20+yo Stage Debates but No Evidence : quote fauder can't get started....ution
- Appleton has forgotten that:
1. Creationist arguments lack substance.
"As will be all too evident when we examine the creationist position
in detail, their arguments are devoid of any real intellectual
content." ----Niles Eldredge, The Monkey Business p.17
2. Tricking scientifically naïve audiences is no accomplishment at all.
"An evolution vs creationism debate before the scientifically naive
is comparable to a debate on the merits of eating candy between a
nutritionist and a candy maker before an audience of children."
~ Leon Albert, Prof. of Anthropology (Ret.)
3. Creationism always LOSES when substance matters. They still have ZERO scientific (peer reviewed) publications. They consistently lose in the courts and acceptance of evolution has only been growing stronger in the educated and intelligent communities for example intelligent Christians.
4. Flat-earthers used to "route" round earthers in debate, which shows the argument itself is dumb.
5. Appleton has already routed himself.
"As for "speciation" it has never been seen at all, of course."
~ Laurie Appleton lying.
"This is not truenew species have been observed to form."
~ AiG, Laurie's creationist authorities
"Those who reject their own leading scientific authorities must
be seen as being UNSCIENTIFIC and their views have no point or
substance." ~Laurie Appleton, after disagreeing with his authorities.
Sorry Laurie but even according to you -- you have no point.
> "As will be all too evident when we examine the creationist positionTin: Why would winning them with greasy charm and bogus claims matter Appleton ?
> > in detail, their arguments are devoid of any real intellectual
> > content." ----Niles Eldredge, The Monkey Business p.17
> > LA> Fancy evolutionists admitting that they have been regularly 'ROUTED'
> Tin: Why would winning stage debates with greasy charm and dishonest claims matter ?
> LA> How could there be "stage debates" with noted evolutionists?
And given the biblical flat earthers also used to "route" round earth scientists isn't your argument just plain dumb Appleton ?
>Surely that would require that the person taking the part of the evolutionist was NOT really an evolutionist, but rather a person who >agreed to "act" the part of the evolutionist.Tin: What ?
>Thus your comment shows your own acute embarrassment at the regularing "routing" of >your own evolutionary experrts. What a >HOOT!!!'Tin: The real hoot is you. You have a scientific conclusion but you have no scientific evidence to present to defend your scientific conclusion. As a result your are stuck with dumb arguments like 20+ stage debates and quote frauds.
If you had real evidence you'd present it ..... right Appleton ?
Without it you can't even get started Appleton. Sorry.
> LA> The blunder that you appear to be making is in apparently wildlyTin: Hey Appleton didn't you committ that EXACT blunder by stating
> EXTRAPOLATING movements in a uniformitarian way,
the following ?
"As you SHOULD know, even at present "rates" of erosion, evolutionary
authorities point out that all the continents in
the world would be eroded down to sea level.." ~ Laurie Appleton,
misusing science and blundering.
- On 23/06/2011 3:44 PM, Laurie Appleton wrote:
>Even were this true, I woukd be morally superior to YOU. But then *I*
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Dave Oldridge <mailto:doldridg@...>
> *To:* firstname.lastname@example.org
> *Sent:* Friday, June 24, 2011 12:40 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: 20+yo Stage Debates
> but No Evidence : quote fauder can't get started....ution
> On 22/06/2011 2:00 PM, Laurie Appleton wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* SH <mailto:tinroad66@... <mailto:tinroad66@...>>
> > *To:* email@example.com
> > <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 22, 2011 10:32 PM
> > *Subject:* [creation_evolution_debate] Re: 20+yo Stage Debates but
> > No Evidence : quote fauder can't get started....ution
> > Tin: If you had real scientific substance you would proudly
> > present that substance.
> > LA> Since I have been doing that constantly, then the problem
> > seems to be with yourself and your failure to understand straight
> > forward admissions by evolutionists themselves. The conclusion
> > must be that you do not seem to have a mind that is capable of
> > understanding facts and evidence, or perhaps a mind that has been
> > misled and deceived (or "beguiled" as Prof. S.J. Gould said
> > happened to him)
> "FR?"Dave: Laurie, serving his master, Satan, by telling an
> OBVIOUS lie.
> LA> What IS obvious is that you seem to have the personality of an
am not the one promoting devil worship as godliness.
Ham Radio: VA7CZ