creation vs evolution [total relism] vs [the rifelman] Commentary thread

**Cahoma** · August 03, 2011, 02:13 PM

Seeing as nobody else bothered to make it, I did. Discussion is here.

---------------------

All I can say is that I'm glad not to be The Rifleman now. That's a lot of text to wade through.

**MathiasOfAthens** · August 03, 2011, 02:19 PM

Didnt know there was another debate. Rifleman come on you should of set some ground rules. Rifleman just quit now its not even worth it. You guys cant both present opening posts. You respond to his post and he ignores yours.

**Lord Rahl** · August 03, 2011, 02:32 PM

In my opinion the only people up to actually debating total relism are those that involved themselves heavily in his EMM thread since they know very well his posting style, habits, and arguments. Unfortunately all of those, including myself, don't wish to go through such anguish again.

**MathiasOfAthens** · August 03, 2011, 04:08 PM

Rifleman's head just exploded from all the copypasta.

**Lord Anubis** · August 03, 2011, 04:47 PM

I can't read that man's posts, it makes my head hurt.

**MathiasOfAthens** · August 03, 2011, 05:25 PM

I use to skim them now I just scrolled straight past them.

**Mortality** · August 03, 2011, 06:20 PM

He contradicts himself. I skim through the copy pasta, it makes no sense. All the websites are pro-creation, so I can't trust them.

**generalveers** · August 04, 2011, 12:13 AM

I was considering debating him (He asked) but...his grammar alone would wind up killing me.

**Shneckie** · August 04, 2011, 09:22 AM

I can't see how you could "debate" with that guy. He just seems to make a large composition of sources and quotations to back his premise rather than actually form a logical argument.

**Makrell** · August 04, 2011, 09:25 AM

i think total relism is going to win again

**Cahoma** · August 04, 2011, 06:27 PM

total relism, seriously. This debate is Creationism vs Evolution. NOT Creationism vs the Big Bang. Stop talking about the Big bang.

Stop with all the quotes too. Most of them mean absolutely nothing. Like this one:

"Richard Dawkins begins The Blind Watchmaker with [this statement:] ‘Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose’; whereupon he requires an additional three hundred and fifty pages to show why it is only an appearance of design."—*Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 1; quoted in W.A. Demski, Signs of Intelligence, p. 23.

You say that because it's all so complex. God did it.
Just because it's too complex for you to understand, doesn't mean a supernatural being did it.

You also say that organisms can only lose "information", making them a variation or a worse than the first organism. How do you explain this then?

And please fix your grammar and spelling. Your posting style does not help people to take you seriously.

Edit:
This is probably the best idea anyone ever had:

Originally Posted by The Rifleman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Educate Thyself.

**Mortality** · August 04, 2011, 06:45 PM

Aha, Thanks mate for that. I thought it would be worth it.

**Cahoma** · August 04, 2011, 06:49 PM

It's mostly meaningless quotes, text about a whole other thing(Usually the Big Bang or Abiogenesis), and fail.

**Mortality** · August 04, 2011, 06:51 PM

I made my point across with his constant Copypasta.

**Cahoma** · August 04, 2011, 06:57 PM

Yeah he should stop that too. I know he made it himself and all that, but it's still so long and full of meaningless stuff.
It would be better if he just posted one argument for why evolution can't be real. One that doesn't involve the origin of anything.

But he can't.

**Mortality** · August 04, 2011, 07:19 PM

Yes, exactly. He relies on the creationist sites.

**generalveers** · August 04, 2011, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by total relism

“A real scientist is searching for truth about nature and not materialistic explanations “
enzyme expert Dr matti leisola published over 120 papers which have been sited over 1,3000 times in the scientific literature

"Dr matti leisola published over 120 papers which have been sited over 1,3000 times in the scientific literature"
"Sited over 1,3000 times"
"Sited" "1,3000"
I read this and died inside.

**MathiasOfAthens** · August 05, 2011, 03:49 AM

I've noticed too a lot of his quotes are just people saying random things like "Evolution is bad" or something similar. He posts quotes cause the quote sounds cool but has not relation to the debate. As if we care what someone somewhere said about Evolution.

**Mortality** · August 05, 2011, 06:21 AM

Originally Posted by generalveers

"Dr matti leisola published over 120 papers which have been sited over 1,3000 times in the scientific literature"
"Sited over 1,3000 times"
"Sited" "1,3000"
I read this and died inside.

I did too.

Something makes me doubt he's an actual scientist.