Creationists

[LOki]

This is your chance. Ask away. Let me have them ALL!

You can start with answering the questions that he is dodging.

Post the question. Link to it.

I have no illusions that this intellectually dishonest retard is any different than any other. He has no "stumpers" that are not based upon a fundamental misrepresentation or misunderstanding of evolutionary theory or scientific method, or BOTH. He'll refuse on some dumbass grounds, and then consider himself absolved of having to actually support his assertions with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.​

 

[Youwerecreated]

Seriously dude? Then step up.

Youwerecreated asked all of his dumb questions, and I answered them ... repeatedly. His only rebuttal is a denial of reality. He just can't accept that he's been thoroughly punked.

This is your chance. Ask away. Let me have them ALL!

But before you start, let me give you a heads up on what will simply not work:
The regular Shit You Asshats Post Will Not Work
Remember: What will not work is you submitting your-made-up-nonsense, and then proving that your-made-up-nonsense is made-up-nonsense, and then saying that doing so somehow refutes anything I assert. My answer to your-made-up-nonsense is that no one but you and your retarded tribe believes that I or anyone else asserts your-made-up-nonsense. OK ?

Rock out or STFU!

I have no illusions that this intellectually dishonest retard is any different than any other. He has no "stumpers" that are not based upon a fundamental misrepresentation or misunderstanding of evolutionary theory or scientific method, or BOTH. He'll refuse on some dumbass grounds, and then consider himself absolved of having to actually support his assertions with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.​

Uh oh someone is getting testy because he is getting schooled. LOLsome

Go back to huffing hairspray, retard. You've been thoroughly cooked.

Blah blah blah.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Because you claim there was no oxygen when life began DNA molecules cannot form in water nor with oxygen present they would decay

Um, I think I'd better refrain from commenting. I'm afraid nothing good would come from it

Let me point out another flaw in your thinking. You asserted that modern day humans evolved from neanderthals how is that since the neanderthals had larger brains ?

 

[LOki]

Because you claim there was no oxygen when life began DNA molecules cannot form in water nor with oxygen present they would decay

Um, I think I'd better refrain from commenting. I'm afraid nothing good would come from it

Let me point out another flaw in your thinking. You asserted that modern day humans evolved from neanderthals how is that since the neanderthals had larger brains ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Um, I think I'd better refrain from commenting. I'm afraid nothing good would come from it

Let me point out another flaw in your thinking. You asserted that modern day humans evolved from neanderthals how is that since the neanderthals had larger brains ?

Do you realize how dumb your posts are ?

 

[koshergrl]

There's nothing more pathetic than someone who truly believes that empty words can hide a lack of wit.

 

[LOki]

Let me point out another flaw in your thinking. You asserted that modern day humans evolved from neanderthals how is that since the neanderthals had larger brains ?

Do you realize how dumb your posts are ?

Do you realize how dumb you have to be to miss the point?

 

[LOki]

There's nothing more pathetic than someone who truly believes that empty words can hide a lack of wit.

More ironyLOLs!

 

[UltimateReality]

Especially since every study done indicates that Earth did not form oxygen until the appearance of cyanobacteria.

Oxygen was needed for life that is why we needed a designer.

Oxygen is not needed for life, it is a byproduct of photosynthetic plants and bacteria. Only after they filled the Earth atmosphere with oxygen some other living things had evolved to make use of it.

This statement shows complete ignorance and lack of understanding of the global climate system. In your scenario, the plants just continue releasing oxygen until there is no more carbon dioxide left and they die off. There are delicate symbiotic relationships that have been designed into the earth. Your explanation is an extremely oversimplified description which is typical of the fairy tales your side promotes.

 

[UltimateReality]

I didn't dodge anything. As I said, I never made any such statement, I never disputed anything of the sort. I very specifically pointed out the apparent flaws in your statements about minor cosmetic changes (two hair folicles!). You are attempting to add meaning to my posts that does not exist in order to further your argument.

Third dodge.

There was never a first dodge! Are you honestly this dense?

You asked if I was disputing a claim.....I replied that I never disputed anything of the sort. In other words, no, I am not disputing it. In fact, I wasn't even discussing it! You brought it up by ascribing beliefs or arguments to me I never put forward.

If you want to once again claim I am dodging something, after I have yet again answered you, despite the fact the question has nothing to do with my original post to you, I certainly can't stop you. It will simply be further evidence that you either cannot comprehend fairly simply posts, or that you are determined to push this straw man in hopes of 'winning'. Either way it has nothing to do with what I've posted.

I'll tell you one thing I learned from my years in law enforcement is that you never argue with a drunk. I'm having a little dejavu here. You questioned the accuracy of my statements as they related to my understanding of your platform. I questioned how they were inaccurate and then you spewed a bunch of useless nouns and verbs and never answered anything. I'm done responding to Dodgers, oh and Yankees too.

