|
Indeed! Kissinger's award really means the Peace Prize is a bit of a joke, doesn't it?The Nobel Prize has been a joke for years anyway. You can't make tin plating any cheaper than giving it to a mass murderer, can you?I know it might come as a shock, but I agree with you. Unless President Obama nominated himself and I have to take him at his word that he didn't know about it, then he is not to blame. I just think it cheapens the award somewhat for the comittee to award it to someone based on what their aims are.
I don't personally think it was a sensible choice to give him the prize this year. But i have to say that a fair number of people seem to be attacking president Obama for the nobel award commities decision, which seems odd to me.
Kissinger, Arafat, yeah, award's a joke.
I'm so glad I don't watch the news. I had managed to evade that he was given the Nobel peace prize for socializing our country til now. I have to give him credit, though. Not many people have the guts to lie to a camera when they have been previously recorded saying the exact opposite. I guess that just goes to show you that a good majority of people don't care what you actually believe if you say what they want to hear.
[emphasis mine]
What? How exactly is he "socializing" the US? The bailouts? The same bailouts started by GWB? Health care reform? Reform that still has the insurance industry as major players and thus is still rampant capitalism?OK, so you don't like Obama, but where has he lied and done a complete 180 on something?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm so glad I don't watch the news. I had managed to evade that he was given the Nobel peace prize for socializing our country til now. I have to give him credit, though. Not many people have the guts to lie to a camera when they have been previously recorded saying the exact opposite. I guess that just goes to show you that a good majority of people don't care what you actually believe if you say what they want to hear.[emphasis mine]
What? How exactly is he "socializing" the US? The bailouts? The same bailouts started by GWB? Health care reform? Reform that still has the insurance industry as major players and thus is still rampant capitalism?
OK, so you don't like Obama, but where has he lied and done a complete 180 on something?
I predict that this post will either (a) prompt a response which adequately addresses your question and convinces you that Obama did lie or (b) convince grasshopper_ea that he is incorrect and that Obama never lied.
Really, how else could it play out?
I'm so glad I don't watch the news. I had managed to evade that he was given the Nobel peace prize for socializing our country til now. I have to give him credit, though. Not many people have the guts to lie to a camera when they have been previously recorded saying the exact opposite. I guess that just goes to show you that a good majority of people don't care what you actually believe if you say what they want to hear.[emphasis mine]
What? How exactly is he "socializing" the US? The bailouts? The same bailouts started by GWB? Health care reform? Reform that still has the insurance industry as major players and thus is still rampant capitalism?
OK, so you don't like Obama, but where has he lied and done a complete 180 on something?I predict that this post will either (a) prompt a response which adequately addresses your question and convinces you that Obama did lie or (b) convince grasshopper_ea that he is incorrect and that Obama never lied.
Really, how else could it play out?
Numerous other ways mr. Snark. :-p
I just dislike such blanket, unsupported statements and was curious what specifically grasshopper was refererring to.
I'm afraid your question (and his answer) will generate more heat than light, so I'm not certain it's worth even asking.
Maybe, maybe not. Again, I just dislike people making blanket contentious statements, that, to me, seem untrue, without backing them up.
Not asking him about his statements are, to me, silent consent.Also, the same could be said about grasshoppers statement, what did he hope to gain from making it?
|
Congratulations to President Obama from a friendly neighbourhood Canadian! :)
All Americans should rejoice as this is an international award and thus this indicates that the U.S. standing is improving in the world. You wouldn't believe how many Americans asked me to sell them a Canada badge when I went backpacking across France, Italy and Greece and few years ago. The way I see it, anything that helps America's image abroad is a good thing. Stop being so dwarvish / elfish / clannish, and when one of your greats get a pat in the back, clap your hands and celebrate! :)
[random observation: some people are incapable of being happy for the good of others; random observation 2: some people will never understand that there are leaders (with vision) and followers (with skills to implement), and that the team works best when everyone understands this fact]
I'm afraid your question (and his answer) will generate more heat than light, so I'm not certain it's worth even asking.
Dang it Sebastian. How are we going to get to see a good, entertaining flame war if you keep interrupting everyone? Geez! ;)
HATEYU, HATEYU, TEKEL, UPYOURN.
The Pony picks; and, having picked,
Moves on: nor all your anger nor flame
Shall lure it back to include your name,
Nor all your snark carve you a spot.
