[_ Old Earth _] Evolutionists VS. Evolution.

[Snidey]

I actually think that Bob's just a creationist bot. He's programmed to just spit out the same responses over and over again no matter how many times people point out how flawed his arguments are. That's probably why you never get a real answer from him and why he never backs up his arguments with any credible sources.

May I remind you this is a Christian site with beliefs based on scripture. Statement of Faith

There is a strong likelihood that many on this forum are indeed creationist in belief.

Let this serve as a reminder to all to keep in mind where you are and to respect the beliefs of those who have chosen to join and participate in discussion based on those beliefs throughout these forums.

I think most of the evolution proponents here see a difference between the average creationist and Bob. It's not his beliefs that are frequently obnoxious and worthy of constant eye rolling, it's the way he presents them.

 

[Jayls5]

I actually think that Bob's just a creationist bot. He's programmed to just spit out the same responses over and over again no matter how many times people point out how flawed his arguments are. That's probably why you never get a real answer from him and why he never backs up his arguments with any credible sources.

May I remind you this is a Christian site with beliefs based on scripture. Statement of Faith

There is a strong likelihood that many on this forum are indeed creationist in belief.

Let this serve as a reminder to all to keep in mind where you are and to respect the beliefs of those who have chosen to join and participate in discussion based on those beliefs throughout these forums.

Well, I think the whole point is that we're questioning his beliefs at this point because they're getting so ridiculous. We're starting to think he's joking because he's capable of completing some fairly complex sentences, yet he completely ignores the entirety of posts that directly refute what he says. He then ignores the posts that we expose this fact out... consistently. He's got to be a joke, or someone who adamantly avoids legitimate discussion to the extent where he should be banned anyway. Either way, our criticism has nothing to do with his creationist 'beliefs' if he in fact is serious.

It's really one of those situations where, if I were in a position of power, I would be asking myself if he produces anything of value for this forum. I honestly don't see it.

 

[DavidLee]

It's really one of those situations where, if I were in a position of power, I would be asking myself if he produces anything of value for this forum.

I think if you were in a position of power the discussion would not take place at all.

I honestly don't see it.

The same could be said of your posts.


I appreciate Bob's posts and his tenacity.

 

[BobRyan]

I think most of the evolution proponents here see a difference between the average creationist and Bob. It's not his beliefs that are frequently obnoxious and worthy of constant eye rolling, it's the way he presents them.

Evolutionists are prone to "imainge things to themselves" because as Patterson notes they engage in "Stories easy enough to make up but they are NOT science" and so they bring that same aspect of "anti-knowledge" to all of their debates with Christians on this topic.

The supposed "difference that you imagine" is not one based on FACTS where you have Creationists telling you "I don't like Bob's form of Creation"... However when I tell you that I DO have objective unbiased readers on this board - including Creationists (shocking as that may be too some of the overly imaginative darwinist devotees here) speaking to me in direct PM about their strong agreement with my posts I speak based on PMS and messages I DO have. I usually don't mention it because my argument to the Darwinists is not one of "my view is popular" but "my view is factual"! Get it?

So what we have in your post is an imaginative wild story argued "out of the void" of posts/messages you do NOT have from Creationists -- vs my statements based on what I HAVE seen from them directly to me on THIS point.

As usual - the factless nature of the darwinist position is "once again" exposed.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

ehh. I'm not going to bother finishing the sentence.

You have GOT to be joking at this point.

As much as I have complained about the lack of substance in your posts... try finishing your sentences -- also please provide some interest in a compelling objective cogent argument that is actually in your favor.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

So feel free to click the link and read.

Bob

I have a better idea. Stop posting.

(btw, nice job ignoring what I said again)

And Yeah, I just watched the whole video. It was hilariously terrible. I didn't think it was going to get worse from when I flipped it off originally, but wow.

Bob. On an entirely unrelated note, may I ask what formal education you have?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that biology wasn't Bob's area of study in college, assuming that he even went there.

