Why people laugh at Creationists

[Dave Lane]

Taking a lead from Killer Clown I thought I'd create a alternative thread to post some videos I like...

[EDIT New video here]

So on with the show:

Here's the Kent Hovind Theory:



"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I didn't say that. You're putting words in my mouth. Or you don't know the meaning of the word "gap." It's not the store in this case.

Then why would you respond to a post asking for evidence that disproves evolution?

The questions I quoted asked for evidence to disprove evolution because the claim was made it could be done. You then quote me saying "those gaps" as if they (the ones posted by patteeu) did a good job disproving evolution. Who is the one with the reading issue?

[BucEyedPea]

I didn't ask that. You put that word in my mouth.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Once, again another strawman argument. I realize it's the easy way out of an argument—by restating one that wasn't made to show how clever you are at refuting it. But I did not say that.

So we have the person you are referencing, who you claim did a good job to show gaps...now when I say we know there is more to learn ("gaps" for your sake) is not the same as disproving evolution you try to claim I am making up what was said? Good grief.

[BucEyedPea]

Did you say something?

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I didn't ask that. You put that word in my mouth.

I just don't think you understand that evidence to disprove evolution is not the same as acknowledging that we are still learning (because that is all it is when someone points to "gaps"). It is okay though. Perhaps you will learn something from this thread. I have a pretty good grasp of it myself but there are others who are even more versed in it than I whom I can learn from.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Did you say something?

I did. And that sentence was the best reply you could come up with. The claim was made that there was evidence to disprove evolution. And in this thread we are still waiting for said evidence.

[BucEyedPea]

I say that when I think someone isn't worth talking to anymore. When you actually comprehend my point, perhaps I'll take it up.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I'm looking for something that proves it —absolutely! Something we can all see leaving no doubt. Pat still did a good job on some of the gaps, imo.

Good luck. If you find something let me know. I do think it's the most reasonable theory that we have. In an evolution vs. creation debate/discussion/argument though...there really isn't much of anything there to support creation over it.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Good luck. If you find something let me know. I do think it's the most reasonable theory that we have. In an evolution vs. creation debate/discussion/argument though...there really isn't much of anything there to support creation over it.

Again, as we've discussed before, I never said it was unreasonable or not plausible...just that it's not complete and/or completely proven empirically. It has to rely on logic to a degree.

Again, where consciousness or a soul enters in and who creates it cannot not rely on physical world laws to claim there isn't much of anything. Different subjects require different standards of proof.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Again, as we've discussed before, I never said it was unreasonable or not plausible...just that it's not complete and/or completely proven empirically. It has to rely on logic to a degree.

Again, where consciousness or a soul enters in and who creates it cannot not rely on physical world laws to claim there isn't much of anything. Different subjects require different standards of proof.

I agree, although I'm unclear what you mean in the last sentence. I took that as each individual has to validate their own faith. That it's an internal process.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by listopencil

I agree, although I'm unclear what you mean in the last sentence. I took that as each individual has to validate their own faith. That it's an internal process.

No, I don't it's only a matter of faith, as some social sciences seem to confirm and written about.
But I don't feel like arguing about it right now.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I say that when I think someone isn't worth talking to anymore. When you actually comprehend my point, perhaps I'll take it up.

You have no point. Just face it that you responded when you shouldn't have because you had nothing to add to the ACTUAL question at hand. Nobody will deny that we have more to learn, but that doesn't disprove evolution.

[go bowe]

remember who you're trying to talk with here...

rationality, logic and common sense are lacking in this one...

everything is either a strawman or an ad hominem or both...

evidence is a foreign concept and intelligible conversation is a lost art, long live wilful ignorance!!!!

[Bump]

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

I will save him the trouble, kids had pet dinosaurs at one time~

You like many others have no clue what Hovind even says, going off half cocked...I thought you hated that kind of behavior....guess not.