Who's lying now?

[ImprobableJoe]

Though I certainly agree there are actively dishonest creationists, and even many who are dishonest with themselves for whatever reasons (e.g., fear of the threat of hell). I just want to iterate that some are just horribly incompetent in weird ways (not that I think you're missing that, just that I figured it was worth mentioning).

I think that we're at this point debating a distinction without a difference. I think that the "horrible incompetence" is often itself a form of dishonesty, in that it pretends to a level of competence that isn't there. Either way, there's a difference between regular folks that are just honestly wrong, and religious zealots who have put in the effort that could make them informed and just makes them entrenched in their incorrect beliefs.

 

[Inferno]

To be fair, it seems to me that AronRa has plenty of time to answer every question... once. The problem is that part of creationist dishonesty is that they pretend that they are the first person to ever ask each question, and if you don't answer their tired-ass questions personally then you don't have an answer. Creationists pretend that every single person they ask answer every question for them personally, even if they have gotten the same answer from 10 other people and each person has answered the questions 10 times before.

The goal is to frustrate people into ignoring them or telling them to fuck off, at which point they dishonestly claim victory over reality.

Compare that... to what Aron said:

Time is increasingly an issue for me. I often can't check the comments to my videos more than once per week at most, sometimes only once in a fortnight. And it is an all day event to try and get through the hundred or so emails that I've been getting every day lately. Whenever I do not give priority to the trolls on my boards, they often accuse me of having "run away" from the very challenges that brought me into these forums in the first place. Well, I do not run away.

So you say that he has plenty of time... and Aron says that he DOESN'T have plenty of time. Not even to respond once, from what I can see. And that's why I made the suggestion.
Yes, you are absolutely right about the creationist tactics and it probably won't be possible to respond to the hundreds of messages, even if he had the time. And yet, it seems better to have someone manage Aron's account (so that he can focus on more important issues) and at least try to sive through the garbage, maybe there's something novel on there. (No, I don't really believe that last bit. :lol

 

[AronRa]

To be fair, it seems to me that AronRa has plenty of time to answer every question... once.

That is correct. When I made my video on the 7th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism, critics commented that there were no beneficial mutations. So I did the 8th FFoC showing several. The comments on that video challenged me to provide a transitional species. I answered that with the 9th FFoC listing hundreds of them and showing why each one counted as one. They responded with a challenge to common ancestry, which was answered with the 10th episode of that series. Then the comments claimed that macroevolution had never been observed, and I answered that with the 11th episode. Each video was a relief because any example I gave or tried to explain in the comments section would be rejected automatically and without consideration, and I have had these brief conversations -literally- more than a thousand times each. They never concede any error, and only demand to see what they hope I cannot show. Then when I show it, they will not acknowledge that, and instead change the subject; or worse, they pretend that I didn't show it, and say that they're still waiting to see what I have already provided. That's what what happening here. My challenges to them have all been ignored, and my responses to their challenges somehow go unnoticed no matter how many times I re-post them. I still frequently get comments to the effect that we've never seen one "kind" turn into another "kind", and these comments will be posted on the very videos explaining why that challenge is nonsense. So they don't even watch the videos they're commenting on.

YouTube's comment blocks are also hard to follow. The restrictions imposed by that site make it very difficult to have any sort of serious discussion wherein sources should be provided or evidence explained. They want to discourage anything other than brief, unconnected sentences. So you often can't follow the conversation to any length either, because of the way YouTube breaks them up. YouTube also includes code to prevent copying the text you're responding to, and any one point might have to be divided into multiple posts, any of which might conveniently disappear at the whim of who's ever video you post them to. So with three of these deliberately dishonest fukwits hiding in that mess like snakes in tall grass, it only makes sense to walk out of their field. If my critics actually had the integrity or justifiable contention they pretend, they would gladly follow me into a forum where anyone interested could actually read the whole exchange without exhausting their interest trying to piece it together in context. Why would anyone with a defensible criticism refuse such an opportunity? However, if my critics already know they're wrong, and that they don't really have a leg to stand on, then they obviously won't show up here, and the fact that they are not here now is yet another testament to their inherent dishonesty -which was all I really needed to show anyway.

 

[borrofburi]

I think that the "horrible incompetence" is often itself a form of dishonesty, in that it pretends to a level of competence that isn't there.

