith have attacked that theory and have only succeeded in making showing the whole world that they are fools. If an idea is true or correct you can usually find all sorts of confirmable evidence that supports it. You have yet to show any evidence that supports any of your ideas. Even your Bible claims would be disputed by over half of Christianity.

Well, we can let that ride I guess. If what you say is not true about AV, I suppose we would find out.

No, you are the one who is claiming that he was lying. Not me. Twice he acknowledged that he was wrong. So was he lying or did he admit that he was wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. I do admit science is pretty well worthless on the created kinds issue.

Wrong, you admitted in that post that your definition of kind is worthless.

Your definition is not a working definition, therefore it is worthless.

 

[dad]

Alright a third and final time. My test was designed for creatures that were fairly closely related that might be able to breed. Now seriously, do you think the two creatures that you chose could produce viable offspring together?

So your test doesn't work, by your own admission where it counts, in the far past. OK.

Let's look at it here and now then. Your criteria was reproduction ability. Is that right? If so, that is exactly what kinds could do according to the bible, which pre dates science by millennia!

Can you do anything else but copy the bible?

Wrong, there is nothing to recognize. See, the truth is an interesting thing. If an idea is true people will not be able to debunk it. Like the theory of evolution.

What is it you think one should be able to debunk exactly...some imaginary first life form!!!! You must be kidding! As for evolving, obviously that came with creation. You have less than nothing.

You have yet to show any evidence that supports any of your ideas. Even your Bible claims would be disputed by over half of Christianity.

I dare any of them, or you nice folks to try! You would go down fast and hard. So cut with the silly claims. heck, some of them may be starting to like the idea of actually winning!

No, you are the one who is claiming that he was lying. Not me.

Nah. As I said we can leave that. If he was admitting some sort of total defat as you seem to think, I guess we would have that confirmed.

Twice he acknowledged that he was wrong.

Being wrong does not mean being defeated, you kidding?


I am starting to be concerned about trouncing you in debate, because it seems maybe you really are obsessed with winning.



If you really want to be a winner, you can get saved. I will agree then that you are a big winner.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So your test doesn't work, by your own admission where it counts, in the far past. OK.

No, my test works where it counts, right now. We no that you have no evidence to support any other state than the present one.

Making a claim that their was a change in the state is a positive one. You have to defend it. I don't have to defend my claim that there is no evidence of a former state. That is up to you to debunk since it is a negative statement. All you would have to do to debunk it is to find one piece of scientific evidence that supports your claim. It only seems unfair to you because you have no evidence.

Without evidence you lose dad.

Let's look at it here and now then. Your criteria was reproduction ability. Is that right? If so, that is exactly what kinds could do according to the bible, which pre dates science by millennia!

So you are now saying that the Bible supports evolution. Please make up your mind.

Can you do anything else but copy the bible?

You are projecting again dad. I should charge for the psychological analysis. What you are doing is looking at discoveries from science and trying to squeeze the Bible into those discoveries. Muslims do this all of the time.

What is it you think one should be able to debunk exactly...some imaginary first life form!!!! You must be kidding! As for evolving, obviously that came with creation. You have less than nothing.

Dad, Ninth Commandment warning. You know that this part of your post is one hundred percent horse puckey. The scientific evidence supports evolution and evolution only. If you apologize and ask nicely I will be happy to teach you all about scientific evidence. Until then any claim you make about evidence will be a joke at best.

I dare any of them, or you nice folks to try! You would go down fast and hard. So cut with the silly claims. heck, some of them may be starting to like the idea of actually winning!

dad, you are truly delusional. If you cannot back up any of your claims by evidence how do you expect to win? I know, you will try to out crazy the other person. That will not work.

Why do you hate your fellow Christians so much?

Nah. As I said we can leave that. If he was admitting some sort of total defat as you seem to think, I guess we would have that confirmed.

But we know that AV, like you, is far from honest. That is as close as he will get to admitting the truth.

Being wrong does not mean being defeated, you kidding?

It is close enough for me.

I am starting to be concerned about trouncing you in debate, because it seems maybe you really are obsessed with winning.

Don't worry. You have lost every debate with me. I am not really all that obsessed with winning. I merely enjoy rubbing your nose in the fact that you have lost.

Oops, almost forgot:

Without evidence you lose.

If you really want to be a winner, you can get saved. I will agree then that you are a big winner.

Been there, done that, bought the tee-shirt. There is no "saving". It is merely a bedtime story for little kids. You have one shot at life, make the most of it.

 

[Sayre]

You have one shot at life, make the most of it.

And by "make the most of it" you mean "spend all your spare time debating creationists on internet forums". Live it up .

 

[dad]

And by "make the most of it" you mean "spend all your spare time debating creationists on internet forums". Live it up .

Why beat you head against a wall? It is what it is.

 

[Sayre]

Why beat you head against a wall? It is what it is.

Oh I think you misunderstand. That was a jab in SZ's direction. I spend my time here because the topic matters greatly to me. I actually do believe in a Creator.

