Creationism

I actually checked out the main page. I love the elaborate trolls of the "obvious design examples."

Wow. Those forums are a joke. A couple of days browsing reveals:

1. Anyone that notes a Creationist being arrogant, or simply unreasonable (as Cass was in this thread) gets a suspension. What?
2. Many Creationists on there constantly assert their beliefs as facts
3. Many Creationists, including some mods, break apparent rules they enforce so strictly

Got to appreciate the leniency given here, I guess.

No, you (and others) were banned because you broke the forum rules. The Moderator fully explains himself when they resort to banning, in your case you were banned for:

1. Complaining about board moderation.
2. Trolling
3. Clear cases of misrepresentation
4. Wasting time

You clearly never read the forum rules.

What’s worse is that you continue to post here lies about the forum Evolutionfairytale which shows you have no moral conscience whatsoever - but that’s not really surprising for an Atheist is it?

I offered an open debate to our origins, and linked to where it can be done. Contrary to the lies you are posting here about the forum, Evolutionfairytale accepts all worldviews. There are Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists etc on the forum, those that are polite and can debate properly don’t find themselves banned. It was clear though from the start you don’t want a clean honest debate; all you resort to is lying and abusing others – that of course is so easy to do behind the safety of your keyboard.

We don't have time for troublemakers and trolls, but if there are any genuine honest posters here (unlike Vindictus) who want to join us and debate our origins you can join us at Evolutionfairytale forums.

If you feel there is evidence for evolution, you are free to come and present it.

Cassiterides, if you're willing, I have two questions for you.

You said that Moses' existence was vindicated through historical evidence.  I was unaware of this, could you provide me with the sources of this claim?

And, why did God place endogenous retroviruses in the exact same places all across both human and chimpanzee DNA?

Vindictus made 2 posts over there

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3755&hl=

Like this thread, Cassiterides?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/i...p?topic=42700.0

You presented dot point beliefs, backed them up with the Bible, then left the thread when you had nothing left to counter the evidence presented by those pesky 'evolutionists'.

My intention is not to be offensive, but to point out your hypocrisy. No 'evolutionist' defaulted to the argument you outlined, in that thread.

and then got banned for this one...

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3583&hl=

I respectfully disagree. I have lurked a bit and found numerous instances where people were banned or suspended instantly for simply disagreeing with a Creationist.

Even if you are cussed out of other forums, the old axiom "an eye for an eye makes the world go blind" should hold true. Bans and suspensions should not be handed out as easily as they are. But as you said, we're in your house, so you can do what you want.

I'm not saying I should be allowed to step dirt on the carpet, I'm saying I shouldn't get the cops called on me because I may have told you that your tea was a bit cold.

On topic:

I feel this reasonably explains the center of the Earth, if anyone cares to read it.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2...er-of-the-earth

You be the judge...

I enjoy how once of their forum rules is to disallow "equivocation", and it gives an example of the definition of evolution.  That means evolutionists on that site have to defend the creationist definition of evolution, which is a total strawman.

The Moderator fully explains himself when they resort to banning...

Really? Because I was banned and no explanation was given. Not only that, the guy who banned me continued to reply to my posts after I was banned knowing that I could not reply.

Run back to EFT, Cass, and continue proving Poe's Law with every word you post. By the way, have you started citing sources for your creationist diatribes or are you still passing them off as your own?

Quote from: Vindictus on September 29, 2010, 10:47:19 PM

Wow. Those forums are a joke. A couple of days browsing reveals:

1. Anyone that notes a Creationist being arrogant, or simply unreasonable (as Cass was in this thread) gets a suspension. What?
2. Many Creationists on there constantly assert their beliefs as facts
3. Many Creationists, including some mods, break apparent rules they enforce so strictly

Got to appreciate the leniency given here, I guess.

No, you (and others) were banned because you broke the forum rules. The Moderator fully explains himself when they resort to banning, in your case you were banned for:

1. Complaining about board moderation.
2. Trolling
3. Clear cases of misrepresentation
4. Wasting time

You clearly never read the forum rules.

What’s worse is that you continue to post here lies about the forum Evolutionfairytale which shows you have no moral conscience whatsoever - but that’s not really surprising for an Atheist is it?

I offered an open debate to our origins, and linked to where it can be done. Contrary to the lies you are posting here about the forum, Evolutionfairytale accepts all worldviews. There are Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists etc on the forum, those that are polite and can debate properly don’t find themselves banned. It was clear though from the start you don’t want a clean honest debate; all you resort to is lying and abusing others – that of course is so easy to do behind the safety of your keyboard.