I think dunning kruger shows that you can honestly believe you're competent while being completely incompetent.

 

[Pulsar]

Many, if not most creationists are not interested in debating at all, at least not in the sense of exchanging information. Let's face it, the site talkorigins hasn't been updated in ages, but it still contains everything to debunk virtually every creationist "argument". Yet we know what happens if we refer to it in a debate: they simply dismiss it as a "liberal, untrustworthy" source. Like most other sources we cite, for that matter.

They will keep parroting the same nonsense, because they don't care about our answers. For them, debating us is a test of faith. Some are maybe naive enough to think that they can convert us poor lost sheep. But I think many creationists see it as a battle, just like Jesus was tested by the Devil: can they withstand the assault of the big bad atheist? Can they hold on to their faith, and be a True Christian?

And let's face it, when faced with their wilful stubbornness, we walk away in frustration; after all, we all like doing something productive instead of feeling our brain cells committing suicide. And as the big bad atheist is chased away, the pigeon declares victory.

How does the saying go? Never wrestle in the mud with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it.

 

[dustinianthagr8]

When I made my video on the 7th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism, critics commented that there were no beneficial mutations. So I did the 8th FFoC showing several. The comments on that video challenged me to provide a transitional species. I answered that with the 9th FFoC listing hundreds of them and showing why each one counted as one. They responded with a challenge to common ancestry, which was answered with the 10th episode of that series. Then the comments claimed that macroevolution had never been observed, and I answered that with the 11th episode. Each video was a relief because any example I gave or tried to explain in the comments section would be rejected automatically and without consideration, and I have had these brief conversations -literally- more than a thousand times each. They never concede any error, and only demand to see what they hope I cannot show. Then when I show it, they will not acknowledge that, and instead change the subject; or worse, they pretend that I didn't show it, and say that they're still waiting to see what I have already provided. That's what what happening here. My challenges to them have all been ignored, and my responses to their challenges somehow go unnoticed no matter how many times I re-post them. I still frequently get comments to the effect that we've never seen one "kind" turn into another "kind", and these comments will be posted on the very videos explaining why that challenge is nonsense. So they don't even watch the videos they're commenting on.

I guess this is why it is sometimes best not to debate creationists. They have no real interest in learning, and that is painfully obvious with each comment they make, question they ask, straw-man they attack, or lie they repeat.

 

[AronRa]

On that same thread, two other creatards wanted to have a go at me, and both kept ignoring responses in order to keep posting the same challenge as if they had never been answered.

Hi there, I didn't blame you for bailing out of the conversation on that video, To be honest you were not really offering me substance or any substance to my friends that were asking you some questions, But you should be happy that you have fans that are willing to uncritically accept what you tell them.

I did not "bail out". Neither is there anyone who accepts everything I say without criticism.

You see, as an agnostic then i am open to convinction but unless I see some credible answers then i will have to take anything you say with a pinch of salt.

You should apply that to your own beliefs as well. Because, since we are both agnostic, both of us should take everything with skepticism, and beliefs requiring faith should be beneath serious consideration simply for that reason.

1.You failed to prove that darwin was not racist, yet you made the claim on the hitler evolution video that he was obviously racist, you just ran away when the subject of the descent of man came up.

I never implied that Darwin was racist. Rather I referred you to another video, Cameron and Comfort dissing Darwin wherein I provided direct citations from his book, Voyage of the Beagle, proving that Darwin was definitely not racist. This conversation seems to have been strewn over a number of different videos, and impossible to piece back together now, but another poster already provided quotations from the Descent of Man which also prove that Darwin was still not a racist even then.

"I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery. What a proud thing for England if she is the first European nation which utterly abolishes it! I was told before leaving England that after living in slave countries all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the negro character. It is impossible to see a negro and not feel kindly towards him; such cheerful, open, honest expressions and such fine muscular bodies."

You made a claim about there being a god as being impossible, that is close to gnosticism dude, saying that god is impossible is a stronger position than saying you are agnostic and do not know, you need to make up your mind.

No, you need to make up yours. It is the theist who argues that the evidence of their god lies only in the things which science cannot explain. Miracles are defined by their defiance of natural laws. Obviously assertions which violate the laws of physics are 'physically impossible'.

Even if you were saying you were agnostic, that would just mean you believe there is no god but you do not claim to know that there is no god.

