Why Do Evolutionists Attack "Creationsists"

[S.J.]

if it was good science (anyone could reproduce the same results following the same methodology). The financial and societal reward for someone overturning evolution would be so huge, their great grandchildren wouldn't ever have to work.

Funny, that's the same thing I was thinking about you evolutionists.

 

[S.J.]

Well, you just answered my question. It's BOTH. Sucking up to newpolitics AND a dumb ******* liberal. You've offered nothing in this thread except brown-nosing newpolitics and parroting everything he says. Can't come up with anything of your own? I guess that's why you're relegated to "cheerleader".

Again, ignoring everything you can so you can avoid just admitting that you were wrong. You're not even trying anymore. This is a deliberate attempt to antagonize me. Pathetic.

You posted something incorrect, and when corrected, you threw a temper tantrum. Grow the **** up.

And what makes you think I'm a liberal?

Get your nose out of his ass. Where's your dignity?

The guy trying to antagonize someone on the internet questioning the dignity of someone else? Priceless. You are one of the most pathetic people I've come across on the internet. At least some of the others are more subtle.

Dude, you're a ******* amateur. I'm not trying to antagonize you, you're just feeling antagonized because of frustration. You have nothing to add to the debate other than cheerleading. You lack the intelligence to add anything of your own. I almost feel embarrassed for you (almost).

 

[newpolitics]

Too bad you can't figure out how to prove your ludicrous theory.

So ironic that an attempt at insult further seals your own ignorance to even the most basic scientific terms, even after I sincerely tried to explain it to you. You are just looking for a fight, and to act as arrogant and obnoxious towards atheists as possible. Admit that much.

very good post

Great addition to the other forums.

Thank you.

 

[newpolitics]

if it was good science (anyone could reproduce the same results following the same methodology). The financial and societal reward for someone overturning evolution would be so huge, their great grandchildren wouldn't ever have to work.

Funny, that's the same thing I was thinking about you evolutionists.

His name was Darwin.

 

[newpolitics]

And I can't tell if you're just sucking up to newpolitics or just a dumb ******* liberal who blindly sides with another liberal. And if there are any "lurkers" out there, it's probably you.

Newpolitics is right and has way more patience for ignorance than I do. I side with him because he(unlike you) actually knows what the hell he's talking about. You've proven again and again that you lack knowledge of basic scientific terms. Then you get pissy and throw a temper tantrum when someone corrects you.

I guess you don't know what a lurker on a forum is either. That's someone who reads threads, but doesn't contribute to them. Thus, I cannot be a lurker since I post. Are you going to insult me for correcting you now?

BTW, once you start with responses like "you're just another liberal", you've pretty much admitted you've lost.

If you feel that way, why don't you just drop the ******* subject? I would like nothing better than to end this pissing contest you initiated, but you can't leave it alone, can you? You just can't stand the idea of somebody disagreeing with your stupid ******* theory.

He explained why you were mistaken and you started flaming him. You started this by posting ignorant statements and getting upset when you were corrected.

Too bad you can't figure out how to prove your ludicrous theory.

Didn't several people explain to you why this is idiotic? Oh yeah, me, and several others did. It's obvious you're either trying to be antagonistic or you just don't understand what's going on.

Thank you! This was cathartic to read.

 

[S.J.]

if it was good science (anyone could reproduce the same results following the same methodology). The financial and societal reward for someone overturning evolution would be so huge, their great grandchildren wouldn't ever have to work.

Funny, that's the same thing I was thinking about you evolutionists.

His name was Darwin.

So, prove it and you'll be famous.

 

[zombiehunter696]

Dude, you're a ******* amateur. I'm not trying to antagonize you, you're just feeling antagonized because of frustration. You have nothing to add to the debate other than cheerleading. You lack the intelligence to add anything of your own. I almost feel embarrassed for you (almost).

Yes you are. Either that, or you're an idiot. I have contributed. You ignore it like you do when someone explains why you're wrong.

And I lack intelligence? You are the one missing the point of basically every response to your nonsensical posts. Either you're too dumb to understand it or you're just ignoring it to avoid admitting you're wrong.

Several people here have explained why you're wrong. There's no debate. Just you spewing your willful ignorance and others correcting it. You can't exactly debate when one person doesn't understand what's going on, and it's pretty damn obvious you don't.

You've repeatedly said we need to "prove" the ToE to be true. When it's explained to you why that's nonsensical, you repeat it over and over.

 

[S.J.]