We don't have time for troublemakers and trolls, but if there are any genuine honest posters here (unlike Vindictus) who want to join us and debate our origins you can join us at Evolutionfairytale forums.

If you feel there is evidence for evolution, you are free to come and present it.

If you read both of my posts, you'd realise both were very reasonable, neutral and polite. I didn't get angry, I didn't swear, and I didn't behave inappropriately. I did not complain about board moderation, I pointed out what the moderators actually do there. I was not trolling, my posts SPECIFICALLY STATED that I was not trolling, and I made no inflammatory comments. I never once lied, and I never once abused another person. If telling people that they're wrong and WHY they're wrong is wasting time, then I guess I can't blame those forums for being completely irrational.

You and a bunch of other people that reside on those boards need to stop and think for a moment. You don't back up arguments with the Biblical examples as evidence, it is completely anecdotal and not verifiable or repeatable in the least. You should not ban/suspend people for pointing this out. You should not call 'evolutionists' idiots and then ban them for apparently calling you an idiot. 'Evolutionaryfairytale' should be deleted or seriously revamped, both in moderation and posters, as it contradicts almost every fibre of its existence.

Either that, or you should just make 1 forum rule along the lines of:

1. Don't argue reasonably, don't disagree with creationism, and don't mention anything you consider unjust.

From what I came to understand, most people don't find themselves banned on those boards because they don't disagree with creationism with any conviction. Serious threads turn into circular pissing contests, Bible bashing, or semantics arguments.

That said, if you want evidence of evolution, you need to look no further than this thread.

If you had paid any attention to my posts, you would have noticed I was an agnostic. Although this is irrelevant, I have no hate towards creationists or anyone that may agree with that view. I disagree when you, or others, post things like the Bible, or your beliefs, and claim them as evidence, then continue to bash 'evolutionists' while at the same time claiming 'evolutionists' bash you.

Cass, you have no right to criticise my moral conscience. You conduct arguments as a two year old would, and you end arguments as a two year old would. Evidence of this is, also, right here in this thread.

I will close by imploring others to AVOID those forums, as any evidence is discredited with the Bible. If you ever manage to win an argument, or if you point out how silly some arguments are, you get banned or suspended.

I was about to register there but... I'm really tired of creationists. They have mental problems, I am convinced is some kind of insanity, defficiency or paranoia, it's just impossible to talk with them because their brains are flawed. So finally I didn't and I won't

Maybe instead of trying to debunk them as an outsider, someone should try posing as a creationist to debunk them.
For instance, say that you believe in god, but you cannot reconcile him being fair because he sends some people to hell, a destination of infinite torture. Asking for help with your faith because things don't make sense to you, might be more effective to instill seeds of doubt than just marching in as a proud atheist come to debunk them. People select who they listen to, and they won't see you as the "enemy" this way.

Imagine a house looks something like this: two rooms connected by a long corridor with no windows or doors out of it apart from the doors leading to the two rooms.

Now, Bob sees Sally leave room A through the door to the corridor. After a few minutes Charlie sees Sally come in through the door to Room B. Nobody saw Sally walk along the corridor but would you agree that the assumption Sally walked along it is a reasonable assumption? Technically she could have cut her way out of the roof, rode a bike along the roof then cut her way back in just in front of Room B's door but is that a useful or reasonable assumption to make?

now if the evidence seems top point to evolution, despite the lack of billion-year-old eyewitnesses, we should erasonably accept evolution, no?

Maybe instead of trying to debunk them as an outsider, someone should try posing as a creationist to debunk them.
For instance, say that you believe in god, but you cannot reconcile him being fair because he sends some people to hell, a destination of infinite torture. Asking for help with your faith because things don't make sense to you, might be more effective to instill seeds of doubt than just marching in as a proud atheist come to debunk them. People select who they listen to, and they won't see you as the "enemy" this way.

Some people hold beliefs that can never be swayed, even if you disprove them with perfect logic.

Imagine a house looks something like this: two rooms connected by a long corridor with no windows or doors out of it apart from the doors leading to the two rooms.

Now, Bob sees Sally leave room A through the door to the corridor. After a few minutes Charlie sees Sally come in through the door to Room B. Nobody saw Sally walk along the corridor but would you agree that the assumption Sally walked along it is a reasonable assumption? Technically she could have cut her way out of the roof, rode a bike along the roof then cut her way back in just in front of Room B's door but is that a useful or reasonable assumption to make?

now if the evidence seems top point to evolution, despite the lack of billion-year-old eyewitnesses, we should erasonably accept evolution, no?

