Why Do Evolutionists Attack "Creationsists"

[ima]

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.

You believe that some invisible magician magically poofed everything into being in 6 days without ONE SHRED of evidence. Sounds like a low level intelligence to me.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

I'm not trying to change his mind. I don't care what he chooses to believe, I just don't want him trying to force his beliefs on the rest of us. He can't prove anything. If his theory was provable, the majority of the country would be atheists.

The theory has been proved as 99.9% of all colleges and universities in the world teach it as fact.
10,000 teach it as fact.
2 do not.
Do the math or do we have to prove that to you also?

 

[newpolitics]

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.

I'm just trying to get you to look up the definition of a scientific theory on your own, because obviously you won't listen to "my opinion." You won't look it up, and yet continue to ask for a scientific theory to be proven. We can't move on in this discussion until you grasp this basic term. Your being obstinate about learning it, so there is nothing further that can be done. I'm out.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Okay, all due respect to everybody involved, this is just turning into "Creationists Vol. 2" thread at this point.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I don't consider my self an "evolutionist," but I understand that evolutionary science is not about explaining the origin of life. There may be theorists who contemplate this, but in the end it is simply a branch of science and should be looked at as such. Reactionary theists will have their beefs with it, and that's up to them, but the schism between faith and science has more to do with reactionary groups than with faith or the science itself.

So, what you are saying is that evolution is not absolute truth and religious people should just take what evolutionists say with a grain of salt..?

In a way I guess. Religious people taking evolutionists with a "grain of salt" would be a massive improvement over typical reactionary postures. But evolutionists can be just as reactionary. People that look to science as a way to better understand our Universe usually aren't that reactionary. They simply have a hunger to learn, and that is their primary agenda. Hardline theists and atheists have to prove the stupidity or "wrongness" of the other. That is their agenda. Threads like this and "Creationists" provides us with this reality in an endless, ad nauseam loop.

 

[Gadawg73]

I don't consider my self an "evolutionist," but I understand that evolutionary science is not about explaining the origin of life. There may be theorists who contemplate this, but in the end it is simply a branch of science and should be looked at as such. Reactionary theists will have their beefs with it, and that's up to them, but the schism between faith and science has more to do with reactionary groups than with faith or the science itself.

So, what you are saying is that evolution is not absolute truth and religious people should just take what evolutionists say with a grain of salt..?

In a way I guess. Religious people taking evolutionists with a "grain of salt" would be a massive improvement over typical reactionary postures. But evolutionists can be just as reactionary. People that look to science as a way to better understand our Universe usually aren't that reactionary. They simply have a hunger to learn, and that is their primary agenda. Hardline theists and atheists have to prove the stupidity or "wrongness" of the other. That is their agenda. Threads like this and "Creationists" provides us with this reality in an endless, ad nauseam loop.

Science is not reactionary and has nothing whatsoever to do with religion and atheism.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

So, what you are saying is that evolution is not absolute truth and religious people should just take what evolutionists say with a grain of salt..?

In a way I guess. Religious people taking evolutionists with a "grain of salt" would be a massive improvement over typical reactionary postures. But evolutionists can be just as reactionary. People that look to science as a way to better understand our Universe usually aren't that reactionary. They simply have a hunger to learn, and that is their primary agenda. Hardline theists and atheists have to prove the stupidity or "wrongness" of the other. That is their agenda. Threads like this and "Creationists" provides us with this reality in an endless, ad nauseam loop.

Science is not reactionary and has nothing whatsoever to do with religion and atheism.

Thanks for restating my point I guess?

 

[S.J.]

Looks to me like the only thing the evolution dupes are trying to prove is that anyone who doesn't accept their theory (without proof) is somehow less intelligent than they are. Their argument is personal attacks and name calling. That's what it ALWAYS comes down to.

 

[Hollie]

Looks to me like the only thing the evolution dupes are trying to prove is that anyone who doesn't accept their theory (without proof) is somehow less intelligent than they are. Their argument is personal attacks and name calling. That's what it ALWAYS comes down to.

So.... Do you believe that all the complimentary disciplines of science, to include biology, chemistry, paleontology, physics, etc., and the global community of scientists representing virtually all of the globes colleges and teaching universities are involved in some worldwide conspiracy involving "evilution"?

 

[S.J.]

Looks to me like the only thing the evolution dupes are trying to prove is that anyone who doesn't accept their theory (without proof) is somehow less intelligent than they are. Their argument is personal attacks and name calling. That's what it ALWAYS comes down to.

