babelfish

I'm flattered that you like my screen name. FYI, I'm one of your biggest fans.
<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> &lt;--(are you sick of seeing this emoticon in reference to yourself yet? )

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: babelfish ]</p>

scigirl

Never!

According to a person on the Baptist forum, atheists Do have a god--themselves. They worship themselves. So, worship away everyone!

scigirl

73I-I 1337 I20x0I25

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />
*Nelson laugh-mode*
Haha!

Jack the Bodiless

The problem is that a lot of people out there really do believe things like "evolution contradicts thermodynamics" or "mutations cannot increase information". They have seen it stated as fact, and they accept it as fact. They honestly believe this is a problem that "evolutionists" either don't know about, or seek to avoid.

They need to be told that they have been lied to!

Sure, it's tedious to keep on doing it. But if we can hit each one squarely between the eyes with the truth, we can at least convince them that we do actually have answers, even if they don't yet agree with those answers. We can at least show that the cretinist lists of "questions evolutionists cannot answer" are fradulent. Maybe the more intelligent ones might begin to realize that the rest of creationism is also fradulent, or at least get some idea of the magnitude of the problems they face and the amount of learning they need to do.

Pandora

"Hi, my name is BornAgain, and I am approaching this issue with an open mind. I have read both sides of the issue and I am confused. Can you help my by proving the Theory of Evolution?"

If a post reads like the above, we should all be really suspicious. The lack of spelling errors and correct use of grammar should make it very clear that it could not possibly be a “TRUE FUNDIE”.

I don’t know, maybe the fundie brain hasn’t evolved enough yet to comprehend such sophisticated concepts as the spell check…..

Nialler

I guess that you're right when you say that we shouldn't judge them straight away. It's just that there are so many hit-and-run merchants who just waste time. Those that decide to stay do so in order to confound the issue with obtuse and stubborn refusal to accept facts.

For instance, I see that DavidH has stayed to put his side of the issue. He has, to date, utterly failed to present any:

Facts.
Arguments.
Reference material from accredited sources.

He has also refused to acknowledge the factual errors that he has committed.

From practically the first sentence of his first post he has lied. He claimed there that Evolution is supposed to explain how Life arose. It has been pointed out to him many times that this is not within the purview of the Theory of Evolution. He has not once ackowledged this.

My feeling is that when someone shows themselves to be so intellectually and morally bankrupt as to ignore axiomatic definitions they should be ignored until such times as they accept the legitimate boundaries within which the Theory operates.

BTW, Scigirl, I've read all of your contributions and really enjoyed them all. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Edited to correct name in post. I'm sorry Ya Betcha!

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: Nialler ]</p>

Kosh

As I've said before, new "kind": Homo Cretinis