Besides this, micro evolution has actually been observed.

I don't accept the term 'micro-evolution' it's rubbish penned by IDers and Creationists. If you observe 'micro-evolution' you observe 'evolution'

"Micro-" and "macro-" evolution are complete bullshit terms. It's like saying there's micro-walking for walking out to your lawn and macro-walking for walking into someone else's house. They're the same exact thing using the same mechanisms. The only reason these terms exist is because creationists didn't want to refute something you can actually see work in viruses and disease, as well as lab rats, insects, etc.

Quote from: ?ingula?i?y on October 01, 2010, 02:44:39 AM

Maybe instead of trying to debunk them as an outsider, someone should try posing as a creationist to debunk them.
For instance, say that you believe in god, but you cannot reconcile him being fair because he sends some people to hell, a destination of infinite torture. Asking for help with your faith because things don't make sense to you, might be more effective to instill seeds of doubt than just marching in as a proud atheist come to debunk them. People select who they listen to, and they won't see you as the "enemy" this way.

Some people hold beliefs that can never be swayed, even if you disprove them with perfect logic.

This I know, but what I don't know is which few people can be reached.

"Micro-" and "macro-" evolution are complete bullshit terms. It's like saying there's micro-walking for walking out to your lawn and macro-walking for walking into someone else's house. They're the same exact thing using the same mechanisms. The only reason these terms exist is because creationists didn't want to refute something you can actually see work in viruses and disease, as well as lab rats, insects, etc.

I like this. I'm stealing it.

"Micro-" and "macro-" evolution are complete bullshit terms. It's like saying there's micro-walking for walking out to your lawn and macro-walking for walking into someone else's house. They're the same exact thing using the same mechanisms. The only reason these terms exist is because creationists didn't want to refute something you can actually see work in viruses and disease, as well as lab rats, insects, etc.

Ah, you have that backwards. It is much more likely the terms were divided to prevent the creationists from "disproving" evolution through arguments about speciation. It's much easier to say "you are talking about a different kind of evolution" than it is to explain that they are debating a completely different topic.

"macro evolution" is speciation, micro evolution is evolution.

If you read both of my posts, you'd realise both were very reasonable, neutral and polite. I didn't get angry, I didn't swear, and I didn't behave inappropriately. I did not complain about board moderation, I pointed out what the moderators actually do there. I was not trolling, my posts SPECIFICALLY STATED that I was not trolling, and I made no inflammatory comments. I never once lied, and I never once abused another person. If telling people that they're wrong and WHY they're wrong is wasting time, then I guess I can't blame those forums for being completely irrational.

You and a bunch of other people that reside on those boards need to stop and think for a moment. You don't back up arguments with the Biblical examples as evidence, it is completely anecdotal and not verifiable or repeatable in the least. You should not ban/suspend people for pointing this out. You should not call 'evolutionists' idiots and then ban them for apparently calling you an idiot. 'Evolutionaryfairytale' should be deleted or seriously revamped, both in moderation and posters, as it contradicts almost every fibre of its existence.

Before you signed up you should have read the forum rules page. It quite clearly states you should not question/complain about the board moderation. However you abused this rule, and just made two irrelevant posts (one attacking me) and the other a rant about moderation. We don’t have time for trouble makers. If you wanted to debate our origins you could have done so, and a genuine debate or discussion could have started, but you didn’t. We also don’t have time for cocky teenager ‘’know it alls’’, if you can’t debate honestly with a fair attitude then you will quite rightly be banned..

"Micro-" and "macro-" evolution are complete bullshit terms. It's like saying there's micro-walking for walking out to your lawn and macro-walking for walking into someone else's house. They're the same exact thing using the same mechanisms. The only reason these terms exist is because creationists didn't want to refute something you can actually see work in viruses and disease, as well as lab rats, insects, etc.

Evolutionists invented both terms, not creationists. Try to get your facts straight before you go around spreading lies.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/09/busting_another_darwinist_myth_2004215.html

Quote from: Trekky0623 on October 01, 2010, 06:46:07 AM

"Micro-" and "macro-" evolution are complete bullshit terms. It's like saying there's micro-walking for walking out to your lawn and macro-walking for walking into someone else's house. They're the same exact thing using the same mechanisms. The only reason these terms exist is because creationists didn't want to refute something you can actually see work in viruses and disease, as well as lab rats, insects, etc.

