Dirty secret of Evolutionary theory?

[SkepticalOne]

No, just that you are behaving like one. Why can't you quote any evidence that you are not? You haven't actually denied that you are a creationist. so you have three times still to go. How about it?

I have explicitly stated that I was not arguing for a creationist position when asking these questions. I said this from the beginning and Roger responded with:

Bullshit. You are.

This was without any evidence from my posts. That is why I have not explicitly denied being a creationist. I would first like someone to quote any part of my questions that evinces that affiliation, or rather admit that there are no such quotes. I want Roger in particular to admit that he came to and maintains his assessment of me as a creationist independently of any actual evidence.

[Brian Jordan]

I have explicitly stated that I was not arguing for a creationist position when asking these questions.

Meanwhile, you are not arguing against a creationist position. So, what are you doing here? As I've said before, there are other places better suited to explaining paleontology to you.
Oh, and just to get things clear, not arguing for a creationist position is by no means the same as not being a creationist. Dare we say that you're down to two denials now?

[SkepticalOne]

So, what are you doing here?

I have answered this. I was here to get some clarification on a particular point of evolutionary theory. Christine provided that clarification long ago. My current goal is to get you to admit that identifying me as a creationist was done without drawing on any evidence from my posts. When I said I wasn't arguing for a creationist interpretation Roger flat out said I was a liar. Many of you seem to agree but none of you have provided even a shred of evidence from my posts.

Dare we say that you're down to two denials now

Count it as two if it pleases you to do so. As I have said, I will reveal my position as soon as you, Roger or anyone admits that my posts do not contain creationist sentiments or quotes the ones that do.

[Roger Stanyard]

So, what are you doing here?

I have answered this. I was here to get some clarification on a particular point of evolutionary theory. Christine provided that clarification long ago. My current goal is to get you to admit that identifying me as a creationist was done without drawing on any evidence from my posts. When I said I wasn't arguing for a creationist interpretation Roger flat out said I was a liar. Many of you seem to agree but none of you have provided even a shred of evidence from my posts.

Dare we say that you're down to two denials now

Count it as two if it pleases you to do so. As I have said, I will reveal my position as soon as you, Roger or anyone admits that my posts do not contain creationist sentiments or quotes the ones that do.

You really are an obnoxious little shit.

[SkepticalOne]

You really are an obnoxious little shit.

In all fairness that is the attitude you displayed from the start, Roger. Just admit that you have based and maintained the belief that I am a creationist on no evidence other than your own presupposition. Or, as always, try to actually support your claim. Cathy seems to respect you, so I assume you are capable of more than blowing hot air. I am just asking you to provide your evidence for thinking me a creationist. You are so confident. It should be easy.

[Roger Stanyard]

You really are an obnoxious little shit.

In all fairness that is the attitude you displayed from the start, Roger. Just admit that you have based and maintained the belief that I am a creationist on no evidence other than your own presupposition. Or, as always, try to actually support your claim. Cathy seems to respect you, so I assume you are capable of more than blowing hot air. I am just asking you to provide your evidence for thinking me a creationist. You are so confident. It should be easy.

Nah. There isn't anyone in this group who believes a word you say. Everything you say is regarded as bullshit. By everyone here.

[SkepticalOne]

Everything you say is regarded as bullshit

So it would seem. But you started doing that from the very first. I am just asking you to actually support your claim that I am a creationist with quoted posts or admit that there is no evidence. More specifically, I would ask that you quote the part of my posts that gave you reason to say "Bullshit, you are" in response to me explicitly stating I was not trying to promote a creationist view with my questions. I predict that you will be unable to do this.

[Peter Henderson]

Everything you say is regarded as bullshit

So it would seem. But you started doing that from the very first. I am just asking you to actually support your claim that I am a creationist with quoted posts or admit that there is no evidence. More specifically, I would ask that you quote the part of my posts that gave you reason to say "Bullshit, you are" in response to me explicitly stating I was not trying to promote a creationist view with my questions. I predict that you will be unable to do this.

are you a young Earth creationist ?

Why can't you tell us how old you think the Earth is ?

This question has always been relevant to "evolutionary theory".

[SkepticalOne]

are you a young Earth creationist ?

Why can't you tell us how old you think the Earth is ?

I can tell you. I won't until you admit that the suspicion festering in Roger's heart from the beginning is not based on any evidence from my posts. I am telling you, Peter, I will answer your question just as soon as you answer mine. What post have I made that indicates I am a creationists or a young earther?

[Atheoscanadensis]

Uh, am I missing something here guys? I know I haven't been a member of this forum for nearly as long as most of you, but I've got to admit that I'm not seeing what the rest of you are. As far as I can tell, this guy hasn't actually said anything that smacks of creationist bullshit. I side with Ashley in suggesting that we should wait until he actually demonstrates nonsensical creationist idiocy before we accuse him of it, slippery though he may be with some of his answers.

[cathy]

Any discussion of paleontology would go in different directions depending whether the person posing the question believes the planet is billions or thousands of years old.

Brian I'd add to that any discussiono of paleontology (or indeed any discussion) would just proceed full stop, to something else based on the answers given. As far as I can ascertain this seems to be ask a question, than when you get the answer, ask if that is what they really meant for clarifcation.

Christine has given detailed answers so I guess SkepticalOne just needs more clarifcation than most.

SkepticalOne what I would suggest is, as the answers are here uncensored and permanent, you don't need to keep asking for clarification, just re read them and perhaps print them out. Then perhaps the discussion can proceed to something else. Perhaps you could make a contribution to them.

