Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Link to the alleged "ten times" you have asked that question, or admit the lie.
(You forgot, I actually checked!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
Prove it. Link to the 13 times you have asked that question. Shut me up.
THIRTEEN TIMES HISTORIAN DUDE has been asked what relevancy ones opinion about the origin of life has to do with the validity of the theory of evoluton - a question he has refused to answer each time it has been asked.
i know many witnesses and they are great people i go to their site often cause they speak the truth unlike other religions
yes JWs are fine people, but the "truth" they speak is from their point of view. the problem with that is that every religion, and every religious denomination claims that their "truth" is the real one, and the rest are rubbish.
the problem with man made religion is that each takes a few verses from the bible, mostly out of context, and the builds a religion around them. the JWs are no different than any other christian denomination in that regard.
for instance they reason that the verse that says thou shalt not eat the blood of animals means no blood transfusions. the reason given is that blood is the life force of the animals. but then there are verses that say its not what goes into your mouth than makes you unclean, but what comes out of your mouth that makes you unclean. and if blood is the life force of animals, then the verse that says man hath no greater love than when he gives his life to save another, indicates that god has no problem with blood transfusions, in fact he encourages them.
think about that next time you listen to what the JWs have to say.
Just came across this in the news and thought it would be interesting to learn how a creationist would interpret this data set. As the thread title says, please provide a better hypothesis for what happened.
Interesting how he uses one hypothesis--how insects shrunk in size--to establish as fact another hypothesis--the gradual evolution of birds. In other words, it's a house of cards. Isn't it as reasonable to postulate, based on the idea of adaptation, that the insects would have evolved upwards instead of downwards to meet the increasing threat of dinosaurs taking to the air? Think about it: a horde of giant insects swarming onto a fledgling dinorsaur/bird like killer bees and destroying their foe. One can imagine all kinds of scenarios and pass it off as science, can't one?
THIRTEEN TIMES HISTORIAN DUDE has been asked what relevancy ones opinion about the origin of life has to do with the validity of the theory of evoluton - a question he has refused to answer each time it has been asked.
Let's actually check those links, shall we? Remember, we are first and foremost looking for an answer to this question:
Quote:
Q1: Do you believe in creationism? Yes or no?
Secondly, we are looking for this question being asked:
Quote:
Q2: What relevance does ones opinion on the origins of life have upon the validity of the theory of evolution?
This post provides no answer to Q1, and instead deflects by asking these questions, neither of which are Q2: "Is your theory solid or is it not?" and "What if I said that I don't have an opinion on the origin of life?"
Score:
Q1: HD - 2, Harrier - 0
Q2: HD - 2, Harrier - 0
(As an aside, note how Harrier's dodge is also a complete subject change. I asked nothing about his opinion on the "origin of life," I asked about his belief in creationism. Harrier's dodge is (of course) an effort to change this to a discussion not of evolution but of abiogenesis. This one of his favorite diversions in posts on evolution and creationism.)
This post was not in response to any question I asked, so Harrier can only have included it in that dishonest effort pad the link count, hoping that nobody would actually check. In it he asks only these questions which are not Q2:
"Why does everything have to be evolution vs. ceationism? Forget creationism. What about evolution?"
This post makes no effort to answe2 Q1, and makes third attempt to dodge it with a version of the same hypothetical tried twice previously, and which is not Q2:
"Let's assume for the moment that I have no opinion concerning creationism. What difference does it make?"
In this post he lies for the first time that he has already answered the question, which the review to this point proves a false claim. It is however the first time he actually asks Q2 even though he adds another lie by claiming he has done so 9 previous times:
"Why don't you stop this nonsense and answer my question which for the NINTH time is : what relevancy does ones opinion/or non-opinion on the origin of life have to the validity of evolution?"
This post was not in response to any question from me since by then I had simply started mocking Harrier's refusal to answer. But it does commence his pathetic retrograde attempt to turn the tables by asking Q2 again. From here on, Harrier is trying to fabricate a paper trail that to this point he does not have, claiming this to be the tenth time he has asked the question, when it is only the second.:
"What relevancy does an opinion about origins of life have to do with a discussion about the validity of evolution?"
