September 18 was 419eater.com's first birthday, and it's the site where I learned about scambaiting.
The webmaster, "Shiver Metimbers" (obviously not his real name), held a contest in honor of the event. The goal was to get a scammer to hold up a sign reading "HAPPY BIRTHDAY 419EATER" -- and since a number of scammers already knew what the website was (and since 419 itself might cause the "smarter" scammers to twig anyway), it was something of a challenge. The successful baiter would win the contest. If multiple victories were secured before September 18, the readers of the 419eater.com forum would vote on the best picture.
I rose to the challenge. Though it took me until the last minute to secure an entry, I did finally have a worthy submission. I find it interesting that jonbarry, whose "nude gender-undetermined mugu" picture ended up taking second place, actually encouraged people to consider voting for me instead.
I don't attribute the end result to skill, just luck in finding the right scammer dumb enough to fall for it. You can read the email exchange that led to the pictures and see the pictures themselves at my Birthday Bait page.
I've yet to update it with the final details, though I can report that I was unable to secure any nice new pictures from the lad. I got a little overeager (I figured that I had nothing to lose by asking for a nude group shot, but no dice).
As for the other entries...well, when the 419eater.com forum comes back up, search the Pictures forum for "Birthday" in the subject line. You should come up with a locked topic that has the entries and the final vote totals.
I hope the cheque bounced, if this guy did cash in the cheque, wouldn't he be in more trouble?
theFAILURE already knew that the check was fake when he received it. He has no intention of attempting to cash it. He just decided to take a traditional check scammer for a ride.
I'm attempting a little game with a check scammer, though nothing nearly as elaborate as the ANUS LAPTOP bait.
Works great, until you run into something like Palm software, which won't cooperate with permissions.
This came up in a/. discussion months ago, and I asked my boyfriend -- who administrates WinXP and 2000 machines where he works -- if he had found a solution.
I'll look through my replies and repost it. He said that it's a bit tricky, but it can be done.
He's not invulnerable, he just gets lots and lots of hitpoints, for some reason -- and honestly, I don't know why since the developers apparently didn't intend for you to be able to go back into that room to fire a shot (perhaps they thought that you might lay mines or something, or drop a spiderbot?). Keep whacking away at him with a knife or energy blade and he will eventually go down.
Of course, if you do kill him, you're told that it's too late because the WTO already has the weapon plans, so even when you attempt to break the game story by accomplishing two goals at once, there's a contingency built in.
Of course, given the design decisions of the game, I'm led to believe that the "you're too late" speech was put in first before the devs decided to make the scientists inaccessable, rather than a belief that players would somehow find a way to accomplish both goals.
I can't get into System Shock. I think that it's because the interface can't be customized to my liking, and I'm very picky about configuring my interface.
On the other hand, I am tempted to break out System Shock 2 and playing through it again.
The problem is that quite a bit was promised, and very little delivered. A number of promised features (larger map sizes on the PC version, destroyable light sources, AI that isn't as dumb as paint) never made it to the final release.
Deus Ex was a revolutionary title. It had flaws in its mechanics, yes, but overall it was great gameplay mixed with a great story. Deus Ex: Invisible War was a complete disappointment, failing in every way to live up to its predecessor. It's one thing to try to improve upon the original and come up short, but IW looks like a project where the developers deliberately tried to make it than the original in every way.
Someone already mentioned the terrible inventory system and HUD, and it should also be noted that the concurrent X-box development of the game led to the PC version having abysmally small levels (meaning lots of irritating long load waits) in spite of the fact that the devs had previously stated that the PC version would have larger maps with fewer load points, and the game has very low-res, ugly textures. While fans created a third-party add-on with much improved texturing, such a thing should not have required third-party intervention and there is no solution to the tiny map size.
Not to mention that the main character is bland (possibly partially a result of them designing the story around the main character being either male or female), the story is flat without depth in the characters, there's only one real twist to the story and it's not exactly that shocking, the "universal ammunition" system is garbage, character development was heavily dumbed down from the first game (in the first game, you had to carefully choose your development choices to optimize according to your play type, and you could never fully max out every stat. In DX:IW, you could max out every stat before the middle of the game, and if you didn't like your choices you could easily swap no less than three of them out and re-max them), character models look hideous and the overall interface was too far streamlined down to accomidate the X-Box, destroying much of what made Deus Ex fun in the first place.
