Poll: Evolution and the other side

[DracoSuave]

Statistically speaking, Atheists actually tend to score higher in tests/quizzes about the bible/torah/qu'ran contents than average members of the church in question.

Atheism is generally a side-effect of having increased knowledge on the topic than the religious folk. As so many say, the best way to become an atheist is to actually read the bible.

Biased speculation with no actual proof. How does believing in something make me stupider? Sorry to offend the Atheist master race, but you don't make claims like that without sources.

I don't mean to offend your need to be overly defensive, but he is correct. [http://pewforum.org/other-beliefs-and-practices/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey.aspx]

Now, granted after that is just rhetoric, but do be aware that he is correct that studies have been made (some by religious groups) that support his statement. You can ignore them facts if ya like. But. What you read into the statistics is entirely up to you.

 

[Evidencebased]

Wow, your post is composed of 100% Creationist Propaganda. Would you like a Golden Crocoduck?

I really, really, really, seriously hope, FOR YOUR SAKE, that you are trolling. If not, then Science and Reason help you.

I can't even begin to facepalm with this post.

Oh wow. Oh wow. Bahaha. Come on now, seriously. You can't surely be serious. Yeah, you must be a troll. This post can't be legit.

Oh man you almost got me there, phew. For a moment I thought you were serious.

evilneko: if you think you can prove me wrong, please don't let me stop you.

And lotr rocks 0: I'm not trolling. That is what I believe. But I have often been banned from places for stating my belief.

I'll say again, if you can prove me wrong on anything. I'll shut up.

Aw, that's adorable. Luckily for you, doctors and researchers have a much better grasp of science than you do, and we're even willing to treat and cure people who don't believe in the very basic foundations of our work. If you get sick, the Theory of Evolution is gonna be why we are able to help you.

 

[monfang]

So, a book where it is explicitly stated that the belief in griphons and the like originated (much like dragons) from bones of prehistoric creatures mistaken for and partially misassembled as mythical creatures proves that these creatures really existed because you think the author didn't want to tell the readers that the creatures were alive at the time the stories about them were written because you believe that this is true?

Yes, a book where it is stated that the Greeks supposedly had great paleontologists who, during the Greco-Roman era, were supposedly able to figure out dinosaur behavior without the aid of computers that we only recently been able to think of though the use of Computer simulations. and NOWHERE else had anyone else had even the thought of such a thing possible.

Her statements requires that the Greeks and Romans had knowledge that we only recently figured out though machines. Something I call a stretch of the imagination.

 

[monfang]

Wow, your post is composed of 100% Creationist Propaganda. Would you like a Golden Crocoduck?

I really, really, really, seriously hope, FOR YOUR SAKE, that you are trolling. If not, then Science and Reason help you.

I can't even begin to facepalm with this post.

Oh wow. Oh wow. Bahaha. Come on now, seriously. You can't surely be serious. Yeah, you must be a troll. This post can't be legit.

Oh man you almost got me there, phew. For a moment I thought you were serious.

evilneko: if you think you can prove me wrong, please don't let me stop you.

And lotr rocks 0: I'm not trolling. That is what I believe. But I have often been banned from places for stating my belief.

I'll say again, if you can prove me wrong on anything. I'll shut up.

Aw, that's adorable. Luckily for you, doctors and researchers have a much better grasp of science than you do, and we're even willing to treat and cure people who don't believe in the very basic foundations of our work. If you get sick, the Theory of Evolution is gonna be why we are able to help you.

Wow, this is a first. I'm treated like I have a disease. Not surprised, but still, a first.

 

[ninetails593]

Statistically speaking, Atheists actually tend to score higher in tests/quizzes about the bible/torah/qu'ran contents than average members of the church in question.

Atheism is generally a side-effect of having increased knowledge on the topic than the religious folk. As so many say, the best way to become an atheist is to actually read the bible.

Biased speculation with no actual proof. How does believing in something make me stupider? Sorry to offend the Atheist master race, but you don't make claims like that without sources.

I don't mean to offend your need to be overly defensive, but he is correct. [http://pewforum.org/other-beliefs-and-practices/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey.aspx]

Now, granted after that is just rhetoric, but do be aware that he is correct that studies have been made (some by religious groups) that support his statement. You can ignore them facts if ya like. But. What you read into the statistics is entirely up to you.

