# LOL - "Creation Science" - LOL



## abu afak

*Creation science* or *scientific creationism* is a Pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible.

 It is often presented without overt faith-based language, but instead relies on reinterpreting scientific results to argue that various myths in the Book of Genesis and other select biblical passages are scientifically valid. The most commonly advanced ideas of creation science include special creation based on the Genesis creation narrative and flood geology based on the Genesis flood narrative.[1] Creationists also claim they can disprove or reexplain a variety of scientific facts,[2] theories and paradigms of geology,[3] cosmology, biological evolution,[4][5] archaeology,[6][7] history, and linguistics using creation science.[8] Creation science was foundational to intelligent design.[9]

In contrast with the views of creation science,* the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science Fails to qualify as scientific because it Lacks empirical support, supplies No testable hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.*[10][11]

*Courts, *most often in the United States where the question has been asked in the context of teaching the subject in public schools,* have consistently ruled since the 1980s that creation science is a Religious view rather than a scientific one.

Historians,[12] philosophers of science and skeptics have described creation science as a Pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.* [13][14][15][16][17]

*Professional biologists have criticized creation science for being unscholarly,[18] and even as a Dishonest and misguided Sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences.*[19]...









						Creation science - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Lol  allah  lol


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

abu afak said:


> *Creation science* or *scientific creationism* is a Pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible.
> 
> It is often presented without overt faith-based language, but instead relies on reinterpreting scientific results to argue that various myths in the Book of Genesis and other select biblical passages are scientifically valid. The most commonly advanced ideas of creation science include special creation based on the Genesis creation narrative and flood geology based on the Genesis flood narrative.[1] Creationists also claim they can disprove or reexplain a variety of scientific facts,[2] theories and paradigms of geology,[3] cosmology, biological evolution,[4][5] archaeology,[6][7] history, and linguistics using creation science.[8] Creation science was foundational to intelligent design.[9]
> 
> *In contrast with the views of creation science, the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science Fails to qualify as scientific because it Lacks empirical support, supplies No testable hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.*[10][11]
> 
> *Courts, most often in the United States where the question has been asked in the context of teaching the subject in public schools, have consistently ruled since the 1980s that creation science is a Religious view rather than a scientific one.
> 
> Historians,[12] philosophers of science and skeptics have described creation science as a Pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts. *[13][14][15][16][17]
> 
> *Professional biologists have criticized creation science for being unscholarly,[18] and even as a Dishonest and misguided Sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences.*[19]...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


No opinion either way. 

But how did this all start, the universe. Don't give me big bang or anything.how did this start


----------



## abu afak

Hang on sloopy said:


> No opinion either way.
> *But how did this all start, the universe. Don't give me big bang or anything.how did this start*


We don't know/know yet.
That's why we've had and discarded thousands of other gods: when we found out.





__





						God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")
					

This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards. "Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?" And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.  If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.' The same...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




`


----------



## Anomalism

These people are desperate. What a strange situation. As religion in the first world scales down it will likely become more and more insulted/cult-like.


----------



## Anomalism

Hang on sloopy said:


> how did this start


No scientist or science loyal person is obligated to have answers that are currently impossible to know. Lack of information doesn't prove gods exist.


----------



## task0778

Anomalism said:


> No scientist or science loyal person is obligated to have answers that are currently impossible to know. Lack of information doesn't prove gods exist.



Doesn't prove they don't either.  Since it isn't likely we'll ever know the truth, I guess it comes down to what you want to believe.


----------



## surada

abu afak said:


> *Creation science* or *scientific creationism* is a Pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible.
> 
> It is often presented without overt faith-based language, but instead relies on reinterpreting scientific results to argue that various myths in the Book of Genesis and other select biblical passages are scientifically valid. The most commonly advanced ideas of creation science include special creation based on the Genesis creation narrative and flood geology based on the Genesis flood narrative.[1] Creationists also claim they can disprove or reexplain a variety of scientific facts,[2] theories and paradigms of geology,[3] cosmology, biological evolution,[4][5] archaeology,[6][7] history, and linguistics using creation science.[8] Creation science was foundational to intelligent design.[9]
> 
> *In contrast with the views of creation science, the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science Fails to qualify as scientific because it Lacks empirical support, supplies No testable hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.*[10][11]
> 
> *Courts, most often in the United States where the question has been asked in the context of teaching the subject in public schools, have consistently ruled since the 1980s that creation science is a Religious view rather than a scientific one.
> 
> Historians,[12] philosophers of science and skeptics have described creation science as a Pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts. *[13][14][15][16][17]
> 
> *Professional biologists have criticized creation science for being unscholarly,[18] and even as a Dishonest and misguided Sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences.*[19]...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



Great post.


----------



## Anomalism

task0778 said:


> Doesn't prove they don't either.


True.


task0778 said:


> Since it isn't likely we'll ever know the truth


Possibly true. I don't know what's possible and what's not. I believe it's a losing game to underestimate science and humanity, though.


task0778 said:


> I guess it comes down to what you want to believe.


Or just what makes sense in your universe. Yeah.


----------



## abu afak

The Irish Ram said:


> Lol  allah  lol


You need to google 'abu afak' you low IQ RW clown.
`


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

Anomalism said:


> No scientist or science loyal person is obligated to have answers that are currently impossible to know. Lack of information doesn't prove gods exist.


^^^See what I mean

When we die, one of 2 things will happen
 There is everlasting life, so who gives a shit now we told ya so though

There is nothing and we won't ever find out. Again, Who gives a shit you'll never know and can't tell us you told us so.

There is or their isn't.......It is or it isn't and so forth


----------



## abu afak

Hang on sloopy said:


> ^^^See what I mean
> 
> When we die, one of 2 things will happen
> There is everlasting life, so who gives a shit now we told ya so though
> 
> There is nothing and we won't ever find out. Again, Who gives a shit you'll never know and can't tell us you told us so.
> 
> There is or their isn't.......It is or it isn't and so forth


More relevant to this topic: 
We know NOW that 'creation science'/Young Earth Creationism is Wrong.
Period.

`


----------



## Anomalism

Hang on sloopy said:


> ^^^See what I mean
> 
> When we die, one of 2 things will happen
> There is everlasting life, so who gives a shit now we told ya so though
> 
> There is nothing and we won't ever find out. Again, Who gives a shit you'll never know and can't tell us you told us so.
> 
> There is or their isn't.......It is or it isn't and so forth


Everlasting life sure would be convenient for mortal creatures that are programmed to fear and avoid death. It almost seems like people fear it so much they become desperate to believe in what religion is selling. Maybe I'm wrong though. Hopefully God cuts me some slack if so. I tried.


----------



## abu afak

task0778 said:


> Doesn't prove they don't either.  Since it isn't likely we'll ever know the truth, I guess it comes down to what you want to believe.


Yes, it could be a 200 Mile High version of Liberace somewhere on the other side of the Milky Way controlling the universe and life.
And it could be my cousin Marty too.. or ME!
You'll never prove me wrong either.

`


----------



## task0778

abu afak said:


> Yes, it could be a 200 Mile High version of Liberace somewhere on the other side of the Milky Way controlling the universe and life.
> And it could be my cousin Marty too.. or ME!
> You'll never prove me wrong either.
> 
> `



No need to get snarky about it.  Religion offers a lot of comfort to a whole lot of people.


----------



## Anomalism

abu afak said:


> Yes, it could be a 200 Mile High version of Liberace somewhere on the other side of the Milky Way controlling the universe and life.
> And it could be my cousin Marty too.. or ME!
> You'll never prove me wrong either.


How absurd is it to think something that could possibly be called god/a god could exist in some vague sense that we're not capable of measuring? I'm not talking about organized religion. I'm talking about something that would not contradict science. Is it really fair to compare that kind of belief to believing your cousin Marty is controlling the universe?

All of this really is quite miraculous if you think about it. I certainly see why some people lean toward believing there's a whole lot more to this than we're capable of understanding.


----------



## abu afak

task0778 said:


> No need to get snarky about it.  Religion offers a lot of comfort to a whole lot of people.


So does acupuncture.
Let's not claim it it created the earth in 6 days and you're going to hell if you don't believe it.
The thread really directed at those who persistently/hourly make these ridiculous claims here.




Anomalism said:


> How absurd is it to think something that could possibly be called god/a god could exist in some vague sense that we're not capable of measuring? I'm not talking about organized religion. I'm talking about something that would not contradict science. Is it really fair to compare that kind of belief to believing your cousin Marty is controlling the universe?
> 
> All of this really is quite miraculous if you think about it. I certainly see why some people lean toward believing there's a whole lot more to this than we're capable of understanding.


This thread is directed at those who ARE talking about organized religion, not to mention a single one in virtually all instances.

None of these people debating in the section are talking about some general spirituality, (little Dipper, PolChic, Bond, etc) they are talking about Literal Genesis.

No one is debating it's 'awesome' as some [real scientists] use for the wonder of it all, including me.

Sorry Jr, you don't get to claim the 'Mr Fair' middle ground all by your lonesome, including for the amazing things that have already been explained.
`


----------



## Anomalism

abu afak said:


> This thread us directed at those who ARE talking about organized religion


Yeah, I know. Sorry for going a little off topic. I was just curious how you felt about it.


----------



## task0778

abu afak said:


> So does acupuncture.
> Let's not claim it it created the earth in 6 days and you're going to hell if you don't believe it.
> The thread really directed at those who persistently/hourly make these ridiculous claims here.



I see no reason to be condescending to those who choose religion over acupuncture.  For one thing, acupuncture is kinda temporary while religion can last for a lifetime and it relieves more than physical pain.  Since none of us including you actually know what is and isn't true regarding God, maybe you should pull back a little bit on calling somebody else's beliefs ridiculous.  And BTW, not every religion believes the earth was created in 6 days or that there is in fact a Hell.


----------



## abu afak

task0778 said:


> I see no reason to be condescending to those who choose religion over acupuncture.  For one thing, acupuncture is kinda temporary while religion can last for a lifetime and it relieves more than physical pain.  Since none of us including you actually know what is and isn't true regarding God, maybe you should pull back a little bit on calling somebody else's beliefs ridiculous.  And BTW, not every religion believes the earth was created in 6 days or that there is in fact a Hell.


There is reason to be condescending to those who daily Mock real science and those of us who post it. He/they call us 'atheist scientists' and post the most preposterous **** in the name of defending their personal crackpot Religion, they insist are 'science.'

Let's get our facts straight on whose been mocking/trolling this section with Religion that should be in another.

`


----------



## Anomalism

task0778 said:


> I see no reason to be condescending


His derision is hilarious. He's one of the best posters.


----------



## abu afak

Anomalism said:


> His derision is hilarious. He's one of the best posters.


Thanks.
My science is good too.
(we'd get more if he'd go back to the religion section where he SINGULARLY belongs).

My tactics are great and blowing poor James Bond/the Christian Taliban out of the water.
He dare not touch this OP or many other Haymaker OPs I've landed which destroy his brainwashed position without even the meat underneath.

It exposes him for the fringe lunatic he is.

`


----------



## Anomalism

abu afak said:


> My science is good too.


It is, and you put a lot of effort into your posts as well. That's why your derision hits so hard, imo.

props


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

The Irish Ram said:


> Lol  allah  lol


Haha, you thought you were trolling.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

task0778 said:


> see no reason to be condescending to those who choose religion over acupuncture.


While both are utter nonsense, there is no conflict until the people who believe that nonsense make claims in the public discourse or try to argue for policy from the assumed truth of any of that nonsense. So, if they keep their childish toys at home, they won't get made fun of. Very simple.


----------



## abu afak

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> While both are utter nonsense, there is no conflict until the people who believe that nonsense make claims in the public discourse or try to argue for policy from the assumed truth of any of that nonsense. So, if they keep their childish toys at home, they won't get made fun of. Very simple.


There's also a protected-from-reality Religion section for anyone who wants to claim Allah, Haysoos, Vishnu, or Voodoo.
I am actively advocating/campaigning to keep the two from clashing.... here.
`

`


----------



## surada

The Irish Ram said:


> Lol  allah  lol



Allah is just Arabic for God.. like Spanish, Italian and German have different words for God.


----------



## The Irish Ram

I know...
Allah snackbar is funny.


----------



## abu afak

The Irish Ram said:


> I know...
> Allah snackbar is funny.


Thanks.
james bond  is big on "Jesus Akhbar."
It's in his every post, and if you don't believe him he'll call you a infidel/atheist/sinner and tell you the Bible proves Hayooos is great.


`


----------



## Mr. Friscus

abu afak said:


> There is reason to be condescending to those who daily Mock real science and those of us who post it. He/they call us 'atheist scientists' and post the most preposterous **** in the name of defending their personal crackpot Religion, they insist are 'science.'
> 
> Let's get our facts straight on whose been mocking/trolling this section with Religion that should be in another.
> 
> `



I think you erroneously think that everyone in the religion of Christianity, for example, believe that the earth is only thousands of years old.

You'd be incorrect.  Intelligent design has been the stance of the Catholic church for a long time.  Hell, the theory of the big bang was invented by Catholicism.

Much of our scientific beginnings came from Christianity.  If you're a scientist without activism and hatred, you'd be grateful of it. However, it appears you're just out to mock and attack it.  It's like a spoiled valley girl ripping their parents who provide them their cell phone, car, and housing.


----------



## abu afak

Mr. Friscus said:


> I think you erroneously think that everyone in the religion of Christianity, for example, believe that the earth is only thousands of years old.


On the contrary
Of course no not.
I've been explicit many times.
We are talking literalists, Noxious militant a**holes spamming/taunting us 'atheists science'' types.
Namely/80% James Bond.
Read his posts.
I have expressed to him there are secular Christians many times.
I suggest you read some hyper-fundamentalist/Lunatical James Bond's posts.. here and elsewhere.
A good idea before posting .. Doncha ya think?
Like all of James bond's last 1000?



Mr. Friscus said:


> You'd be incorrect.  Intelligent design has been the stance of the Catholic church for a long time.  Hell, the theory of the big bang was invented by Catholicism.
> 
> Much of our scientific beginnings came from Christianity.  If you're a scientist without activism and hatred, you'd be grateful of it. However, it appears you're just out to mock and attack it.  It's like a spoiled valley girl ripping their parents who provide them their cell phone, car, and housing.


We are not talking about the Catholic Church.
Science only came from Christians because all westerners were Christians to some degree.
Christianity in general has been an impediment, not a stimulator of science.

Many/Most Evangelicals are Literalists/Young Earth Creationists even now, including a few posting in the section.
Other Christians in the section joined me in contradicting their idiocy daily.
But you are new/clueless
do some thread reading.

You need to read a few threads here not one post.
ie,
james bond said:
..Atheists, agnostics, and sinners have been *fooled into thinking the Bible is religion and science is the truth*. Today's science is from humans, so it is the lie. It's from the evil guy and contradicts the truth.".​
Come back when you have some/any context.

.
james bond said:
Love the analogy, *but Darwin stole natural selection from God. God created natural selection to protect the species. It means God is science and belongs there.

`*


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Thanks.
> james bond  is big on "Jesus Akhbar."
> It's in his every post, and if you don't believe him he'll call you a infidel/atheist/sinner and tell you the Bible proves Hayooos is great.
> 
> 
> `


I think as long as Jesus is there and he's the Savior, it counts for the win.  Did you lose again?

That said, we learned what abu afak meant.  Do you feel a stabbing pain in the kidney yet?

Here's the story behind Abu Afak's kidney pain.

Maulana Muhammad Ali:


> *ABU AFAK*
> The next incident related… is that… to the alleged assassination of Abu Afak, ‘an aged Jewish proselyte, whose offence was similar to that of Asma.’ We have no hesitation in calling this story as baseless a fabrication as that relating to the murder of Asma. Our reason for doing this is that the interdiction against the murder of women also included two other classes, viz., children and old men.
> It is true that the saying of the Prophet in the Bukhari mentions only women and children, and not aged persons, but there is a hadith in Abu Dawud (ch. Du’a al-Mushrikin) reported by Anas, son of Malik, according to which the Holy Prophet said:
> ‘Do not kill an aged person, nor a child, nor a minor, nor a woman.’ That the Prophet expressly forbade the killing of old men appears also from the directions given by Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, to Yazid, son of Abu Sufyan, when he sent him in command of an army to Syria. In the directions given to him the following relates to our subject:
> ‘Do not kill children, nor women, nor old men.’ (Fath al-Qadir, vol V, p.202.) It is clear that Abu Bakr could give such directions only on the authority of the Holy Prophet.
> Hence there was an interdiction against the killing of old men as there was against the killing of women. And it is impossible, we repeat, that the Holy Prophet should have given such clear injunctions and then himself ordered the killing of ‘an aged Jewish proselyte,’ as Abu Afak is said to have been, and for no offence but that he composed some annoying verses.
> 
> *ONLY COMBATANTS COULD BE KILLED*
> In fact, as the Hidayah has put it clearly, a person’s life, unless he is a murdered, cannot be taken on any ground other than that he is a combatant: ‘And they should not kill a woman, nor a child, nor an aged person, nor one who does not
> take part in a war, nor a blind man, because what makes it lawful to take a man’s life, according to us, is his being a Combatant, and this is not true in their cases’ (Ch. Kaifiyyat al-Qital).
> In fact, this conclusion, which is the basic principal of the Hanifite law, is based on the express words of the Holy Prophet himself. As Abu Dawud reports on the authority of Rabah, son of Rabi:
> ‘We were with the Prophet in a certain battle, and he saw the people gather together in one place. So he sent a man to make an inquiry as to why the people had gathered together. The messenger came back and said, ‘there is a woman killed.’
> The Holy prophet said, ‘she was not fighting.’ The reporter says that Khalid was leading at the time. So the Prophet sent a man to Khalid and asked him to tell Khalid that he should not kill a woman nor a hireling’. (Ch. Qatl al-Nisa).
> By remarking that ‘she was not fighting’, the Holy Prophet made it plain that even in battle only such persons could be killed as actually took part in fighting, and along with women he expected hirelings, because they were only hired for other work and did not take part in actual fighting. It is on this basis that the Hanifite law excepts, along with women, children and old men, all such persons as cannot take part in fighting.
> And the conclusion is inevitable that according to the Holy Prophet’s own injunctions the killing of a person was not lawful unless he took part in fighting, and any report to the effect that a person was killed though he was not a combatant is either untrue or defective, even if it is met with in a reliable collection of traditions.
> And as for biographies, they cannot be trusted at all in such matters, and the case of Ibn Sunainah’s murder must be rejected as untrue.
> The statement that this murder was due to the Prophet giving a general order for the slaughter of the Jews is sufficient to discredit this report, for not only would such an order be against the clear injunctions of the Qur’an, but also because if such an order were given it would not have resulted in the murder of a single Jew. (Muhammad The Prophet: By Maulana Muhammad Ali, page 201)"







__





						Is Abu Afak’s Killing True Or False? - Islam Compass
					

Another story circulated by critics is that of Abu Afak. It is claimed that the Prophet had him assassinated for merely writing some annoying poetry on the Prophet (p). Hence, the Prophet (p) got him killed. Let’s see if there is any truth to this. It is reported in Ibn Sa’d’s – Tabaqat al-Kabir the



					islamcompass.com
				




Actually, you're supposed to get the BIG SHOCK of your life at end.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Read his posts.
> I have expressed to him there are secular Christians many times.
> I suggest you read some hyper-fundamentalist/Lunatical James Bond's posts.. here and elsewhere.
> A good idea before posting .. Doncha ya think?
> Like all of James bond's last 1000?


Yes, I recommend others to read my posts.

I just want to point out that it wasn't me who continued to spout their stupid arguments for evolution.  Just how many threads did you start against me personally lol?

I'm the one who acknowledges there are two lines of thinking in regards to science today and one involves creation.  I can't help it if the opposition is brain dead and won't acknowledge that creation and creation scientists exists.  Why should it be religion if it isn't true?  Once, you have a foundation of truth, then science will back it up.  That's what I learned from my religion and have been pointing it out.

Anyway, I can continue this argument forever.  It's you who is so narrow minded that it's gotten to the point that atheists have to die in order to acknowledge the other side and their scientists.  Even the title to this thread is disrespectful.  There's another who can argue any science and decides to call God and I a troll.  He's gonna pay dearly for that.  Darwin is death.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I think as long as Jesus is there and he's the Savior, it counts for the win.  Did you lose again?
> 
> That said, we learned what abu afak meant.  Do you feel a stabbing pain in the kidney yet?
> 
> Here's the story behind Abu Afak's kidney pain.
> 
> Maulana Muhammad Ali:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Abu Afak’s Killing True Or False? - Islam Compass
> 
> 
> Another story circulated by critics is that of Abu Afak. It is claimed that the Prophet had him assassinated for merely writing some annoying poetry on the Prophet (p). Hence, the Prophet (p) got him killed. Let’s see if there is any truth to this. It is reported in Ibn Sa’d’s – Tabaqat al-Kabir the
> 
> 
> 
> islamcompass.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you're supposed to get the BIG SHOCK of your life at end.


This is not the forum for your screeching, Jimmy Swaggert style proselytizing.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Yes, I recommend others to read my posts.
> 
> I just want to point out that it wasn't me who continued to spout their stupid arguments for evolution.  Just how many threads did you start against me personally lol?
> 
> I'm the one who acknowledges there are two lines of thinking in regards to science today and one involves creation.  I can't help it if the opposition is brain dead and won't acknowledge that creation and creation scientists exists.  Why should it be religion if it isn't true?  Once, you have a foundation of truth, then science will back it up.  That's what I learned from my religion and have been pointing it out.
> 
> Anyway, I can continue this argument forever.  It's you who is so narrow minded that it's gotten to the point that atheists have to die in order to acknowledge the other side and their scientists.  Even the title to this thread is disrespectful.  There's another who can argue any science and decides to call God and I a troll.  He's gonna pay dearly for that.  Darwin is death.


Good gawd. The stereotypical religious extremist.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> This is not the forum for your screeching, Jimmy Swaggert style proselytizing.


Wait a minute.  abu afak said to google his handle, but it appears he is using it in an erroneous manner.  Sure, Abu Afak was against Prophet Muhammad, but he said out loud that he was going to murder him.  Afak was 120 years old.  When Muhammad found out, he sent an assassin to kill Abu Afak to counter and he did.  That has nothing to do with S&I, but it made me realize he got carried away with his hate of Muhammad (Jesus?) or not very bright like his namesake.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Wait a minute.  abu afak said to google his handle, but it appears he is using it in an erroneous manner.  Sure, Abu Afak was against Prophet Muhammad, but he said out loud that he was going to murder him.  Afak was 120 years old.  When Muhammad found out, he sent an assassin to kill Abu Afak to counter and he did.  That has nothing to do with S&I, but it made me realize he got carried away with his hate of Muhammad (Jesus?) or not very bright like his namesake.


That's because you're continuously/willfully ignorant.
Irish Ram had Mistaken my handle and thought I was a Muslim Arab.
Thus I told her to look it up.
The fact that neither you or she had even thought of that in the past [Years] shows how uncurious/unable to research you are.

But for you, what the heck, no need to learn/google anything, it's ALL in the Bible: Science/everything.
You said it. No science since then.
You 12 IQ religious Freak.
bye.
`


----------



## TheDefiantOne

abu afak said:


> *Creation science* or *scientific creationism* is a Pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible.
> 
> It is often presented without overt faith-based language, but instead relies on reinterpreting scientific results to argue that various myths in the Book of Genesis and other select biblical passages are scientifically valid. The most commonly advanced ideas of creation science include special creation based on the Genesis creation narrative and flood geology based on the Genesis flood narrative.[1] Creationists also claim they can disprove or reexplain a variety of scientific facts,[2] theories and paradigms of geology,[3] cosmology, biological evolution,[4][5] archaeology,[6][7] history, and linguistics using creation science.[8] Creation science was foundational to intelligent design.[9]
> 
> In contrast with the views of creation science,* the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science Fails to qualify as scientific because it Lacks empirical support, supplies No testable hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.*[10][11]
> 
> *Courts, *most often in the United States where the question has been asked in the context of teaching the subject in public schools,* have consistently ruled since the 1980s that creation science is a Religious view rather than a scientific one.
> 
> Historians,[12] philosophers of science and skeptics have described creation science as a Pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.* [13][14][15][16][17]
> 
> *Professional biologists have criticized creation science for being unscholarly,[18] and even as a Dishonest and misguided Sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences.*[19]...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


they've built an Ark in one of the states that "demonstrates" how some dinosaurs were part of the animal cargo.  No joke.  If I can remember the PBS documentary, I'll post it.


----------



## abu afak

TheDefiantOne said:


> they've built an Ark in one of the states that "demonstrates" how some dinosaurs were part of the animal cargo.  No joke.  If I can remember the PBS documentary, I'll post it.


You're thinking of the Kweationist Theme park.
LOL
They put the T-Rex next to the goats, pigs, elephants? or bring enough food for them for 40 days?
What about the 70' long Brontosaurus? You know how much plant matter they eat Every day?
LOL
Then when they unloaded there was nothing left on the ground except mud and mt Ararat
`


----------



## DukeU

abu afak said:


> You're thinking of the Kweationist Theme park.
> LOL
> They put the T-Rex next to the goats, pigs, elephants? or bring enough food for them for 40 days?
> What about the 70' long Brontosaurus? You know how much plant matter they eat Every day?
> LOL
> Then when they unloaded there was nothing left on the ground except mud and mt Ararat



How long will it take you smart people to figure out, you don't have to take the adults..


----------



## TheDefiantOne

DukeU said:


> How long will it take you smart people to figure out, you don't have to take the adults..
> 
> 
> View attachment 558080


and you think you're making sense here?  I'd say lay off the weed and/or booze.


----------



## DukeU

TheDefiantOne said:


> and you think you're making sense here? I'd say lay off the weed and/or booze.



Is there a problem with what I posted? If there is, please point to it.


----------



## cnm

task0778 said:


> I guess it comes down to what you want to believe


Especially what one wants to believe without evidence.


----------



## TheDefiantOne

DukeU said:


> Is there a problem with what I posted? If there is, please point to it.


Well, first you have to clarify WTF you're talking about "taking the adults"....followed by the dinosaur depiction.  Also, you're quote of Sowell, the token darling of the racist right wind, isn't helping matters much being that he has been debunked so many times it's no longer funny.  Carry on.


----------



## cnm

DukeU said:


> How long will it take you smart people to figure out, you don't have to take the adults..


How does Noah sex a pair of dinosaur eggs?


----------



## DukeU

TheDefiantOne said:


> Well, first you have to clarify WTF you're talking about "taking the adults"....followed by the dinosaur depiction



You are assuming all of the animals on the ark were adult sized. But, you know what I was referring to. You are just looking for some wiggle room.





TheDefiantOne said:


> Also, you're quote of Sowell, the token darling of the racist right wind, isn't helping matters much being that he has been debunked so many times it's no longer funny. Carry on.



Everything Sowell said has been debunked?!? I'll take your word for it.


----------



## DukeU

cnm said:


> How does Noah sex a pair of dinosaur eggs?



Don't know, Maybe it wasn't eggs. I was just saying it didn't have to be full grown adults. That's all.


----------



## cnm

DukeU said:


> Don't know, Maybe it wasn't eggs. I was just saying it didn't have to be full grown adults. That's all.


Agreed. Fairy stories don't have to be anything at all.


