Why don't you believe in Evolutionary Theory?

[Anonymous]

You guys are tools.

OP isn't acting in good faith - she just wants to mock you. (Yes, "mock you.") Responding in good faith to OP is pointless and make you a tool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:a fact? according to whom?

Gosh, that durn carbon datin' is jest a tool of the devil to make ya think y'all actually can prove the age of the durn earth. T'ain't no fact at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys are tools.

OP isn't acting in good faith - she just wants to mock you. (Yes, "mock you.") Responding in good faith to OP is pointless and make you a tool.

Well on another thread she just found out that the Pope blessed the big bang. Now what's she going to do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:a fact? according to whom?

Gosh, that durn carbon datin' is jest a tool of the devil to make ya think y'all actually can prove the age of the durn earth. T'ain't no fact at all.

You know carbon dating was found to be pretty innaccurste and inconsistent, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:a fact? according to whom?

Gosh, that durn carbon datin' is jest a tool of the devil to make ya think y'all actually can prove the age of the durn earth. T'ain't no fact at all.

You know carbon dating was found to be pretty innaccurste and inconsistent, right?

Both of you are off. Radiometric dating is used but carbon dating is not. Atmospheric carbon could never be used on the timescale of earth unless it was only 10,000 years old. Lots of elements , lots of samples, and they all agree. Sorry back to the well on your refutation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Those Amish - why don't they use electricity, and what's with the funny buttons?

I know, let's start a thread demanding they explain themselves to us! Then we can follow standard DCUM modus operandi, and mock them for every good faith effort to explain.

Are you sure you know what the term "mock" means? You don't seem to be using it correctly.

Your semantic games are like freshmen arguing in the dorm after a few beers - stupid and really annoying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Those Amish - why don't they use electricity, and what's with the funny buttons?

I know, let's start a thread demanding they explain themselves to us! Then we can follow standard DCUM modus operandi, and mock them for every good faith effort to explain.

Are you sure you know what the term "mock" means? You don't seem to be using it correctly.

Oops, should look like this, referring to the "what does 'mock' mean" poster:


Your semantic games are like freshmen arguing in the dorm after a few beers - stupid and really annoying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find that thread very interesting with lots of well thought out responses and the most civil discussion on religion I've ever read on DCUM.

And yet it's hard to miss the continued snark from the atheists. I do admire the one theologian or whatever she is, who keeps patiently coming back, and she's far from hard-line. But the tolerance is lopsided - it's obviously given grudgingly by some atheists (and the anti-catholic ranter made an ugly appearance on that thread), and all the snide remarks are coming from the atheists. Go back and check.

The other thread mostly remained civil except for a couple of trolls. I believe this is a spin off of that thread because the other thread started to turn towards the discussion of evolution. There is more snark and "omg we're being made fun of let's retaliate in advance" coming from theists in this thread which alone is making it impossible for a good discussion. Maybe if those theists didn't assume that the OP was talking about them and didn't assume that all atheists are out to get them and make fun of them when a question is asked this thread would have remained civil as well. Who knows.

[Anonymous]

You go after the theists on a 4-page thread yet you ignore:

- the many snarky atheist comments on a 34-page thread
- the many recent threads on "catholics, how do you live with yourselves," and "scientologists, please justify your existence to me," and the recent threads going after mormons.

And yet, atheists blame theists for ignoring "scientific evidence"!

[Anonymous]

Of course OP got her idea for this thread from the other thread. That much is obvious.

What's at issue here are OP's motives: is she genuinely interested in the answers, or is she just looking for material for yet another new thread to trash believers?

We may have to get out Occam's Razor again: the simplest answer is the most likely. Given the recent spate of threads directed against scientologists, mormons and catholics, it seems very likely that the present thread against creationists is just one more in a mean-spirited (no pun intended) streak started by the same mean-spirited OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course OP got her idea for this thread from the other thread. That much is obvious.

What's at issue here are OP's motives: is she genuinely interested in the answers, or is she just looking for material for yet another new thread to trash believers?

We may have to get out Occam's Razor again: the simplest answer is the most likely. Given the recent spate of threads directed against scientologists, mormons and catholics, it seems very likely that the present thread against creationists is just one more in a mean-spirited (no pun intended) streak started by the same mean-spirited OP.

Who knows. People jumped down her/his throat within the first few posts. Any attempt at serious posts has been met with "stop taking the OP seriously! She's just trying to mock believers!"

I've followed most of the other thread where the OP asks non believers why they don't believe. I only saw a few troll/snark posts - some from atheists and some from theists. It's mostly remained civil. The OP of this thread wasn't even given much of a chance before someone started accusing her of "mocking believers" (even though as someone already pointed out many theists do accept evolution).

I'm afraid I did not see the threads about Mormons or Scientologists and did not read the spin off thread about Catholics.

[Anonymous]

The Scientology thread was only a day or two ago. The two anti-Mormon threads were maybe two weeks ago. The catholic thread is still plowing on. (I'm not any of these,FWIW.)

Given the frequent recommendations on the other thread that theists read this or that article or book on philosophy or evolution - I don't think it's too much to ask you to stick a toe in the catholic thread, and see the ugly there. I don't think anybody disputes there is at least one ranting, nutcase atheist on DCUM, and several snarky atheists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Scientology thread was only a day or two ago. The two anti-Mormon threads were maybe two weeks ago. The catholic thread is still plowing on. (I'm not any of these,FWIW.)

Given the frequent recommendations on the other thread that theists read this or that article or book on philosophy or evolution - I don't think it's too much to ask you to stick a toe in the catholic thread, and see the ugly there. I don't think anybody disputes there is at least one ranting, nutcase atheist on DCUM, and several snarky atheists.

There are a lot of trolls and snarky individuals on DCUM - atheists or not.

[Anonymous]

Which tends to confirm the idea that OP is a snarky troll, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Scientology thread was only a day or two ago. The two anti-Mormon threads were maybe two weeks ago. The catholic thread is still plowing on. (I'm not any of these,FWIW.)

Given the frequent recommendations on the other thread that theists read this or that article or book on philosophy or evolution - I don't think it's too much to ask you to stick a toe in the catholic thread, and see the ugly there. I don't think anybody disputes there is at least one ranting, nutcase atheist on DCUM, and several snarky atheists.

There's very little on the Catholic thread that is ugly, or is mocking Catholics. I haven't been reading the other threads. But if you are one of the few "defenders of the faith" on that Catholic thread, I really think you don't know what "mock" means.