This post jumps forward, skipping five other times Q1 was asked and no answer was given. It then claims (again) to have asked Q2 ten previous times when it was only two, and then asks it for only the third time:
"What does a person's opinion about the origins of life have to do with the validity of the theory of evolution?"
This post refuses again to answer Q1, and instead merely repeats Q2, asserting it is being asked for the 13the time when it is only the 5th:
Q1: HD - 16, Harrier - 0
Q2: HD - 8, Harrier - 5
So let's review:
Harrier has claimed to have answered Q1 (A simple yes or no question) more than ten times, yet has provided not a single link where an actual yes or no answer was ever once provided. Instead of answering he dodged every time, trying to change the subject by posing his own hypothetical red herring.
In the obvious and pathetic attempt to turn the tables of his refusal to answer, he began (late in the game) to ask the same hypothetical red herring in response. Coming late to this transparent dodge, he commenced it by first lying about having asked it a previously nine times when it was in fact the very first time he had done so.
When asked to prove his claim that he had asked the question thirteen times, he provided thirteen links but only 5 of them included the question... all of them posted after insisting falsely he had already asked it 9 times.
I will not bother to ask Q1 again, since Harrier's exposure as a trollish poltroon hardly requires a finer point.
And of course, I will again not answer his Q2, since it has never risen above being anything more than an irrelevant red herring.
We are left with the following observation:
In spite of Harrier's repeated insistence that he did not need to answer Q1 because it was "irrelevant to the discussion" his desperate contortionism to avoid answering proves that even he does not believe that. He knows full well that an honest answer to the question would expose every one of his assertions regarding the evidence for evolution to be pure religious dogma rather than a rational review of that evidence.
Harrier's religious beliefs have never been particularly well concealed, and yet this is a specific detail of them which he furiously attempts to keep "hidden," often proactively as in the post that elicited this entire exchange. Harrier resolutely refuses to take a stand that he would then be expected to defend. As I observed in an earlier post in another thread, even Peter only denied Christ three times. What depths of dissonance can account for Harrier denying his own religious beliefs by a factor of 8 times greater?
You be the judge. This demonstration is concluded.
This post provides no answer to Q1, and instead deflects by asking these questions, neither of which are Q2: "Is your theory solid or is it not?" and "What if I said that I don't have an opinion on the origin of life?"
Score:
Q1: HD - 2, Harrier - 0
Q2: HD - 2, Harrier - 0
(As an aside, note how Harrier's dodge is also a complete subject change. I asked nothing about his opinion on the "origin of life," I asked about his belief in creationism. Harrier's dodge is (of course) an effort to change this to a discussion not of evolution but of abiogenesis. This one of his favorite diversions in posts on evolution and creationism.)
This post was not in response to any question I asked, so Harrier can only have included it in that dishonest effort pad the link count, hoping that nobody would actually check. In it he asks only these questions which are not Q2:
"Why does everything have to be evolution vs. ceationism? Forget creationism. What about evolution?"
This post makes no effort to answe2 Q1, and makes third attempt to dodge it with a version of the same hypothetical tried twice previously, and which is not Q2:
"Let's assume for the moment that I have no opinion concerning creationism. What difference does it make?"
In this post he lies for the first time that he has already answered the question, which the review to this point proves a false claim. It is however the first time he actually asks Q2 even though he adds another lie by claiming he has done so 9 previous times:
"Why don't you stop this nonsense and answer my question which for the NINTH time is : what relevancy does ones opinion/or non-opinion on the origin of life have to the validity of evolution?"
This post was not in response to any question from me since by then I had simply started mocking Harrier's refusal to answer. But it does commence his pathetic retrograde attempt to turn the tables by asking Q2 again. From here on, Harrier is trying to fabricate a paper trail that to this point he does not have, claiming this to be the tenth time he has asked the question, when it is only the second.:
"What relevancy does an opinion about origins of life have to do with a discussion about the validity of evolution?"
This post jumps forward, skipping five other times Q1 was asked and no answer was given. It then claims (again) to have asked Q2 ten previous times when it was only two, and then asks it for only the third time:
"What does a person's opinion about the origins of life have to do with the validity of the theory of evolution?"
