Response to Youtube's AronRa

[SLP]

delete -0 sorry

 

[Aron-Ra]

when I searched for acanthostega on AiG the only article focusing on it was written by Andrew Snelling. A link would've been nice.

Yes and I wish I could show you that, but the mods of this site tell me that debate was then located on a General Apologetics forum which has since been shut down, and my archived discussion is no longer accessible. Much the pity as I compared two of AiG's articles on acanthostega, one written by Snelling and one by someone else a few years later. Both articles showed distortions of data and both contradicted each other. For example, IIRC Snelling said Acanthostega was "just" a salamander who's legs were fully developed and therefore couldn't be considered a transitional species, while the other guy said Acanthostega was "just" a weird fish who's legs and skeleton clearly were NOT able to support its body out of water, and he suggested that it couldn't be a transitional species for THAT reason.

In fact one of the clearest proofs that a specimen is a transitional species is when creationists can't agree on which "kind" they think it should belong to, even though they both agree it should be on "100%" on one side or the other.

Of the two authors, Snelling was obviously the least honest. I've asked the mods of this site to try and make that discussion available to me, and they came back to say that is no longer possible. But one of them said she might be able to copy pieces of it and send those to me as a PM. That will do.

Did he actually claim that he believed the rocks were billions of years old? I'd bet not.

Yes he did. That's how we know he was lying about them when, in 1990, he reported to the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy in Melbourne that "the oldest rocks in the Koongarra area, domes of granitoids and granitic gneiss, are of Archaean age [older than 2.5 billion years]. The Archaean rocks are mantled by Lower Proterozoic [between 2.5 billion and 543 million years old] metasediments: all were later buried deeply, heavily folded and, between 1870 and 1800 million years ago, were subjected to regional metamorphism at considerable temperatures and pressures." There were a number of other references in that article, as in his prior submissions, when he stated similar ages as matters of simple fact. At the same time, he also posted articles to AiG, (then known as the Creation Science Foundation) wherein he very clearly illustrated his bias that he would base his beliefs on what he thought the Bible meant and not on what any amount of evidence actually implied. Indeed the AiG and every other creationist apologetics propaganda mill says much the same thing, as if that wasn't another admission of dishonesty in itself. Instead they act like that kind of unreasonable close-minded dogmatism is something to proud of!

There is no indication that the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy in Melbourne knew that Snelling didn't really believe what he portraying as factually correct. But it is clear in his comments to AiG/CSF that he wilfully rejects any and all evidence that stands against his dogmatic interpretation of his religious doctrine. Both are dishonest.

If I were to interpret things the way you did then I could've given you many examples for part 2 of your challenge. Ken Miller would be number 1 with his "tale of two chromosomes". He confidently claimed that human chromosome 1 was a fusion of what used to be two ape chromosomes. In actuality it was more likely to be a fusion of what used to be two HUMAN chromosomes.

Wrong, and Miller showed why it was wrong, by positively identifying the specific location of the fusion point in, and relation to, the genome of other apes.

The only reason a person would believe that is because he believed in evolution.

No, there are other reasons. Whether you want to accept this or not, humans are a subset of apes -in the same sense that lions are a subset of cats, and iguanas are a subset of lizards, and so on. As I said before, this is a fact easily proven, one which evolution explains, and creationism cannot.

Humans and apes both have exclusive information in our chromosomes.

No we don't. There is not one trait common to all other ape species which is not also found in humans. So Ken Miller did not misrepresent anything, but you just did.

"And AiG's publications of willfully deceitful bigoted tract publications was the catalyst that first pulled me into these debates. They actually said that all Hindus secretly worship the Christian devil!"

didn't find that article either. A link would be nice.

Would it really make a difference? Whether I provide a link or not, you already know you will dismiss it either way no matter what.

It was a Chick track called The Traitor that was handed out in the 1990s, and the back cover gave the number for AnswersInGenesis. It was the first I ever heard of them.