Congratulations to President Obama from a friendly neighbourhood Canadian! :)
All Americans should rejoice as this is an international award and thus this indicates that the U.S. standing is improving in the world. You wouldn't believe how many Americans asked me to sell them a Canada badge when I went backpacking across France, Italy and Greece and few years ago. The way I see it, anything that helps America's image abroad is a good thing. Stop being so dwarvish / elfish / clannish, and when one of your greats get a pat in the back, clap your hands and celebrate! :)
[random observation: some people are incapable of being happy for the good of others; random observation 2: some people will never understand that there are leaders (with vision) and followers (with skills to implement), and that the team works best when everyone understands this fact]
My feelings about other countries liking the US because of Obama can best be described by quoting a great actor:
Ash (Bruce Campbell): First you wanna kill me, now you wanna kiss me. Blow.
HATEYU, HATEYU, TEKEL, UPYOURN.
The Pony picks; and, having picked,
Moves on: nor all your anger nor flame
Shall lure it back to include your name,
Nor all your snark carve you a spot.
Never! Some us lie in wait: collecting data from the Pony's posts, deducing his personal hot buttons and peeves... all for the day when a fortitutious conjunction of messageboard threads creates an opportunity for a single dim mak post to his Unholy Equus heart!
"Speak not to me of blasphemy, man; I'd strike the sun if it insulted me."
Director of Narrative
|
Indeed! Kissinger's award really means the Peace Prize is a bit of a joke, doesn't it?
Technically Kissinger only won 1/2 of a nobel prize. Le Duc Tho was awarded the prize, but didn't accept it because he claimed there was still no peace in his country. I wonder how many other people have declined the award?
YOU LIKE ME!!! YOU REALLY LIKE ME!!!
To the man going to sleep, here is a parting thought: 'Confucius say man who go to bed with itchy butt wake up with stinky finger.'
|
|
Even more funny, when you were in high school in 2000 I was having my ten year reunion, oh wait...Funnily enough when I was in highschool in 2000 I was nicknamed matlock.Sure you did. And I bet it's just a coincidence that your posts frequently reference Matlock too. The jig is up, you're typing this from the rec room at your retirement home, aren't you?I didn't watch it, read the joke later. :P
He could have always declined the award if he believed he wasn't truly the most worthy out of the possible candidates.I found Jay Leno's joke kind of humorous:
"That's pretty amazing, Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Ironically, his biggest accomplishment as president so far: winning the Nobel Peace Prize." --Jay Leno
+1 for funny joke.
-1 for watching Leno and being under the age of 70.
hah hah, you're an old fart :P
|
|
Here is how these threads seem to go...
Good topic placed before an intelligent group. Gamer's are some of the brightest, smartest folks.
Good topic receives a few positive comments.
Good topic begins to get trashy comments.
Trashy comments that involve sarcasm tend to evoke some laughs.
Many hop-on-the topic bashing to get some laughs.
Thread starts to involve farts, and other base humor.
Still folks are laughing, because we're having a good time.
Some new folks see thread title and wish to post.
New folks notice the thread has like 250 fart comments, and don't have time to read through them all.
The folks who could also intelligently comment on the thread topic, don't want to spoil fun by talking, once again, about the interesting topic, because they don't wish to bring everybody down.
Thread eventually disintegrates from lack of use....
Thread necromancy keeps thread returning once in a while whenever a poodle or rust monster pops into it.
Time passes.
A great opportunity for healthy debate and intellectual sharing was missed, but we had a lot of fun, and nothing was really gained, however, nobody really had to work that hard to debate, so things were kept very non-confrontational, yet highly insubstantial.
Thread is forgotten. Nothings was truly learned from one another. But the community is still happy. And, none of this is really an issue, because we'd rather be discussing the King of Nyrond, the lord of Blackmoor Castle, or Serenrae's might!
LOL
Edit: My 2cp... I wish Americans weren't so jealous when good things happen to someone, and I wish our pride in any American achievement wasn't so uncool to talk about. (just sayin' ...)
My 2 cps, I am not jealous of Obama for getting the Peace Prize. I am not jealous of good things happening to other people. This isn't about jealously, it is a WTF? moment. It is ridiculous and it should be made fun of. I hope that Obama laughs at all the jokes, because he understands how ridiculous the situation is, as he takes the money and plops it in his personal account.