Many CD check systems (not all -- UT2K4 does not have this problem) require full Administrative rights to run. Most WinXP/2k users are morons who don't understand that you are not supposed to run as Administrator all the time so they don't notice because they are not running under a Power Users account normally, even though they should.
Linux users, however, typically know better than to run as root at all times. If a Linux client for a game included a CD check system that required the user to run as root, the developers would almost certainly be lynched, and rightfully so. (Of course, companies that put Admin-requiring checks on Windows games should also have the people making those decisions lynched, but we don't live in a perfect world).
Unfortunately, copy protection mechanisms add to system overhead and frequently require obnoxious permission levels.
When gaming in Windows, I ALWAYS grab a noCD crack because I absolutely refuse to run my games with full Administrative rights. There is no legitimate reason whatsoever to require that a game have full Admin rights to run, but game publisher execs seem to think that it's a great idea to force a completely artifical requirement that goes against the recommendation of every competent Windows security expert out there.
I use the pistol-flashlight mod, and I have no problems. In fact, I was able to simply copy over the pak file addons that I use (some new SFX, a gore mod, pistol flashlight and a chaingun tweak) and they all work.
Steve Purcell owns the rights to the characters, and I suspect that any Sam & Max work would get his approval.
The problem is that I believe that LucasArts licensed the game rights to start work on Sam & Max 2, and the question now is whether or not they had an "exclusive" deal. If they did, then this could put a damper on things.
Even if they don't, though, they probably own the rights to any work done on Sam & Max: Freelance Police, and I doubt that they'll let the project go for someone else to profit on it.
I've wasted precious time trying to talk sense to a pompous git that doesn't realize that his "most-holy science" doesn't hold all the answers, who declares people with faith in God as basing their faith on a "fallacy", with no proof that it actually is.
Ah, yes, textbook example of creationist lying. I never said that science is "most holy" or that it holds "all the answers", and I said that your arguments against evolution were based upon logical fallacies, not your faith in the God that you worship.
Lies: the last resort of the desperate creationist.
You presented a website taking a creationist position, and nothing more. The logical assumption is that you either agree with the website or you're a shameless troll.
Not that your comments here make the website any more factual. It isn't, and only an idiot would present what they present as an argument against evolution. The question remains: why would you present such obviously false information in an argument for a position?
I can understand why you have problems with evolution. Clearly, you don't understand it in the least. The most common opponents of evolution are those who think that they know what it says but are wrong, and thus their objections are rooted in falsehoods.
ROTFL! Listen to yourself. You are guilty of the very things you accuse me of doing.
EOD.
Ah, yes. When a creationist's arguments are shown to be totally without merit, he declares victory and runs away like a coward. Then, in the next discussion, he'll bring up the same illogical arguments and phony definitions that were refuted last time.
Creationism is never having to admit you are wrong, no matter how wrong you are.
D'oh. I confused Lat.Long's post with another, hence my comment on the definition of "natural". I retract comments regarding that specific matter, and apologize.
My main point remains, however. You presented a site as evidence, then ran off when it was shown to be in error. If you weren't going to defend the talking points made, why the hell did you bring the site up in the first place? And if you clearly don't understand what the theory of evolution states (which is obvious from the fact that you thought that the site that you presented would be even remotely convincing), why should I believe a word you say when you claim that it's faulty?
So you're going to present it as evidence, then run away like a coward and deny all responsibility when it's found to be in error? Typical.
Which requires more faith? Molecules to man, or God?
Oh, boy, another creationist quip. I've never heard that one before.
I'll give you what I do know. Molecules exist. Man exists. I've not seen any evidence that any gods exist. Why should I assume some entity -- and moreover, assume a specific entity that you have defined apart from all other smiliarly described entitie -- when I have no evidence for it apart from "I can't imagine another explanation"?
What fantastic luck to have atoms and molecules combine in just the right way to produce Man AND Woman.
If it were really that simple, you might have an argument. But, as usual, the creationist glosses over the details because that gets in the way of his or her claim that it's all impossible.
