We have fossils of feathered dinosaurs. How do you explain it?
The Devil added the feathers! Or possibly the Illuminati.
It’s all connected after all.
I am no longer giving this one the benefit of the doubt. No one can be this deliberately ignorant. I am disengaging from this pointless discussion, regardless of how much it is amusing Reef Shark.
Dear Friends,
Having wandered through this hopeless maze of nonsense and non sequiters I have to say this.
Give it up.
I’m not going to accuse the OP of trollery. I’ve known people like this. I truly believe that what he states is what he truly believes. But I also think the word “debate” … I do not think it means what he thinks it means.
And we’ve seen this style of “debate” all over the internet; so much so that I get the feeling that it could be some sort of turing test, the way the responses are so pat and follow such a set pattern. To wit:
He will not investigate your cites with an open mind.
He will insist that you not only read his “cites” but draw wild conclusions from them without any supporting evidence.
He will fixate upon a molehill of a possible problem with the theory while ignoring the mountain of evidence that supports the theory.
He will claim that he doesn’t need to prove his side, being the commonly accepted point of view and that any comers need to prove their side.
He is not educated enough to be able to intelligently critique the opposing theory.
There is no debate going on here. There is only willful ignorance and willful adherence to a viewpoint that he will never leave no matter what evidence is pointed out to him. And it makes me wonder about our claim as being “the smartest, hippest people on the planet” when we even choose to try to engage him.
In short, there is really only one thing we can do in a case like this:
I don’t know, Euty. I only know that I have a better grasp of the arguments put forth by dedicated Creationists than our friend here, and can certainly present them more convincingly. I also notice that the Illuminati have been dropped from the discussion. I find myself doubting his sincerity.
This may be an example of a poorly-educated person who half-remembers what his preacher said once, and who sincerely believes that what the Crocodile Hunter may have said is the equivalent of a zoology course (I alway preferred Jeff Corwin, since he didn’t pester than darn critters so much). But I can only react based on observations, and as you said there is no point in continuing with this one.
Holy shit. I’ve argued with a lot of creationists on the internet over the years, but you truly are one of the worst at arguing I’ve ever come across. THESE tired, hoary old arguments? Why not just go for the granddaddy of them all and ask why there are still monkeys around? These “arguments” are just about as old as the hills - however old you want to believe THAT is - and have been answered and debunked so many thousands of times that for anyone to still use them is clear proof of intellectual dishonesty. The answers are so common, and so freely available, that for anyone to pretend that they’re still valid questions is sheer, blatant denial of reality.
In other words, just about every creationist brings them up at one point or another.
Do you know what happens when you use a microscope to look at the moon? It can’t give you the right results, because that isn’t what that particular tool was designed to do in the first place. Also, would you be so kind as to quit dodging this question:
How long ago do you think life began on this planet?
Asking yet other question is NOT a proper or respectful response-I think you’ve done enough questions for now, and it’s time for you to actually answer some. You seem to think that somehow disproving the fact of evolution means that Creationism must be correct, and it doesn’t, any more than showing that 2+3 doesn’t equal 7 is somehow proof that 5+1 does. It is now time for us to stop giving out all the long established evidence for evolution, and for you to finally step up to the plate and give any evidence you have for your theory of Creationism.
I repeat: It is now YOUR turn to give YOUR evidence for what YOU believe to be true.
You know he’s just going to say “Read the Bible”. Why pretend otherwise?
That will be taken as a direct refusal to answer questions. I’ve already read the Bible, and I haven’t seen the answers he claims are there. Direct answers only will be accepted-no more vague reading assignments, and no more diversionary questions.
But that was rather my point. At this stage of the game, you know he’s not going to give direct answers. And he never will. It’s a fools errand.
Despite AIG maintaining a list of Arguments We Used To Love That Now Make Us Look Dumb, creationists will try using them if they think they can get away with it, because these arguments still work on the faithful, assuming they don’t have an inquisitive nature.
I mean, assuming the OP is in earnest, of course.
If he is in earnest, he will now step up to the plate and give his case for, after all these pages of asking questions about the other side of the argument. It is now his turn in the witness box.
here for the curious:
And as a counterpoint (not sure if anyone else has already linked this in the thread):
TalkOrigins Index To Creationist Claims
reef shark - if you’ve got anything fresh to say that isn’t already answered in the above list, or you can properly refute any of the answers in the above list, let’s hear it.
Or they got to him…
fnord
Fossils are not created by floods.
I have not seen you support any of your claims with scientific data. You regugitate misinformation in the style of science, but it has nothing to do with the rogors of the scientific method.
I heard all I needed when the OP claimed there was no such thing as a ‘geologic column’. That may be the single most jaw-droppingly ignorant thing I’ve ever read on this board.
Really, though, it’s not worth wasting time over, unless one likes picking at scabs.
?
These all have explanations, however I see no reason to actually provide you with any of them since you essentially ignored the contradictions in your own text.
I’ll repeat what I wrote so you can do more than just ignore it:
*Not only are there two creation accounts there, there is no evidence that the earth was created before the Sun. Further, the account in the first chapter of Genesis is incoherent for a variety of reasons:
- Plants are created a day before the Sun (did they all die off)?
- The moon is not a ‘light’, it generates no light of it’s own, it reflects the light of the Sun.
- How could their be ‘morning’ and ‘evening’ without the Sun?
Those just popped out at me. How is this anything other than an obvious creation myth?*