... on honesty in debates (not forgetting manners)

1) ... on Roswell Creatures and Peer Review (starring M McQuarrie) · 2) ... on honesty in debates (not forgetting manners)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Never underestimate the power of deeply impious people to rationalise their beliefs in Evolution ...

Ward McCreery

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Evolution exists whether you believe it or not

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Creation happened whether you believe it or not, so did Flood.

Ward McCreery

The difference is evolution has evidence other than a moldy old book

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
No it did not.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+Ward McCreery, if you call bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics or ability to digest citric acid "evolution", well, there is evidence, it is being observed or was observed in the very recent past, last few decades, but it does not contradict our book.

If you call bacteria (or sth else, whatever) evolving into multicellular organisms, these starting to reproduce by sex, developing spines, leaving sea and starting to breathe air and a few more things like that, well, it does contradict our book, and there is no evidence for it.

+M McQuarrie Flood is abundantly evidenced in the fossil record which evolutionists want millions and billions of years in order to sort it into diverse non-global-Flood disasters and sedimentations.

And when layers that correspond to "millions of years" were all folded at same time, or when trees go through layers supposedly for hundred thousand years, well, your explanation works a bit badly.

Creation is evidenced in a Tychonian universe (which I suppose you dispute) and in the soul of man (which I also suppose you dispute).

Tychonian universe is most direct explanation for our viewings or observations, soul is most direct or even only viable explanation for our being able to think.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Hitchens' Razor.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What about it?

Mutations observed in bacteria are very far from explaining bacteria to man "evolution" or human mind or ... etc.

[sorry, missed distinction here]

I am in this reply presuming "Hitchens' razor" is a variety of Occam's.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Mutations observed in bacteria are very far from explaining bacteria to man "evolution" or human mind or ... etc."

Lame straw-man of what evolution actually is.

And you're wrong about Hitchens' Razor too.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+M McQuarrie, so you pretend evolution is NOT pretending some one celled organisms like bacteria evolved to man?

Good, then you might not be an evolutionist!

As for Hitchens' Razor, your turn to explain!

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
Find the correct definition of evolution and I'll explain Hitchens' Razor.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Play the snob, and I'll prefer ignoring you.

If you DO say men evolved from bacteria or similar one celled organisms, you have an explanation problem, such a thing is NOT observed.

If you do NOT say that, fair enough, but then you are not an evolutionist.

As an ex-evolutionist I am pretty knowledgeable on what evolutionists were at least saying back when I was a believer at least in books accessible for children.

I have kept up some fresher reminders of my now opponents.

You can explain Hichens' Razor now or not, as you chose!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Play the snob, and I'll prefer ignoring you.

If you DO say men evolved from bacteria or similar one celled organisms, you have an explanation problem, such a thing is NOT observed.

If you do NOT say that, fair enough, but then you are not an evolutionist.

As an ex-evolutionist I am pretty knowledgeable on what evolutionists were at least saying back when I was a believer at least in books accessible for children.

I have kept up some fresher reminders of my now opponents.

You can explain Hichens' Razor now or not, as you chose!

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl

"If you DO say"

That's the thing, you dolt, no one is saying that and beyond creationist twats, no one ever did. Your idea about evolution is wrong and you are wrong for perpetuating it.

The term "evolutionist" is a massive red-herring. We don't have a term for people who believe in the theory of gravity (beyond sensible). Evolution is just like gravity. It is a fact whether you like it or not.

If you actually want to understand what evolution is (which you don't because willful ignorance and deceit are the only weapons you twats have) try a credited source:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

Or if you want to ignore me, please do. You creationists twats are effectively done.

The real dangerous idiots out there are the regressive left now.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"That's the thing, you dolt, no one is saying that and beyond creationist twats, no one ever did. Your idea about evolution is wrong and you are wrong for perpetuating it."

OK? What has then taken the place of the idea that many-celled organisms, plants, animals, evolved from one-celled?

[Did not even name bacteria here!]

That this transition and whatever development there was before it is "pre-evolution" because evolution deals with how individual variations get or don't get a chance for sexual reproduction?

Or did you take umbrage on my placing "bacteria" where your credited source places "archaea"? And bacteria also developing from them?

I said "bacteria or something like that", I was pretty careful not to single out bacteria specifically among the one-celled organisms.

[Except once, in haste. Btw, CMI has the more correct "amoeba to man evolution" - I was just not much interested in caring too much about distinction archaea vs bacteria. No incorrectness of source involved.]

"The term "evolutionist" is a massive red-herring. We don't have a term for people who believe in the theory of gravity (beyond sensible). Evolution is just like gravity. It is a fact whether you like it or not."

Gravitationists don't, I do think there would be a point to use "Newtonians", "Einsteinians" for the diverse tribes of gravitationists. One could, for instance, take the stand that apple falls to ground because of electromagnetism (I am not sure that believers in electromagnetic universe do that, they might be Newtonians about why apple falls to ground while yet being electro-magneticists about why planets orbit whatever they orbit), or that apple falls to ground because it is made up of heavy stuff and thus has centre of universe for its natural place.

