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

[Eran of Arcadia]

I also noticed that the link described him as agnostic. This is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to actual science, but most of the people whom Hovind wants to convince think that religion and science are the same thing, evidently, so if he is an agnostic that somehow makes him suspect in their minds.

 

[Che Guava]

I also noticed that the link described him as agnostic. This is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to actual science, but most of the people whom Hovind wants to convince think that religion and science are the same thing, evidently, so if he is an agnostic that somehow makes him suspect in their minds.

True, I think the term 'darwinist' or 'evolutionist' would have been ore appropriate (or realist, but that's my own opinion ). I'm not sure if Hovind is trying to convince people that religion and science are the same, or if traditional science is just the tool of athiests to bring down religion. Either way, I don't buy his arguments, or his credentials (Ph.D. in Christian Education), at least in reference to the claims that he is making.

But I think we've wasted too much time on this guy already. Have vestigial organs (tailbones in humans, hips in whales) already been discussed in this thread?

 

[The Last Conformist]

They have.

 

[Sidhe]

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

Thanks.

That's precisely what I said but I have a bad temper sometimes, so it's wise for me at least

I never put anyone there permanently that would be pointless.

 

[warpus]

I also noticed that on one creationist site they describe Moore as being one of the top evolutionists

If that isn't a strawman then I don't know what is!

1. Pretend somebody is a leading evolutionary biologist
2. Engage him in a debate about evolution
3. Claim that you've won the debate against a leading evolutionary biologist
4. Proclaim victory

Come on now, this guy specializes in sexually transmitted diseases, infectious diseases, etc. If you really want to impress us diablodelmar, show us a debate between Hoving and an actual evolutionary biologist!

This would be like me having a debate with a Jew about the New Testament - something he will likely not know much about - and then claiming that I won a debate against a leading Christian Biblical Scholar.

 

[Bluemofia]

I also noticed that the link described him as agnostic. This is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to actual science, but most of the people whom Hovind wants to convince think that religion and science are the same thing, evidently, so if he is an agnostic that somehow makes him suspect in their minds.

Well, I think that he wants them to look down on him to begin with, like:

"Oh, he's an Agonistic. What does he know?"

 

[The Last Conformist]

Agonistic? Is that someone who doesn't believe in corners?

 

[Bluemofia]

Agonistic? Is that someone who doesn't believe in corners?

Whatever. You know what I mean.

Anyways, there is no point bringing up extranious information on someone's background in a debate.

The only time you do that is when you are trying to set a bad first impression of the opponent on the audience before the debate starts.

 

[ainwood]

Reposted for the benefit of diablodelmar - to ensure you don't miss it.

Moderator Action: Wrong. We do not ban people for their beliefs, but we DO ban people for trolling (eg. your "Like my new sig" post) and flaming (your "you are an idiot" posts).

We can also ban you for failing to respect the authority of moderators - which is exactly what you are doing in this post, where you basically claim that us banning you would be due to bias & prejudice against your beliefs.

7 days for flaming, trolling or failure to respect the authority of moderators.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[rodders_]

Dalbodelmar I feel for you brother. I've changed my sig to support the cause!

Who's agnostic?

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Dalbodelmar I feel for you brother. I've changed my sig to support the cause!

Who's agnostic?

I am. But that's quite off-topic.

May we coax you into actually contributing some scientific evidence to support your position? These threads work best when the posters don't just say what they believe but why they believe it, preferably with links to the actual scientific data used to form such a conclusion.

Saying something in your sig, no matter how large the font, does not in and of itself make it true.

 

[The Last Conformist]

You may want to consider the formating of that signature:

Signatures are limited to 5 lines of regular (size 2) text. Using smaller text (size 1) allows 7 lines of text. Larger text (size 3) allows 3 lines of text. No text size larger then size 3 should be used. The number of lines for any text size includes blank lines and room used by emoticons and is evaluated at 1024x768 resolution.

(My emphasis.)

Who is and is not agnostic is irrelevant to this thread.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

LOL! I am banned!


I hope you're happy as well!

Man these guys are sensative.

I am banned for 2 weeks for Trolling, flaming, failing to respect the authority of moderators, and creating multiple accounts'

There goes my reputation...:suicide:

but it doesn't change the fact that you guys are wrong about evolution!

I will reply publicly, so that nobody can accuse me of secretly making personal attacks or anything.

I am not happy. Not only have you failed to provide anything of substance in the thread, you are now prevented from providing anything of substance.

I see no reason to believe that anyone is sensative [sic], and the only reputation change here is that you have a reputation for insulting the moderators and playing the martyr.

You are correct that it doesn't change the aforesaid fact. This is because said fact is not a fact at all. In fact, this banning only changes the fact of whether you are banned or not.

We are "wrong" about evolution in the sense that Newton was "wrong" about the laws of physics. You are wrong about creationism in the sense that Ptolemy was wrong about geocentrism. Outside of mathematics, everybody is "wrong", and the question is one of degree.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Isn't there a rule about posting PMs in public without the author's consent?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/faq.php?faq=vb_board_usage#faq_vb_pm_explain

Not that I can see. It explicitly describes the ability to forward private messages to other posters, though.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Yeah, I just re-read the rule, and it seems I was misremembering.

Nothing to see here. Move on.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well, this thread isn't about atheism, agnosticism, or Christianity. This is soley about the scientific merit of evolution and the scientific merit of any non-mainstream alternatives. The distinction is rather important. I don't want to debate how this fits in with your philosophical system but certainly Christians have integrated evolution and other scientific thoeries into their worldview.

man i was so gonna tear you apart, but then i read this, and i will walk away somewhat placated

 

[skadistic]

Okay so evolution is a slow, painstaking, incramental porsess that takes decades, centeries or even millenium right? Then why do people ask for "the missing link"? Would it not stand to recon that there is in fact millions of missing links because each subsequent generation would be slightly diffrent?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Okay so evolution is a slow, painstaking, incramental porsess that takes decades, centeries or even millenium right? Then why do people ask for "the missing link"? Would it not stand to recon that there is in fact millions of missing links because each subsequent generation would be slightly diffrent?

Yes, it stands to "reason". The problem is that reason and Creationism don't mix. When they ask for "just one transitional fossil", they really mean they want the remains of every organism to have ever lived, as all the transitional fossils we have now don't seem to count.

 

[Perfection]

The problem is whenever we find the "missing link" between two forms, there are two new "missing links" we have to deal with, the one between the earlier form and the transitional fossil, and the transitional fossil and the later form.

So the problem continually gets worse and worse with every transitional form we find, because each one adds a new missing link!

Eventually we'll find so many transitional forms that creationists will have so many "missing links" to criticize evolutionists for that no sane mind would believe in evolution!