The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Three: The Return of the KOing!

[The Last Conformist]

Your also an idiot. Watch one and open your eyes. The evolutionists are the ones that try and procrastinate heavily and add really scientific sounding words so people go "Wow, he knows what hes talking about".

Watch one before spewing such idiotic drivel.

*yawn*

If Hovind had a scientific case to make, he'd write research articles. Guess what? He doesn't.

 

[diablodelmar]

TLC, watch the debate since you have so much time on your hands.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

diablodelmar: You have given no evidence, just links to other people making the same unfounded claims you are. You then called us idiots for questioning you. I have said all that needs to be said about this, and I am not going to mention it again. Let's get back to the science, and no more name-calling.

 

[Che Guava]

The threat of banning does not scare me.

Nor should it, that's why I don't understand why you seem to be making such a deal of it. But that's off topic.

The reason that a lot of us here don't take Hovind's argument seriously is because they seem to contradict a lot of widely accepted scientific principles. Now that alone doesn't make him wrong or incredible, but couple with the fact that he chooses not to engage the scientific community on thier terms (i.e. using proper research techniques, generating his own data, publishing in referreed journals) makes me think that he isn't trying to really convince anyone with a real scientific background, just those with enough ignorance on the topics to be swayed by his theories alone.

There are real creationists out there doing real research to get the answers to the questions you are asking. If you haven't taken the time to look at thier work, you are doing yourself and them a big disservice.

 

[El_Machinae]

Hydrogen atoms change their spin directions fairly often, galaxies never. They do occasionally lose rotational cohesion in encounters with other galaxies.

I'd imagine that's just a matter of scale ... it would take a LONG time for a galaxy to change direction from outside forces.

But, it's also apples and oranges, when describing the spin of an atom and a galaxy.

 

[diablodelmar]

diablodelmar: You have given no evidence, just links to other people making the same unfounded claims you are. You then called us idiots for questioning you. I have said all that needs to be said about this, and I am not going to mention it again. Let's get back to the science, and no more name-calling.

I WANT TO SCREAM!!!!!! !!!!!!!:thumbdown!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How many times have I pointed out that that is all you evolutionists do!!! For heaven's sake before I have a heart attack watch the bloomin' flipin' debate and then start to contradict it instead of telling me I can't do just that!

[/reproof]

 

[diablodelmar]

Nor should it, that's why I don't understand why you seem to be making such a deal of it. But that's off topic.

The reason that a lot of us here don't take Hovind's argument seriously is because they seem to contradict a lot of widely accepted scientific principles. Now that alone doesn't make him wrong or incredible, but couple with the fact that he chooses not to engage the scientific community on thier terms (i.e. using proper research techniques, generating his own data, publishing in referreed journals) makes me think that he isn't trying to really convince anyone with a real scientific background, just those with enough ignorance on the topics to be swayed by his theories alone.

There are real creationists out there doing real research to get the answers to the questions you are asking. If you haven't taken the time to look at thier work, you are doing yourself and them a big disservice.

Oh????? So because they are widely accepted means they are false? Is that what you're saying? Thats exactly what your saying.

 

[Rad Chris]

If I try to watch the debate you linked to I get a 403 Forbidden. Maybe Im not worthy.

 

[El_Machinae]

Diablo - I think I see one of the issues you might be experiencing with carbon dating.

Would you agree that soil DEEP in the ground is older than soil near the surface? Would you agree that fossils deep down in the ground would be older than fossils near the surface (in the same area)?

For example, if I dig down, and find a fossil, and then dig deeper and find another fossil - would you accept that the second fossil was likely older?

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh????? So because they are widely accepted means they are false? Is that what you're saying? Thats exactly what your saying.

No, he means that Hovind never debates in writing, where logic would have the advantage.

 

[Che Guava]

Oh????? So because they are widely accepted means they are false? Is that what you're saying? Thats exactly what your saying.

Ok, lets take a deep breath and see what the problem is. In my post I said that his theories contradict widely-accepted scientific principles. I didn't call those scientific principles false, and I don't see why you would come to that conclusion. So no, that's not what I'm saying.

 

[diablodelmar]

No, he means that Hovind never debates in writing, where logic would have the advantage.

er...how? jeez you guys never fail to surprise me.