I don't know there is no god. I just have no more reason to believe in your god than I have to believe in leprechauns. Do you know if there are no leprechauns?

Hi aronra, You failed to prove that what you believe is natural, something is natural if it happens in nature, it doesn't become natural by definition,

My series on the Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism, -from the 6th episode on- proves that everything I believe is natural. Have a look.

the voyage of the beagle came out long before the descent of man so your claims about darwin not being a racist has a big question mark over it,

The only question is the one I asked you, and which you ignored. I asked you to provide whatever citations you had to indicate that Darwin was a racist. But that request was never answered, because whenever the onus is on you, you fail to come through.

you failed to show how atheism is a rational position

Yes I did, both in Philosophizing symbology and in proof AND evidence, accurate AND correct.

or why one would even pressupose that the mind of man is rational from blind and purposeless forces, you have provided no foundation for morality,

Yes I did, in my speech to Broward College.

all I have seen from you is smoke and mirrors,

Irony alert.

Another thing, I saw in one of your foundational falsehoods of creationism a picture of michael behe but behe believes in common descent but does not believe in darwinian explanations, now if you are using the term "creationist" as a perjorative expression and then using thatagainst behe then not only would that be an ad hominem but it would be a false dichotomy, i do hope you are not trying to mislead people and are really interested in a mature search for the truth.

As I already explained in my video, How could creationism not be dishonest?, Behe meets all the criteria to qualify as a creationist.

if you rule design off the table and darwinian evolution is the scientific proposition and we are talking about what is scientifically true or false then the burden is upon you, you cannot rule design out of the equation and then say that the burden is not on the supported of things as being here without design, either design is part of the scientific discussion or it is not.

Science doesn't rule anything out the way you imply. There is only that which is indicated by supportive evidence and that which is not. I do not need to rule out that which has never been indicated. Thus the burden is on you to produce evidence in support of your -thus far- indefensible assertion. To simplify that challenge, allow me to paraphrase it. How can we tell your beliefs apart from delusion? How can we know whether anything you believe is even real?

If you rule design out of the discussion and you are correct that darwinian evolution is a scientific claim then when we should be focusing on darwinian evolution, if you claim that design is not scientific and is out of the equation when it comes to cosmology then that would mean the burden is on you to show how the universe is the result of non design because if non design is a scientific proposition then we should examine that proposition, you cannot have it both ways.

How could we identify anything as the product of "non-design"? You're not making sense, and you're the one trying to have it both ways.

I meant to say, you cannot rule design out of the equation and then say that the burden is not on the person who claims that darwinism (non design) is the scientific proposition.

First of all, there is no such thing as "Darwinism". Secondly, what you are deliberately and dishonestly misrepresenting as 'darwinism' does not eliminate design. I explained this in my video on the 7th FFoC.

These posts are jumbled up on here but you said something about me moving the goalposts when it came to religion, can you please let me know what that is in relation to?,

No, I can't. I can't because I'm involved in too many identical conversations, with similar comments posted to my profile and to multiple videos at once. I don't copy the text I reply to because that eats into the characters I have to type my response, and I don't want to go through the trouble of pasting them into Notepad to find and remove the non-copy code. Many of these comments have since been flagged as spam, or deleted, and it would take too long to go back and sift through that mess to try and make sense out of it. But at least you obviously understand why our discussion should be moved here -where we can actually follow it.

Another advantage is that you have posted the same questions again and again and again in different locations, as if your whole mission is simply to waste as much of my time as possible. Here I only have to answer them all at once.

I would appreciate it also if you could answer wildcats questions because they are important when it comes to your claims about natural and the supernatural.

Gladly. I'll get to that next.

 

[AronRa]

Oh but we have the same evidence just a different interpretation.

Wrong. Evidence is a factual circumstance which is only supportive of one available explanation over any other. By definition, if it can be 'interpreted' to imply two different mutually-exclusive conclusions, then it can't be 'evidence' of either of them. You may claim that we interpret the same facts differently, but we're not even looking at the same facts. In fact, you're not looking at any facts either.

when you look at the universe you believe that nothing created it, but nothing is not anything at all and has no creative power. Can you give me any reason to believe your nothing is real?
I just do not have enough faith that nothing created everything and that life arose by lightning striking a mud puddle or any other faith based explanation you have for how a living organism arose by chance.

