FreeHovind - Evolution Fairytails.com

Home Petition Watch Download Info Forum

Home Content Submit

Home > Content > General > Discussion: Evolution Fairytails.com

Evolution Fairytails.com

27 Comments - 3285 Views

I have been places in their "cooler" and about to be banned

Submitted By ronnies_evil_twin on 10/01/07

FreeHovind, ronnies_evil_twin, General

Okay. I went over to another site ronnie pointed out called evolution fairtails.com. I actually joined in the fun under the name ronnies-evil-twin. Now, an atheist, who has since been banned, asked them .....since they were making statements regarding micro vs. macro evolution and saying one "kind" couldn't turn into another "kind".....well...how were the creationists scientifically defining the term "kind".

Well, for 5 pages they kept stating that "kind" meant whatever "kind" meant in the bible. The athiest kept asking "is "kind" a breed, species, genus....whatever. They kept saying that micro evolution was variations WITHIN a "kind" and macro-evolution is from one "kind" to another. (that point seemed to be agreed upon by the creationists)
Another atheist, also now banned, pointed out that the latin word for species is "kind" (This sort of got ignored over but not deleted)
Well, nobody seemed to pick up on the fact that we have observed one KIND/Species turn into another KIND/Species.
Well, I got online and posted that they were talking about scientific principles and should agree on using scientific terminology. Pointed out that species is the latin word for "kind".. Pointed out that we have seen one "kind" turn into another "kind"...and told them to google observed speciation. Then i stated that using the word "kind" is deliberate.....so that when scientific evidence said something against them...they could say that is still the same "kind"

Well, within 5 minutes, my comment was deleted and i was put into something called a "cooler". They have come up with 4 seperate reasons why they did this. When it comes down to it they said i was rude and condescending. Now, I know i can be rude...mean..asshole here...but honestly..i did no name calling or anything remotely rude..... I simply pointed out that they were wrong and stated why they were wrong. I am pretty sure i am about to be banned for ONE post that was not rude in any way, shape or form.

Now, the funny thing about this is that this site says they want open and honest debate between creationists and "evolutionists" Yes, you may debate freely....just don't tell us we are wrong or present any evidence against us.
I honestly think thunderfoot should try to do something like this and show what happens on his "why do people laugh at creationists" series.

I did post one other thing before i was put into the cooler...not sure if that is still up.

» Reply to Discussion Threaded Hybrid Flat 27 Replies

Corey S. (cms13ca)

10 hours - 500v

Posted 2010/01/07 - 21:51 GMT

While await my confirmation for that forum, let's look at this "kind" argument.

Often creationists will say dog will only produce a dog, that you will never see a dog create a non-dog. Well, has anyone seen a chihuahua produce a non-chihuahua or a beagle produce a non-beagle?

Then, we can go the other way and say an ape can only produce an ape, which a human is. Or a mammal can only produce a mammal.

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted 2010/01/07 - 22:27 GMT

Talking about species confuses me...actually any talk of anything with a name confuses me. Let's just name EVERYTHING...a "kind"
I have seen one kind have another kind and have seen 2 kinds produce antoher kind but it wasn't exactly the same kind as the first two kinds. See????? DUH>.....

(

Anthony

2 hours - 62v

Posted 2010/01/07 - 22:44 GMT

Kinds are described as a group of species of animals, who can successfully breed together.

PS. humans and apes are not from the same kind as they cannot breed successfully together.

Corey S. (cms13ca)

10 hours - 500v

Posted 2010/01/08 - 0:17 GMT

p.s.

Humans are apes. Interbreeding does not reflect on how evolution works.

Adapation is the difference as humans walk upright, while all other great apes are knuckle-walkers.

Anthony

2 hours - 62v

Posted 2010/01/09 - 9:39 GMT

'humans are apes' okay, you go breed with a chimp.
See what happens.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2010/01/09 - 17:19 GMT

¨'humans are apes' okay, you go breed with a chimp.
See what happens.¨

you understand that ¨apes¨ isn´t a species rigth? and you realize that beign ignorant of that makes your post seem even more stupid.

(btw, oranutangs and chimps and gorillas are all apes rigth? yet they cannot interbreed either, you probably knew this and yet you STILL felt like making your post?)

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,501v

Posted 2010/01/11 - 2:49 GMT

'humans are apes' okay, you go breed with a chimp.
See what happens.

According to that "reasoning," Gorillas and Orangutan must not be apes either - since they can't interbreed.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2010/01/09 - 17:12 GMT

¨Adapation¨

adaptation when seen on the genetic level over hundreds of generation, resulting in morphological prefereation, i might add.

not the kind of adaptation that happens within a single generation

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2010/01/09 - 17:10 GMT

¨Kinds are described as a group of species of animals, who can successfully breed together.¨

which is the species definition adopted in the case of RING SPECIES.

this definition of kind falls apart when you look at NON RING species.

