Ping!
Did you expect they would admit to lying?
Did you expect they would admit to lying?
By the way, it’s linkS!
I guess the evolutionists will find out who is telling the truth the moment they die. By then, however, it will be too late to change their minds. Their fate will have been sealed for eternity. I don't take any pleasure in that, but that is reality.
Beep!
I’m tired of people’s calling other people “liars,” when they mean, “I disagree with their opinion,” or when they mean, “I think they have their facts wrong.”
Lying requires (1) knowledge of the truth, and (2) intent to conceal the truth. Being honestly wrong about facts is not lying; having an opinion others dislike is not lying.
What are you, some sort of nutcase dogmatic absolutist?
< /sarc>
Let's see whom should we believe in a science topic; a confabulating blowhard or tenured professor at Occidental University with a PhD in the subject from Columbia?
Projection. or reprojecaduction..
Yep. case in point. The member of the Dover School who made a solemn deposition that he had no idea where the money to buy the cdesign proponentist book Pandas Thumb came from.
When it was discovered that it came from his personal cheque account, his excuse was that he misspoke because he was hepped up on goofballs.
You may choose to believe him
The evos are still conducting keyword attacks on Creation/ID threads after both sides were told to knock it off. We are holding up our end of the bargain, and yet the evos persist. If you look in the keyword section of this post, you will find:
“belongsinreligion” “notasciencetopic” “notscience” “propellerbeanie” “spammer”
Depends on who you ask.
According to just about every evo on this forum who’s posted an opinion, yes.
That is the crux of the debate.
To others, the notion is refutable in that it explains that... “God must have come from nothing” if Creation is to be considered a rational idea at all ...
That is, one cannot use the argument that “something came from nothing” because it only logically leads to the conclusion that ultimately one must consider (and believe) that God had to have a beginning.
Fallacious reasoning abounds. Problem is, bright people are determined to conclude that because organized religion is largely corrupt, then the notion that God exists is fundamentally unsound.
The logic is faulty, and deaf ears are fruitful and multiply.
There is no "scientific debate" going on. There's science...and there's religion....and the 2 cannot be debated or compared.
Because creationist scientists....
There is no such thing as a creation "scientist"...there are scientists and creationists preverting science to fit a tale in a book.
do not agree with their biased, subjective and unsubstantiated ideas they spit the dummy and call us liars.
Put down the tissue already and call a wahmbulance...when you peddle non-truths about every scientific field you can pervert to fita tale in a book, what DO you call it?
It’s just that Prothero does not like the fact that we don’t agree with his ideas.
No, it's because you pervert all science to fit tales from a book and then claim to be on equal footing such that there should be a debate, and then whine about it when there is no debate like it means something.....because you cannot debate science and religion in this manner. "God did it." isn't an argument.
A favourite lie. That means he thinks creationists use lots of lies.
I wouldn't say "lies" concerning a random YECer spewing nonsense in an on-line forum....uneducated untruths is better. To lie, you have to know WTH you're talking about in the first place and know that what you're saying is untrue, but say it anyway to purposely decieve others. If you're just ignorantly passing on absurdities like Man living with meat 10 ton meat eating dinosaurs, it doesn't fit the definition of a lie.
What Prothero shows here is that Darwin’s theory was accepted in spite of the evidence from the geological record.
What evidence in the geological record contradicts the Theory of Evolution?
....stopped reading the nonsense. Couldn't count the untruths and super-logical tactics quickly enough....when all else fails, generate a false analogy using every day items, make an argument on the false analogy....and it's Miller time.
Maybe I'll read more later if I can stand his "why wont those scientists debate my scientifically-void belief?" whining and need a good laugh.
No, "creationists" are not liars at all!
They are something far, far worse. They are believers. One cannot converse with, speak sensibly to, or have a fact-filled logical arguement with, a believer. The best a person can do with a believer is smile at them sweetly, and ignore their "arguements".
Once a belief is held by a believer (regardless of how groundless, silly, or inane it may be), no amount of facts or truths will change their beliefs. And it is fruitless and a waste of time to attempt to.