To the people in other countries that say Obama has done so much to bridge the gap, are you really saying that the people in your country are so shallow that a few pretty words by a charismatic person can sway their views on something as complex as international relations?
Gitmo is still open for business and probably will be well into next year, there are still prisons in other countries that work with the US to keep undesirables off the radar. Wire tapping is still going on. Drones continue to bomb into Pakistan. Troop levels continue to slowly increase in Afghanistan. What has Obama done internationally that was different Bush really? He has bowed to pressure from Russia and left alot of Eastern European countries out in the cold (dropped missile shield program), he has snubbed the Dalai Lama in order to placate China. So what is so inspiring? Is it his general tone of "america sucks" while still doing pretty much all of the same stuff. Is attitude and not substance what is important (Performance is no substitute for appearance)? By the way, I want Obama to keep doing all the stuff, don't get me wrong, I just wonder why people seem to think he is "better" than Bush on substance when most of the stuff he is doing is the same old same old.
Aside thought: By the way, isn't a sitting president being given a large sum of money from a foreign nation/group a bit of a concern typically? I don't think Obama is being bribed or anything, but still it is a trend we want to be careful about isn't it?
|
|
Sebastian:
Anyway, getting this thread back on topic, perhaps you could stop dodging the issue and give us the precise mathematical formula you apply to your spreadsheet of Paizo posters to determine who comes top of your enemies list? I'm assuming here that you have the names of every poster on the boards on it, their numbers of posts and aliases, how many more achievements of merit than you that they've got (multiplied by an inverse proportion to their age I assume, given that Nerrat Dei earned himself such a slice of your ire) and probably several other factors, some of them matters of personal opinion. (Is your spreadsheet like a sort of 'messageboards Top Trumps'?)
Why am I lower than Daigle and taig? That's just wrong...
|
Why am I lower than Daigle and taig? That's just wrong...Sebastian:
Anyway, getting this thread back on topic, perhaps you could stop dodging the issue and give us the precise mathematical formula you apply to your spreadsheet of Paizo posters to determine who comes top of your enemies list? I'm assuming here that you have the names of every poster on the boards on it, their numbers of posts and aliases, how many more achievements of merit than you that they've got (multiplied by an inverse proportion to their age I assume, given that Nerrat Dei earned himself such a slice of your ire) and probably several other factors, some of them matters of personal opinion. (Is your spreadsheet like a sort of 'messageboards Top Trumps'?)
If you think that's bad, I'm actually lower on the list than one of my own aliases.
Not many people have the guts to lie to a camera when they have been previously recorded saying the exact opposite.
Are you kidding me? If this were true John Stewart wouldn't have a show. Most of his routine on the Daily Show is just him showing two clips of a politician contradicting his or herself and then giving that blank stare of his at the camera.
|
|
Edit: My 2cp... I wish Americans weren't so jealous when good things happen to someone, and I wish our pride in any American achievement wasn't so uncool to talk about. (just sayin' ...)
I'm not jealous or President Obama, or upset with him. He may be deserving of this award based on what he does over the next few years as president. However, to have been nominated 12 days after being inagurated, and being given the award 9 monthes after taking office, and primarilly based on what he says he will do, makes the Nobel Comittee look like a bunch of mooks. My Democrat congressman said last week that he felt that it must be a consolation prize for not getting the Olympics.
Is it his general tone of "america sucks" while still doing pretty much all of the same stuff.Yeah see this is where I start tuning out people, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but where the heck do you get the tone of America Sucks from exactly?
I would guess he's referring to things like the apology tour, attacking American health care and things like that. Many people perceive this as the "America sucks, but fortunately I'm here to change it." stance.
My 2 cps, I am not jealous of Obama for getting the Peace Prize. I am not jealous of good things happening to other people. This isn't about jealously, it is a WTF? moment. It is ridiculous and it should be made fun of. I hope that Obama laughs at all the jokes, because he understands how ridiculous the situation is, as he takes the money and plops it in his personal account.
To the people in other countries that say Obama has done so much to bridge the gap, are you really saying that the people in your country are so shallow that a few pretty words by a charismatic person can sway their views on something as complex as international relations?