With this definition, the ark would STILL contain to much biomass.

and even withing this defitition, one ¨kind¨ can produce andother ¨kind¨.

all you´de have to do is have a speciation even somewhere alon the ring species.

or even funnier, at SOME point in the ring, species cannot interbreed. and would suddenly NOT be classified as the same ¨kind¨.

anthony, you need to study up a bit more on biology. i got this at school when i was 14, it´s not that hard to graps and see you´ve actually shot yourself in the foot.

¨PS. humans and apes are not from the same kind as they cannot breed successfully together.¨

and neither are L. argentatus and L. fuscus, rigth?

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted 2010/01/08 - 0:50 GMT

Anthony,

So a "kind" is a species?
Generally, a 2 different species cannot produce fertile offspring. Agreed? I am not trying to take you down some long winding "gocha" road? Okay...maybe just a little. Ps. I actually bet as your prophacy fortold. (Actually i looked at it and bet it...then remembered. OH crap..that's what Anthony "told" me to bet. Although i did a little parlay action on the under. I win...i may convert to something.

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted 2010/01/08 - 1:08 GMT

UPDATE:

OFFICIALLY BANNED FROM EVOLUTION FAIRYTALES.COM. ONE POST. (Actually 2 posts. Not sure if my second post is still there)

The post was respectful...no name calling and merely pointed out that they should have to define "kind" when trying to make scientific distinctions between what they call macro and micro evolution.

Sent the entire post, history and conversations with administrators to thunderf00t. This should make a GREAT new video for him.

Corey, if you are not a creationist...be VERY careful. From what i gathered, it is considered "rude" to tell them they are wrong about something and then explain why. I think you need to phrase everything like. "I believe you may not be right but probably not....have you considered????" I am NOT joking here. The moderators DEMAND complete respect from anyone disagreeing with them. Another point...you have to be extremely careful if you actually make a scientific point. YOu will need to phrase things like "Some moron scientist told me that.........." and then end that statement with..."he is dumb and hates god"

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,415v

Posted 2010/01/08 - 3:27 GMT

Have you read the rules from the site? I got banned for breaking the rule of claiming that macro evolution is species and above evolution.

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted 2010/01/08 - 3:50 GMT

Yes, I did. They like to talk about nobody has observed macro evolution. However, they won't define what that means except to say "kind" changing to another "kind" Point out "species" is latin for "kind" and we have observed one species turning into another species and they kick you out.
The best was when they put me in "the cooler" to privately tell me how i was rude for disagreeing.
Now I admit I can be VERY rude in here....actually a bit cruel. Sorry Ronnie. Nah..not really. But my post was nothing of the sort.
Oh yeah..they readily admit that all the "modorator" are young earth creationists as well as all the "administrators" I love those guys.
Seriously. That has to be the best experience with creationists i have ever had in my life. Can't wait to see the video.

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted 2010/01/08 - 11:27 GMT

UPDATE:

Okay the administrator e-mailed me regarding me being banned. I swear to god in his email he said "Evolution has totally been falsified...or is not falsifiable take your pick."

Really.....Really??? Now this guy is sort of in charge of their whole site and I am assuming that he has argued about this many times with many people and yet still cannot comprehend that his statement is logically impossible. These guys need to pick one story and stick with it.

Corey S. (cms13ca)

10 hours - 500v

Posted 2010/01/09 - 2:57 GMT

I have posted several comments once on the kind posting and a couple of rebuttals:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2901&st=100

On tiktaalik:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3020

And young earth proofs:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1969&st=40

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,415v

Posted 2010/01/09 - 3:49 GMT

"Has anyone observed this process, ape becoming man?

Making claims that cannot be observed for what ever reason is pure speculation. And the rest that you use to try and imply it is not speculation is more of the same because the process in doing this is not observable."
- This was from the first respons from the first post. Tbh u gotta say that observation is not the only tool for proving a point or all muderers that no one witnessed would walk free... Oh and there's actaully scientific speculation. As long as you can test it, it's scientific. What else would u call an hypothesis?

I read through some of the posts and they aren't remotely convincing. To source AIG as a site with evidence against old earth/evolution is just plain stupid. They aren't showing anything scientific even if they try to present themselves as it. Most of the claims evolutionists make on that site is rejected by creationists on false assumptions. Like they honestly still believe that evolution says a dog turns into a cat...

And if u call someone sily you get a warning from the admin...

Corey S. (cms13ca)

10 hours - 500v

Posted 2010/01/09 - 3:33 GMT

Here is Jason777's explanation of the primate order:

The order "primate" is a huge catagory,which includes everything from lemurs to eskimos.

Sounds racist. Replace eskimo with n-word and you would be banned.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2010/01/09 - 17:16 GMT

¨eskimos.¨

since when were INUIT another species?

