Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[john9blue]

Dumbest reason to resurrect this topic...

[PLAYER57832]

Atheists, led by PZ Myers have zerged Ken Ham's creation "museum." Quite a few people are twitting the event, and PZ has his own as well.

Seems everyone is having fun. I'm slightly jealous.

The one in Florida was shut down. Owner failed to pay taxes, repeatedly.

[PLAYER57832]

Dumbest reason to resurrect this topic...

I agree, but I am still waiting for any real evidence against Evolution.

And, as a Christian, just the fact that so many leading Creationists find it necessary to flat out lie speaks volumes.

[Rustovitch]

Dumbest reason to resurrect this topic...

I agree, but I am still waiting for any real evidence against Evolution.

And, as a Christian, just the fact that so many leading Creationists find it necessary to flat out lie speaks volumes.

I think there is dishonesty from both sides, because the majority of participants in such a debate are arguing from a position of orthodoxy and dogma, be that their perception of scientific consensus or their religion.

As for evidence against evolution, some creationists might ask for some evidence in its favour.

[Neoteny]

Dumbest reason to resurrect this topic...

Most unnecessary post of the topic. Should I have started a new topic?

f*ck off.

[john9blue]

Most unnecessary post of the topic. Should I have started a new topic?

f*ck off.

I've been quoted several times. We're starting a productive discussion actually. Sorry to steal your excitement over this immature IRL trolling.

[Neoteny]

O rly. A productive discussion on creationist lies and naughty dogma. Sounds right up your alley. You aren't stealing anything other than a little more exasperation.

As for the real life trolling, all those involved paid their way in and acted courteously to their hosts. The goal of the trip was to become better acquainted with an archaic belief system that is vociferously anti-science, so as to better counteract it. Troll away.

[Neoteny]

Now, if you think the post does not tickle your fancy, that's fine, but if you think that a link to a current event that involves a prominent proponent of science education visiting a bastion of anti-science curiosities does not apply to a thread whose title is "Evolution vs Creation" then you have just written the most retarded thing I've read in at least a month, discussion of it aside.

[MeDeFe]

ok, what exactly did they do? How do you zerg someone? I know where the term comes from, but still... I don't know what to make of the verb 'to zerg'.

[Neoteny]

To swarm, basically.

[Frigidus]

[PLAYER57832]

Dumbest reason to resurrect this topic...

I agree, but I am still waiting for any real evidence against Evolution.

And, as a Christian, just the fact that so many leading Creationists find it necessary to flat out lie speaks volumes.

I think there is dishonesty from both sides, because the majority of participants in such a debate are arguing from a position of orthodoxy and dogma, be that their perception of scientific consensus or their religion.

As for evidence against evolution, some creationists might ask for some evidence in its favour.

You are wrong. The evidence is there. Creationists only persist in their view because they believe a few flat out liers who deny things like transition fossils exist, deny that carbon dating is accurate (yes, it has a wide range, but that's like saying because your car speedometer doesn't measure millimeters, it is "completely inaccurate").

That is the trouble. Science requires proof and testing and evidence. Have there, at times been mistakes? Absolutely! However, that does not mean that any theory anyone wishes to come up with is "equal". The problem is not that Creationism is based on religion. I and the majority of Christtians who truly understand both Evolution and the Bible DO accept that the two should meld. There is no conflict, just unanswered questions in some areas.

HOWEVER< that is not what Creationists do. Creationism does not simply question Evolutionary theory or scientific principals, it denys them. Worse, it does so in the pretext of presenting truth... scientifically accurate truth.

Saying that "transition fossils do not exist" does not make them go away. Claims that they are misinterpreted are constantly being considered. However, at some point you don't need to re-prove that carbon put under intense pressure and heat creates diamonds. You don't need to reprove that if you see the exact same strata on one side of a valley as you see on another, it is evidence of erosion on a massive scale.

The scientific community fought long and hard to prove Darwin's basic ideas were true (not all the details), to show that Evolution was the almost certain reality, that at any rate, the Earth is not a mere thousands of years old.

