So let me get the straight.  You call me and everyone that agrees with me either moronic or less moronic.  Then when i call you out on it, highlighting exactly where you said that and you deny it.  

 

And you want to be taken seriously as an arbiter of what constitutes evidence or not?  

 

No wonder your support for the statement that "there is evidence to support the extrapolation" is to simply restate "there is evidence to support the extrapolation."

Since you forgot what you said

"To fundamentally label everyone who sees providence in a blade of grass as some wacked out flat earther is both insulting and WRONG."

 

Are you projecting or just experiencing a persecution complex?

 

I called no one a whacko flat earther.  I think it was very clear that the point I was trying to make is that over time people have started to accept evidence that parts of their belief was wrong and those that have not, IMO are morons. It's up to you whether you fall into the former or the latter. What else would you call people incapable of accepting evidence? I'm open for another term that hurts your feelings less.

 

The evidence is there for the taking all over the place from a multitude of sources. If you can't create a reasonable extrapolation off of proven scientific data than that's on you. 

---

He's definitely experiencing many complexes...

---

When did i ever call someone who believes in natural origin a moron?

---

Since you forgot what you said

"To fundamentally label everyone who sees providence in a blade of grass as some wacked out flat earther is both insulting and WRONG."

 

Are you projecting or just experiencing a persecution complex?

 

I called no one a whacko flat earther.  I think it was very clear that the point I was trying to make is that over time people have started to accept evidence that parts of their belief was wrong and those that have not, IMO are morons. It's up to you whether you fall into the former or the latter. What else would you call people incapable of accepting evidence? I'm open for another term that hurts your feelings less.

 

The evidence is there for the taking all over the place from a multitude of sources. If you can't create a reasonable extrapolation off of proven scientific data than that's on you. 

 

you're right you did not use the words Moronic Flat earther.  I was paraphrasing.  You created two very distinct categories MORONS and those who are LESS MORONIC.  That's pretty clear and not only is it insulting but its also disrespectful to those who disagree with you who as i said have been involved in the scientific and medical fields for decades.  

 

as to the idea of how you fundamentally mislabeled just look below.  

 

Ten years ago people who believe in creation would have turned red in the face in flat out refusal of that part you accept above. What's the point? That the creation theory has attempted to ignore and deny every part of evolution including the age of the earth. Over time, the less moronic believers have been forced to accept those parts which are absolutely provable. 

 

And this was in response to Eric 85 saying that in his estimation species change over time but that they don't change into each other and that there's no evidence to suggest they do change into each other.  

 

I don't know what you think or don't think about my powers of perception but i can tell the difference between pee and rain.  

 

Throughout my lifetime i have never heard anyone say that creation was based on the idea that the mean average of a giraffes neck length had to remain constant from generation to generation for their to have been an intelligent creator.  And for you to say that that's the default position of creationism is either extremely arrogant or extremely ignorant.  The way that you said it was both insulting and wrong.  

 

If you disagree with creationism that's fine, if you strongly disagree with people who espouse it that's your given right, but when you have to resort to demeaning groups of people you disagree with that demonstrates the weakness of your position.  

 

That's why its no surprise that when we ask for examples of the evidence that you hold so dear we get the deflection "well its out there if you're too stupid to figure it out then that's your problem"  again, i'm paraphrasing.  

 

Now I'll go to translating.  

 

"Well, i really think its true.  Its a theory expressed by science so it has to be based on scientific evidence.  I'm not really sure what the data says, i'm not really sure about the completeness of the fossil record, i don't really want to start talking about punctuated equilibrium, beneficial mutation rates, we might have to start talking about geotaxis in fruit flies and how that correlates to food supplies.  He might ask me about proposed ideas of fusion events in the human genome and i don't know exactly how that works or would work.  He keeps talking about this abiogenesis thing and i never really heard of that before and maybe if i ignore it he'll just go away.  Before the big bang... what does he mean before the big bang...  

 

Let's just make a sarcastic snarky remark and hope that anchorman will back me up."

 

But hey, that's just an assumption.  Then again, all i'm left with is assumptions when repeated requests for you to state the evidence supporting your case are met with "the subject is closed you're just too stupid to know it"

---

http://youtu.be/na5Y9FxR0lg

---

Im only crazy for u oface

---

you're right you did not use the words Moronic Flat earther. I was paraphrasing. You created two very distinct categories MORONS and those who are LESS MORONIC. That's pretty clear and not only is it insulting but its also disrespectful to those who disagree with you who as i said have been involved in the scientific and medical fields for decades.


as to the idea of how you fundamentally mislabeled just look below.



And this was in response to Eric 85 saying that in his estimation species change over time but that they don't change into each other and that there's no evidence to suggest they do change into each other.