I mentioned Gitt in my second post here.

Yes, and I read SLP's confirmation of my prediction that Gitt's claims would only be either (a) an untestable assumption, blind speculation asserted as fact without any supportive evidence whatsoever, (which is apparently what Gitt hoped it was) or else it would be (b) testable and already known to be wrong. There doesn't appear to be a 3rd category for creationist claims. That's why I am still waiting for you to answer my challenge to produce an exception to that rule by presenting something that is both verifiably accurate and positively indicative of your position.

Jerry Coyne (professor of ecology)- "After all, we want our grants funded by the government, and our schoolchildren exposed to real science instead of creationism. Liberal religious people have been important allies in our struggle against creationism,

True.

and it is not pleasant to alienate them by declaring how we feel.

True.

This is why, as a tactical matter, groups such as the National Academy of Sciences claim that religion and science do not conflict.

True, although there are religious views which really don't conflict at all.

But their main evidence — the existence of religious scientists — is wearing thin as scientists grow ever more vociferous about their lack of faith.

This is true also. The existence of ANY religious scientists, such as Miller's traditional Catholocism, Bakker's Pentacostal ministry, or Dobzhansky's Orthodoxy, -proves that science and religion need not conflict.

In red Coyne admits that he does not really feel that evolution and the bible mix.

He may feel that way, but that is not what he said. Miller and Bakker both feel that the Bible and evolution DO mix, but they still would have used the same phrase Coyne did, as they're both opposed to creationists too.

You see, 'creationist' does not mean 'Christian' or 'theist'. Creationism is defined in part by its rejection of, and objection to, evolution specifically and scientific methodology in general, and also by its dogmatic reverence, and very narrow interpretation of scripture as apriori over evidence of any kind be it logical or physical. Consequently Creationism is literally anti-science because it stands against everything science is or seeks to acheive. How? Primarily by their rejection of methodological naturalism, also known as the scientific method.

In purple he admits that he lies to religious people to get them on their side. Of course he used the euphemism "tactical matter".

I understand and share what I think Coyne is also feeling here, that it would be dishonest to assert as fact that which is not evidently true, and that is what religion does. But that again is not a scientific matter as science does not comment on the existence or non-existence of any god, but leaves the [extremely improbable remote] possibility open, which I do too. There is still no lie to be found here, and the existence of so many Christian evolutionists proves that.

I said they weren't completely different notions. Both are ideas of how life can rise from non life.

Then you said that Louis Pasteur disproved abiogenesis, proving that you don't know the difference between it and Spontaneous generation, the old supernatural explanation which Pasteur disproved.

Spontaneous generation: (proposed by Anaximander in the 6th century BCE, and disproved in a series of of experiments from 1668 to 1861) is the idea that fermentation and putrefaction activates a latent 'vitalism' [spiritual fluid] in all matter, thus recycling organic refuse (garbage) into new forms of already complex [albeit vile] organisms from virus and bacteria all the way to fully-formed animals such as flies and even rats.

Abiogenesis: Propoosed by Rudolph Virchow in 1855, and coined by Thomas Huxley in 1870; the current hypothesis attempting to explain the origin of life by proposing that developtment of life requires a prior matrix, thus an intricate sequence of chemical stages must have enhanced naturally occuring replicative proteins enabling the development of genetic precursers in protobiont cells which would then begin to evolve.
​

If life cannot rise by natural means then it has to rise by supernatural means. I don't see how that is illogical.

You already explained this; If we still haven't figured out how life arose, you suggest that we should give up trying to find the real answer and just assume it happened by magic. But as I already explained, that excuse has never turned out to be the right answer on any occassion when it has ever been applied. That's why I am still waiting for you to point out one occasion in the history of science when assuming supernatural explanations has ever improved our understanding of anything -instead of actually impeding our progress which has apparently always been the inevitable result of all supernatural assumptions. They're made up out of nothing -as excuses pretending to 'know' what no one even can know, as they're untestable, and they offer no practical application of any kind in any field. So what good can it do to call anything a miracle?

