The debating skills of evolutionists

[(Q)]

The lack of belief in formal religious beliefs. I've known religious people who didn't attack their opponents as fanatically as you are. You've turned a lack of belief into a belief system of your own. Your talking like the local minister of non-religion to his congregation. Pastor Q.

Clearly, you haven't the foggiest notion of what religion entails.

What a childish statement to make. You accuse me of being homosexual and allowing another man to put his penis into my rectum because I dare to disagree with Pastor Q.

Not at all, I was referring to paying the taxes of religious institutions and doing nothing about it. I believe it's called an allegory.

That type of statement is made by people who have no real argument, so they resort to making unfounded, snide, nasty, little minded comments that are intended to portray their opponent as something negative.

Like you calling me Pastor Q, Mr. Pot?

Is that the best you can do? Make childish comments? Have you no real argument that supports your viewpoint?

My argument was about indoctrination. Do you think childhood religious indoctrination is abuse?

Your basis for the childishness is even wrong. I dislike the way that the church is exempt of taxes and other laws, so your little tantrum wasn't even based in truth.

You dislike it, but you're not willing to do anything about it. In fact, you choose to defend it by arguing with me.

If you want to continue talking to me, change your method to that of an adult. Use logic to present your argument, not childish insult.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

[NGM]

He won't reply. No matter how many times you re-post the question. He will not reply simply because you are challenging his steadfast beliefs in creationism.

I find that odd. Is it that he picks easy targets for his off-the-wall examples or maybe he just doesn't like me...hehe

 

[NGM]

“ Originally Posted by NGM
The lack of belief in formal religious beliefs. I've known religious people who didn't attack their opponents as fanatically as you are. You've turned a lack of belief into a belief system of your own. Your talking like the local minister of non-religion to his congregation. Pastor Q. ”

Clearly, you haven't the foggiest notion of what religion entails.

I'm well educated, intelligent and well traveled. I can assure you that I know exactly what religion entails. I don't care for fanatics on either side of any issue. You seem to be another fanatic, or perhaps you're only posing as one on this group.


“ What a childish statement to make. You accuse me of being homosexual and allowing another man to put his penis into my rectum because I dare to disagree with Pastor Q. ”

Not at all, I was referring to paying the taxes of religious institutions and doing nothing about it. I believe it's called an allegory.

I know perfectly well what an allegory is. Your statement is nothing short of an insult, as you intended it to be.


“ That type of statement is made by people who have no real argument, so they resort to making unfounded, snide, nasty, little minded comments that are intended to portray their opponent as something negative. ”

Like you calling me Pastor Q, Mr. Pot?

Sure I do. I do so because of your seemingly fanatical method of discussion. You're characterization of me in the "pot-kettle-black" comparison is inaccurate. I'm not that intense. After near 60 years of life, I've discovered that getting that upset over anything just isn't worth it.


“ Is that the best you can do? Make childish comments? Have you no real argument that supports your viewpoint? ”

My argument was about indoctrination. Do you think childhood religious indoctrination is abuse?

No, I don't. It's something that has been a part of every society since the dawn of time. Life will go on if that religious teaching is done or not. Society will evolve over time and exclude that which does not work in the evolutionary path of mankinds future. Look back into the Middle Ages and see what differences there are now in our world. Great differences will happen in the next few centuries.


“ Your basis for the childishness is even wrong. I dislike the way that the church is exempt of taxes and other laws, so your little tantrum wasn't even based in truth. ”

You dislike it, but you're not willing to do anything about it. In fact, you choose to defend it by arguing with me.

Man, you assume way too much. You invent your own argument. I aproach the problem from a different angle than you do. I don't ignore it. Neither do I make a large issue of it as you seem to do.


“ If you want to continue talking to me, change your method to that of an adult. Use logic to present your argument, not childish insult. ”

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Not at all.

But, if you wish to think so, I really couldn't care less. Have fun doing so.