Evolutionists invented both terms, not creationists. Try to get your facts straight before you go around spreading lies.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/09/busting_another_darwinist_myth_2004215.html

You do realize that the attack actually comes from a frustration of creationist misunderstanding; not the actual existence of the terms, right? Regardless of where the terms originate, creationists abuse the somewhat arbitrary categorical division in order to ignore the other component. Without creationists, I doubt Trekky would mind whether or not there were two terms to describe one idea. 'Who invented terms' would not have been a substantive criticism on its own.

Quote from: Cassiterides on October 03, 2010, 10:50:40 AM

Quote from: Trekky0623 on October 01, 2010, 06:46:07 AM

"Micro-" and "macro-" evolution are complete bullshit terms. It's like saying there's micro-walking for walking out to your lawn and macro-walking for walking into someone else's house. They're the same exact thing using the same mechanisms. The only reason these terms exist is because creationists didn't want to refute something you can actually see work in viruses and disease, as well as lab rats, insects, etc.

Evolutionists invented both terms, not creationists. Try to get your facts straight before you go around spreading lies.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/09/busting_another_darwinist_myth_2004215.html

You do realize that the attack actually comes from a frustration of creationist misunderstanding; not the actual existence of the terms, right? Regardless of where the terms originate, creationists abuse the somewhat arbitrary categorical division in order to ignore the other component. Without creationists, I doubt Trekky would mind whether or not there were two terms to describe one idea. 'Who invented terms' would not have been a substantive criticism on its own.

Macroevolution has never been observed and has no evidence going for it, it's the fairytale (i.e like the frog & the prince) that different creatures evolve into other kinds. In contrast microevolution simply means variation within a kind i.e different sized or coloured dogs but they are still dogs.

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/evolutiondefinition.htm

Macroevolution is the fairytale, no one questions microevolution (simple variation).

Macroevolution has never been observed and has no evidence going for it, it's the fairytale (i.e like the frog & the prince) that different creatures evolve into other kinds.

Reded the incorrect and strawman crap. Also, the vague term "kinds" doesn't imply scale on a taxonomic chart. Micro and macro are divided only by that scale. Did you mean to say species?

In contrast microevolution simply means variation within a kind i.e different sized or coloured dogs but they are still dogs.

The term dogs is a human imposed somewhat arbitrary division.
The appearance and genetic variation between two dogs, can be a lot larger than the variation between dogs and wolves.


These "dogs" are still "dogs".

So why couldn't this dog be a variation of a wolf? (a different "kind" of animal.  ).

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/evolutiondefinition.htm

The person who wrote that clearly has no understanding of the matter. "Kinds" is an unscientific and subjective term.

Macroevolution has never been observed and has no evidence going for it...

If you say it enough it might become truth. Oh wait, no it won't.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Also, since this is a thread on Creationism, why don't you try supporting your own position instead of attacking the opposing ones? Even if you eliminate all of the opposing positions, you still need to provide evidence that yours is true. It seems to me like it would just be easier to attempt to support your own position from the beginning, and save all of us the time and frustration.

Quote from: Vindictus on September 29, 2010, 10:47:19 PM

If you read both of my posts, you'd realise both were very reasonable, neutral and polite. I didn't get angry, I didn't swear, and I didn't behave inappropriately. I did not complain about board moderation, I pointed out what the moderators actually do there. I was not trolling, my posts SPECIFICALLY STATED that I was not trolling, and I made no inflammatory comments. I never once lied, and I never once abused another person. If telling people that they're wrong and WHY they're wrong is wasting time, then I guess I can't blame those forums for being completely irrational.

You and a bunch of other people that reside on those boards need to stop and think for a moment. You don't back up arguments with the Biblical examples as evidence, it is completely anecdotal and not verifiable or repeatable in the least. You should not ban/suspend people for pointing this out. You should not call 'evolutionists' idiots and then ban them for apparently calling you an idiot. 'Evolutionaryfairytale' should be deleted or seriously revamped, both in moderation and posters, as it contradicts almost every fibre of its existence.

Before you signed up you should have read the forum rules page. It quite clearly states you should not question/complain about the board moderation. However you abused this rule, and just made two irrelevant posts (one attacking me) and the other a rant about moderation. We don’t have time for trouble makers. If you wanted to debate our origins you could have done so, and a genuine debate or discussion could have started, but you didn’t. We also don’t have time for cocky teenager ‘’know it alls’’, if you can’t debate honestly with a fair attitude then you will quite rightly be banned..

You and your friends are afraid of the truth, that site is basically set up so evolution cannot be supported in open debate.  Your "equivocation" rule basically requires one to defend your definition of evolution, a position that nobody in the scientific community holds.  In other words, the rule requires anybody debating in favor of evolution to defend the straw man position that site assigns to them by that site.  Anybody who doesn't play ball gets banned. 