Gitmo is still open for business and probably will be well into next year, there are still prisons in other countries that work with the US to keep undesirables off the radar. Wire tapping is still going on. Drones continue to bomb into Pakistan. Troop levels continue to slowly increase in Afghanistan. What has Obama done internationally that was different Bush really? He has bowed to pressure from Russia and left alot of Eastern European countries out in the cold (dropped missile shield program), he has snubbed the Dalai Lama in order to placate China. So what is so inspiring? Is it his general tone of "america sucks" while still doing pretty much all of the same stuff. Is attitude and not substance what is important (Performance is no substitute for appearance)? By the way, I want Obama to keep doing all the stuff, don't get me wrong, I just wonder why people seem to think he is "better" than Bush on substance when most of the stuff he is doing is the same old same old.
Aside thought: By the way, isn't a sitting president being given a large sum of money from a foreign nation/group a bit of a concern typically? I don't think Obama is being bribed or anything, but still it is a trend we want to be careful about isn't it?
I tend to agree.
I would guess he's referring to things like the apology tour, attacking American health care and things like that. Many people perceive this as the "America sucks, but fortunately I'm here to change it." stance.Is it his general tone of "america sucks" while still doing pretty much all of the same stuff.Yeah see this is where I start tuning out people, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but where the heck do you get the tone of America Sucks from exactly?
I certainly understand that there are different interpretations of the tone. For people that have been disillusioned the last 8 years, they probably saw Obama as more saying "Bush sucks" than "America sucks". They, I imagine, feel like they want to scream to the world, "Look we are not all Bush! He is a mass-murdering idiot! But the rest of us are good people really!"
But as I said, the differences are superficial. People that once decried the "abuse of power" by the Bush administration, now ignore the same exact behavior of the Obama administration. It is all about fluff and not about substance, which I think is the ultimately most sad part.
If other countries truly dislike America, then dislike it for the substance not the decorations.
I would guess he's referring to things like the apology tour, attacking American health care and things like that. Many people perceive this as the "America sucks, but fortunately I'm here to change it." stance.
So, if I were elected president (impossible, but pretend it could happen), and said, "America is great, but there are too many drunk driving accidents and we can improve that," I would actually be preceived as saying "America sucks, but I only can fix it" ?
I would guess he's referring to things like the apology tour, attacking American health care and things like that. Many people perceive this as the "America sucks, but fortunately I'm here to change it." stance.I'm trying to understand; if someone points out an area in which something in America could be improved, that person is obviously saying that America sucks? Wow. Those poor founding fathers.
Is he saying it to America or to outsiders? I think the target audience makes a difference, but of course others will disagree.
To the man going to sleep, here is a parting thought: 'Confucius say man who go to bed with itchy butt wake up with stinky finger.'
Anyway, briefly, I am relieved to find this thread still here, and not just a smoking crater, with concussed posters wandering around smurfing one another in a non-comic sense.
Disclaimer: Off-topic post
I'd have to say that it is possible for a person to be rational and religious, however, such a person is rational only upto the point at which he starts to be religious.
One of the central elements of theistic religion is Faith, belief without compelling evidence. It is treated as a virtue. Belief without evidence is not a rational stance, in my opinion.
I imagine you are unaware of the irony your statement provides, Zombieneighbors. I realize your post is a couple of days old, and somewhere in the 6 pages of posts since then, perhaps this has already been addressed. If so, I apologize for rehashing.
You have mentioned Darwin in a few of your posts preceding this one, and I would assume(?) based on your objective statements of "theistic" religion that you view yourself as an outsider to these beliefs probably to the end that you may even concur with said scientist's suggestion for the origin of man.
"Belief without evidence is not a rational stance..." While I both agree and disagree with this statement if no caveat is provided, I feel it necessary to point out that no evidence for the origin of man exists whatsoever, religious or scientific. At no time can one conclusively determine how humans arrived on this planet, nor can one state when. Both topics have undergone extensive review and argument amongst both scientifically inclined and religiously bent scholars, and they have changed their theories as to the specifics for generations. Whether one believes Jesus is the Son of God, Mohammed is Allah's Prophet, or that man squirmed his way out of the ocean, no concrete proof exists for any.
My point being, unless one can claim a complete lack of interest in the subject of man's origins on Earth, everyone is guilty of said rational v. religious belief system. No one group can accuse the other of irrationality due to religion since in a sense no matter what one believes, the belief is irrationally based on no proof at all. And before anyone flames my post, I ask you this: While evolution is a proven fact, what proof exists that it is the actual origin of man? It is the "theory" of evolution as the origin of species after all. There is more documented proof of Buddhism than Darwinism.
