The North Polish Union #fundie

The North Polish Union #fundie forum.nationstates.net

*...You didn't look at a single one [of my long list of sources in support of evolution], did you?
Because sources that support creationism and sources that support evolution are pretty damn different in terms of objective credibility, source for source.*

Well, whenever I post creationist sources, people either don't look at them or do for about 5 seconds and then say they're biased. So why should I look at your sources?

Also, creationist and evolutionist sources are equally biased, it's just that people naturally don't think that what they believe as "fact" is biased.

31 comments

old comment by moose

I have looked at plenty of creation sources and they are laughable to a thinking, rational person. I actually read them with embarrassment at how utterly ridiculous humans can be attempting to sound intelligent while thinking on about a 5th grade level.

I have looked at plenty of science sources for evolution and they are quite rational and site facts for their reasons. I am uplifted by such writings and find the intellectual endeavour to be commendable.

I have also noticed two other things. Creation writers try to convince you of their pre conceived belief and attempt to fit fact, or make up facts to support that belief. Science writers try to figure out fact from fantasy, and then believe what the facts represent....leaving out the fantasy.

old comment by Mister Spak

"Well, whenever I post creationist sources, people either don't look at them or do for about 5 seconds and then say they're biased. So why should I look at your sources? "

Becaue creationist sources are biased. Science sources are not.

"Also, creationist and evolutionist sources are equally biased, it's just that people naturally don't think that what they believe as "fact" is biased."

image

@His4Life:

"John, I can actually point you in the direction of a book by someone who was there when the universe began and recorded exactly what took place. Would you like me to link you to a copy so you can read it? "

You're talking about the Koran, right?

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@moose

"I have also noticed two other things. Creation writers try to convince you of their pre conceived belief and attempt to fit fact, or make up facts to support that belief. Science writers try to figure out fact from fantasy, and then believe what the facts represent....leaving out the fantasy."

Well, Kitzmiller vs. Dover was the Cre(a)ti(o)nists' last, best hope for the continuing survival of their 'agenda' & cause, under the guise of (un)'Intelligent Design'; basically Creationism by Stealth: lying.

The defence even brought in Michael Behe: a Professor of Biochemistry, no less. The rest is history, of course: 'Cdesign Proponentsists', and all that jazz; a copypasta howler that annihilated his credibility as a 'wit(l)less', and further destroying 'I.D.' - and therefore Biblical Creation - as a 'science', thus making it as credible as Homeopathy.

Y'know, all the plaintiffs had to do was to wheel into the courtroom a cage - with the same sign:

image

Then point to it - whilst looking at the defence - and say 'The prosecution rests'. Because if the 'Cre(a)ti(o)nists' 'God' can just poof a universe, world & all the animal life on it (yet, he limited his omnipotence by not doing the same for the first humans), then what's holding him back now?!

Why, it's as if... he doesn't fucking exist...?! [/hyper-smartarse]

@Troll4Life (emph-ass-is added):

"I can actually point you in the direction of a book by someone who was there when the universe began and recorded exactly what took place. Would you like me to link you to a copy so you can read it?"

Oh, I can do infinitely better than that, dearie:

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=68592

Yeah. Well, you 'think' that an object made of paper, ink & cardboard can be an eyewitness when it & everything it claims isn't even admissable as evidence in a court of law, so you lost the argument in this particular thread before it started.

And unless this Goddy-boy of yours had the omniscient forethought to actually 'create' the HD digital video camera before even the universe, then - as per Kitzmiller vs. Dover biologically - I'm afraid you 'Cre(a)ti(o)nists' have FAILed, as you always have done, and always will. Because 'eyewitness' testimonies are notoriously unreliable, thus - as per the Bible - they are inadmissable as evidence in court.

Thus as per the internet adage: pics or it didn't happen. And remember: That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (KJV): 'Prove all things.' All the Burden of proof is on you lot, we Atheists don't have to do a thing. We already have the evidence: Reality. We won before the whole 'Religion vs. Atheism' debate started. As per that little titbit of Scripture, your own 'beliefs' - certainly that which such are based on - destroy your beliefs, as 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (KJV) forces you to answer our questions to our satisfaction. Because every second you don't you continue to answer them for us already.

...but then, you think a book of cheese dreams by a 'Mr. 23 Seconds' as the basis of your credible 'claims' of an 'afterlife' existing, so - like the Bible - you FAIL even more in this & any other debate:

"it was a cheap shot anyway."

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=94497&Page=3#1547653

I strongly suggest you click the above link, and read it very carefully. What happens to you in the 'Afterlife' may well depend on you doing so, TrollLiar4Life

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@John

I've always been intrigued by the Creation Mythologies of the Australian Aboriginals - The Dreamtime - and that of the ancient Japanese: the notion of a spear (Halberd) wielded by the gods that churned the seas, and saline drops from such formed the islands of Japan.

...oh, and one word: Amaterasu.

I know it's all fiction, but frankly, even the creation myth of the ancient Mayans - not dissimilar to that of Nordic mythology: Mayan World Tree = Yggdrasil - has infinitely more credibility than the load of arse that is Genesis in the Bible. And even then, it's 'inspired' authors couldn't decide which of the two versions that 'inspired' them by their 'infallible' God was credible enough to be workable, thus both contradict each other.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

Here is another example of a person who doesn't want a dialogue but one whose mind is already made up. I've found FSTDT to be infected by a Creationist who won't consider rational arguments. He also tends to never answer questions directly & to our satisfaction and with his patronising evasions & non-sequiturs, is an insult to the superior intelligences here. Also tends to be crude and insulting:

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=94462&Page=1

'Bias', eh A little word in your shell-like, P-G...:

image

image image

image

Seems then, that the Church of England, and it's head - 'Defender of the Faith' - the devoutly Christian Queen Elizabeth II (who has final power of veto over any design of stamp/coin & banknote submitted by the Royal Mail/Mint to her, prior to their eventual issue) has absolutely no problem with Evolution, and the implications of what such paradigm-shifting facts represents.

I refer you to what NoXion says here.

The North Polish Union #fundie forum.nationstates.net

31 comments

Confused?