Where did God come from?
Good question. My answer: the minds of believers.
Many Evolutionist are just as rabid in their beliefs, which have very little scientific "proof" as religous people which also have have little "proof".
Is it easier for you to say this and pretend that no evidence for it has ever been presented than actually address the facts? Do creationists realise just how obvious it is when they bury their heads in the sand, or do they honestly believe that if they close their eyes all of the evidence goes away?
I've listened to the PBS program. Much of it was of the form, "it might have been", "maybe", "it could have been like this". Very little proof.
In other words, you only heard what you wanted to hear, and you just ignored the fact that their statements were based upon observed evidence. Typical creationist: pretend that it's nothing but base speculation without any evidence underlying it all.
I know one thing for sure, we are here.
Yes, we are.
Calling someone stupid is often a sign of insecurity in ones own position.
True, which is why I try to avoid calling people stupid and instead demonstrate their foolishness by pointing out their own inane actions. For example, you completely ignored everything that I wrote previously regarding the definition of "natural". You've been backed into a corner on it, but like a typical creationist you are utterly unable to admit that you were in error, so you just ignored the whole point and hoped that would go away. Instead, you replied with a string of non-sequiturs, again reiterating your argument from incredulity, and demonstrating a stunning ignorance of the underlying study of evolution, showing that you are wholly unqualified to speak on how weak a theory it might be.
I notice that Lat.Long hasn't returned to defend this site. Not surprising. The site is full of lies and lacks any merit. It gets fundamental concepts wrong and falsely attributes claims that the theory of evolution does not even make -- if they can't even get the basics of the theory right when speaking on it, why should I believe any "refutation" that they present? If they get the theory wrong, then their refutation is likely built upon faulty premises.
I am trying to figure out why Lat.Long even presented this site. Was it a joke, or is he (or she) really so stupid as to believe that the material there is convincing?
My whole point is that people (like you) automatically assume that beliefs (usually those of the Christian persuation) are "fallacious", but you expect me to accept that on your say-so.
I'm not the one who invented the phrase "argument from incredulity". You argued that because you can't personally believe that evolution is true then it is false. This is a logical fallacy. You presented a four-page article supporting your position, and I provided a citation that explained why the fundamental premise of the article was in error. Stop telling me that I'm just handwaving things away when I've offered citations, it makes you look like a liar.
You have demonstrated nothing except that you have a severe disdain for people who believe in God (mine or otherwise), simply because it goes against your beliefs.
Typical. When a creationist's fallacious arguments are refuted, they very frequently accuse the other side of making personal attacks. Oh, shame on me for pointing out that your arguments lack merit. Obviously I hate your God (apart from all other gods) and I'm out to get you just because I won't accept "I can't believe it, therefore it is false" as a logical argument.
It doesn't make it fallacious, either. To argue otherwise means talking in circles.
True. Your argument was fallacious for other reasons.
Compared to anything else going on in the world, it may as well be magic.
Hyperbole. You realise that you're wrong on the issue, so you're dodging the issue.
Imposing a characteristic on an animal or person through "scientific" means, when this characteristic would not show on its own, is not "natural". It's playing "what if".
Once again, you don't even try to refute the scientific definition of natural, you simply insist that you're right despite the evidence to the contrary.
This is why arguing with creationists is often such a waste of time. They insist that they get to define ALL of the terms at a whim, including the terms used by scientists.
Natural means "occuring within the natural universe". Humans occur within the natural universe. Therefore, anything that humans do is entirely natural. This is the definition that is used for "natural selection". Playing around the issue after it has been explained to you without even attempting to cite a contradictory reference only makes you look like a liar, but I'm not surprised. Dishonesty seems to be a fundamental tenet of creationism.
No, because it doesn't make any sense. You've done a lot of talking, insulting my beliefs, but you've said nothing in support of your own.
That's because you've never asked. You've just presented fallacious arguments against evolution. There isn't much need to respond to that beyond demonstrating that your claims are fallacious.
If you can prove to me that you know so much about the Universe that I am wrong and there is no God, I'd like to hear it now.
