Creationism - an example

[Elrohir]

hehe, why is my sarcasmometer dinging like crazy?

Oh, right, it's Elrohir.... well, any answers the the critizism of AiG here? Or do you stipulate as to the errors they made?

Perhaps it's defective.

I haven't read much of AiG, so I can't say whether they are usually right or wrong, or even are so in thsi case. I just popped in to sarcastically note that no one's mind is going to be changed by some website. If you guys are really getting a good laugh out of this, then good for you, but if you're hoping to convince someone, you're most likely wasting your time.

 

[carlosMM]

Perhaps it's defective.

I haven't read much of AiG, so I can't say whether they are usually right or wrong, or even are so in thsi case. I just popped in to sarcastically note that no one's mind is going to be changed by some website. If you guys are really getting a good laugh out of this, then good for you, but if you're hoping to convince someone, you're most likely wasting your time.

so basically you admit cluelessness and spamming?

Moderator Action: Play nice, Carlos.

 

[Sidhe]

I really genuinely don't like it when creationists are convinced by counter argument, though like any good show thow I supose it leaves you wanting more.

No creationist is going to be convinced of anything is my hope Elrohir simply because the entertainment value of listening to tired nonsense and the laughter and thrills of being shown how delusion can infect even seemingly the most sane people is a real eye opener and it's also very funny to boot, as Dennett most aptly shows.

 

[Fifty]

You know it's wierd... I bet if we PMed some of the notorious creationists from Perfection's threads, they would probably honestly claim that they think they've won those debates.

Unfortunately, for some people, indoctrination conquers reason.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

so basically you admit cluelessness and spamming?

Does this thread have a point or are you just trying to be antagonistic? This just seems like a "hey let's all have a laugh at this stupid thing" thread. Unless you intend to have some sort of discussion other than "wow you're right this is ****ing hilarious" could we just get a lock?

 

[carlosMM]

Does this thread have a point or are you just trying to be antagonistic? This just seems like a "hey let's all have a laugh at this stupid thing" thread. Unless you intend to have some sort of discussion other than "wow you're right this is ****ing hilarious" could we just get a lock?

didn't we have a deal? wasn't is that you keep from spamming and insulting in my threads while I keep from calling your religious positions in science moronic?
Wasn't it?


So why are you here whining and spamming?


I, as opposed to you, have a good purposen here: expose idiocy in a funny way, and make public the ways people try to mislead the naive public. I think Mr. Forrest did this in the most hilarious manner possible - if you cna't laugh about this - not my problem.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

You do not have a good purpose here; this thread is intended to antagonize, troll, and draw religious posters into a flaming match. It had best be closed soon.

 

[carlosMM]

You do not have a good purpose here; this thread is intended to antagonize, troll, and draw religious posters into a flaming match. It had best be closed soon.

funny, if you had half the character and self-control you always proclaim as 'christian' then it wouldn't.

What are you doing here? YOU flame, YOU troll! And if this thread gets closed, then it is because of YOU - and here we have your prupose:

you cannot accept cirticism, however correct it may be, and try to sidetrack any criticism into a flamewar in order to get the thread closed
Well, tough luck: the admins are smart enough to see through this (and you are reported).

 

[Erik Mesoy]

You do not have a good purpose here; this thread is intended to antagonize, troll, and draw religious posters into a flaming match. It had best be closed soon.

I'm a religious poster, and I can state that if that was the purpose of the thread, it failed quite miserable. It appears, though, to be quite good at antagonizing uneducated religious posters.

 

[Fifty]

I've seen some atheists here troll before, and this definitely is not an example of that.

We were just having fun, and simultaneously revealing creationist "science" for the non-science that it is. Not only that, but this thread makes an interesting commentary on creationist's willingness to mislead in order to further their agenda, as many of the things in the original creationist article in Carlos' link seem to be completely misleading and untruthful.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

I'm a religious poster, and I can state that if that was the purpose of the thread, it failed quite miserable. It appears, though, to be quite good at antagonizing uneducated religious posters.

I'm sorry, are you implying that I am uneducated and antagonized by this thread? If so, neither is the case. I'm quite educated on religious matters and I most certainly never let my spirituality get in the way of scientific understanding (whenever I question evolution, I never make direct statements, I simply say things like "is it not possible that God ____?" I am also most certainly not antagonized in the slightest; I'm simply calling this thread as I see it.

 

[ainwood]

Moderator Action: OK So far there has been virtually no discussion at all - either discuss the articles, or let the thread sink. That goes for both sides!

Creationists - If you don't like it - then debate the points, or ignore it.
Evolutionists - don't try to directly troll & bait creationists into a flamewar.

Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[carlosMM]

thank you, ainwood!

@all: I'd like - as stated before - to here collect cases where creatinist articles are refuted line-by-line. I know the usual talkorigins.org site, but rarely does anyone bother to address the articles. usually, the claims are refuted, not hte lies and misleading statements line by line. Please, post more!



@ creationists: feel free to show errors in the posted articles: where are creationists misquoted? Where are their positions misunderstood? Where are they being misrepresented?

 

[Fifty]

http://www.evolutionpages.com/Writing.htm

Here's a list of essays refuting creationist claims from AiG and elsewhere. They are generally quite thorough and serious in nature and thus lack the humor of the original articles

@Carlos: I see that you still haven't managed to refute the "banana as God's candybar" theory. What's wrong? Your evolutionist "science" failing you!?!??!?!??!

 

[Rik Meleet]

What does AiG stand for ??

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

What does AiG stand for ??

Answers in Genesis - they claim that the origin of the earth, and life, are to be found in Genesis 1 (and maybe Chapter 2, even though it kind of contradicts Chapter 1?)

 

[Sidhe]

I'd like to apologose even though I'm not suposed to, I've been in a funny mood all week, you'll have to excuse me :/

 

[carlosMM]

Fifty: thank you!

I had seen that page before, but my interest in this kind stuff took a serious blow when my laptop crashed, taking most of my bookmarks with it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It is very easy to ridicule christians on your own turf where they are doomed to lose the discussion based on the ground rules alone. To win in an arena where you get to set all the rules, determine the playing field,and how to keep score is not a particularly outstanding achievement. But at least the christians are willing to try. The atheistic, science "proves" all crowd has a self-imposed restriction from ever playing on the christian home field, by their rules. Much to your loss.

 

[Sidhe]

Bird Jaguar has the right of it, but you can't win it's simply a matter of stating your case.

If you want a win go find a thread that has easy answers.

Even turf: been there still can't convince, it's like AA, they will only go there if they think they have a problem.