A. Biophysics.

B. I thought that Jay was trying to get to the point that my comments kept going over his head... I was about to reassure him that I have tried to make each of these points incredibly simple so that a 4th grade reading level should be able to easily master the concepts I am posting.

c. It is so "grade school" of this darwinist devotee group to go ad hominem all the time in pointless directions whenever their views are challenged substantively! Trying to drag substantive argument out of you guys is like pulling teeth! Come on! It is not that hard.. please at least "try"!

d. Making stuff up from the vaccuum of what you DON't have any clue about in my educational background is not that different from "stories easy enough to make up" that you are practiced at telling for Darwinism -- so no surprise that you leap off that cliff just as quickly.

e. Now I know that the rabbit trailing you guys are doing is simply a desperate effort to escape the subject of this thread -- so my next post will not be on your rabbit trail efforts to derail the thread.

Consider This post my gift to you on your rabbit trail... now back to the subject.

Bob

 

[Snidey]

It's really one of those situations where, if I were in a position of power, I would be asking myself if he produces anything of value for this forum.

I think if you were in a position of power the discussion would not take place at all.

I honestly don't see it.

The same could be said of your posts.


I appreciate Bob's posts and his tenacity.

You seriously cannot compare Jayls and Bob. The same cannot be said of Jayls' posts, at all. Saying you appreciate Bob's "tenacity" is like telling a kid who lost the big game that he gave it his all. There are numerous evolutionists and numerous creationists here. Is it a coincidence that every evolutionist has qualms with a single creationist? It's not his views. I mean, look at the posts just made. I could've written them in advance for him (ridiculously out of place quotation marks included), because he only has one gear. Patterson quotes, some off hand insults, almost a complete lack of actual substance/facts, a declaration of his own superiority in some fashion, /end post.

 

[BobRyan]

Evolutionists VS. Evolution.

I shown this to the guys in my platoon this summer (i also brought with me, In the beginning by Dr. Walt Brown, Search for the truth by Bruce Malone and Dr. Kent Hovinds seminars on my laptop), I now have 54 out of 60 believing in creation. the other 6 are die hard Atheists, one guy even said and i quote " you have majority of the evidance in your court, but i will not fold to your god." - Pte Kodama. And "I don't care what the evidance says, i won't accept how you proclaim it happened" Pte Willis.

When will they stop for filling the prediction that says the scoffers we be willingly ignorant?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0Fmh8PCmrlk

What a great Video!!

Illustrates the truth of Patterson's argument on the point - of "anti-knowledge"

ANTI-KNOWLEDGE

Evolution AS FAITH

Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the Museum’s general text on evolution)

A 1981 lecture presented at New York City's American Museum of Natural History

[quote:8313e]
Colin PATTERSON:

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view,well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

Patterson - again quoting Gillespie accusing that those "'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'" Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge [/u], apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

[/quote:8313e]

Bob[/quote]

Notice that Pattersons statments easily explain what we SEE the darwinist devotees DOING in that video?!!

Question for the darwinsts on this thread -- anyone other than JAY - that FINALLY let themselves WATCH and SEE what those darwinists in that video were saying?


Come on guys -- surely you aren't going to argue that you were afraid to watch your own darwinist buddies "speak". How many watched -- and when? today? or when you first started posting on this thread?

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It's really one of those situations where, if I were in a position of power, I would be asking myself if he produces anything of value for this forum.

I think if you were in a position of power the discussion would not take place at all.
...
I appreciate Bob's posts and his tenacity.

Indeed -- the Movie Expelled goes to that point showing case after case where censorship was the "rule" used by Darwinist devotees - not the exception.

Recall the 11 second flummox of Dawkins? His primary "complaint" was that he dared to let non-darwinist non-cheerleaders non-yesmen speak to him and ask question in an interview.

BTW thanks for that comment on BOTH the content of my posts AND the tenacity -- (I am sure darwinist devotees will find a way to blindly filter out the part about the posts and just go for the "tenacity" -- but ... they are nothing if not "predictable")

Bob

 

[DavidLee]

You seriously cannot compare Jayls and Bob. The same cannot be said of Jayls' posts, at all.

Have you read the posts?

Saying you appreciate Bob's "tenacity" is like telling a kid who lost the big game that he gave it his all.

"Tenacity" is the appropriate word. And Bob has lost nothing. His arguments are rarely engaged. They most often seem to be met with hand waiving and re-definition of words.