Did Creationists counter this with real evidence, by publishing dat and presenting it? NO! Instead they convinced millions of parents to homeschool their kids so their kids would not learn science. Would not learn science precisely when it was moving forward at phenomenal rates.

Now all that is erased. Erased NOT because the ideas encompassing Evolution were disproven, but erased because a generation of kids has now been raised to not even understand what Evolution really entails or to learn anything of the evidence put forward in its defense.

This is not truth, it is not Christianity. Christianity does not need to lie, does not deny truth and certainly does not operate by telling children untruths.

Challenge? of course you cannot take it up. Anything I say is "simply a lie" Nevermind that you can find the proofs in any museum, all over the internet, in most case just outside your door. If Dr Morris says it does not exist.. then he is telling the truth and EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST ON EARTH for the past 200 years has been lying, is more stupid than the 12 year old kid learning Creationism.

[john9blue]

Now, if you think the post does not tickle your fancy, that's fine, but if you think that a link to a current event that involves a prominent proponent of science education visiting a bastion of anti-science curiosities does not apply to a thread whose title is "Evolution vs Creation" then you have just written the most retarded thing I've read in at least a month, discussion of it aside.

Sorry but it's no secret that I dislike atheists' methods. I don't agree with what the Creation Museum is trying to say (as much as you love to categorize me as dogmatic or whatever...) but you can't call it a "zerg rush" and then be like, "they acted courteously to their hosts and became better acquainted".

[joecoolfrog]

Dumbest reason to resurrect this topic...

Oh do grow up , its about time that these fantasy creationist young earthers were shown up for what they are, their ' science ' is a joke and it simply belittles the educational reputation of large parts of the USA.

[PLAYER57832]

Dumbest reason to resurrect this topic...

Oh do grow up , its about time that these fantasy creationist young earthers were shown up for what they are, their ' science ' is a joke and it simply belittles the educational reputation of large parts of the USA.

I wish it were only the reputation that was being belittled!

Sadly, a recent poll showed 30% of adults believe Creationism. I will add that a large part of that is almost certainly becuase they don't know what is really being taught as Creationism. I mean, if you consider "Creationism" to mean just that God created all, then I am one. However, I accept the evidence for Evolution.

[PLAYER57832]

Just to be provocative would you agree that if God exists there must have been a creation event of some kind?

A creation Event is not in question. I firmly believe there was one. I also believe God was there, essentially, manipulating (or overseeing, however) evolution, etc.

But Widowmakers asserts that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, that evolution was essentially just a theory created to disprove Christianity, that there are no transition fossils, that everything we see here today survived Noah's flood with only minor variation since... etc. Those things are just not true.

[Rustovitch]

You are wrong. The evidence is there. Creationists only persist in their view because they believe a few flat out liers who deny things like transition fossils exist, deny that carbon dating is accurate (yes, it has a wide range, but that's like saying because your car speedometer doesn't measure millimeters, it is "completely inaccurate").

I did not actually say that the evidence was not there, you misread what I posted. I can actually see where they are coming from with regards the fossils, as for carbon dating... it is not just slightly inaccurate... people have carbon dated still living turtles as being older than the species. When results of carbon dating mesh with consensus they are valid, when they disagree they are ignored, thats not science.

That is the trouble. Science requires proof and testing and evidence. Have there, at times been mistakes? Absolutely! However, that does not mean that any theory anyone wishes to come up with is "equal". The problem is not that Creationism is based on religion. I and the majority of Christtians who truly understand both Evolution and the Bible DO accept that the two should meld. There is no conflict, just unanswered questions in some areas.

HOWEVER< that is not what Creationists do. Creationism does not simply question Evolutionary theory or scientific principals, it denys them. Worse, it does so in the pretext of presenting truth... scientifically accurate truth.

And a true scientist needs to forgo a lot of what you have just said. It does not matter that creationists are unscientific, if their claims are simply dismissed as wrong without being subjected to the scientific logic they may or may have employed then what you are left with is an argument two rival religions.