The history of science is littered with failed expirements and overturned ideas that were once held as absolute fact.

I agree with the first part of your statement. The purpose of science is to improve understanding, and the only way to do that is to seek out flaws in our current perception and correct them. You obviously can't do that if you won't even admit that any flaws could even exist. That's why science never considers anything 'absolute' fact. That's also why it necessarily must adhere to methodologies which do not permit faith. In fact, by requiring (a) that all positive claims be based on positive evidence, (b) that all such claims must be testable and potentially falsifiable, (c) that the evidence must be factual (objectively verifiable), and (d) that these must withstand critical analysis in peer review, science is the antithesis of faith.

Produce a single verifiably accurate argument of evidence indicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution or any other avenue of actual science. Because you still haven't shown one which you can show to be either (a) positively indicative or (b) verifiably accurate.

I showed you two (and I'm pretty sure a.) was not apart of your original request.

Yes it was. In the last private message I sent you on YouTube, I specifically asked you for a verifiably accurate argument of evidence indicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution or any other avenue of actual science. But you didn't give me anything that actually indicated anything supernatural. What you presented instead was a negative argument wherein you assume that magic is the default position whenever we haven't figured out the real answer yet.

Not only that, but Gitt's option was also based on an assumption which he apparently thought was untestable, so you haven't met either criteria.

Abiogenesis is an evident certainty. We KNOW it happened.

But there is not one example of it.

Not yet, but we still know it happened. It's like waking up in jail with a hangover. Just because you can't yet peice together every detail of how you got there doesn't change the fact that someone put you in there, even if you don't yet know how or why. Or would you say you got there by magic?

Maybe you're not clear on what abiogenesis is. Let's break it down. Bio means life. When you put an 'a' in front of the word it means the exact opposite of. So 'abio' means non life. Genesis means beginning. Abiogenesis literally translates into "non life beginning". Or as we would understand it in english "life beginning from non life". abiogenesis is the supposed theory of life rising from non living material.

I was much more clear when I broke this down for you before. Regardless, whether you accept the 'prior matrix' requirement or not, you clearly do believe that there was once a time when there was no life on this planet, and then there was. I believe it happened naturally. You believe this happened magically. However science can only ever consider natural explanations.

I argued that life can only rise from life.

And that is evidently not the case. The recent breakthroughs in abiogenesis research, (which I showed you earlier) prove that we are getting closer to figuring out exactly how that happened whether you want to admit to that or not. There is never a 'need' for supernatural explanations, and if you resort to supernatural explanations, (ie magic) then you have failed in your attempt to do science.

 

[Aron-Ra]

The RATE team (radioisotopes and the age of the earth) is a joint strike collaboration between CRS and ICR to determine why radiometric dating shows inflated ages for the earth. They obviously assume the bible's truth.

In science, we call that a bias. These are known to skew results such that they are unreliable. That's why science relies on methods to minimize or eliminate bias.

It's also especially sad since the 'truth' you're arguing for contradicts itself throughout, and has been proven wrong on every critical point relevant to this discussion, and was written by ignorant primitives who obviously didn't know what they were talking about, but that is the subject of another thread.

Thusly they assume that all radiometric dating is unreliable.

Even though there is no evidence to indicate that, and a whole lot of independant corroberation to the contrary. Obviously none of that matters to you. Anything and everything which stands against your book of fables must be ignored so that you can still believe the storybook.

They're research has shown that the decay rate of radioactive isotopes have not always been constant.

How did they determine this? And how do we either confirm or refute that claim, since they don't submit these things to peer review?

That is a problem considering that radiometric dating relies on the decay rates being constant. You can also read their research on AiG.