Aside of course from that little detail that debating evolutionists is more common than debating gravitationists.

"If you actually want to understand what evolution is (which you don't because willful ignorance and deceit are the only weapons you twats have)"

OK, "twats", "you dolt", "wilful ignorance and deceit", I kind of sense a slight animosity even before the debate begins.

Is animosity the only weapon left to evolutionists?

"Or if you want to ignore me, please do."

Actually, you start to sound a bit interesting.

"You creationists twats are effectively done."

You mean sth like we will be by tomorrow?

Predicting the future? Have you taken drugs or are you hypnotising yourself on crystal balls?

"The real dangerous idiots out there are the regressive left now."

So, you are progressive left or progressive right or progressive sth else .... what exactly are the left or the regressive ones of them so dangerous idiots about?

Perhaps I should have enumerated politics along with crystal balls and fumes of burning laurel, or whatever it was the poor Pythia used!

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"OK? What has then taken the place of the idea that many-celled organisms, plants, animals, evolved from one-celled?"

Well nothing, because what you think is evolution, that inane statement of yours, isn't evolution. What is evolution hasn't really changed all that much and you can read all about it here:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

Twat.

"Is animosity the only weapon left to evolutionists?"

Well we also have facts, science and reality.

Dolt.

And something you need to understand, religion is on its way out and creationism is going with it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Well nothing, because what you think is evolution, that inane statement of yours, isn't evolution."

Either many celled organisms DID or the DID NOT evolve from one celled.

Each position merits a name.

Which of them agrees with evolution?

"Well we also have facts, science and reality."

And above all ignoring each of these, and logic too, whenever it is convenient to you.

[And manners, hoping bad manners will impress whoever it will impress ....]

"And something you need to understand, religion is on its way out and creationism is going with it."

Two problems:

• 1) you still pretend to foresee what happens tomorrow;
  
  
• 2) you also pretend to know what "I need to understand".

Both of these statements are really nothing but divination.

Do you read it in cards? I certainly did not offer you my palm to read, I don't do your superstition.

M McQuarrie

+Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Either many celled organisms DID or the DID NOT evolve from one celled."

False dichotomy indicative of willful ignorance of what evolution is.

And don't accuse me of ignoring the facts when I presented you with a credited source that details exactly what evolution is and how it works.

[I was accusing him of playing the snob and of ignoring basic logic. Not of "ignoring the facts" of how evolution is supposed to work. Except on the unlikely but still mentioned alternative he did NOT think many-celled organisms evolved from one-celled. I did not say I thought it the likelier alternative.]

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

At any point you could have visited said site and corrected your misunderstanding.

But you haven't.

Which is why you are a dishonest twat.

As for knowing that religion is on its way out, one need only look at the rise in individuals around the world who do not profess a belief in your god or any god of any kind.

People will still be stupid, it's just that they'll be stupid about different things. Social justice is the new god of America.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"False dichotomy indicative of willful ignorance of what evolution is."

I don't think so.

I think the alternatives were not two allegations which could both be false, but one allegation with its direct negation, of which not only both cannot be true, but both cannot be false.

You seem ignorant of logic.

"And don't accuse me of ignoring the facts when I presented you with a credited source that details exactly what evolution is and how it works.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

At any point you could have visited said site and corrected your misunderstanding."

As to distinction between archaea and bacteria, I did so correct it at first glance at your credited source.

If you meant sth else, be a bit precise as to what you meant and where I could have corrected whatever misunderstanding you meant.

"But you haven't."

I did as much as I had time for. Before answering.

If you require me to lecture myself an all the content of their site before returning to your simply flouting of logic, you are unreasonable.

That is not how debates work.

If you want to correct a specific misunderstanding, you point out:

• what is the exact misunderstanding
• what is the exact correct position
  AND
• what your source is, specific on page, unless you can claim forgetting.

So, what exact page in your credited source would explode my simple observation as a false dichotomy?

"Which is why you are a dishonest twat."

I am not replying in kind for cuss words, but dishonest is how you come forth to me.

"As for knowing that religion is on its way out, one need only look at the rise in individuals around the world who do not profess a belief in your god or any god of any kind."

Most of them concentrated to one corner of mankind, which is not the one reproducing fastest.

I have also heard a more credible claim Islam is on the rise.

But whichever of the two rises quicker, there is such a thing as reversal of trends.

You are yourself a product of one.

Protestantism and Atheism are reversals of the trend of Pagan societies in Europe to become more Catholic.

Both are most prevailing either in Europe or colonies and former colonies or in near colonies. And least of these perhaps in former colonies. Or some of them.

So, they reverse the trend of the model societies to go from Pagan to Catholic.

Trends can be reversed.

Therefore your supposed rational argument for your prediction rests on the lie that trends cannot be reversed.

"People will still be stupid, it's just that they'll be stupid about different things. Social justice is the new god of America."

Part reversal of the Protestant trend which produced US, perhaps?

Not that I care for Bernie. He's pro-abortion and probably pro-government run schools as in anti-homeschooler. NOT social justice.

And suppose your trend won, what good would it bring you?

"People will still be stupid, it's just that they'll be stupid about different things."