;)
You might try a different intro. Or should I just ban you now?
Link removed.
I suspect it has something to do with this -
QuoteThe 13 yr. old brat (who goes by the youtube name as "MisterExpertise") (http://atheistforums.org/thread-10343.html) is, you guessed it, using the tired old "15 questions that evolutionists cant answer" trick.
Here is the latest website to scoop up the 15 questions, polish them off, and say "gotcha!" with.
http://creation.com/15-questions
Well, anyways, the boy is being hailed as a mozart type genius by the creatinist crowd. "he's only 13 and he stumped Dawkins?!?" and "This boy is blessed by god with intelligence!" etc.
Nothing canbe further from the truth. The kid has used the "easy cartoon creator", in which all you have to do is paste text online and it spits a pre made cartoon out for you. He didnt even come up with the 15 questions, he merely copied them from somewhere else, and the kid is 13 acting like he has stumped one of the worlds greatest biologists.
..I heard that once during the dark ages that the holy warriors of Christ followed ducks because they thought the ducks were a sign from god....
Are those the links from the OP..?
Quote from: Asmodean on January 06, 2012, 05:56:08 AM
Are those the links from the OP..?
No the first link I put in it to another forum where the post I quoted originated, the 2nd one is to creation ministries which I haven't wasted much time on. I'm only guessing the OP was referring to the 13 year old "genius."
Well, as far as biology is concerned, it would take quite a thirteen year old to take on The Dawkins... :P
It's amazing how shamelessly and desperately theist will promote and spread even the smallest perceived victory. When you run into a person who does this, you make an instant judgement call on them, then avoid them in the future.
Looking at those ridiculous "15 Questions for Evolutionists", I'm fairly certain each one of those questions has been addressed, in depth, one way or another here on this very forum....multiple times by multiple members.
Quote from: Squid on January 06, 2012, 12:50:22 PM
Looking at those ridiculous "15 Questions for Evolutionists", I'm fairly certain each one of those questions has been addressed, in depth, one way or another here on this very forum....multiple times by multiple members.
It's ok when they ask honestly, looking for answers, but far too many, they just ask those questions, expecting them to be unanswerable and get their panties in a bunch when the questions do indeed get answered.
Quote from: Asmodean on January 06, 2012, 01:08:35 PM
It's ok when they ask honestly, looking for answers, but far too many, they just ask those questions, expecting them to be unanswerable and get their panties in a bunch when the questions do indeed get answered.
I don't think honesty troubles their underwear at all,
they just go "you think you're smart, well you're not ner."
We know, you're wrong, ner.
You think you're smart and you're not, ner ner ner ner.
Have you ever seen the Youtube video of "SunderB00t" (I think I got that right) crowing over his "victory" over The Atheist Experience's Matt Dillahunty? On one hand, it's infuriating because he soooo did not "win" that debate. On the other hand, it's so embarrassing that some small part of me actually kind of feels bad for the guy, because it's obvious he totally misunderstood everything Matt was saying, like he has no concept of metaphors whatsoever and now thinks that Matt D believes in unicorns or something. Mortifyingly stupid.
There is another one where the poster keeps zooming in on Matt D saying "I don't know" to the question "Is there an objective truth?" and just cackling over it. "He said he doesn't know! He said he doesn't KNOW! He is so OWNED!" Of course, to many theists, it's preferable to pretend that you DO know (because Godsaidso) than to admit that there are things humans don't yet know, or to admit that there are philosophical questions (like "is there an objective truth?") that you are still grappling with. ::)
Oh, an atheist somewhere, sometime lost a debate?
Hokaies, I give up the athiezm now! thanks for showing me the way!
That was easy.
I missed all the fun? :(
What was the question that stumped the Great Dr. Dawkins?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 06, 2012, 04:03:55 PM
I missed all the fun? :(
What was the question that stumped the Great Dr. Dawkins?
What is your star sign seemed to stump him.
The interviewer did kind of say I'm just messen with you.
