As for evo professors, there are dozens of formal debates between them and creationist scientists on YouTube. In every one of them the creationist destroys the evo. Watch them all & see. I've done it twice myself. It's easy. All one must do is restrict thier discussion to science and not use assumption in their assertions & they stand with egg on their face and nothing to say while being laughed at by the audience. This is because evolutionism is purely assumption, presumption, and speculation.
45 comments
"As for evo professors, there are dozens of formal debates between them and creationist scientists on YouTube. In every one of them the creationist destroys the evo."
Sure, if by "destroys" you mean "buries the poor science defender in a mountain of bovine feces so fast that he can't possibly shovel away the lies and nonsense fast enough to be able to breathe, let alone refute them coherently."
"Watch them all & see. I've done it twice myself. It's easy. All one must do is restrict thier discussion to science and not use assumption in their assertions & they stand with egg on their face and nothing to say while being laughed at by the audience. This is because evolutionism is purely assumption, presumption, and speculation. "
Reverse creation and evolution in this treatment, using science to promote evolution and disprove creationism, and this makes perfect sense. How on Earth you've managed to confuse the two here eludes me completely.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: There can be no debate on the veracity of the theory of evolution. It is proven. Sure, there a few things that need working out, some major, some minor. But to pretend that you're taking part in a rational, intellectual discussion by shaking your finger and telling someone that an entity that no one has ever seen (or will ever see, for that matter) decided to just poof it into existence is pretty much the defition of "delusion".
And don't even get me started on the claim that any evidence anywhere could ever suggest this conclusion, even implicitly.
The grad student who destroyed Kent Hovind disagrees with you.
All one must do is restrict thier discussion to science and not use assumption in their assertions & they stand with egg on their face and nothing to say while being laughed at by the audience.
And the Delusion for Jesus Award goes to... You!
Here's what a typical Evolution-vs.-Creation debate looks like:
EVOLUTIONIST: Here's what's wrong with strawman argument number one. Here's what's wrong with strawman argument number two. Here's what's wrong with strawman argument number thr---
MODERATOR: I'm sorry, but we're out of time.
AUDIENCE: The Evolutionist was only able to counter three of the Creationist's 27 arguments! The Creationist wins!
Creationists raise multiple objections to evolution, each of which would require many hours to refute to a lay audience who doesn't know science. They also often simply lie. When one side is proposing a theory that takes years to learn and understand, and the other is simply saying "Goddidit" and offering false evidence that the audience doesn't know enough to spot, it's not surprising that an ignorant audience would think the scientists have lost.
Fortunately, we don't submit science to a vote by dumb-assed redneck fundamentalist audiences who don't know shit about the subject. Creationists are free to submit their "proof" for review by people who understand the subject and can spot their bullshit. They have never done so. Never. Not once. Not in the entire history of the debate.
"In every one of them the creationist destroys the evo."
Like the one with VenomFangX and ThunderFoot.
No, wait....
Or the creationist videos of Ray Bananaforgothislastname Comfort, and Dawkins.
No, wait....
if "*puts fingers in ears* Lalalalalala the bible is true lalalala" is 'destroying evos', then yes, you are correct, you won over evolutionists
of course you can win if you ignore what the other person says!
i mean lets not bog down the "debate" with fact and logic now, the person who wins is the one who outshouts the other guy after all!
Science.
Is Not.
A Democracy!
Is it opposite day or something, because I can't think of any instance where a creationist destroys the scientist.
Thunderf00t vs VFX (also known as Posterboy for Creationism).
notice, also, how these creationists are only concerned with "winning" an argument. i think they're totally missing the point as to why people are researching things like evoltuion in the first place. simply put, biologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, etc. are all simply trying to understand the basic questions of human existence and development. we all have an innate curiosity when it comes to where we, as a species, fit in to the grander scheme of things, i.e. nature and the universe. they're not trying to define or enforce morality. they're not trying to impose any sort of belief on anyone. why can't creationists understand this? just because they have an agenda, doesn't mean scientists do. science is about gathering evidence, creationism is about making the oppostion look stupid to reinforce their own ideals, plain and simple.
"All one must do is restrict thier discussion to science and not use assumption in their assertions & they stand with egg on their face and nothing to say while being laughed at by the audience."
Wrong. This is what one must do to prove that creationism isn't science, and that evolution is a valid theory.
I've made a series dissecting the steaming pile of BS that this fool put out in the first place, and he responded with yet more B/S. By the way, the two he claims to have won debates against are Per Ahlberg and Mark A McPeek. I suspect neither have heard of him.
Formal debates, on YouTube?
Why didn't you or any of these "creationist scientists" help Michael Behe in the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial, if it's SO easy to refute evolution? Instead you left him to stand "with egg on his face and nothing to say while being laughed at by the audience".
"As for evo professors"
image
...Jeremy Clarkson has two honorary Doctorates in Engineering, and James May is a Doctor of Letters, so yes, one could say they are Professors of the rally-spec Mitsubishi Evo , and I'll just go get my coat, shall I...?!
X3
Its that the scientists play the creation drinking game , and by the time the opening statement is finished they are all plastered.
carbon dating fossils - two drinks
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
