@ Petr

[Brechun]

You're a creationist. Please show me as to why 99% of the scientific community is wrong.

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

I think existentialism is the best viewpoint to make here. I don't see why it matters why we are here, the point is that we are here. It's a moot point.

[Brechun]

I think existentialism is the best viewpoint to make here. I don't see why it matters why we are here, the point is that we are here. It's a moot point.

I'm not confronting him on a philosophical basis here. It's a question as to why he and so many others act so smug about creationism when their opposition is the vast overwhelming majority of the scientific community.

[Petr]

You're a creationist. Please show me as to why 99% of the scientific community is wrong.
I don't have to answer every inquiry that evos throw my way. I will choose my own fighting grounds.

(Your request is absurdly generalized anyways.)

You may search the archives for all the kinds of tidbits I have gathered.


Petr

[Brechun]

I don't have answer to every inquiry that evos throw my way. I will choose my own fighting grounds.

You may search the archives for all the kinds of tidbits I have gathered.


Petr

So you believe 99% of the scientific community is wrong and you've come across some profound truth?

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

I've gotta say if someone can't put up a solid fight to defend their position, it makes its credibility less likely. I don't claim to know all these answers.

[Helios Panoptes]

Petr, since you greatly enjoy posting about this topic, I've often wondered: why don't you set up a formal debate with one of your frequent opponents(like Timothy Leary), and hash this out once and for all? If you get destroyed, then you'll be silent and vice versa.

[Petr]

So you believe 99% of the scientific community is wrong and you've come across some profound truth?
I would posit the existence of considerable creationist/ID underground community even within the scientific community that would side with people like me on many things if they could just muster up courage to stand up to materialistic establishment that now controls things like academic funding.


Petr

[Ixtab]

Petr, since you greatly enjoy posting about this topic, I've often wondered: why don't you set up a formal debate with one of your frequent opponents(like Timothy Leary), and hash this out once and for all? If you get destroyed, then you'll be silent and vice versa.Because he knows he will lose.

[Der Sozialist]

Petr, since you greatly enjoy posting about this topic, I've often wondered: why don't you set up a formal debate with one of your frequent opponents(like Timothy Leary), and hash this out once and for all? If you get destroyed, then you'll be silent and vice versa.

Not in his interest since the main point of his spamming is fueled by his insecurity in Christianity.

[Petr]

Petr, since you greatly enjoy posting about this topic, I've often wondered: why don't you set up a formal debate with one of your frequent opponents(like Timothy Leary), and hash this out once and for all? If you get destroyed, then you'll be silent and vice versa.
I won't play by rules made by you. It is also childish to think that an issue like this could be settled by one debate.

(I also have no formal scientific education, so I can't debate on technical details. I will keep on commenting on science issues, just like Richard Dawkins keeps on commenting on religious issues.)


Petr

[Petr]

Not in his interest since the main point of his spamming is fueled by his insecurity in Christianity.
Cartoon-commies like you know very little about human nature.

Au contraire, it is precisely because I feel so confident that I keep attacking. I am sure that truth is on my side.


Petr

[Brechun]

(I also have no formal scientific education, so I can't debate on technical details. I will keep on commenting on science issues, just like Richard Dawkins keeps on commenting on religious issues.)

lol no surprise here

[Petr]

lol no surprise here
What's your own level of education?

It often takes an outsider of some community to notice that the emperor has no clothes.


Petr

[Apologist]

I don't see A) how evolution necessarily contradicts Christianity,nor (B) how Intelligent Design can be considered a legitimate scientific field. The purpose of science is to produce explanations that can be tested and explained. "God did it" really doesn't say much. I believe God did it, but I don't mind knowing how it works. Ne?

That said, evolution doesn't necessarily imply that man came from monkeys. It merely posits that living things change over time. To that I say: DUH! Nonetheless, it still says more than ID does. At least with evolution, the prediction "things will continue to change" can be posited with some assurance.

[Helios Panoptes]

I won't play by rules made by you.