But I can't read it anywhere else, can I? I can only get this information from those who admit to biased results and a prior agenda to automatically dismiss and ignore everything that proves them wrong, people whom we really can show to regularly distort any and all data as necessary in their apologetics.

So why do they not submit this paradigm-shifting data to peer reviewed journals? Should I assume that it is because of a massive, centuries old yet seemless international collaborative conspiracy of unparalleled perfection, the purpose of which is apparently only to deny the existence of a god who only punishes those who deny it, only because they deny it? Again, how could that be when there are, and have always been, so many Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and Hindu scientists independantly supporting evolution and literally nothing from anyone ever showing otherwise? Couldn't it be that the real conspiracy is the one already openly admitted to by all the creationist apologists themselves?

"By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimedevidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."
--Answersingenesis.org

"verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific [sic] and historical as well as moral and theological."
--Institute for Creation Research

"[this school]....stresses the Word of God as the only source of truth in our world."
--Canyon Creek Christian Academy​

"...the autographs of the 66 canonical books of the Bible are objectively inspired, infallible and the inerrant Word of God in all of their parts and in all matters of which they speak (history, theology, science, etc.)."
--Mark Cadwallader's 'Creation Moments'​

"The Bible is the divinely inspired written Word of God. Because it is inspired throughout, it is completely free from error--scientifically, historically, theologically, and morally. Thus it is the absolute authority in all matters of truth, faith, and conduct. The final guide to the interpretation of the Bible is the Bible itself. God's world must always agree with God's Word, because the Creator of the one is the Author of the other. Thus, where physical evidences from the creation may be used to confirm the Bible, these evidences must never be used to correct or interpret the Bible. The written Word must take priority in the event of any apparent conflict."
--Mark Ramsey's 'Greater Houston Creation Association' ​

Revealed truth: That which is revealed in Scripture, whether or not man has scientifically proved it. If it is in the Bible, it is already true without requiring additional proof.
...Fallacy: that which contradicts God's revealed truth, no matter how scientific, how commonly believed, or how apparently workable or logical it may seem
--Bob Jones University, Biology Student Text (3rd ed.- 2 vol.) ​

You may consider such obstinance virtuous, but I can only consider it dishonest, because it literally means you're going to keep believing whatever what you want regardless what the truth may turn out to be.

You're lying almost constantly now. Don't you remember when you admitted that you reject -by definitional fiat- that new words may be created if they are made out of letters that are already there? You even said that new words aren't formed by rearranging letters in old words. Different words are.

How is that a lie?

First of all, because anything that is 'different' than what was already there is -by definition- 'new'. Secondly, because after you provided erroneous, conveniently self-serving, and non-scientific definitions of 'information', you then added another criteria of your own, stating that you would also reject any new combination within DNA.

i added no new criteria that was not implied in the definition.

Yes you did. You demanded that you wouldn't accept any combination or recombination of the four chemical 'letters' represented by adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T). Instead you insisted that there be other [letters?] appearing out of nowhere. This would be impossible of course, but you clarified that is what you meant! Metherion reprimanded you for this too. But now you deny that you ever even wrote what we both read from you.

Since you have demonstrated that you will not ever admit your own errors, no matter how obvious, it becomes necessary to abandon the strategy of trying to explain anything to you.

Example?

Everything that I and those in the peanut gallery have already corrected you on thus far.

You should really start quoting me when you think I'm lying so I can correct your misunderstanding.

That's what the peanut gallery is for. Although so far, Christians and atheists alike have only corrected your misunderstanding, and they've all seen the same errors in your arguments that I do.

He is one of the many proofs that Jerry Coyne wasn't lying, but that you were -when you assumed that "every observer" agrees with you.

I never said that.

Yes you did, liar, in your 2nd submission to this discussion, post #4, in the same sentence where you also lied about whether I had ever once asked you for evidence that your scriptures were correct. But of course that's what creationism is, thoughtless endorsement of doctrine regardless of evidence.

and based on your answers there, I might have just one more set of clarifying questions before I present proof of new genetic information arising by mutation.