I do not believe the universe was 'created', regardless whether it was created by anything or nothing. I do not believe in 'nothing'. I do not believe that nothing has creative power. Nor do I believe that anything has the kind of creative power you're pleading for, and which you assume without reason. Nor do I believe anything on faith like you do, though it is nice of you to acknowledge that your beliefs have no credibility simply because they require faith. Otherwise, you're absolutely wrong in your strawman mischaracterization of anything I do believe, or why I believe it. Outstanding. Creationists maintain a 100% perfect failure rate. Random chance couldn't beat those odds. It must be by design!

But making an argument for evolution occuring does not tell us how that evolution is supposed to have occured, your points did not answer my questions, I will repeat them before i sleep

By what mechanisms did scientists observe causing reptile to mammal evolution?

That depends on how you define 'reptiles'. By the current taxonomic definition, we were never reptiles. But I'm sure you wouldn't know about or understand that. So I will assume you meant the colloquial definition. In which case, the known mechanisms thus far are a matter of dynamic environmental forces acting on population genetics.

By what mechanisms did scientists observe humans evolving from a common ancestor of apes?
What mechanisms did scientists observe cause dino to bird evolution?

My answer to both of these would be the same -except to point out that we are still apes ourselves, and that birds are still dinosaurs too. Again, I don't expect you to understand that, but I can prove it, and have done so in my video on the 9th FFoC. We're not only apes, but we're still monkeys too. I prove that in another video. In the 10th FFoC, I prove that we're primates too, and I go into some detail as to what that means.

I put your video link like I promised you last night, one problem, my speaker sound has gone, if you have a link where the argument is in written form then it would be appreciated or you can make the argument here

If by "here", you mean the comments section of a YouTube video, then no, we can't post links there. That's why I moved the discussion here. Also since I doubt you could or would read the script included in each of the videos in the FFoC series, then I would suggest you fix your computer. Or better yet, get a clue what you're talking about before you pretend that you know more about this than all the best educated expert specialists in the collective global scientific community.

"The fact that you plead for something which is defined as an inexplicable violation of physics is your logical fallacy not my incredulity."
And yet you haven't demonstrated that what you believe as far as the universe coming into being is not supernatural

Yes I have, in the 12th FFoC.

and you have not demonstrated your evolutionary beliefs as being natural,

Yes I have -in nearly every video I've ever made- but especially in the 11th FFoC.

you have no grounding to make accusations when what you believe is not observed as a naturally occuring phenomena, you need to try some introspection dude.

What I believe is a repeatedly and directly observed and documented inescapable fact of nature. You need to try some education, dud.

And I will give you another hint, scientists are intelligence, if scientists working hard one day were able to produce a living organisms from scratch that would be a living organism coming from previous intelligence, now if you want to believe a living organism arose from a primordial soup or whatever conception you have without any intelligent intervention then that is your faith dude and you are entitled to it.

So you're saying that if we only duplicate the conditions at that time, then if we see replicative proto-biological proteins spontaneously creating themselves -without our assistance- would that suffice?

Do you believe the universe had a natural cause or a supernatural cause?

While the origin of the universe is almost entirely irrelevant to everything I'm arguing for, I will say that even though we do not yet know why the universe is evidently expanding, I would still suspect that the catalyst for that will turn out to be yet another revelation of natural phenomenon -just llke lightning, disease, epilepsy, and all the other things we once blamed on supernatural causes

Is the proposition of design in biology scientific or is it not scientific?

What you call a 'proposition' is more appropriately defined as an unsupported assertion. Lacking either indicative evidence or experimental falsification, it fails all criteria required to be scientific.

This forum is so much easier, because HelloKitty here had posted these same questions several times, and here I only have to answer them once. This saves me soooo much time! Of course, if the creotards would just watch my videos, then they wouldn't have to prompt these discussions anymore at all.

 

[ApemanD]

They can get away with that hit and run guerilla warfare crap on youtube and know a forum like this is a creationist mass graveyard. :twisted:

 

[borrofburi]

But you should be happy that you have fans that are willing to uncritically accept what you tell them.

