Happy Atheist Forum

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 (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 (http://sounddoctorin.com/ministrynet/creation.htm)

 

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.

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".

"Get laid." That's my argument.

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 (http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=252759483743&topic=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.

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."

Quote from: "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.

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 (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.

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.

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.  

Quote from: "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.  

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..............."

Quote from: "kelltrill"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 (http://www.facebook.com/StellarTabi)

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 (http://www.facebook.com/search/?flt=1&q=robert+weiler&o=2048&sid=100000584771196.1862865191..1&s=30#!/sounddoctorin?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).

Quote from: "Will"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).

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

Many thanks for posing.

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

Quote from: "TomThumb"Am I the only one who finds Mr Weiler's argument utterly compelling?

Seeing as though this is an atheist forum - yes, most likely.  

What do you find compelling about his arguments?  I mean, specifically?

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "TomThumb"Am I the only one who finds Mr Weiler's argument utterly compelling?

Seeing as though this is an atheist forum - yes, most likely.  

What do you find compelling about his arguments?  I mean, specifically?

I just feel that his theory carries so much weight that only an irrational person could disagree with it.

Quote from: "TomThumb"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "TomThumb"Am I the only one who finds Mr Weiler's argument utterly compelling?

Seeing as though this is an atheist forum - yes, most likely.  

What do you find compelling about his arguments?  I mean, specifically?

I just feel that his theory carries so much weight that only an irrational person could disagree with it.

That theory being what, in a nutshell?

That theory being what, in a nutshell?[/quote]

That dinosaurs are overgrown lizards.

Quote from: "TomThumb"That dinosaurs are overgrown lizards.

Are you joking?

*edited to fix crazy block quote fail

QuoteAre you joking?

No

Quote from: "i_am_i"That theory being what, in a nutshell?

Quote from: "TomThumb"That dinosaurs are overgrown lizards.

Gotcha, you're not to be taken seriously. Congratulations, you are now the new village idiot!

Quote from: "TomThumb"

QuoteAre you joking?

No

Okee dokee.  Well.  I don't know what to say.  I disagree.  Also, I would love proof that the concept that dinosaurs are overgrown lizards has scientifically been proved to the point of being considered a theory.

Also, can you prove you're not a troll?  One word responses + calling something that outlandish a theory often =

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv23%2Fpinkocommie%2Fits-a-trap.jpg&hash=ee409203947ed8dca45bde637895a0e8ba36c979)

QuoteAlso, can you prove you're not a troll?  

I can assure you that I am not a mythological Norse creature.

Trolls are very real. According to lots of books. Wait, what does that remind me of...?

Quote from: "TomThumb"

QuoteAlso, can you prove you're not a troll?  

I can assure you that I am not a mythological Norse creature.

This isn't proof at all!  For all I know you could be using your knobby green little fingers to type out these posts in troll-land!  I assert that your very response is even MORE indicative of you being a troll!  The assertions I'm making are about as much of a 'theory' as the assertion that dinosaurs are overgrown lizards.  You would be irrational not to believe me!  =D

Quote from: "TomThumb"

QuoteAlso, can you prove you're not a troll?  

I can assure you that I am not a mythological Norse creature.

I believe you. If you were a mythological Norse creature you'd be marginally interesting.

Every single post:

Quote from: "TomThumb"Do atheists here accept the possibility that they will one day fall to their knees and accept Jesus as Lord?

Quote from: "TomThumb"Why?

Quote from: "TomThumb"I'm TomThumb in the place to be
I go to St. John's University
And since kinde-garten I acquired the knowledge
And after 12th grade I went straight to college
I'm light skinned, I live in Queens
And I love eatin chicken and collard greens

Quote from: "TomThumb"Can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly do.

Quote from: "TomThumb"Am I the only one who finds Mr Weiler's argument utterly compelling?

Quote from: "TomThumb"Discuss

EDIT: I should clarify that I believe the man deserves respect. Total respect.

Quote from: "TomThumb"About 40/1

Quote from: "TomThumb"Does the video provide any evidence for the existence of Peter Gabriel?