 

[UltimateReality]

This is your chance. Ask away. Let me have them ALL!

You can start with answering the questions that he is dodging.

Post the question. Link to it.

I have no illusions that this intellectually dishonest retard is any different than any other. He has no "stumpers" that are not based upon a fundamental misrepresentation or misunderstanding of evolutionary theory or scientific method, or BOTH. He'll refuse on some dumbass grounds, and then consider himself absolved of having to actually support his assertions with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.​

Montrovant posted it directly above you. Since Darwinism is about gradual change over millions of years, my point was to go from a hairy, large brow-boned hominid to the modern form of homo sapien, the brow bone obviously had to shrink and body hair had to be lost. It is ridiculous to think that natural selection would weed these individuals out that had minor changes no other hominid would notice. The sarcasm is... would NS really eliminate what I call the "inbetweener", especially when he or she was in the early stages of being in between? Basically, logic has to throw Darwinism out because it just can't fit with the dating of the fossils we find and the lack of transitional fossils. What we find in nature is punctuated equilibrium. If we are to believe in evolutionary theory, we have to believe that massive structural changes happened to organisms in EXTREMELY short periods (in the big scheme of earth's history) and then just as quickly stopped happening. Homo Sapien appears on the scene suddenly. But where were his great, great grandparents to the nth power while they were transitioning from the ape like hominids evolutionists get all giddy about? Why is there so much evidence fossil evidence for Neandertal and Homo Sapien, but none of the transitional species that came from their common ancestor and why didn't the guy with a 1mm less brow bone and less hair survive when it would be preposterous to believe that nature, other hominids, or natural selection could tell them apart? If we are to believe evolutionary theory, what accelerated the changes needed to go from one very diverse species to another with no evidence of anything in between? If we follow Darwin's own writings, in light of this evidence, we have to throw out his theory because the gradual change doesn't fit. It doesn't fit with the fossil record, and if we follow the hard line about random genetic mutations causing the species to have more "fitness" we can't logically explain the rapid change and abrupt stasis we find.

There it is, all in black and white, for you folks that totally missed the sarcastic simplified version. Doh!!!

 

[LOki]

Like how you conveniently dodged this question. You are like Loki... a bunch of words and no substance.

Seriously dude? Then step up.

Youwerecreated asked all of his dumb questions, and I answered them ... repeatedly. His only rebuttal is a denial of reality. He just can't accept that he's been thoroughly punked.

This is your chance. Ask away. Let me have them ALL!

But before you start, let me give you a heads up on what will simply not work:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQQrTZ1x2EM"]The regular Shit You Asshats Post Will Not Work[/ame]
Remember: What will not work is you submitting your-made-up-nonsense, and then proving that your-made-up-nonsense is made-up-nonsense, and then saying that doing so somehow refutes anything I assert. My answer to your-made-up-nonsense is that no one but you and your retarded tribe believes that I or anyone else asserts your-made-up-nonsense. OK ?

Rock out or STFU!

I have no illusions that this intellectually dishonest retard is any different than any other. He has no "stumpers" that are not based upon a fundamental misrepresentation or misunderstanding of evolutionary theory or scientific method, or BOTH. He'll refuse on some dumbass grounds, and then consider himself absolved of having to actually support his assertions with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.​

It seems rather obvious at this point that prohibiting you from posing questions premised upon your-made-up-nonsense also prohibits you from re-post these questions you claim are being "dodged."

 

[LOki]

You can start with answering the questions that he is dodging.

Post the question. Link to it.

I have no illusions that this intellectually dishonest retard is any different than any other. He has no "stumpers" that are not based upon a fundamental misrepresentation or misunderstanding of evolutionary theory or scientific method, or BOTH. He'll refuse on some dumbass grounds, and then consider himself absolved of having to actually support his assertions with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.​

Montrovant posted it directly above you. Since Darwinism is about gradual change over millions of years, my point was to go from a hairy, large brow-boned hominid to the modern form of homo sapien, the brow bone obviously had to shrink and body hair had to be lost. It is ridiculous to think that natural selection would weed these individuals out that had minor changes no other hominid would notice. The sarcasm is... would NS really eliminate what I call the "inbetweener", especially when he or she was in the early stages of being in between? Basically, logic has to throw Darwinism out because it just can't fit with the dating of the fossils we find and the lack of transitional fossils. What we find in nature is punctuated equilibrium. If we are to believe in evolutionary theory, we have to believe that massive structural changes happened to organisms in EXTREMELY short periods (in the big scheme of earth's history) and then just as quickly stopped happening. Homo Sapien appears on the scene suddenly. But where were his great, great grandparents to the nth power while they were transitioning from the ape like hominids evolutionists get all giddy about? Why is there so much evidence fossil evidence for Neandertal and Homo Sapien, but none of the transitional species that came from their common ancestor and why didn't the guy with a 1mm less brow bone and less hair survive when it would be preposterous to believe that nature, other hominids, or natural selection could tell them apart? If we are to believe evolutionary theory, what accelerated the changes needed to go from one very diverse species to another with no evidence of anything in between? If we follow Darwin's own writings, in light of this evidence, we have to throw out his theory because the gradual change doesn't fit. It doesn't fit with the fossil record, and if we follow the hard line about random genetic mutations causing the species to have more "fitness" we can't logically explain the rapid change and abrupt stasis we find.