----------



## DukeU

cnm said:


> Agreed. Fairy stories don't have to be anything at all.



Thanks, I guess.


----------



## Likkmee

DukeU said:


> You are assuming all of the animals on the ark were adult sized. But, you know what I was referring to. You are just looking for some wiggle room.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything Sowell said has been debunked?!? I'll take your word for it.


NONSENSE. The ark was a sort of DNA bank. A little gecko could get you a crocodile.
Not YOU. 
We're idiots..


----------



## DukeU

Likkmee said:


> NONSENSE. The ark was a sort of DNA bank. A little gecko could get you a crocodile.
> Not YOU.
> We're idiots..



You say it best, when you say nothing at all.


----------



## task0778

TheDefiantOne said:


> Well, first you have to clarify WTF you're talking about "taking the adults"....followed by the dinosaur depiction.  Also, you're quote of Sowell, the token darling of the racist right wind, isn't helping matters much being that he has been debunked so many times it's no longer funny.  Carry on.



The Right is not racist, Sowell is not their token darling, and he's never been debunked.  And on top of that, I don't believe he's ever weighed in on the creation vs evolution, but if he did I am quite sure it would've been on the evolution side.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> How long will it take you smart people to figure out, you don't have to take the adults..


So who nurses the baby mammals then, genius? You and your mantits?

Did Noah and his sons sit on all the eggs to incubate them?

Haha, you thought you had yourself a little 'zinger!', there.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Wait a minute.  abu afak said to google his handle, but it appears he is using it in an erroneous manner.  Sure, Abu Afak was against Prophet Muhammad, but he said out loud that he was going to murder him.  Afak was 120 years old.  When Muhammad found out, he sent an assassin to kill Abu Afak to counter and he did.  That has nothing to do with S&I, but it made me realize he got carried away with his hate of Muhammad (Jesus?) or not very bright like his namesake.


Just more of your mindless spam.


----------



## abu afak

task0778 said:


> The Right is not racist, Sowell is not their token darling, and he's never been debunked.  And on top of that, I don't believe he's ever weighed in on the creation vs evolution, but if he did I am quite sure it would've been on the evolution side.


Agreed.
`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> That's because you're continuously/willfully ignorant.
> Irish Ram had Mistaken my handle and thought I was a Muslim Arab.
> Thus I told her to look it up.
> The fact that neither you or she had even thought of that in the past [Years] shows how uncurious/unable to research you are.
> 
> But for you, what the heck, no need to learn/google anything, it's ALL in the Bible: Science/everything.
> You said it. No science since then.
> You 12 IQ religious Freak.
> bye.
> `


It sounds like more ignorance and egotistical stupidity from you.  Why take a handle of an assassin who failed badly?  Muhammad was an important man, so don't brag OUT LOUD about it.  Keep it hush, hush.  If James Bond was to do the job, then he gets his license to kills done right.  Of all of the handles you could've picked like I-hate-Jesus or Atheism-Forever, you picked a loser lmao.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Just more of your mindless spam.


Some people argue politics, but I like to discuss/argue religion.  I didn't know about Abu Afak until I met abu afak here.  In fact, I wouldn't have known about the real Abu Afak's life story until our abu afak said to google him.  Why pick the name of a loser assassin lol?


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So who nurses the baby mammals then, genius? You and your mantits?
> 
> Did Noah and his sons sit on all the eggs to incubate them?
> 
> Haha, you thought you had yourself a little 'zinger!', there.





We're talking about God here smart guy. You know, the one who created the universe.

I don't think moving some people and animals around the world he created would pose too much of a problem.   But that's just me.  LOL


----------



## abu afak

DukeU said:


> We're talking about God here smart guy. You know, the one who created the universe.
> 
> I don't think moving some people and animals around the world he created would pose too much of a problem.   But that's just me.  LOL


Which/Witch god was that?
And do you have any evidence or proof?

LOL.
`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> We're talking about God here smart guy. You know, the one who created the universe.


No professor, we are talking. About Noah. You weren't suggesting gGod take the eggs. And if you were, then why even that? Just take one cell and DNA, because gawd is so smart and capable.

Or better yet...how about God not slaughter nearly the entire human race at all?

Get this childish horseshit out of the science section.


----------



## DukeU

abu afak said:


> Which/Witch god was that?
> And do you have any evidence or proof?
> 
> LOL.



I know right. It don't take any faith to believe what you do.

It's all SCIENCE.


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Get this childish horseshit out of the science section.



If you don't wish to participate, exit that way.  >>>>>>>>>>>>


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> If you don't wish to participate, exit that way.  >>>>>>>>>>>>


I will be happy to point out the absurdities and contradictions of your childish nonsense.


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I will be happy to point out the absurdities and contradictions of your childish nonsense.


Ditto.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> Ditto.


Haha, knock yourself out. You can start by failing a 6th grade science quiz. Then get mad at the teacher.


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Haha, knock yourself out. You can start by failing a 6th grade science quiz. Then get mad at the teacher.



No need to be able to pass a science quiz to know man wasn't there in the beginning.

You can't prove anything with SCIENCE.  You have to have faith (same as me ) to believe what you believe.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> No need to be able to pass a science quiz to know man wasn't there in the beginning.


Uh right, because scientists taught you he wasn't. 





DukeU said:


> You can't prove anything with SCIENCE.


As whined on his quantum mechanical device...

You are in over your head, fruitcake. Back to the religion section you go.


----------



## DukeU

abu afak said:


> Your posts are frivolous Sh**.
> No substance whatsoever.
> You're a Clown.
> 100% Troll with zero content.
> zero.



Don't be mad you can't prove what you believe.

Nothing wrong with having faith in something.


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> As whined on his quantum mechanical device...
> 
> You are in over your head, fruitcake. Back to the religion section you go.



I'm in the right place.

Science and Religion go hand in hand.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> I'm in the right place.
> 
> Science and Religion go hand in hand.


Well that's your dumbest comment yet. 

Because religion and ANYTHING can go "hand in hand". Because religion is undefined, magical nonsense that can be sprinkled on any idea to absolutely no effect whatsoever, when desired.

*squawk*

GOD'S PLAN!

"*squawk*


----------



## DukeU

abu afak said:


> Your posts are frivolous Sh**.
> No substance whatsoever.
> You're a Clown.
> 100% Troll with zero content.
> zero.


LOL

Sorry, didn't mean to upset you. Maybe you could learn to deal with the fact Science only goes so far and has limitations.


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well that's your dumbest comment yet.
> 
> Because religion and ANYTHING can go "hand in hand". Because religion is undefined, magical nonsense that can be sprinkled on any idea to absolutely no effect whatsoever, when desired.
> 
> *squawk*
> 
> GOD'S PLAN!
> 
> "*squawk*



Same with Science.

Trillions of years ago.......*squawk*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> Trillions of years ago.......*squawk*


With a few, somewhat important differences: 

- all the evidence vs. zero evidence (what you possess)

- Actually explains things and yields accurate and useful predictions.

But yeah, other than that, no different!


----------



## DukeU

abu afak said:


> Your posts are frivolous sh**.
> No substance/real replies whatsoever.
> You're a Clown.
> 100% Troll with zero content.
> zero.


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> With a few, somewhat important differences:
> 
> - all the evidence vs. zero evidence (what you possess)
> 
> - Actually explains things and yields accurate and useful predictions.
> 
> But yeah, other than that, no different!



"Science" is constantly changing.

You consider things that change accurate? How?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> Science" is constantly changing.


No, science is a method and is quite static.

Evidence is always being updated. That is more accurate.

So far, none of it is on your side. And, as will always be true, the science enjoys 100% support of the evidence. Because that's what science is. It's built right into the method.


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, science is a method and is quite static.
> 
> Evidence is always being updated. That is more accurate.
> 
> So far, none of it is on your side. And, as will always be true, the science enjoys 100% support of the evidence. Because that's what science is. It's built right into the method.



See what I mean.

It's accurate, but it's always being updated.  LOL


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> See what I mean.
> 
> It's accurate, but it's always being updated.  LOL


Yes, that's right, that is an accurate description of the evidence. Is someone supposed to be embarrassed by that? Am I supposed to clear my desk of these useless quantum machines in one swipe, now? Are you going to run and stick a fork in an electrical outlet, now?


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes, that's right, that is an accurate description of the evidence. Is someone supposed to be embarrassed by that? Am I supposed to clear my desk of these useless quantum machines in one swipe, now? Are you going to run and stick a fork in an electrical outlet, now?



 Nothing at all wrong with having faith in something.

And no, I'm not going to do that with a fork.  LOL


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> Nothing at all wrong with having faith in something.


That's nice, but a safe bet based on evidence is not faith. Or maybe you are not very familiar with the meaning of the term, "faith".

"Belief without evidence."

There's that word again.


----------



## abu afak

Creationism Has No Place In A Science Class​Forbes Mag

"..Their findings make interesting reading.
*More than 80% at the largely Muslim school believed humans were created by God in their current form, a view shared by around 15% of students at the Christian faith school."*
[.....]
"..Presenting a religious creation story as a scientifically valid theory is nonsense,” she says,
in a short film made for a BBC discussion program.
“I don’t have a problem with creationism being discussed in religious education lessons but it has no place in science education,” she says, adding,
*“I think creationism has the potential to Ruin a scientific education.”*
[.....]









						Creationism Has No Place In A Science Class
					

Evolution may be just a theory, but it has evidence behind it, unlike creationism, which is just not science.




					www.forbes.com
				




`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

abu afak said:


> Creationism Has No Place In A Science Class
> 
> 
> Evolution may be just a theory, but it has evidence behind it, unlike creationism, which is just not science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com


Anyone is free to believe anything  they like. They just can't expect people to take them seriously.


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That's nice, but a safe bet based on evidence is not faith. Or maybe you are not very familiar with the meaning of the term, "faith".
> 
> "Belief without evidence."
> 
> There's that word again.



Evidence of what? How was the universe created in your mind?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> Evidence of what? How was the universe created in your mind?


Evidence of what? You tell me. What is it you are seeking evidence of?

I don't know how the universe was created. But if and when we figure it out, don't worry:

You can still say God did it. Right? I am not going to argue with you. Maybe she did.


----------



## DukeU

abu afak said:


> Creationism Has No Place In A Science Class​Forbes Mag
> 
> URL unfurl="true"]https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2014/02/21/creationism-has-no-place-in-a-science-class/?sh=1c080e5d5e0b[/URL]



If evolution is true, then truth no longer exists.

Evolution means EVERYTHING ( time, space, matter ) is constantly changing. If everything is constantly changing, how can what you're saying be true???


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I don't know how the universe was created.



Thank you. That has been my point from the beginning.


----------



## abu afak

DukeU said:


> Thank you. That has been my point from the beginning.


And neither do you
The difference being you Created a god to explain it with NO Evidence.
Just like your primitive ancestors created Fire, Lightning, and Fertility gods.
No evidence.
Science doesn't know and says so.
10,000 Religions made up different gods and at least 9,999 are wrong.
Like you.

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> If evolution is true, then truth no longer exists.





DukeU said:


> Evolution means EVERYTHING ( time, space, matter ) is constantly changing. If everything is constantly changing, how can what you're saying be true???


It does not mean that. In fact, it assumes (in its basis in physics) that the laws of the universe have remained the same in all places and will remain the same in all places. A deterministic universe, in fact. A clockwork.

The Theory of Evolution only posits an explanation for the existence of all the species on the planet. Why the extinct ones existed and why the extant ones exist. And it relies 100% on the process of selection upon the life on Earth by the very STATIC laws of the universe.


----------



## DukeU

abu afak said:


> And neither do you



I have always said what I believe is my FAITH.

But, thanks for the lecture.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> I have always said what I believe is my FAITH.


Which is just a baseline of honesty anyone should expect from another adult.

Where you are running into trouble is to suggest accepting evolution as fact is "faith", for example.

First: it isn't.

Second: You are not -- not ever -- going to put your faith on the same shelf as robust scientific knowledge. Like General Relativity, or Evolution. It doesn't belong there.


----------



## abu afak

DukeU said:


> *I have always said what I believe is my FAITH.
> 
> But, thanks for the lecture.*


IOW, unlike science which is evidence based, you have no rational/evidentiary basis.
You lost the debate.
Gameover.
And btw, thanks for unwittingly pumping my thread title for 1.5 Pages, hundreds of views. 
Frivolous and stupid as your Trolling posts were.

`


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It does not mean that. In fact, it *assumes* (in its basis in physics) that the laws of the universe have remained the same in all places and will remain the same in all places. A deterministic universe, in fact. A clockwork.



If there are laws, there had to be a law maker.




Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The Theory of Evolution only posits an explanation for the existence of all the species on the planet. Why the extinct ones existed and why the extant ones exist. And it relies 100% on the process of selection upon the life on Earth by the very STATIC laws of the universe.




The Theory of Evolution, if you break it down to it's simplest form, teaches we evolved from rocks, water, and time.


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Which is just a baseline of honesty anyone should expect from another adult.
> 
> Where you are running into trouble is to suggest accepting evolution as fact is "faith", for example.
> 
> First: it isn't.
> 
> Second: You are not -- not ever -- going to put your faith on the same shelf as robust scientific knowledge. Like General Relativity, or Evolution. It doesn't belong there.



I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. You will never convince me we evolved from rocks.

There's no way.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> If there are laws, there had to be a law maker.


And I say there did not have to be one. How do we test who is correct?


DukeU said:


> The Theory of Evolution, if you break it down to it's simplest form, teaches we evolved from rocks, water, and time.


Well, not really. The Theory of Evolution only attempts to explain how one single species was the ancestor of all the species on the planet that have ever existed since.

So let's parse out the term, "Abiogenesis". Meaning:  Formation of life.

Abiogenesis is a foregone conclusion. It happened. Once there was no life, then there was life. That's it. That's all the word means. Just like "star formation" or "volcano formation". Abiogenesis is an accepted fact. Once there was no life, then there was life. Even YOU believe in a form of abiogenesis.

The "Theory of Abiogenesis" attempts to explain NOT how life formed from rocks, but rather from a wet world full of organic chemicals just sitting around.

Is your God not smart enough to have planned that? Not capable enough? Not snark. Honest questions. Why is it impossible that this was God's plan?


----------



## DukeU

abu afak said:


> IOW, unlike science which is evidence based, you have no rational/evidentiary basis.
> You lost the debate.
> Gameover.
> And btw, thanks for unwittingly pumping my thread title for 1.5 Pages, hundreds of views.
> Frivolous and stupid as your Trolling posts were.



You have no evidence we evolved from rocks.

Lost the debate?!?   Nah

You haven't proven where the universe came from either.


----------



## abu afak

DukeU said:


> *The Theory of Evolution, if you break it down to it's simplest form, teaches we evolved from rocks, water, and time.*





DukeU said:


> *You have no evidence we evolved from rocks.*


Wrong again Stupid repetition troll! !
That's called abiogenesis.
Evolution doesn't start until after life does.
Evolution is Descent with modification, not creation.
Evolution is demonstrably true no matter how life started.

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU okay. Let me try to sell it to you. Hard.

Your omniscient and omnipotent God, who sees all time and space as one, created a universe with physical laws and energy/mass content tailored specifically to one project: creating human life.

His most brilliant stroke was the concept of selection. The physical laws would select for certain states of mass and energy that would ultimately result, in time, in a human being walking the planet Earth. 

This brilliance led to the simple idea that certain combinations of the organic chemicals on Earth would be "selected for", about 4 billion years ago. Just as the shape of a water molecule is selected for by physical laws, certain stable and even eventually self-replicating models were "selected for". Carbon at the right temperature allows for these complex  chemical structures. Lipids with hydrophobic and hydrophilic poles, that ganged up and produced membranes.  These models formed the first cells and the first RNA models. The first primitive life machines. And trillions upon trillions of reactions and millions upon millions of years later, a cell with DNA. 

All exactly as God knew would happen. 

Thoughts?


----------



## TheDefiantOne

DukeU said:


> You are assuming all of the animals on the ark were adult sized. But, you know what I was referring to. You are just looking for some wiggle room.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything Sowell said has been debunked?!? I'll take your word for it.


1.  Now anyone with a G.E.D. reading comprehension can follow the exchange and see that nowhere did I state, imply, insinuate or allude to what you accuse me of here.  As is typical with creationist and right wing wonks, you ASSUME that your opinions, speculations, supposition and conjecture are comparable with facts and the logic derived from said facts.   But the real issue here is that now you offer yet another fantastic fantasy "explanation" to justify the (yet another) absurd claim by creationist that dinosaurs were part of the cargo on the Ark.  This silliness is an attempt to usurp the science which carbon dates life on Earth a few millennium before Noah and company were around, and substantiate their supposed biblical deduction to the Earth's actual age.  They believe it, they build an over sized toy to illustrate that belief, so it must be fact.  Yeah, that makes sense. 

2.  Yes, my chuckling zealot....by academic and economic scholars of equal rank who are not financed by right wing think tanks.  Of course, folk of your mindset just ignore and deny what you don't like .... proving once again the old adage of blissful ignorance.   Carry on,.


----------



## abu afak

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> DukeU okay. Let me try to sell it to you. Hard.
> 
> Your omniscient and omnipotent God, who sees all time and space as one, created a universe with physical laws and energy/mass content tailored specifically to one project: creating human life.
> 
> His most brilliant stroke was the concept of selection. The physical laws would select for certain states of mass and energy that would ultimately result, in time, in a human being walking the planet Earth.
> 
> This brilliance led to the simple idea that certain combinations of the organic chemicals on Earth would be "selected for". Just as the shape of a water molecule is selected for by physical laws, certain stainless and even eventually self -replicating models were "selected for". These.models formed the first cells and the first RNA models. The first primitive life machines. And trillions upon trillions of reaction later a cell with DNA.
> 
> Thoughts?


You need to STFU.
You make big sloppy and wandering posts that give him 10 things to 'debate.'
*I refuted him short, sweet, high contrast, airtight and insulting.*

Any moron could debate YOUR flabby posts for 100 pages because you are so weak/wandering.
Nothing worse than a weakling like you giving opponents endless opportunity.
\He should be treated like the Troll he is but you are too stupid and treat him to serious discussion- more targets he just trolls.

`


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well, not really. The Theory of Evolution only attempts to explain how one single species was the ancestor of all the species on the planet that have ever existed since.
> 
> So let's parse out the term, "Abiogenesis". Meaning: Formation of life.
> 
> Abiogenesis is a foregone conclusion. It happened. Once there was no life, then there was life. That's it. That's all the word means. Just like "star formation" or "volcano formation". Abiogenesis is an accepted fact. Once there was no life, then there was life. Even YOU believe in a form of abiogenesis.
> 
> The "Theory of Abiogenesis" attempts to explain NOT how life formed not from rocks, but rather from a wet world full of organic chemicals just sitting around.
> 
> Is your God not smart enough to have planned that? Not capable enough? Not snark. Honest questions. Why is it impossible that this was God's plan?



You basically just said the same thing I did, you just used bigger words.


----------



## DukeU

abu afak said:


> That's called abio*genesis.*


----------



## abu afak

DukeU said:


>


Non-responsive emoticon Troll. (#40)


----------



## TheDefiantOne

task0778 said:


> The Right is not racist, Sowell is not their token darling, and he's never been debunked.  And on top of that, I don't believe he's ever weighed in on the creation vs evolution, but if he did I am quite sure it would've been on the evolution side.


Ever since Ronnie Raygun lifted the tent flap and let those tree stump preachers have a seat at the table, the GOP has really taken a turn towards full blown racism ... with less dependence upon "dog whistle" politics.  This is why you have had neocons, teabaggers, alt right rummies and fibbertarians  running around gerry mandering and trying to dismantle Civil Rights laws.  Sowell tells them what they want to hear..."economic proof" that blacks are responsible for their own plight.  And yes, ivy league academics, economist, etc., have all taken Sowell's screeds to task and found them wanting.  That you are in denial of this is of no worth.  I just pointed out that in addition to the absurd creationist clap trap you support yet another disproved theory (theorists) with religious fervor.   Your last sentence confirms this.  Carry on.


----------



## abu afak

DukeU said:


> *The Theory of Evolution, if you break it down to it's simplest form, teaches we evolved from rocks, water, and time.*





DukeU said:


> *You have no evidence we evolved from rocks.*



Wrong again Stupid repetition troll! !
That's called abiogenesis.
Evolution doesn't start until after life does.
Evolution is Descent with modification, not creation.
Evolution is demonstrably true no matter how life started.

`


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Thoughts?



Really? You want my thoughts....

I think you just conveniently combined your faith with mine.

I believe God created man in his image just as the Bible teaches.


----------



## DukeU

abu afak said:


> You need to STFU.
> You make big sloppy and wandering posts that give him 10 things to 'debate.'
> *I refuted him short, sweet, high contrast, airtight and insulting.*
> 
> Any moron could debate YOUR flabby posts for 100 pages because you are so weak/wandering.
> Nothing worse than a weakling like you giving opponents endless opportunity.
> \He should be treated like the Troll he is but you are too stupid and treat him to serious discussion.



You're a Prick.

Just an FYI.


----------



## abu afak

DukeU said:


> You're a Prick.
> 
> Just an FYI.


IOW.
I beat the **** outa you while he humored you.
Yes, to TROLLS like you, NO mercy.
**** you again
You can't debate me you little POS.

`


----------



## Iamartiewhitefox

abu afak said:


> *Creation science* or *scientific creationism* is a Pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible.
> 
> It is often presented without overt faith-based language, but instead relies on reinterpreting scientific results to argue that various myths in the Book of Genesis and other select biblical passages are scientifically valid. The most commonly advanced ideas of creation science include special creation based on the Genesis creation narrative and flood geology based on the Genesis flood narrative.[1] Creationists also claim they can disprove or reexplain a variety of scientific facts,[2] theories and paradigms of geology,[3] cosmology, biological evolution,[4][5] archaeology,[6][7] history, and linguistics using creation science.[8] Creation science was foundational to intelligent design.[9]
> 
> In contrast with the views of creation science,* the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science Fails to qualify as scientific because it Lacks empirical support, supplies No testable hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.*[10][11]
> 
> *Courts, *most often in the United States where the question has been asked in the context of teaching the subject in public schools,* have consistently ruled since the 1980s that creation science is a Religious view rather than a scientific one.
> 
> Historians,[12] philosophers of science and skeptics have described creation science as a Pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.* [13][14][15][16][17]
> 
> *Professional biologists have criticized creation science for being unscholarly,[18] and even as a Dishonest and misguided Sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences.*[19]...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation and science are apposed one to the other. God did not bring death. That is what the church is saying, saying people can prove creation with what we see as science. Their own book says the Jesus will make all things new. Their Bible does not say that science as we know it, will be preserved.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

abu afak said:


> You need to STFU.


Haha, yes, I know. But that isn't the point of the post. As I do think he gets. While he may believe all or none of what I mentioned occurred, he is still faced with the question of why it could not just be part of God's plan. Why not? Is God not capable?


----------



## TheDefiantOne

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> DukeU okay. Let me try to sell it to you. Hard.
> 
> Your omniscient and omnipotent God, who sees all time and space as one, created a universe with physical laws and energy/mass content tailored specifically to one project: creating human life.
> 
> His most brilliant stroke was the concept of selection. The physical laws would select for certain states of mass and energy that would ultimately result, in time, in a human being walking the planet Earth.
> 
> This brilliance led to the simple idea that certain combinations of the organic chemicals on Earth would be "selected for", about 4 billion years ago. Just as the shape of a water molecule is selected for by physical laws, certain stable and even eventually self-replicating models were "selected for". Carbon at the right temperature allows for these complex  chemical structures. Lipids with hydrophobic and hydrophilic poles, that ganged up and produced membranes.  These models formed the first cells and the first RNA models. The first primitive life machines. And trillions upon trillions of reactions and millions upon millions of years later, a cell with DNA.
> 
> All exactly as God knew would happen.
> 
> Thoughts?


unnh-oh.....science AND theology meshing together?  Blasphemy!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

1)Why couldn't abiogenesis by "grace" of the laws of the universe be part of God's plan for creation?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

TheDefiantOne said:


> unnh-oh.....science AND theology meshing together?  Blasphemy!


Right? But we managed to get past that on condoms vs. AIDS. Surely we can reconcile evolution someday.


----------



## TheDefiantOne

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Right? But we managed to get past that on condoms vs. AIDS. Surely we can reconcile evolution someday.


Almost.....there are those who still believe that contraception is a sin, as is sex before marriage .... and HIV=AIDS is a profitable lie for big pharma and a lot of scientist, as there has NEVER been a peer reviewed paper that proved such.

And the band played on.


----------



## DukeU

TheDefiantOne said:


> 1. Now anyone with a G.E.D. reading comprehension can follow the exchange and see that nowhere did I state, imply, insinuate or allude to what you accuse me of here. As is typical with creationist and right wing wonks, you ASSUME that your opinions, speculations, supposition and conjecture are comparable with facts and the logic derived from said facts. But the real issue here is that now you offer yet another fantastic fantasy "explanation" to justify the (yet another) absurd claim by creationist that dinosaurs were part of the cargo on the Ark. This silliness is an attempt to usurp the science which carbon dates life on Earth a few millennium before Noah and company were around, and substantiate their supposed biblical deduction to the Earth's actual age. They believe it, they build an over sized toy to illustrate that belief, so it must be fact. Yeah, that makes sense.
> 
> 2. Yes, my chuckling zealot....by academic and economic scholars of equal rank who are not financed by right wing think tanks. Of course, folk of your mindset just ignore and deny what you don't like .... proving once again the old adage of blissful ignorance. Carry on,.



Yes, I made a mistake with the quote. Sorry.

And, never did I state that dinosaurs were on the Ark. My point was that IF they were on the Ark, they didn't have to be adult sized. 

Carbon dating................. LOL


Carbon Dating: Why you cant trust it or other radiometric ...​


----------



## DukeU

abu afak said:


> You can't debate me you little POS.



With one question, you prick.

How did the universe come to exist?

Game, set, and match.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

TheDefiantOne said:


> Almost.....there are those who still believe that contraception is a sin, as is sex before marriage .... and HIV=AIDS is a profitable lie for big pharma and a lot of scientist, as there has NEVER been a peer reviewed paper that proved such.
> 
> And the band played on.


Yes. And I have not heard enough apology from the Catholic Church on that. They set back entire countries by decades on the AIDS pandemic with their backwards ideas about condoms. 

Their authoritative declarations. Presented, quite shamelessly, as the will of God.


----------



## abu afak

DukeU said:


> With one question, you prick.
> 
> How did the universe come to exist?
> 
> Game, set, and match.



Your question is meant to insinuate a god, but the answer is We Don't know/Know YET, not 'god.'.

They made up Fire, Lightning and Fertility gods because they didn't know YET.
But when they found out they dropped them

*IOW it is NOT logical to make up a god for everything/anything you don't understand.
Never worked yet.
Your FALLACY is called '
God of the Gaps.

`*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> You basically just said the same thing I did, you just used bigger words.


And more words. why can't it be part of God's plan?


----------



## DukeU

abu afak said:


> Your question is meant to insinuate a god, but the answer is* We Don't know*/Know YET, not 'god.'.


Thanks.


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And more words. why can't it be part of God's plan?



It could have been IF that were his plan. But, it wasn't.......


----------



## abu afak

> DukeU said:
> *With one question, you prick.
> 
> How did the universe come to exist?
> 
> Game, set, and match.*



Your question is meant to insinuate a god, but the answer is We Don't know/Know YET, not 'god.'