Quote from: McQ on January 06, 2012, 04:22:25 AM
You might try a different intro. Or should I just ban you now?
Link removed.
can you unremove link. I'd like to review it.
Quote from: Twentythree on January 06, 2012, 05:28:07 PM
Quote from: McQ on January 06, 2012, 04:22:25 AM
You might try a different intro. Or should I just ban you now?
Link removed.
can you unremove link. I'd like to review it.
Not easy unless backed up, plus not a good idea. We doesn't allow trolls and hit-and-runners to post links in their first post.
Oh come on you guys don't believe in Nephilims and unicorns, but you believe in dinosaurs?? All the dinosaurs have is scientific evidence whereas the Nephilims have a book written 2000 years ago by people who thought the Earth was flat. Who are you really going to believe??
I like when people fling out bold and ignorant statements; they keep me from wasting my time.
Quote from: Anti-antidisestablishmentarianism on January 06, 2012, 06:11:47 PM
Oh come on you guys don't believe in Nephilims and unicorns, but you believe in dinosaurs?? All the dinosaurs have is scientific evidence whereas the Nephilims have a book written 2000 years ago by people who thought the Earth was flat. Who are you really going to believe??
Ahaha, that's right!!
People used to think that angels had babies on earth. So LOL
Here is a really great response to each question and goes into a lot more detail than the previous link posted. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/15_Questions#15._Why_is_evolution_accepted_and_taught_as_science_when_in_fact_it%E2%80%8B_cannot_explain_the_evidence.3F
I don't understand how not being able to answer a question (how was life first created?) some how proves that an atheistic belief is wrong or the existence of God.
Just because science can't explain something today, or maybe ever, doesn't prove that it was created by a super natural being.
Quote from: technolud on April 13, 2012, 05:42:25 PM
I don't understand how not being able to answer a question (how was life first created?) some how proves that an atheistic belief is wrong or the existence of God.
Just because science can't explain something today, or maybe ever, doesn't prove that it was created by a super natural being.
You're preaching to the choir here, buddy. ;)
I do believe I'm going to like this forum. By the way, what is a "troll". Someone that reads but never posts or something else?
^^ That's a lurker.
A troll is someone who intentionally tries to get people wound up. See also http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?board=48.0 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?board=48.0)
My goodness. They do get going don't they. Me thinks people that get all excited about atheists are just insecure in their beliefs.
Quote from: technolud on April 13, 2012, 09:17:12 PM
I do believe I'm going to like this forum. By the way, what is a "troll". Someone that reads but never posts or something else?
The thread that
The Ali linked has some excellent examples. In addition, here are three useful resources to get you up to speed.
Wikipedia | "Internet Troll" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet))
curiosityandthecat's "Trolling 101" (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=2332.msg29249#msg29249)
"Flame Warriors" (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/index.htm)
Quote from: technolud on April 13, 2012, 05:42:25 PM
I don't understand how not being able to answer a question (how was life first created?) some how proves that an atheistic belief is wrong or the existence of God.
Just because science can't explain something today, or maybe ever, doesn't prove that it was created by a super natural being.
I love this quote! It describes exactly what you are saying:
As Kenneth Miller puts it, the illusion of design to a creationist is
" .....a negative argument in the sense that their proof of the existence of a designer is the alleged inadequacy of evolution to account for these complex features. What's wrong with that explanation is that it's a contrived dualism. It's an argument that says, "Either evolution can explain everything, or we can invoke an intelligent designer" ... The whole idea of intelligent design is a confession on the part of its advocates that they actually can't get any evidence at all in favor of a designer. So what they resort to is the notion that it's either evolution or it's design. And if evolution right now, today, cannot explain everything, that lack of a complete explanation amounts to evidence for the other side."
Ah! Ye Olde false dichotomy. There is an excellent book my Robert Gula, Nonsense: A Handbook of Logical Fallacies all about critical thinking and the pitfalls people fall into when offering arguments.
I have faithfully read the Troll posts and will strive not to be one.