I can't prove anything regarding the existence of any gods, including the specific one that you happen to believe exists. This, however, does not make your arguments suddenly non-fallacious.
Why won't you believe there is a God? Can't bring yourself to believe it?
No evidence. If I were to suddenly believe in a god, why would I want to believe in the one that you claim exists instead of one of the other thousands of deity constructs out there?
And how does this make your previous argument non-fallacious?
There's nothing "natural" about genetic manipulation in a laboratory.
So you're saying that scientists in a lab use supernatural methods? What, they invoke divine energies or perform magic rituals? That's a new one on me.
Once again, scientific definition of natural vs. layman definition of natural. "Natural selection" uses the former. Now that this has been explained to you, you either demonstrate that I'm wrong (and you can't, because the scientific definition of natural is very simple) or you acknowledge your mistake. Reasserting your original proposition even though I've fully refuted it without making any effort to show that my refutation was in error makes you look stubborn and dishonest.
That would be like claiming Artificial Intelligence is real intelligence, just because it is.
Scientific "natural" vs. layman "natural" again. In science, "natural" refers to any process or event that occurs within the natural universe. The only alternative to natural in science is supernatural. The "artifical" qualifier of "Artifical Intelligence" denotes that it's not the same kind of intelligence that we think of when speaking of humans, however the underlying components and processes that create AI are themselves entirely natural by the scientific definition of the word which means that the end result, AI, is scientifically natural in itself.
Or are you going to claim that voodoo is what makes CPU opponents in computer games move about?
This is the biggest reason I don't believe in Evolution. In order for a human to have evolved from pond scum, an enormous amount of time will have to have passed.
Yes, on the order of billions of years.
Your appeal to incredulity fallacy is noted.
Given what astrophysisists claim to be the age of the Universe, this simply could not have happened.
What, because you can't bring yourself to believe it?
Statistically, Evolution is impossible (for one explanation of this, see http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg/btg-179.pdf), because it would have to allow that almost every mutation was dominant and that it was not fatal to the being it occured to.
No it wouldn't. It just requires that some beneficial mutations occur at a proper rate. Please, statistics are one of the most popular bullshit explanations to which creationists like to appeal.
The refutation to that four-page article only requires one paragraph, because the author makes a mistake that throws off his entire argument.
Interesting thought, but I don't accept it.
Well of course not. It demolishes your argument, so you pretend that it's invalid through your own arbitrary hand-waving. I expect no less from a creationist.
If a force outside of the natural environment affects the species (i.e. human intervention), then it is artificial in nature.
No, it isn't. Humans are a part of the natural universe, therefore any intervention that they bring about is natural.
"Natural selection" is using the scientific definition of "natural". Switching in the layman's definition to make an argument is dishonest.
If one were to accept your argument, then it would (by proxy) negate pretty-much everything folk like PETA and other environmental protectionists have been arguing for decades.
Well, PETA is a bunch of lunatics, but it would hardly destroy arguments for protecting the environment. While pollution is "natural" by scientific terms (being comprised of naturally occuring elements), it's still arguably more beneficial in the long run to avoid it.
I suppose the Big Bang is not a statement about origins? You are right, I can't believe you.
The Big Bang theory is a statement about the origins of the universe. It is not a part of the theory of evolution. The site referenced claimed to "refute" the theory of evolution, not the Big Bang. In its attempt at a refutation, it made a statement about evolution that is completely false.
Only a complete moron or an unrepentant liar would put forth the arguments on that site as a refutation of evolution. It would be like me citing Jesus's commandment to murder those who disagree with you as "proof" that Christianity is an immoral religion.
The model already exists, so why not try to fit the data to it?
Because science, unlike creationism, doesn't work by assuming a model and attempting to retrofit all data into it. Science comes up with a theoretical model as a result of interpretation of observed data.
Okay, this is the chance for me to ask somebody who might know what to call the people who believe that everything came about through non-supernatural means.
I'm not sure that there is a term for it. My point is that "undirected evolution" is not itself a scientific theory.
Slashdot Mirror
September 18 was 419eater.com's first birthday, and it's the site where I learned about scambaiting.