 

[Carico]

When I say "Evolve", I mean that some part, perhaps incredibly tiny, of the characteristics of a particular creature has changed in some way through a bunch of generations. Perhaps it's hair has become longer or shorter over many hundreds of documented years of observation. There are many, many examples of this throughout history.

Actually that's untrue. People have had black, brown, red, and blond hair ever since man began emigrating out of the Middle East. People had long and short hair over the centuries depending on what the current trend is just as they do today.

Your explanation about the lizards proves that diet and climate can affect the health of animals and humans as anyone who goes to a warmer climate & eats healthy food knows. But it also shows that these changes don't take place over millions of years, but over just a few years, unlike what the theory of evolution claims. And considering that humans have remained the same whether they vacation in Florida, the tropics or Alaska, then there's no correlation between your story about the lizards and the "evolution" of man.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Here are the kind of answers that I get here that most of you think are intelligent;

Carico: "Humans breed humans and apes breed apes."
Evolutionist: "That's total nonsense. Your ramblings are incoherent."
Carico: "Mating and breeding is what produces descendants."
Evolutiuonist: "You're not supposed to talk about religion in the category of biology."
Carico: "Bacterial cells don't mutate into healthy cells."
Evolutionist: "You are one stupid M*F*"
Carico: "Cows don't breed horses."
Evolutionist: "You know nothing about biology because you're an ignorant moron."
Carico: "Hybrids are almost always infertile or sterile."
Evolutionist: "You don't know how evolution works."

Needless to say, not only are those evasions, they show that what evolutionists think is intelligent is nothing more than schoolyard banter and 4 letter words. In fact, the less one is able to construct a sentence, stay on topic, defend his position and keep personal attacks out of a discussion, the more intelligent he is considered to be on this forum.

So not only have most of you shown that you have no clue what the difference is between humans & animals or what each animal can breed and why, you can't even carry on a conversation which in any way resembles intelligence. That only proves that you don't know what intelligence is.

So I'll continue to live in reality where humans breed humans and apes breed apes, and tell the truth about what animals breed. But I don't expect people who think the above tactics are rational and intelligent to understand much about biology which their responses demonstrate.

*************
M*W: Carico, your are dangerous. Not to us, mind you, but to yourself.

 

[EntropyAlwaysWins]

@Carico:
What about your immune system? It has changed in order to adapt to new viral and bacterial threats that previously did not exist.
When Europeans first arrived in South America large swathes of the population were wiped out by diseases that the Europeans had brought with them but they adapted in order to withstand these new diseases, as evidenced by the fact that the entire population was not wiped out.

 

[Carico]

@Carico:
What about your immune system? It has changed in order to adapt to new viral and bacterial threats that previously did not exist.
When Europeans first arrived in South America large swathes of the population were wiped out by diseases that the Europeans had brought with them but they adapted in order to withstand these new diseases, as evidenced by the fact that the entire population was not wiped out.

No it hasn't. It's antibiotics that protect me from disease. There still is no protection from viruses and we can easily have pandemics that can wipe out millions any day. In fact, that's one of the biggest health concerns that scientists face in today's world since bacteria are also becoming resistant to antibiotics.

 

[EntropyAlwaysWins]

There were no antibiotics in the 15th century.
How do you think we survived the various plagues prior to the invention of medicines capable of treating them?
How do you explain the advent of new species of viruses and bacteria?

 

[Carico]

There were no antibiotics in the 15th century.
How do you think we survived the various plagues prior to the invention of medicines capable of treating them?
How do you explain the advent of new species of viruses and bacteria?

They didn't! The plague wiped out one third of Europe! But the rats didn't cross the Atlantic. Why do you think we have medicines if our immune systems can fight off every disease? In fact there are more medicines out today than there ever have been before. Why do you think people die? Or don't you think?:bugeye:

It's the job of bacterial and viral cells to survive. Therefore whenever an outside stimuli attacks the cells the cells become more virulent bacterial and viral cells. They do not mutate into healthy cells.