Dude, you're a ******* amateur. I'm not trying to antagonize you, you're just feeling antagonized because of frustration. You have nothing to add to the debate other than cheerleading. You lack the intelligence to add anything of your own. I almost feel embarrassed for you (almost).

Yes you are. Either that, or you're an idiot. I have contributed. You ignore it like you do when someone explains why you're wrong.

And I lack intelligence? You are the one missing the point of basically every response to your nonsensical posts. Either you're too dumb to understand it or you're just ignoring it to avoid admitting you're wrong.

Several people here have explained why you're wrong. There's no debate. Just you spewing your willful ignorance and others correcting it. You can't exactly debate when one person doesn't understand what's going on, and it's pretty damn obvious you don't.

You've repeatedly said we need to "prove" the ToE to be true. When it's explained to you why that's nonsensical, you repeat it over and over.

Again, you offer nothing. No science, no evidence, just trying to see how far you can piss. I have to say, however, in defense of newpolitics, you make a pretty good case for evolution. You may very well be the proverbial missing link.

 

[newpolitics]

Funny, that's the same thing I was thinking about you evolutionists.

His name was Darwin.

So, prove it and you'll be famous.

Are you a robot?

 

[S.J.]

His name was Darwin.

So, prove it and you'll be famous.

Are you a robot?

Are you a scientist?

 

[newpolitics]

So, prove it and you'll be famous.

Are you a robot?

Are you a scientist?

No, I'm someone that paid attention in science class because I found it, and still find, genuinely interesting, and believe its methods are the best hope we have for uncovering truth in this universe.

 

[S.J.]

Are you a robot?

Are you a scientist?

No, I'm someone that paid attention in science class because I found it, and still find, genuinely interesting, and believe its methods are the best hope we have for uncovering truth in this universe.

In other words, you're just somebody that bought into a theory that made sense to you, so you present yourself as some kind of authority. You have no degree, you have nothing, just an opinion, yet you feel qualified to offer me a "lesson in science". Sounds a tad bit arrogant, wouldn't you say? So, armed with nothing but an opinion, what makes you think you're in a position to judge other people's level of knowledge or intelligence?

 

[newpolitics]

Are you a scientist?

No, I'm someone that paid attention in science class because I found it, and still find, genuinely interesting, and believe its methods are the best hope we have for uncovering truth in this universe.

In other words, you're just somebody that bought into a theory that made sense to you, so you present yourself as some kind of authority. You have no degree, you have nothing, just an opinion, yet you feel qualified to offer me a "lesson in science". Sounds a tad bit arrogant, wouldn't you say? So, armed with nothing but an opinion, what makes you think you're in a position to judge other people's level of knowledge or intelligence?

I know what I know. Are you saying I don't? Prove me wrong. Also, are you implying you need a degree to cite definitions? You're an idiot.

 

[S.J.]

No, I'm someone that paid attention in science class because I found it, and still find, genuinely interesting, and believe its methods are the best hope we have for uncovering truth in this universe.

In other words, you're just somebody that bought into a theory that made sense to you, so you present yourself as some kind of authority. You have no degree, you have nothing, just an opinion, yet you feel qualified to offer me a "lesson in science". Sounds a tad bit arrogant, wouldn't you say? So, armed with nothing but an opinion, what makes you think you're in a position to judge other people's level of knowledge or intelligence?

I know what I know. Are you saying I don't? Prove me wrong. Also, are you implying you need a degree to cite definitions? You're an idiot.

There it is again, "prove me wrong". Remember, the burden of proof is on the one advancing the theory. And I'm not implying you need a degree to cite definitions, but you'd better have something to give you credibility if you're gonna pass yourself off as some kind of expert. By your own admission, you're just somebody with an opinion, nothing more, so I guess you'll have to stick to the tried and true tactics of the left and call me another name.

 

[newpolitics]

In other words, you're just somebody that bought into a theory that made sense to you, so you present yourself as some kind of authority. You have no degree, you have nothing, just an opinion, yet you feel qualified to offer me a "lesson in science". Sounds a tad bit arrogant, wouldn't you say? So, armed with nothing but an opinion, what makes you think you're in a position to judge other people's level of knowledge or intelligence?

I know what I know. Are you saying I don't? Prove me wrong. Also, are you implying you need a degree to cite definitions? You're an idiot.

There it is again, "prove me wrong". Remember, the burden of proof is on the one advancing the theory. And I'm not implying you need a degree to cite definitions, but you'd better have something to give you credibility if you're gonna pass yourself off as some kind of expert. By your own admission, you're just somebody with an opinion, nothing more, so I guess you'll have to stick to the tried and true tactics of the left and call me another name.