The webmaster, "Shiver Metimbers" (obviously not his real name), held a contest in honor of the event. The goal was to get a scammer to hold up a sign reading "HAPPY BIRTHDAY 419EATER" -- and since a number of scammers already knew what the website was (and since 419 itself might cause the "smarter" scammers to twig anyway), it was something of a challenge. The successful baiter would win the contest. If multiple victories were secured before September 18, the readers of the 419eater.com forum would vote on the best picture.
I rose to the challenge. Though it took me until the last minute to secure an entry, I did finally have a worthy submission. I find it interesting that jonbarry, whose "nude gender-undetermined mugu" picture ended up taking second place, actually encouraged people to consider voting for me instead.
I don't attribute the end result to skill, just luck in finding the right scammer dumb enough to fall for it. You can read the email exchange that led to the pictures and see the pictures themselves at my Birthday Bait page.
I've yet to update it with the final details, though I can report that I was unable to secure any nice new pictures from the lad. I got a little overeager (I figured that I had nothing to lose by asking for a nude group shot, but no dice).
As for the other entries...well, when the 419eater.com forum comes back up, search the Pictures forum for "Birthday" in the subject line. You should come up with a locked topic that has the entries and the final vote totals.
I hope the cheque bounced, if this guy did cash in the cheque, wouldn't he be in more trouble?
theFAILURE already knew that the check was fake when he received it. He has no intention of attempting to cash it. He just decided to take a traditional check scammer for a ride.
I'm attempting a little game with a check scammer, though nothing nearly as elaborate as the ANUS LAPTOP bait.
My mod points expired yesterday, this post should be +5, Informative.
Palm's software should be easier to set up for non-Admin users, but it can be done.
Works great, until you run into something like Palm software, which won't cooperate with permissions.
/. discussion months ago, and I asked my boyfriend -- who administrates WinXP and 2000 machines where he works -- if he had found a solution.
This came up in a
I'll look through my replies and repost it. He said that it's a bit tricky, but it can be done.
He's not invulnerable, he just gets lots and lots of hitpoints, for some reason -- and honestly, I don't know why since the developers apparently didn't intend for you to be able to go back into that room to fire a shot (perhaps they thought that you might lay mines or something, or drop a spiderbot?). Keep whacking away at him with a knife or energy blade and he will eventually go down.
Of course, if you do kill him, you're told that it's too late because the WTO already has the weapon plans, so even when you attempt to break the game story by accomplishing two goals at once, there's a contingency built in.
Of course, given the design decisions of the game, I'm led to believe that the "you're too late" speech was put in first before the devs decided to make the scientists inaccessable, rather than a belief that players would somehow find a way to accomplish both goals.
I can't get into System Shock. I think that it's because the interface can't be customized to my liking, and I'm very picky about configuring my interface.
On the other hand, I am tempted to break out System Shock 2 and playing through it again.
The problem is that quite a bit was promised, and very little delivered. A number of promised features (larger map sizes on the PC version, destroyable light sources, AI that isn't as dumb as paint) never made it to the final release.
Deus Ex was a revolutionary title. It had flaws in its mechanics, yes, but overall it was great gameplay mixed with a great story. Deus Ex: Invisible War was a complete disappointment, failing in every way to live up to its predecessor. It's one thing to try to improve upon the original and come up short, but IW looks like a project where the developers deliberately tried to make it than the original in every way.
Axe?
I think that you mean wrench. Or laser sabre. Or crystal shard. I don't remember any axes in the game.
Someone already mentioned the terrible inventory system and HUD, and it should also be noted that the concurrent X-box development of the game led to the PC version having abysmally small levels (meaning lots of irritating long load waits) in spite of the fact that the devs had previously stated that the PC version would have larger maps with fewer load points, and the game has very low-res, ugly textures. While fans created a third-party add-on with much improved texturing, such a thing should not have required third-party intervention and there is no solution to the tiny map size.
Not to mention that the main character is bland (possibly partially a result of them designing the story around the main character being either male or female), the story is flat without depth in the characters, there's only one real twist to the story and it's not exactly that shocking, the "universal ammunition" system is garbage, character development was heavily dumbed down from the first game (in the first game, you had to carefully choose your development choices to optimize according to your play type, and you could never fully max out every stat. In DX:IW, you could max out every stat before the middle of the game, and if you didn't like your choices you could easily swap no less than three of them out and re-max them), character models look hideous and the overall interface was too far streamlined down to accomidate the X-Box, destroying much of what made Deus Ex fun in the first place.