He clearly hasn't read some of these threads wherein I and some others have criticized various bits of your posts... Hard to say we uncritically accept when we actually do criticize...

or why one would even pressupose that the mind of man is rational from blind and purposeless forces

I'm confused... why would we need to or want to "presuppose that the mind of man is rational"?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I think that the "horrible incompetence" is often itself a form of dishonesty, in that it pretends to a level of competence that isn't there.

I think dunning kruger shows that you can honestly believe you're competent while being completely incompetent.

True enough...

 

[AronRa]

He clearly hasn't read some of these threads wherein I and some others have criticized various bits of your posts... Hard to say we uncritically accept when we actually do criticize...

For the volume of videos I have produced so far, I am happy to say that I have had surprisingly few errors. But this is only because I realized a long time ago that the creationists won't notice anything I get wrong, but the scientists won't miss anything, and they won't forgive me any error either.

Still, there are a few errors that have been pointed out in some of my discussion boards, and I would like to make a video talking about them -and the point you just brought up about that, because I think it is important to point how scientists will turn on you immediately if you get shit wrong. Look at the backlash over the not-so "new form of life" which NASA announced earlier this week. That makes my point perfectly.

To me, the most embarrassing error I have made so far was in my last video -which is no longer available because Prestonwood Baptist Church just DMCA'd it. In that, I showed Cephalaspis, a Silurian fish, and said that it lived in the Cambrian. I knew something was wrong with that when I made the slide, but I was just rushed and distracted. I have a busy family life. Oh well, so much for my pathetic excuses.

 

[borrofburi]

which is no longer available because Prestonwood Baptist Church just DMCA'd it

That's unfortunate because it seems to be clearly fair use... Meanwhile there are several clips on youtube that are nothing but straight copies (though not all "parts" are available).

 

[Inferno]

which is no longer available because Prestonwood Baptist Church just DMCA'd it

That's unfortunate because it seems to be clearly fair use... Meanwhile there are several clips on youtube that are nothing but straight copies (though not all "parts" are available).

DPR Jones re-uploaded it.

 

[FiverBeyond]

I'm still a surprised that Prestonwood would actually DMCA that video. In the first place... do they really think that they can get away with it?

In the second place, why would that video in particular draw their attention?

 

[borrofburi]

I'm still a surprised that Prestonwood would actually DMCA that video. In the first place... do they really think that they can get away with it?

In the second place, why would that video in particular draw their attention?

Well, currently they have a rash of people putting their copyrighted debate (? copyright? I think they "own" the content, but I'm not sure how you own a debate) putting it for free on the internet. AronRa's video said "thoughts on the hitchens dembski debate", which means it included the three primary keywords in the title; on top of that it had a thumbnail of the debate. If you were being too rash in your DMCA filing, it'd be an easy mistake to think it was just another mirror. And even if it wasn't such a mistake, some people don't really understand the concept or potency of fair use, and are mistaken on that level.

Ultimately I would be very unsurprised to learn it wasn't intended to silence AronRa so much as protect their "property".

 

[trancek]

Question: is it possible to create a thread in which only AronRa and Equestions can post? Equestions is apparently petrified of getting "bum-rushed" by other atheists if he tries to bring his arguments onto these forums.

 

[borrofburi]

Question: is it possible to create a thread in which only AronRa and Equestions can post? Equestions is apparently petrified of getting "bum-rushed" by other atheists if he tries to bring his arguments onto these forums.

Yes, it is possible if the participants can agree on basic rules of the discussion.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Question: is it possible to create a thread in which only AronRa and Equestions can post? Equestions is apparently petrified of getting "bum-rushed" by other atheists if he tries to bring his arguments onto these forums.

Being "bum-rushed" by atheist should not be a problem if Equestions was honest. "Bum-rushing" should not be a problem if there is any truth in Equestions claims.

Furthermore, Equestions does not have to answer anyone else on here. He only has to address AronRa.

 

[borrofburi]

Question: is it possible to create a thread in which only AronRa and Equestions can post? Equestions is apparently petrified of getting "bum-rushed" by other atheists if he tries to bring his arguments onto these forums.

Being "bum-rushed" by atheist should not be a problem if Equestions was honest. "Bum-rushing" should not be a problem if there is any truth in Equestions claims.

Furthermore, Equestions does not have to answer anyone else on here. He only has to address AronRa.

Despite the temptations to agree with you, I've been bum rushed by gish galloping creationists before, and it wasn't exactly "not a problem".