I'm not as offended as I sound, but it's always aggravating to see people insulting my religion
And that study isn't really against religion... It's against us Catholics XP
Catholicism is kind of laid back, just not in bed.
And still, even if there is proof against what I say, he failed to provide it. So it really was just biased speculation.

 

[Sight Unseen]

Statistically speaking, Atheists actually tend to score higher in tests/quizzes about the bible/torah/qu'ran contents than average members of the church in question.

Atheism is generally a side-effect of having increased knowledge on the topic than the religious folk. As so many say, the best way to become an atheist is to actually read the bible.

Biased speculation with no actual proof. How does believing in something make me stupider? Sorry to offend the Atheist master race, but you don't make claims like that without sources.

I don't expect you to have read the whole thread, but I did provide a source further on on the thread. This is a different one from the one I used but it cites the same study:

http://newsroom.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/29/faith-vs-religious-knowledge/

 

[ninetails593]

Statistically speaking, Atheists actually tend to score higher in tests/quizzes about the bible/torah/qu'ran contents than average members of the church in question.

Atheism is generally a side-effect of having increased knowledge on the topic than the religious folk. As so many say, the best way to become an atheist is to actually read the bible.

Biased speculation with no actual proof. How does believing in something make me stupider? Sorry to offend the Atheist master race, but you don't make claims like that without sources.

I don't expect you to have read the whole thread, but I did provide a source further on on the thread. This is a different one from the one I used but it cites the same study:

http://newsroom.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/29/faith-vs-religious-knowledge/

People don't tend to learn much from arguments. So usually when you say something to somebody, it really doesn't matter how old it is. But I refer you to what I said to that other guy. Faith doesn't require knowledge, Atheists that know a lot about religion are just researching things to say against Theists.

 

[christhenoob]

I'm going to start with the video first.

IT'S A JOKE!

Seriously, you couldn't pick it up that it was a joke? If you did your research you would see that the owner of the site held a contest for the funniest explanation of evolution. That one won.

Now for my proof:

Claim one: "None of the age testing is accurate past 5000 years."

Proof one: in 1996 a scientist was studing a lava flow in New Zeland that was less than 50 yo at the time. He took 11 samples and sent them back to get tested. What came back astonished him.

The lava flow was many millions of years old. The scientist had the lab use potassium-argon (K?Ar) dating methods to test the rocks. The tests give generalised spans of ages and the average of the results is sent back. The results showed 0.27 to 3.5 (± 0.2) million years for rocks which were observed to have cooled from lavas 25?50 years ago. One sample from each flow yielded ?ages? of <0.27 or <0.29 million years while all the other samples gave ?ages? of millions of years.

Claim two: Scientists hide facts and lie.

Proof two A: In Dinosaur Valley State Park, near Glen Rose, Texas there is a river bed that supposedly has dinosaur tracts dried in the mud. People have also claimed to have seen human footprints in the mud as well. I have not been there so I can't say that as fact. But it wouldn't surprise me.

Proof two B: Also, personal option that I have gathered based on listening to the people ramble on.

Claim Three: Greeks, Native Americans, Chinese and Hebrew people have Dinosaurs in their historical writings

Proof Three: Lets start with the Griffin. That's right, that half bird half lion creature.. is really different than what you believe. First off, as apposed to other creatures of the time, the griffin was not the offspring of gods and was not associated with the adventures of Greek gods or heroes. Instead, griffins were generic animals believed to exist in the preset day; they were encountered by ordinary people who prospected for gold in distant lands.

Griffins are typically described as a race of four-footed birds having the beaks of eagles and the claws of lions, probably not flying but leaping in the air and digging in the ground, living in the desert wilderness.

Now look up the Protoceratops. Or let me do it for you: http://www.cmstudio.com/image/Protoceratops012.jpg

Beak, claw. And the researcher goes on to talk about how the creature was treated differently than other 'mythical' animals. You can read all about it here: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v6i8f.htm#footnote1

For the rest, read here: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v3i1f.htm

Any questions?

I have to give you some credit, I assumed you wouldn't respond, but it seems you have, and now I must go through the arduous task for shooting them down one by one.

Let's start with claim two considering I only need common sense to refute it. "Scientists hide facts and lie." I can tell you right now that no respected scientific paper would be published these days without a good deal of solid evidence. What does that make the religious? There are thousands of creation stories, not to mention other claims made in the name of religion which have time and time again been disproved. At least science can be challenged and tested for whereas religion, and creationism, is just supposed to be some universal truth that you can neither prove nor disprove. There is a remarkable thing... just because there are tracks of a dinosaur and a human next to each other, which I doubt because you have no evidence to prove it, does not mean that they came from the same time period. If I found a dinosaur footprint and I made my own right next to it, it doesn't mean that they happened at the same time! I also don't think your personal opinion counts as proof... Moving on.