Many CD check systems (not all -- UT2K4 does not have this problem) require full Administrative rights to run. Most WinXP/2k users are morons who don't understand that you are not supposed to run as Administrator all the time so they don't notice because they are not running under a Power Users account normally, even though they should.
Linux users, however, typically know better than to run as root at all times. If a Linux client for a game included a CD check system that required the user to run as root, the developers would almost certainly be lynched, and rightfully so. (Of course, companies that put Admin-requiring checks on Windows games should also have the people making those decisions lynched, but we don't live in a perfect world).
Unfortunately, copy protection mechanisms add to system overhead and frequently require obnoxious permission levels.
When gaming in Windows, I ALWAYS grab a noCD crack because I absolutely refuse to run my games with full Administrative rights. There is no legitimate reason whatsoever to require that a game have full Admin rights to run, but game publisher execs seem to think that it's a great idea to force a completely artifical requirement that goes against the recommendation of every competent Windows security expert out there.
Also, "works" has no apostrophe.
I use the pistol-flashlight mod, and I have no problems. In fact, I was able to simply copy over the pak file addons that I use (some new SFX, a gore mod, pistol flashlight and a chaingun tweak) and they all work.
Steve Purcell owns the rights to the characters, and I suspect that any Sam & Max work would get his approval.
The problem is that I believe that LucasArts licensed the game rights to start work on Sam & Max 2, and the question now is whether or not they had an "exclusive" deal. If they did, then this could put a damper on things.
Even if they don't, though, they probably own the rights to any work done on Sam & Max: Freelance Police, and I doubt that they'll let the project go for someone else to profit on it.
I just applied the fix using the same method that you did, and I had no problems. User accounts running it show that it's up to date.
I've wasted precious time trying to talk sense to a pompous git that doesn't realize that his "most-holy science" doesn't hold all the answers, who declares people with faith in God as basing their faith on a "fallacy", with no proof that it actually is.
Ah, yes, textbook example of creationist lying. I never said that science is "most holy" or that it holds "all the answers", and I said that your arguments against evolution were based upon logical fallacies, not your faith in the God that you worship.
Lies: the last resort of the desperate creationist.
You presented a website taking a creationist position, and nothing more. The logical assumption is that you either agree with the website or you're a shameless troll.
Not that your comments here make the website any more factual. It isn't, and only an idiot would present what they present as an argument against evolution. The question remains: why would you present such obviously false information in an argument for a position?
I can understand why you have problems with evolution. Clearly, you don't understand it in the least. The most common opponents of evolution are those who think that they know what it says but are wrong, and thus their objections are rooted in falsehoods.
ROTFL! Listen to yourself. You are guilty of the very things you accuse me of doing.
EOD.
Ah, yes. When a creationist's arguments are shown to be totally without merit, he declares victory and runs away like a coward. Then, in the next discussion, he'll bring up the same illogical arguments and phony definitions that were refuted last time.
Creationism is never having to admit you are wrong, no matter how wrong you are.
D'oh. I confused Lat.Long's post with another, hence my comment on the definition of "natural". I retract comments regarding that specific matter, and apologize.
My main point remains, however. You presented a site as evidence, then ran off when it was shown to be in error. If you weren't going to defend the talking points made, why the hell did you bring the site up in the first place? And if you clearly don't understand what the theory of evolution states (which is obvious from the fact that you thought that the site that you presented would be even remotely convincing), why should I believe a word you say when you claim that it's faulty?
It is not my site to defend.
So you're going to present it as evidence, then run away like a coward and deny all responsibility when it's found to be in error? Typical.
Which requires more faith? Molecules to man, or God?
Oh, boy, another creationist quip. I've never heard that one before.
I'll give you what I do know. Molecules exist. Man exists. I've not seen any evidence that any gods exist. Why should I assume some entity -- and moreover, assume a specific entity that you have defined apart from all other smiliarly described entitie -- when I have no evidence for it apart from "I can't imagine another explanation"?
