For Creationists.....

[gamespotter10]

I'm blaming you for not being able to look through our interpretive glasses.

I think a lot of professional Creationist are really awesome. Like Michael Oard for example, who realized that the K/T boundary was not synchronous around the world. I really admire this sort of research.

there isn't a single piece of evidence that refutes the theory of evolution. we've seen evolution in nature and in laboratories.

In a laboratory, (my source is wikipedia and talk origins archive), fruit flies were bread and isolated. over time, new species of fruit flies appeared. for all you creationists out there, that's macroevolution. macroevolution is testable, observable, and repeatable.

another thing, there is absolutely no barrier to large change. no mechanism has been found that prevents large changes via mutation.

Evolution is science. Creationism is religion. Pure 100% religion

 

[RichardT]

I am not familar with him. Do you have any web links?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/m_oard.asp
http://www.creationresearch.org/speakers/bio_oard.htm

 

[gamespotter10]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/m_oard.asp
http://www.creationresearch.org/speakers/bio_oard.htm

I woulden't trust those websites. they have extreme religious bias, and a profound misunderstanding of the theory (why the **** is it still called a theory? someone enlighten me as to why this is) of evolution

 

[RichardT]

In a laboratory, (my source is wikipedia and talk origins archive), fruit flies were bread and isolated. over time, new species of fruit flies appeared. for all you creationists out there, that's macroevolution. macroevolution is testable, observable, and repeatable.

Dude. I know. Which is why some creationists have even invented the word "mega-evolution" to signify the evolution of organisms from an older strata to the next.

 

[gamespotter10]

Dude. I know. Which is why some creationists have even invented the word "mega-evolution" to signify the evolution of organisms from an older strata to the next.

mega evolution?

 

[RichardT]

I woulden't trust those websites. they have extreme religious bias, and a profound misunderstanding of the theory (why the **** is it still called a theory? someone enlighten me as to why this is) of evolution

This would just be your misunderstanding of what "theory" means in science.

 

[RichardT]

mega evolution?

Actually, I think Chris Ashcraft invented it, I don't think it's very popular. It comes from this article.

http://nwcreation.net/evolution_creation.html

 

[gamespotter10]

Actually, I think Chris Ashcraft invented it, I don't think it's very popular. It comes from this article.

http://nwcreation.net/evolution_creation.html

how's that supposed to work?

Is that the idea that the ark had 16,000 animals and all of the animals on earth evolved from them?

 

[TheOutsider]

Dude. I know. Which is why some creationists have even invented the word "mega-evolution" to signify the evolution of organisms from an older strata to the next.

And the Creationists have moved the goalposts once again. For them micro-evolution is at the Species level and macro-evolution is at the Genus level. I suppose mega-evolution is the Family level. I bet Kingdom level will be called Ultra-Super-Duper evolution.

 

[RichardT]

This message is hidden because TheOutsider is on your ignore list.

yeah.

 

[TheOutsider]

yeah.

You are still doing a horrible job at ignoring me. It's really a shame because I was going to point out this sentence in your last link:

You can not deny macro-evolution outright

Like I said, more goalpost moving.

 

[RichardT]

This message is hidden because TheOutsider is on your ignore list.

Nice argument you've got there.

 

[RichardT]

how's that supposed to work?

Is that the idea that the ark had 16,000 animals and all of the animals on earth evolved from them?

The way I understand it is that all of these new alleles come from genetic recombination because of environmental (post-flood) pressures, and that mutations are not the cause of this. But biology really isn't my thing.

 

[UnknownUsername]

Nice argument you've got there.

I wasn't going to say anything before. I really wasn't. When I saw that you put him on ignore during a debate, I said to myself that I wouldn't say anything.

But honestly, that is a ridiculous thing to do. Yes, let's put someone on ignore, because they disagree with me. To be honest, this is really mild 'flaming' or whatever you consider him to be doing. Putting him on ignore is the same as hanging up on someone or slamming a door in someone's face during a debate. It's infantile and childish, and I had hoped that you'd be above it.

If you're going to ignore him, stop posting that you can't see his posts, because this is ridiculous.

 

[RichardT]

I wasn't going to say anything before. I really wasn't. When I saw that you put him on ignore during a debate, I said to myself that I wouldn't say anything.

But honestly, that is a ridiculous thing to do. Yes, let's put someone on ignore, because they disagree with me. To be honest, this is really mild 'flaming' or whatever you consider him to be doing. Putting him on ignore is the same as hanging up on someone or slamming a door in someone's face during a debate. It's infantile and childish, and I had hoped that you'd be above it.

If you're going to ignore him, stop posting that you can't see his posts, because this is ridiculous.

I didn't put him on ignore because I disagreed with him, but because of the fact that he would always flame me.

"Can somebody possibly be that dense"
"Anyone who believes (what I believe) is an idiot"

etc etc etc...

 

[TheOutsider]

I wasn't going to say anything before. I really wasn't. When I saw that you put him on ignore during a debate, I said to myself that I wouldn't say anything.

But honestly, that is a ridiculous thing to do. Yes, let's put someone on ignore, because they disagree with me. To be honest, this is really mild 'flaming' or whatever you consider him to be doing. Putting him on ignore is the same as hanging up on someone or slamming a door in someone's face during a debate. It's infantile and childish, and I had hoped that you'd be above it.

If you're going to ignore him, stop posting that you can't see his posts, because this is ridiculous.

That you for saying that, but I really couldn't care less if he ignores me. He is just some kid who knows nothing about science trying to pretend like he does by linking to a bunch of crap Creationist sites. If he wants to ignore me, that is his perogative. I'm still going to point out why all of his arguments are wrong though.

And to correct him, I actually said "You cannot possibly be that dense" because I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[UnknownUsername]

I didn't put him on ignore because I disagreed with him, but because of the fact that he would always flame me.

"Can somebody possibly be that dense"
"Anyone who believes (what I believe) is an idiot"

etc etc etc...

I've seen and dealt with far worse flaming than that. In those situations, ignore shouldn't be the option you take. State why you believe what you believe, and argue your points. If he disagrees, but doesn't explain why, call him out on it. Ignore should be a last ditch effort, only for use in the most extremely offensive situations.

And btw, Outsider, I didn't post it to defend you. I posted it because I felt like the whole situation was stupid, and ignore is a forum function that shouldn't exist. But you're welcome, nonetheless.

 

[TheOutsider]

And btw, Outsider, I didn't post it to defend you. I posted it because I felt like the whole situation was stupid, and ignore is a forum function that shouldn't exist. But you're welcome, nonetheless.

I know, it's gotten stupid but.. um.. er.. he started it! I'm gonna go tell mom!
If he takes me off of ignore, I'll promise to be nicer. It is very frustrating to deal with geocentrists though.

 

[UnknownUsername]

I know, it's gotten stupid but.. um.. er.. he started it! I'm gonna go tell mom!
If he takes me off of ignore, I'll promise to be nicer. It is very frustrating to deal with geocentrists though.

Too bad he can't see that promise.

Wait, can he if I quote it?

 

[RichardT]

Too bad he can't see that promise.

Wait, can he if I quote it?

Yes.