The scientific community fought long and hard to prove Darwin's basic ideas were true

[/quote]

Don't ever say that to a creationist, especially not to a scientific creationist, it completly destroys your case.

[PLAYER57832]

You are wrong. The evidence is there. Creationists only persist in their view because they believe a few flat out liers who deny things like transition fossils exist, deny that carbon dating is accurate (yes, it has a wide range, but that's like saying because your car speedmeter doesn't measure millimeters, it is "completely inaccurate").

I did not actually say that the evidence was not there, you misread what I posted. I can actually see where they are coming from with regards the fossils, as for carbon dating... it is not just slightly inaccurate... people have carbon dated still living turtles as being older than the species. When results of carbon dating mesh with consensus they are valid, when they disagree they are ignored, thats not science.

EXCEPT, this is not really what has happened. Carbon dating is not even the most common standard for dating fossils, becuase there usually is little carbon left. Carbon dating is used for preserved remains of various types. Even then, used alone, it is not entirely accurate. Again, "not accurate: in the same way that an odometer is not "accurate" -- well, not for measuring carpet in your house, but it will give you a decent idea of how far the next town is! Carbon dating gets you "in the neighborhood". Then tree rings, seeds, styles, various other things (far too many, too complicate to list here) are used for more precise dates. In some cases, this can be very, very, very accurate. In others -- we just have a general, "in the neighborhood" idea. (think of giving directions to a house in a town versus to finding a small pond or rock on a big ranch devoid of many landmarks)

That is the trouble. Science requires proof and testing and evidence. Have there, at times been mistakes? Absolutely! However, that does not mean that any theory anyone wishes to come up with is "equal". The problem is not that Creationism is based on religion. I and the majority of Christtians who truly understand both Evolution and the Bible DO accept that the two should meld. There is no conflict, just unanswered questions in some areas.

HOWEVER< that is not what Creationists do. Creationism does not simply question Evolutionary theory or scientific principals, it denys them. Worse, it does so in the pretext of presenting truth... scientifically accurate truth.

And a true scientist needs to forgo a lot of what you have just said. It does not matter that creationists are unscientific, if their claims are simply dismissed as wrong without being subjected to the scientific logic they may or may have employed then what you are left with is an argument two rival religions.

Just wrong. And the fact that Creationist persist in saying this over and over is why I say they are flat out lying.


To begin, this is not about "two rival religions". It is about ONE very narrow BRANCH of ONE RELIGION -- a group of Christians, versus EVERYONE else, including a good number of firm believing and Bible-reading Christians! The exceptions, those who are not conservative Christians but believe the Earth is young are very, very, very few in any modern society with any sort of education basis.

The reality is that MOST people thought the world was pretty young. Christians, in particular (though Jews, interestingly, were always a bit more "iffy"). However, for the most part, people also just put it in the category of something they really did not know. It was a big assumption, not something anyone really had the skills or ability to analyze or question. Think about it, people had only recently fully understood that the world was round! The idea of anything being millions or billions of years was just not something easily grasped.


The fight to prove otherwise was long and hard. It came after EVIDENCE, piled upon EVIDENCe, piled upon EVIDENCE. Creationism was not ignored, it was DISPROVEN.

Unfortunately, science began to move perhaps too quickly. Probably too many scientists got excited about the new discoveries. Leave the teaching to the "women", to those who cannot do "real" research. Of course, there were absolutely wonderful teachers who did fantastic jobs of passing on what science means, of showing kids how scientists have and do come to accept what is "accepted" (to the extend anything is accepted in science). However, too many times, those teaching kids did not understand or like these concepts. Too often they were presented as a set of unquestionable facts, without anyone really and truly explaining why those thoughts are true. Again, good teachers did that, but good teachers of science, particularly at the elementary level, are hard to find.

The higher up, the more technical, the worse it gets. Understanding all of these proofs IS complicated DOES take a great deal of time. It is critical that these concepts are taught early on. That is, that kids are shown the proofs that DO exist, are taught to question and TEST ideas in science. Creationists pretend to do this, but what they really do is say "science is wrong", believe this because we say so! They say "scientists want you to believe what they say, because they are misguided or evil". Problem is, to do that means flat out lying, telling kids proof does not exist, when it really does, etc.