Ask them here

I already did, but you deleted and ignored them all. So I'll repost some of them.

There must be a change so what results is not what was there before. I.e. GTCA->GTTCA. Or GTCA->GCTA. Or GTCA->GCA (yes, a deletion is a change).

if it is different than the one before... isn’t it new? After all, it wasn’t there before, and it just formed. How is that not ‘new’?

And it actually CAN progress evolution. Change a letter in the code, you can change a 3 letter codon. Change a 3 letter codon, you can change an amino acid in a protein. Change an amino acid you can completely change the protein. Natural selection can act on a creature using a different protein vs using the old one. Ta da.

Which has more information?
GTCA
GTTCA
GCA
GCTA

And, if GTCA is the ‘original’, are any of the 3 following ‘new’?

GTCA<-original
GTTCA
GCA&#8232;GCTA

Which of them has the most information? Which the least?
If the indicated is the original, are any of the following new?
​

Maybe this time you'll be good enough to answer these. But I doubt it, because you still haven't adequately or accurately answered any of my previous challenges. It seems you're already well aware that your position has no strengths. So you've obviously based your whole argment on what you perceive as a weaknesses in science, and you've repeatedly demonstrated that you won't honorably admit even the slightest error. So I want to make sure your goal posts are firmly cemented before I make my kick.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Well it's been two weeks since my last post to this forum, and I find myself quoting Carroll again; "But answer came there none".

 

[DaisyDay]

"And that was scarcely odd because they'd eaten every one."

 

[Aron-Ra]

As it seems my opponent has fled with his alleged "truth" tucked behind his legs, and I find no reason to keep typing in this thread, I'll let fellow YouTuber, DonExodus2 deliver the closing argument that ExgamerLegends asked for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfybuMJVWj0

 

[RositaW]

Or did the Christian God just come into existence somewhere before time and the Big Bang began? Where there other gods there as well?

How could a super complex mind come from nothing? Every complex mind we know of comes from the brains of extremely complex animals. The simpler the animal the simpler the mind. The simplest of animals does not even have awareness. A disembodied Super Mind would have to be extremely complex. So how do we explain the origins of a divine complexity? If such a complex being could just puff into existence then why do we need a theory of creation?

 

[Ozowen]

Nice to come over to these forums and find AaronRa here.
Although I don't share his atheism I do admire his approach and the way he thinks.

I think those of us who are believers ought reconsider trying to prove God's existence. Most of the approaches to this I have ever seen are awful. Belief in God is subjective. It is also not in any way linked to the creationist cult.

 

[Christian-Catholic]

"When we didn't yet have a scientific explanation for lightning, disease, epilepsy, volcanos, or comets, did we "already believe" theories we didn't yet even have? We already know life-forms evolve. Darwin was simply the first to adequately explain that."

Thats an assertion that I dont think that you truely believe right aron-ra?
Why not put this statement and your faith to the test here Cosmic Fingerprints[bless and do not curse]|[bless and do not curse]Where Did the Universe Come From? Was it started byâ&#8364;¦ God?

I used to believe that Darwinian evolution was in no conflict with the bible until I fully understood what they were asserting, than after fully understanding it as was explained by Perry Marshall (god Bless him) that even if evolution evolved it couldnt have happened in the way that Darwin stated that it did, not only do the fossil records not show it but they also show that mathametically the origin of life under dawinian belief is a total failure.
My guess is that you will keep trolling here and not go to a place where your dogmatic beliefs will make your world view sweat buckets
God bless

 

[Christian-Catholic]

Nice to come over to these forums and find AaronRa here.
Although I don't share his atheism I do admire his approach and the way he thinks.

