he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
I am delighted that not only was this exchange public but also written. Now with a simple Google search, people can see just how dishonest JohnHeintz truly is.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Would you care to point out ANYTHING I was dishonest about ? How you know it's dishonest? And how you came to this conclusion?I am delighted that not only was this exchange public but also written. Now with a simple Google search, people can see just how dishonest JohnHeintz truly is.
Whatever Larry. Nobody really cares what your name is. You're a tosser whether your name is Aron, Larry , Susan or anything else.My name was never Larry nor any variant of that. The convicted fraud and charlatan Kent Hovind refused to call me by my real name, and decided to call me Larry instead, just to show his disrespect. This new troll is doing the same, just being a dishonest dick on purpose, since that's all his belief system allows him to be.
Easy. You keep calling AronRa Larry. Do I need to go any further?Would you care to point out ANYTHING I was dishonest about ? How you know it's dishonest? And how you came to this conclusion?
Yes. Because I believe that was his name. I could be mistaken. That's very different than DISHONEST.Easy. You keep calling AronRa Larry. Do I need to go any further?
You'd like to think so, but that would require that you possessed one of them to put down, and the evidence thus far suggests not.You like to put down other people's intelligence or education.
You're just a pathetic creationist troll, just like every single one of them before you, every bit as much a liar, every bit as worthless to discourse and progress.Yes. Because I believe that was his name. I could be mistaken. That's very different than DISHONEST.
L. Aron Nelson. What does the L stand for then ? So you've shown ..... nothing.
Hack and slash. That's the name you chose ?You're just a pathetic creationist troll, just like every single one of them before you, every bit as much a liar, every bit as worthless to discourse and progress.
I'd say you were a waste of sperm, but enough has been wasted on you here, liar.
L. Aron Nelson. What does the L stand for then ? So you've shown ..... nothing.
Now, however, he says he has "zero interest" in answering any of my questions, and that he never intended to. We agreed to "a couple dozen mutual exchanges", but he now says it was only twelve, none of which have yet happened because he broke the first and most important rule on the excuse that he says that whether two species are biologically related or not is not a yes or no question. Yet he says I'm the one who failed this challenge, and he blames his own deplorable behavior on a projection of his own arrogance onto me. Very disappointing even from a creationist!AronRa said:John Heintz I'd be happy to explain evolution to you. Just understand that this will require a Socratic interaction, to correct any misinformation, and I'll need you to acknowledge the basics before we proceed to the next level. So you must answer every direct point or query. If you repeatedly ignore direct questions, I will have to interpret that as you simply trolling. Every time I have ever had this sort of discussion with a creationist, this is how they always ended, with me having to repeat the same question still unanswered three or four times and only getting feeble excuses or attempts at projection.
Hitchens' razor applies here. Positive claims require positive evidence, and what is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. That means that empty assertions are automatically taken as having no truth to them until you can show the truth of it.
Remember that evidence should be in the form of peer-reviewed studies or secular educational material, never pseudoscience propaganda from religious apologists. If you disagree with whatever peer-reviewed paper I present, you'll need a more recent study that rebuts that one the way you want it to.
Of course the same rules apply to both of us. I'll have to answer all your questions just as you must answer each of mine. Don't inundate me. Only ask me what you sincerely want the answers to.
If you agree to these, then within a couple dozen mutual exchanges, I will prove evolution even to your satisfaction, so that you will be an "evolutionist" for the rest of your life, (though you will never use that silly word) and you'll be embarrassed at ever having believed in creationism. As a bonus, I will also prove that creationism depends entirely on frauds, falsehoods and fallacies with no truth in it.
We can do that right here in this thread, or we can move this discussion over to the LeagueOfReason forums. What do you say?
JohnHeintz said:I'm completely in. I also agree to your conditions.
I get your point. But regardless of my belief in a deity, I don't think the world actually works how you say it does in this quote above. Evidence requires correctly interpretating data, something us humans seem to be not very good at. Also people lie.Evidence is a body of facts that are positively indicative of, and/or exclusively concordant with one available position or hypothesis over any other. The truth is what the facts are, what we can show to be true, NOT whatever else we might rather assume or assert beyond or instead of that. If you don't care what the facts are, you don't care what the truth is.
Rumraket - where are you, Rum? - in particular, addresses the probabilistic aspects of evolution.
and there is no one I trust enough who can tell me how life came to be
I get your point. But regardless of my belief in a deity, I don't think the world actually works how you say it does in this quote above. Evidence requires correctly interpretating data, something us humans seem to be not very good at.
Also people lie.
I know enough about biology to know that I will hardly ever understand any of it and there is no one I trust enough who can tell me how life came to be.
This is a crappy bit of apologetic.I get your point. But regardless of my belief in a deity, I don't think the world actually works how you say it does in this quote above. Evidence requires correctly interpretating data, something us humans seem to be not very good at.
Science corrects. That's why Andrew Wakefield is an antivax crank.Also people lie.#
Have you ever asked how walking came to be? How about accretion? Stellar nucleosynthesis? Why is life different from these in cognitive terms?I know enough about biology to know that I will hardly ever understand any of it and there is no one I trust enough who can tell me how life came to be.
Yes, people lie, and that's why we have religion. It is dishonest to assert baseless speculation as if it was a matter of fact, pretending to know things no one even can know. Yet that is what all religions do. Creationism is even worse, because it is not possible to defend it honestly. As we have seen here, and in every other thread, creationists HAVE TO lie and deny reality in order to defend their baseless position, that are themselves lies by definition.I get your point. But regardless of my belief in a deity, I don't think the world actually works how you say it does in this quote above. Evidence requires correctly interpretating data, something us humans seem to be not very good at. Also people lie.
Yet you admit that you deny the facts that can be objectively demonstrated, because you actually do trust anonymous authors of ancient folklore, even though they obviously had no idea what they were talking about.I know enough about biology to know that I will hardly ever understand any of it and there is no one I trust enough who can tell me how life came to be.
Einstein didn't change the world by agreeing with Newton, but by fucking him up the episteme.