[Roger Stanyard]

You really are an obnoxious little shit.

In all fairness that is the attitude you displayed from the start, Roger. Just admit that you have based and maintained the belief that I am a creationist on no evidence other than your own presupposition. Or, as always, try to actually support your claim. Cathy seems to respect you, so I assume you are capable of more than blowing hot air. I am just asking you to provide your evidence for thinking me a creationist. You are so confident. It should be easy.

What forums have you been kicked off for spamming?

[cathy]

Never mind the fact that there is no evidence in my posts of this. It is therefore my desire for you or anyone (but particularly Roger who seems so confident and yet can provide no support for his position) to point out the posts that give evidence of creationist beliefs or admit that there are no such posts and that all this suspicion is based on an a priori assumption of my character independent of any actual evidence.

I'm not jumping to any conclusions SkepticalOne. However I guess what is arousing suspicion in the others is your posts/questions/questioning style/choice of topic mirror very closely an out and out creationist that used to be here. Search through the archives and you'll find pretty much the same questioning from someone called Marc Surtees. If you search the threads you'll find it is a recurring theme in his posts.

I will reveal my position as soon as you, Roger or anyone admits that my posts do not contain creationist sentiments or quotes the ones that do.

I haven't said they contain and creationist sentiments, nor have I accused you - so that should qualify as 'anyone'. I can understand where the confusion has arisen in that they sound like the sorts of arguments that weve heard very often before but that is not evidence of explicitly stated creationist sympathies so I haven't accused you. Neither has Ashley nor Christine accused you of anything, so that is a couple more 'anyones'.

So I suppose that does mean you can honour your statement, in fact should honour your statement, and reveal your position. Several anyones have admitted your posts do not contain creationist sentiments and you've said that if even only one anyone should do that you'd reveal your position.

Plus, you have had all your questions thoroughly answered by Christine, yet you haven't answered any at all even from those of us who haven't accused you. As well Christine is concerned that you are setting her up. So NOT answering is starting to look more than a little bit impolite in a way. I'm sure you're not rude, so please do answer - what is your position (nothing implied by that simple question), how old do you think the earth is (again nothing implied) and what is the aim of your questioning?

[cathy]

Cathy seems to respect you, so I assume you are capable of more than blowing hot air.

I do have huge respect for Roger and everyone else connected to bcse SkepticalOne. Mainly because I have children and don't wish their education or indeed their lives to be blighted by creationism whilst they are too young to see through it. Nor do I want the lives of future generations blighted by it.

And this is the only organisation I've found that is tackling the situation without allowing other points of views to dilute or mess up. So yes I respect those involved hugely.

I respect them because quietly behind the scenes they've done a hell of a lot to keep it out of schools (and I suspect a lot more that I'm unaware of) and because they do that despite the fact there are a huge range of views and opinions here from devoutly religious thru to hardline Dawkins style atheist (tho luckily no Dawkins size egos - otherwise it would have died before it started). I think that involves a huge degree of forging alliances with people, diplomacy and putting own egos on the back burner. I really couldn't do it.

As I've said I resepct them all because they are the only organisation that I can see that is managing the creationism situation, all the others allow egos and opinions to mess that up by either alienating their religous allies or their atheist ones. This is the only one with members devoted to fighting it from both sides of the belief divide. And getting people who often disagree on many things to be co operative.

Now I'm most definitely not assuming you are a creationist. They do blight lives tho. Just speak to one and you'll see just how very damaging an ideology it is.

So that is why I respect Roger and the rest even whilst not making assumptions about you until you honour your statement (see above) and reveal your position. After all you did say you would if anyone satisfied your criteria and several of us have..

[Roger Stanyard]

Never mind the fact that there is no evidence in my posts of this. It is therefore my desire for you or anyone (but particularly Roger who seems so confident and yet can provide no support for his position) to point out the posts that give evidence of creationist beliefs or admit that there are no such posts and that all this suspicion is based on an a priori assumption of my character independent of any actual evidence.

I'm not jumping to any conclusions SkepticalOne. However I guess what is arousing suspicion in the others is your posts/questions/questioning style/choice of topic mirror very closely an out and out creationist that used to be here. Search through the archives and you'll find pretty much the same questioning from someone called Marc Surtees. If you search the threads you'll find it is a recurring theme in his posts.

I will reveal my position as soon as you, Roger or anyone admits that my posts do not contain creationist sentiments or quotes the ones that do.

I haven't said they contain and creationist sentiments, nor have I accused you - so that should qualify as 'anyone'. I can understand where the confusion has arisen in that they sound like the sorts of arguments that weve heard very often before but that is not evidence of explicitly stated creationist sympathies so I haven't accused you. Neither has Ashley nor Christine accused you of anything, so that is a couple more 'anyones'.

So I suppose that does mean you can honour your statement, in fact should honour your statement, and reveal your position. Several anyones have admitted your posts do not contain creationist sentiments and you've said that if even only one anyone should do that you'd reveal your position.

Plus, you have had all your questions thoroughly answered by Christine, yet you haven't answered any at all even from those of us who haven't accused you. As well Christine is concerned that you are setting her up. So NOT answering is starting to look more than a little bit impolite in a way. I'm sure you're not rude, so please do answer - what is your position (nothing implied by that simple question), how old do you think the earth is (again nothing implied) and what is the aim of your questioning?

It is also possible that SkepticalOne is an OECer. Don't know either way on that one.