There are numerous evolutionists and numerous creationists here. Is it a coincidence that every evolutionist has qualms with a single creationist? It's not his views. I mean, look at the posts just made. I could've written them in advance for him (ridiculously out of place quotation marks included), because he only has one gear.

If I say I view the remarks (by some) to Bob's posts as unwarranted and diversionary from the subjects at hand, would you not say the same of me? Would it be because of my views, or yours? You have waived your hand and declared him wrong, so how dare he continue to post? Is that it? It's what I see. Refute his claims if you are able. Hand waiving is not sufficient. Appeals to the reader to just see things your way are not sufficient.

Patterson quotes, some off hand insults, almost a complete lack of actual substance/facts, a declaration of his own superiority in some fashion, /end post.

It's comments like this that lead me to believe what I do about your motives and methods of discussion.

 

[Snidey]

Have you read the posts?

Yes.

"Tenacity" is the appropriate word. And Bob has lost nothing. His arguments are rarely engaged. They most often seem to be met with hand waiving and re-definition of words.

So how about this. You pick the major arguments of Bob's that you feel have been ignored, and I will debate you on those points. Would you be up for that?

If I say I view the remarks (by some) to Bob's posts as unwarranted and diversionary from the subjects at hand, would you not say the same of me? Would it be because of my views, or yours? You have waived your hand and declared him wrong, so how dare he continue to post? Is that it? It's what I see. Refute his claims if you are able. Hand waiving is not sufficient. Appeals to the reader to just see things your way are not sufficient.

I don't understand your first question. I didn't wave my hand and declare Bob wrong, and I don't think he should be unable to post. I just think that the way he posts is not conducive to discussion and frequently (giant red/bold/underlined quotes) aesthetically obnoxious. Again, his claims are so frequently not about the topic at hand, and so frequently unimportant to any issue at all, that I prefer to very rarely engage him. But as I said, I will debate you (or anyone aside from the subject) on any of the points you believe evolution proponents have failed to address that Bob brought up.

It's comments like this that lead me to believe what I do about your motives and methods of discussion.

That was simply my opinion on the content of Bob's post. I don't believe it says anything as to my "motives."

 

[Rick W]

Opinions of other members is not the topic of the thread.
It would be best to get back on track if there is anything else to add to the subject.

 

[BobRyan]

So how about this. You pick the major arguments of Bob's that you feel have been ignored, and I will debate you on those points. Would you be up for that?

How about this -- you debate me on the points I raise instead of dodging them. Specifically on THIS thread that would be the points of COMPARISON between what Patterson SAID darwinists were DOING -- vs what we SEE Darwinists DOING on that video that IS the subject of THIS thread -- that IS the subject you guys keep running away from.

I believe that would be Post number TWO on this thread (reposted here on this page again) still waiting for some kind of substantive response from you guys.

Bob

 

[Snidey]

So how about this. You pick the major arguments of Bob's that you feel have been ignored, and I will debate you on those points. Would you be up for that?

How about this -- you debate me on the points I raise instead of dodging them.

Bob

If I am debating on those same points with someone else, I'm not dodging them. I just don't think discussion with you is productive.

More importantly, I'm interested in what points of yours David sees as viable and wants to be addressed.

 

[BobRyan]

So how about this. You pick the major arguments of Bob's that you feel have been ignored, and I will debate you on those points. Would you be up for that?

How about this -- you debate me on the points I raise instead of dodging them.

Bob

If I am debating on those same points with someone else, I'm not dodging them. I just don't think discussion with you is productive.

hmm - I find that "instructive" you seek to avoid the points raised and not discuss them with me -- just with anyone who happens to agree with me.

I am not as intimidating as you make me sound Snidey -- go ahead and discuss them with "me".

I will give you first try at bat. Take the first example of Darwinists being caught in their own self-contradictory argument and compare that to Patterson's "Stories easy enough to tell - but not science" statement of fact.

Remember - you have to actually SEE what the Darwinist says in the video before responding. No fair just "making stuff up" ;-)

Bob

 

[Snidey]

I am not intellectually intimidated by you, and I kind of giggled at the suggestion. You can tell yourself that that is the reason I won't engage in heavy debate with you.

 

[stovebolts]

Bob, Sydney or anyone else interested,

If you would like a one on one debate, I would be more than happy to accommodate within the Debate Forum. Stipulation being;
1. No glib responses
2. All questions asked must be answered, no dodging questions.