I think those of us who are believers ought reconsider trying to prove God's existence. Most of the approaches to this I have ever seen are awful. Belief in God is subjective. It is also not in any way linked to the creationist cult.

just because there are some explanations to Gods existence that arent that good doesnt mean that there are others that arent better. Perry marshall's information theory (ok it wasnt originally his but you get my point) is excellent in showing in a broad sense that belief in God is very much in line with rationalism and science. In fact in my opinion it is the best one I have seen yet. After going through his site i quickly understood why atheism will soon be on a decline as people learn to think for themselves instead of what darwin and dawkins tell them to think.

Cosmic Fingerprints[bless and do not curse]|[bless and do not curse]Where Did the Universe Come From? Was it started byâ&#8364;¦ God?

 

[Nostromo]

Perry Marshall's argument debunked [here]. There's a summary of important posts in the first post.

It doesn't take a genius to see where his reasoning is faulty, but that doesn't seem to matter. He and his followers will carry on punching the air in victory, and if you genuinely had learned to think for yourself you wouldn't be one of them.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I used to believe that Darwinian evolution was in no conflict with the bible until I fully understood what they were asserting,

The problem is not that evolution conflicts with the Bible; the problem is that the Bible conflicts with the whole of reality.

than after fully understanding it as was explained by Perry Marshall (god Bless him) that even if evolution evolved it couldnt have happened in the way that Darwin stated that it did, not only do the fossil records not show it

Of course it does.

but they also show that mathametically the origin of life under dawinian belief is a total failure.

If you're up to it, then I would challenge you to defend your nonsense allegation -speaking in your own words of course.

 

[Christian-Catholic]

Aronra, you think if you keep repeating these words then maybe someone will be hypnotised into believing you. If your too ignorant to do your research (or as deceptive as I believe that you are and everyone else will see when Im done posting these videos) then I suggest to take your one line dumbed up posts somewhere else.
The bible has the best historicity by far of any ancient document on earth, but lets get back to the honesty, integrity and rationality of our REVEREND RA. I dont like dismantling anyones reputation but THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE. This is why most atheist debaters are on you tube trying to push their lies while their professional debating brethren are getting their collective behinds handed to them by people like Habermas, Craig, Zacharias and others.
God Bless the great reverend ra!!!!!!!!!


This is the amazingly honest Aronra in action!!!!!!!
watch everyone as his amazing research and accuracy is at its best

YouTube - Why Doesn&#39;t Anyone Question AronRa? (Part 1)


This is Aronra again preaching to his drones (oops meant choir)
YouTube - Why Doesn&#39;t Anyone Question AronRa? (Part 2)


And Reverend RA ending it with amazing trustworthiness, Folks you have just got to take this man on his word
Preach it reverend ra you da man!!!!
YouTube - Why Doesn&#39;t Anyone Question AronRa? (Part 3)

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

So I like getting a look at the otherside and went with the first video.

I'll be adding what I notice in it here.
1. An arguement by prison population being more religious, meaning religious people committing more crimes.
The counter arguement brought up is that we do not know what their religion was before hand.his defense for the over 80% judeo-christian prison population is that for all we know they all had a sudden conversion the moment they got put in jail? Interesting hypothesis.

2. Destroying the opponent and convincing people to your side just like that at the beginning of the arguement.
I notice how this accusation is made in response to the claim of creationists about evolution and he actually provides evidence in the form of pictures with every word he uses. If you want to call it destroying the opponent, okay. But when the evidence actually shows that creationism survives on said hoaxes, distortions and dissinformation AND evidence is provided to show he is not just making it up, why would you not take a second to point out the projection involved there?

3. Hoaxes, frauds and exposures.
Now I had to rewind a few times to make sure I actually heard this correctly.. His examples are..
A. "Headlines screamed that Miller-Urey experiment created life from non-life"
B. "[Headlines screamed] that Tiktaalik was the final missing transitional form between sea to land animals. "
C. "The piltdown man hoax, brought up by THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY in an attempt to forward evolution."