They made up Fire, Lightning and Fertility gods because they didn't know YET.
But when they found out they dropped them

*IOW it is NOT logical to make up a god for everything/anything you don't understand.
Never worked yet.
Your FALLACY is called 'God of the Gaps.'

Game, Set, and Match.
You have no logical or evidentiary basis for your beliefs.*

See my thread on that, the most common of logic lapses/boners.
I just bumped it up with your reply.
Been there/done that, on anything your high school brain can 'think' up/down.




__





						God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")
					

This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards. "Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?" And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.  If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.' The same...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				





*`*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> It could have been IF that were his plan. But, it wasn't.......


Again, I ask why..? Why is that impossible?


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Again, I ask why..? Why is that impossible?


It's not impossible. It just wasn't the plan.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> It's not impossible. It just wasn't the plan.


That's a dodge. That is just you saying it is impossible, another way. So the question still stands:

Why is it impossible?


----------



## task0778

TheDefiantOne said:


> Ever since Ronnie Raygun lifted the tent flap and let those tree stump preachers have a seat at the table, the GOP has really taken a turn towards full blown racism ... with less dependence upon "dog whistle" politics.  This is why you have had neocons, teabaggers, alt right rummies and fibbertarians  running around gerry mandering and trying to dismantle Civil Rights laws.  Sowell tells them what they want to hear..."economic proof" that blacks are responsible for their own plight.  And yes, ivy league academics, economist, etc., have all taken Sowell's screeds to task and found them wanting.  That you are in denial of this is of no worth.  I just pointed out that in addition to the absurd creationist clap trap you support yet another disproved theory (theorists) with religious fervor.   Your last sentence confirms this.  Carry on.



Your ignorance is appalling.  Welcome to the Ignore Zone, you earned it.


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That's a dodge. That is just you saying it is impossible, another way. So the question still stands:
> 
> Why is it impossible?



Not dodging anything.

It's impossible now because it is in the past.

It wasn't the plan.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> It's impossible now because it is in the past.


Another dodge. 

"Not the plan"

Two dodges.

So I ask again: why is it impossible that this was part of God's plan?


----------



## TheDefiantOne

task0778 said:


> Your ignorance is appalling.  Welcome to the Ignore Zone, you earned it.


translation: Yet another creationist  wonk in denial and unable to logically or factually refute what I say....he couldn't even sustain a viable debate .... I guess he wasn't up to the task.  Good riddance.


----------



## TheDefiantOne

Kind of pathetic how some of these creationist don't have the intellectual honesty, courage or capability to sustain a viable debate on this subject.....especially when they are presented with facts and logic they cannot easily brush away with dogma.


----------



## TheDefiantOne

DukeU said:


> Yes, I made a mistake with the quote. Sorry.
> 
> And, never did I state that dinosaurs were on the Ark. My point was that IF they were on the Ark, they didn't have to be adult sized.
> 
> Carbon dating................. LOL
> 
> 
> Carbon Dating: Why you cant trust it or other radiometric ...​


your "point" is equal to debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.....assuming one believes angels exist.  
That is to laugh at.
your proud ignorant dismisal of carbon dating is however, pathetic ... not funny.  Carry on


----------



## DukeU

TheDefiantOne said:


> your "point" is equal to debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.....assuming one believes angels exist.
> That is to laugh at.
> your proud ignorant dismisal of carbon dating is however, pathetic ... not funny. Carry on





Trillions of years ago.......................... LMAO


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> Trillions of years ago


Uh oh. Looks like you have been getting your "science" from a religious nut in a funny outfit, again.


----------



## TheDefiantOne

TheDefiantOne said:
your "point" is equal to debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.....assuming one believes angels exist.
That is to laugh at.
your proud ignorant dismisal of carbon dating is however, pathetic ... not funny. Carry on



DukeU said:


> Trillions of years ago.......................... LMAO


As the reader can see, when creationist actually cannot logically or factually debate the issue, that repsond as Ol' Duke here does.....pathetic, but not unexpected.


----------



## DukeU

TheDefiantOne said:


> As the reader can see, when creationist actually cannot logically or factually debate the issue, that repsond as Ol' Duke here does.....pathetic, but not unexpected.



Nothing left to debate.

You can't prove how the universe was created no more than I can.

The End.


----------



## TheDefiantOne

DukeU said:


> Nothing left to debate.
> 
> You can't prove how the universe was created no more than I can.
> 
> The End.


Once again Duke, you assign me an assertion that I didn't make.  Please go over again the chronology of our exchanges.  My criticism was of the absurd notion of dinosaurs on the Ark, as depicted by some jokers in Kentucky with a life sized (estimated) replica....this was done as a back door dismisal of the science of paleontology and archeologist...who document evidence of life and such way beyond what creationist would have you believe.

Creationist rely on their faith as evidence they are right.   Scientist rely on the scientific method to prove evidence so their premise is right.

Me, I'm an agnostic....both parties rely on faith that will prove them right on day...I would like them to get together and maybe come up with better answers, but I'm afraid that won't happen.  The duplicitous nature of your responses here are a testament to that.  Carry on.


----------



## DukeU

TheDefiantOne said:


> Once again Duke, you assign me an assertion that I didn't make. Please go over again the chronology of our exchanges. My criticism was of the absurd notion of dinosaurs on the Ark, as depicted by some jokers in Kentucky with a life sized (estimated) replica....this was done as a back door dismisal of the science of paleontology and archeologist...who document evidence of life and such way beyond what creationist would have you believe.
> 
> Creationist rely on their faith as evidence they are right. Scientist rely on the scientific method to prove evidence so their premise is right.
> 
> Me, I'm an agnostic....both parties rely on faith that will prove them right on day...I would like them to get together and maybe come up with better answers, but I'm afraid that won't happen. The duplicitous nature of your responses here are a testament to that. Carry on.



All those words, and you have said nothing really.

Keep shining the light on the fact that Science hasn't proven anything when it comes to the creation of the universe. 

That was my purpose from the beginning.


----------



## TheDefiantOne

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well that's your dumbest comment yet.
> 
> Because religion and ANYTHING can go "hand in hand". Because religion is undefined, magical nonsense that can be sprinkled on any idea to absolutely no effect whatsoever, when desired.
> 
> *squawk*
> 
> GOD'S PLAN!
> 
> "*squawk*



Actually, it depends on what particular religion you're looking at.   Case in point, the science of acupuncture is based on the belief in the spiritual...my doctor told me I need to learn Chinese in order to get a basic grasp of how the conclusions were reached.  What he did translate to me was fascinating...and damned if I didn't forget the brand of religion for the basis of it all.  Bottom line:  the stuff works...and western medicine is just beginning to wrap it's head around the basic.

Creationist's heads would explode tryin to contemplate a historically documented form of healing based on a religion that essentially does NOT recognize their religion per se.


----------



## TheDefiantOne

> TheDefiantOne said:
> Once again Duke, you assign me an assertion that I didn't make. Please go over again the chronology of our exchanges. My criticism was of the absurd notion of dinosaurs on the Ark, as depicted by some jokers in Kentucky with a life sized (estimated) replica....this was done as a back door dismisal of the science of paleontology and archeologist...who document evidence of life and such way beyond what creationist would have you believe.
> 
> Creationist rely on their faith as evidence they are right. Scientist rely on the scientific method to prove evidence so their premise is right.
> 
> Me, I'm an agnostic....both parties rely on faith that will prove them right on day...I would like them to get together and maybe come up with better answers, but I'm afraid that won't happen. The duplicitous nature of your responses here are a testament to that. Carry on.






DukeU said:


> All those words, and you have said nothing really.
> 
> Keep shining the light on the fact that Science hasn't proven anything when it comes to the creation of the universe.
> 
> That was my purpose from the beginning.


1.  translation: Duke denies and dismisses what he can't readily refute or deny.
2.  Once again, Duke purposely misrepresents what I just posted.  Either Duke has pathetic reading comprehension skill or is a pretty sad liar, given this is a printed medium with a quick back track of our exchanges.
3.  Seems Duke has no real "purpose" other than to try and support all creationist clap trap while not seeming to commit to it out right....that is intellectualy dishonesty and cowardice on Duke's part....something he will continue to do.


----------



## DukeU

TheDefiantOne said:


> 1. translation: Duke denies and dismisses what he can't readily refute or deny.
> 2. Once again, Duke purposely misrepresents what I just posted. Either Duke has pathetic reading comprehension skill or is a pretty sad liar, given this is a printed medium with a quick back track of our exchanges.
> 3. Seems Duke has no real "purpose" other than to try and support all creationist clap trap while not seeming to commit to it out right....that is intellectualy dishonesty and cowardice on Duke's part....something he will continue to do.



Ok smart guy.

I'll give you a chance.

How was the universe created?   I'll wait.


----------



## Iamartiewhitefox

DukeU said:


> Ok smart guy.
> 
> I'll give you a chance.
> 
> How was the universe created?   I'll wait.


It is not how. We cannot comprehend that. By who.  A being who is both finite, and eternal at the same time, made what is.. He hides his power in his hands. It will be wise to not reject me, to not find yourself in his left hand.


----------



## TheDefiantOne

DukeU said:


> Ok smart guy.
> 
> I'll give you a chance.
> 
> How was the universe created?   I'll wait.


Duke since YOU are the ONLY one claiming in our exchanges that I made claims to knowing how the universe was created, it would interesting to see you copy & paste or quote IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS EXACTLY HOW I DID THIS IN WHAT POST.  TWiCE now you've falsely portrayed what I've written.  You copped and apologized once.

When you can produce that, then we can have the discussion in the avenue you've ducked down.  If not, then you're just full of it as I previously explained to the reading audience.


----------



## DukeU

TheDefiantOne said:


> Duke since YOU are the ONLY one claiming in our exchanges that I made claims to knowing how the universe was created, it would interesting to see you copy & paste or quote IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS EXACTLY HOW I DID THIS IN WHAT POST. TWiCE now you've falsely portrayed what I've written. You copped and apologized once.



What are you defending if you haven't made a claim? Why do you continue to respond if you don't want a response? 

I never said you made a claim about the universe. You continued to respond to me. So, I figured you wanted to take a swing. 

If you don't want your turn at bat, exit the plate.


----------



## Iamartiewhitefox

abu afak said:


> Your question is meant to insinuate a god, but the answer is We Don't know/Know YET, not 'god.'
> 
> They made up Fire, Lightning and Fertility gods because they didn't know YET.
> But when they found out they dropped them
> 
> *IOW it is NOT logical to make up a god for everything/anything you don't understand.
> Never worked yet.
> Your FALLACY is called 'God of the Gaps.'
> 
> Game, Set, and Match.
> You have no logical or evidentiary basis for your beliefs.*
> 
> See my thread on that, the most common of logic lapses/boners.
> I just bumped it up with your reply.
> Been there/done that, on anything your high school brain can 'think' up/down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")
> 
> 
> This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards. "Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?" And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.  If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.' The same...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *`*


The universe did not come about with our power. Our power is powerless to make what is seen. So is the human mind to think of how it came to be. The Bible says what God did. Incompetent pastors and priests are unable to teach people.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

TheDefiantOne said:


> Case in point, the science of acupuncture is based on the belief in the spiritual...


The only "science" of acupuncture is psychology, when it studies the placebo effect and study of psychosomatic phenomena.

Medicine is a field of science. There is no such thing as "alt medicine". There is "medicine" and "not medicine".


----------



## Iamartiewhitefox

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The only "science" of acupuncture is psychology, when it studies the placebo effect and study of psychosomatic phenomena.
> 
> Medicine is a field of science. There is no such thing as "alt medicine". There is "medicine" and "not medicine".


Acupuncture and medicine is not precision upper cervical spesific chiropractic. They don't pop anything. Both don't want anyone to know anything about them. Upcspine, NUCCA, Upper Cervical health centers, TheSpesific. Wait 4 - 5 days after an accident.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Iamartiewhitefox said:


> Acupuncture and medicine is not precision upper cervical spesific chiropractic. They don't pop anything. Both don't want anyone to know anything about them. Upcspine, NUCCA, Upper Cervical health centers, TheSpesific. Wait 4 - 5 days after an accident.


"Straight chiro" is a total scam.


----------



## Iamartiewhitefox

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> "Straight chiro" is a total scam.


Diversified, who pops the neck, are not good.  Gonstead pops the condyles of the atlas and axis vertebra too, adjusting nothing. ABC and Core Chiropractors are not good. They push down on the upper back. Decompression does not work either. I know what is not good. I know what is good. Good precision upper cervical Spesific chiropractors cannot help when you have a Herniated Disc.  Top bone needs to be in the neutral or orthogonal position under the opening at the base of the skull. Base Posterior X ray, under the chin shows how much that bone is pivoted to the right or left.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Iamartiewhitefox said:


> Diversified, who pops the neck, are not good.  Gonstead pops the condyles of the atlas and axis vertebra too, adjusting nothing. ABC and Core Chiropractors are not good. They push down on the upper back. Decompression does not work either. I know what is not good. I know what is good. Good precision upper cervical Spesific chiropractors cannot help when you have a Herniated Disc.


I can't down on all chiro. I don't find it to be an extraordinary claim of efficacy essentially to claim that people feel better after being manipulated by chiropractors (I mean that in the physical sense, not the mental sense. Though maybe there IS some overlap.  )

It is only when chiropractry attempts to make unsupported claims of medical efficacy, that it runs into trouble.


----------



## TheDefiantOne

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The only "science" of acupuncture is psychology, when it studies the placebo effect and study of psychosomatic phenomena.
> 
> Medicine is a field of science. There is no such thing as "alt medicine". There is "medicine" and "not medicine".


Wrong.  That is the best excuse Western/European medicine could come up with to explain the curative effects of acupuncture.  All that went out the window back in the 1970's when the aforementioned doctors went to China to witness certain surgeries that were being done without traditional anesthesia.  There are autonomic responses that react to invasive stimuli (i.e., pain), and certain operations that made traditional aneshesia dangerous or impossible.  When you had first hand eye witness accounts, the Western/European doctors couldn't deny the reality.  But, they couldn't fully allow the competition...which is why mainland trained Chinese doctors are prohibited to use a percentage of their trade (apothecarian mixtures).    Alternative medicine is when "traditional" medicine does not or cannot apply.  A personal example:  I had a shoulder sports injury that wasn't critical but it was somewhat persistent and slightly debilitating.  My GP explained that traditional examination of the area would incapacitate my arm for at least a week.  I asked him about the acupuncture a friend recommended, and he said based on his 40 year experience, all indictions were that acupuncture could do things he couldn't and to give it a try.   I found the right doctors, and had 95% improvement in 48 hours from just the first treatment.

To dismiss over a thousand  years of a medical practice that has kept an entire civilization alive and viable is pure western arrogance.  To suggest disease and ailments are treated and cured on pure 'psychosomatic' basis is absurd given evidence to the contrary.


----------



## TheDefiantOne

DukeU said:


> What are you defending if you haven't made a claim? Why do you continue to respond if you don't want a response?
> 
> I never said you made a claim about the universe. You continued to respond to me. So, I figured you wanted to take a swing.
> 
> If you don't want your turn at bat, exit the plate.


All one has to do is read the following posts:  #41, 44, 130, 133, 135, 138, 141 to see intellectual dishonesty that Duke.  He just dodges, lies and creates whatever is necessary for him to avoid making a declarative statement of  belief, much less than whatever silly little hair split he wanted to introduce just doesn't stand scrutiny.  His latest ploy is a bit of convoluted "logic" that defies/denies all precedings exchanges.  I find people like Duke pathetic, as this is a anonymous venue.  No one who personally knows Duke will know that he conceded to being wrong on a point regarding creationist clap trap from a certain angle.  Yet Duke will blow smoke untile doomsday.  So be it.  Once exposing such, I don't waste time or space with the likes of Duke's mindset.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The only "science" of acupuncture is psychology, when it studies the placebo effect and study of psychosomatic phenomena.


You're jumping to conclusions and don't accept Chinese medicine.  Chinese medicine promotes the idea of the body having a flow of energy called Qi or Chi .  The problem of scientifically evaluating acupuncture is there does not appear to be any placebo.  For example, there are many studies that show it helps with chronic pain, stress relief, mental health, headaches, addiction, and more, but what can be used to replace it?  You can't just use psychology to treat those.  There isn't anything scientifically accepted to use as a placebo.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

TheDefiantOne said:


> Wrong.  That is the best excuse Western/European medicine could come up with to explain the curative effects of acupuncture.  All that went out the window back in the 1970's when the aforementioned doctors went to China to witness certain surgeries that were being done without traditional anesthesia.  There are autonomic responses that react to invasive stimuli (i.e., pain), and certain operations that made traditional aneshesia dangerous or impossible.  When you had first hand eye witness accounts, the Western/European doctors couldn't deny the reality.  But, they couldn't fully allow the competition...which is why mainland trained Chinese doctors are prohibited to use a percentage of their trade (apothecarian mixtures).    Alternative medicine is when "traditional" medicine does not or cannot apply.  A personal example:  I had a shoulder sports injury that wasn't critical but it was somewhat persistent and slightly debilitating.  My GP explained that traditional examination of the area would incapacitate my arm for at least a week.  I asked him about the acupuncture a friend recommended, and he said based on his 40 year experience, all indictions were that acupuncture could do things he couldn't and to give it a try.   I found the right doctors, and had 95% improvement in 48 hours from just the first treatment.
> 
> To dismiss over a thousand  years of a medical practice that has kept an entire civilization alive and viable is pure western arrogance.  To suggest disease and ailments are treated and cured on pure 'psychosomatic' basis is absurd given evidence to the contrary.


Sorry pal. All of that word salad is no substitute for empirical evidence.

And for the efficacy of acupuncture: There is exactly zero evidence.

Nothing else to say. Acupuncture makes you "feel" better. Great. Use it, then. But don't attempt to make any claims of efficacy, because you have zero evidence of them.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Some people argue politics, but I like to discuss/argue religion.  I didn't know about Abu Afak until I met abu afak here.  In fact, I wouldn't have known about the real Abu Afak's life story until our abu afak said to google him.  Why pick the name of a loser assassin lol?


You have no ability to discuss religion. You cut and paste propaganda  nonsense repetitively.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> You have no ability to discuss religion. You cut and paste propaganda  nonsense repetitively.


Wrong section.  This is not R&E.  I can discuss Christianity and debunk atheism.  Also, creation science in the S&I section.

It's you who gets forums mixed up and was wrong about the flat Earth that was attributed to atheist scientists.  Atheist science also claimed the eternal universe and was wrong.  What are YOU going to claim next in S&I?


----------



## james bond

The brain and inner ear disproves ToE.  The brain and inner ear mechanism are too complex for evolution to form.  This thread should be called Lol - Evolution - Lol.  I like Lol - abu afak - Lol better.

"This site will open your eyes to all the incredible technology we have    wired inside of us. The human brain is a highly complex electronics system    comprised    of over 80 billion neurons making more than 60 trillion highly organized    connections. Each connection or synapse works like a    transistor, so we can estimate the brain processing power to be more than    34,000 iPhone processors. If you are willing, this site will provide all the    engineering evidence necessary to prove that it is impossible for humans to    evolve.     So let me explain how all this research began.


*As an engineer of the space shuttle guidance        system, imagine        
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





my        surprise when I discovered that the vestibule of our inner ear was        actually the same 3 axis gyro and accelerometer sensor we used to guide        the space shuttle.*"





__





						Darwin's Theory / How Proof of Evolution is False
					

Scientific proof that God exists  and that the theory of evolution is false. Proof that God is real



					thehighestofthemountains.com


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> and debunk atheism


You can debunk atheism?

You can prove there is a God?

Then why do you never post in the religion section? There are like a hundred posters over there who would love to see your proof of God.

So, uh, why is that? Why DO you virtually never post in the religion section?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You can debunk atheism?
> 
> You can prove there is a God?
> 
> Then why do you never post in the religion section? There are like a hundred posters over there who would love to see your proof of God.
> 
> So, uh, why is that? Why DO you virtually never post in the religion section?


Atheism and evolution were debunked.  I just gave you more OBSERVABLE evidence of complexity, but your atheism won't accept it.  There is no science that backs up evolution.  What do you have to debunk me?


----------



## surada

DukeU said:


> I'm in the right place.
> 
> Science and Religion go hand in hand.



There is zero geological evidence for a world wide flood .. The story came from Sumer.. It was the Gilgamesh myth.

There was a flood of the Euphrates River Basin in 2900 BC. The king's barges, hauling beer, grain and livestock, broke loose and he ended up in the Persian Gulf..


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Atheism and evolution were debunked.  I just gave you more OBSERVABLE evidence of complexity, but your atheism won't accept it.  There is no science that backs up evolution.  What do you have to debunk me?



LOLOL..Neither has been debunked.. Your lack of education is your problem..


----------



## rylah

surada said:


> There is zero geological evidence for a world wide flood .. The story came from Sumer.. It was the Gilgamesh myth.
> 
> There was a flood of the Euphrates River Basin in 2900 BC. The king's barges, hauling beer, grain and livestock, broke loose and he ended up in the Persian Gulf..



Do you know the main difference between the floods
and the archetypes of Gilgamesh a Noah?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> The brain and inner ear disproves ToE.  The brain and inner ear mechanism are too complex for evolution to form.  This thread should be called Lol - Evolution - Lol.  I like Lol - abu afak - Lol better.
> 
> "This site will open your eyes to all the incredible technology we have    wired inside of us. The human brain is a highly complex electronics system    comprised    of over 80 billion neurons making more than 60 trillion highly organized    connections. Each connection or synapse works like a    transistor, so we can estimate the brain processing power to be more than    34,000 iPhone processors. If you are willing, this site will provide all the    engineering evidence necessary to prove that it is impossible for humans to    evolve.     So let me explain how all this research began.
> 
> 
> *As an engineer of the space shuttle guidance        system, imagine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my        surprise when I discovered that the vestibule of our inner ear was        actually the same 3 axis gyro and accelerometer sensor we used to guide        the space shuttle.*"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin's Theory / How Proof of Evolution is False
> 
> 
> Scientific proof that God exists  and that the theory of evolution is false. Proof that God is real
> 
> 
> 
> thehighestofthemountains.com



"The brain and inner ear disproves ToE. The brain and inner ear mechanism are too complex for evolution to form,"


"..... because I say so".

Jimmy Swaggert clones believe ignorance is a virtue.


----------



## DukeU

surada said:


> There is zero geological evidence for a world wide flood .. The story came from Sumer.. It was the Gilgamesh myth.
> 
> There was a flood of the Euphrates River Basin in 2900 BC. The king's barges, hauling beer, grain and livestock, broke loose and he ended up in the Persian Gulf..


LOL

There is so much evidence, it would be nearly impossible to list it all here.

From marine fossils on mountain tops to footprints on sandstone in the flood carved Grand Canyon.

Startling Evidence for Noah's Flood | Answers in Genesis​
Evidence for Noah's Flood: Marine fossils on mountaintops​



I wonder what could have possibly  created this..............


----------



## surada

DukeU said:


> LOL
> 
> There is so much evidence, it would be nearly impossible to list it all here.
> 
> From marine fossils on mountain tops to footprints on sandstone in the flood carved Grand Canyon.
> 
> Startling Evidence for Noah's Flood | Answers in Genesis​
> Evidence for Noah's Flood: Marine fossils on mountaintops​
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what could have possibly  created this..............
> 
> 
> View attachment 559446



Even the ME didn't flood..No flood sediment. The oilbusiness has only provided a million  core samples in the past 100 years.

I know DukeU teaches geology and tectonic  plates.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> From marine fossils on mountain tops


Haha, that isn't evidence of a global flood. That is an error a child might make when first hearing about any of this.

This is why all of this is so embarrassing. These are questions 6th graders might ask. Errors an 8 year old would make.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> There is zero geological evidence for a world wide flood .. The story came from Sumer.. It was the Gilgamesh myth.
> 
> There was a flood of the Euphrates River Basin in 2900 BC. The king's barges, hauling beer, grain and livestock, broke loose and he ended up in the Persian Gulf..


Then show me another planet where there is 3/4 surface water?  We have the fountains of the deep that goes around the world.  You and the atheists are crazy because you believe in nothing that is observable.  Where is your evidence?


Even the good book talks about people like you who do not believe no matter what hard "proof" you give them.  What's weird is you believe based on Darwin's two books.  He didn't provide much evidence.

ETA:  Here's more evidence.  The dinosaurs could not have all died by an huge asteroid hit.  The megaton nuclear bomb doesn't have the reach of a thousand miles.  Nothing that we know has that sort of impact.  Or maybe you'll show me something observable?


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Then show me another planet where there is 3/4 surface water?  We have the fountains of the deep that goes around the world.  You and the atheists are crazy because you believe in nothing that is observable.  Where is your evidence?
> 
> 
> Even the good book talks about people like you who do not believe no matter what hard "proof" you give them.  What's weird is you believe based on Darwin's two books.  He didn't provide much evidence.



Oil men and geologists have never found these fountains of the deep. 

They reported that the flood was caused by spring snowmelt from the Zagross mountains combined with heavy spring rains.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Oil men and geologists have never found these fountains of the deep.
> 
> They reported that the flood was caused by spring snowmelt from the Zagross mountains combined with heavy spring rains.


I whipped your atheist arse like a bullwhip and get to continue doing it.  Must be a sado with my mandom.

Your dinosaur fossils cutting a path through the US by the Chicxulub asteroid has been disproved.

There are no other planet with 3/4 surface water.  Moreover, the fountains of the deep has a ring that circles the world.  That's part of where the oceans below the surface of the planet came from.  Why do you think NASA looks for a planet with oceans below its surface in order to find another planet that is habitable and alien life?  You can't figure this out.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> I whipped your atheist arse like a bullwhip and get to continue doing it.  Must be a sado with my mandom.
> 
> Your dinosaur fossils cutting a path through the US by the Chicxulub asteroid has been disproved.
> 
> There are no other planet with 3/4 surface water.  Moreover, the fountains of the deep has a ring that circles the world.  That's part of where the oceans below the surface of the planet came from.  Why do you think NASA looks for a planet with oceans below its surface in order to find another planet that is habitable and alien life?  You can't figure this out.



Where on earth did you go to school?









						Fountains of the Deep
					

The Deep In ancient times, the peoples of the Middle East held a deep-seated, superstitious awe for the oceans and other bodies of water. The deep-water basins were abyssal, bottomless pits, full o…




					gpront.blog
				




In ancient times, the peoples of the Middle East held a deep-seated, superstitious awe for the oceans and other bodies of water. The deep water basins were abyssal, bottomless pits, full of monsters and evil spirits. The continents floated on the ocean waters, which were also the common source of springs and subterranean rivers, so these source w…


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Where on earth did you go to school?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fountains of the Deep
> 
> 
> The Deep In ancient times, the peoples of the Middle East held a deep-seated, superstitious awe for the oceans and other bodies of water. The deep-water basins were abyssal, bottomless pits, full o…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gpront.blog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In ancient times, the peoples of the Middle East held a deep-seated, superstitious awe for the oceans and other bodies of water. The deep water basins were abyssal, bottomless pits, full of monsters and evil spirits. The continents floated on the ocean waters, which were also the common source of springs and subterranean rivers, so these source w…


Instead of answering my post, you have no response.  The atheist scientists are wrong again.  

