It's just amazing how much wrong can be condensed into one paragraph.
9/27/2007 3:50:50 PM
Lying for Jesus, Paul?
9/27/2007 3:52:01 PM
'Bizarro Alternate Universe' Award?
9/27/2007 3:54:18 PM
whoa, i didn't think you could fit so much bullshit into such a short paragraph! i guess i was wrong...
"alternate bizarro universe" award anybody?
9/27/2007 3:55:54 PM
I'm sorry you were saying something. I can't hear you under this mountain of evidence I've got here.
9/27/2007 3:59:26 PM
There is still no scientific evidence to support it; there are actually zero transitional fossils, no evolutionary mechanism (it's not mutations!), and their dating methods just don't work!
Well, let's be accurate here: There is plenty of scientific evidence to support it, but creationists simply ignore it; there are plenty of transitional fossils, but creationists say "you weren't there so how do you know"; a well-explained evolutionary mechanism (it's mutations), but creationists invent their own science; and their dating methods work fine, but a handful of harebrained "scientists" have alternative theories that they haven't actually tested.
9/27/2007 4:03:18 PM
Living in an imaginary world?, because it's the other way round.
9/27/2007 4:09:09 PM
This has to be a joke.
9/27/2007 4:10:21 PM
anti-nonsenseDr. Cox says it all.
Also, what is it with fundies and randomly referring to themselves in the third person?
9/27/2007 4:15:50 PM
Another oxymoron: informed creationists.
9/27/2007 4:30:25 PM
Eugh! I fell dirty just from reading that. Did anyone else get hit from that bullshit explosion?
9/27/2007 4:40:16 PM
"[T]heir dating methods just don't work! (Simultaneously they ignore the Earth dating methods that do work, that show a young planet Earth.)"
Fundie science in a nutshell.
Right = agrees with their preconceptions,
Wrong = disagrees with their preconceptions.
This is why they say there's no evidence for evolution. All the usual evidence scientists rely on must be wrong because it proves evolution. Science needs to find the right evidence, i.e. evidence that disproves evolution, otherwise Paul won't accept it.
9/27/2007 4:47:43 PM
Creationism is primarily a delusional deception. There is still no scientific evidence to support it; there are
actually many transitional fossils, no creation mechanism (goddidit doesn't waork when no god can be found), and their dating
methods just don't work! (Simultaneously they ignore the Earth dating methods that do work, that
show an old planet Earth.) Informed scientists usually win debates against highly
"educated/indoctrinated" fundie professors ... ... even a layman like me
9/27/2007 4:55:50 PM
Lying for jesus, definitely.
9/27/2007 5:01:01 PM
Dear fundies, there is overwealming evidence for evolution, you simply choice to ignore it.
9/27/2007 5:19:57 PM
Funny how fundies must have a special ten commandments without the 9th(thou shall not bear false witness) for them because they are the lyingest group of people in the entire world. Hopefully you fundies do remember your prayers and to beg for forgiveness for this lying problem you have, don't you?
9/27/2007 5:36:07 PM
"There is still no scientific evidence to support it; there are actually zero transitional fossils, no evolutionary mechanism..."
Because, as I can demonstrate, there is oodles of evidence to prove the Biblical story of Creation..oh no, wait.
It's the other way around.
9/27/2007 5:59:04 PM
To add to my point above, I'll keep thinking of these people as either willfully ignorant or dumber than dirt.
There's no way any of them can be truly educated and believe the retarded mess that is Genesis.
9/27/2007 6:00:16 PM
I understand what you mean about evolutionsists losing debates... after all, I watched a Kent Hovind video, and if I had to debate against that massive Godzilla-sized steaming pile of strawman he invented, I would probably lose too. Anyways, I get the feeling that evolution/creation debates aren't really about science. It's a circus act, where the charismatic creationist becomes the ring leader and makes the audience laugh at the evolutionary professors by waving chairs at them and making them jump through hoops.
You're not impressive. You may be a layman, but you are certainly not "informed", and if you tried to use the arguments above in an honest academic debate, I think you would lose.
9/27/2007 6:07:45 PM
And the winner of the "Most Delusional Circular Argument" goes to... Paul Abramson!
So much BS in one short statement from him. Wow.
9/27/2007 6:48:08 PM
Paul Abramson, repeat after me. I am sofa king we todd ed.
Now, say that very quickly.
9/27/2007 6:55:29 PM
Right there from his own site. 'Nuff said.
9/27/2007 7:25:41 PM
Having just been reading up on information theory, I can tell you that using an error-correcting efficient entropy encoding method, your written paragraph may be safely transmitted across a noisy channel as "stupid" without loss of information.
9/27/2007 9:23:20 PM
Paul you are on realy cheap crack.
Evolution is a process that anyone can observe. It is well documented.
There are litteraly millions of known transitional fossils.
Whos dating methods? There are several known dating mthods that are quite reliable and reasonably accurate within their limmitations.
(Who ignores any Earth dating methods that show a young planet Earth? And are there any dating methods that show a young Earth?)
Most creationists cannot even debate against a self educated layman such as myself.
What exactly is an evolutionary professor?
9/27/2007 9:34:51 PM
James for the win!
9/27/2007 10:51:24 PM