 

[EntropyAlwaysWins]

They didn't! The plague wiped out one third of Europe! But the rats didn't cross the Atlantic. Why do you think we have medicines if our immune systems can fight off every disease? In fact there are more medicines out today than there ever have been before. Why do you think people die? Or don't you think?:bugeye:

It's the job of bacterial and viral cells to survive. Therefore whenever an outside stimuli attacks the cells the cells become more virulent bacterial and viral cells. They do not mutate into healthy cells.

Evidently the population was *not* resistant to the disease prior to the advent of the epidemic, as evidenced by the staggering death-toll, however the virus failed to wipe out the entire population therefore they adapted to the threat.

Who suggested that infected cells mutate into healthy cells? where are you getting this from? I don't recall anyone mentioning this at any point in the thread, ever. :bugeye:

 

[Carico]

Evidently the population was *not* resistant to the disease prior to the advent of the epidemic, as evidenced by the staggering death-toll, however the virus failed to wipe out the entire population therefore they adapted to the threat.

No, the population wasn't resistant to the Bubonic plague and neither are we. In fact, the Bubonic plague has occurred more than once in history and I just saw a documentary where they said it could occur again in the southwestern United States. So no, man is not immortal. Our immune systems are in fact less capable today because we use so many antibiotics that our immune systems haven't had to fight off disease. That's why doctors advise us to minimize our use of antibiotics.

 

[EntropyAlwaysWins]

No, the population wasn't resistant to the Bubonic plague and neither are we. In fact, the Bubonic plague has occurred more than once in history and I just saw a documentary where they said it could occur again in the southwestern United States. So no, man is not immortal. Our immune systems are in fact less capable today because we use so many antibiotics that our immune systems haven't had to fight off disease. That's why doctors advise us to minimize our use of antibiotics.

No one claimed that we are immortal. With the possible exception of you.

The fact that with antibiotics our immune system is less adaptive is evidence in favour of evolution. Without a threat we have no need to adapt, on the other hand *with* a threat, we adapt rapidly.

Additionally, we are *more* resistant to the bubonic plague then medieval Europeans or at least to the specific variations we have encountered thus far.

 

[Bells]

I find that odd. Is it that he picks easy targets for his off-the-wall examples or maybe he just doesn't like me...hehe

Not odd at all. Creationists, or more to the point, avid and fanatical creationists will rarely respond to anyone who directly questions their beliefs. If they do, they will attempt to twist it so that it suits their views of how things are in their mind. For example, this was his response to you:

Actually that's untrue. People have had black, brown, red, and blond hair ever since man began emigrating out of the Middle East. People had long and short hair over the centuries depending on what the current trend is just as they do today.

Your explanation about the lizards proves that diet and climate can affect the health of animals and humans as anyone who goes to a warmer climate & eats healthy food knows. But it also shows that these changes don't take place over millions of years, but over just a few years, unlike what the theory of evolution claims. And considering that humans have remained the same whether they vacation in Florida, the tropics or Alaska, then there's no correlation between your story about the lizards and the "evolution" of man.

As you can see, he will twist it around so that it suits his argument. Apparently humans migrated out of the Middle East a few thousand years ago after God created Adam and Eve.

Be thankful you received a response, even if it was paltry at best. Many of us in other threads have been ignored for daring to question his statements about creationism.

So do not think it is personal. As I said above, creationists like Carico will rarely respond to any challenges to their beliefs.

 

[NGM]

NGM (in blue print): “ When I say "Evolve", I mean that some part, perhaps incredibly tiny, of the characteristics of a particular creature has changed in some way through a bunch of generations. Perhaps it's hair has become longer or shorter over many hundreds of documented years of observation. There are many, many examples of this throughout history. ”

Carico responds (in black print): Actually that's untrue.

No, it isn't. I'll prove that beyond any reasonable argument as I move through your responce.

People have had black, brown, red, and blond hair ever since man began emigrating out of the Middle East.

