<<From a Brief Bio of - Paul Abramson Editor of: www.creationism.org >>
Evolution is primarily a spiritual deception. There is still no scientific evidence to support it; there are actually zero transitional fossils, no evolutionary mechanism (it's not mutations!), and their dating methods just don't work! (Simultaneously they ignore the Earth dating methods that do work, that show a young planet Earth.) Informed creationists usually win debates against highly "educated/indoctrinated" evolutionary professors ... ... even a layman like Paul.
52 comments
whoa, i didn't think you could fit so much bullshit into such a short paragraph! i guess i was wrong...
"alternate bizarro universe" award anybody?
There is still no scientific evidence to support it; there are actually zero transitional fossils, no evolutionary mechanism (it's not mutations!), and their dating methods just don't work!
Well, let's be accurate here: There is plenty of scientific evidence to support it, but creationists simply ignore it; there are plenty of transitional fossils, but creationists say "you weren't there so how do you know"; a well-explained evolutionary mechanism (it's mutations), but creationists invent their own science; and their dating methods work fine, but a handful of harebrained "scientists" have alternative theories that they haven't actually tested.
"[T]heir dating methods just don't work! (Simultaneously they ignore the Earth dating methods that do work, that show a young planet Earth.)"
Fundie science in a nutshell.
Right = agrees with their preconceptions,
Wrong = disagrees with their preconceptions.
This is why they say there's no evidence for evolution. All the usual evidence scientists rely on must be wrong because it proves evolution. Science needs to find the right evidence, i.e. evidence that disproves evolution, otherwise Paul won't accept it.
Creationism is primarily a delusional deception. There is still no scientific evidence to support it; there are
actually many transitional fossils, no creation mechanism (goddidit doesn't waork when no god can be found), and their dating
methods just don't work! (Simultaneously they ignore the Earth dating methods that do work, that
show an old planet Earth.) Informed scientists usually win debates against highly
"educated/indoctrinated" fundie professors ... ... even a layman like me
Fixed.
.
"There is still no scientific evidence to support it; there are actually zero transitional fossils, no evolutionary mechanism..."
Because, as I can demonstrate, there is oodles of evidence to prove the Biblical story of Creation..oh no, wait.
My bad.
It's the other way around.
I understand what you mean about evolutionsists losing debates... after all, I watched a Kent Hovind video, and if I had to debate against that massive Godzilla-sized steaming pile of strawman he invented, I would probably lose too. Anyways, I get the feeling that evolution/creation debates aren't really about science. It's a circus act, where the charismatic creationist becomes the ring leader and makes the audience laugh at the evolutionary professors by waving chairs at them and making them jump through hoops.
You're not impressive. You may be a layman, but you are certainly not "informed", and if you tried to use the arguments above in an honest academic debate, I think you would lose.
Paul Abramson, repeat after me. I am sofa king we todd ed.
Now, say that very quickly.
Having just been reading up on information theory, I can tell you that using an error-correcting efficient entropy encoding method, your written paragraph may be safely transmitted across a noisy channel as "stupid" without loss of information.
Huh?
Paul you are on realy cheap crack.
Evolution is a process that anyone can observe. It is well documented.
There are litteraly millions of known transitional fossils.
Whos dating methods? There are several known dating mthods that are quite reliable and reasonably accurate within their limmitations.
(Who ignores any Earth dating methods that show a young planet Earth? And are there any dating methods that show a young Earth?)
Most creationists cannot even debate against a self educated layman such as myself.
What exactly is an evolutionary professor?
I'm just curious, in your bizarro universe when a species collectively undergoes enough mutations, as you seem to accept they exist but are interestingly not a part of evolution, what do you call it?
and their dating methods just don't work! (Simultaneously they ignore the Earth dating methods that do work, that show a young planet Earth.)
Which happen to be the same damn methods which only show a young earth when the wrong thing is dated.
Informed creationists usually win debates against highly "educated/indoctrinated" evolutionary professors ... ... even a layman like Paul.
Saying the same thing over and over, ignoring any refutation, until everyone else gets bored and goes home doesn't constitute winning a debate.
"Informed creationists usually win debates against highly "educated/indoctrinated" evolutionary professors ... ... even a layman like Paul."
They do? You have a B.S. in History, the people you argue with have degrees in Biology, Geology, etc. I am sure they realize that arguing with you is about as useful as bashing their head into a brick wall.
There is still no scientific evidence to support it
Wrong.
There are actually zero transitional fossils
Wrong.
no evolutionary mechanism
Wrong.
their dating methods just don't work!
Wrong.
Informed creationists usually win debates against highly "educated/indoctrinated" evolutionary professors
Wrong.
Next?
There is still no scientific evidence to support it; there are actually zero transitional fossils,
Can you explain to the rest of the class what your definition of a "transitional fossil" is?
no evolutionary mechanism (it's not mutations!),
There's also recombination, allelic drift and natural selection. Sorry for interrupting. Go on building your strawman.
and their dating methods just don't work!
Really? Which ones do?
(Simultaneously they ignore the Earth dating methods that do work, that show a young planet Earth.)
Where is the evidence for the young Earth?
Informed creationists usually win debates against highly "educated/indoctrinated" evolutionary professors ... ... even a layman like Paul.
It's difficult to win debates when you're too busy laughing in astonishment at the storm of bullshit.
"
I'm home-schooled.
"
Paul Abramson
fix'd.
> Evolution is primarily a spiritual deception.
There is nothing spiritual about evolution.
> There is still no scientific evidence to support it.
I call bullshit. However, I will explore your claims anyway.
> There are actually zero transitional fossils.
Oh really?
> No evolutionary mechanism (it's not mutations!)
What. Mutations *ARE* the mechanism, and mutations *ARE* proven to occur, and they *ARE* proven to occasionally provide better functions. An example of beneficial mutations would be the ability of many white adults to drink milk without getting constipated. Additionally, some beneficial mutations are double-edged swords.
> and their dating methods just don't work!
Radiocarbon dating is proven to work with a quite small error range. There are other reliable dating methods as well.
> (Simultaneously they ignore the Earth dating methods that do work, that show a young planet Earth.)
No scientific dating method shows a young planet Earth. However, there is some idiotic idea that the earth's core is a star, and releases helium at a rate that would take about 6,000 years to reach the current amount of helium in the atmosphere. This idea is unscientific because there is no fusion going on down there. This was another one of Baugh's batshit ideas if I remember correctly.
> Informed creationists usually win debates against highly "educated/indoctrinated" evolutionary professors ... ... even a layman like Paul.
Slapping somebody in the head with a Bible and doing a victory dance does not mean you won.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.