zzang

You know maybe you people should do some investigation before you come to all these crazy conclusions. Your responses to, and assumptions about me prove that you people are very biased. For your information I'm not a creationist, I am an ATHEIST, but I'm sorry, I don't believe evolution fits with the data anymore than creationism does, so all you people asking me to present an alternative hypothesis, my answer is I have no idea what the explanation for the diversity of life is. Maybe next time you'll learn from your mistake of jumping to conclusions before you've examined all of the data, perhaps thats why you all believe evolution is true.

Ought Naught

Oh, the irony! Perhaps you aren't a creationist, but you are certainly glaringly ignorant of the evidence for evolution. Maybe you are the one that should be doing a little bit of investigation.

zzang

No I know about all the 'evidence,' but it's not convincing at all.

Ought Naught

What's not convincing is your claim to know about all of the evidence. If you had even the most basic education on the matter, then you wouldn't be so easily mistaken for an ignorant creationist. For that matter, your ignorance seems to exceed that of some of the more informed creationists that I've run across. Do yourself a favor and spend a little time poking around <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org</a>.

WinAce

*Pops in*

*Sees atheist who says the evidence for evolution is unconvincing*

... WTF? Now I've seen everything. Although I must commend you for recognizing that "God did it" is not a valid explanation even if you don't think a natural one exists. That is, if you're not just a closet theist in disguise.

Nat

"No I know about all the 'evidence,' but it's not convincing at all."

Are you really this arrogant? You know about all the evidence!?! Dawkins doesn't know about all the evidence; Gould didn't know about all the evidence. No one could possibly have reviewed every paper and every experiment related to evolutionary biology - there are simply too many.

So far you have simply proven that you do not understand the paleomagnetic data and the related theories and that you have taken the creationist clap-trap (human footprints with dinosaurs, inaccurate dating methods, living fossils, etc) hook line and sinker.

All you have done is prove that fundies have no monopoly on ignorance.

Albion

And shown a touching concern for the opinions of Bible-believing Christians in that first post - very broad-minded for an atheist.

Neruda

I think he's pulling the old "I'm devoid of religion" trick on us, guys. He's trying to claim atheism in an attempt to make his creationist viewpoints seem more realistic. I'm not fooled. but just to play along, I would like to ask zzang to give an example of a young-earth, atheistic explanation of the origin of life and of the universe. This should be good...

[ October 05, 2002: Message edited by: Neruda ]</p>

zzang

Hah, I can easily say that if you weren't so biased on the matter then your wouldn't be mistaking someone who doesn't accept evolution with someone who believes some magical being created everything in 6 days.

<strong> I've been reading the posts on that newsgroup before they even had a webpage, its about as convincing as the recent 'trueorigins.'

zzang

I guess I'll be more precise in my wording next time. But its funny that you take my statement so literally.

<strong> Oh I understand the data, I just don't agree with the inferences based on it.

<strong> That's funny because I didn't mention anything about human footprints with dinosaurs. Maybe you should read more carefully before you create your strawman.

<strong> Yea, yea, anyone who doesn't see things the way you do is ignorant, you know the fundies say the same thing about you people.