The debating skills of evolutionists

I don't recall anyone naming it & I haven't thought to.
If that is so, that is the reality despite your perception. Perhaps you're imaging all this or playing a game with yourself.
OOPS! I should've said imagining. Imaging goes with playing a game tho.
 
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
I don't recall anyone naming it & I haven't thought to.
If that is so, that is the reality despite your perception. Perhaps you're imaging all this or playing a game with yourself.
OOPS! I should've said imagining. Imaging goes with playing a game tho.
Click to expand...

What do you mean, "this is the reality"?
 
Holy shit Carico - you turn up everywhere - you're right up there in the premier league of internet crazies - you make oil is mastery look like an amateur!

We should feel privilidged to have you here.

for the benefit of some of the other posters here, here's a few of the gems Carico has come up with over the years (courtesy of fstdt.com):

" Men have one less rib than women. That's a well known fact. "
http://forums.crosswalk.com/m_3685024/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm#3685131


and my personal favourite:

http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=37280
 
phlogistician said:
Ah, dude, Carico is good entertainment. I'm guessing home schooled?
Click to expand...

did you read on in the second link I posted? if not please do (although it mostly dies off after about page 11) - it gets even funnier - trust me on that - in fact don't trust me; here's a nugget of gold on page 6:

Actually you're one of the ones who laughed at me for saying that the light from the stars is reflected light. And the light from Mars proves that it is reflected light. So do you think that now that Pluto is removed from the list of planets that it suddenly turned into a ball of fire like scientists claim the other stars are? Or is the light from Pluto reflected light also? Or are you so confused you have no idea what's fact and fantasy?:"
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that's a good one. I'm not surprised that someone who doesn't understand the difference between a star and a planet falls for religion, it kinda sets the bar.
 
spidergoat said:
We grow frustrated because you don't understand anything. Evolution happens even though animals appear to have decendents that look like them. But pull back your narrow viewpoint and you will see something different. Species appear and disappear throughout history and evolution is the only way to explain that. Elementary school notions of animal breeding are not adequate to refute the greatest theory in all of biology if not science. Of course, none of this would make sense if you think the Earth is 6,000 years old.
Click to expand...
I think the creator of this thread didn't know what you were insinuating when you mentioned the Earth as 6,000 years old.
 
phlogistician said:
Ah, dude, Carico is good entertainment. I'm guessing home schooled?
Click to expand...

a curious comment since studies continually show that homeschooled kids outperform public and private schooled children in nearly every criteria examined.

http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp

carico is a science neophyte but fortunately for him he is not so dumb as to believe in the transmutation of all species from a single cell which supposedly created itself, only public schooled brainwashed students would be this mentally compromised.
 
"Not specifically, but the logical extension of the same process could easily be responsible for the entirety of the biome. Be reasonable."

I am being reasonable. The issue you fail to grasp is that no train is leaving from Miami to Chicago. All examples to date offered in favor of evolution are information losing propositions. They are all heading to key west and into the ocean. No examples are of the type where information has been gained. Go read the debate between Dr. Spetner and Dr. Max.

http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp

Dr. Max is a highly educated biochemist who has debated creationists many times. Yet when pressed by non creationist Spetner for ONE example of an information gaining mutation in the germ cell of any laboratory in the world Max could not offer even one. He did find one example in a non germ cell which was conceded by Spetner but of no use in terms of evolution. This of course does not prove evolution did not happen or cannot happen. What it proves is that there is NO EVIDENCE THAT IT DID HAPPEN!!!


I will offer the Spetners concluding remarks regarding this debate:

"I have shown here, with references to my book, that the examples most often cited by evolutionists as evidence for evolution occurring now are not evidence at all for the grand sweep of evolution, which I have called here Evolution A. For an example of evolution happening now to have any relevance to Evolution A, it must be based on a mutation that could be typical of those alleged to be in the long series of steps that lead from a bacterium to a baboon. The mutation must at least be one that when repeated again and again will build up enough information to turn a bacterium into a baboon. The favorite example cited for evolution is antibiotic resistance. I have shown that the mutations leading to antibiotic resistance do not add any information to the biocosm. In some cases, they actually lose information. I have shown an example of a mutation that can easily be misconstrued to demonstrate the addition of information to the genome. Upon the gathering of further data, this example turned out to be a demonstration of information loss and not gain. Conclusion jumping is always risky, because we seldom have enough data. Yet, the evolutionist community has persisted in making the shakiest of extrapolations. Max has tried to argue that his triad of gene duplication, random mutation, and natural selection, can add information to the collective genome of the biocosm. I have exposed his argument as being nothing more that offering possible scenarios - it is argument by just-so-stories. But the argument against NDT does not stop with the failure of its supporters to show proper theoretical or empirical evidence for it. The telling blow against NDT is that examples of information addition have never been exhibited. The absence of such examples is more than just the absence of evidence for evolution. It is actually evidence against evolution because if NDT were correct, there should be millions of such examples and in all the genetic experiments performed until now we should have seen many. Finally, the example of mutations in the B cells of the immune system carries no weight as an example of a mutation that adds information. Although these mutations do add information to the B-cell genome, they cannot be applied to evolution for the reasons I laid out above. Dr. Edward Max made a valiant attempt to present a solid case for evolution in his posting on the URL cited above. That he failed is not because of any defect in the author. Dr. Max is an intelligent, competent, and articulate scientist. He has a PhD and an MD, and for many years has done research and published on the genetics of the immune system, and he has added to our knowledge in this field. If he could not make a good case for evolution, there must be something woefully wrong with evolution."
 
spidergoat said:
What percent?
Click to expand...

It is hard to tell spider because many scientists who appose evolution privately are concerned about the loss of their jobs if their positions were known. Suffice to say that there are thousands of scientists who reject darwinism.

Yet I don't think issue is not which view of origins wins the popular vote. What would a popular vote of scientists in Nazi Germany offer on the subject of race? What would a poll of both Nazi biologists and American biologists of the early last Century reveall on the subject of euthanasia. I can tell you that it would not be pretty. Science is not perfect. It can be compromised by those who are in the dominate position. It can be compromised by the trail of funds which support it. Don't rest comfortably because neodarwinism is popular, as far as the evidence goes, it is still a fairy tale for grown ups.
 
I have yet to see any evidence that contradicts it. The Nazis could reasonably be assumed to have an ideological bias, but that doesn't apply to scientists now. Anyone who could show how the Theory of Evolution is wrong would not get reduced funding, it would be revolutionary and recieve even MORE funding.
 
synthesizer-patel said:
name 7
Click to expand...


You are making my job much too easy (you may sort out the biologists):

Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist (interview)
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr. Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr. Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
 
spidergoat said:
I have yet to see any evidence that contradicts it. The Nazis could reasonably be assumed to have an ideological bias, but that doesn't apply to scientists now. Anyone who could show how the Theory of Evolution is wrong would not get reduced funding, it would be revolutionary and recieve even MORE funding.
Click to expand...

you are hopelessly naive (and no, I am not projecting).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top