What fantastic luck to have atoms and molecules combine in just the right way to produce Man AND Woman.
If it were really that simple, you might have an argument. But, as usual, the creationist glosses over the details because that gets in the way of his or her claim that it's all impossible.
Where did God come from?
Good question. My answer: the minds of believers.
Many Evolutionist are just as rabid in their beliefs, which have very little scientific "proof" as religous people which also have have little "proof".
Is it easier for you to say this and pretend that no evidence for it has ever been presented than actually address the facts? Do creationists realise just how obvious it is when they bury their heads in the sand, or do they honestly believe that if they close their eyes all of the evidence goes away?
I've listened to the PBS program. Much of it was of the form, "it might have been", "maybe", "it could have been like this". Very little proof.
In other words, you only heard what you wanted to hear, and you just ignored the fact that their statements were based upon observed evidence. Typical creationist: pretend that it's nothing but base speculation without any evidence underlying it all.
I know one thing for sure, we are here.
Yes, we are.
Calling someone stupid is often a sign of insecurity in ones own position.
True, which is why I try to avoid calling people stupid and instead demonstrate their foolishness by pointing out their own inane actions. For example, you completely ignored everything that I wrote previously regarding the definition of "natural". You've been backed into a corner on it, but like a typical creationist you are utterly unable to admit that you were in error, so you just ignored the whole point and hoped that would go away. Instead, you replied with a string of non-sequiturs, again reiterating your argument from incredulity, and demonstrating a stunning ignorance of the underlying study of evolution, showing that you are wholly unqualified to speak on how weak a theory it might be.
I notice that Lat.Long hasn't returned to defend this site. Not surprising. The site is full of lies and lacks any merit. It gets fundamental concepts wrong and falsely attributes claims that the theory of evolution does not even make -- if they can't even get the basics of the theory right when speaking on it, why should I believe any "refutation" that they present? If they get the theory wrong, then their refutation is likely built upon faulty premises.
I am trying to figure out why Lat.Long even presented this site. Was it a joke, or is he (or she) really so stupid as to believe that the material there is convincing?
My whole point is that people (like you) automatically assume that beliefs (usually those of the Christian persuation) are "fallacious", but you expect me to accept that on your say-so.
I'm not the one who invented the phrase "argument from incredulity". You argued that because you can't personally believe that evolution is true then it is false. This is a logical fallacy. You presented a four-page article supporting your position, and I provided a citation that explained why the fundamental premise of the article was in error. Stop telling me that I'm just handwaving things away when I've offered citations, it makes you look like a liar.
You have demonstrated nothing except that you have a severe disdain for people who believe in God (mine or otherwise), simply because it goes against your beliefs.
Typical. When a creationist's fallacious arguments are refuted, they very frequently accuse the other side of making personal attacks. Oh, shame on me for pointing out that your arguments lack merit. Obviously I hate your God (apart from all other gods) and I'm out to get you just because I won't accept "I can't believe it, therefore it is false" as a logical argument.
It doesn't make it fallacious, either. To argue otherwise means talking in circles.
True. Your argument was fallacious for other reasons.
Compared to anything else going on in the world, it may as well be magic.
Hyperbole. You realise that you're wrong on the issue, so you're dodging the issue.
Imposing a characteristic on an animal or person through "scientific" means, when this characteristic would not show on its own, is not "natural". It's playing "what if".
Once again, you don't even try to refute the scientific definition of natural, you simply insist that you're right despite the evidence to the contrary.
This is why arguing with creationists is often such a waste of time. They insist that they get to define ALL of the terms at a whim, including the terms used by scientists.
Natural means "occuring within the natural universe". Humans occur within the natural universe. Therefore, anything that humans do is entirely natural. This is the definition that is used for "natural selection". Playing around the issue after it has been explained to you without even attempting to cite a contradictory reference only makes you look like a liar, but I'm not surprised. Dishonesty seems to be a fundamental tenet of creationism.
No, because it doesn't make any sense. You've done a lot of talking, insulting my beliefs, but you've said nothing in support of your own.
That's because you've never asked. You've just presented fallacious arguments against evolution. There isn't much need to respond to that beyond demonstrating that your claims are fallacious.