I wasn't referring to evolution when I said to prove me wrong. We were talking about the definition of a scientific theory. You've switched topics. Lets keep it to the topic at a time, hey? I never passed myself off as an expert I cited what I know to be true about basic scientific terms. We haven't even begun to talk about evolution. We are still stuck on the definition of a theory. So, ill ask again: prove my definition of a scientific theory to be wrong. Look it up and quote it here. If you can prove me wrong with a credible source, ill change my mind. Good luck.

 

[S.J.]

I know what I know. Are you saying I don't? Prove me wrong. Also, are you implying you need a degree to cite definitions? You're an idiot.

There it is again, "prove me wrong". Remember, the burden of proof is on the one advancing the theory. And I'm not implying you need a degree to cite definitions, but you'd better have something to give you credibility if you're gonna pass yourself off as some kind of expert. By your own admission, you're just somebody with an opinion, nothing more, so I guess you'll have to stick to the tried and true tactics of the left and call me another name.

I wasn't referring to evolution when I said to prove me wrong. We were talking about the definition of a scientific theory. You've switched topics. Lets keep it to the topic at a time, hey? I never passed myself off as an expert I cited what I know to be true about basic scientific terms. We haven't even begun to talk about evolution. We are still stuck on the definition of a theory. So, ill ask again: prove my definition of a scientific theory to be wrong. Look it up and quote it here. If you can prove me wrong with a credible source, ill change my mind. Good luck.

This is getting silly now. I think you're desperate to win an argument, any argument. I'm not gonna jump through your diversionary hoops. The subject is you proving evolution, so unless you're prepared to offer that proof (which I know you're not), this debate is over.

If you have anything new to add, go ahead, but aside from that, I'm done here.

 

[ReallyMeow]

Again, you offer nothing. No science, no evidence

There it is again, "prove me wrong". Remember, the burden of proof is on the one advancing the theory.

plenty of proof
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN74qV7SsjY]Evidence for Evolution: "Bad Design" (Richard Dawkins) - YouTube[/ame]


yes, if you're going to say that evolution is wrong, you need to be prepared to say "because"; the whole evolution is right because genetics, embryology, fossils has already been covered, thoroughly.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V_2r2n4b5c]Lets Test Them: Evolution vs. Creationism - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ima]

Are you a scientist?

No, I'm someone that paid attention in science class because I found it, and still find, genuinely interesting, and believe its methods are the best hope we have for uncovering truth in this universe.

In other words, you're just somebody that bought into a theory that made sense to you, so you present yourself as some kind of authority. You have no degree, you have nothing, just an opinion, yet you feel qualified to offer me a "lesson in science". Sounds a tad bit arrogant, wouldn't you say? So, armed with nothing but an opinion, what makes you think you're in a position to judge other people's level of knowledge or intelligence?

Because if you believe in creation, then your level of intelligence is pretty low.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, I'm someone that paid attention in science class because I found it, and still find, genuinely interesting, and believe its methods are the best hope we have for uncovering truth in this universe.

In other words, you're just somebody that bought into a theory that made sense to you, so you present yourself as some kind of authority. You have no degree, you have nothing, just an opinion, yet you feel qualified to offer me a "lesson in science". Sounds a tad bit arrogant, wouldn't you say? So, armed with nothing but an opinion, what makes you think you're in a position to judge other people's level of knowledge or intelligence?

Because if you believe in creation, then your level of intelligence is pretty low.

This is a very ignorant statement but funny.

 

[Gadawg73]

No, thank you for confirming that the burden of proof is on YOU to prove your theory, not mine to disprove it.

In reality, in human relations,
it is the person trying to change the mind of the other
who takes on the burden of proof to show why (based on the other person's
viewpoint framework or understanding or else the proof fails if they don't get it).

If you are both trying to change each other,
both of you have equal responsibility to explain why.

Again, in terms of the person you are trying to change!
You can explain in your own terms and perception till you're red white and blue in the face, but in reality, people won't get it unless it is shown using their own terms they commit to.

Either change the terms you are using which the other person doesn't relate to as you do.
Or focus on a point that you can get somewhere with.
No use in blaming the other person, who is just as frustrated and cannot see your side either. That's just human and we can't help that we don't always see things the same way.

If you must give up on this, try something else.
Eventually by trial and error, hit or miss, you will work something out
and reach an agreement on some point that you can hit right on the head.

Do not agree with all of it but like all of it!
Having worked with trial lawyers for 33 years and participated in over 1500 trials your skills of persuasion are excellent.