Other details could be worked out prior to the debate.

Let me know if we have any takers.

Jeff

 

[Snidey]

I'd be willing to do a one on one with anyone aside from Bob, if there is another taker.

 

[Guest]

So how about this. You pick the major arguments of Bob's that you feel have been ignored, and I will debate you on those points. Would you be up for that?

How about this -- you debate me on the points I raise instead of dodging them. Specifically on THIS thread that would be the points of COMPARISON between what Patterson SAID darwinists were DOING -- vs what we SEE Darwinists DOING on that video that IS the subject of THIS thread -- that IS the subject you guys keep running away from.

I believe that would be Post number TWO on this thread (reposted here on this page again) still waiting for some kind of substantive response from you guys.

Bob

No-one wants to debate you Bob, since you somehow maintain a status of being totally impervious to knowledge and reason and you ignore everything that you can't answer. Fighting you in an academic debate is like shooting at your own shadow, the shadow flits about and does nothing of any significance and the whatever effort you take to try and destroy it is just a waste of time and valuable ammo.

I've fired enough rounds at your arguments to sink any theory that was actually prepared to listen to criticism.


The comparison that Evolution propenents are taking things on faith? Well here's the most direct response you could ever hope for. So succinct that it's only one word:

Bullshit.

If you want to misquote Patterson and think that he's got your back in this then that's your loss, but to say that that we know nothing about evolution when many of us on this forum have tried to educate you and been ignored is slightly frustrating. Evolution is based on experimental evidence and scientific observations. If you want to ignore the evidence, again, your loss.


Ok directly onto your second point. 'What we see evolutionists doing on that video'. Uhm, do you mean what we see creationists misquoting evolution supporters as saying? That video is the ultimate epitome of creationist dishonesty. Since you dodge it every time I mention it:

NINTH COMMANDMENT FROM GOD:
THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS

Saying this video is an accurate account of any debate is an enormous LIE and is in breach of one of the ten rulings that govern the very core of your religion, and furthermore, it's a lie in the name of God. You should be ashamed.
The fundamentalist Muslims in the middle east think that killing innocents in the name of god is a-okay, how far down the line is it from telling lies in the name of God to blowing up schoolbusses in the name of God? Thou shalt not kill is only a few more up the list of rules to break.

 

[BobRyan]

No-one wants to debate you Bob,

I was kinda wondering why the Darwinists were so happy to flee the field.

since you somehow maintain a status of being totally impervious to knowledge and reason

Hint - tiring ad hominem is not "a kind of compelling form of argument" why is this concept so difficult for some of our darwinist devotees?

and you ignore everything that you can't answer.

Now that's just "projection" as you guys repeatedly run from Dawkins from Patterson from Eldredge from even Darwin himself when their "points" do not suit your argument.

So far I am the only one of the two of us shown to be capable of finding confirming agreement on salient points in an argument from the OTHER side!

Fighting you in an academic debate is like shooting at your own shadow, the shadow flits about and does nothing of any significance

Good story telling as usual -- poor facts.

If you are trying to "state your difficulty" I can help you -- your problem with me is that I ONLY USE ATHEIST DARWINIST sources so you have difficulty shooting at me without first shooting your own foot.

I've fired enough rounds at your arguments

And not a single one of the substantive enough to hold up under close review -- so you simply ignore the points raised and "talk about something else".

Good defensive strategy if your solution is simply to "deny-all" when the topic gets to "inconvenient facts".

The comparison that Evolution propenents are taking things on faith?

Again - that is a quote I used from Patterson. All you do is run from it.

flowers smell purdy.

Short circuit some place??

If you want to misquote Patterson

If you want to CLAIM I am misquoting Patterson fine -- empty assertions are a dime a dozen -- if you want to SHOW it in a way that reaches the objective unbiased reader -- you will need "some substance in your argument".

Think about it.

Imagining "success" is not a good strategy.

but to say that that we know nothing about evolution when many of us on this forum have tried to educate you

The "you know nothing" remark is not from me -- again you quote Patterson and then blame me for what HE reveals about you AS IF I AM Patterson!.

Hardly a compelling form of response. How can you offer such weak positions and then complaign about it?

Bob