Claim three is inherently ridiculous, but I'll try my best to to refute it. For one thing, the mythological griffon looks NOTHING like the picture of a dinosaur that you posted, and I doubt that it could jump or even simulate flight in anyway shape or form. Also, all of the cultures you describe are less then 10000 years old, how could they have possibly seen a dinosaur! Mythological beasts are just that... mythological! I'm not quite sure what to say at this point...

Claim one is just... absurd. I'm going to give you a bit of a logical test to see if you understand what an argument is.

Chicken is good.
Beef is good.
Therefore, beef is chicken.

If you now believe that chickens are now bovines, I highly recommend professional help. Just because there was a mistake in science ONCE due to a contamination or other experimental error does not mean that ALL science is wrong. There isn't much more to say about that. I implore you to research on your own carbon dating. It's quite effective and aging ancient rocks and such.

I'm impressed by your trolling abilities, they are worthy of a true master. Few would go so far as to look up bogus websites.

 

[Knight Templar]

What would make the Greeks think up the Griffins as motherly? To come up with such far-fetched details that even now our Scientists have to make HUGE leaps of faith to come up with instead of treating them as the same as mythical creatures.

Again, that source is saying they looked at fossils and came up with griffons.
Not living creatures. So waxing on the possible origins of particular traits attributed to bones is not helping your point.

And I see you ignored the dating part.

Do you have the page numbers by any chance?

""I was interested in the way legends of fantastic creature can arise from observations of the remains of unfamiliar extinct animals"
Page 15
Do you own the book?

He constantly refers to fossils, not living creatures. Where in the book does it suggest this is anything other than legend born from bones and paleontology? I mean look at the god-damn title!

You have yet again failed to take note of my rebuttal of your claim re:dating. Are you going to address it? Are you willing to admit when wrong?

I believe I already addressed that 're:dating' thing you are speaking of.

Where? What is the post number?

And SHE refers to fossils because to think that maybe they came up with such details about their lives from real creatures would contradict her beliefs so she made the major claim that the Greeks had Paleontologists. The first one to do it according to my research.

So you list this as a source, yet belive it is making things up and untrustworthy?
If you need to argue against your own source then you have issues. Your source doesn't agree with you, and pretending they do is exactly what you did at the start of this little issue.

Let me be clear while interesting and fun to discuss the concept of griffons being inspired by bones I don't really hold to it. Your position, that they saw real creatures then made them almost twice as big, and made from two different animals, neither of which looks like the original, is not supported by that source in any way shape or form.

It is just you throwing ideas out that lack any basis in what is seen. You are looking at cave paintings and seeing aliens.

I'd think someone who read HER book would know who the author is.

I am aware of the gender, I just use male pronouns without thinking. Thank you for catching that.
Anyway it's not as if I'm listing it as a source as if it supports my position when in fact the source refutes my position.

That would be silly.

 

[Evidencebased]

As a Creationist I do believe in scientific evidence for creation, because scientific evidence for creation is found in observational science. Evolution is based on the study of things we can't study, like "billions of years ago" and the likes (well, not entirely). When people say "there is no evidence for creationism, it's just a load of horse shit" I feel sorry for them because they are obviously looking at the wrong kind of science to study creationism. For example, the proteins that form life are made up of amino acids. To sum up an argument for creationism, amino acids cannot survive in water (fact), therefore life as we know it could not have formed billions of years ago in water (and of course there is the theory of RNA that was invented to counter this argument).

Abiogenesis isn't the same as evolution, but I'm curious: how do y'all debunk the RNA Hypothesis (or Metabolism First Hypothesis)? You've claimed that amino acids can't survive in water (um...cite? ) but I'm not aware that the more current models of abiogenesis rely on them to in the first place, validity of that aqueous-insolubility aside.

Another example is that evolution relies on mutations to make it work, but we have only ever found bad mutations in creatures that are harmful to life, not helpful mutations leading to survival of the species.