I went to this place -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php.  Where did you go?  Does my school whip your school?

The article doesn't address anything that the creation scientists presented to describe the "fountains of the deep."

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth ° day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." Genesis 7:11

The "great deep" doesn't mean just the surface water, but water from beneath the ocean floors.  We had great reservoir of waters beneath the oceans and earth of ancient times.  The earth beneath it was broken up and great rocks and dirt rose up to form some of the mountains and great wonders of catastrophism today such as Mt. Everest and the Himalayas.  

This was the greatest supernatural event of ancient times witnessed by all those living and who died before back then.  Just like we will all witness the second greatest supernatural event of modern times of the end of the Earth in modern times -- death by fire -- or The Rapture. 

Here's what Jesus said about the atheists and their scientists, "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake.  But the one who endures to the end will be saved." Matthew 10:22

I suppose this is why I get threads started about me .


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Instead of answering my post, you have no response.  The atheist scientists are wrong again.
> 
> I went to this place -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php.  Where did you go?  Does my school whip your school?
> 
> The article doesn't address anything that the creation scientists presented to describe the "fountains of the deep."
> 
> "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth ° day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." Genesis 7:11
> 
> The "great deep" doesn't mean just the surface water, but water from beneath the ocean floors.  We had great reservoir of waters beneath the oceans and earth of ancient times.  The earth beneath it was broken up and great rocks and dirt rose up to form some of the mountains and great wonders of catastrophism today such as Mt. Everest and the Himalayas.
> 
> This was the greatest supernatural event of ancient times witnessed by all those living and who died before back then.  Just like we will all witness the second greatest supernatural event of modern times of the end of the Earth in modern times -- death by fire -- or The Rapture.
> 
> Here's what Jesus said about the atheists and their scientists, "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake.  But the one who endures to the end will be saved." Matthew 10:22
> 
> I suppose this is why I get threads started about me .


This is the wrong forum for your Jimmy Swaggert style proselytizing.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Then show me another planet where there is 3/4 surface water?  We have the fountains of the deep that goes around the world.  You and the atheists are crazy because you believe in nothing that is observable.  Where is your evidence?
> 
> 
> Even the good book talks about people like you who do not believe no matter what hard "proof" you give them.  What's weird is you believe based on Darwin's two books.  He didn't provide much evidence.
> 
> ETA:  Here's more evidence.  The dinosaurs could not have all died by an huge asteroid hit.  The megaton nuclear bomb doesn't have the reach of a thousand miles.  Nothing that we know has that sort of impact.  Or maybe you'll show me something observable?


A nonsense youtube video by "Genesis apologetics".

Please keep the nonsense at your madrassah out of the Science forums.


----------



## TheDefiantOne

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sorry pal. All of that word salad is no substitute for empirical evidence.
> 
> And for the efficacy of acupuncture: There is exactly zero evidence.
> 
> Nothing else to say. Acupuncture makes you "feel" better. Great. Use it, then. But don't attempt to make any claims of efficacy, because you have zero evidence of them.


1.  you can't deny  or disprove rationally or logically what I 'm saying, so you blow smoke with a baseless accusation any G.E.D. reading comprehension can see through.
2.  You speak out of sheer genuine or willful ignorance.
3.  Truly, YOU have nothing else to say that isn't an insipidly stubborn display of willful or genuine ignorance.  But hope springs eternal.  If you have the cojones, read the following primer links:





__





						Why Acupuncture Works - New Scientific Breakthrough
					

New groundbreaking research shows why acupuncture works. The insertion of an acupuncture needle into the skin disrupts the branching point of nerves called C fibres.




					www.actcm.edu
				













						Everything You Need to Know About Acupuncture – Benefits,Types,Points And Cases That Improved After Acupuncture - Beta Healthy
					

Acupuncture It is a branch of alternative medicine that was practiced in ancient China since 1368, brought to the UK in 1810, passed to the US during the period of President Nixon in 1972, and in 1995 it was recognized as a medical device by the food and drug association. Acupuncture is...



					betahealthy.com


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> A nonsense youtube video by "Genesis apologetics".
> 
> Please keep the nonsense at your madrassah out of the Science forums.


It's real science and something that is observable.  Your atheist science has no foundation and nothing that is observable.  For example, the atheist scientists claimed dinosaur fossils were 65 million years old, but that was debunked with C14 dating and soft tissues still remaining.  We can go to a mainstream museum with dinosaur fossils and if _you_ broke one open, then I can show you.

It would remind me of this commercial with an atheist:


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

TheDefiantOne said:


> . you can't deny or disprove rationally or logically what I 'm saying,


Nobody needs to do that. That's why we invented science in the first place. If you make claims of medical efficacy of acupuncture, YOU need to produce the mountains of empirical evidence demonstrating that efficacy.

Until then, you get to go sit in the corner with the spoon benders and the alien abductees and the faith healers.

That's how it works. I didn't invent this rule. So complaining to me isn't going to get you anywhere.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> It's real science and something that is observable.  Your atheist science has no foundation and nothing that is observable.  For example, the atheist scientists claimed dinosaur fossils were 65 million years old, but that was debunked with C14 dating and soft tissues still remaining.  We can go to a mainstream museum with dinosaur fossils and if _you_ broke one open, then I can show you.
> 
> It would remind me of this commercial with an atheist:


Just more copy and paste from religious extremists.


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Haha, that isn't evidence of a global flood. That is an error a child might make when first hearing about any of this.
> 
> This is why all of this is so embarrassing. These are questions 6th graders might ask. Errors an 8 year old would make.



LoL

Except that it's not children making the claims.


Scientists Believe That They May Have Discovered 2,000 ...​




But, you know that because you so smart. Use you're education for something besides spreading fairytales and lies.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> Except that it's not children making the claims.


Right, because children don't really lie for money and fame. Adults do.


----------



## Hollie

DukeU said:


> LoL
> 
> Except that it's not children making the claims.
> 
> 
> Scientists Believe That They May Have Discovered 2,000 ...​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, you know that because you so smart. Use you're education for something besides spreading fairytales and lies.


Don't be an accomplice to another Ron Wyatt fraud.






						Ron Wyatt: Collosal Fraud | ScienceBlogs
					

And out come the wingnuts. Here's the email I just received from someone named James Albright: Dear Ed, Noah's ark was discovered by Ron Wyatt, whose ministry is named Wyatt Archeological Research. The news media is only taking attention away from the real ark through your ministry. Please stop...




					scienceblogs.com


----------



## dblack

Hang on sloopy said:


> No opinion either way.
> 
> But how did this all start, the universe. Don't give me big bang or anything.how did this start


Why?


----------



## DukeU

Hollie said:


> Don't be an accomplice to another Ron Wyatt fraud.



Don't be an accomplice to trying to silence information.


----------



## Hollie

DukeU said:


> Don't be an accomplice to trying to silence information.


What information did I try to silence? The answer is none.

Perhaps you could show us the facts surrounding the claims of Ron Wyatt.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> Don't be an accomplice to trying to silence information.


You seem confused. You and any other YEC creationist is invited to publish your science at any time. 

Yet not a single one of you has ever published a scientific research paper.

Never. Not one.


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

dblack said:


> Why?


Something was there before the Bangin. Something caused it or sumptin

We'll know when we die, or will never find out cuz their ain't nuttin after


----------



## DukeU

Hollie said:


> What information did I try to silence? The answer is none.
> 
> Perhaps you could show us the facts surrounding the claims of Ron Wyatt.



If we're going to discredit someone because of their sins and mistakes, who's going to be left to listen to? You know nothing about this individual besides what you have heard.


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You seem confused. You and any other YEC creationist is invited to publish your science at any time.
> 
> Yet not a single one of you has ever published a scientific research paper.
> 
> Never. Not one.



See what I mean about silencing information.


----------



## surada

Hollie said:


> What information did I try to silence? The answer is none.
> 
> Perhaps you could show us the facts surrounding the claims of Ron Wyatt.



hahahha Ron Wyatt was a liar and a con man. His excuses are crazy.. Hayseed Stevens was almost as bad. They sure bilked a lot of people out of  a lot of money.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> See what I mean about silencing information.


Nope, you actually just got throughly debunked, your point: obliterated. Why do you embarrass yourself like this? Let's try this again:

Not a single one of you YECers has even attempted to publish a scientific research article. You do know what all those words mean, right?


----------



## surada

Ron Wyatt Exposed - Presents of God ministry BLOG
www.remnantofgod.org/wyatt.htm
In other words, Ron Wyatt’s theology of the literal blood of Jesus Christ falling upon the figurative ark of the covenant is not only a lie; it sets the stage for Jew and Christian alike to see the need for a …

Presents of God Ministry · Law of God · Image of The Beast Alive in The USA · Many Tracts
Love of Money At Wyatt Archaeological Research And Israeli ...





						Love of Money At Wyatt Archaeological Research And Israeli Antiquities
					

WAR, Wyatt Archaeological Research, Ron Wyatt still conning people after death.



					www.tentmaker.org
				



WAR, Wyatt Archaeological Research, Ron Wyatt still conning people after death. Well, it seems the love of money is indeed the root of all sorts of evil both at the various sites on the internet promoting the false discoveries of Ron Wyatt, founder of WAR (Wyatt Archaeological Research), and now, even at the Israeli Department of Antiquities.


----------



## Hollie

DukeU said:


> If we're going to discredit someone because of their sins and mistakes, who's going to be left to listen to? You know nothing about this individual besides what you have heard.


I'm going to discredit the charlatan Ron Wyatt due to a history of unsubstantiated claims. 

Please show us the data Wyatt used to make his claim about Noah's Ark and any independent review of his claims.


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Nope, you actually just got throughly debunked, your point: obliterated. Why do you embarrass yourself like this? Let's try this again:
> 
> Not a single one of you YECers has even attempted to publish a scientific research article. You do know what all those words mean, right?



I did?   

*Thoroughly debunked*?!?


----------



## surada

DukeU said:


> I did?
> 
> *Thoroughly debunked*?!?



Ron Wyatt - Wikipedia








						Ron Wyatt - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



Ronald Eldon Wyatt was an American adventurer noted for advocating the Durupınar site as the site of Noah's Ark, along with almost 100 other Bible-related alleged discoveries. He has been criticized by scientists, historians, biblical scholars, as well as some creationists.

Ron Wyatt, Honest?, Or Deceitful Fraud?, #2 | Clifton ...





						Ron Wyatt, Honest?, Or Deceitful Fraud?, #2 | Clifton Emahiser's Watchman's Teaching Ministries
					

Of all the scam-artists who have ever existed on planet Earth, Ron Wyatt takes first prize over them all! His story of finding the Ark of the Covenant in a cave in or near Jerusalem, along with Christ’s blood on the Mercy Seat, surely places all other dreamed-up scams before his, since the...




					emahiser.christogenea.org
				



Of all the scam-artists who have ever existed on planet Earth, Ron Wyatt takes first prize over them all! His story of finding the Ark of the Covenant in a cave in or near Jerusalem, along with Christ’s blood on the Mercy Seat, surely places all other dreamed-up scams before his, since the foundation of the world, in an inferior second place!


----------



## surada

Conservatives and liberals agree that Ron Wyatt is a money grubbig con artist.









						Open letter to Seventh-Day Adventists regarding Ron Wyatt - Thirdangelsmessage.com
					

The Ark of the Covenant discovery, is it ‘Adventist-friendly’? Open letter to Seventh-Day Adventists (The letter is a PDF: To read the letter click here




					thirdangelsmessage.com


----------



## DukeU

Hollie said:


> I'm going to discredit the charlatan Ron Wyatt due to a history of unsubstantiated claims.
> 
> Please show us the data Wyatt used to make his claim about Noah's Ark and any independent review of his claims.



You can try.

Truth has a way of surviving despite people like you.


----------



## Colin norris

abu afak said:


> *Creation science* or *scientific creationism* is a Pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible.
> 
> It is often presented without overt faith-based language, but instead relies on reinterpreting scientific results to argue that various myths in the Book of Genesis and other select biblical passages are scientifically valid. The most commonly advanced ideas of creation science include special creation based on the Genesis creation narrative and flood geology based on the Genesis flood narrative.[1] Creationists also claim they can disprove or reexplain a variety of scientific facts,[2] theories and paradigms of geology,[3] cosmology, biological evolution,[4][5] archaeology,[6][7] history, and linguistics using creation science.[8] Creation science was foundational to intelligent design.[9]
> 
> In contrast with the views of creation science,* the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science Fails to qualify as scientific because it Lacks empirical support, supplies No testable hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.*[10][11]
> 
> *Courts, *most often in the United States where the question has been asked in the context of teaching the subject in public schools,* have consistently ruled since the 1980s that creation science is a Religious view rather than a scientific one.
> 
> Historians,[12] philosophers of science and skeptics have described creation science as a Pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.* [13][14][15][16][17]
> 
> *Professional biologists have criticized creation science for being unscholarly,[18] and even as a Dishonest and misguided Sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences.*[19]...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



Creationism is based on superstition while science is based on fact. 
Not that hard to understand. In the same sentence, it's an oxymoron.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> What information did I try to silence? The answer is none.
> 
> Perhaps you could show us the facts surrounding the claims of Ron Wyatt.


You're trying to silence _creation_ science. Anyway I stayed away from Ron Wyatt lol. I can be patient with the discovery of the Ark. The fountains of the great deep (discovery of plate tectonics and continental drift) by creationists Alfred Wegener and Antonio Snider, surface 3/4 covered by water, ring that goes under the oceans and around the world, Mt. Everest and the Himalayas, what NASA and the atheist scientists look for in another livable planet, etc. Does Jimmy know Ron?


----------



## surada

DukeU said:


> You can try.
> 
> Truth has a way of surviving despite people like you.



Ron Wyatt was discredited as a liar and con artist 25 years ago. He's a flim flam man.









						Open letter to Seventh-Day Adventists regarding Ron Wyatt - Thirdangelsmessage.com
					

The Ark of the Covenant discovery, is it ‘Adventist-friendly’? Open letter to Seventh-Day Adventists (The letter is a PDF: To read the letter click here




					thirdangelsmessage.com


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> You're trying to silence _creation_ science. Anyway I stayed away from Ron Wyatt lol. I can be patient with the discovery of the Ark. The fountains of the great deep (discovery of plate tectonics and continental drift) by creationists Alfred Wegener and Antonio Snider, surface 3/4 covered by water, ring that goes under the oceans and around the world, Mt. Everest and the Himalayas, what NASA and the atheist scientists look for in another livable planet, etc. Does Jimmy know Ron?



God I feel sorry for you.

Ron Wyatt: Collosal Fraud | ScienceBlogs





						Ron Wyatt: Collosal Fraud | ScienceBlogs
					

And out come the wingnuts. Here's the email I just received from someone named James Albright: Dear Ed, Noah's ark was discovered by Ron Wyatt, whose ministry is named Wyatt Archeological Research. The news media is only taking attention away from the real ark through your ministry. Please stop...




					scienceblogs.com
				



Ron Wyatt: Collosal Fraud. By stcynic on June 30, 2006. And out come the wingnuts. Here's the email I just received from someone named James Albright: Dear Ed, Noah's ark was discovered by Ron ...


----------



## DukeU




----------



## surada

DukeU said:


>



Pastor Fink is a just the latest con artist.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> I did?
> 
> *Thoroughly debunked*?!?


That's correct. You tried to claim that you deviant magical thinkers are being silenced.

When, in reality, not a single one of you has ever produced a scientific research paper to support any of your magical beliefs.

Despite being fully invited to do so.

So yes, thoroughly debunked by one simple fact. 

But I understand that this magical horseshit is pretty much intertwined with your identity. So I have no delusions that you are going to admit your whiny, false point was just obliterated.


----------



## surada

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That's correct. You tried to claim that you deviant magical thinkers are being silenced.
> 
> When, in reality, not a single one of you has ever produced a scientific research paper to support any of your magical beliefs.
> 
> Despite being fully invited to do so.
> 
> So yes, thoroughly debunked by one simple fact.
> 
> But I understand that this magical horseshit is pretty much intertwined with your identity. So I have no delusions that you are going to admit your whiny, false point was just obliterated.



They aren't really serious Christians.. They just dabble in this young earth creation guff. Its an excuse to refuse education.


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That's correct. You tried to claim that you deviant magical thinkers are being silenced.
> 
> When, in reality, not a single one of you has ever produced a scientific research paper to support any of your magical beliefs.
> 
> Despite being fully invited to do so.
> 
> So yes, thoroughly debunked by one simple fact.
> 
> But I understand that this magical horseshit is pretty much intertwined with your identity. So I have no delusions that you are going to admit your whiny, false point was just obliterated.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

surada said:


> They aren't really serious Christians.. They just dabble in this young earth creation guff. Its an excuse to refuse education.


They clearly have no idea how silly and stupid they look, to every single educated human who is not in their Club.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


>


Why should anyone watch a video you never watched, and then spoon-feed it back to you? This is a science section. Make your points, like a big boy


----------



## surada

DukeU said:


>



The water is much too deep for SCUBA divers. Wyatt lied about the chariots.


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Why should anyone watch a video you never watched, and then spoon-feed it back to you? This is a science section. Make your points, like a big boy



 knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and *observation*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and *observation*


That's not even a sentence.

Should we try this again? Is there a point you are trying to make?


----------



## surada

DukeU said:


> knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and *observation*



Look at the depths in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aqaba. Wyatt lied about the chariots.. Trust your knowledge and observations of the "natural world"... He's still making a fool of you.


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That's not even a sentence.
> 
> Should we try this again? Is there a point you are trying to make?



Yes.

If you haven't observed something, it's not science.

Stop spreading lies in the name of science.


----------



## surada

DukeU said:


> Yes.
> 
> If you haven't observed something, it's not science.
> 
> Stop spreading lies in the name of science.



LOLOL.. Look at the depths of the Red Sea.. The bottom of the sea and the Gulf have been MAPPED.


----------



## Hollie

DukeU said:


> You can try.
> 
> Truth has a way of surviving despite people like you.


Charlatans like Ron Wyatt have a way of exposing themselves as frauds. 

You never did identify any objective analysis of Wyatt's claims. Do you think silly youtube videos are reliable sources of information?


----------



## DukeU

Hollie said:


> Charlatans like Ron Wyatt have a way of exposing themselves as frauds.
> 
> You never did identify any objective analysis of Wyatt's claims. Do you think silly youtube videos are reliable sources of information?



Do you think you are?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> If you haven't observed something, it's not science.


So what? You still haven't made any point.


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So what? You still haven't made any point



Make up something and argue against that. It's what you "science" guys are best at.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> Make up something and argue against that. It's what you "science" guys are best at.


Gonna give up that easily eh? I will be happy to respond  directly to any point you make. But first you actually have to make one.


----------



## Hollie

DukeU said:


> Do you think you are?


No. I am not. I am not trotting out youtube videos attempting to convince anyone that claims by a charlatan are true. 

This would be a good time to provide some objective data on the claims made by Wyatt.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU 

So, we have never seen an electron. Are electrons not science? 

How about, Star formation. We have never watched a star form (but we have watched them die). Is star formation not a fact? Not science?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

abu afak said:


> *Creation science* or *scientific creationism* is a Pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible.
> 
> It is often presented without overt faith-based language, but instead relies on reinterpreting scientific results to argue that various myths in the Book of Genesis and other select biblical passages are scientifically valid. The most commonly advanced ideas of creation science include special creation based on the Genesis creation narrative and flood geology based on the Genesis flood narrative.[1] Creationists also claim they can disprove or reexplain a variety of scientific facts,[2] theories and paradigms of geology,[3] cosmology, biological evolution,[4][5] archaeology,[6][7] history, and linguistics using creation science.[8] Creation science was foundational to intelligent design.[9]
> 
> In contrast with the views of creation science,* the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science Fails to qualify as scientific because it Lacks empirical support, supplies No testable hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.*[10][11]
> 
> *Courts, *most often in the United States where the question has been asked in the context of teaching the subject in public schools,* have consistently ruled since the 1980s that creation science is a Religious view rather than a scientific one.
> 
> Historians,[12] philosophers of science and skeptics have described creation science as a Pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.* [13][14][15][16][17]
> 
> *Professional biologists have criticized creation science for being unscholarly,[18] and even as a Dishonest and misguided Sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences.*[19]...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Correct.

Creation ‘science’ is a bad faith contrivance by theists in a failed effort to make ‘legitimate’ religious dogma completely devoid of facts and objective, documented evidence.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

cnm said:


> Especially what one wants to believe without evidence.


The purpose of religion is to believe absent evidence.

With evidence, there is no religion.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

DukeU said:


> LOL
> 
> There is so much evidence, it would be nearly impossible to list it all here.
> 
> From marine fossils on mountain tops to footprints on sandstone in the flood carved Grand Canyon.
> 
> Startling Evidence for Noah's Flood | Answers in Genesis​
> Evidence for Noah's Flood: Marine fossils on mountaintops​
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what could have possibly  created this..............
> 
> 
> View attachment 559446


There are marine fossils on mountain tops because what are now mountains were once the ocean floor.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> God I feel sorry for you.
> 
> Ron Wyatt: Collosal Fraud | ScienceBlogs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ron Wyatt: Collosal Fraud | ScienceBlogs
> 
> 
> And out come the wingnuts. Here's the email I just received from someone named James Albright: Dear Ed, Noah's ark was discovered by Ron Wyatt, whose ministry is named Wyatt Archeological Research. The news media is only taking attention away from the real ark through your ministry. Please stop...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> scienceblogs.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ron Wyatt: Collosal Fraud. By stcynic on June 30, 2006. And out come the wingnuts. Here's the email I just received from someone named James Albright: Dear Ed, Noah's ark was discovered by Ron ...


Jeez, you're low hanging fruit.  You couldn't even answer where you went to school.

I'll assume I whipped your arse there.  Did you go to a Div II school then?  I mean you'r... let's just say low hanging fruit.  Are you a fruit, too?


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Jeez, you're low hanging fruit.  You couldn't even answer where you went to school.
> 
> I'll assume I whipped your arse there.  Did you go to a Div II school then?  I mean you'r... let's just say low hanging fruit.  Are you a fruit, too?



Nope. I didn't go to divinity school ..  and what the hell is your "mandom"?


----------



## surada

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> There are marine fossils on mountain tops because what are now mountains were once the ocean floor.



Creation science believes that when fountains of the earth broke open and collapsed the rocks and broken earth pushed up to become mountains.. . They think the earth was flat until Noah's flood.


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> How about, Star formation. We have never watched a star form (but we have watched them die). *Is star formation* not a fact? Not science?



Star Creation is.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Creation science believes that when fountains of the earth broke open and collapsed the rocks and broken earth pushed up to become mountains.. . They think the earth was flat until Noah's flood.


smh.  Atheist science doesn't think a flood can make an impact like it can.  


The dinosaurs dying 1000 miles away so their fossils are found across the United States means it wasn't Chixulub asteroid.  The largest megaton bomb doesn't have that far a reach.  More wrongness by atheist scientists.


----------



## DukeU

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> There are marine fossils on mountain tops because what are now mountains were once the ocean floor.



Lemme guess......Billions of years ago right?!?


----------



## surada

DukeU said:


> Lemme guess......Billions of years ago right?!?
> 
> 
> View attachment 559844



When Did the Mountains Rise? | The Institute for Creation ...








						When Did the Mountains Rise?
					

In geology a controversy prevails concerning uniformity and catastrophe. Regarding mountain building, uniformity maintains that the necessary tectonic forces have always acted, and there should be mountains of every age. Catastrophists/creationists, however, consider mountains to be largely the...




					www.icr.org
				



Mar 01, 2005 · TUESDAY, MARCH 01, 2005. In geology a controversy prevails concerning uniformity and catastrophe. Regarding mountain building, uniformity maintains that the necessary tectonic forces have always acted, and there should be mountains of every age. Catastrophists/creationists, however, consider mountains to be largely the result of Noah's Flood, which first deposited strata, then folded and eroded them, then later still uplifted them into modern mountain …


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> smh.  Atheist science doesn't think a flood can make an impact like it can.
> 
> 
> The dinosaurs dying 1000 miles away so their fossils are found across the United States means it wasn't Chixulub asteroid.  The largest megaton bomb doesn't have that far a reach.  More wrongness by atheist scientists.



Dinosaurs were everywhere.


----------



## DukeU

surada said:


> Mar 01, 2005 · TUESDAY, MARCH 01, 2005. In geology a controversy prevails concerning uniformity and catastrophe. Regarding mountain building, uniformity maintains that the necessary tectonic forces have always acted, and there should be mountains of every age. Catastrophists/creationists, however, consider mountains to be largely the result of Noah's Flood, which first deposited strata, then folded and eroded them, then later still uplifted them into modern mountain …



Possible I guess.


----------



## surada

DukeU said:


> Possible I guess.



Some mountains like the Smokies are very old and other mountains like the Himalayas are millions of years younger.


----------



## surada

surada said:


> Some mountains like the Smokies are very old and other mountains like the Himalayas are millions of years younger.



The Himalayas are still pushing up .. getting taller. Didn't you know that?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> Star Creation is.


Nice dodge! Not really. 

When can we expect one of the YEC frauds to publish their star creation research paper?


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Nice dodge! Not really.
> 
> When can we expect one of the YEC frauds to publish their star creation research paper?



When can we expect "research papers" to be anything other than propaganda?

How much paper are you smart people going to waste? You do realize trees are killed in order to produce that stuff, right?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> When can we expect "research papers" to be anything other than propaganda?


You think scientific research papers are propaganda? And you admit this, without being embarrassed or knowing how utterly idiotic you sound?

Really?

Or is this just you regressing into a childlike state and hoping to annoy someone, for lack of any cogent point?

I will go with all of the above.


----------



## surada

DukeU said:


> When can we expect "research papers" to be anything other than propaganda?
> 
> How much paper are you smart people going to waste? You do realize trees are killed in order to produce that stuff, right?
> 
> 
> View attachment 560069



How old are you?


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You think scientific research papers are propaganda? And you admit this, without being embarrassed or knowing how utterly idiotic you sound?
> 
> Really?



All of the evidence against Global Warming climate change and yet the message still hasn't changed.

Full steam ahead with known BS.


----------



## DukeU

surada said:


> How old are you?


LOL

How old are you?

Most people stop believing in fairytales before their teenage years.


----------



## surada

DukeU said:


> When can we expect "research papers" to be anything other than propaganda?
> 
> How much paper are you smart people going to waste? You do realize trees are killed in order to produce that stuff, right?
> 
> 
> View attachment 560069



When you finish school and go to college you may have to read some research papers.


----------



## DukeU

surada said:


> When you finish school and go to college you may have to read some research papers.



LOL

I've read a ton of BS in my time.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> All of the evidence against Global Warming climate change and yet the message still hasn't changed.
> 
> Full steam ahead with known BS.


You clearly know as much about climate science as you do evolution: less than nothing.

I know you hope to annoy someone. But you are really just embarrassing yourself.

That's too bad. For a little bit, thought maybe your were not a brainwashed, drooling idiot. My bad.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> LOL
> 
> I've read a ton of BS in my time.


That's what we have been trying to tell you.


----------



## surada

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You clearly know as much about climate science as you do evolution: less than nothing.
> 
> I know you hope to annoy someone. But you are really just embarrassing yourself.
> 
> That's too bad. For a little bit, thought maybe your were not a brainwashed, drooling idiot. My bad.