In the specific case of Evolution, you have multitudes of fossil evidence imbedded in many, many rock layers. Unlike what is posted on Creationist website, these layers are quite distinct and seperate. There are "disjoints" /fractures -- areas where Earth quakes have offset. There are "protrusions" areas where magma (volcanic melted rock) pushed up into the rock. There are areas of erosion, sedimentation, etc, etc, etc. Some areas were twisted. Some tilted. It can get very, very, very complex. HOWEVER, it is all there.

Another fact Creationist claim "does not exist" are transition fossils. IN fact, there are many, many, many. Do we have all transition fossils? No. BUT, considering how very difficult it is to form a fossil, this is not a surprise at all. In fact, that we have as many fossils as we do, that we keep finind more is the surprise. Creationists like to claim that those fossils were merely "misinterpreted". However, again, the evidence, the reasoning is all laid out. Except, again, it is very, very, very complicated.

EACH of the above issues takes not just one person a lifetime to truly understand, but it take MANY scientists lifetimes to discover and understand. You CAN "quick study" and find that information, track down the proofs, BUT, yes, you do have to trust that the information printed in journals is true, that museums are not out there faking fossils, etc.

Sadly, that trust has been firmly dismissed. Young kids are taught that scientists are just liars out to disprove Christianity.

The scientific community fought long and hard to prove Darwin's basic ideas were true

Don't ever say that to a creationist, especially not to a scientific creationist, it completly destroys your case.

WRONG.

First, it IS the truth. History is there. The transition from a predominance of young earth theorists to Old Earth theorists is very well documented. The transition did occur quickly, phenomenally so, becuase by then communication was very quick and becuase the proofs were so very, very, solid. Again, I know full well Creationists pretend this is not the case, but I challenge you to really study the issue. No time? ... gee, seems like that is what all Creationists claim.

I ask again and again and again for these so-called "proofs" that are "ignored" and they NEVER come out! NOT ONE! They say "you are just looking at different facts" (say what? Facts are facts .. or they are NOT FACTS!, they are opinions!) or "you just listen to scientists" (and you are not "just listening to Creationists ). NEVER do you folks actually give evidence or proof -- you point to "experts", who themselves are just wrong.

The irc websites are getting more cagey. They used to print many of those so-called proofs right up front. Now they don't. Why? because they are so easily disproven!

Look over the websites today and most of what passes for "proof" is "lack of evidence". Lack of proof is NOT PROOF! It just means you have not found the answer yet -- not that no answer exists. That alone is a big reason why Creationist get derided so heavily in the scientific community. I take a recent article in the Echina (may have misspelled it -- the Autralian egg-laying creature). The article touted a 4 year long study, went into great length about the difficulty of conducting the study (night, etc.). Then it jumps to "there is no link, no evidence that this came from .." I don't know how much fossil evidence exists on this particular animal. I DO know that NO SCIENTIST should EVER make a statement like that based on a 4 year study of modern animals. I can point to studies of fish that have gone of for DECADES without real conclusion of some issues. We can barely even identify many corals, never mind understand their full fossil record, and corals are largely hard shells! They are among the most well-preserved of species in the fossil record!

Again, what you show is how little you know of real proofs, real evidence that DOES exist. But denying that evidence does not exist is not proof, nor is it the Christian way. Ask yourself this? If, as you say, this is "just a dispute between religions", then why is it that Creationists --CREATIONISTS, NOT EVOLUTIONISTS -- refuse to debate these issues with the scientific community and instead concentrate on teaching kids simply to not accept anything scientists say because they are all a bunch of liars against Christianity.

[Neoteny]

Now, if you think the post does not tickle your fancy, that's fine, but if you think that a link to a current event that involves a prominent proponent of science education visiting a bastion of anti-science curiosities does not apply to a thread whose title is "Evolution vs Creation" then you have just written the most retarded thing I've read in at least a month, discussion of it aside.