 

[diablodelmar]

I've got to go now fellas I'd love to disprove you all but I haven't got time. Cya'll later.

 

[El_Machinae]

er...how? jeez you guys never fail to surprise me.

Because in a debate, the person who spouts off falsehoods has an advantage, because it takes less effort to be wrong than to prove someone wrong.

Anyway, answer my question about the fossils in the ground.

Edit: how do you ignore a user?

 

[Perfection]

Click on the little raised "150" near the end.
25,002

That gave me this link
Troy L. Péwé, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1975), p. 30.

(I'll see if I can get a hold of a copy of this in a few weeks)

No he didn't. Did you read it all?

Doing a point by point breakdown of parody portrays immense cluelessness.

You, sir, are an idiot. How can you say that without having seen one? Watch one for your own, instead of making assumptions like that. I think you'll find that it's the evolutionist's who constantly interrupt Hovind. Watch one beofre making absurd comments like "I'm sure he does this".

Calling on people to read books (and by extension watch long boring videos) violates the rules of this debate as defined in the first page.

by the way, who likes my new sig

It's rather innacurate. While belief in creation is somewhat irritating, what angers the less level-headed evolutionists here is the massive arrogance you display along with your total cluelessness.

Your also an idiot.

Please read the rules of the debate in the first page. Noone is an idiot.

Watch one and open your eyes. The evolutionists are the ones that try and procrastinate heavily and add really scientific sounding words so people go "Wow, he knows what hes talking about".

Provide an example, tell us a scientific sounding word evolutionists use that are devoid of scientific meaning.

Watch video no. 8. Moore vs Hovind. It's very interesting, I'll guarantee. Moor has a defeatist attitude from the very start.

Link

The fact that some creationists can put on a better show does not mean they are correct. Think about it. While there are certain instances where oral debates occur between scientists, most of the arguement occurs through papers and correspondences. Scientists tend not engage in such activities and when they do they are far more evidence driven (and in front of a more informed audience) then creation-evolution debates. Leading creationists on the other hand are showmen. Most of thier communication is through popular books, lectures and debates. They're witty, zealous, and interesting which allows them to "win" debates against scientists who have better evidence and advocate better theories.

 

[Sidhe]

@El Machinae?

go to your user cp and buddy ignore/list and stick someone you currently abhor on your list then take a look at the threads they're involved in, they'll be covered up but you can still read them anyway, I use it to stop myself from getting banned when someone get's on my nerves, doesn't always work though It's useful temporarily if someones just throwing nasty comments at you and you think you might lose it.

Or are you being sarcastic? I think I just felt an airplane go over my head

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I just skimmed through the video. It is 3 hours long and I have better things to do. Real science would not have to rely on something like that. But I did see Hovind misuse the term "vestigial" and try to make isotope dating sound way more complicated than it really is - he used the term "esoteric" so that it would sound obscure or uncertain. I will look at more later if I ever feel like I have too much time on my hands.

 

[Perfection]

I haven't lied so far and I haven't made any assumptions. You have done both, quite possibly involuntarily. Either way I would be obliged if you would stop.

Please point out the lie. It's not enough to say something is a lie. Prove it!

@moderators, gimme your best shot. If you feel I should get banned for my beliefs, then you go ahead and descriminate.

Moderators here have never banned anyone for being a creationist. I've seen numerous people here debate me without receiving any moderator action. It's your insulting childish behavior that will get you in trouble with the mods not this.

Oh????? So because they are widely accepted means they are false? Is that what you're saying? Thats exactly what your saying.

No, hes saying that Hovind has a habit of finding screwball scientists with unorthodox views and then arguing against them instead of the mainstream views. It's a variant of the Straw Man logical fallacy.

 

[El_Machinae]

I never thought the buddy list would allow you to ignore someone. Seems counter intuitive.

Thanks.

 

[warpus]

I didn't watch the debate but did some digging about this Dr. William Moore guy.

His primary areas of expertise include infectious diseases, sexually transmitted diseases, epidemiology, military medicine, and public health.

Maybe I'd take this debate a little bit more seriously if this guy was an expert in the field he was debating