Creation vs evolution total [relism] vs [Ferrets54] Commentary thread

[MathiasOfAthens]

Definitely needs a word limit.

[Don in the North]

having read many of TR's previous attempts at "debating" in various parts of this forum, i had acertained his prefered path of victory was frustrating opponents with bad grammar, sentences and the most successful tactic he has; link-paste-bombs . so you can imagine when i began reading this new debate, that i would expect more of the same, TR trying to gain 'victory' instead of 'enlightment' by forcing the opponent to give up in frustration. so imagine the smile on my face when i see that ferrets has taken the time to respond to every single link bomb and otherwise futile attempt TR commited to in the thread. not only that, but now it is TR that is frustrated and giving up.
the worm has definately turned

[MathiasOfAthens]

Oh an entire post full of copy paste. TR literally just copy pasted creationist propoaganda into 1 post because Ferrets didnt respond to 85 percent of TR last post that was full of copy paste .

This is getting ridiculous TR.

Post 85 I think. Its ing huge with block letters, huge fonts, major double spacing, etc.


Seriously TR. Respond with concise and short responses, not huge copy pastes from answering genesis.

[DisgruntledGoat]

lmao this is a great debate. TR's last post is hilarious. He posts some stuff which no one can really say no to (i.e. that genetic mutations are required for evolution) and just goes "and that is why you are wrong." It's such a non sequitur that I am literally on the floor laughing.

[MathiasOfAthens]

I just read Ferrets Posts. I dont have time to read a ing bible.

Anyway, thumbs up to TR for finally making a short post.

[Tankbuster]

even tankbuster had to admit the fossil record supports creation

He also can't seem to debate without filthy lies and slander.

Hey TR, if you're reading, when exactly have I ever said that? And how do you honestly expect anyone to take you seriously when you engage in blatant and obvious lies?

[Ying, Duke of Qin]

I just read through the thread. And my head hurts. I'm a biologist-in-training, and I just want to say a couple of things. Ignoring the substantial amounts of errors (one significantly less than the other - my kudos to Ferret for doing some good homework on the subject), science deals in empirical observations. That is, the methodology and observable phenomenon in which we go about to uncover how our natural world goes about. I personally do not think it is particularly wise to try to interpret the Bible, then, as a scientific book of protocols.

Which means the "Christian scientists" are going about it wrong. If they're out there to discover God's creations, I think they should look to what we could find and observe and test, rather than jumping to conclusions the instant they find a shred of evidence that supports their position. In other words:

You observe - you interpret - you conclude.

Not:

You conclude - you observe - you interpret.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

having read many of TR's previous attempts at "debating" in various parts of this forum, i had acertained his prefered path of victory was frustrating opponents with bad grammar, sentences and the most successful tactic he has; link-paste-bombs .

Oi!!! You'd better not be insinuating that he beat me. That was a stalemate, since I didn't have the time to read through 6 page posts.

[Don in the North]

well in my opinion there is no winner or loser in debates, but to TR there is. i dont even believe the objective of debating should be win or lose, but moreover understanding. for the audience and both sides of the debate.
i was merely saying that, due to TR thinking debates are all about winning, that in his mind the path to victory(not a true objective of debates) was to do as such, which to me says exactly why he does it.

[Henry X]

I generally just read Ferret's posts.

When I first joined the forum back in '07, Ferrets and I got into a debate about liberals (of today). He sorta tore me a new one, but I learned some things, so I couldn't be too angry over it.

[Lord Rahl]

I see TR is using "evidence" that has been previously debunked again in this debate.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Rahl surely you know that this "evidence" can not be debunked because it comes from the bible and the bible is infallible.


WHAT THE ING HELL TR? You just posted a 3 page response to Ferrets 1 line post. That is really wack man... I wouldnt even respond to that if I was you Ferrets.

[Lord of Lost Socks]

I think TR is trolling. Very professionally, though, I might add.

Or, he just really REALLY believes in what he does is right.

[Don in the North]

TR is just trying to avoid answering any of the examples ferrets asked him to refute. simply because he cannot, he simply doesnt understand evolution nor the science driving it enough to do so, instead changing the subject completly and going over crap thats been gone over before. pretty sure it says in the tos repeat posts are no-no's.

very unprofessional indeed.

[Incesticide]

TR is just trying to avoid answering any of the examples ferrets asked him to refute. simply because he cannot, he simply doesnt understand evolution nor the science driving it enough to do so, instead changing the subject completly and going over crap thats been gone over before. pretty sure it says in the tos repeat posts are no-no's.

very unprofessional indeed.

I think Ferrets is actually quite aware that there is no way that TR can be convinced otherwise. He's simply agreed to the semblance of a debate simply to show how poor TR's arguments are to the rest of the forum. To be fair many of us hardly needed convincing - but then there's a sizeable number of younger more impressionable people on the forum.

Essentially it's a win-win situation for Ferrets. If TR answers to his query's and admits that he has no answer then the debate is over. If TR does what he normally does - that is ignore Ferrets' arguments and continue posting walls of text despite the questions put to him - then he's showing what he really is, a poor debater with poor arguments to boot.

Whether or not TR's views change is irrelevant - the impression given to the audience is far more important.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Freshly-killed sealshave been dated at 1,300 years. This means they are supposed to have died over a millennium ago. Other seals which have been dead no longer than 30 years were dated at 4,600 years. (* W. Dort, "Mummified Seals of Southern Victoria Land," in Antarctic Journal of the U.S., June 1971, p. 210.)

Someone should inform TR that this has been explained a billion times already. I dont think hes reading our posts.

The Seal WAS ING CONTAMINATED BY ING CARBON FFS. GODDDDDDDDDDDDD!

Carbon dating didnt work but other dating techniques did.

[Admiral Piett]

The creationist is misinterpreting the opposition's refusal to acknowledge some things as being unable to answer or refute the statements. He also is operating under the entire guise that he himself knows more about evolution than his opponent and is posting a bunch of pseudo-intellectual statements cropped and pasted from a Christian Science website. The sad part is I think I know where its coming from.

[Himster]

I am shocked by TR's blind hubris.

Worst christian ever, a true christian accepts the reality of God's creation and that is honestly and demonstrably via evolution.

[Cahoma]

I don't get how he still fails to understand what evolution is...

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

I don't get how he still fails to understand what evolution is...

1. Put your fingers in your ears.
2. Close your eyes.
3. Scream LALALALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!