He's a kid.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

surada said:


> He's a kid.


So he had the idiot part covered from the start.


----------



## surada

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So he had the idiot part covered from the start.



Some bright kids peak early because they think they know everything and generally they are spoiled ..


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You think scientific research papers are propaganda? And you admit this, without being embarrassed or knowing how utterly idiotic you sound?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Or is this just you regressing into a childlike state and hoping to annoy someone, for lack of any cogent point?
> 
> I will go with all of the above.



Why didn't their research papers save them from being stuck in the ice for 3 weeks?

These are smart people right?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

surada said:


> Some bright kids peak early because they think they know everything and generally they are spoiled ..


Poor little guy hit the brick wall. Now he is confusing weather and climate.

Man, we really need to pour money into education in this country.


----------



## surada

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Poor little guy hit the brick wall. Now he is confusing weather and climate.
> 
> Man, we really need to pour money into education in this country.



No kidding.. we need to pour money into science, math and critical thinking.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

surada said:


> No kidding.. we need to pour money into science, math and critical thinking.


Yep. But first, starting in about 4th grade: logic.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

surada as our very incapable friend DukeU is demonstrating. He clearly has no real grasp of the basic tenets of logic. It is one thing to be abjectly ignorant (which he also is), but all the knowledge in the world won't do you much good without the mental tools to wield it in a useful manner.


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> @surada as our very incapable friend @DukeU is demonstrating. He clearly has no real grasp of the basic tenets of logic. It is one thing to be abjectly ignorant (which he also is), but all the knowledge in the world won't do you much good without the mental tools to wield it in a useful manne.



No answer eh?

With decades of research behind them these Scientists remained stuck in ice for 3 weeks.

They had to be rescued by helicopter.

Smart people would have postponed the mission.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> No answer eh?
> 
> With decades of research behind them these Scientists remained stuck in ice for 3 weeks.
> 
> They had to be rescued by helicopter.
> 
> Smart people would have postponed the mission.


I doubt anyone cares how smart you think they are. Is your mommy here somewhere?


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I doubt anyone cares how smart you think they are. Is your mommy here somewhere?



But research papers!!!!!


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Poor little guy hit the brick wall. *Now he is confusing weather* and climate.
> 
> Man, we really need to pour money into education in this country.



So you're saying they can't read a weather report either?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> But research papers!!!!!


Yes, you go ahead and log off and go display that behavior in a room of educated adults in the real world. See who gets laughed out of the room.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> So you're saying they can't read a weather report either?


This is what educated adults call, "non sequitur".


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> This is what* educated adults* call, "non sequitur".



Go do some research. It seems the current stuff is failing.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> Go do some research. It seems the current stuff is failing.


Well, you know less than nothing about any of it. So your opinion is worth about the same.


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well, you know less than nothing about any of it. So your opinion is worth about the same.



I have yet to be stuck anywhere needing rescue.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> I have yet to be stuck anywhere needing rescue.


Well, I assumed you would know I meant the research. As I directly responded to your comment about the research. But it is becoming clear that you aren't just ignorant. You're kind of dumb as well.


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well, I assumed you would know I meant the research



I did.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> I did.


Huh. Then you just flitted to something else entirely. Strange. But okay.

Is there a specific science topic you want to discuss?


----------



## DukeU

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Huh. Then you just flitted to something else entirely. Strange. But okay.
> 
> Is there a specific science topic you want to discuss?


Guess I need a rest from shredding this "science" stuff, give me a couple of days.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DukeU said:


> Guess I need a rest from shredding this "science" stuff, give me a couple of days.


Please, take more if you like.


----------



## abu afak

DukeU said:


> *Guess I need a rest from shredding this "science" stuff, give me a couple of days.  *


You actually need to Retire not rest.
You contribute NOTHING scientific (for or against) on any issue.
You're simply a Low IQ, Last-wording, one-line, TROLL.
That's it.

.


----------



## Dagosa

Anomalism said:


> These people are desperate. What a strange situation. As religion in the first world scales down it will likely become more and more insulted/cult-like.


Religions are a way of making a profit while qualifying as a “non profit.”

If religions could sell stock, they’d do it.


----------



## Captain Caveman

abu afak said:


> Thanks.
> My science is good too.
> (we'd get more if he'd go back to the religion section where he SINGULARLY belongs).
> 
> My tactics are great and blowing poor James Bond/the Christian Taliban out of the water.
> He dare not touch this OP or many other Haymaker OPs I've landed which destroy his brainwashed position without even the meat underneath.
> 
> It exposes him for the fringe lunatic he is.
> 
> `


I'm agnostic.

What I've found with religion is, no offence, is that the self proclaimed experts on the matter are Atheists, but they're just retarded, because their actual knowledge of the subject is completely lacking and ignorant. It's obvious because their only tactic is to ridicule, an avoidance strategy.

I don't believe a God exists, and I don't dismiss that a God doesn't exist; there's no proof either way. I find a "Big Bang" quite a strange concept, but I suppose that would be the "Religion" of the scientific enthusiasts.

I don't knock religion and science, both fit in with different folk. Part of my Psychology studying was Christianity because I was intrigued how it related and interacted with people. When you take the time to do that, no offence Abu, your posts make you stand out like a dumb fuck.

I just think you need to wind your neck in and get up to speed with the subject.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Dinosaurs were everywhere.


Where's your evidence?  Give me a link.

You finally admit it wasn't Chixulub.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Where's your evidence?  Give me a link.
> 
> You finally admit it wasn't Chixulub.







__





						Dinosaurs Worldwide | Genesis Park
					






					www.genesispark.com
				




Dinosaurs remains truly have been found all over the world. Here is just a small sampling of some of the most popular dinosaurs that have come from various countries:

Tsintosaurus – China
Leaellynosaura – Australia
Kentrosaurus – Tanzania
Compsognathus – Germany
Spinosaurus – Egypt
Ankylosaurids – Antarctica
Saltasaurus – Argentina
Parasaurolophus – Canada
Struthiomimus – USA
Baryonyx – England
Plateosaurus – France
Velociraptor -Mongolia


----------



## surada




----------



## surada

The guys that found it were oilmen.. 

Chicxulub Crater - About Chicxulub

Chicxulub inner crater at the same scale as the Phoenix and Tucson area Chicxulub inner crater at the same scale as the Washington D.C. - Baltimore area. Alternative theories. Although, the theory that the impact at Chicxulub was the one that triggered the extinction of the dinosaurs is widely accepted, some scientists challenged it





__





						Chicxulub Crater - About Chicxulub
					





					chicxulubcrater.org


----------



## abu afak

Captain Caveman said:


> I'm agnostic.
> 
> What I've found with religion is, no offence, is that the self proclaimed experts on the matter are Atheists, but they're just retarded, because their actual knowledge of the subject is completely lacking and ignorant. It's obvious because their only tactic is to ridicule, an avoidance strategy.
> 
> I don't believe a God exists, and I don't dismiss that a God doesn't exist; there's no proof either way. I find a "Big Bang" quite a strange concept, but I suppose that would be the "Religion" of the scientific enthusiasts.
> 
> I don't knock religion and science, both fit in with different folk. Part of my Psychology studying was Christianity because I was intrigued how it related and interacted with people. When you take the time to do that, no offence Abu, your posts make you stand out like a dumb fuck.
> 
> I just think you need to wind your neck in and get up to speed with the subject.


Apparently you haven't read enough of my posts, or understand the dynamic of this section, which leads to more aggressive behavior and debate.
So your comments make an ass of you.

I suggest you read the posts of 'James Bond' and a few others who spam/make a mockery of the sci section with their religious, indeed, literalist/Young Earth Creationist positions. Some thread starts denying evolution/Darwin etc

_"I don't knock religion and science, both fit in with different folk."_
Ooops!
And when one folk - religious - try and replace science/fact with their Faith we get a conflict here.
There is a protected religious section for those who wish to express 6 day creation, 6000 yr old Earth, Noah's Ark, Man in god's image, etc, etc, etc. instead of foisting/interrupting this section.
You need to read some threads before expressing your 'live and let live' self-integrity ***hole.
So after years of this (and their Evo bashing threads), I get/got more aggressive.
I have stopped a few with my thread starts that destroy their basis, (because there isn't any) but even more have replaced them.

As to god, I don't believe he/they exist either. (so many have gone by the wayside already)
There is no evidence he/they do/ever did, so there is no real basis for a deity in this section at all.

But, as I've said, if the stars line up one night and form the word 'Allah' in Arabic, (or any other Evidence) I would be thrilled at the enlightenment after 10,000 years and 10,000 alleged gods, and glad to adhere to the Koran.
Christians and other religions wouldn't be so tolerant/understanding.
I can imagine a weak of Tens of millions of suicides and conflict among other believers who've built their whole lives/social lives on their own religious facades.

So, again, your problem (you holier than thou clown) is you aren't familiar with years of what's been going on here and think only one side is aggressive.
That's what happens when the uninformed try to say/triangulate "I'm the reasonable guy, and you're the extremist."

`


----------



## surada

james bond 

Creationism and Creation Science




__





						Creationism and Creation Science
					





					www2.clarku.edu
				



Creationism and Creation Science. The belief in the account of the creation of the universe as presentedin Genesis. Some creationists consider the theory of creation described in Genesis to be a scientificaccount and the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution to be false.1These creationists refer to their belief as creation science. Advocates of creation science have campaigned to have the …


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> Religions are a way of making a profit while qualifying as a “non profit.”
> 
> If religions could sell stock, they’d do it.


Except atheism.  They're not making any money .  Does it prove they're stupid asf?


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Except atheism.  They're not making any money .  Does it prove they're stupid asf?


Atheism is like being an outcast. They can’t make money off that belief in a country where most pretend they are something they are  not. It’s hilarious seeing the “ good Christian”  prostrate himself before everything Christ would disavow. So really, they can’t be real believers. IMO, most are agnostic/atheist but can’t live as an outcast. So they pretend.


----------



## Dagosa

surada said:


> james bond
> 
> Creationism and Creation Science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism and Creation Science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www2.clarku.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism and Creation Science. The belief in the account of the creation of the universe as presentedin Genesis. Some creationists consider the theory of creation described in Genesis to be a scientificaccount and the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution to be false.1These creationists refer to their belief as creation science. Advocates of creation science have campaigned to have the …


The word “ science” doesn’t even belong in the same sentence with “ creationism”. It’s just woo woo to do it. It’s a head scratcher, like the “ science of Oz.”


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinosaurs Worldwide | Genesis Park
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.genesispark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinosaurs remains truly have been found all over the world. Here is just a small sampling of some of the most popular dinosaurs that have come from various countries:
> 
> Tsintosaurus – China
> Leaellynosaura – Australia
> Kentrosaurus – Tanzania
> Compsognathus – Germany
> Spinosaurus – Egypt
> Ankylosaurids – Antarctica
> Saltasaurus – Argentina
> Parasaurolophus – Canada
> Struthiomimus – USA
> Baryonyx – England
> Plateosaurus – France
> Velociraptor -Mongolia


Thank you.  It goes to prove that the asteroid didn't kill the dinosaurs.  More evidence for the global flood.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Thank you.  It goes to prove that the asteroid didn't kill the dinosaurs.  More evidence for the global flood.



I may have killed dinosaurs off in the Yucatan.. It certainly doesn't prove the Bible myths. Why don't you teach the Bible myths for their message instead of teaching children to be ignorant about science? Teaching myth as science is a terrible thing to do to our young people. They will grow up ignorant and backwards.


----------



## surada

Dagosa said:


> The word “ science” doesn’t even belong in the same sentence with “ creationism”. It’s just woo woo to do it. It’s a head scratcher, like the “ science of Oz.”



I know.. James must be a religious fanatic to want to teach creation science to our children.


----------



## Dagosa

surada said:


> I know.. James must be a religious fanatic to want to teach creation science to our children.


You said it.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Thank you.  It goes to prove that the asteroid didn't kill the dinosaurs.  More evidence for the global flood.


Seriously ! Surely you jest. It isn’t like the dinosaurs in one area were all hit on the head at one time.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> The word “ science” doesn’t even belong in the same sentence with “ creationism”. It’s just woo woo to do it. It’s a head scratcher, like the “ science of Oz.”


You are wrong.  Atheists are usually wrong.  Science has backed up the Bible many times.

Science hasn't backed up evolution.  It's just a bunch of papers by atheist scientists who are trying to get recognition and money for their projects.  Otherwise, you would be providing the answers instead of me.  The head scratching science is evolution and evolutionary thinking as there is no observable evidence.  You can't provide anything nor any truthful scientific answers.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> I may have killed dinosaurs off in the Yucatan.. It certainly doesn't prove the Bible myths. Why don't you teach the Bible myths for their message instead of teaching children to be ignorant about science? Teaching myth as science is a terrible thing to do to our young people. They will grow up ignorant and backwards.


Lol, you're a weakling and someone who needs to have their head examined.  You're all over the place in S&T.  What a hot mess.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> You are wrong.  Atheists are usually wrong.  Science has backed up the Bible many times.
> 
> Science hasn't backed up evolution.  It's just a bunch of papers by atheist scientists who are trying to get recognition and money for their projects.  Otherwise, you would be providing the answers instead of me.  The head scratching science is evolution and evolutionary thinking as there is no observable evidence.  You can't provide anything nor any truthful scientific answers.


That’s an upside down post. Do you remember anything in the science courses you may have had in school ? Anything thing ring a bell ?

And yes, we see evolution at work  every time a baby is born….or you go to the grocery store and everything you can buy there  has been genetically altered using principles from evolution. 

You’re likely alive today because of them. Your life expectancy has doubled since modern medicine has decided the gods weren’t helping enough and we were on our own for survival.

Deniers of evolution are like the guy who sees something he doesn’t like, so he closes his eyes and pretends it’s not there…..it works for you, temporarily.


----------



## Dagosa

surada said:


> I know.. James must be a religious fanatic to want to teach creation science to our children.


Through the word science behind the word creationism is just a ploy to try and fool the easily fooled.


----------



## Dagosa

surada said:


> I may have killed dinosaurs off in the Yucatan.. It certainly doesn't prove the Bible myths. Why don't you teach the Bible myths for their message instead of teaching children to be ignorant about science? Teaching myth as science is a terrible thing to do to our young people. They will grow up ignorant and backwards.


Exactly. Sending your kids out in the modern world to get a job and survive while being brought up on fallacies IMO, is abusive. At some time kids have to realize there is no Santa Clause.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> That’s an upside down post. Do you remember anything in the science courses you may have had in school ? Anything thing ring a bell ?
> 
> And yes, we see evolution at work  every time a baby is born….or you go to the grocery store and everything you can buy there  has been genetically altered using principles from evolution.
> 
> You’re likely alive today because of them. Your life expectancy has doubled since modern medicine has decided the gods weren’t helping enough and we were on our own for survival.
> 
> Deniers of evolution are like the guy who sees something he doesn’t like, so he closes his eyes and pretends it’s not there…..it works for you, temporarily.


All of you scenarios just back up creation as science backs up creation.  It takes life to produce life.  Anyway, you don't know even know what the argument is lol.  You have no observable evidence for evolution and evolutionary thinking.  Yours is evolution of the gaps where you just think/assume evolution did it.  It's fallacious and really dump asf.


----------



## Wuwei

There is no such thing as creation science. The bible is not science and science does not back up any of the the Bible. If you want to believe in YEC so be it. I have no argument against it. But debasing science as you do to rationalize your believe simply does not work.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> There is no such thing as creation science. The bible is not science and science does not back up any of the the Bible. If you want to believe in YEC so be it. I have no argument against it. But debasing science as you do to rationalize your believe simply does not work.


This is more evolution of the gaps thinking which is cretinism at best.  I presented the Kalam Cosmological Argument which came after we found the CMB and a _beginning_ to the universe.  Prior to that, the atheists and their scientists believed in an eternal universe, but they were _wrong_.

Furthermore, the atheists stole the concept of infinite temperature and infinite density called singularity from the creationists.  The big bang or expansion of the universe started from a single point.  Nothing in nature could cause that, so it leads one to think that there was something supernatural.  The atheists took this and believed universes could just pop into existence naturally and their cretin scientist Stephen Hawking believed in multiverses.  Anything this complex can't just pop into existence like in the gif below.  Just looking at the gif below shows some kind of intelligence behind it, but you believe it can just happen lol.  You can look at a blank page and it won't just pop into existence.  Don't you feel dumb believing stuff like evolution and evolutionary thinking?


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> All of you scenarios just back up creation as science backs up creation.  It takes life to produce life.  Anyway, you don't know even know what the argument is lol.  You have no observable evidence for evolution and evolutionary thinking.  Yours is evolution of the gaps where you just think/assume evolution did it.  It's fallacious and really dump asf.


Sure, everyday It’s observable all around you.
Go to any hospital in the United states. Patients go there to have medical science practiced on their   illness. The the biology of disease control and medical science in general is based upon evolutionary principles. No one prays over you there.

More people leave the hospital better for it then ever leave a place of worship. The comparison is stunningly ridiculous.

I assume if you’ve been to a hospital out of necessity, its Hypocritical to even compare science with any discussion of religion. You know it. You don’t get to be born in “church”, you don’t get cancer treatments in a church . Heck, you don’t even get your cell phone  or your car fixed in a church. Anywhere science  principles are applied has little to do with religion. Get over it.

If science  can’t help you you’re in deep sht and neither you, your car or your cell phone doesn’t respond, you’re left with prayer, which never works.  It happens all the time. Don’t confuse the two.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> This is more evolution of the gaps thinking which is cretinism at best.  I presented the Kalam Cosmological Argument which came after we found the CMB and a _beginning_ to the universe.  Prior to that, the atheists and their scientists believed in an eternal universe, but they were _wrong_.
> 
> Furthermore, the atheists stole the concept of infinite temperature and infinite density called singularity from the creationists.  The big bang or expansion of the universe started from a single point.  Nothing in nature could cause that, so it leads one to think that there was something supernatural.  The atheists took this and believed universes could just pop into existence naturally and their cretin scientist Stephen Hawking believed in multiverses.  Anything this complex can't just pop into existence like in the gif below.  Just looking at the gif below shows some kind of intelligence behind it, but you believe it can just happen lol.  You can look at a blank page and it won't just pop into existence.  Don't you feel dumb believing stuff like evolution and evolutionary thinking?
> 
> View attachment 561868


Woo woo at its finest.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> You are wrong.  Atheists are usually wrong.  Science has backed up the Bible many times.
> 
> Science hasn't backed up evolution.  It's just a bunch of papers by atheist scientists who are trying to get recognition and money for their projects.  Otherwise, you would be providing the answers instead of me.  The head scratching science is evolution and evolutionary thinking as there is no observable evidence.  You can't provide anything nor any truthful scientific answers.


Ridiculous…every medical doctor is a practitioner of medical science,  not religion. There are no requirements to take any courses in religion to become an MD. Go to a seminary. Tell me how many courses in science are necessary to be a priest, rabbi or minister ? None.

Here is what is really happening in religion ministries and seminaries.
“Science and technology impact every area of modern life, and many religious communities are eager to incorporate good science into their teaching and service to society,” said Jennifer Wiseman, DoSER program director.”

Religious comunities want to remain relevant they can only do it by accepting real science, not  tripe.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> This is more evolution of the gaps thinking which is cretinism at best. * I presented the Kalam Cosmological Argument *which came after we found the CMB and a _beginning_ to the universe.  Prior to that, the atheists and their scientists believed in an eternal universe, but they were _wrong_.
> 
> Furthermore, the atheists stole the concept of infinite temperature and infinite density called singularity from the creationists.  The big bang or expansion of the universe started from a single point.  Nothing in nature could cause that, so it leads one to think that there was something supernatural.  The atheists took this and believed universes could just pop into existence naturally and their cretin scientist Stephen Hawking believed in multiverses.  Anything this complex can't just pop into existence like in the gif below.  Just looking at the gif below shows some kind of intelligence behind it, but you believe it can just happen lol.  You can look at a blank page and it won't just pop into existence.  Don't you feel dumb believing stuff like evolution and evolutionary thinking?


No, it was me who identified the name/origin of the fallacy (Kalam Cosmo...) not you.
I know it because, unlike you, I research my positions, pro and con and that's why (besides a 50 IQ point advantage) I can crush you on every old piece of crap try.
I know them all.
`.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Thank you.  It goes to prove that the asteroid didn't kill the dinosaurs.  More evidence for the global flood.



It's a sad thing that anyone would be gullible enough to be exploited by charlatans who prey upon the religious extremists with such nonsense as 'dinosaur park'


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> This is more evolution of the gaps thinking which is cretinism at best. I presented the Kalam Cosmological Argument which came after we found the CMB and a _beginning_ to the universe. Prior to that, the atheists and their scientists believed in an eternal universe, but they were _wrong_.
> 
> Furthermore, the atheists stole the concept of infinite temperature and infinite density called singularity from the creationists. The big bang or expansion of the universe started from a single point. Nothing in nature could cause that, so it leads one to think that there was something supernatural. The atheists took this and believed universes could just pop into existence naturally and their cretin scientist Stephen Hawking believed in multiverses. Anything this complex can't just pop into existence like in the gif below. Just looking at the gif below shows some kind of intelligence behind it, but you believe it can just happen lol. You can look at a blank page and it won't just pop into existence. Don't you feel dumb believing stuff like evolution and evolutionary thinking?


The Kalam argument simply asserts that there is some magnificent cause behind the universe. It is then called God. That is just a word defined as _the entity prior to the initial expansion._ So what? It is just a label that religious people like to use and does not add anything to science.

It also does not add anything to Christianity either. There is nothing in the argument that gives credence to that entity creating a first man and woman. There is nothing saying people should pray to it so it can micromanage their lives. There is nothing in the argument saying evolution is wrong. There is nothing that says that man is made in that entity's image.

The Kaleam argument is vacuous. Nobody knows what happened before the universe expansion. Giving it the name God simply confuses Bible thumpers into thinking that their personal God that they pray to is proven to exist. It proves nothing of the sort.
.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> The the biology of disease control and medical science in general is based upon evolutionary principles.


Medicine falls under Christianity more than evolutionary thinking.  Look at all the hospitals based on Christian names and funded by the church -- Christianity and Modern Medicine | Biomedical Odyssey.  The Bible tells us that creationists have control over sickness -- Charisma Magazine.

Your argument sounds more like opinion and what you want than what it is.  What about the CDC since you mentioned disease control.  Did an atheist in medicine founded it?


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> No, it was me who identified the name/origin of the fallacy (Kalam Cosmo...) not you.
> I know it because, unlike you, I research my positions, pro and con and that's why (besides a 50 IQ point advantage) I can crush you on every old piece of crap try.
> I know them all.
> `.


You're the one who said you didn't know what happened before the big bang or expansion of the universe.  Thus, I presented KCA based on the CMB being discovered.  For a simple example, I used a big bang gif.  Nobody in their right mind will claim that there wasn't someone who created it and intelligence behind it or else they'll just keep staring at a blank screen.  It follows the logic of KCA.  OTOH, the atheists do not have any logical argument nor gif they can show.  I even said Stephen Hawking believed in multiverses because of the Anthropic Principle (These fine tuning parameters were discovered by atheist scientists!).  Multiverses are just wishful thinking and make believe because you can't have two big bang gifs if one can't just pop into existence.  There's something screwy with Hawking's thinking and logic lol.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Medicine falls under Christianity more than evolutionary thinking.


With all due respect, that’s about as silly a remark as anyone can make.
It seems evolutionary principles are  REQUIRED taught  in every med school in the country while absolutely any courses  linked to any required Christianity and their doctrines are NEVER required. It’s ridiculous. Doctors who practice in the United States are of every religion including non Christian and atheism. Of course the Church can help fund schools and provide scholarships. It’s part of their obligation to remain non profit. The charitable work of the Catholic faith requires the participation of doctors, as well as an assist from the military and governments they do their work in.That doesn’t mean they are a military organization. Goid grief.  Trying to provide support for a made up idea from made up organizations based on made up ideas from made up publications, isn’t evidence.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> All of you scenarios just back up creation as science backs up creation.  It takes life to produce life.  Anyway, you don't know even know what the argument is lol.  You have no observable evidence for evolution and evolutionary thinking.  Yours is evolution of the gaps where you just think/assume evolution did it.  It's fallacious and really dump asf.


It's not a surprise that you're unable to offer a single instance of science "backing up" creation by supernatural gods.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Medicine falls under Christianity more than evolutionary thinking.  Look at all the hospitals based on Christian names and funded by the church -- Christianity and Modern Medicine | Biomedical Odyssey.  The Bible tells us that creationists have control over sickness -- Charisma Magazine.
> 
> Your argument sounds more like opinion and what you want than what it is.  What about the CDC since you mentioned disease control.  Did an atheist in medicine founded it?


Actually, the exploration of the physical sciences and medicine were ruthlessly suppressed by the Church during the Dark Ages literally holding back humanity for 800 years.


----------



## surada

Dagosa said:


> Ridiculous…every medical doctor is a practitioner of medical science,  not religion. There are no requirements to take any courses in religion to become an MD. Go to a seminary. Tell me how many courses in science are necessary to be a priest, rabbi or minister ? None.
> 
> Here is what is really happening in religion ministries and seminaries.
> “Science and technology impact every area of modern life, and many religious communities are eager to incorporate good science into their teaching and service to society,” said Jennifer Wiseman, DoSER program director.”
> 
> Religious comunities want to remain relevant they can only do it by accepting real science, not  tripe.



james bond may be playing games.. Nobody is that ignorant.


----------



## Wuwei

surada said:


> james bond may be playing games.. Nobody is that ignorant.


May be playing games? He *is* playing games. He has been continually trolling S&T with the same trite posts.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

surada said:


> james bond may be playing games.. Nobody is that ignorant.


Ya THINK?

His ONLY goal is to derail every science thread. 

Which he cannot do, without help.


----------



## surada

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ya THINK?
> 
> His ONLY goal is to derail every science thread.
> 
> Which he cannot do, without help.



Well, james bond isn't very bright.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> You're the one who said you didn't know what happened before the big bang or expansion of the universe. * Thus, I presented KCA based on the CMB being
> discovered.*


You copied it from somewhere without knowing what it was. I told you what it was






						94% of the universe’s galaxies are permanently beyond our reach
					

I don't think you're going to score any points in the scientific community, but it made comfort you to know, Albert Einstein once said, " Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. " Not so comforting, would be that most scientists on this site or the line their views...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				






abu afak said:


> *It's called the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
> An ancient philosophical idea popularized by William Lane Craig in his 1979 book of the title.
> Lane is a Christian Apologist*
> It is, of course, just a giant God of the Gaps: We don't know/know yet. so it must be god/GodDidIt fallacy.
> Your link of course, another kweationist apologetics website.
> `





james bond said:


> *Thanks for answering the questions.
> 
> What do you mean by "just a giant God of the Gaps?"*
> 
> >>We don't know/know yet.<<
> 
> Shouldn't you know by now?  How many billions of years do you need?
> 
> See I have the answers, but the atheists here don't.  I think you're missing WLC's key points believing in atheism and the big lie.



`


----------



## Wuwei

surada said:


> Well, james bond isn't very bright.


Agreed. His posts are full of non sequiturs. He has no intuition about formal logic. Some of his replies are totally ad hominem w/o any argument at all. As a troll, he wants attention by stirring things up. You don't need to be bright to do that.