 

[dad]

No, my test works where it counts, right now. We no that you have no evidence to support any other state than the present one.

So reproduction works. Ok. Admit copying.

Making a claim that their was a change in the state is a positive one.

Thanks.

You have to defend it.

No. I merely noted what God said. He defends His stuff. I take notes. You whine.

I don't have to defend my claim that there is no evidence of a former state.

Great. So stop claiming a same state past. Not like anyone was really fooled anyhow.

That is up to you to debunk since it is a negative statement. All you would have to do to debunk it is to find one piece of scientific evidence that supports your claim. It only seems unfair to you because you have no evidence.

You seem to want to pretend science covers past states. Get a grip man

So you are now saying that the Bible supports evolution.

?? This is news?

You are projecting again dad. I should charge for the psychological analysis. What you are doing is looking at discoveries from science and trying to squeeze the Bible into those discoveries. Muslims do this all of the time.

Lot of stuff whirring round inside your head we see. Notice an evo is already hinting for you to stop debating? Maybe embarrassment is the reason.

Dad, Ninth Commandment warning. You know that this part of your post is one hundred percent horse puckey.

No. I don't even know what that means actually.

The scientific evidence supports evolution and evolution only.

Great, so it is semi aware of part of reality. So?

If you apologize and ask nicely I will be happy to teach you all about scientific evidence. Until then any claim you make about evidence will be a joke at best.

Seek help.

dad, you are truly delusional. If you cannot back up any of your claims by evidence how do you expect to win? I know, you will try to out crazy the other person. That will not work.

I wouldn't dream of trying to out crazy you. Relax.

Why do you hate your fellow Christians so much?

That makes a lot of sense maybe...to Charles Manson.

But we know that AV, like you, is far from honest.

So you call him...what?

That is as close as he will get to admitting the truth.

Why gossip about AV to me??

It is close enough for me.

No doubt.

Been there, done that, bought the tee-shirt. There is no "saving".

Explain? How does one do that?

You have one shot at life, make the most of it.

I have eternal life. Lots of shots I guess. Come on over. Looks like rough waters over there.

 

[dad]

Oh I think you misunderstand. That was a jab in SZ's direction. I spend my time here because the topic matters greatly to me. I actually do believe in a Creator.

Ok. You are off the hook I guess.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And by "make the most of it" you mean "spend all your spare time debating creationists on internet forums". Live it up .

I enjoy helping people. You don't have to party like a rock star to live it up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So reproduction works. Ok. Admit copying.

How is that copying? You don't even have a test for your claim.

[quote[Thanks.[/quote]

Calling something "A positive claim" is not a compliment. A claim like "I can prove that Jesus never existed" is a positive claim. The truth of a positive claim must be defended by the person making that claim. If he doesn't defend that claim he is defeated.

Oops, no defense. dad is defeated again (and that was a positive claim, it also included the evidence that supports it)

Without evidence you lose.

No. I merely noted what God said. He defends His stuff. I take notes. You whine.

Once again, you have never ever shown that God said anything. You have not posted any valid recordings of God. At best you have a raggedy old book that is full of self contradictions, bad science (goats that reproduce in front of sticks will have striped offspring) and failed prophecies.

Great. So stop claiming a same state past. Not like anyone was really fooled anyhow.

Why? I have evidence of a same state past. You have no evidence of a different state past. You cannot even find support in your raggedy old book.

Poor dad, without evidence you lose.

You seem to want to pretend science covers past states. Get a grip man

Oh poor dad. Reality does not agree with you. You are here debating, that means you have to go by the rules of debate.

Without evidence you lose.

?? This is news?

That was a request for consistency on your part dad. I know, it is so much fun defeating dad that you decided to get on the band wagon and defeat yourself. Congratulations dad.

Lot of stuff whirring round inside your head we see. Notice an evo is already hinting for you to stop debating? Maybe embarrassment is the reason.

That was a creationist. She even corrected you on that claim.

Great, so it is semi aware of part of reality. So?

No evidence is not aware. Evidence is simply evidence. dad, I will help you learn if you ever want to. Even an old fool can learn if he tries hard enough.

Seek help.

dad, why should I seek help? Are you admitting that you cannot be cured?

I wouldn't dream of trying to out crazy you. Relax.

The only crazy thing I am trying to do is to argue using logic and reason with a person that has neither.

That makes a lot of sense maybe...to Charles Manson.

So are you saying that you want to be called Chuck? You just insulted over half of the world's Christians. Most would laugh at you. I laugh at you.

Explain? How does one do that?

What? You don't know? So it now seems you are saying that you are not a Christian. Please make up your mind, dad!

I have eternal life. Lots of shots I guess. Come on over. Looks like rough waters over there.

Nope, when you are dead, you are dead. No one has ever come back from the dead. dad, how will you support this last claim of yours? I know, by referring to a book of myth.

Without evidence you are wrong dad.