Kevin

Well, Nick Petreley has finally closed down his evolution discussion board after rather consistently failing to address evidence and becoming rude and belligerant. He gets in his final insults <a href="http://forums.petreley.org/msg.php?th=82&start=0&rid=29&S=0493711463c21145de5 e5e423e04c5b8" target="_blank">here</a>. Ironically, I was just going to post a defence of the validity of theistic evolution as he wiped out his board.

I wish I could be surprised at this, I really do. But after the ICR and Baptist Board, it becomes apparent that many creationists scatter when confronted with evidence for reasons which escape my understanding. It depresses me to think that we are country with extensive technology and industry, and yet there's a significant subset which reject the findings and benefits of modern science and seek nothing less than the indoctrination of their know-nothing views onto impressionable teens and children. I wonder how long our country can remain competitive with the millstone of creationism around the public neck.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

I suppose one cannot reach everyone, but more and more often it seems that one cannot reach anyone.

Late_Cretaceous

Holy cow, I was just about to post the exact same thing. In fact, I had gone there with the intent of registering.

talk about a sore loser!
what a baby.

Corwin

Well I'm not familiar with that board, but my response to the post would be something along the lines of this:

'So.... what WERE you expecting exactly? You posted a topic about evolution and creationism, and you expected what? That all us nasty evil eviloutionists would stay home and you'd have a private little space to fantasize about some invisible God thingy poofing you into existance and verbally masturbating over the idea of getting creationism taught in american public schools?

We, as scientifically aware individuals, have a right, responsibility and obligation to fight this perversion of the sciences wherever we find it. Poof-there-it-is Creationism is a laughable attempt to cling to ancient superstitions at the expense of progress and development, and Intelligent Design is a heretical monstrosity that MUST be shot down every time it rears it's ugly, dishonest head. NEITHER ONE does humanity any substantial good, and both harm scientific advancement.

In closing, your post seems to consist of you saying 'Well I didn't mean for you evilutionists to actually be PREPARED and I don't want to get beaten down so I'm just going to shut you all up so there.'

It's pretty childish, don't you think?'

RufusAtticus

Well petreley has posted his take on the evolution forum.

<a href="http://forums.petreley.org/msg.php?th=83&start=0&S=8c837f2abf2136cba7c5e4f07f 3c1ed8" target="_blank">A deeply onesided opinion.</a>

It's funny how he didn't mention his failure to explain why mosquito speciation was not evidence for evolution.

He said he wanted people to post their evidence for evolution but not any links to it. Apparently he doesn't understand the process of supplying references. I'm sorry, but it is impossible to demonstrate evolution on the internet, de novo. It might be a shock to some, but you have to go out into nature to gather and demonstrate natural processes. I guess since he can't supply any references for his argument, no one can either.

Is it me or is this guy saying, "I want you to give me evidence for evolution, but not good evidence?"

Amazingly, I'm not sad to see him take his ball and go home. He was a terrible sport anyways.



~~RvFvS~~

[ May 11, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

RufusAtticus

HAHAHA!

I see that Randman has register there. I wonder where he heard about it....

~~RvFvS~~

Late_Cretaceous

QUOTE "It might be a shock to some, but you have to go out into nature to gather and demonstrate natural processes. I guess since he can't supply any references for his argument, no one can either."

That is exactly the problem in some cases. I recall the first time I stumbled into a debate with a creationist (face to face in this case). It started when he didn't believe my claim that only female mosquitoes bite humans. He actually refused to believe that scientists engaged in such studies. He simply could not accept that people could observe nature and inturpret what they see, nor could he see the use for such activity. It bacame apparent that this attitude had been instilled in him by his "christian schooling". If such a deep mistrust of human abilities and science in general is taught to peolple it is no wonder they don't bother to even look at the evidence presented to them.

S2Focus

Nick has updated <a href="http://forums.petreley.org/msg.php?th=83&start=0&S=004bfd6b9e4a283db23c0021a4 3b36a0" target="_blank">his rant here</a>.

In spite of the fact that several people spent plenty of time posting detailed explanations about various aspects of evolutionary theory, Nick persists in accusing evilutionists of doing nothing more than lazily posting links to <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org." target="_blank">www.talkorigins.org.</a> It's a really pathetic performance from someone I used to (but can no longer) respect.

Nick Petreley is a classic example of someone whose good character has been ruined by the ravages of religious fundamentalism. 'Tis a shame, really... Fundamentalism has a way of turning otherwise decent people into arrogant, dishonest *sses (or worse).

[ May 11, 2002: Message edited by: S2Focus ]</p>

Dr.GH

There is a common pattern to all biblical literalist sponsored web pages that try to deal
with creationist/science issues I am sure that most of us have observed. They are either
severely censored so that effective presentation of the scientific position is weakened, or
they shut down all together. One final option is for the entire bandwidth to be taken up
by two or three posters who mostly talk past each other or merely indulge in a flame war.
I have 15 bookmarked Internet “debates” by sponsored by biblical literalists, of which
only a handful are currently active.

Web pages sponsored by “skeptics” or “rationalists” fare much better. There is very
rarely a censorship problem (although it is not unknown), and they seem to last much
longer. I suspect that part of the reason for this is that scientists like to argue. We like to
argue just for the fun of arguing, and even better when there seems to be some substance
to issues being argued. Religionists like being “right” and are unable to accept that they do
not hold the ultimate “truth” in their hot little hands. That is why their hot little hands are
generally sticky with blood.

[ May 11, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ]</p>

hezekiah jones

Just like lawyers!

Undercurrent

Really? The reasons don't escape my undersatnding at all. They're just not very good reasons, and reasons that they'll never admit to.

Not the benefits, just the findings. The people who populated these boards are, after all, computer users.

m.