.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> The Kalam argument simply asserts that there is some magnificent cause behind the universe. It is then called God. That is just a word defined as _the entity prior to the initial expansion._ So what? It is just a label that religious people like to use and does not add anything to science.
> 
> It also does not add anything to Christianity either. There is nothing in the argument that gives credence to that entity creating a first man and woman. There is nothing saying people should pray to it so it can micromanage their lives. There is nothing in the argument saying evolution is wrong. There is nothing that says that man is made in that entity's image.
> 
> The Kaleam argument is vacuous. Nobody knows what happened before the universe expansion. Giving it the name God simply confuses Bible thumpers into thinking that their personal God that they pray to is proven to exist. It proves nothing of the sort.
> .


You don't seem to understand logical arguments.  Your comments just seem like whining to me because your side has no cosmological argument.  With my big bang gif example, your side ends up staring at a blank screen.

You can continue to believe in atheism, but science doesn't back up Darwin's book.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> With all due respect, that’s about as silly a remark as anyone can make.
> It seems evolutionary principles are  REQUIRED taught  in every med school in the country while absolutely any courses  linked to any required Christianity and their doctrines are NEVER required. It’s ridiculous. Doctors who practice in the United States are of every religion including non Christian and atheism. Of course the Church can help fund schools and provide scholarships. It’s part of their obligation to remain non profit. The charitable work of the Catholic faith requires the participation of doctors, as well as an assist from the military and governments they do their work in.That doesn’t mean they are a military organization. Goid grief.  Trying to provide support for a made up idea from made up organizations based on made up ideas from made up publications, isn’t evidence.


So the guy who founded CDC wasn't an atheist.  Well, give me one example of an atheist doctor who did something notable?

I can't see an atheist doctor giving last rites.  Dominus abbacus bull sh*t.  The grieving family will have a fit and prolly want Dexter New Blood anti-hero to kill the doctor.

You and the atheists here need to face some reality.  Atheism didn't do anything for medicine no matter how much you're on your knees begging for someone who believes in evolution, i.e. life from non-life.  Science and medicine does not back up evolution.  Nothing is observable.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Wuwei said:


> Agreed. His posts are full of non sequiturs. He has no intuition about formal logic. Some of his replies are totally ad hominem w/o any argument at all. As a troll, he wants attention by stirring things up. You don't need to be bright to do that.
> 
> .


He is the victim of delusion, so he is engaged in "backwards think".

Normal, rational adults happen upon information and draw conclusions from it, or alter their preconceptions. A mentally handicapped person like james bond   reacts to all incoming information reflexively, like an amoeba. He then attempts (usually rather poorly) to retrofit the new information to the preconception, which must be maintained at all costs. So the result is blatant, shameless self-contradiction, demonstrably false lies, and unavoidable fallacy.

So what we end up seeing is a babbling, incoherent fool who admits all the mechanisms of Evolution, but thinks all species are static. An idiot who thinks species adapt, but also do not change. A sniveling liar who makes up lies about why no creation science research has EVER been published. Etc., etc.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> You don't seem to understand logical arguments.  Your comments just seem like whining to me because your side has no cosmological argument.  With my big bang gif example, your side ends up staring at a blank screen.
> 
> You can continue to believe in atheism, but science doesn't back up Darwin's book.




What are the flaws of a cosmological argument?
Cosmological Argument Weaknesses. Just like any other argument, the cosmological argument also has its own flaws that have prevented many people from believing in it. Some of these weaknesses are: 1. It raises as many problems as solutions. Those who oppose the cosmological argument point out that it's useless and that it leaves people nowhere.
5 Cosmological Argument Strengths and Weaknesses | Flow ...






						5 Cosmological Argument Strengths and Weaknesses | Flow Psychology
					

The cosmological argument argues that the presence of a God is proven by the existence of the universe. The fact that the universe exists means that somebody



					flowpsychology.com


----------



## Captain Caveman

james bond said:


> Medicine falls under Christianity more than evolutionary thinking.  Look at all the hospitals based on Christian names and funded by the church -- Christianity and Modern Medicine | Biomedical Odyssey.  The Bible tells us that creationists have control over sickness -- Charisma Magazine.
> 
> Your argument sounds more like opinion and what you want than what it is.  What about the CDC since you mentioned disease control.  Did an atheist in medicine founded it?


The vast majority I see going out in society helping others are churches, the vast majority of atheists are not interested in others, unless they can get some money or benefit out of them.


----------



## surada

Captain Caveman said:


> The vast majority I see going out in society helping others are churches, the vast majority of atheists are not interested in others, unless they can get some money or benefit out of them.



Oh come on now..There are plenty of money grubbing preachers. Turn on your TV.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Captain Caveman said:


> The vast majority I see going out in society helping others are churches, the vast majority of atheists are not interested in others, unless they can get some money or benefit out of them.


Nah, you just made up all of that garbage out of thin air.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Nah, you just made up all of that garbage out of thin air.


Tends to be the Salvation Army and local churches. Nothing from the atheists.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Captain Caveman said:


> Tends to be the Salvation Army and local churches. Nothing from the atheists.


Hah, just making stuff up. "Hey, this sounds right, think I will say it out loud."


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> You don't seem to understand logical arguments. Your comments just seem like whining to me


Ah, your usual troll ad hominem.


james bond said:


> your side has no cosmological argument.


Both devoutly religious people and scientists in cosmology view the universe with a deep respect. Neither side claims to understand it. Both atheist and religious contemporary scientist try, with more and more sophisticated instruments to explore the origin. There are an increasing number of discoveries about the big bang, However creationists who cite the Kalam argument are not interested and simply say God did it and are done with it. As I said, that is vacuous. 


james bond said:


> You can continue to believe in atheism, but science doesn't back up Darwin's book.


You are wrong, but the context here is the Kalam argument not evolution. 

.


----------



## Wuwei

Captain Caveman said:


> Tends to be the Salvation Army and local churches. Nothing from the atheists.


Aren't you guys the ones who say Democrats are atheists and communists and want the government to give free stuff to the poor?


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> So the guy who founded CDC wasn't an atheist.  Well, give me one example of an atheist doctor who did something notable?
> 
> I can't see an atheist doctor giving last rites.  Dominus abbacus bull sh*t.  The grieving family will have a fit and prolly want Dexter New Blood anti-hero to kill the doctor.
> 
> You and the atheists here need to face some reality.  Atheism didn't do anything for medicine no matter how much you're on your knees begging for someone who believes in evolution, i.e. life from non-life.  Science and medicine does not back up evolution.  Nothing is observable.


So your schtick now is because atheism isn’t obvious in medical science, your logic says Christianity must be. Leave to 8 year old logic.

Seriously, did you ever have any science courses growing up ? Just asking.


----------



## Dagosa

Wuwei said:


> Aren't you guys the ones who say Democrats are atheists and communists and want the government to give free stuff to the poor?


No. We’re the ones who say republicans want free stuff. They don’t want to pay any taxes but are the first to whine when the gov isn’t there to coddle them.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Wuwei said:


> Aren't you guys the ones who say Democrats are atheists and communists and want the government to give free stuff to the poor?


He actually breaches one of the things I find to be vile about organized religion: suffering porn.

We would be mistaken to think these religious groups want to solve any of these problems. They are handing out soup, instead of housing these people and teaching them to make soup.

You know, like the old saying goes: "Give a man a fish, then give him another fish tomorrow. You will feel really great about yourself and punch your ticket to your eternal reward. And he FOR SURE will be back tomorrow."

This aid is chiefly about two things:

- Feeling self righteous and heaven-bound
- Proselytizing

Atheists, having no use for either of these ideas, instead go to the more rational solution: wider action and policy not just to alleviate these problems, but to solve and prevent them. Yes, atheists organize clothing and food drives for those who need them.

But when you see someone on TV proposing we house the homeless, treat their mental illness, and teach them skills, all of which could cure their situation or even prevent it in the first place, you can bet it is someone from a secular organization, operating on secular reason based on evidence. The faithers are too busy sneaking Jesus flyers into sandwiches and daydreaming about their own eternal rewards.


----------



## Dagosa

Captain Caveman said:


> The vast majority I see going out in society helping others are churches, the vast majority of atheists are not interested in others, unless they can get some money or benefit out of them.


Really ? You can’t be serious. The vast majority helping others are the local, state and federal gov agencies. When was the last time a church paid your healthcare or unemployment  benefit…when millions lost their jobs duriNK the Bush lead recession ? 
I didn’t see churches paying them during the shut down or handing out FREE vaccines And saving tens of thousands of live

Churches give some temporary relief to a few specialized areas to maintain their tax free status.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Dagosa said:


> Churches give some temporary relief to a few specialized areas to maintain their tax free status.


Ding ding ding

$50,000 for a new LED sign out front.

But raised $6000  for underprivileged kids to take field trips to the creation museum.

True story, from a church just down the road from me.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Wuwei said:


> Aren't you guys the ones who say Democrats are atheists and communists and want the government to give free stuff to the poor?


No.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> What are the flaws of a cosmological argument?
> Cosmological Argument Weaknesses. Just like any other argument, the cosmological argument also has its own flaws that have prevented many people from believing in it. Some of these weaknesses are: 1. It raises as many problems as solutions. Those who oppose the cosmological argument point out that it's useless and that it leaves people nowhere.
> 5 Cosmological Argument Strengths and Weaknesses | Flow ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5 Cosmological Argument Strengths and Weaknesses | Flow Psychology
> 
> 
> The cosmological argument argues that the presence of a God is proven by the existence of the universe. The fact that the universe exists means that somebody
> 
> 
> 
> flowpsychology.com


1.  No one created God.  He is timeless, spaceless, all powerful supernatural Being, etc.  It's in the Bible and it explains all.

After being at it at this long, I just go heh.  Atheists can die and find out who won.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Something cannot come from nothing!

'Cept Gawd!


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ding ding ding
> 
> $50,000 for a new LED sign out front.
> 
> But raised $6000  for underprivileged kids to take field trips to the creation museum.
> 
> True story, from a church just down the road from me.


What about those abortion clinics?  Get rid of the tax-free status, government funding, and track their doctors like Jason Bourne.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> What about those abortion clinics?  Get rid of the tax-free status, government funding, and track their doctors like Jason Bourne.





Why Do So Many Reject Creation Science? | Answers in Genesis


			https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/why...
		

Jul 15, 2020 · Why do so many people reject creation science? Why do 98% of professional scientists accept evolution? This page seeks to answer these questions by documenting the behavior of opponents of young-earth creation science.


Jul 15, 2020 · Why do so many people reject creation science? Why do 98% of professional scientists accept evolution? This page seeks to answer these questions by documenting the behavior of opponents of young-earth creation science.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> What about those abortion clinics?


What about them? They and the people who use them are none of your business. Sorry. You only get to vote, just like everyone else. So go sit in the corner.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> So your schtick now is because atheism isn’t obvious in medical science, your logic says Christianity must be. Leave to 8 year old logic.
> 
> Seriously, did you ever have any science courses growing up ? Just asking.


I guess you admit you lost as atheism doesn't have anything to do with medicine.  It doesn't really have to do anything with evolution.  We have theist evolutionists.  All atheism has is a claim which science doesn't back up nor is anything observable.  

What degree do you have?  Kindergarten doesn't count.

I'm the one who provided the atheists here the evolution website from my school lol.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Something cannot come from nothing!
> 
> 'Cept Gawd!


Now, you're getting it, but take out the "!" in your first sentence, spell God correctly, and get down on your knees while saying it (more sincerity and gratitude), and quit acting like a POS.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> What about them? They and the people who use them are none of your business. Sorry. You only get to vote, just like everyone else. So go sit in the corner.


I didn't bring the government in here.  No tax breaks for abortion clinics and government funding.  The doctors end up being tracked as committing felonies.

ETA:  I don't want to get into politics or R&E.  Let's call it a Mexican standoff where each side backs away slowly with their guns drawn lol.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> You copied it from somewhere without knowing what it was. I told you what it was
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 94% of the universe’s galaxies are permanently beyond our reach
> 
> 
> I don't think you're going to score any points in the scientific community, but it made comfort you to know, Albert Einstein once said, " Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. " Not so comforting, would be that most scientists on this site or the line their views...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> `


What does planets and galaxies beyond our reach mean?  The Bible explains that God did it to show us his vast power.  It wasn't enough to just create spacetime, the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  (It's part of His kingdom, power, and glory if this was R&E forum.)  Evolution loses right there.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> May be playing games? He *is* playing games. He has been continually trolling S&T with the same trite posts.


This is why you life will be cut short.  God and people do not want to be called a troll.  Instead, God gave us such wonderful things such as creation, the universe, Earth, and everything in it (in six days), natural selection, and more.  

To me, you sound like a big whiner because long time and old Earth isn't observable nor provable.  That's the only subject I remember discussing with you regarding S&T.  

You're not even a mod here.  Why don't you just complain of a specific post and reason for it to the mod if I am a troll?  It seems you're the troll because I'm the only one you specifically pick out to label as such.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> This is why you life will be cut short. God and people do not want to be called a troll.


You are preaching God will kill me because I called you a troll? Jeez you are scraping bottom. 

Tell me more about how the Kalam argument leads to a god that we should pray to because he micromanages our lives, and kills people who call you a troll. 
.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> This is why you life will be cut short.  God and people do not want to be called a troll.  Instead, God gave us such wonderful things such as creation, the universe, Earth, and everything in it (in six days), natural selection, and more.
> 
> To me, you sound like a big whiner because long time and old Earth isn't observable nor provable.  That's the only subject I remember discussing with you regarding S&T.
> 
> You're not even a mod here.  Why don't you just complain of a specific post and reason for it to the mod if I am a troll?  It seems you're the troll because I'm the only one you specifically pick out to label as such.



You're stupid and mean.. You think God is going to cut a life short for you?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond 

Thank goodness you are likely not allowed anywhere near children. If this is how you always act, I guarantee you are not.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> I guess you admit you lost as atheism doesn't have anything to do with medicine.  It doesn't really have to do anything with evolution.  We have theist evolutionists.  All atheism has is a claim which science doesn't back up nor is anything observable.
> 
> What degree do you have?  Kindergarten doesn't count.
> 
> I'm the one who provided the atheists here the evolution website from my school lol.


Let’s not use pigeon logic. Simple question. Have you ever had a science course, for the third time. Why can’t you answer the simple question ?


----------



## Wuwei

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond
> 
> Thank goodness you are likely not allowed anywhere near children. If this is how you always act, I guarantee you are not.


Sigh. Yeah. If he was a teacher he would tell Bobby that God will kill him because he threw a spit ball at Jane.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Wuwei said:


> Sigh. Yeah. If he was a teacher he would tell Bobby that God will kill him because he threw a spit ball at Jane.


I suppose that's what we should expect, from a person who emulates the morals of ignorant, terrified, superstitious, illiterate peasants from the year zero.


----------



## surada

Wuwei said:


> Sigh. Yeah. If he was a teacher he would tell Bobby that God will kill him because he threw a spit ball at Jane.



James is a pretty despicable character.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> You're not even a mod here. Why don't you just complain of a specific post and reason for it to the mod if I am a troll? It seems you're the troll because I'm the only one you specifically pick out to label as such.


Nah. I'm not a whiner. I discovered several trolls and called them trolls. You are up near the top in trolldom. 
If it's any consolation, you are about the third from the top that I have seen. 
.


----------



## Wuwei

surada said:


> James is a pretty despicable character.


For a Christian he has a vile potty mouth at times. He will call you a piece of shit when he is frustrated and backed into a corner.
.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> 1.  No one created God.  He is timeless, spaceless, all powerful supernatural Being, etc.  It's in the Bible and it explains all.
> 
> After being at it at this long, I just go heh.  Atheists can die and find out who won.


Really, god only has to be around longer then man to be idolized. Btw, which god  are we talking about ? I’ve ask that question several times and get no real answer from the believers. Give him a name. Who is the lucky religion that claims the correct god ? You have seven to choose from. Or is that six ? Whatever.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> You're stupid and mean.. You think God is going to cut a life short for you?


He isn't going to cut it for me.  It's intuition and God's wrath.  

Furthermore, I know how to deal with a troll (already in place) while he doesn't.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> Really, god only has to be around longer then man to be idolized. Btw, which god  are we talking about ? I’ve ask that question several times and get no real answer from the believers. Give him a name. Who is the lucky religion that claims the correct god ? You have seven to choose from. Or is that six ? Whatever.


No.  The Bible states God has been around forever.  He is timeless and spaceless.  It proves my point that you didn't understand KCA.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> He isn't going to cut it for me.  It's intuition and God's wrath.
> 
> Furthermore, I know how to deal with a troll (already in place) while he doesn't.



You give Christians a bad name.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> Btw, which god are we talking about ?


Lol.  This is the S&T forum.  Why don't you ask it in the R&E forum?

Lol @ the atheists here.  They start a LOL -- "Creation Science" -- LOL forum and all they can discuss is religion.  

Maybe they already lost in the science forum because of the KCA and the gif I posted.  Furthermore, evolution is not observable, i.e. no evidence for evolution.  Abiogenesis, or the origins of evolution, did not happen as Louis Paster's swan neck experiment proved.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> Maybe they already lost in the science forum because of the KCA and the gif I posted.


So you are saying the KCA and the gif are scientific proof? Of what? The KCA does not prove that the entity that created the universe is going to kill people because they don't believe the Bible is backed by science. That simply does not follow. Also, just what kind of proof is a GIF animation? 


james bond said:


> Abiogenesis, or the origins of evolution, did not happen as Louis Paster's swan neck experiment proved.


All Pasteur proved is that bacteria in the air contaminated a sterile broth. 
He did not disprove abiogenesis. You should read science sites for scientific information. Your creationist brethren are misleading you.
.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> What does planets and galaxies beyond our reach mean?  The Bible explains that God did it to show us his vast power.  It wasn't enough to just create spacetime, the universe, Earth, and everything in it.  (It's part of His kingdom, power, and glory if this was R&E forum.)  Evolution loses right there.


The part you quoted/SHORT QUOTED was just the title piece from the thread in which I TOLD you what you had cut and pasted - You NOT Knowing it Was- was Called the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

So being the embarrassed and Dishonest religionist you are, you did Not quote that part of my post in this thread, instead claiming it was your idea. And you didn't quote of that part of my post from that thread with MY use of the term/name/Intro of "Kalam...." to the board.
Now you refer to it like an old friend ("KCA"), but in fact you were just introduced to it by ME.
You did not know what it was called until I told you.

`


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> You give Christians a bad name.


Again, it was _my_ intuition and God's wrath.

Evolution and atheism are death, but there is no way to change you and atheism since you and atheists have to find the true God through faith.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Lol.  This is the S&T forum.  Why don't you ask it in the R&E forum?
> 
> Lol @ the atheists here.  They start a LOL -- "Creation Science" -- LOL forum and all they can discuss is religion.
> 
> Maybe they already lost in the science forum because of the KCA and the gif I posted.  Furthermore, evolution is not observable, i.e. no evidence for evolution.  Abiogenesis, or the origins of evolution, did not happen as Louis Paster's swan neck experiment proved.


So, we’ll just assume you never had a science course. That’s the only explanation for the sad remarks.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> No.  The Bible states God has been around forever.  He is timeless and spaceless.  It proves my point that you didn't understand KCA.


Still no answer. Which of the six or seven gods are we talking about ?
*Baha'i, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism, and Zoroastrianism*.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> James is a pretty despicable character.


What about you?  You asked for my credentials and what school I went to and I answered while you wouldn't answer when I asked you.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Why Do So Many Reject Creation Science? | Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/why...
> 
> 
> Jul 15, 2020 · Why do so many people reject creation science? Why do 98% of professional scientists accept evolution? This page seeks to answer these questions by documenting the behavior of opponents of young-earth creation science.
> 
> 
> Jul 15, 2020 · Why do so many people reject creation science? Why do 98% of professional scientists accept evolution? This page seeks to answer these questions by documenting the behavior of opponents of young-earth creation science.


I still get 404 error missing link.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> Still no answer. Which of the six or seven gods are we talking about ?
> *Baha'i, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism, and Zoroastrianism*.


Again, what is the point of your asking for my religion in an S&T forum?  What is yours?  I found the atheists here aren't the most honest people and they can't accept losing an argument.

I'm still waiting for you to provide a link to how evolution is connected to medicine; You mentioned communicable disease.  I provided links to show Christians invented medicine.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> I still get 404 error missing link.





james bond said:


> I still get 404 error missing link.



 Try this:





__





						Specific reasons why most scientists reject creation science
					

Specific reasons why most scientists reject creation science



					www.religioustolerance.org
				




Two major competing models of the Earth's past are:
New Earth creation Scientists generally conclude that:

	God created all of the species during a short period of time, perhaps about 4004 BCE, and certainly not before 10,000 BCE.
bullet	God created all of the species of bacteria, primitive one-celled creatures, trilobites, dinosaurs, humans, etc. within a few days of each other. Just as The Flintstones cartoon shows, humans and dinosaurs wandered about the earth together.

	During the 40 days of rain and the approximately nine months of drainage of the Noachian flood, all of the land animals outside the ark were drowned. Various deposits were formed with sediment and the bodies of dead animals; their remains became fossils, embedded in rock layers.

Most scientists believe that a very different sequence of events happened:

	That a primitive, one-celled life form came into existence by some series of natural processes, billions of years ago. Scientists are currently only dimly aware of the nature of these processes. 

	Billions of years later, this primitive life form had evolved into more complex species (e.g. trilobites), even as the primitive life forms became extinct.

	Later species evolved into Dinosaurs hundreds of millions of years ago. They died out, probably becuuse of extreme environmental changes brought about by a massive collision of an asteroid with the Earth. But new species that evolved from the dinosaurs and other species that were on earth with the dinosaurs continued to evolve.
	Homo Sapiens, Neanderthals, and some of the higher apes appeared much more recently, and shared a common ancestor. Neanderthals became extinct.

bullet	All during this extinction of old species and arrival of new species, individual animals died. A very small fraction of those with hard shells or a skeleton became converted to fossils and were embedded in rocks.

	Most scientists do not believe that any world-wide flood has occurred. There are serious questions about where all the water came from and went.

In addition, there are some Christians who believe that God created the universe billions of years ago. There are also hundreds of stories of origins taught by various religions around the world. We concentrate here on new earth creationism and the scientific consensus because these are the most commonly discussed belief systems.

CONTINUED


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Try this:


Third time is not the charm?  Where did you go to school?  It's not hard.


surada said:


> Try this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Specific reasons why most scientists reject creation science
> 
> 
> Specific reasons why most scientists reject creation science
> 
> 
> 
> www.religioustolerance.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two major competing models of the Earth's past are:
> New Earth creation Scientists generally conclude that:
> 
> bullet    God created all of the species during a short period of time, perhaps about 4004 BCE, and certainly not before 10,000 BCE.
> bullet    God created all of the species of bacteria, primitive one-celled creatures, trilobites, dinosaurs, humans, etc. within a few days of each other. Just as The Flintstones cartoon shows, humans and dinosaurs wandered about the earth together.
> 
> During the 40 days of rain and the approximately nine months of drainage of the Noachian flood, all of the land animals outside the ark were drowned. Various deposits were formed with sediment and the bodies of dead animals; their remains became fossils, embedded in rock layers.
> 
> Most scientists believe that a very different sequence of events happened:
> 
> bullet    That a primitive, one-celled life form came into existence by some series of natural processes, billions of years ago. Scientists are currently only dimly aware of the nature of these processes.
> bullet    Billions of years later, this primitive life form had evolved into more complex species (e.g. trilobites), even as the primitive life forms became extinct.
> bullet    Later species evolved into Dinosaurs hundreds of millions of years ago. They died out, probably becuuse of extreme environmental changes brought about by a massive collision of an asteroid with the Earth. But new species that evolved from the dinosaurs and other species that were on earth with the dinosaurs continued to evolve.
> bullet    Homo Sapiens, Neanderthals, and some of the higher apes appeared much more recently, and shared a common ancestor. Neanderthals became extinct.
> 
> bullet    All during this extinction of old species and arrival of new species, individual animals died. A very small fraction of those with hard shells or a skeleton became converted to fossils and were embedded in rocks.
> 
> Most scientists do not believe that any world-wide flood has occurred. There are serious questions about where all the water came from and went.
> 
> In addition, there are some Christians who believe that God created the universe billions of years ago. There are also hundreds of stories of origins taught by various religions around the world. We concentrate here on new earth creationism and the scientific consensus because these are the most commonly discussed belief systems.
> 
> CONTINUED


The simple answer is ToE isn't true as evolution and evolutionary thinking is weak in regards to origins.  For example, life didn't spring up from non-life.  Nor spacetime and the universe just spring up from nothing.  Nor complexity spring up from randomness. 

Instead, God created all adult living creatures and formed the basics of it first.  We're still learning about what he did.  He created spacetime and the universe by creating the basic necessities first.  We're still learning about it, too.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Again, what is the point of your asking for my religion in an S&T forum?  What is yours?  I found the atheists here aren't the most honest people and they can't accept losing an argument.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to provide a link to how evolution is connected to medicine; You mentioned communicable disease.  I provided links to show Christians invented medicine.


Simple. You’re so into creation science, we need to establish what it means. That can only be done if you tell us WHICH of these religions is your god affiliated with. All seven may be quite different. So really, in your mind, you don’t think anyone who agrees with you is an atheist. Where just trying to establish where ALL the atheists reside.

So simply, YOU. need to tell us WHICH religion is your god affiliated with. Well, are you going to let the cock crow and still deny your own god ? Are you goin* to put false gods before him ? Be a man about it and tell us.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> I'm still waiting for you to provide a link to how evolution is connected to medicine; You mentioned communicable disease. I provided links to show Christians invented medicine.


I’ve asked my question  first and the answer to yours  totally depends upon what god you believe in. Right now, every thing you spout appears to be dribble with no cohesiveness. Just tell us WHICH GOD you align yourself with. You do know what this thread is about ? So which is it ?


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Again, what is the point of your asking for my religion in an S&T forum?  What is yours?  I found the atheists here aren't the most honest people and they can't accept losing an argument.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to provide a link to how evolution is connected to medicine; You mentioned communicable disease.  I provided links to show Christians invented medicine.


Now tell us which God you align with in this discussion ?





__





						Health and medicine/Medical specialties/Evolutionary medicine | American Association for the Advancement of Science
					






					www.aaas.org
				












						How evolutionary principles improve the understanding of human health and disease
					

An appreciation of the fundamental principles of evolutionary biology provides new insights into major diseases and enables an integrated understanding of human biology and medicine. However, there is a lack of awareness of their importance amongst physicians, ...




					www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> 1.  No one created God.  He is timeless, spaceless, all powerful supernatural Being, etc.  It's in the Bible and it explains all.
> 
> After being at it at this long, I just go heh.  Atheists can die and find out who won.


Living in trembling fear of spooks and goblins is a sad existence. 

Using your fears and prejudices to threaten others examples nothing but portraying your religion as extremist and punitive.


----------



## Hollie

Wuwei said:


> For a Christian he has a vile potty mouth at times. He will call you a piece of shit when he is frustrated and backed into a corner.
> .


I can't help but notice he uses the image of a drinking, smoking, womanizer as his _avatar_ alternate personality. I suspect he hates himself for who he is.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Again, it was _my_ intuition and God's wrath.
> 
> Evolution and atheism are death, but there is no way to change you and atheism since you and atheists have to find the true God through faith.