If you can prove to me that you know so much about the Universe that I am wrong and there is no God, I'd like to hear it now.
I can't prove anything regarding the existence of any gods, including the specific one that you happen to believe exists. This, however, does not make your arguments suddenly non-fallacious.
Why won't you believe there is a God? Can't bring yourself to believe it?
No evidence. If I were to suddenly believe in a god, why would I want to believe in the one that you claim exists instead of one of the other thousands of deity constructs out there?
And how does this make your previous argument non-fallacious?
There's nothing "natural" about genetic manipulation in a laboratory.
So you're saying that scientists in a lab use supernatural methods? What, they invoke divine energies or perform magic rituals? That's a new one on me.
Once again, scientific definition of natural vs. layman definition of natural. "Natural selection" uses the former. Now that this has been explained to you, you either demonstrate that I'm wrong (and you can't, because the scientific definition of natural is very simple) or you acknowledge your mistake. Reasserting your original proposition even though I've fully refuted it without making any effort to show that my refutation was in error makes you look stubborn and dishonest.
That would be like claiming Artificial Intelligence is real intelligence, just because it is.
Scientific "natural" vs. layman "natural" again. In science, "natural" refers to any process or event that occurs within the natural universe. The only alternative to natural in science is supernatural. The "artifical" qualifier of "Artifical Intelligence" denotes that it's not the same kind of intelligence that we think of when speaking of humans, however the underlying components and processes that create AI are themselves entirely natural by the scientific definition of the word which means that the end result, AI, is scientifically natural in itself.
Or are you going to claim that voodoo is what makes CPU opponents in computer games move about?
This is the biggest reason I don't believe in Evolution. In order for a human to have evolved from pond scum, an enormous amount of time will have to have passed.
Yes, on the order of billions of years.
Your appeal to incredulity fallacy is noted.
Given what astrophysisists claim to be the age of the Universe, this simply could not have happened.
What, because you can't bring yourself to believe it?
Statistically, Evolution is impossible (for one explanation of this, see http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg/btg-179.pdf), because it would have to allow that almost every mutation was dominant and that it was not fatal to the being it occured to.
No it wouldn't. It just requires that some beneficial mutations occur at a proper rate. Please, statistics are one of the most popular bullshit explanations to which creationists like to appeal.
The refutation to that four-page article only requires one paragraph, because the author makes a mistake that throws off his entire argument.
Interesting thought, but I don't accept it.
Well of course not. It demolishes your argument, so you pretend that it's invalid through your own arbitrary hand-waving. I expect no less from a creationist.
If a force outside of the natural environment affects the species (i.e. human intervention), then it is artificial in nature.
No, it isn't. Humans are a part of the natural universe, therefore any intervention that they bring about is natural.
"Natural selection" is using the scientific definition of "natural". Switching in the layman's definition to make an argument is dishonest.
If one were to accept your argument, then it would (by proxy) negate pretty-much everything folk like PETA and other environmental protectionists have been arguing for decades.
Well, PETA is a bunch of lunatics, but it would hardly destroy arguments for protecting the environment. While pollution is "natural" by scientific terms (being comprised of naturally occuring elements), it's still arguably more beneficial in the long run to avoid it.
I suppose the Big Bang is not a statement about origins? You are right, I can't believe you.
The Big Bang theory is a statement about the origins of the universe. It is not a part of the theory of evolution. The site referenced claimed to "refute" the theory of evolution, not the Big Bang. In its attempt at a refutation, it made a statement about evolution that is completely false.
Only a complete moron or an unrepentant liar would put forth the arguments on that site as a refutation of evolution. It would be like me citing Jesus's commandment to murder those who disagree with you as "proof" that Christianity is an immoral religion.
The model already exists, so why not try to fit the data to it?
Because science, unlike creationism, doesn't work by assuming a model and attempting to retrofit all data into it. Science comes up with a theoretical model as a result of interpretation of observed data.
Okay, this is the chance for me to ask somebody who might know what to call the people who believe that everything came about through non-supernatural means.
I'm not sure that there is a term for it. My point is that "undirected evolution" is not itself a scientific theory.