Disclaimer: Off-topic post
I'd have to say that it is possible for a person to be rational and religious, however, such a person is rational only upto the point at which he starts to be religious.
One of the central elements of theistic religion is Faith, belief without compelling evidence. It is treated as a virtue. Belief without evidence is not a rational stance, in my opinion.
I imagine you are unaware of the irony your statement provides, Zombieneighbors. I realize your post is a couple of days old, and somewhere in the 6 pages of posts since then, perhaps this has already been addressed. If so, I apologize for rehashing.
You have mentioned Darwin in a few of your posts preceding this one, and I would assume(?) based on your objective statements of "theistic" religion that you view yourself as an outsider to these beliefs probably to the end that you may even concur with said scientist's suggestion for the origin of man.
"Belief without evidence is not a rational stance..." While I both agree and disagree with this statement if no caveat is provided, I feel it necessary to point out that no evidence for the origin of man exists whatsoever, religious or scientific. At no time can one conclusively determine how humans arrived on this planet, nor can one state when. Both topics have undergone extensive review and argument amongst both scientifically inclined and religiously bent scholars, and they have changed their theories as to the specifics for generations. Whether one believes Jesus is the Son of God, Mohammed is Allah's Prophet, or that man squirmed his way out of the ocean, no concrete proof exists for any.
My point being, unless one can claim a complete lack of interest in the subject of man's origins on Earth, everyone is guilty of said rational v. religious belief system. No one group can accuse the other of irrationality due to religion since in a sense no matter what one believes, the belief is irrationally based on no proof at all. And...
I believe evidence not proof is at the root of the point, however I believe this is the topic of lengthy discussion in another thread.
Disclaimer: Off-topic post
I'd have to say that it is possible for a person to be rational and religious, however, such a person is rational only upto the point at which he starts to be religious.[snip]
And before anyone flames my post, I ask you this: While evolution is a proven fact, what proof exists that it is the actual origin of man? It is the "theory" of evolution as the origin of species after all. There is more documented proof of Buddhism than Darwinism.
Oh, those two are easy. Evolution doesn't address the origin of man, only the... well, evolution of species. Neither beginning nor the end. No one has claimed otherwise.
Second, there is documented proof of the ORIGIN of Buddhism, the origin of the philosophy (I don't really classify Buddhism as a religion, more as a school of thought/life philosophy), not whether it's actually how everything functions.
I would guess he's referring to things like the apology tour, attacking American health care and things like that. Many people perceive this as the "America sucks, but fortunately I'm here to change it." stance.So, if I were elected president (impossible, but pretend it could happen), and said, "America is great, but there are too many drunk driving accidents and we can improve that," I would actually be preceived as saying "America sucks, but I only can fix it" ?
I don't think so, but I'm in the "dissent is patriotism" camp. I don't find the inference by conservatives to be unreasonable, but it's not that high on my long list of concerns.
|
|
I don't think so, but I'm in the "dissent is patriotism" camp. I don't find the inference by conservatives to be unreasonable, but it's not that high on my long list of concerns.I would guess he's referring to things like the apology tour, attacking American health care and things like that. Many people perceive this as the "America sucks, but fortunately I'm here to change it." stance.So, if I were elected president (impossible, but pretend it could happen), and said, "America is great, but there are too many drunk driving accidents and we can improve that," I would actually be preceived as saying "America sucks, but I only can fix it" ?
You know, I'm in the dissent is patriotism camp as well, but I qualify that as reasonable, objective dissent. Namecalling and putting words into peoples mouths do not fall into that category IMHO. Where I work I've seen a jackass driving around with his rear window plastered in big white letters.
OneBig
Ass
Mistake
America
Personally I disagree with the current presidential policy, overspending, bailing out companys to prevent recession/depression, and right now I'm really pissed off at the idea of an health insurance mandate, while I want neither I'd prefer a public option to a god aweful tax penalty mandate. But I don't walk around saying Obama says america sucks, or insult the president like the above window dressing does. Granted while I believed Bush Jr. was also a terrible screw up and easily the worst president we've had in my lifetime (I wasn't alive for Carter), I stood up for him as a man of principle (even if his principles were misguided he did everything he said he was going to do, even if what he said he was going to do was the dead wrong thing to do) and didn't appreciate people insulting him either.