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted 2010/01/09 - 17:23 GMT

I thought the same EXACT thing. It's like saying primate is a huge order going from Apes to europeans. They really don't understand anything scientific.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 8,032v

Posted 2010/01/09 - 17:31 GMT

the irony is:

¨primate is a huge order encompassing everything from black lemurs to humans.¨

would actually have been a correct statement.

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted 2010/01/09 - 13:18 GMT

The funniest thing is that they pretend this is a scientific debate. Creationistst are allowed to say shit like..."if evolution was true....why am i not in a cage in the zoo." These are apparently allowed to stay on the board as proof that god created the world in 6 days. However, if you don't phrase your response like.."I believe...but i am probably wrong that the earth is not flat....but what do i know...I am an idiot...." you are immediatly banned.
Trust me. These guys take their Jesusin seriously.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,415v

Posted 2010/01/09 - 16:32 GMT

only real argument they have is abiogenesis. There's still holes in the story there that need to be explained, but there's nothing that can debunk it. Just lack of evidence argument simply put. If you get what im trying to say here.

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted 2010/01/10 - 22:29 GMT

Okay..the guy who runs this site is a guy named Fred Williams. Real moron...he e-mailed me a link to part of the site that explains what his beliefs are.

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/my_beliefs.htm

Here is what he said about "Death Penalty"

Death Penalty: I believe the Bible overwhelmingly supports a swift death penalty for murder, rape, homosexuality, adultery, kidnapping, and yes, even unrepentant cursing of your parents. Do you think it was a coincidence that the later was the very example Christ used when criticizing those who thought to supercede or overturn God’s command with the tradition of men? “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying... `He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say..." (Mat 15:3-4).” Christ was not embarrassed about His Father on this commandment, therefore why should we? If you work through the logical consequences, it is brilliant wisdom that would have saved countless lives (please see Bob Enyart's article God and the Death Penalty).

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,501v

Posted 2010/01/11 - 3:04 GMT

My suspicion is that the moderator(s) intentionally keeps the number of non-Creationists as low as possible - they probably don't want to harm the acoustics of their little Creationist echo chamber.

But at least they don't make a habbit of flinging around false accusations of pedophilia - unlike our little friend ronnie:

http://forum.freehovind.com/view-6452

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted 2010/01/11 - 18:40 GMT

Well, my new good buddy (Fred Williams) and I have been exchanging E-Mails all weekend. After going back and forth through about a total of 8 e-mails (and having his ass handed to him) Fred has declared himself....the winner.

In MY last e-mail I specifically asked him to name a few of the great scientific discoveries that have come out of Creation Science. (I told him i was not asking for scientific discoveries that had come from creationists....I was asking for what was disovered based on thier "theory" that god created the universe)

His Answer: Camouflage, glide techniques, storage systems....have all been developed by looking at God's design and us copying it. (Ignoring the possiblity that it was nature's design...or Thor's, or Zeus', or aliens.)

Well, then fred said
"This is pretty much it for me. You can fulfill my last prophecy (its like shooting fish in a barrel, you guys are like clockwork) that you will respond and get the last word. Thatâ��s another sign of someone insecure in their faith. Hereâ��s your big chance to prove me wrong by not responding! LOL! Good luck!"

Now, my point here is that I find it interesting that when HE was trying to rebut MY e-mails.....that, apparently, wasn't him trying to get the last word in because he was weak in his faith...he MUST have been doing something else. LOL.

This is another Creationist talking point to make themselves feel better when THEY realize they have lost an argument....and just don't want to get their ass handed to them with Evidence and Data. They seem to say..well....here is my last ditch effort to prove you wrong...now if you respond...I WIN.

Ronnie's original thread entitled "Reasons not to debate an evolutionist" points this out quite clearly. The creationists may make any statement regarless of proof or logic. However, when someone tries to show them evidence....well....that is just an attempt to get the last word in.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,415v

Posted 2010/01/12 - 2:46 GMT

yeah well what did u expect? That he WOULDN'T run away, holding his hands over his ears, blindfold himself so he cannot see och scream "LALALALA, I CAN'T HEAR NO EVIDENCE".

So he just gave up and sugercoated it by saying "you're stupid if you respond". used a fine circular reasoning at his answer there.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 4,501v

Posted 2010/01/12 - 18:53 GMT

"This is pretty much it for me. You can fulfill my last prophecy (its like shooting fish in a barrel, you guys are like clockwork) that you will respond and get the last word. Thatâï¿½ï¿½s another sign of someone insecure in their faith. Hereâï¿½ï¿½s your big chance to prove me wrong by not responding! LOL! Good luck!"

Wow. I don't think I've ever seen such a painfully-obvious attempt at reverse psychology in my life. He certainly has built up an elaborate framework of justifications for the fact that creationists are almost invariably unable to debate their way out of a wet paper bag.

» Reply to Discussion Threaded Hybrid Flat 27 Replies

PlexPedia - The unified online compendium of knowledge

- My Settings

This website is powered by Plexpedia
Usage of this site constitutes agreement to the » Legal Stuff