You are poorly educated and very shallow to promote fairy tales and borrowed myths over message.


----------



## Wuwei

surada said:


> Try this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Specific reasons why most scientists reject creation science
> 
> 
> Specific reasons why most scientists reject creation science
> 
> 
> 
> www.religioustolerance.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two major competing models of the Earth's past are:..... etc.


The problem is that you are using observations, facts, and logic. Without hesitation creationists on this forum reject any facts or logic that doesn't fit their weltanschauung. It is a serious capability of denial that is hardwired in their brains that overrides common sense. It is very similar to the QAnon group of thousands that gathered in Texas to witness the return of JFK junior, who died 20 years ago. Even intelligent people can be severely brainwashed, although it is questionable that some of the creationists here are all that intelligent. 

.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Again, what is the point of your asking for my religion in an S&T forum?  What is yours?  I found the atheists here aren't the most honest people and they can't accept losing an argument.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to provide a link to how evolution is connected to medicine; You mentioned communicable disease.  I provided links to show Christians invented medicine.


Muslim, you must be a Muslim. They believe in Adam and Eve.


----------



## surada

Wuwei said:


> The problem is that you are using observations, facts, and logic. Without hesitation creationists on this forum reject any facts or logic that doesn't fit their weltanschauung. It is a serious capability of denial that is hardwired in their brains that overrides common sense. It is very similar to the QAnon group of thousands that gathered in Texas to witness the return of JFK junior, who died 20 years ago. Even intelligent people can be severely brainwashed, although it is questionable that some of the creationists here are all that intelligent.
> 
> .



By the time I was ten I questioned the Bible stories... Most kids who attend Sunday school and church do.. At that point you begin to look at the message or the lesson behind the stories. Jewish kids are taught to question. They don't believe in the "science" behind the Jonah comic novella.


----------



## surada

Dagosa said:


> Muslim, you must be a Muslim. They believe in Adam and Eve.



Well, yes they do believe in Adam and Eve, but they don't believe in original sin. They also believe God forgave Adam and Eve. Educated Muslims don't seem to have a problem with science versus didactic literature.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Living in trembling fear of spooks and goblins is a sad existence.
> 
> Using your fears and prejudices to threaten others examples nothing but portraying your religion as extremist and punitive.


There are no ghosts, but there is Satan.  He's the one who came up with the lie of evolution and made you all believe in atheism.  James Hutton Charles Lyell were both against the Church.  

Natural selection was created by God.  It doesn't mean a single cell just popped  into existence and we're here because of common ancestors.  Dr. Stephen Hawking had an IQ higher than all of us, even me, and still was fooled.  If there were common ancestors, then we'd see them all over the place.  I can figure this out, but some idiots are stuck asking people for their religions in the science forums.  LMAO.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> There are no ghosts, but there is Satan.  He's the one who came up with the lie of evolution and made you all believe in atheism.  James Hutton Charles Lyell were both against the Church.
> 
> Natural selection was created by God.  It doesn't mean a single cell just popped  into existence and we're here because of common ancestors.  Dr. Stephen Hawking had an IQ higher than all of us, even me, and still was fooled.  If there were common ancestors, then we'd see them all over the place.  I can figure this out, but some idiots are stuck asking people for their religions in the science forums.  LMAO.




Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Ram Bam) in 1138 AD knew the difference between science and didactic literature.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> By the time I was ten I questioned the Bible stories... Most kids who attend Sunday school and church do.. At that point you begin to look at the message or the lesson behind the stories. Jewish kids are taught to question. They don't believe in the "science" behind the Jonah comic novella.


Is this why you pretend to know Christianity and fool the believers here, but can't be honest nor have self-confidence and pride enough to say what college you went to?  So you grew up with a Christian background.  Most are smart enough to and don't become atheists, but there are theistic evolutionists.  You were so rebellious that you went to the most minority religion of atheism.  smh.  It takes all kinds


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Ram Bam) in 1138 AD knew the difference between science and didactic literature.


Look who's the TROLL.  Such hypocrisy when you were joining in to pile on me.  I speak the TRUTH with creation science, so bug the heck outta the atheists here.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Look who's the TROLL.  Such hypocrisy when you were joining in to pile on me.  I speak the TRUTH with creation science, so bug the heck outta the atheists here.



Its really offensive to traditional Christians too. You don't have to reject science and education to be a Christian.


----------



## Dagosa

surada


surada said:


> Its really offensive to traditional Christians too. You don't have to reject science and education to be a Christian.



 /Both Catholics and Jews are officially completely on board with with evolution.


surada said:


> Well, yes they do believe in Adam and Eve, but they don't believe in original sin. They also believe God forgave Adam and Eve. Educated Muslims don't seem to have a problem with science versus didactic literature.


So, that means that both Catholic and Jews are atheists.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> There are no ghosts, but there is Satan.  He's the one who came up with the lie of evolution and made you all believe in atheism.  James Hutton Charles Lyell were both against the Church.
> 
> Natural selection was created by God.  It doesn't mean a single cell just popped  into existence and we're here because of common ancestors.  Dr. Stephen Hawking had an IQ higher than all of us, even me, and still was fooled.  If there were common ancestors, then we'd see them all over the place.  I can figure this out, but some idiots are stuck asking people for their religions in the science forums.  LMAO.


You are free to believe that Satan, Boogeyman and things that go bump in the night haunt your world. You should keep your fears and superstitions in the religion forum.

Otherwise, fess' up. You're a pre-teen who is doing distance grade school learning from the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah and you're spamming the internet between Zoom classes, right?


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Its really offensive to traditional Christians too. You don't have to reject science and education to be a Christian.


I would think the atheists are more offensive to traditional Christians as they violate the first four of the Ten Commandments.  Also, , they would think you're a Judas the way you pretended to be Catholic when you had already disavowed God and turned atheist.  Were you baptized, too?

It's hard for me to believe that you turned atheist.  I still can't believe it.  That's why I think it's on the level of being a Judas.

Why am I rejecting science?    I'm a YEC who believes in the Bible and science backs up the Bible.  No science backs up the lie of evolution.  Evolution and atheism are death and I proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> You are free to believe that Satan, Boogeyman and things that go bump in the night haunt your world. You should keep your fears and superstitions in the religion forum.
> 
> Otherwise, fess' up. You're a pre-teen who is doing distance grade school learning from the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah and you're spamming the internet between Zoom classes, right?


Only Satan is real.  Proof is we all die and are tempted into sin like believing in evolution and disavowing God.  Satan tempts 24/7 and God gave us all the strength to resist temptation, it isn't always so.  One doesn't have to disavow God in order to believe in evolution and can believe life did not come from non-life.  For whatever reason, the liberals did not want to obey and became atheists.

Why don't you point surada to Jimmy?  He's a Judas who needs help immediately and desperately.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> I would think the atheists are more offensive to traditional Christians as they violate the first four of the Ten Commandments.  Also, , they would think you're a Judas the way you pretended to be Catholic when you had already disavowed God and turned atheist.  Were you baptized, too?
> 
> It's hard for me to believe that you turned atheist.  I still can't believe it.  That's why I think it's on the level of being a Judas.
> 
> Why am I rejecting science?    I'm a YEC who believes in the Bible and science backs up the Bible.  No science backs up the lie of evolution.  Evolution and atheism are death and I proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.



Let me get this straight. You think anyone who doesn't take the Bible stories literally is an atheist?

The Bible stories are myths borrowed and adapted from the surrounding cultures.  Whether that's the flood story from Sumer or the Egyptian Book of the Dead or the Hammurabe Code of Law or the poetry of the Ugrit (Psalms) or the story of Sinuhe.. these are enduring stories and concepts  woven into Judaism and the history of the Jews.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Let me get this straight. You think anyone who doesn't take the Bible stories literally is an atheist?
> 
> The Bible stories are myths borrowed and adapted from the surrounding cultures.  Whether that's the flood story from Sumer or the Egyptian Book of the Dead or the Hammurabe Code of Law or the poetry of the Ugrit (Psalms) or the story of Sinuhe.. these are enduring stories and concepts  woven into Judaism and the history of the Jews.


Stop trolling Judas.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Stop trolling Judas.



Have you traveled to the Holy Lands or the Middle East..Egypt?? There is alot of overlap in history and culture.. The Hebrews preserves so much because they were the story tellers.. Their narrative about our relationship with God  and the earth is precious and enduring, but its not science or history.


----------



## james bond

It really is strange that the evolutionists/atheists here can't accept real science.  We know life didn't come from non-life from Dr. Louis Pasteur's swan neck experiment.  We know that spacetime, the universe, Earth, and everything in it, complexity, and more  could not have started from nothing as there had to be a cause via the KCA.  Finally, there is no evidence of a common ancestor or anything observable with evolution.  There is no origins.

ETA:  Since I defeated all the atheists here using real science, they have gone to discuss religion.  Like I said, you can be of atheist religion with no science to back you up lmao.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> I would think the atheists are more offensive to traditional Christians as they violate the first four of the Ten Commandments.  Also, , they would think you're a Judas the way you pretended to be Catholic when you had already disavowed God and turned atheist.  Were you baptized, too?
> 
> It's hard for me to believe that you turned atheist.  I still can't believe it.  That's why I think it's on the level of being a Judas.
> 
> Why am I rejecting science?    I'm a YEC who believes in the Bible and science backs up the Bible.  No science backs up the lie of evolution.  Evolution and atheism are death and I proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.


That’s funny. So to you YECers,  are Catholics and Jews who believe in evolution also  atheists ?


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Have you traveled to the Holy Lands or the Middle East..Egypt?? There is alot of overlap in history and culture.. The Hebrews preserves so much because they were the story tellers.. Their narrative about our relationship with God  and the earth is precious and enduring, but its not science or history.


I can't even claim victory as your defeat has just turned to bitterness (sarcasm).  It's pathetic.  I shouldn't lol as that would not be right, but it's hard not to .  Lol -- Atheism -- Lol.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> I can't even claim victory as your defeat has just turned to bitterness (sarcasm).  It's pathetic.  I shouldn't lol as that would not be right, but it's hard not to .  Lol -- Atheism -- Lol.



Oh I'm not bitter. I am a very happy person.  I just think youyr rejection of science and education.. archaeology .. geology is ridiculolus.. You should stay away from kids.


----------



## Wuwei

surada said:


> Oh I'm not bitter. I am a very happy person. I just think youyr rejection of science and education.. archaeology .. geology is ridiculolus.. You should stay away from kids.


You are talking to someone who is entering the zone of frenzied mania. Staying calm like you are doing drives him nuts. The poor fellow doesn't even know that he has been pwned by his Satan.
.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> ETA: Since I defeated all the atheists here using real science, they have gone to discuss religion. Like I said, you can be of atheist religion with no science to back you up lmao.





james bond said:


> *really is strange that the evolutionists/atheists*


Still no response. Jews and Catholics are atheist according to you. Heck, practicers of both were important contributors to genetics and evolution theory. The pope has officially endorsed evolution .

So they know they are atheists ?


----------



## Dagosa

surada said:


> Oh I'm not bitter. I am a very happy person.  I just think youyr rejection of science and education.. archaeology .. geology is ridiculolus.. You should stay away from kids.


Maybe he is a child. 😭


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Oh I'm not bitter. I am a very happy person.  I just think youyr rejection of science and education.. archaeology .. geology is ridiculolus.. You should stay away from kids.


See now you're trolling.  My science and education isn't evolution.  While I studied it, I realized it was a lie.  There is no observable evidence for it.  It's up to you believe what you want no matter how degenerate it is.

My creation science is the real science because we had the most greatest scientists in history.  Your atheist scientists are degenerates and mostly wrote papers on evolution.  It's circular reasoning at its worst.

Anyway, it's easy for me to ignore you, so good-bye.  Have your happy person of a lie life.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> See now you're trolling.  My science and education isn't evolution.  *While I studied it, I realized it was a lie.  There is No Observable Evidence for it.*  It's up to you believe what you want no matter how degenerate it is.
> 
> My creation science is the real science because we had the most greatest scientists in history.  Your atheist scientists are degenerates and mostly wrote papers on evolution.  It's circular reasoning at its worstAnyway, it's easy for me to ignore you, so good-bye.  Have your happy person of a lie life.











						Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				





1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
1.1  Genetics
1.2  Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry

2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
2.1 Atavisms
2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
2.5 Vestigial structures
2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy

3 Evidence from paleontology
3.1 Fossil record
3.2 Limitations
3.3 Specific examples from paleontology

4 Evidence from biogeography
4.1 Continental distribution
4.2 Island biogeography
4.3 Ring species
4.4 Specific examples from biogeography

5 Evidence from selection
5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
5.2 Invertebrates
5.3 Microbes
5.4 Plants and fungi
5.5 Vertebrates

6 Evidence from speciation
6.1 Fossils
6.2 Invertebrates
6.3 Plants
6.4 Vertebrates

7 Evidence from coloration
7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
7.2 Camouflage

8 Evidence from behavior
9 Evidence from mathematical modeling and simulation
10 See also
11 References
12 Sources
- - - - - -

James Bond is a totally Brainwashed Lunatic, and just as bad, he's a Knowingly Dishonest and Bald-Faced Liar/Denier (and abomination to all religions) to maintain his Psychosis. 

`

`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
> 1.1  Genetics
> 1.2  Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry
> 
> 2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
> 2.1 Atavisms
> 2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
> 2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
> 2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
> 2.5 Vestigial structures
> 2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy
> 
> 3 Evidence from paleontology
> 3.1 Fossil record
> 3.2 Limitations
> 3.3 Specific examples from paleontology
> 
> 4 Evidence from biogeography
> 4.1 Continental distribution
> 4.2 Island biogeography
> 4.3 Ring species
> 4.4 Specific examples from biogeography
> 
> 5 Evidence from selection
> 5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
> 5.2 Invertebrates
> 5.3 Microbes
> 5.4 Plants and fungi
> 5.5 Vertebrates
> 
> 6 Evidence from speciation
> 6.1 Fossils
> 6.2 Invertebrates
> 6.3 Plants
> 6.4 Vertebrates
> 
> 7 Evidence from coloration
> 7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
> 7.2 Camouflage
> 
> 8 Evidence from behavior
> 9 Evidence from mathematical modeling and simulation
> 10 See also
> 11 References
> 12 Sources
> - - - - - -
> 
> James Bond is a totally Brainwashed Lunatic, and just as bad, he's a Knowingly Dishonest and Bald-Faced Liar/Denier (and abomination to all religions) to maintain his Psychosis.
> 
> `
> 
> `


You lost already as you cannot help yourself from ad hominem attacks.  It shows you are a loser.

What you list are from the papers of evolution or atheist scientists.  It's circular reasoning at its worst.  We still get no observable evidence nor the accomplishments of atheist scientists.  Even my UC Berkeley website admits it has no observable evidence.  

What did Stephen Hawking accomplish?  What about Neil DeGrasse Tyson?  Nothing observable according to their biography.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Only Satan is real.  Proof is we all die and are tempted into sin like believing in evolution and disavowing God.  Satan tempts 24/7 and God gave us all the strength to resist temptation, it isn't always so.  One doesn't have to disavow God in order to believe in evolution and can believe life did not come from non-life.  For whatever reason, the liberals did not want to obey and became atheists.
> 
> Why don't you point surada to Jimmy?  He's a Judas who needs help immediately and desperately.


Please take your religious extemism out of the science forum.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> My creation science is the real science because we had the *most greatest scientists *in history


“Most greatest”.....Could you list any of them and their credentials ? We’d like to see if their education matches their opinions.  Better still, could you list any of the 3400 accredited universities or 176 research facilities or any gov health agency or ANY major health product or service institution, private of otherwise that supports “creation science”.

BTW, MOST Christians don’t believe this stuff either. So, I guess literally everyone else is an atheist.
So this “most greatest” is  pretty restrictive. In history ? Oops.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> You lost already as you cannot help yourself from ad hominem attacks.  It shows you are a loser.
> 
> What you list are from the papers *of evolution or atheist scientists. * It's circular reasoning at its worst.  We still get no observable evidence nor the accomplishments of atheist scientists.  Even my UC Berkeley website admits it has no observable evidence.
> 
> What did Stephen Hawking accomplish?  What about Neil DeGrasse Tyson?  Nothing observable according to their biography.


There you go again. Calling everyone who doesn’t believe is creationism, an atheist. 

Does the Pope know he’s an atheist ?


----------



## surada

Dagosa said:


> “Most greatest”.....Could you list any of them and their credentials ? We’d like to see if their education matches their opinions.  Better still, could you list any of the 3400 accredited universities or 176 research facilities or any gov health agency or ANY major health product or service institution, private of otherwise that supports “creation science”.
> 
> BTW, MOST Christians don’t believe this stuff either. So, I guess literally everyone else is an atheist.
> So this “most greatest” is  pretty restrictive.



Most Christians and people of other Abrahamic faiths know the message is more important than the fairy tale. There are cave paintings that are 30,000 years old  in France and Spain... Stone granaries in Jordan that are 14,000 years old.. There's Baalbek and Byblos which are older than Adam and Eve. The purpose of the epic OT stories is NOT to drive people away from faith.


----------



## Dagosa

surada said:


> Most Christians and people of other Abrahamic faiths know the message is more important than the fairy tale. There are cave paintings that are 30,000 years old  in France and Spain... Stone granaries in Jordan that are 14,000 years old.. There's Baalbek and Byblos which are older than Adam and Eve. The purpose of the epic OT stories is NOT to drive people away from faith.


Exactly. Evidence of evolution is attributable to historical references among the most devout Christians , little things like,  Christ was 5’5”. Christianity is becoming more and more secular much to the chagrin of the fable “hanger on’ers”.


----------



## Wuwei

Dagosa said:


> “Most greatest”.....Could you list any of them and their credentials ? We’d like to see if their education matches their opinions.  Better still, could you list any of the 3400 accredited universities or 176 research facilities or any gov health agency or ANY major health product or service institution, private of otherwise that supports “creation science”.
> 
> BTW, MOST Christians don’t believe this stuff either. So, I guess literally everyone else is an atheist.
> So this “most greatest” is  pretty restrictive. In history ? Oops.


We went through this before. He points out with great glee his list includes great creationist scientists such as:

Sir Francis Bacon
Isaac Newton
Archimedes
Galileo
Kepler
Copernicus
And many more ancient scientists
Of course the irony is that his list was a time when almost everyone was religious and a creationist. This was  pointed out to him along with the fact that the greatest of the last 100 years were not creationists, but that was met with indifference. He, in his fantasy world, continues to promote his "most greatest" meme. 

.


----------



## Dagosa

Wuwei said:


> We went through this before. He points out with great glee his list includes great creationist scientists such as:
> 
> Sir Francis Bacon
> Isaac Newton
> Archimedes
> Galileo
> Kepler
> Copernicus
> And many more ancient scientists
> Of course the irony is that his list was a time when almost everyone was religious and a creationist. This was  pointed out to him along with the fact that the greatest of the last 100 years were not creationists, but that was met with indifference. He, in his fantasy world, continues to promote his "most greatest" meme.
> 
> .


ha ha, thanks for the update. 
Bet your ass our  delusional friend isn’t going to anyone for healthcare from the YEC crowd .


----------



## Dagosa

Wuwei said:


> Of course the irony is that his list was a time when almost everyone was religious and a creationist.


Of course. All through history people attributed everything they didn’t know as having a religious explanation. “ The sun came up. Must be god’s will”.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> “Most greatest”.....Could you list any of them and their credentials ? We’d like to see if their education matches their opinions.  Better still, could you list any of the 3400 accredited universities or 176 research facilities or any gov health agency or ANY major health product or service institution, private of otherwise that supports “creation science”.
> 
> BTW, MOST Christians don’t believe this stuff either. So, I guess literally everyone else is an atheist.
> So this “most greatest” is  pretty restrictive. In history ? Oops.


Will you rub shit on your face when you realize they were the greatest in history and had observable accomplishments -- 34 Great Scientists Who Were Committed Christians  You do that on this forum daily with your dumb atheist religion posts and nosy religion questions in S&T.  How stupid asf are you ?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Please take your religious extemism out of the science forum.


You mis-addressed your message that should be meant for surada, Dagosa, and other atheists here.  It sounds as they lost badly to me in S&T, medicine, and can only discuss religion now.  I can understand the bitterness and embarrassment, but it should be in R&E. 

Here's a list of atheist scientists.  Did they accomplish anything observable?  Had shit rubbed in their faces?









						A Who's Who of evolutionists
					

Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.




					creation.com


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> Will you rub shit on your face when you realize they were the greatest in history and had observable accomplishments -- 34 Great Scientists Who Were Committed Christians You do that on this forum daily with your dumb atheist religion posts and nosy religion questions in S&T. How stupid asf are you ?


You just made my, and Dagosa's  case in post 394. With lots of ad hominem. Maybe you should do to yourself as you suggested in the first 6 words of your  post.

.


----------



## james bond

Here's a joke I heard about atheists.  Did you know atheists wanted to change Thanksgiving to Friendsgiving or Familygiving? 

That's it.  Lame, but what do you expect from an atheist joke?


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Will you rub shit on your face when you realize they were the greatest in history and had observable accomplishments -- 34 Great Scientists Who Were Committed Christians You do that on this forum daily with your dumb atheist religion posts and nosy religion questions in S&T. How stupid asf are you ?


Thats the dumbest post I’ve ever seen. You out did yourself. Did you know that early Christian / Catholic monks work on generics the foundation of evolutionary studies.

Gregor Mendel was one of the founders of modern evolution theory in genetics. 
Every single one of your science persons    contributed to modern Evo.  theory. Regardless of what they say they believed at the time they were alive, ALL of them had a life time of work that supported evolution. ….
they didn’t believe in cell phones either. They didn’t believe in nuclear energy. They didn’t believe in climate  change. Their work is proof positive that as man get smarter, he believes in modern science . You haven’t. Read about  Mendals work. Every single other one of your great Christian scientist did work that supported evolution. 









						A Brief Biography of Gregor Mendel, Father of Genetics
					

Gregor Mendel is considered the Father of Genetics, most well-known for his work with breeding and cultivating pea plants.




					www.thoughtco.com


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> Here's a list of atheist scientists. Did they accomplish anything observable? Had shit rubbed in their faces?


Here is a list of *non-creationist scientists*:
Albert Einstein​Erwin Schrödinger​Paul Dirac​Stephen Hawking​Peter Higgs​Wolfgang Pauli​Richard Feynman​John Archibald Wheeler​Max Planck​
They are top scientists. Many of them are well known names to non-scientists.
.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Here's a joke I heard about atheists.  Did you know atheists wanted to change Thanksgiving to Friendsgiving or Familygiving?
> 
> That's it.  Lame, but what do you expect from an atheist joke?


Did you here the one about the clergyman who had claimed everything was an act of God.
When the church, the house of god,  was stuck by lightening, his parishioners refused to donate much money because they felt it was stupid to rebuild a house that was set fire by the resident.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Wuwei said:


> We went through this before. He points out with great glee his list includes great creationist scientists such as:
> 
> Sir Francis Bacon
> Isaac Newton
> Archimedes
> Galileo
> Kepler
> Copernicus
> And many more ancient scientists
> Of course the irony is that his list was a time when almost everyone was religious and a creationist. This was  pointed out to him along with the fact that the greatest of the last 100 years were not creationists, but that was met with indifference. He, in his fantasy world, continues to promote his "most greatest" meme.
> 
> .


And, of course, each of those people was successful as a scientist only and exactly to the degree that they ignored the iron age mythology and engaged in secular scientific method. Notice how Kepler hit the brick wall of his career and discoveries, when he made the error of just deferring to God as nudging the planets' orbits. Their discoveries happened quite in spite of their religious handicap, untilthe handicap overtook them, and the discoveries stopped


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> Thats the dumbest post I’ve ever seen. You out did yourself. Did you know that early Christian / Catholic monks work on generics the foundation of evolutionary studies.
> 
> Gregor Mendel was one of the founders of modern evolution theory in genetics.
> Every single one of your science persons    contributed to modern Evo.  theory. Regardless of what they say they believed at the time they were alive, ALL of them had a life time of work that supported evolution. ….
> they didn’t believe in cell phones either. They didn’t believe in nuclear energy. They didn’t believe in climate  change. Their work is proof positive that as man get smarter, he believes in modern science . You haven’t. Read about  Mendals work. Every single other one of your great Christian scientist did work that supported evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Brief Biography of Gregor Mendel, Father of Genetics
> 
> 
> Gregor Mendel is considered the Father of Genetics, most well-known for his work with breeding and cultivating pea plants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thoughtco.com


Yawn.  ShItface is a good nick for you even though shit for brainz is fitting.  Gregor Mendel is on our side and that's what counts.  He has observable accomplishments.


Dagosa said:


> Every single one of your science persons contributed to modern Evo. theory.


More biased _opinion_.  How can evolution even begin without a beginning?  You can't answer my questions while I fight through your boring hot mess and provide an answer.


----------



## james bond

Dagosa said:


> Did you here the one about the clergyman who had claimed everything was an act of God.
> When the church, the house of god,  was stuck by lightening, his parishioners refused to donate much money because they felt it was stupid to rebuild a house that was set fire by the resident.


Your joke even sounds like a lie.  The Christians have money up the wazhoo.  Are atheists poor because they have nothing observable in terms of support?

Tell me something Dagosa, what are four things you should promise your mate for life?


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> You mis-addressed your message that should be meant for surada, Dagosa, and other atheists here.  It sounds as they lost badly to me in S&T, medicine, and can only discuss religion now.  I can understand the bitterness and embarrassment, but it should be in R&E.
> 
> Here's a list of atheist scientists.  Did they accomplish anything observable?  Had shit rubbed in their faces?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Who's Who of evolutionists
> 
> 
> Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> creation.com



Oh I am in no way an extremist.. I think we should wear our faith loosely  like a fine garment that makes people want to be a part of it. I would never jam up some kid and tell him that the earth was created in 7 days or that man was made from dirt or that a man could live inside a fish.. I would never tell them snakes talk and men walk on water. The stories are important but not intended for a person to cripple their education. 

You are saying that if you don't embrace myth and Bullshit you are an athiest.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Here's a joke I heard about atheists.  Did you know atheists wanted to change Thanksgiving to Friendsgiving or Familygiving?
> 
> That's it.  Lame, but what do you expect from an atheist joke?



What are you thankful for at Thanksgiving? You do know its secular, not Biblical.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Your joke even sounds like a lie.  The Christians have money up the wazhoo.  Are atheists poor because they have nothing observable in terms of support?
> 
> Tell me something Dagosa, what are four things you should promise your mate for life?


Number one is,I won’t make up sht and lie. Maybe you should follow suit.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> Your joke even sounds like a lie.  The Christians have money up the wazhoo.  Are atheists poor because they have nothing observable in terms of support?
> 
> Tell me something Dagosa, what are four things you should promise your mate for life?


Btw, the joke doesn’t say, Christians are poor. Good grief, even your reading skills are deceptive.


----------



## james bond

Four things are to protect, love, care for, and support them.  There is no right or wrong answer, but Dagosa can't answer a simple question about his values.  Typical atheist and awful bore.


----------



## james bond

I'm not sure what is worse -- boring-ism or Judasism.  Did he even talk about S&T?  I'll opt for boring-ism or Dagosa although Judasism is much, much, much worse lol.