Now A&B he actually admits in the video that these are "Headlines screaming" and indeed the media makes a grand display of anything it can get its hands on, but I am pretty sure that within the scientific community, or even anyone that knew what they where talking about. Neither of these things where ever uttered. So we can dismiss both of these as the media sensationalising the news like they do with everything else and its well beyond the control of the people making the original more down to earth claim.
When we get to C though it gets really interesting considering that this actually proves RA's point for him in that the hoax was discovered and corrected by scientists. The fact that it toke a while is regretful but we can clearly see that RA was right and the hoax was corrected by the scientific community. Now be shock and awe if you are surprised that very same scientific community the maker of the vid tells us conspired to use peltdown man in order to advance evolution corrects it. So indeed, science holds within it a mechanism to seek out and correct these things

4. A chart is put up without reference and it does not match the data of the USA, though the talk itself is shown by the maker to still be correct due to the fact atheism did in fact increase.
However using a false chart is a rather serious bit of deceit, maybe we should look at what RA had to say on the subject though?

I haven't lied. I mistook a foreign chart for an American one, but&#65279; nothing I said was based on that chart. Everything I said is still correct.

Its right there in the comments for his own original video. Not deceit mearly an admitted mistake. Though I do think he should have put a correction somewhere that would be immediatly apparent.

5. A slide naming a few things atheists do less then christians.
As counter arguement we are shown what appears to be a article about how more religious christians (measured by church attendance) are less criminal then less religious christians.
If it is then I do not see why that would make a good case with regards to christianity vs atheism.
However I will say I did not look further into this so I could be wrong but judging by the awesomely reliable content we have seen so far I am not holding my breath.

So far no major flaws and certainly nothing that could be taken as evidence of dishonesty.

But I will credit Equestions for his ability to make pretty nice video's. I do not think however I will be looking at his other vids for a bit.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Aronra, you think if you keep repeating these words then maybe someone will be hypnotised into believing you. If your too ignorant to do your research (or as deceptive as I believe that you are and everyone else will see when Im done posting these videos) then I suggest to take your one line dumbed up posts somewhere else.

I already dealt with these overtly dishonest accusations on another forum, the LeagueofReason forums, where Equestions refused to venture. Hopefully I won't have to cut-and-paste everything already said in that forum. Suffice it to say that I showed where Equestions had lied several times, but that I had not lied even once. Can you show one such example?

 

[Darkeonz]

I would say that your incompetence is truly deserving of an award, but among creationists, the competition is stiff!

you aarrrsehooooole haha

 

[Darkeonz]

If people accept micro evolution, why don't they accept macro evolution. If micro evolution happens again and again for millions of years, eventually it'll be big changes right?

 

[Naraoia]

If people accept micro evolution, why don't they accept macro evolution. If micro evolution happens again and again for millions of years, eventually it'll be big changes right?

It's not quite as simple as that. Here's one very recent (currently in press, I've only just started reading it) study that disagrees with the idea that evolution is/was the same at all levels. Here's a slightly older review that isn't sure.

 

[Gracchus]

OK! I started on the first video and the first thing I noticed was the claim that people in prison are more religious than those outside.

If that is so, it is probably because the people in prison tend to be those of the lower IQ's. (The smart criminals become preachers or politicians, and grow rich and famous, and only end up in jail because they become arrogant and careless.) So, because convicts are not very bright, they make bad decisions and tend to believe incredible (Literally!) things. Smart people are smart enough to pretend to believe, and dumb ones end up in prison.

So it isn't "post hoc, ergo propter hoc". But on the other hand, "By their fruits you shall know them", and if religious people aren't morally superior to non-religious people... What's the point of religion?



Oh! Wait! If all those religious people weren't religious they would all be out murdering, stealing, committing adultery, marching off to war, molesting children and becoming Republicans.

Oh! Wait!

Never mind!

 

[DrkSdBls]

Christian-Catholic?

Poe or Absolutely Diluted?