So.... Do you believe that all the complimentary disciplines of science, to include biology, chemistry, paleontology, physics, etc., and the global community of scientists representing virtually all of the globes colleges and teaching universities are involved in some worldwide conspiracy involving "evilution"?

Did I say anything about a conspiracy, or are you just trying to put words in my mouth because you have nothing else?

 

[Hollie]

Looks to me like the only thing the evolution dupes are trying to prove is that anyone who doesn't accept their theory (without proof) is somehow less intelligent than they are. Their argument is personal attacks and name calling. That's what it ALWAYS comes down to.

So.... Do you believe that all the complimentary disciplines of science, to include biology, chemistry, paleontology, physics, etc., and the global community of scientists representing virtually all of the globes colleges and teaching universities are involved in some worldwide conspiracy involving "evilution"?

Did I say anything about a conspiracy, or are you just trying to put words in my mouth because you have nothing else?

You commented regarding there being no proof of evilutionary theory. Your claim conflicts with what is an accepted scientific theory (accepted by virtually every teaching institution) around the globe.

Perhaps the global science community has it all wrong? How would you propose to correct that situation. Or worse, perhaps there is a global conspiracy.

 

[S.J.]

So.... Do you believe that all the complimentary disciplines of science, to include biology, chemistry, paleontology, physics, etc., and the global community of scientists representing virtually all of the globes colleges and teaching universities are involved in some worldwide conspiracy involving "evilution"?

Did I say anything about a conspiracy, or are you just trying to put words in my mouth because you have nothing else?

You commented regarding there being no proof of evilutionary theory. Your claim conflicts with what is an accepted scientific theory (accepted by virtually every teaching institution) around the globe.

Perhaps the global science community has it all wrong? How would you propose to correct that situation. Or worse, perhaps there is a global conspiracy.

Well, the global scientific community has also signed onto the global warming hoax, which has been debunked. They got caught hiding data that contradicted their claims, so you'll forgive me if I have a little skepticism when they push their "scentific" claims. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy so much as I would call it pride. I'm quite certain if the scientific community made a new discovery that flew in the face of evolution, it would be hidden from the rest of us. For all we know, this may have already happened.

 

[Hollie]

Did I say anything about a conspiracy, or are you just trying to put words in my mouth because you have nothing else?

You commented regarding there being no proof of evilutionary theory. Your claim conflicts with what is an accepted scientific theory (accepted by virtually every teaching institution) around the globe.

Perhaps the global science community has it all wrong? How would you propose to correct that situation. Or worse, perhaps there is a global conspiracy.

Well, the global scientific community has also signed onto the global warming hoax, which has been debunked. They got caught hiding data that contradicted their claims, so you'll forgive me if I have a little skepticism when they push their "scentific" claims. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy so much as I would call it pride. I'm quite certain if the scientific community made a new discovery that flew in the face of evolution, it would be hidden from the rest of us. For all we know, this may have already happened.

Your comments self-contradict. Some within the science community claim to have evidence for global warming. Some within the science community differ on the interpretation of the data. You do realize that not every single scientist had taken one side or the other, right?

So let's bring it on home them. Do you have any information to suggest that there is new data that flies in the face of evilution whuch is being hidden?

Is there anything you can share such that you may know of individuals or groups of individuals who may have such data but are hiding it?

Do you see how others might infer from your comments that you have suspicions of conspiracies involving multiple conspirators?

 

[S.J.]

You commented regarding there being no proof of evilutionary theory. Your claim conflicts with what is an accepted scientific theory (accepted by virtually every teaching institution) around the globe.

Perhaps the global science community has it all wrong? How would you propose to correct that situation. Or worse, perhaps there is a global conspiracy.

Well, the global scientific community has also signed onto the global warming hoax, which has been debunked. They got caught hiding data that contradicted their claims, so you'll forgive me if I have a little skepticism when they push their "scentific" claims. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy so much as I would call it pride. I'm quite certain if the scientific community made a new discovery that flew in the face of evolution, it would be hidden from the rest of us. For all we know, this may have already happened.

Your comments self-contradict. Some within the science community claim to have evidence for global warming. Some within the science community differ on the interpretation of the data. You do realize that not every single scientist had taken one side or the other, right?

So let's bring it on home them. Do you have any information to suggest that there is new data that flies in the face of evilution whuch is being hidden?

Is there anything you can share such that you may know of individuals or groups of individuals who may have such data but are hiding it?

Do you see how others might infer from your comments that you have suspicions of conspiracies involving multiple conspirators?

Why don't you go back and read what I said, instead of twisting my words or put words in my mouth? For a minute I thought you might have actually been interested in a substantive exchange. I should have known better, huh?

