Delusion for jeebus.
9/23/2008 10:55:40 PM
Dream on, oh brainless one, dream on.
9/23/2008 10:57:58 PM
"As for evo professors, there are dozens of formal debates between them and creationist scientists on YouTube. In every one of them the creationist destroys the evo."
Sure, if by "destroys" you mean "buries the poor science defender in a mountain of bovine feces so fast that he can't possibly shovel away the lies and nonsense fast enough to be able to breathe, let alone refute them coherently."
"Watch them all & see. I've done it twice myself. It's easy. All one must do is restrict thier discussion to science and not use assumption in their assertions & they stand with egg on their face and nothing to say while being laughed at by the audience. This is because evolutionism is purely assumption, presumption, and speculation. "
Reverse creation and evolution in this treatment, using science to promote evolution and disprove creationism, and this makes perfect sense. How on Earth you've managed to confuse the two here eludes me completely.
9/23/2008 10:57:59 PM
I like the one where the grad student destroys Kent Hovind :)
In fact, I love it so much I'll share it with everyone http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq-tmigypAM
9/23/2008 11:00:54 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: There can be no debate on the veracity of the theory of evolution. It is proven. Sure, there a few things that need working out, some major, some minor. But to pretend that you're taking part in a rational, intellectual discussion by shaking your finger and telling someone that an entity that no one has ever seen (or will ever see, for that matter) decided to just poof it into existence is pretty much the defition of "delusion".
And don't even get me started on the claim that any evidence anywhere could ever suggest this conclusion, even implicitly.
9/23/2008 11:00:58 PM
I've seen plenty of Creationism vs Evolution videos on Youtube, and In almost ALL cases the Creationist loses, badly.
9/23/2008 11:01:27 PM
The grad student who destroyed Kent Hovind disagrees with you.
All one must do is restrict thier discussion to science and not use assumption in their assertions & they stand with egg on their face and nothing to say while being laughed at by the audience.
And the Delusion for Jesus Award goes to... You!
9/23/2008 11:03:47 PM
Delusional liars for jebus!
9/23/2008 11:05:40 PM
Really? Seems to be like thunderf00t does a pretty good job of handing venomfangx his ass on a regular basis.
9/23/2008 11:06:50 PM
Watched them. You fail.
Thanks to SurfinSeaOtter for the recommendation. LOL
9/23/2008 11:12:32 PM
9/23/2008 11:13:44 PM
"HA! He said something I didn't understand! I win!"
9/23/2008 11:20:51 PM
"In every one of them the creationist destroys the evo."
I guess it might seem that way when one is dull as a post and 3 times over the legal alcohol limit.
9/23/2008 11:25:32 PM
Here's what a typical Evolution-vs.-Creation debate looks like:
CREATIONIST: Here are twenty-seven strawman arguments against Evolution!
EVOLUTIONIST: Here's what's wrong with strawman argument number one. Here's what's wrong with strawman argument number two. Here's what's wrong with strawman argument number thr---
MODERATOR: I'm sorry, but we're out of time.
AUDIENCE: The Evolutionist was only able to counter three of the Creationist's 27 arguments! The Creationist wins!
9/23/2008 11:28:24 PM
More lying for Jesus.
Why is it, that the "faithful" are so willing to make shit up. Isn't bearing false witness sort of frowned upon by the Sky Pixies?
9/23/2008 11:44:24 PM
Creationists raise multiple objections to evolution, each of which would require many hours to refute to a lay audience who doesn't know science. They also often simply lie. When one side is proposing a theory that takes years to learn and understand, and the other is simply saying "Goddidit" and offering false evidence that the audience doesn't know enough to spot, it's not surprising that an ignorant audience would think the scientists have lost.
Fortunately, we don't submit science to a vote by dumb-assed redneck fundamentalist audiences who don't know shit about the subject. Creationists are free to submit their "proof" for review by people who understand the subject and can spot their bullshit. They have never done so. Never. Not once. Not in the entire history of the debate.
9/23/2008 11:47:28 PM
"In every one of them the creationist destroys the evo."
Like the one with VenomFangX and ThunderFoot.
Or the creationist videos of Ray Bananaforgothislastname Comfort, and Dawkins.
9/23/2008 11:58:52 PM
if "*puts fingers in ears* Lalalalalala the bible is true lalalala" is 'destroying evos', then yes, you are correct, you won over evolutionists
9/24/2008 12:09:34 AM
youtube is formal debate?
9/24/2008 12:14:53 AM
Allegory for Jesus
"All one must do is restrict thier discussion to science and not use assumption in their assertions & they stand with egg on their face and nothing to say while being laughed at by the audience."
9/24/2008 12:18:21 AM
There are no evolutionary professors on Youtube.
9/24/2008 12:34:01 AM
Bugger and that was a new irony meter as well.
9/24/2008 12:45:08 AM
If you stick to the scientific facts of the argument, creationism is shot down in flames. Every single time. Period.
9/24/2008 1:51:33 AM
of course you can win if you ignore what the other person says!
its not really winning by most peoples standards, but don't let that stop you from spewing your drooling rhetoric
i mean lets not bog down the "debate" with fact and logic now, the person who wins is the one who outshouts the other guy after all!
9/24/2008 2:07:16 AM
9/24/2008 2:26:27 AM