What about the mutations in bacteria that let them develop resistances to antibiotics? Those aren't beneficial for us (usually) but they certainly benefit the bacteria. And for that matter, what about the selective breeding of animals like dogs where we have increased the frequency of traits we find desirable in particular breeds? They aren't always strictly beneficial, but they do illustrate a sort-of evolution.

A third example is the theory of Neanderthals. If they were really alive from 100,000 BC to 35,000 BC, where are all the skeletons? We haven't even found one legitimate set of bones yet. We came close with Lucy, only to discover that they were really ape bones from under 10,000 years ago... 50,000,000,000 - 55,000,000,000 generations of bones don't just disappear. I guess we'll just keep studying the dinosaur bones from BILLIONS of years ago that keep popping up everywhere...

Goodness! Lucy got debunked? Along with all the other Homo sapiens sapiens precursors? Could we get a citation for that? As far as I've heard we have tons of samples and fossils of Neanderthals and early humans; what makes you think they are not legitimate specimens?

 

[crudus]

OK... so you got some facts right there, but NO educated biologist will tell you humans evolved from apes. We have the same origin as the modern ape, we did NOT evolve from apes. Apes or hominoidea is as you said a super family and neither super family nor super group is a good phylogenic way to arrange things. They're there because it's more convenient than the normal divisions. You might claim there is no difference between saying we evolved from apes and had the same origin, but every biologist curse the man who first said that. It's the statement that is the root to the creationist defense "Then why didn't all apes end up as humans?". What we evolved from is a specie that is extinct a long time ago.

I am not saying we evolved from gorillas, orangutans, or gibbons. I am saying we evolved from apes. Our (most recent) common ancestor with gorillas and orangutans would be classified as an ape. At least I hope so; creationists might have a point if our (most recent) common ancestor was a jellyfish or something.

 

[Evidencebased]

Wow, your post is composed of 100% Creationist Propaganda. Would you like a Golden Crocoduck?

I really, really, really, seriously hope, FOR YOUR SAKE, that you are trolling. If not, then Science and Reason help you.

I can't even begin to facepalm with this post.

Oh wow. Oh wow. Bahaha. Come on now, seriously. You can't surely be serious. Yeah, you must be a troll. This post can't be legit.

Oh man you almost got me there, phew. For a moment I thought you were serious.

evilneko: if you think you can prove me wrong, please don't let me stop you.

And lotr rocks 0: I'm not trolling. That is what I believe. But I have often been banned from places for stating my belief.

I'll say again, if you can prove me wrong on anything. I'll shut up.

Aw, that's adorable. Luckily for you, doctors and researchers have a much better grasp of science than you do, and we're even willing to treat and cure people who don't believe in the very basic foundations of our work. If you get sick, the Theory of Evolution is gonna be why we are able to help you.

Wow, this is a first. I'm treated like I have a disease. Not surprised, but still, a first.

Lol, dude, calm down; haven't you ever been ill? Taken antibiotics? The only reason modern medicine exists is because we understand the Theory of Evolution. (I wasn't calling you crazy I was pointing out that you have likely seen a doctor at least once in your life. And that doctor was able to help you thanks to, in part, the Theory of Evolution.)

 

[FilipJPhry]

Oy, try putting threads like this in the Religion and Politics forums please!

 

[DracoSuave]

As a Creationist I do believe in scientific evidence for creation, because scientific evidence for creation is found in observational science.

Finally, a creationist willing to bring in actual hard science.

Evolution is based on the study of things we can't study, like "billions of years ago" and the likes (well, not entirely).

But we HAVE things that are billions of years old, and can be proven to be such. We can use observational evidence from things that exist today that indicate what happened billions of years ago.

Not to mention, the very notion that any arbitrary number of years ago cannot be observed is absurd. We can observe things that existed millions of years ago by looking at the Andromeda Galaxy. We've studied the thing, and it can only be millions of light years away. Because of that distance, the light from it that is hitting our planet IS millions of years old.

Sorry, bud. This notion that the past is unobsurvable is proven false. Abandon it.

When people say "there is no evidence for creationism, it's just a load of horse shit" I feel sorry for them because they are obviously looking at the wrong kind of science to study creationism.

Okay....

For example, the proteins that form life are made up of amino acids. To sum up an argument for creationism, amino acids cannot survive in water (fact)

Never mind the fact that by saying this statement you have no idea what an ACID is...

Ahem.

Hydrophiliac Amino Acid Chains.

Point disproven. Continuing on...

