Dreams good, delusions bad. You deluded, nephilimfree.
9/24/2008 2:47:39 AM
Thundef00t would like to talk to you, NephilimFree.
9/24/2008 4:05:47 AM
9/24/2008 4:56:42 AM
No, it's the other way around.
9/24/2008 7:23:58 AM
Is it opposite day or something, because I can't think of any instance where a creationist destroys the scientist.
Thunderf00t vs VFX (also known as Posterboy for Creationism).
<insert favourite youtube atheist> vs Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, or any other creationist.
Kistzmiller vs Dover.
Christopher Hitchens vs All of Religion.
9/24/2008 11:07:55 AM
notice, also, how these creationists are only concerned with "winning" an argument. i think they're totally missing the point as to why people are researching things like evoltuion in the first place. simply put, biologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, etc. are all simply trying to understand the basic questions of human existence and development. we all have an innate curiosity when it comes to where we, as a species, fit in to the grander scheme of things, i.e. nature and the universe. they're not trying to define or enforce morality. they're not trying to impose any sort of belief on anyone. why can't creationists understand this? just because they have an agenda, doesn't mean scientists do. science is about gathering evidence, creationism is about making the oppostion look stupid to reinforce their own ideals, plain and simple.
9/24/2008 1:49:25 PM
"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."
Wrong. This is what one must do to prove that creationism isn't science, and that evolution is a valid theory.
9/24/2008 2:29:59 PM
Is it just me that still laughs when I hear the term "Creationist Scientists"?
9/24/2008 3:41:37 PM
NephilimFree....phfft...wimp. Try 2% Nephilim instead. Much less Nephilim per serving but keeps almost all the mythology.
9/24/2008 3:46:33 PM
You've been watching the wrong ones.
9/24/2008 10:05:08 PM
The sad part is this fundie tard made refutes of a refute ExtantDodo did to Kent Hovind. ExtantDodo's video = win. NephilimFree on the other hand is made up of pure lying for Jesus.
9/29/2008 2:17:07 PM
I've made a series dissecting the steaming pile of BS that this fool put out in the first place, and he responded with yet more B/S. By the way, the two he claims to have won debates against are Per Ahlberg and Mark A McPeek. I suspect neither have heard of him.
12/11/2008 1:11:36 AM
1/19/2012 5:14:27 PM
The only thing that might be destroyed of the "evos" is some of their faith in human intelligence. Creation science is a wholly fictictious scam, and proper scientists will no more debate it than argue whether the moon is made of rock or of blue cheese.
1/19/2012 11:03:35 PM
Formal debates, on YouTube?
Why didn't you or any of these "creationist scientists" help Michael Behe in the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial, if it's SO easy to refute evolution? Instead you left him to stand "with egg on his face and nothing to say while being laughed at by the audience".
1/20/2012 1:02:58 AM
But Evo is an expensive brand of kibble for cats, dogs and ferrets! What does that have to do with scientific deba- oh, you mean scientists who study evolution. Got it.
1/20/2012 3:48:21 AM
"As for evo professors"
...Jeremy Clarkson has two
honorary Doctorates in Engineering, and James May is a Doctor of Letters, so yes, one could say they are Professors
of the rally-spec Mitsubishi Evo
, and I'll just go get my coat, shall I...?!
1/20/2012 9:16:40 AM
Its that the scientists play the creation drinking game , and by the time the opening statement is finished they are all plastered.
carbon dating fossils - two drinks
geology shows 6000 years - one drink
irreducible complexity or behe - three drinks
no intermediate fossils - one pint
1/21/2012 9:00:27 PM