Nephy's Achilles Heel

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I've - I've done it.

I have found the single question that NephilimFree will never answer. Where he is forced to dance in circles. Where he looked like a buffoon amoungst even the CHRISTIANS in Shock's chatroom.

It's a three part technique.
Ask Neph, "What would it take for a fossil to be considered a transitional fossil?"
Listen to him Ramble on a bit. Even if he uses "Pokemon" terms, then this will work.
Then, you ask:
"Alright... Can you find me any 3 consecutive fossils in the fossil record - and, based upon your definition, show that the middle one does not show transition between the first and the second?"

That right there was the best pwn I had ever done... In a public Chat. In Shock's Chatroom, no less! The moderators even bothered him to ask the question, because he ignored it for 20 minutes and talked about other things than simply answering the question.
NephilimFree, the "Pwn" of Evilution, the Great Debater, The Conservapedia King, who can crush any question regarding Evolution before him - stomped. Into the mud.
I didn't even have a mic. I didn't need one.

--------------------------------------

My suggestion? Make sure he never hears the end of it.

 

[Squawk]

Wonder where that idea came from

http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk//viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7040

Decaprio, eat ya heart out

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

You sir, deserve 1000 internets.

 

[lrkun]

Wow, you chat with neph? I'm humbled by your tolerance. I can't, for some reason or other, force myself to talk to him. Haha

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Wonder where that idea came from

http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk//viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7040

Decaprio, eat ya heart out

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

Must have been some sort of Freudian slip of the tongue, Squawk. I apologize.
However, it did do some serious wonders.

 

[Squawk]

hehe, glad it was useful

 

[nemesiss]

You sir, deserve 1000 internets.

* gives the additional 8001 internets *

basically, nephi was to stupid to realise that you had given a contractidictory question:

1 - explain/define argument
2 - show evidence for argument
3 - now disproof your own argument

 

[borrofburi]

1 - explain/define argument
2 - show evidence for argument
3 - now disproof your own argument

Nah... You ask him what he would accept as a transitional fossil, and he has to accept something because he can't say "nothing" (because then he's obviously a closed minded fool who would never accept evolution even if it were actually true, and thus obviously not worth listening to). Then you say "here's a list of fossil transitions composed by actual scientists... Since you claim that there are no transitional fossils, you need to show that the transitions aren't transitions; since you just defined transition, surely you can show how, precisely, these sequences do not meet your definition". So:

1) get him to define position that there aren't transitional fossils
2) get him to define position on what a transitional fossil is or would be or would look like if one were to exist
3) show him real-life fossils that meet definition #2, thereby contradicting #1 (you do this by asking him how a real life fossil doesn't meet #2, rather than declaring that it doesn't, because this is a better method of conversing; hytegia and squawk take it further by asking if there is ANY fossil that scientists have labelled as transitional that does not meet #2, which is a bit stronger and rather unnecessary).

#3 necessarily results in #2 and #1 being self contradictory. Thus he either has to give up #1 (creationism), or #2 (any pretense of being "open minded" and caring about how reality actually is), or keep both and be clearly self contradictory (and thus wrong).

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Nah... You ask him what he would accept as a transitional fossil, and he has to accept something because he can't say "nothing" (because then he's obviously a closed minded fool who would never accept evolution even if it were actually true, and thus obviously not worth listening to). Then you say "here's a list of fossil transitions composed by actual scientists... Since you claim that there are no transitional fossils, you need to show that the transitions aren't transitions; since you just defined transition, surely you can show how, precisely, these sequences do not meet your definition". So:

1) get him to define position that there aren't transitional fossils
2) get him to define position on what a transitional fossil is or would be or would look like if one were to exist
3) show him real-life fossils that meet definition #2, thereby contradicting #1 (you do this by asking him how a real life fossil doesn't meet #2, rather than declaring that it doesn't, because this is a better method of conversing; hytegia and squawk take it further by asking if there is ANY fossil that scientists have labelled as transitional that does not meet #2, which is a bit stronger and rather unnecessary).

#3 necessarily results in #2 and #1 being self contradictory. Thus he either has to give up #1 (creationism), or #2 (any pretense of being "open minded" and caring about how reality actually is), or keep both and be clearly self contradictory (and thus wrong).

Actually, I enjoyed it because it gives him the option to choose ANY three consecutive fossils within the fossil record (since he's Mr. Hotshot-overkill about everything regarding any field of science ever invented, so he should be able to call them out by name, no?) and then somehow show that they do not fit his pre-defined definition of a transitional fossil.

I enjoyed how SHOCK'S CHATROOM (minus Shock - he would have banned me for butting Nephy into a corner like that if he was there) flipped shit against him on that matter. Even the other moderators.