I haven't made any rules. I made a suggestion.


It is also childish to think that an issue like this could be settled by one debate.

Why is it childish? I am not suggesting that an online debate could definitively resolve the matter, but it would give a good idea of which participant stood on better footing.

(I also have no formal scientific education, so I can't debate on technical details. I will keep on commenting on science issues, just like Richard Dawkins keeps on commenting on religious issues.)

Is that another way of saying that you're not knowledgeable enough to have a scientific debate(yet you act as though your proclamations are definitive)?

[Stick to the Facts]

I would posit the existence of considerable creationist/ID underground community even within the scientific community that would side with people like me on many things if they could just muster up courage to stand up to materialistic establishment that now controls things like academic funding.


Petr

Why don't the mega churches and televangelists who support this nonsense simply pony up some money to pay for this 'research'? If the money is there someone will 'research' it, won't they?

Actually, what is there to research if you already have all the answers?

I can see it now:

Day 1 - Ok let's get to the bottom of this ID thing!

Day 1, 9:30AM - sure enough, the universe is really really really complex, therefore some intelligent being must have created it. Our work is done here - let's play xbox!

[Brechun]

What's your own level of education?

It often takes an outsider of some community to notice that the emperor has no clothes.


Petr

Heh, I'm still in high school, but I'd say I have decent knowledge of evolution and the like. But that's not what I'm debating. I'm asking you as to why you really think 99% of the scientific community is wrong.

[Der Sozialist]

Cartoon-commies like you know very little about human nature.


Out of curiosity—what do Christians know about human “nature?” Especially Christians of the “rapture bunny” variety? :p

Au contraire, it is precisely because I feel so confident that I keep attacking. I am sure that truth is on my side.


Petr


:rofl: Nice try Petr, but I wasn’t born yesterday. Why do you post arguments from answer genesis—because you do not have the necessary knowledge to debate the topic using your own arguments. You admitted this yourself. So why are you confident—because Behe said so? Because Answer genesis said so?

Your knowledge of evolution is lacking—your knowledge of science is lacking but yet you ARE confident?

Unfortunately, you are not stupid so this allows me to posit that this is just a silly attempt to reaffirm your belief in Christianity. Similarly, like Mackie who constantly talks about “stomping my face in” and “slitting my throat” while in real life he is an emo-queer.

You are a closet agnostic, Petr. Come into the light. :D

[Apologist]

Out of curiosity—what do Christians know about human “nature?”

Hint: The guy who died on the cross just so happened to be the author of human nature.

Especially Christians of the “rapture bunny” variety? :p

Petr's a bible humpin' mother lovin' fundie hick?



Also, your comment as concerning Petr being a closet Agnostic. I'm not sure if that is Ad Hominem Abusive (saying that his arguments should be discounted because he is a closet agnostic), circumstancial (that he has the predisposition to argue in such a manner that he is a closet agnostic), or tu quoque (or that his arguments are wrong because he himself is in fact an agnostic), but it's one of them, gosh dammit.

[Petr]

Is that another way of saying that you're not knowledgeable enough to have a scientific debate(yet you act as though your proclamations are definitive)?
I am constantly citing authorities who do know their business. Don't pretend that this is not legitimate debate tactic.


Petr

[Petr]

You are a closet agnostic, Petr. Come into the light. :D
You are a meaningless nerdy poseur. I will not address you further.


Petr

[Stick to the Facts]

I won't play by rules made by you. It is also childish to think that an issue like this could be settled by one debate.

My impression is that the rules you DO play by are these:

1) I make all the rules

2) everything I say is right, everything you say is wrong

3) whenever you say anything wrong (which is everything you say) I insult you

4) I know everything and you don't, therefore I don't have to listen to a single thing you say.

5) All the evidence you present is wrong because it was written by or for satan - or jews.

Actually, I think rule 1 sums it up pretty well - the others are superfluous.


(I also have no formal scientific education, so I can't debate on technical details.


ORLY?!?!?