Sorry but it's no secret that I dislike atheists' methods. I don't agree with what the Creation Museum is trying to say (as much as you love to categorize me as dogmatic or whatever...) but you can't call it a "zerg rush" and then be like, "they acted courteously to their hosts and became better acquainted".

Except I can. Because it really was just a large number of well-behaved atheists. They knew in advance they were coming (the museum even set up a tent for them). I don't give a shit if you like or dislike "methods" which differ from person to person. Your initial post is still a 10 on the retard scale.

[Rustovitch]

EXCEPT, this is not really what has happened. Carbon dating is not even the most common standard for dating fossils, becuase there usually is little carbon left. Carbon dating is used for preserved remains of various types. Even then, used alone, it is not entirely accurate. Again, "not accurate: in the same way that an odometer is not "accurate" -- well, not for measuring carpet in your house, but it will give you a decent idea of how far the next town is! Carbon dating gets you "in the neighborhood".

Well we will just have to agree to disagree, but there are well documented and recurrent reports of carbon dating producing results that diverge wildly with the consensus.

Then tree rings, seeds, styles, various other things (far too many, too complicate to list here) are used for more precise dates. In some cases, this can be very, very, very accurate. In others -- we just have a general, "in the neighborhood" idea. (think of giving directions to a house in a town versus to finding a small pond or rock on a big ranch devoid of many landmarks)

That is the trouble. Science requires proof and testing and evidence. Have there, at times been mistakes? Absolutely! However, that does not mean that any theory anyone wishes to come up with is "equal". The problem is not that Creationism is based on religion. I and the majority of Christtians who truly understand both Evolution and the Bible DO accept that the two should meld. There is no conflict, just unanswered questions in some areas.

HOWEVER< that is not what Creationists do. Creationism does not simply question Evolutionary theory or scientific principals, it denys them. Worse, it does so in the pretext of presenting truth... scientifically accurate truth.

And a true scientist needs to forgo a lot of what you have just said. It does not matter that creationists are unscientific, if their claims are simply dismissed as wrong without being subjected to the scientific logic they may or may have employed then what you are left with is an argument two rival religions.

Just wrong. And the fact that Creationist persist in saying this over and over is why I say they are flat out lying.

That is not a valid response, you either accept the scientific method and all the iconoclasm that involves or you don't. The personal views of someone expressing are irrelevant unless you are seeking to suggest that they have impinged on methodology.

The scientific community fought long and hard to prove Darwin's basic ideas were true

Don't ever say that to a creationist, especially not to a scientific creationist, it completly destroys your case.

WRONG.

First, it IS the truth. History is there. The transition from a predominance of young earth theorists to Old Earth theorists is very well documented. The transition did occur quickly, phenomenally so, becuase by then communication was very quick and becuase the proofs were so very, very, solid. Again, I know full well Creationists pretend this is not the case, but I challenge you to really study the issue. No time? ... gee, seems like that is what all Creationists claim.

You are not understanding what is being put to you, you may have overwhelming evidence, but if you claim or reveal in a scientific debate that your evidence has not been subjected to scientific methodology then you have completely destroyed your case, all your evidence is inadmissable.

To claim that the scientific community fought long and hard to prove Darwin is to claim that Darwinism is pseudo-science at best. A scientist is not meant to prove pet theories, quite the opposite actually.

[PLAYER57832]

EXCEPT, this is not really what has happened. Carbon dating is not even the most common standard for dating fossils, becuase there usually is little carbon left. Carbon dating is used for preserved remains of various types. Even then, used alone, it is not entirely accurate. Again, "not accurate: in the same way that an odometer is not "accurate" -- well, not for measuring carpet in your house, but it will give you a decent idea of how far the next town is! Carbon dating gets you "in the neighborhood".

Well we will just have to agree to disagree, but there are well documented and recurrent reports of carbon dating producing results that diverge wildly with the consensus.

Disagree with what, exactly?

For one thing Carbon dating had little to do with fossil evidence.