, therefore life as we know it could not have formed billions of years ago in water (and of course there is the theory of RNA that was invented to counter this argument).

RNA has been discovered to exist. It's not a theory, any more than 'water is wet' is a theory.

But do you see where I am coming from, Joe Evolutionist? Creationism isn't formed on the studies of "billions of years ago."

Neither is evolution.

It's formed on observational science.

Oh, let me get back to you on this little tidbit.

Another example is that evolution relies on mutations to make it work, but we have only ever found bad mutations in creatures that are harmful to life, not helpful mutations leading to survival of the species.

Wrong.

In Lake Mono, in eastern colorado, there is such an extreme toxicity level that most life cannot survive. However, different species have adapted to the toxicity, through mutation, allowing it to survive in the highly toxic water.

One particular little guy, a bacteria strain, can not only survive in the water, but in pools of evaporated water that contain so much arsenic that the bacteria has evolved to replace arsenic with carbon... and still live. This is unprecidented, as in the vast majority of species in the world, arsenic is always deadly.

Mutations helping the creature survive.

A third example is the theory of Neanderthals. If they were really alive from 100,000 BC to 35,000 BC, where are all the skeletons?

Engis, Belgium was where the first skull was discovered, back in 1829. Forbes' Quarry, Gibraltar. Over 400 Neanderthal skeletons or partial skeletons have been found since.

Did you even TRY to research any of this?

We haven't even found one legitimate set of bones yet.

Just over 400 illegitimate ones?

We came close with Lucy, only to discover that they were really ape bones from under 10,000 years ago...

One down. You still have 400 more specimens to debunk to make your point.

50,000,000,000 - 55,000,000,000 generations of bones don't just disappear.

Actually, they kinda do. There's a reason why millions of animals can die each year and yet the entire ground isn't covered in the bones of the dead.

It's called 'Decomposition'.

I guess we'll just keep studying the dinosaur bones from BILLIONS of years ago that keep popping up everywhere...

I know, right, it's almost like hundreds of species that lived for millions of years would have more specimens than one single species that only lived for a few thousand years.

It's almost like there were more dinosaurs.

I know that this isn't a discussion thread so if anyone wants to chat just inbox me. Plus I'll pick and choose who to reply to based on how short the message is. 300 points for me to reply to isn't much fun, so keep it to your five most important points please.

Sorry. You presented more than five points, all of which were easily debunkable with a wikipedia search.


But let's go back to your insistance on 'observational science.'

In order to advance creationism, you need an observation. This is your own goalpost, and you need to answer it.

Has any creation scientist observed a god creating life?

 

[Sprinal]

I said yes as I did look into it once.

After about 4 hours on the internet and in libraries finding all evidence is either extremely vague (to a point of being meaningless) or easily explainable using the concepts of Physics and Chemistry (as well as Bio) I gave up.

Then I concluded that evolution was more accurate and then dismissed the debate...again...

 

[zehydra]

I have, back in high school. (Actually ID, not creationism specifically. The two are compatible, but not the same thing. For instance, there are atheist/secular ID scientists)

I have come to accept Evolution a long time ago (it makes sense).

It's not possible for an atheist to be an ID scientist unless he doesn't believe the lies he's making and only doing it for money. Atheism, by definition, is the lack of a belief in a God. Intelligent design, by definition, is the idea that a God-like creator made the universe (in a SHOCKINGLY similar way to Biblical creation, imagine the odds...) and all life in the universe. By definition, it is not possible for an atheist to believe in intelligent design, because then he would be a theist...

it doesn't have to be god-like

 

[monfang]

Hmm. I don't believe I can win this. By win, I mean convince you to change your mind. It might be for the best though. Ah well.

Lets shift gears. I can't convince you that Evolution is full of holes, so I will convince you that Creationism isn't. We'll start with treating Creationism like a science. First off, you can't. It isn't a scientific theory. It's a theory based on the same train of thought that Sherlock Holmes and detectives use. By using the facts that we see before us, we look for the truth. Often times, the wildest and craziest theories are often the truth.

"...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.."

Ok, lets start with the impossible. Based on experiments that are still being advertised in school science books, Miller and Urey experiment, conditions in pre-life Earth made the amino acids that formed life. HOWEVER, the facts recorded show that it is impossible. First off, life requires 20 amino acids to survive. The Experiment only formed 15 at most. Also, there is always a third of those acids are left handed. Only Right Handed Amino Acids can form life, Left Handed are toxic to life. So based on experiments done, the conditions that are commonly thought of as the conditions before life are impossible to create life.

"... whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth..."

I'll wait for a response before going on. Maybe I'll make a topic just for this.

 

[Knight Templar]

snip

So you are not going to respond to any of the points held against you? Just jump ship?

 

[DracoSuave]

Are you really that blind? Are you really that manipulated? Has the social-media really whipped you this much that you can't step outside of your own little cacoon of understanding for a few minutes?

I -did- watch the video. That's how I can point out specific flaws in his rebuttals that have nothing to do with evolution, but other fields of science he gets absolutely WRONG.

No, you, like almost all evolutionists I've ever encountered, are not interested in civil discourse. You're just interested in being right.

But I'm going to stop wasting my time. I could go on and on - I tried to be fair, I tried to be understanding, I tried to be enlightening, but there's always something with you people. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter what evidence i present. I once wrote a person a 3 page, single spaced response with detailed sources, and his response was, "I'm sorry, I'm not going to take the time to read what's so obviously a load of crap."

I did take the time, and it IS a load of crap. What do you say to that?

No, you just want Creationism to be wrong, so you won't even allow yourself to be challenged, dismissing anything thats contrary to what you believe out of hand.

I FINALLY have something that I can explain things far better than me in certain areas. And what does someone say? "Pft, I'm not watching that, you said it sucks!"

Like I said, I -did- watch it, and the guy doesn't understand high school chemistry. He's speaking from an agenda, not from any basis in anything resembling science.

I said that it's like propaganda

It is propaganda

- that doesn't mean it's less credible, it's just the style and way the information is presented; and I said they use outdated information on Evolution - BUT ONLY SOME.

It's the fact that he has basic chemical principles like 'electrolysis' wrong, and that he completely ignores how the scientific method works, and misrepresents arguments made in experiments he quotes that discredit him.

We're calling him a charlatan because he is, in point of fact, a charlatan. He is a fraud. He is blatantly lying to make a point.

And of that some, it's almost irrelevant. The point is that anyone with a bachelor's degree in biology should be able to point out the flaws, but the video isn't made for people with degrees in biology,

Read: People who don't understand he's outright lying to them.

it's made for the average person to understand. Many of the information presented about evolution are what main-stream media thinks of evolution in the first place. If anything, it's guilty of talking about and responding to the very ideas evolutionists themselves present to the ignorant masses!

Which makes it useless in principle as a debunking of evolution. That's the entire central part that makes it charlatanism.

See, he's working a crowd with no knowledge of evolution, and trying to debunk evolution to them, by PURPOSEFULLY misrepresenting the argument, using common misconceptions about evolution, rather than the actual science, or the actual theory itself. On. Purpose.

That's academic fraud. If he were a student in some schools, he'd get expelled for that.

Then you expect a simple google search to solve your problems... are you really that dense?

No, we expect a better case to be made.

No... no... I'm done. I go on these forums to try and promote a civil discussion; an open platform to present ideas I've heard.

When one presents academic fraud as a scientific debate, one is going to get called on it. That's part of why we have free speech.

I'm not looking to write a term paper on Creationism, I'm not looking to prove you all wrong (that's not how science works in the first place...),

Actually, proving stuff wrong is exactly how science works.

I'm only looking to say, "The idea that Creationism has no evidence outside of the Bible is false."

And if that statement is false, present evidence. Show any of the body of scientific research over the thousands of years that mankind has believed in a creator, to forward the point. Seriously, that's all anyone is asking.

Not one creationist has stepped forward with research. Rhetoric, yes. Self-vicitmization, sure. In your case, outright academic fraud. But not, one, single, solitary, experiment.

In a scientific debate, without the experiment, you have no position.

And rather than looking at any source I may come up with, you just dismiss it out of hand.

Not at all. I determined he was full of shit by the outright incorrect nonsense he was spouting.

You are all sad individuals and blatant hypocrites.

By requiring research?

EDIT: Please don't respond. I don't really feel like clicking through my email box to just get rid of notifications I won't read or getting my hopes up that it's from a forum where the discuss is more productive than talking to a brick wall.

Then don't keep posting?

 

[monfang]

snip

So you are not going to respond to any of the points held against you? Just jump ship?

I could say the same of you. But I did my best, I can't convince you of anything. Turning away from an argument after seeing that it is futile is not jumping ship, it is just common sense.

Now, respond to my point.