 

[Hollie]

Well, the global scientific community has also signed onto the global warming hoax, which has been debunked. They got caught hiding data that contradicted their claims, so you'll forgive me if I have a little skepticism when they push their "scentific" claims. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy so much as I would call it pride. I'm quite certain if the scientific community made a new discovery that flew in the face of evolution, it would be hidden from the rest of us. For all we know, this may have already happened.

Your comments self-contradict. Some within the science community claim to have evidence for global warming. Some within the science community differ on the interpretation of the data. You do realize that not every single scientist had taken one side or the other, right?

So let's bring it on home them. Do you have any information to suggest that there is new data that flies in the face of evilution whuch is being hidden?

Is there anything you can share such that you may know of individuals or groups of individuals who may have such data but are hiding it?

Do you see how others might infer from your comments that you have suspicions of conspiracies involving multiple conspirators?

Why don't you go back and read what I said, instead of twisting my words or put words in my mouth? For a minute I thought you might have actually been interested in a substantive exchange. I should have known better, huh?

I did read what you "said". I even used the quote function to capture your exact comments.

Regarding evilution, and your contention that there may be a new discovery that flew in the face of evilution, you wrote out:

" For all we know, this may have already happened".

I simply asked if you had any data, any evidence or anything else that might indicate your suspicion was true.

For example, if I made the statement: "I understand you may have been subjected to prior arrest for trading sexual favors to men on the street corner in exchange for vials of crack cocaine.... For all we know, this may have already happened".

That would be presumptuous, no?

 

[Gadawg73]

Did I say anything about a conspiracy, or are you just trying to put words in my mouth because you have nothing else?

You commented regarding there being no proof of evilutionary theory. Your claim conflicts with what is an accepted scientific theory (accepted by virtually every teaching institution) around the globe.

Perhaps the global science community has it all wrong? How would you propose to correct that situation. Or worse, perhaps there is a global conspiracy.

Well, the global scientific community has also signed onto the global warming hoax, which has been debunked. They got caught hiding data that contradicted their claims, so you'll forgive me if I have a little skepticism when they push their "scentific" claims. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy so much as I would call it pride. I'm quite certain if the scientific community made a new discovery that flew in the face of evolution, it would be hidden from the rest of us. For all we know, this may have already happened.

"I am quite certain" is all you have.
Which ain't jack shit.

 

[zombiehunter696]

Looks to me like the only thing the evolution dupes are trying to prove is that anyone who doesn't accept their theory (without proof) is somehow less intelligent than they are. Their argument is personal attacks and name calling. That's what it ALWAYS comes down to.

You don't even know the definition of a scientific theory. Either that, or you are deliberately ignoring reality. Every time you were told you were wrong, you tried to dodge or ignore. You're pathetic. You just wanted to argue and ignore anything they said until the other person said "**** it, you aren't worth my time" so you could declare some hollow victory. Again, pathetic.

 

[zombiehunter696]

Hollie, just ignore S.J. If you go back and read his older posts, it's obvious that he's not interested in learning anything about science since he constantly repeats the same lines after people explained why they are nonsensical. He sounds like a classic forum troll. Just ignore him.

 

[S.J.]

Your comments self-contradict. Some within the science community claim to have evidence for global warming. Some within the science community differ on the interpretation of the data. You do realize that not every single scientist had taken one side or the other, right?

So let's bring it on home them. Do you have any information to suggest that there is new data that flies in the face of evilution whuch is being hidden?

Is there anything you can share such that you may know of individuals or groups of individuals who may have such data but are hiding it?

Do you see how others might infer from your comments that you have suspicions of conspiracies involving multiple conspirators?

Why don't you go back and read what I said, instead of twisting my words or put words in my mouth? For a minute I thought you might have actually been interested in a substantive exchange. I should have known better, huh?

I did read what you "said". I even used the quote function to capture your exact comments.

Regarding evilution, and your contention that there may be a new discovery that flew in the face of evilution, you wrote out:

" For all we know, this may have already happened".

I simply asked if you had any data, any evidence or anything else that might indicate your suspicion was true.

For example, if I made the statement: "I understand you may have been subjected to prior arrest for trading sexual favors to men on the street corner in exchange for vials of crack cocaine.... For all we know, this may have already happened".

That would be presumptuous, no?

Well, congratulations. You've shown yourself to be on the same level as zombie. Name calling and adolescent remarks are all you have.

 

[zombiehunter696]

Well, congratulations. You've shown yourself to be on the same level as zombie. Name calling and adolescent remarks are all you have.

Calling you out for ignoring and dodging when someone explains why you're wrong is not "name calling" I can understand why you get pissy, though.