Disclaimer: Off-topic post
Zombieneighbours wrote:
I'd have to say that it is possible for a person to be rational and religious, however, such a person is rational only upto the point at which he starts to be religious.One of the central elements of theistic religion is Faith, belief without compelling evidence. It is treated as a virtue. Belief without evidence is not a rational stance, in my opinion.
I imagine you are unaware of the irony your statement provides, Zombieneighbors. I realize your post is a couple of days old, and somewhere in the 6 pages of posts since then, perhaps this has already been addressed. If so, I apologize for rehashing.
You have mentioned Darwin in a few of your posts preceding this one, and I would assume(?) based on your objective statements of "theistic" religion that you view yourself as an outsider to these beliefs probably to the end that you may even concur with said scientist's suggestion for the origin of man.
"Belief without evidence is not a rational stance..." While I both agree and disagree with this statement if no caveat is provided, I feel it necessary to point out that no evidence for the origin of man exists whatsoever, religious or scientific. At no time can one conclusively determine how humans arrived on this planet, nor can one state when. Both topics have undergone extensive review and argument amongst both scientifically inclined and religiously bent scholars, and they have changed their theories as to the specifics for generations. Whether one believes Jesus is the Son of God, Mohammed is Allah's Prophet, or that man squirmed his way out of the ocean, no concrete proof exists for any.
My point being, unless one can claim a complete lack of interest in the subject of man's origins on Earth, everyone is guilty of said rational v. religious belief system. No one group can accuse the other of irrationality due to religion since in a sense no matter what one believes, the belief is irrationally based on no proof at all. And before anyone flames my post, I ask you this: While evolution is a proven fact, what proof exists that it is the actual origin of man? It is the "theory" of evolution as the origin of species after all. There is more documented proof of Buddhism than Darwinism.
They say you should never write a forum post angry, and in replying to this post, as seems to be becoming my habit, breaking that rule.
The reason I am angry is fairly simple. I was able as a 7 year old, capable of understanding what a theory is in scientific parlence. It isn't a complex concept, my dad was able to explain it to me while i was in the bath. If memory serves, 13 year old are ment to grasp the difference between a theory(common) and a theory(scientific) this in england before the stage they can drop science.
And yet, every time, every single time the subject of evolution is raised on this board, we have the immortal and ultimate line of abject ignorance; 'It is the "theory" of evolution as the origin of species after all.'
It is delivered with the dumb pride a tax diver might say the words 'I'm a bit of a psychologist myself...' when giving Stanley Milgram a ride.
Well, in the words of Inigo Montoya 'You keep using that word, i do not think it means what you think it means.'
In science saying something is a theory, is not to describe it as uncertain. Let me give you an example, quantum theory, is so weird most people can't even begin to understand the simple stuff, yet it makes prediction which are so accurate, that the chances of coming the answer by guess work has been compaired to drawing a line from new york to LA, laying a quarter on that line and then having your friend stab that position on an equivilant line drawn on a map the USA. Yet, despite astronomicial levels of accuracy, quantum mechanics isn't going to stop being a theory, it isn't going to become a 'science fact' or a 'scientific truth'.
Evolution is arguably the most well accepted scientific theory in existance, it is the grand 'theory of everything' for biology. To re-quote Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution."
Your certainly right, evolution has not been proven. But neither has quantum mechanics, and we have already talked a little about how accurate its predicitions are. But that doesn't matter, i didn't say that to 'believe without proof' was irrational, rather i said that to believe without evidence is irrational.
When you start to compare the evidence for a special creation by a god to the evidence for evolution the gulf between the two is very wide. To my knowledge, there is not a single piece of evidence, in the entire world for an event of special creation by a deity, their is so much evidence for the neo mendelian-darwinian synthisis that no single person is aware of all of it.
It gets better, there is specificially evidence against an act of special creation, very very large amounts of such evidence, and non-that i am aware of against evolution. I suspect i could store, all the documentry evidence for the existance of the historical figures Siddhārtha Gautam, in my bedroom. You could fill air craft hangers with the fossil evidence for evolution alone. Their are terrabytes worth of evidence from genetics, libraries worth of evidence from embriology and taxonomy.
In short, bluntly, but not with malice i have only one further thing to say.
You couldn't be more wrong, if you believed L. Ron Hubbard was the rebirth of conan, that he didn't did, but rather flew off in the millenium falcon to fight the borg.