AiG: "Evolution not a theory" and "Four power questions"

[abelcainsbrother]

Tell me atheists what I can do to convince you God is real and his word is true? Because it seems to me that this cannot be done because no matter how many times I give evidence and back myself up with evidence it is ignored and rejected.All I can do is give evidence but I really wish it is not just wasting time because of atheistic lies and dogma.

Everything I have said and explained I have given evidence and yet as usual all I get is denial,anger and rejection.

Tell me the truth when atheist say they would believe if somebody gave them evidence,this is not true,the truth is that no evidence will change their mind? Because all I do is back myself up with evidence and yet it is explained away and rejected.

And I'm treated like I am wrong even when I give evidence.Don't worry I can handle it but still,how can you atheists talk about using logic and reason and reject evidence?

I mean I explain why I reject evolution and nobody here has been able to show me I'm wrong about why I reject it.I give explanation and evidence for why I reject it and yet I'm treated like I don't know what I'm talking about.

I show with evidence a world wide drought happened that produced dust in the ice sheets,in the oceans,etc and it dates to Noah's flood and yet.I get deinals of a flood and rejection of real scientific discovery of this drought and it is ignored.What can I do?

Then I'm accused of ignoring evidence,when it is the opposite.I also gave evidence to back up what I explained about the shroud and it is ignored.I given at least three different kinds of evidence to back me up and yet all of it is ignored and explained away.Just like the NDE evidence in the other thread.The fact is that no matter how much evidence I give ? It is only going to be ignored and explained away.

But I'm not going to stop presenting evidence because it is the only way to know who is being truthful and who is'nt.

 

[Prolescum]

...aaand we're done here. Brick walls are for leaning against. It's a shame that you're not interested in conversation, ACB, most people who join internet fora are. You've been warned more times than London during the blitz, and it's time to bring out the artillery.


Bye.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Pity - I hadn't yet given up hope of his pointing out my "error" by quoting the relevant sentence(s) in the article showing that there was a reduction in the population, as he claimed.

@ Visaki and WarK

Obviously I'm not claiming it's the "image of Jesus" - merely a image of a victim of crucifixion dating to before 700AD.

Also, bear in mind that there aren't any other such artefacts besides the Shroud and the Sudarium.

Tests have shown that it's not a painting.

As regards d'Arcis' "memorandum", I refer you to this collection of articles/letters, specifically "De-constructing the 'Debunking' of the Shroud" (about four-fifths down).

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Prolescum]

Sorry James, he's had four or five warnings (possibly more, it's hard to remember) from various staff, the last two of which were official, and we've received a dozen complaints from other members. He's ignored us almost as often as he's ignored direct questioning of his views.

He can always annoy the good folks at RatSkep.

 

[Mugnuts]

So does this mean I could possibly refer to him as the most ignorant, uneducated and blockheaded mendicant I ever had the displeasure of attempting to converse with on a scale of magnitude that philosophers couldn't hope to describe coherently?

 

[Collecemall]

RIP ACB. Can't say I'm disappointed. It was long past being entertaining. Since we've been on and off topic and chased a hundred different wild geese I'm curious what you guys think about the recent find of the warm blooded fish? I had creationist friends who thought this a problem for evolution....

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/15/opinions/warm-blooded-fish/index.html

 

[Mugnuts]

As they always will when something like this is found rather than understanding how the evolution model could explain this without the magical shenanigans.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

RIP ACB. Can't say I'm disappointed. It was long past being entertaining. Since we've been on and off topic and chased a hundred different wild geese I'm curious what you guys think about the recent find of the warm blooded fish? I had creationist friends who thought this a problem for evolution....

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/15/opinions/warm-blooded-fish/index.html

How would this be a problem? I wonder what his excuse it. You have a species of fish that has had hundreds of millions of years to eventually have evolved a means to better survive in colder deep waters. I find it more surprising that more large fish haven't done something similar.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

As Mugnuts noted, any time something is discovered, creationists claim that "evolution(ists) didn't predict that!", and claim that it's therefore "a problem for evolution(ists)".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[SpecialFrog]

RIP ACB. Can't say I'm disappointed. It was long past being entertaining. Since we've been on and off topic and chased a hundred different wild geese I'm curious what you guys think about the recent find of the warm blooded fish? I had creationist friends who thought this a problem for evolution....

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/15/opinions/warm-blooded-fish/index.html

So in other words, instead of two branches of the fish family (one leading to mammals, one leading to birds) independently evolving warm bloodedness, you have three.

I don't see how the world of biology could possibly survive such a revelation.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

It's suddenly real quiet without ACB here.

 

[Deleted member 619]

It's suddenly real quiet without ACB here.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Yet another reason not to ban tortucans...

Kindest regards,

James

 

[tuxbox]

...aaand we're done here. Brick walls are for leaning against. It's a shame that you're not interested in conversation, ACB, most people who join internet fora are. You've been warned more times than London during the blitz, and it's time to bring out the artillery.


Bye.

Bummer

 

[tuxbox]

hehe

 

[DutchLiam84]

I'm not familiar with that Christian forum he's on but is he moaning about he was "censored" yet?

 

[Deleted member 619]

That's because censorship is, like pretty much every other concept ABC mangled in his sordid tenure here, something that the cretin simply doesn't understand. He fails to realise that he was given a free platform here, and the bollocks he spouted here will be a matter of public record for as long as the forum remains, hardly an example of the silencing of dissent encapsulated in the term 'censored'.

He was given ample opportunity to deliver his views, and he delivered only one, in the face of solid evidence contesting that view that he failed to challenge (and in fact failed to understand what constituted mounting a challenge or how to go about it).

If that's censorship, then I have no problem being called a censor.

He's an ignorant prick.

 

[Collecemall]

He appears to be a heavy poster at godandscience.org. I can't find him complaining about anything here but there are some posts copied word for word. Which might explain why he never made sense.

 

[JRChadwick]

I only followed the first 7 pages of this thread. I am surprised to see him banned, I did not realize he has been violating board rules. All I saw were typical creationist arguments from incredulity.