How is that honest debate?  If this site had the same rules as yours, you would have been banned after your second or third post in this thread.  If you want an honest debate, lets debate evolution, not your strawman.

Macroevolution has never been observed and has no evidence going for it, it's the fairytale (i.e like the frog & the prince) that different creatures evolve into other kinds. In contrast microevolution simply means variation within a kind i.e different sized or coloured dogs but they are still dogs.

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/evolutiondefinition.htm

Macroevolution is the fairytale, no one questions microevolution (simple variation).

Yeah just keep going with that strawman.  That definition is seriously misleading, particularly at the part where it states that invertebrates evolved into vertebrates.  This is misleading because there is NO TAXA called "invertebrates".  It was a subgroup of Chordates that evolved into the first Vertebrates.  The thing is though, vertebrates are still chordates, they never stopped being chordates and never will.  This is why dogs cannot evolve into anything that is not a dog.  To have such a thing happen would disprove what evolution predicts.

If we've never seen one kind turn into another, why haven't you addressed this post yet?

Quote from: EnigmaZV on September 26, 2010, 12:29:24 PM

Quote from: Cassiterides on September 26, 2010, 12:14:15 PM

I've already defined kind. Look back over the pages. It's definition can be as simple as a phenotype.

So still waiting for my question to be answered (4 pages now...):

''So what did man evolve from? And where is the observational evidence we evolved from it.''

Well if you define "kind" as a phenotype, then I don't see why you have a problem with evolution at all.

Quote from: Wikipedia

A phenotype is any observable characteristic or trait of an organism: such as its morphology, development, biochemical or physiological properties, behavior, and products of behavior (such as a bird's nest). Phenotypes result from the expression of an organism's genes as well as the influence of environmental factors and the interactions between the two.

Using phenotype as the definition of "kind" I can demonstrate that modern humans evolved from non-modern humans in the late 70s when the microchip was invented.  With the advent of the internet and cellphones, there is a marked difference in the behaviour of those individuals born close to and after the late 70s compared to those born earlier.  One such behaviours is the fear of technology seen in earlier generations, compared to the later generations who embrace it.

@Cassiterides: Your definition of string-word "kind" matches that of a string-phrase "paraphyletic group."  Genuine inquiry: have you done any research on cladistics and phylogeny?

The person who wrote that clearly has no understanding of the matter. "Kinds" is an unscientific and subjective term.

And evolutionists have not yet been able to define the term 'species' since 1859.

''... I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties"
- Darwin, Origin of Species 1859 (p. 48)

''The species problem is the long-standing failure of biologists to agree on how we should identify species and how we should define the word 'species'."
-J. Hey, Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16 (7): 326–329, 2001

The problem with defining species is that they are ever changing. A good definition for species is the ability to interbreed assuming they were within the same location. The problem is the species today probably could not interbreed with an animal of the same species 1,000 years ago. They have for all intents and purposes turned into another "species."

Another problem is the difference between two separate species can be very minimal. Nothing more than a few changes in the proteins coating their eggs and sperm (fish seem to have this problem often, with their ability to interbreed decreasing even when they are only miles apart in a stream).

If there was no evolution then defining a species would be a rather simple task. Thank you for showing us that proof for evolution.

Quote from: ?ingula?i?y on October 03, 2010, 01:01:08 PM

The person who wrote that clearly has no understanding of the matter. "Kinds" is an unscientific and subjective term.

And evolutionists have not yet been able to define the term 'species' since 1859.

''... I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties"
- Darwin, Origin of Species 1859 (p. 48)

Funny you would quote Darwin, as he was at the forefront of his field and a lot of things were missing then.

''The species problem is the long-standing failure of biologists to agree on how we should identify species and how we should define the word 'species'."
-J. Hey, Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16 (7): 326–329, 2001

species | ?sp?s?z; - sh ?z|
noun ( pl. same)
1 (abbr.: sp., spp.) [Biology] a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g., Homo sapiens.

Rather than quoting some girl saying there's a dispute, how about you show some dispute?

Cassiterides, if you walk away from this thread with only one realization, let it be this: You have been misled as to the definition and purpose of the theory of evolution. I encourage you to read up on and study the subject. Once you see it for what it is, it's really quite an elegant observation of a very complex process.

Also, can we keep darwin out of a modern evolution debate? While he set up the framework for evolution, he wasn't even aware of the mechanisms of inheritance.