This post refuses again to answer Q1, and instead merely repeats Q2, asserting it is being asked for the 13the time when it is only the 5th:
Q1: HD - 16, Harrier - 0
Q2: HD - 8, Harrier - 5
So let's review:
Harrier has claimed to have answered Q1 (A simple yes or no question) more than ten times, yet has provided not a single link where an actual yes or no answer was ever once provided. Instead of answering he dodged every time, trying to change the subject by posing his own hypothetical red herring.
In the obvious and pathetic attempt to turn the tables of his refusal to answer, he began (late in the game) to ask the same hypothetical red herring in response. Coming late to this transparent dodge, he commenced it by first lying about having asked it a previously nine times when it was in fact the very first time he had done so.
When asked to prove his claim that he had asked the question thirteen times, he provided thirteen links but only 5 of them included the question... all of them posted after insisting falsely he had already asked it 9 times.
I will not bother to ask Q1 again, since Harrier's exposure as a trollish poltroon hardly requires a finer point.
And of course, I will again not answer his Q2, since it has never risen above being anything more than an irrelevant red herring.
We are left with the following observation:
In spite of Harrier's repeated insistence that he did not need to answer Q1 because it was "irrelevant to the discussion" his desperate contortionism to avoid answering proves that even he does not believe that. He knows full well that an honest answer to the question would expose every one of his assertions regarding the evidence for evolution to be pure religious dogma rather than a rational review of that evidence.
Harrier's religious beliefs have never been particularly well concealed, and yet this is a specific detail of them which he furiously attempts to keep "hidden," often proactively as in the post that elicited this entire exchange. Harrier resolutely refuses to take a stand that he would then be expected to defend. As I observed in an earlier post in another thread, even Peter only denied Christ three times. What depths of dissonance can account for Harrier denying his own religious beliefs by a factor of 8 times greater?
You be the judge. This demonstration is concluded.
So - what all this boils down to is that HistorianDude
(a) does not believe a question (Q2) can be phrased in any manner other then a strict construction of consistent words and order of words. HD has trouble comprehending that "what difference does (an opinion) make" is equivalent to "what does ones opinion on the origin of life have to do with the validity of evolution".
(b) Did not like my answer because it did not fit his stated goal to make religious beliefs an integral part of a discussion about a theory which specifically precludes any religious beliefs as having a part in its processes.
(c) refuses to discuss the theory of evolution in an objective manner - instead insisting on asking me about my opinion of the origin of life - when that opinion is irrelevant to the theory of evolution.
(d) has severely weakened his position by being non-objective
(e) continues to lie by claiming that I did not answer his question - when I did.
(f) still has not answered my question - and in the post to which I am responsing to states that he will not - while offering some cop-out to avoid having to admit that he is playing games rather than have a serious, intellectually honest discussion.
(g) HistorianDude has a lot of time on his hands
HistorianDude could have saved face by accepting my answer - saying that it didn't satisfy him - and then moving on. In doing so - he would not be on the hook to answer my question - and would not have flushed his credibility down the drain by drawing out a long, ridiculous battle with me that he has lost.
The fact remains that any other theory for the origins of life is irrelevant to an objective discussion of the theory of evolution - which if valid - should stand or fall on its own two feet. HD is using a red herring by asking about creationism - as if that had anything to do with evolution. When HD is ready to discuss evolution on its merits(or lack thereof) then I am ready - if he wishes to play games - then I will pass.
Hope you had fun - HD. When you want to answer my question for the first time - I will be waiting.
Harrier still refuses to answer a simple yes or no question.
Harrier lied when he said he had answered it "ten times."
Harrier lied when he said he had asked another question 13 times.
This demonstration is concluded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
The fact remains that any other theory for the origins of life is irrelevant to an objective discussion of the theory of evolution - which if valid - should stand or fall on its own two feet.
Harrier (in spite of his apparent embarrassment) is a creationist. He rejects the incontrovertible evidence for evolution because of a dogmatic religious belief, and for no other reason. He has never himself given any alternative reason for rejecting that evidence, and yet he is clearly unwilling to make any effort to defend his preferred alternative.
No example exists in this forum of a person with less courage of his convictions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