I will keep on commenting on science issues, just like Richard Dawkins keeps on commenting on religious issues.)

I see, so knowing nothing isn't gonna stop you! You show em tiger! I mean, Petr!

[Helios Panoptes]

I am constantly citing authorities who do know their business. Don't pretend that this is not legitimate debate tactic.


Petr

First, unless one is personally familiar with the material, it's very difficult for that individual to determine which of two competing sources makes a better case. Second, most of your sources aren't directly about science. The ones that are are hardly ever peer-reviewed.

[Apologist]

1) I make all the rules

No! God makes all the rules!

everything I say is right, everything you say is wrong

No! Only the Pope has that ability!

whenever you say anything wrong (which is everything you say) I insult you

That's my job, dammit!

I know everything and you don't, therefore I don't have to listen to a single thing you say.

Well when you are wrong, you are wrong, dammit.

All the evidence you present is wrong because it was written by or for satan - or jews.

There's a difference between Satan and Jews? (Just kidding)

[Helios Panoptes]

No! God makes all the rules!



No! Only the Pope has that abiliy!



That's my job, dammit!



Well when you are wrong, you are wrong, dammit.



There's a difference between Satan and Jews? (Just kidding)

What the hell are you talking about? Your post has nothing to do with creationism/ID vs. evolution. Please at least pretend you're trying to stay on topic.

[Petr]

First, unless one is personally familiar with the material, it's very difficult for that individual to determine which of two competing sources makes a better case. Second, most of your sources aren't directly about science. The ones that are are hardly ever peer-reviewed.
One of the unwritten rules that I refuse to play along with is this:

"unless you have a biology Ph.D. (and often not even then), you are not allowed to draw attention to all the self-evident absurdities and plot holes that the orthodox Darwinian narrative contains."


Please visit this thread:

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15831&highlight=string


Petr

[Apologist]

What the hell are you talking about?

How the hell should I know? :mad:

[Petr]

Apologist, are you just damn trolling?


Petr

[Apologist]

Apologist, are you just damn trolling?

Not really, I just thought that what the other guy said was ridiculous.

[Brechun]

Stil waiting, Petr...

[Apologist]

Stil waiting, Petr...

You clearly are not the duracel bunny, because if you were, then you would not be waiting, but going...and going...and going...
:thanks:

[Petr]

Stil waiting, Petr...
Like I said, search my archives to see some reasons to doubt the establishment. I am not not answering your ridiculously vague "elephant hurling" question right here and now.


Petr

[Brechun]

Like I said, search my archives to see some reasons to doubt the establishment. I am not not answering your ridiculously vague "elephant hurling" question right here and now.


Petr

You sure post alot though, so it'll take quite some time. Just paste your best evidence right here, all I ask.

[Ahknaton]

You're a creationist. Please show me as to why 99% of the scientific community is wrong.
I'm not a Creationist myself, but issuing these kinds of challenges to provide a detailed exposition of the Creationist viewpoint are kind of unreasonable, since it demands a large amount of time and effort, repeating stuff that has been said over and over. Why don't you take it up with him on one of the zillions of threads about it?

[Der Sozialist]

One of the unwritten rules that I refuse to play along with is this:

"unless you have a biology Ph.D. (and often not even then), you are not allowed to draw attention to all the self-evident absurdities and plot holes that the orthodox Darwinian narrative contains."


Please visit this thread:

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15831&highlight=string


Petr

And which one of us has a phD in Biology?—you more than permitted to point to “holes” but don’t be shocked when we respond with a counter-argument.

[Vindex]

Because jesus and the bible says so.:rofl:

You're a creationist. Please show me as to why 99% of the scientific community is wrong.

[Petr]

Zorn, I just noticed that you are just bleeping 14 years old. No way I'm going to start a heavy-weight debate with you, or consider you my scholarly superior. :rolleyes:


Petr

[Apologist]

Zorn, I just noticed that you are just bleeping 14 years old.

Argumentum ad hominem abusive. C'mon!