Second, just because there are some published problems does not mean the entire technique is invalid when properly used. Since you give no sources, I cannot address the specific cases. However, the truth IS that while a few Creationists do try to claim that there is "all kinds of evidence against Carbon dating", it is actually an extremely well documented technique. Mostly the "proofs" against it have to do with inaccuracies that everyone properly using the techinique knows exist, acknowledge and compensate for in various ways.

Then tree rings, seeds, styles, various other things (far too many, too complicate to list here) are used for more precise dates. In some cases, this can be very, very, very accurate. In others -- we just have a general, "in the neighborhood" idea. (think of giving directions to a house in a town versus to finding a small pond or rock on a big ranch devoid of many landmarks)

That is the trouble. Science requires proof and testing and evidence. Have there, at times been mistakes? Absolutely! However, that does not mean that any theory anyone wishes to come up with is "equal". The problem is not that Creationism is based on religion. I and the majority of Christtians who truly understand both Evolution and the Bible DO accept that the two should meld. There is no conflict, just unanswered questions in some areas.

HOWEVER< that is not what Creationists do. Creationism does not simply question Evolutionary theory or scientific principals, it denys them. Worse, it does so in the pretext of presenting truth... scientifically accurate truth.

And a true scientist needs to forgo a lot of what you have just said. It does not matter that creationists are unscientific, if their claims are simply dismissed as wrong without being subjected to the scientific logic they may or may have employed then what you are left with is an argument two rival religions.

Just wrong. And the fact that Creationist persist in saying this over and over is why I say they are flat out lying.

That is not a valid response, you either accept the scientific method and all the iconoclasm that involves or you don't. The personal views of someone expressing are irrelevant unless you are seeking to suggest that they have impinged on methodology.

MY response is not valid?

The scientific method is very simple... you come up with a theory, you TEST it and then you either say "hey this is concurrent with my idea, lets do more testing" or the test is wrong and you need to reform your theory.

Explain how that is "iconoclasm" (do you even know what that word actually means?) This is not about "personnal views" it is about the repeated assertions by Creationists that they "have proof", that Evolution "lacks evidence" or has "been disproven", when neither is presented or even true.

The scientific community fought long and hard to prove Darwin's basic ideas were true

Don't ever say that to a creationist, especially not to a scientific creationist, it completly destroys your case.

WRONG.

First, it IS the truth. History is there. The transition from a predominance of young earth theorists to Old Earth theorists is very well documented. The transition did occur quickly, phenomenally so, becuase by then communication was very quick and becuase the proofs were so very, very, solid. Again, I know full well Creationists pretend this is not the case, but I challenge you to really study the issue. No time? ... gee, seems like that is what all Creationists claim.

You are not understanding what is being put to you, you may have overwhelming evidence, but if you claim or reveal in a scientific debate that your evidence has not been subjected to scientific methodology then you have completely destroyed your case, all your evidence is inadmissable.

To claim that the scientific community fought long and hard to prove Darwin is to claim that Darwinism is pseudo-science at best. A scientist is not meant to prove pet theories, quite the opposite actually.

Cute -- someone disagrees, so "obviously" they "just don't understand" the real picture..

You elude to all this information that has been "disproven" all the facts that show all of science (and yes, it is about ALL of science that would have to be wrong for the Earth to be 12,000 years old!). BUT WHERE IS IT?

You talk of failures of carbon dating, which prove nothing EVEN IF YOUR ASSERTIONS ARE 100% correct! Why? Because carbon dating is only one technique used for dating and not even the primary one for fossils and the age of the earth. It is most important in archeology... a place where Bible archeologists are quite happy to confirm its use, to confirm that its dates so often cooincide with the Bible.

In every so-called "objection" you voice, you make it extremely clear that you know absolutely nothing of science, nothing of Darwanism, nothing of scientific history. Furthermore, you STILL submit absolutely nothing to counter anything real that I have said.

How, for example, do you explain the extremely clear geologic stratifications seen all over the word. How do you explain the vast fossil record, including many transition fossils?.

How do you explain that theories of the flood creating most of the fossils, destroying the dinosaurs, etc, are all completely contrary to all observed and recorded hydroligic information, that fossil patterns do NOT show the kind of record that would exist from such an event, and instead show a very long and steady progression of species that died over very long periods of time?