The most widely accepted theory of how humans migrated, shows them coming from central Africa, not the Middle East. Some believe that Humans may have originated in China. NONE believe that the Middle East was the starting point of humans. That's nothing but a fable handed down by creationists. The dateline for the divergence of humans from their Chimp ancestors is now at between 6 and 10 million years in it's starting point. I understand that you, Carico, have to cling to the story that you've been indoctrinated with, but physical evidence now shows your story to be wrong beyond any possible doubt. It's a cute story, and it makes lots of little creationist children all warm and fuzzy inside, but it's total hogwash and has been proven to be.

You damage your children by propagating this myth to them. You retard their learning and development to perpetuate this fictional story of one of the so-called "gods" creating humans.

A Melanocortin 1 Receptor Allele Suggests Varying Pigmentation Among Neanderthals to include red hair and pale skin in some. Hair color is only one of the thousands of characteristics of humans that have evolved.

The oldest Human fossils found thus far are the bones of two people who were dubbed "Omo I" and "Omo II" which were found in Herto, Ethiopia. The remains of Omo I and Omo II were buried in the lowest sediment layer, called Member 1, of the 330-foot-thick (100-meter-thick) Kibish rock formation near the Omo River and date to 160,000 years old using the most recent dating methods.

Humans, being one of the most recent major additions to the Earth's population have undergone many changes to their bodies throughout their evolution to today. The human fossils found, show evidence of many skeletal changes. Not only has the human body progressively become taller, but the thickness of the various parts of the skeleton have decreased dramatically. The most obvious changes are to the skull formation. Even the most die-hard Creationist has seen photos of the fossil human skulls found that show elongated foreheads and jawbones. Carico, you've probably been brainwashed by fellow creationists into believing that these bones aren't humans, but evidence contradicts your claims and what you've been indoctrinated into believing.

People had long and short hair over the centuries depending on what the current trend is just as they do today.

Now you're cracking me up. Did you really think I was referring to the length of hair on humans? Pretty funny man. I was, of course, referring to the length of the hair coat on animals other than humans. As those animals migrated into warmer climates, their long, thick and oily hair became shorter, thinner and less oily as a result of not needing the additional protection from the elements.

Your explanation about the lizards proves that diet and climate can affect the health of animals and humans as anyone who goes to a warmer climate & eats healthy food knows.

To support your argument, you first have to actually read the evidence supplied to you. It stated clearly that the lizards were moved to a neighboring island. The climate was identical to their place of origin. Please try to stay on track with the evidence shown to you. Increase your attention span beyond the creationist doctrine for a couple of minutes.

But it also shows that these changes don't take place over millions of years, but over just a few years, unlike what the theory of evolution claims.

Actually, it shows both. You're choosing to not admit that.

And considering that humans have remained the same whether they vacation in Florida, the tropics or Alaska, then there's no correlation between your story about the lizards and the "evolution" of man.

Again, you're being silly. Vacations in Florida? Be real, man.

The correlation between the evidence I supplied and the evolution of mankind is obvious. You are choosing not to see it as a result of your brainwashing and stubbornness.

You really need to open your mind and your eyes. The world is going past you and you aren't even seeing it.

That's all well and good. If you choose to live in a fantasy, that's your choice. However, when you bring your fantasy into a group of educated people such as this group, then you are subject to a reality check.

You just got another one.

Take your blinders off and open your eyes. If you're going to argue, then at least do so with something that resembles an educated series of thoughts. What you've presented thus far is nonsense that is suited to a small child.

I get the impression that you may be a child.

How old are you? That's not a big secret, is it?

 

[NGM]

Bells: Not odd at all. Creationists, or more to the point, avid and fanatical creationists will rarely respond to anyone who directly questions their beliefs. If they do, they will attempt to twist it so that it suits their views of how things are in their mind.