There it is, all in black and white, for you folks that totally missed the sarcastic simplified version. Doh!!!

Clearly you ask rhetorical questions (premised upon your-made-up-nonsense strawman version of evolutionary theory), but are you asking questions you actually expect answers for? If so, why don't you just level up and post them like an intellectually honest person?

 

[koshergrl]

made up nonsense strawman version...

What on earth would someone who uses such an idiotic phrase know about the "intellectual honesty" that he keeps carping about?

 

[LOki]

made up nonsense strawman version...

What on earth would someone who uses such an idiotic phrase know about the "intellectual honesty" that he keeps carping about?

Someone who does not present a refutation of a misrepresentation of an assertion to be a refutation of the actual assertion; someone who does not edit the quotes to create the illusion that the source cited agrees with their conclusions when they clearly don't; someone who does not engage in the ad-hominem logical fallacy to support their position, is someone who practices intellectual honesty and might know quite a bit about intellectual honesty.

The real question koshergrl, is what on earth would you know about it?

PREDICTION: koshergrl (and others of her retarded tribe) will seize upon this citing my use of the term "retarded" as an example. What they will prove they fail to understand is that an ad-hominem attack is not the same thing as an ad-hominem argument. An ad-hominem attack may be impolite, but it's not necessarily invalid since it can be a conclusion that follows from valid premises. The ad-hominem argument is what koshergrl engages in--she asserts that I'm an idiot, and then declares from that position that anything I post is idiotic.​

 

[koshergrl]

made up nonsense strawman version...

What on earth would someone who uses such an idiotic phrase know about the "intellectual honesty" that he keeps carping about?

Someone who does not present a refutation of a misrepresentation of an assertion to be a refutation of the actual assertion; someone who does not edit the quotes to create the illusion that the source cited agrees with their conclusions when they clearly don't; someone who does not engage in the ad-hominem logical fallacy to support their position, is someone who practices intellectual honesty and might know quite a bit about intellectual honesty.

The real question koshergrl, is what on earth would you know about it?

PREDICTION: koshergrl (and others of her retarded tribe) will seize upon this citing my use of the term "retarded" as an example. What they will prove they fail to understand is that an ad-hominem attack is not the same thing as an ad-hominem argument. An ad-hominem attack may be impolite, but it's not necessarily invalid since it can be a conclusion that follows from valid premises. The ad-hominem argument is what koshergrl engages in--she asserts that I'm an idiot, and then declares from that position that anything I post is idiotic.
​

Surely you know the extent of your idiocy. At this point I have to believe you're just being silly. Nobody is that bad a writer, or that incredibly stupid.

 

[LOki]

made up nonsense strawman version...

What on earth would someone who uses such an idiotic phrase know about the "intellectual honesty" that he keeps carping about?

Someone who does not present a refutation of a misrepresentation of an assertion to be a refutation of the actual assertion; someone who does not edit the quotes to create the illusion that the source cited agrees with their conclusions when they clearly don't; someone who does not engage in the ad-hominem logical fallacy to support their position, is someone who practices intellectual honesty and might know quite a bit about intellectual honesty.

The real question koshergrl, is what on earth would you know about it?

PREDICTION: koshergrl (and others of her retarded tribe) will seize upon this citing my use of the term "retarded" as an example. What they will prove they fail to understand is that an ad-hominem attack is not the same thing as an ad-hominem argument. An ad-hominem attack may be impolite, but it's not necessarily invalid since it can be a conclusion that follows from valid premises. The ad-hominem argument is what koshergrl engages in--she asserts that I'm an idiot, and then declares from that position that anything I post is idiotic.
​

Surely you know the extent of your idiocy. At this point I have to believe you're just being silly. Nobody is that bad a writer, or that incredibly stupid.

I nailed half of that one.

 

[koshergrl]

Sooo...you're going back and changing what you are quoted saying, and pretending that it means something?

 

[koshergrl]

I think there might be a rule against that.

 

[HUGGY]

There is no god...therefore no creation.

That is all.