I don't know what you think or don't think about my powers of perception but i can tell the difference between pee and rain.


Throughout my lifetime i have never heard anyone say that creation was based on the idea that the mean average of a giraffes neck length had to remain constant from generation to generation for their to have been an intelligent creator. And for you to say that that's the default position of creationism is either extremely arrogant or extremely ignorant. The way that you said it was both insulting and wrong.


If you disagree with creationism that's fine, if you strongly disagree with people who espouse it that's your given right, but when you have to resort to demeaning groups of people you disagree with that demonstrates the weakness of your position.


That's why its no surprise that when we ask for examples of the evidence that you hold so dear we get the deflection "well its out there if you're too stupid to figure it out then that's your problem" again, i'm paraphrasing.


Now I'll go to translating.


"Well, i really think its true. Its a theory expressed by science so it has to be based on scientific evidence. I'm not really sure what the data says, i'm not really sure about the completeness of the fossil record, i don't really want to start talking about punctuated equilibrium, beneficial mutation rates, we might have to start talking about geotaxis in fruit flies and how that correlates to food supplies. He might ask me about proposed ideas of fusion events in the human genome and i don't know exactly how that works or would work. He keeps talking about this abiogenesis thing and i never really heard of that before and maybe if i ignore it he'll just go away. Before the big bang... what does he mean before the big bang...


Let's just make a sarcastic snarky remark and hope that anchorman will back me up."


But hey, that's just an assumption. Then again, all i'm left with is assumptions when repeated requests for you to state the evidence supporting your case are met with "the subject is closed you're just too stupid to know it"

Never mind. It's pointless. You provide no evidence of your stance while screaming for other to provide more than what is already available and well known. This conversation is pointless.

---

Im only crazy for u oface

 

Some would say that he/she adds something meaningful to discussions around here.   :unsure:   Not me, but I'm guessing that someone believes that.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I'm just happy to be mentioned in this thread. Makes me feel special.


Also, I like oface and jagibelieve, strictly platonicly, though.


Lastly, isn't creationism not a science since the final point of reference is a religious book?


Did any body watch bill nye wipe the floor with that creationism guy?


All the creationist guy could do was refer back to dogma when he was pressed by nye... that does not really make a science.

---

1.) We cant use the r word.


2.) come on now "hey didnt so and so do this and that with such n such?".


Thats not very classy san diego

---

I'm just happy to be mentioned in this thread. Makes me feel special.


Also, I like oface and jagibelieve, strictly platonicly, though.


Lastly, isn't creationism not a science since the final point of reference is a religious book?


Did any body watch bill nye wipe the floor with that creationism guy?


All the creationist guy could do was refer back to dogma when he was pressed by nye... that does not really make a science.

That wasn't much of a debate. One side debate. The other side did not. 

---

1.) We cant use the r word.


2.) come on now "hey didnt so and so do this and that with such n such?".


Thats not very classy san diego

So no real answer? Again, like I said, you can't teach something in a science class when the answers come from the faith one had from a religious book.


Sorry, that's just the way it works in science.

---

That wasn't much of a debate. One side debate. The other side did not.

Exactly! When one's rebuttal is, because that's what my spiritual book tells me,you really can't say you are working from a scientific foundation.


I think having faith is great. But it shouldn't be classified as science and taught in place or right next to actual science...

---

Ill be home from work around 6

---

Lastly, isn't creationism not a science since the final point of reference is a religious book?

 

 

But but but ... it's called 'creation science.'

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

But but but ... it's called 'creation science.'

So.... no not a science?

---

So.... no not a science?

 

Yes. That was my point.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

But but but ... it's called 'creation science.'

Lol, bingo!

---

Exactly! When one's rebuttal is, because that's what my spiritual book tells me,you really can't say you are working from a scientific foundation.


I think having faith is great. But it shouldn't be classified as science and taught in place or right next to actual science...

 

I would argue this point.  Creationism as well as Evolution are both theories with no real facts to back either one up with regards to how the universe was made.

 

Those that have some form of faith believe that the universe, world, etc. was created by some form of "Supreme Being".  It can not definitively be proven, nor can it be definitively dis-proven.

 

Those that believe the "scientific" theory believe that there was a "big bang" that started it all.  Again, it can not definitively be proven, nor can it be definitively dis-proven.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

There's a difference you are missing. In a real science the unknown is called out and studied. In creationism, the unknown is answered via faith through a religious text.


In science, when a theory is proven wrong, a new theory takes its place. That is also not the case in creationist beliefs. You should YouTube the bill Nye debate. There were several times when the creationist guy just had to refer back to his beliefs instead of actual science...

---