I'm very familiar with the methods used by this type of person when arguing their little fantasy. I've dealt with it many times. It'll be interesting to see how long this one stays around. They don't like seeing the evidence that shows them how mistaken they are. In all the years I've seen this argument take place, I've known of only one person who hung up their religious mumbo-jumbo and faced reality. That person was on the group "talk.origins" where I've been a member for years.

As you can see, he will twist it around so that it suits his argument. Apparently humans migrated out of the Middle East a few thousand years ago after God created Adam and Eve.

Blind acceptance of unproven dogma is common among these types, as you know. It's good that Carico is getting exposed to some real data. It'll still be in there, in his mind, even though he protests it. Sometimes the information just has to steep for awhile before it's remembered. Brainwashing won't stick if a person who has been brainwashed is repeatedly exposed to real data. Sooner or later, reality becomes apparent to them. They may still hide it, but they start recognising their brainwashing for what it is.

Be thankful you received a response, even if it was paltry at best. Many of us in other threads have been ignored for daring to question his statements about creationism.

I had to PM him to get this response. We'll see if I get another.

So do not think it is personal. As I said above, creationists like Carico will rarely respond to any challenges to their beliefs.

 

[Steve100]

Carico, in a debate it helps to understand the thing you are arguing.

Fair enough if you came in and demonstrated an understanding of evolution, and then proceeded to say why you think it's wrong.

But you didn't, so shut up.

 

[NGM]

No, the population wasn't resistant to the Bubonic plague and neither are we.

Natural resistance to infection, which does not depend on antibiotics, is a powerful protective mechanism common to all mankind that has been responsible for the survival of our species during countless millennia in the past. This natural resistance to infection has been responsible for the survival of our species, in spite of repeated attacks by bacteria. Infections like bubonic plague, syphilis, tuberculosis, cholera, and many others, have resulted in many casualties, but always there have been survivors capable of passing on their mechanisms of resistance to future generations.

There are always people who will have natural resistance to illness. Mankind won't ever fall in it's entirety to any natural disease.

 

[Carico]

The most widely accepted theory of how humans migrated, shows them coming from central Africa, not the Middle East. Some believe that Humans may have originated in China. NONE believe that the Middle East was the starting point of humans. That's nothing but a fable handed down by creationists. The dateline for the divergence of humans from their Chimp ancestors is now at between 6 and 10 million years in it's starting point. I understand that you, Carico, have to cling to the story that you've been indoctrinated with, but physical evidence now shows your story to be wrong beyond any possible doubt. It's a cute story, and it makes lots of little creationist children all warm and fuzzy inside, but it's total hogwash and has been proven to be.

This is all made-up. No one in history has passed along accounts of these fictitious creatures so they're purely out of the imaginations of scientists. An accepted theory is not a proven theory. It can also be a myth as this theory proves. But since you you don't know why apes can't breed human descendants any more than humans can breed apes as descendants, then of course you don;t know the difference between fast and fantasy.

In fact, your story is so much fantasy that you have to make up new tribes of people never before heard of. You have to change the descendants of the Jews, and change the timeline of all the peoples in history. So not only are you inventing your own history, your changing the recent history of the past! So sorry, but I'll go with the accounts of people who lived in history rather than the new stories of people who lived thousands of years later than they did. Eye-witnesses are much more credible than those who didn't witness events. So that's what I base my beliefs on, not the wild imaginations of scientists. But you've been brainwashed as a child to believe these fictitious creatures really existed and it will take you a long time to see why they could not have.

 

[NGM]

In a debate it helps to understand the thing you are arguing.

Fair enough if you came in and demonstrated an understanding of evolution, and then proceeded to say why you think it's wrong.

But you didn't, so shut up.

Yo Steve, it would help if you referred to someone or quoted them when you respond. It's impossible to tell who you're directing your post to. I'm guessing Carico. Am I correct?

 

[Steve100]

Yo Steve, it would help if you referred to someone or quoted them when you respond. It's impossible to tell who you're directing your post to. I'm guessing Carico. Am I correct?

Yes, sorry.