Quote from: "TomThumb"Am I the only one who finds Mr Weiler's argument utterly compelling? Seeing as though this is an atheist forum - yes, most likely. What do you find compelling about his arguments? I mean, specifically? I just feel that his theory carries so much weight that only an irrational person could disagr...

Quote from: "TomThumb"That dinosaurs are overgrown lizards.

Quote from: "TomThumb"No

Quote from: "TomThumb"Why haven't monarch butterflies changed?

The fossil record dates monarch butterflies back at least 6 million years, but they are no different than the monarch butterflies of today. Did evolution miss them? Does this prove evolution is flawed theory, like the theory of relativity?

Quote from: "TomThumb"Does anyone seriously believe that this incident is not a clear warning that Barack Obama is the Antichrist?

Quote from: "TomThumb"Please note that the Theory of Relativity is based on the assumption the Sun is a solid mass, something which we now know is not true.

Quote from: "TomThumb"I can assure you that I am not a mythological Norse creature.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpix.motivatedphotos.com%2F2010%2F1%2F20%2F633996065870123015-ObviousTroll.jpg&hash=5c10538092e96d3f6a0d46edbebde803f7669a21)

Edit: fixed quote.

What's the image on the bottom? Can't see it. It's probably a smiley face of some sort.

Quote from: "Cecilie"What's the image on the bottom? Can't see it. It's probably a smiley face of some sort.

Just a random "Obvious Troll is Obvious" image.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Cecilie"What's the image on the bottom? Can't see it. It's probably a smiley face of some sort.

Just a random "Obvious Troll is Obvious" image.

Ah!

Hi :-) There is a small problem with that, and it has to do with plate tectonics :-) So the tree dies and is fossilized in a few million years, the layers of now sedimentary rock where strongly rippled by the forces induced by the slow motion of the tectonic plates. And it is not an unknown geological event, that these ripples can fold over, to an upside down or near to that position , with the fossilized tree in them. Now you have your tree growing up side down with younger layers of rock on to of it, if you are not careful enough :-) Hope that cleared this mesmerizing find.

Check types of folds:
http://courses.missouristate.edu/EMante ... truct.html (http://courses.missouristate.edu/EMantei/creative/glg110/GeoStruct.html)
check Recumbent fold here:
http://courses.missouristate.edu/EMante ... overturned (http://courses.missouristate.edu/EMantei/creative/glg110/GeoStruct.html#backoverturned)


http://www.bgs.ac.uk/eqr/GeoD_Structures.htm (http://www.bgs.ac.uk/eqr/GeoD_Structures.htm)

I've seen this line of argument before. They misuse scientific "fact" to try "prove" their argument. The Black Hebrews are a good example of this. Basically they say:

1. If homo sapiens originated in Africa, and
2. Adam was the first man, then
3. Adam must have been a black man, therefore
4. We are the chosen people.

See how the misuse of a single scientific fact combined with misinterpretation of the bible, not to mention complete ignorance of 60 000 years of cultural development that separates homo sapiens from Israelites, can lead them to this world-view that "we are the chosen one's". It's quite a leap but try tell them that.

As far as sounddoctrine.com goes, they say things like: "In our observation only a small percentage of species actually go extinct. Most of them proliferate." as part of a response to the question "Why is Evolutionary development of the species a bunk theory?" If I didn't know any better, I would try think of all the species that have gone extinct to refute this. But really, this is futile, as there are so many. Here's what Wikipedia has to say: "... it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction)

So they make provably false statements that kinda sound o.k (and there's a lot of them) or statements that you can't disprove and use that as a basis for "proof". But when you examine them they have no real foundation. Like "the principle of positive fact". Basically, if the universe was created then it must have been created by ... God. They are basically using a positive fact (the fact that we exist) to "prove" an inferred statement, without giving any evidence whatsoever as to the inferred part of the statement. It's like a murder suspect saying: "I pay my taxes, therefore I couldn't have possibly committed this murder." Huh? Thats some fuzzy logic there buddy.

The problem is, they feel as if they have to attribute creation to something, so if science can't tell them then they perceive it as "useless" and end up believing in things with no foundation whatsoever. It's sad really. The worst is when they say: "Well, obviously God exists!" What do you mean "obviously"? No proof whatsoever, yet it's "obvious" to them? It's not obvious, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.