How do you explain why your group and only your group in the entire world -- no other nation -- , nations in extreme comflict, scientists who live to dispute each other -- NONE of them have this knowledge that the very few Creationist "scientist" put forward, that is "so obvious" to the many 10-30 year olds out there, but not to the MILLIONS of others in this world?

oh yeah ... you just claim it does not exist and refuse to even LOOK at anything else.

And we scientists who very much do read and consider Creationist information, we are just clueless.

I ask for REAL INFORMATION. you give me opinion and then criticize what I say as "mere opinion". Typical unintelligent and completely erroneous "debating".

HINT-- to DEBATE, you have to actually listen and understand what your opponent is actually saying, not listen to 4th party interpretations that have nothing to do with reality.

Evolution is not "countered" on Creationist websites becuase most of what they call "evolution" is NOT what is really said by evolutionary biologists. Most of what is attributed to Darwin is either NOT really part of Darwin's theories or has been acknowledged to be wrong for decades. Darwin is not celebrated because he discovered and understood the entire theory of evolution. He got huge parts wrong. He is celebrated becuase he was the first to publish an account that could begin to refute the "young earth" and "God created everything in 6 rotations of the earth" ideas. BUT, it was only a beginning!

[Rustovitch]

HINT-- to DEBATE, you have to actually listen and understand what your opponent is actually saying, not listen to 4th party interpretations that have nothing to do with reality.

This is coming from the fellow who is completely ignoring my words and replying to a completely seperate issue.

Please relax, go back two posts, read what I posted and reply to what I actually SAID. Or if as I suspect you do not understand it, ask me a relevant question and I will do my best to educate you.

Because at the moment you are addressing arguments I never posted, and it's a waste of my time.

[MeDeFe]

HINT-- to DEBATE, you have to actually listen and understand what your opponent is actually saying, not listen to 4th party interpretations that have nothing to do with reality.

This is coming from the fellow who is completely ignoring my words and replying to a completely seperate issue.

Please relax, go back two posts, read what I posted and reply to what I actually SAID. Or if as I suspect you do not understand it, ask me a relevant question and I will do my best to educate you.

Because at the moment you are addressing arguments I never posted, and it's a waste of my time.

You called science a religion, so I'm not sure I can take you seriously.

[PLAYER57832]

HINT-- to DEBATE, you have to actually listen and understand what your opponent is actually saying, not listen to 4th party interpretations that have nothing to do with reality.

This is coming from the fellow who is completely ignoring my words and replying to a completely seperate issue.

Please relax, go back two posts, read what I posted and reply to what I actually SAID. Or if as I suspect you do not understand it, ask me a relevant question and I will do my best to educate you.

Because at the moment you are addressing arguments I never posted, and it's a waste of my time.

You called science a religion, so I'm not sure I can take you seriously.

He also called me a "guy"

[PLAYER57832]

HINT-- to DEBATE, you have to actually listen and understand what your opponent is actually saying, not listen to 4th party interpretations that have nothing to do with reality.

This is coming from the fellow who is completely ignoring my words and replying to a completely seperate issue.

Please relax, go back two posts, read what I posted and reply to what I actually SAID. Or if as I suspect you do not understand it, ask me a relevant question and I will do my best to educate you.

Because at the moment you are addressing arguments I never posted, and it's a waste of my time.

Here is your original post:

I think there is dishonesty from both sides, because the majority of participants in such a debate are arguing from a position of orthodoxy and dogma, be that their perception of scientific consensus or their religion.

As for evidence against evolution, some creationists might ask for some evidence in its favour.

You refer to this "scientific dogma", but the only "dogma" is that of requiring proof before things are considered fact, wich I pointed out and you ignored.

I also pointed you to various forms of evidence that do exist. And, asked that you respond with some of that real evidence you think is there.


Your response was that if I tried to say that the battle to prove the Earth is old was won in hard faught battles decades ago, was to tell me I did not "understand" what I had been taught.