Help! Creationist Argument

[kelltrill]

Please help. I have bumped into an internet troll called Robert Weiler on Facebook. He is the original internet evangelist (self-proclaimed) according to his profile and nothing anyone says he takes seriously or even briefly considers. He's a complete bully and takes even the slightest difference of opinion as the gravest insult, so I am not particular concerned about debating with him. He recently got banned from a group called Atheists and Christians which I moderate (he was banned by a Christian mod, that's how bad he is).
Generally, whenever creationists bring up an argument for creation I can easily refute it, and if I can't then :-). These trees were buried obviously in a catastrophic event where everything came loose basically (ie. the biblical flood of Genesis 6). We've seen in recent years at St. Helens how quickly such things can occur. Mass disruption, and various layers forming due to density variations."

I know that the whole upright fossil story relates to polystrate fossils.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

But what about the Mt St Helens argument? I'm struggling to find any information on it to even learn more about what he's talking about, let alone refuting it.

Oh, he also says that dinosaurs are just overgrown lizards, he is a 49 year old virgin because he wants to do what is right for a Christian woman, and he has a BSc degree. Just to put this nightmare of an argument into perspective. This is just a snippet of the problematic arguments he's raised which people are battling to refute. This is a link to his Creationist website where he goes into detail about Genesis. I don't even know where to start with some of these arguments.
http://sounddoctorin.com/ministrynet/creation.htm

 

[pinkocommie]

Man, I don't argue with creationists for this very reason - in order to argue with a creationist you often have to re-teach them a whole slew of scientific information which they don't want to learn and reject before you even explain to them what the scientific explanation is.  I don't know what he's referring to with St. Helens (and I learned A LOT about that eruption and the effects thereof, given that I went to school in Washington State) but I do know that trying to teach someone who believes a global flood is even possible the finer points of geology, volcanology, paleontology, and paleobotany is an exercise in futility.  

Sorry I don't have an answer for you though, I know how frustrating that situation can be.  If you can't find any info on what he's talking about, my first thought is that he's making shit up.  After all, lying for Jesus is not unheard of.

[Jack of Darwin]

Hey. Can I suggest telling him that just because you cant explain something using you're understanding of science, doesn't mean some ultimate being with a bipolar triple personality disorder did it. Scientist probably have figured out the rational reason for whatever it is he is talking about, if it is even real as pinkocommie said, but even if they haven't, still he can't claim this one as Gods doing. I think this kind of argument is called a God of the Gaps Argument, where creationists try to fill the gaps in scientific understanding with "God did it".

[elliebean]

"Get laid." That's my argument.

[kelltrill]

Ditto, Ellie. That was my initial thought. It's not a mystery why everyone on this forum is so "happy"

Check it out:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2 ... opic=15104
Giant lizard guy is molesting another topic in another group. The difference? Someone called James is owning him. Royally. Although I don't think lizard virgin boy is realising it yet. It's a great read, you don't even have to read the in between posts, just skip straight to the meaty stuff.

[Albino_Raptor]

My advice? Don't bother. That's the kind of guy you can stand up three of a sort next to each other and still not ending up with two brain cells to rub together.
Otherwise, the best answer to people being OFFENDED!!!! is "Great, let me do it some more."

[Will]

Please help. I have bumped into an internet troll called Robert Weiler on Facebook. He is the original internet evangelist (self-proclaimed) according to his profile and nothing anyone says he takes seriously or even briefly considers. He's a complete bully and takes even the slightest difference of opinion as the gravest insult, so I am not particular concerned about debating with him.

People like this routinely need to be reminded that being insulted is a normal part of being a member of a species that has a wide range of opinions. His being insulted is not your fault and you're under no obligation to hide the truth from him (in order to enable his ignorance) simply because he might feel insulted. Allowing yourself to be insulted is a cornerstone of free speech and intellectual honesty. I for one am happy to be insulted!  :-). These trees were buried obviously in a catastrophic event where everything came loose basically (ie. the biblical flood of Genesis 6). We've seen in recent years at St. Helens how quickly such things can occur. Mass disruption, and various layers forming due to density variations."

I know that the whole upright fossil story relates to polystrate fossils.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

But what about the Mt St Helens argument? I'm struggling to find any information on it to even learn more about what he's talking about, let alone refuting it.[/quote]
This is one of those fun things intellectually dishonest people do to confuse: being intentionally vague. This guy probably read something at one point trying to disprove the age of the earth by claiming that volcanoes negate science. The problem is that he didn't really post any specific arguments here, he just alluded to one. Until he can actually cite specific examples, he's not really making a case, he's just providing a summarization of a case, a preamble.

[hvargas]

Someone who wants to be riducule is not worth to be look at or paid attention to. It's like going to the library, if you like fiction you go to that section and if you like non-fiction you go there to gather information and to compare the same with each other and with your own thoughts. When you want a laugh you select some comedy or look at a clown being ridiculous. This person you describe is such a clown except that his not worth to be paid attention to not even for a laugh.

[elliebean]

Someone on another forum I frequent posted this video, which I thought would apply equally here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S16EHfKRLfc

It is over 30 minutes long, so you might want to bookmark it for later if you're busy. I really enjoyed t and can't wait to go back and check out the rest of the series.  

[happynewyear]

Someone on another forum I frequent posted this video, which I thought would apply equally here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S16EHfKRLfc

It is over 30 minutes long, so you might want to bookmark it for later if you're busy. I really enjoyed t and can't wait to go back and check out the rest of the series.  

This is a great video which basically says :

Know thyself
Keep a Journal
Get some Therapy

Cause we are All Brain Damaged.

"The lunatic is on the grass..............."

[Ellainix]

Please help.

Hello, I would love to join any atheistic facebook conversation you may or may not need help in.

http://www.facebook.com/StellarTabi

[kelltrill]

Thanks ^_^ I messaged you on FB.
To anyone else who is interested, this is his profile: http://www.facebook.com/search/?flt=1&q ... rin?v=wall
If you check out his wall you can see the debates he's engaged in at the moment. Feel free to track him down and troll him. (or find his house and incinerate it... your call).

[Sophus]

This is one of those fun things intellectually dishonest people do to confuse: being intentionally vague. This guy probably read something at one point trying to disprove the age of the earth by claiming that volcanoes negate science. The problem is that he didn't really post any specific arguments here, he just alluded to one. Until he can actually cite specific examples, he's not really making a case, he's just providing a summarization of a case, a preamble.

Yup. I agree with Will. Ask Creationists for their sources. Nothing annoys them so. Often their very sources will refute their own argument (judging from from what I've been able to tolerate of Old Earth Creationists Hugh Ross' writings, who actualyl does source his assertions often, evidently hoping thaat will be proof enough and you won't go digging any further).

[karadan]

Good grief, that thread is classic. It has made me laugh heartily during my lunch break.

Many thanks for posing.

[TomThumb]

Am I the only one who finds Mr Weiler's argument utterly compelling?