----------



## james bond

Here's something new I learned from my UC Berkeley website.  Evolution is not observable *nor testable*. May as well be the kiss of death as science does not back it up lmao.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Oh I am in no way an extremist.. I think we should wear our faith loosely  like a fine garment that makes people want to be a part of it. I would never jam up some kid and tell him that the earth was created in 7 days or that man was made from dirt or that a man could live inside a fish.. I would never tell them snakes talk and men walk on water. The stories are important but not intended for a person to cripple their education.
> 
> You are saying that if you don't embrace myth and Bullshit you are an athiest.


I think you're more Judas-like as you pretended to be religious or Christian, but actually is an atheist.  I'll let it go.  Why don't you just believe where your faith takes you?  You spend a lot of time here and side with the atheists.  Maybe it's more intellect on your part than "faith."  Atheist intellect is usually wrong.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> Evolution is not observable *nor testable*. May as well be the kiss of death as science does not back it up lmao.


Creationism is neither observable nor testable. It is the kiss of death as science does not back up creationism.

.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> *Gregor Mendel is on our side* and that's what counts. He has observable accomplishments.


Sorry to break this to any dufus who thinks other wise , Mendal is dead.
We can all tell when you get had and know it. You start cursing people and act about as Christian as Trump the king dufus.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> Creationism is neither observable nor testable. It is the kiss of death as science does not back up creationism.
> 
> .


Typical atheist wrongness and wanting atheism so bad to be right .  It's why we have dumb threads like this in S&T lmao.

Creationism is _observable_.  We worship every Sabbath.  We have Thanksgiving and Christmas coming up.  The creationists have the majority 3-to-1.  History backs up the events in the Bible.  The Bible isn't a science book, but science backs up the Bible.  We test it with the swan neck experiment for life only comes from adult life.  We also have discovered the fountains of the deep that goes around the world.  We have witnesses from the believers and their enemies of Jesus' Resurrection.  The global flood and The Resurrection are the two major supernatural events which happened in history.  If creation science was taught more widely, then the smarter students would realize evolution is not observable nor testable and is a crock.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> Creationism is _observable_. We worship every Sabbath. We have Thanksgiving and Christmas coming up.


That is a stretch beyond rationality.


james bond said:


> The creationists have the majority 3-to-1. History backs up the events in the Bible.


A Gallup Poll says only 40% believe YEC, but that is irrelevant to the unobservability of creationism.


james bond said:


> The Bible isn't a science book, but science backs up the Bible.


The Bible fails science right from the first several paragraphs. 


james bond said:


> We test it with the swan neck experiment for life only comes from adult life.


That showed life came from microbes. He also showed live cannot come from a boiled sterile broth. That's no mystery. 


james bond said:


> We also have discovered the fountains of the deep that goes around the world.


If you are talking about hydrothermal vents, that has no bearing on creationism.

.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> That is a stretch beyond rationality.
> 
> A Gallup Poll says only 40% believe YEC, but that is irrelevant to the unobservability of creationism.
> 
> The Bible fails science right from the first several paragraphs.
> 
> That showed life came from microbes. He also showed live cannot come from a boiled sterile broth. That's no mystery.
> 
> If you are talking about hydrothermal vents, that has no bearing on creationism.
> 
> .


None of your answers are rational nor scientific and typical of an atheist who has gone looney tunes due to being wrong and losing.  I already posted the youtube of science backing up the Bible, the swan neck experiment, evidence for the global flood, the great creation scientists, no multiverses, no bipedal ape, no ape-humans, no common ancestor, no billions of years as radioisotope assumptions are unknown and do not match calendar year, etc.  Heck, it even talks about global warming -- What Does the Bible Say About Global Warming?.  I may be taking advantage of what I learned from the Bible and may become famous and multi-millionaire .


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> None of your answers are rational nor scientific and typical of an atheist who has gone looney tunes due to being wrong and losing.  I already posted the youtube of science backing up the Bible, the swan neck experiment, evidence for the global flood, the great creation scientists, no multiverses, no bipedal ape, no ape-humans, no common ancestor, no billions of years as radioisotope assumptions are unknown and do not match calendar year, etc.  Heck, it even talks about global warming -- What Does the Bible Say About Global Warming?.  I may be taking advantage of what I learned from the Bible and may become famous and multi-millionaire


I see that you are not able to address my points. That is because you don't know and are unable to defend the Bible. You can only mindlessly repeat your errors with no retort. 
The youtube video did not address much of anything. There was absolutely no scientific explanation concerning a global flood; where the water came from and where it went. The genesis 6 days creation story has the actual science of the earth's creation totally out of order. These difficulties have not been explained by you nor creationists. It is no wonder why the YEC has died down to a minority of only 40% and continues to drop.

.


----------



## Hollie

Wuwei said:


> We went through this before. He points out with great glee his list includes great creationist scientists such as:
> 
> Sir Francis Bacon
> Isaac Newton
> Archimedes
> Galileo
> Kepler
> Copernicus
> And many more ancient scientists
> Of course the irony is that his list was a time when almost everyone was religious and a creationist. This was  pointed out to him along with the fact that the greatest of the last 100 years were not creationists, but that was met with indifference. He, in his fantasy world, continues to promote his "most greatest" meme.
> 
> .


I can't help but notice that many of the persons lived in a time when the Catholic church wielded sweeping power and would literally destroy the lives of anyone who would dare to contradict church doctrine.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> None of your answers are rational nor scientific and typical of an atheist who has gone looney tunes due to being wrong and losing.  I already posted the youtube of science backing up the Bible, the swan neck experiment, evidence for the global flood, the great creation scientists, no multiverses, no bipedal ape, no ape-humans, no common ancestor, no billions of years as radioisotope assumptions are unknown and do not match calendar year, etc.  Heck, it even talks about global warming -- What Does the Bible Say About Global Warming?.  I may be taking advantage of what I learned from the Bible and may become famous and multi-millionaire .


Suggesting that silly youtube videos, as opposed to peer reviewed studies,  represent supportable evidence of science matters should suggest to a reasonable person that your arguments are really baseless.

Reasonable people don't take Flat Earther's as bothered by science.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> None of your answers are rational nor scientific and typical of an atheist who has gone looney tunes due to being wrong and losing.  I already posted the youtube of science backing up the Bible, the swan neck experiment, evidence for the global flood, the great creation scientists, no multiverses, no bipedal ape, no ape-humans, no common ancestor, no billions of years as radioisotope assumptions are unknown and do not match calendar year, etc.  Heck, it even talks about global warming -- What Does the Bible Say About Global Warming?.  I may be taking advantage of what I learned from the Bible and may become famous and multi-millionaire .


When you become rich and famous, please send us an email. You seem to have the debilitating disease called "Harun Yahya Syndrome"


----------



## surada

Hollie said:


> "Harun Yahya Syndrome"



Adnan Oktar - Wikipedia








						Adnan Oktar - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				





Adnan Oktar , also known as Adnan Hoca, Harun Yahya, is a Turkish religious sex cult leader, creationist, conspiracy theorist, Preacher and anti-evolutionist.
On 11 July 2018, Oktar and over 160 of his associates were detained and later arrested on charges including forming a criminal enterprise, financial fraud and sexual abuse.


----------



## surada

Jan 12, 2021 · Turkish televangelist and cult leader Harun Yahya jailed 1,000 years for sex crimes Tuesday, 12 Jan 2021 07:51 AM MYT Turkish police officers escort televangelist and leader of a sect, Adnan Oktar (centre), as he is arrested on fraud charges, in Istanbul July 11, 2018.


----------



## Hollie

surada said:


> Jan 12, 2021 · Turkish televangelist and cult leader Harun Yahya jailed 1,000 years for sex crimes Tuesday, 12 Jan 2021 07:51 AM MYT Turkish police officers escort televangelist and leader of a sect, Adnan Oktar (centre), as he is arrested on fraud charges, in Istanbul July 11, 2018.


Oktar is a failed college student who never studied science and eventually dropped out of college. This would account in large part for the staggering incompetence displayed in the "science" that he hoped to feed to the gullible and the ignorant.

This explains a lot of what is projected by "James".


----------



## Confederate Soldier

When you can show me just _one _missing link fossil set, then you may convince me of evolution.


----------



## Wuwei

Hollie said:


> When you become rich and famous, please send us an email. You seem to have the debilitating disease called "Harun Yahya Syndrome"


I would have guessed that james actually is Oktar writing from jail, except that Oktar is Islamic.
.


----------



## Wuwei

Confederate Soldier said:


> When you can show me just _one _missing link fossil set, then you may convince me of evolution.


Do you believe the earth is billions of years old? If not, there is no point in discussing it.


----------



## Confederate Soldier

Wuwei said:


> Do you believe the earth is billions of years old? If not, there is no point in discussing it.




I do not believe it is billions of years old.


----------



## Wuwei

Confederate Soldier said:


> I do not believe it is billions of years old.


Then there is no point in discussing evolution because it can't happen in a few thousand earth years.


----------



## Confederate Soldier

Wuwei said:


> Then there is no point in discussing evolution because it can't happen in a few thousand earth years.




It can't happen over a billion years either.


----------



## surada

Confederate Soldier said:


> It can't happen over a billion years either.



How old do you think the earth is?


----------



## Confederate Soldier

surada said:


> How old do you think the earth is?


Somewhere between 10-20 thousand years old.


----------



## Wuwei

Confederate Soldier said:


> Somewhere between 10-20 thousand years old.


Rocks can be dated using long lived isotopes and show the earth is several billions of years old.
Astronomy has found galaxies several billions of light years away.
The scientific evidence is overwhelming.


----------



## surada

Confederate Soldier said:


> Somewhere between 10-20 thousand years old.




There are cave paintings in Spain and France that are 30-40,000 years old. Granaries in Jordan that are 14,0000 years old. Look at Byblos and Baalbek and Jericho.


----------



## Confederate Soldier

Wuwei said:


> Rocks can be dated using long lived isotopes and show the earth is several billions of years old.
> Astronomy has found galaxies several billions of light years away.
> The scientific evidence is overwhelming.




Carbon dating has been proven to be inaccurate, and as for the galaxies, how does anyone actually know how many light years away they are? Were they measured?


----------



## Confederate Soldier

surada said:


> There are cave paintings in Spain and France that are 30-40,000 years old. Granaries in Jordan that are 14,0000 years old. Look at Byblos and Baalbek and Jericho.


As if they know exactly how old they are. 30,000-40,000 years old? That leaves 10,000 years room for error.


----------



## surada

Confederate Soldier said:


> As if they know exactly how old they are. 30,000-40,000 years old? That leaves 10,000 years room for error.



You should travel...


----------



## Hollie

Confederate Soldier said:


> When you can show me just _one _missing link fossil set, then you may convince me of evolution.


The "missing link"  label is a non-scientific term abandoned many decades ago. You probably should become familiar with the term 'transitional fossil' to identify change in species over time. 

There are literally thousands of examples of transitional fossils.


----------



## Hollie

Confederate Soldier said:


> Somewhere between 10-20 thousand years old.


Oh, no. Not this again.


----------



## Wuwei

Confederate Soldier said:


> Carbon dating has been proven to be inaccurate, and as for the galaxies, how does anyone actually know how many light years away they are? Were they measured?


Carbon is not a long lived isotope. The dating for oldest objects use uranium, osmium, radium, etc which have long lived isotopes. Look it up.

The distance of galaxies can be measured by spectrum shifts. They are more accurately measured by standard nova where the light intensity is known, and the distance is measured by the inverse square law. 
.


----------



## Confederate Soldier

That's just it. The above statement where the light intensity is known. Science is still changing and getting more accurate. Scientists have been wrong in the past, but might develop better measuring systems and better techniques in the future. I will wait until then, and nothing that people will tell me will convince me otherwise. I'll wait.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Suggesting that silly youtube videos, as opposed to peer reviewed studies,  represent supportable evidence of science matters should suggest to a reasonable person that your arguments are really baseless.
> 
> Reasonable people don't take Flat Earther's as bothered by science.


Satan must really have dug his hooks onto you.  I proved it with science and something observable and testable.  OTOH, you atheists continue to believe in something that has nothing observable and is not testable.  It is a fairy tale.  Even the evolution website continues to believe in fairy tales as "theory"  .



Hollie said:


> When you become rich and famous, please send us an email. You seem to have the debilitating disease called "Harun Yahya Syndrome"


Okay.  I'll send you an e-mail and a picture.



surada said:


> How old do you think the earth is?


It's around 6,000 years old.  The chronology in the Bible was to prove long time that evolution needed never existed.  Evolution is dead, but it continues to lure in the suckers.  You think that my Bible is religion, but science backs up the Bible.  Nothing backs up evolution as its not observable nor testable.  You made your bed, so now lie in it.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Satan must really have dug his hooks onto you.  I proved it with science and something observable and testable.  OTOH, you atheists continue to believe in something that has nothing observable and is not testable.  It is a fairy tale.  Even the evolution website continues to believe in fairy tales as "theory"  .
> 
> 
> Okay.  I'll send you an e-mail and a picture.
> 
> 
> It's around 6,000 years old.  The chronology in the Bible was to prove long time that evolution needed never existed.  Evolution is dead, but it continues to lure in the suckers.  You think that my Bible is religion, but science backs up the Bible.  Nothing backs up evolution as its not observable nor testable.  You made your bed, so now lie in it.



You tested for Adam and Eve? How about the Red Sea crossing or Noah's flood?


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> You tested for Adam and Eve? How about the Red Sea crossing or Noah's flood?


You a smart guy who's gone looney tunes because of belief in evolution and atheism. 

 A&E are observable and testable in our common genetics.  They are our common ancestor.

The Red Sea parting has:

"But carefully following the Biblical and historical records of the Exodus brings you to Nuweiba, a large beach in the Gulf of Aqaba, as Ron Wyatt discovered in 1978.

Repeated dives in depths ranging from 60 to 200 feet deep (18m to 60m), over a stretch of almost 2.5 km, has shown that the chariot parts are scattered across the sea bed. Artifacts found include wheels, chariot bodies as well as human and horse bones. Divers have located wreckage on the Saudi coastline opposite Nuweiba as well."

Noah's Flood has the fountains of the depth that forms a ring around the world.  The Earth is the only planet covered by 3/4 surface water.  There are flood myths around the world based on a true event.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Satan must really have dug his hooks onto you.  I proved it with science and something observable and testable.  OTOH, you atheists continue to believe in something that has nothing observable and is not testable.  It is a fairy tale.  Even the evolution website continues to believe in fairy tales as "theory"  .
> 
> 
> Okay.  I'll send you an e-mail and a picture.
> 
> 
> It's around 6,000 years old.  The chronology in the Bible was to prove long time that evolution needed never existed.  Evolution is dead, but it continues to lure in the suckers.  You think that my Bible is religion, but science backs up the Bible.  Nothing backs up evolution as its not observable nor testable.  You made your bed, so now lie in it.


"Long time". Obviously, lacking a science vocabulary, you're reduced to slogans from the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah. 

I can understand why you use youtube for your science information. Lots of brightly colored graphics accompanied by a musical score tends to appeal to a certain... how shall we say... "less than critically thinking type".


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> None of your answers are rational nor scientific and typical of an atheist who has gone looney tunes due to being wrong and losing.  I already posted the youtube of science backing up the Bible, the swan neck experiment, evidence for the global flood, the great creation scientists, no multiverses, no bipedal ape, no ape-humans, no common ancestor, no billions of years as radioisotope assumptions are unknown and do not match calendar year, etc.  Heck, it even talks about global warming -- What Does the Bible Say About Global Warming?.  I may be taking advantage of what I learned from the Bible and may become famous and multi-millionaire .


Ahh. Delusions of grandeur. It's clearer now with reference to the James Bond avatar. You fantasize about living that lifestyle, right? 

Do you also spend your weekends commanding the French forces at Waterloo?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> You a smart guy who's gone looney tunes because of belief in evolution and atheism.
> 
> A&E are observable and testable in our common genetics.  They are our common ancestor.
> 
> The Red Sea parting has:
> 
> "But carefully following the Biblical and historical records of the Exodus brings you to Nuweiba, a large beach in the Gulf of Aqaba, as Ron Wyatt discovered in 1978.
> 
> Repeated dives in depths ranging from 60 to 200 feet deep (18m to 60m), over a stretch of almost 2.5 km, has shown that the chariot parts are scattered across the sea bed. Artifacts found include wheels, chariot bodies as well as human and horse bones. Divers have located wreckage on the Saudi coastline opposite Nuweiba as well."
> 
> Noah's Flood has the fountains of the depth that forms a ring around the world.  The Earth is the only planet covered by 3/4 surface water.  There are flood myths around the world based on a true event.


More Bible thumping not at all appropriate in the Science forum.

Are you suffering from Marshall Applewhite Syndrome?


----------



## surada

Confederate Soldier said:


> That's just it. The above statement where the light intensity is known. Science is still changing and getting more accurate. Scientists have been wrong in the past, but might develop better measuring systems and better techniques in the future. I will wait until then, and nothing that people will tell me will convince me otherwise. I'll wait.



You're pretty young. What church/Sunday school did you attend?


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> Noah's Flood has the fountains of the depth that forms a ring around the world. The Earth is the only planet covered by 3/4 surface water. There are flood myths around the world based on a true event.


That is not science. If it were science there would be a detailed investigation into:

How was the water stored below the earth crust so that a flood could cover all mountain tops. 
The extra water would have to be several times the volume of the ocean water.
How big were the openings in the fountains. 
What was the physical mechanism to eject the water to the surface.
What was the required velocity of water through the openings to escape from below the crust within 40 days.
What was the temperature of water beneath the earth crust.
What was the physical mechanism that allowed the water to recede. 
Where did all that water drain
With many historical floods in many cultures. How is it determined that they they all occurred within a 40 day window.

If creation "scientists" cannot explain a global flood mechanism, then it is not science at all.

.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Confederate Soldier said:


> When you can show me just _one _missing link fossil set, then you may convince me of evolution.


Sure. No problem. But before you waste anyone's time, define PRECISELY what you mean by "missing link fossil set". Be specific.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Confederate Soldier said:


> . I will wait until then


Haha, what a load of crap. You don't even know squat about the current dating systems. So how will you know when they have been refined, or when they are "satisfactorily accurate" for you?

They never will be. Ever. You have rigged the game and set an impossible standard. Just a little cheap parlor trick. An excuse, because you think it sounds more reasonable than "nuh uh, mah Bible says so".

And you can ignore my request about the fossils. You will play the same childish game with those.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Ahh. Delusions of grandeur. It's clearer now with reference to the James Bond avatar. You fantasize about living that lifestyle, right?
> 
> Do you also spend your weekends commanding the French forces at Waterloo?


Now, you're getting personal.  I must've really put the  _butthurt_ on the atheists here and their religion.



Hollie said:


> More Bible thumping not at all appropriate in the Science forum.
> 
> Are you suffering from Marshall Applewhite Syndrome?


You should reply to surada as he's reduced to babbling his complaints about Christianity as evolution was destroyed yesterday by yours truly.

>>Are you suffering from Marshall Applewhite Syndrome?<<






Lol.  What about Anton Lavey?  Isn't he more up your and atheists' alley and speed?

I didn't know they had a 600 Club (take off on 700 Club) for atheistic Satanists lol -- Satanism Today | Exploring The Past Present & Future of Satanism.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Haha, what a load of crap. You don't even know squat about the current dating systems. So how will you know when they have been refined, or when they are "satisfactorily accurate" for you?
> 
> They never will be. Ever. You have rigged the game and set an impossible standard. Just a little cheap parlor trick. An excuse, because you think it sounds more reasonable than "nuh uh, mah Bible says so".





james bond said:


> Now, you're getting personal. I must've really put the _butthurt_ on the atheists here and their religion.


Haha, the typical jbond declaration of victory, after getting his ass stomped for 10 pages. Good stuff.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Haha, the typical jbond declaration of victory, after getting his ass stomped for 10 pages. Good stuff.


What was the last argument I lost?  We all know science backs up the Bible.  I guess I should count your weak post as another victory.  You see why my avatar is JB as he keeps on going without a loss.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> We all know science backs up the Bible.


If you want to say that consider the points in post 451. That will show if science backs the bible.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Now, you're getting personal.  I must've really put the  _butthurt_ on the atheists here and their religion.
> 
> 
> You should reply to surada as he's reduced to babbling his complaints about Christianity as evolution was destroyed yesterday by yours truly.
> 
> >>Are you suffering from Marshall Applewhite Syndrome?<<
> 
> View attachment 563238
> 
> Lol.  What about Anton Lavey?  Isn't he more up your and atheists' alley and speed?
> 
> I didn't know they had a 600 Club (take off on 700 Club) for atheistic Satanists lol -- Satanism Today | Exploring The Past Present & Future of Satanism.



Most of the other posters think you're stupid.


----------



## surada

Wuwei said:


> That is not science. If it were science there would be a detailed investigation into:
> 
> How was the water stored below the earth crust so that a flood could cover all mountain tops.
> The extra water would have to be several times the volume of the ocean water.
> How big were the openings in the fountains.
> What was the physical mechanism to eject the water to the surface.
> What was the required velocity of water through the openings to escape from below the crust within 40 days.
> What was the temperature of water beneath the earth crust.
> What was the physical mechanism that allowed the water to recede.
> Where did all that water drain
> With many historical floods in many cultures. How is it determined that they they all occurred within a 40 day window.
> 
> If creation "scientists" cannot explain a global flood mechanism, then it is not science at all.
> 
> .



These creationists think the earth was flat before the flood and the flood pushed up the mountains. This ring of subterranean water doesn't exist. Maybe he's thinking of the Ring of Fire.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Now, you're getting personal.  I must've really put the  _butthurt_ on the atheists here and their religion.
> 
> 
> You should reply to surada as he's reduced to babbling his complaints about Christianity as evolution was destroyed yesterday by yours truly.
> 
> >>Are you suffering from Marshall Applewhite Syndrome?<<
> 
> View attachment 563238
> 
> Lol.  What about Anton Lavey?  Isn't he more up your and atheists' alley and speed?
> 
> I didn't know they had a 600 Club (take off on 700 Club) for atheistic Satanists lol -- Satanism Today | Exploring The Past Present & Future of Satanism.


You can't have missed the reality that you add nothing of substance / value to the science forum. Repetitive cutting and pasting of the same slogans and endless Bible thumping makes you seem quite the religious extremist.


----------



## Wuwei

surada said:


> These creationists think the earth was flat before the flood and the flood pushed up the mountains. This ring of subterranean water doesn't exist. Maybe he's thinking of the Ring of Fire.


I thought creationists were referring to hydrothermal vents. It's kind of a sorry state when non-creationists try to put meaning into the ambiguous statements that creationists make. But it's to their best interests to remain ambiguous so they can take measures not to be backed into a corner.

.


----------



## surada

Wuwei said:


> I thought creationists were referring to hydrothermal vents. It's kind of a sorry state when non-creationists try to put meaning into the ambiguous statements that creationists make. But it's to their best interests to remain ambiguous so they can take measures not to be backed into a corner.
> 
> .



They usually say dinosaur bones and fossils were planted by God. 

Thousands of years ago the ancients also found fossils and dinosaur bones.


----------



## Wuwei

surada said:


> They usually say dinosaur bones and fossils were planted by God.
> 
> Thousands of years ago the ancients also found fossils and dinosaur bones.


So God made no dinosaurs? Just broken bones? God can be such a joker at times.


----------



## surada

Wuwei said:


> So God made no dinosaurs? Just broken bones? God can be such a joker at times.



I always think of it as Cretan Science.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Most of the other posters think you're stupid.


So what do YOU think I'm stupid about?  Most of them can't answer my questions while I have answered all of theirs.  I'm done now with evolution.  Atheists can believe what they want.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> So what do YOU think I'm stupid about?  Most of them can't answer my questions while I have answered all of theirs.  I'm done now with evolution.  Atheists can believe what they want.



What do you understand natural selection to mean?


natural selection

NOUN
biology
the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution. Compare with survival of the fittest (see survival).


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> What do you understand natural selection to mean?
> 
> 
> natural selection
> 
> NOUN
> biology
> the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution. Compare with survival of the fittest (see survival).


Just look at my sig.  I don't want to discuss Darwin nor evolution again.  They're both stupid imo.  Let others have a chance to argue for or against it.

Here's a better definition from Webster:

"
Definition of _natural selection_​
*: *a natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment and that leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to that particular environment"                                                        

Bye!


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Just look at my sig.  I don't want to discuss Darwin nor evolution again.  They're both stupid.
> 
> Here's a better definition from Webster:
> 
> "
> Definition of _natural selection_​
> *: *a natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment and that leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to that particular environment"
> 
> Bye!



Same thing .....do you have a problem with critical thinking and reading comprehension?


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Same thing .....do you have a problem with critical thinking and reading comprehension?


That's right.  I used critical thinking and reading comprehension and more.  I was able to answer the atheists questions, but they couldn't answer mine.  One got so upset he had to start various threads like this against me.  That was really stupid lol.


----------



## james bond

I have better things to follow that what atheists are interested in -- http://scienceagainstevolution.info/vol26-1.pdf.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I have better things to follow that what atheists are interested in -- http://scienceagainstevolution.info/vol26-1.pdf.


A blog by someone calling himself Do-While Jones. 

Is there a laugh track you can queue up while Do-While is making a fool of himself...  and you?


----------



## JoeMoma

I don't think we humans will ever fully understand how the things  that "exist" came to be.  Some are content to simply believe God created the universe and that God has always existed.  Well, if God has always existed, then energy/matter has always existed, because God certainly has energy as an attribute, an we have learned that matter and energy can be transformed from one to the other. 

We will never fully understand "what came before that, and before that, and before........


----------



## surada

Hollie said:


> A blog by someone calling himself Do-While Jones.
> 
> Is there a laugh track you can queue up while Do-While is making a fool of himself...  and you?



This is from james bond's link. LOLOL









						A Triassic stem lepidosaur illuminates the origin of lizard-like reptiles - Nature
					

Taytalura alcoberi, represented by a three-dimensionally preserved skull from the Late Triassic epoch of Argentina, is phylogenetically inferred as the earliest known lepidosauromorph, and reveals that sphenodontian skull architecture is plesiomorphic for lepidosaurs.




					www.nature.com
				




Palaeontology: The rise of the lepidosaurs | Nature ...




__





						Palaeontology: The rise of the lepidosaurs | Nature | Nature Portfolio
					

Palaeontology: The rise of the lepidosaurs




					www.natureasia.com
				



Aug 26, 2021 · Palaeontology: The rise of the lepidosaurs. The skull of a lizard-like reptile from the Triassic of Argentina, dated to be around 231 million years old, sheds light on the origins of the group that gave rise to snakes, lizards and tuataras. The fossil is described in this week’s Nature…


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> We all know science backs up the Bible.





james bond said:


> Noah's Flood has the fountains of the depth that forms a ring around the world. The Earth is the only planet covered by 3/4 surface water. There are flood myths around the world based on a true event.


Here is a question you never answered. What are the fountains of the deep? What is the scientific mechanism on how they were able to supply the amount of water that would cover the mountain tops. Is there a link that explains the science?

.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> A blog by someone calling himself Do-While Jones.
> 
> Is there a laugh track you can queue up while Do-While is making a fool of himself...  and you?


He knows evolution is a BIG LIE and science does not back it up, i.e. science is against it.

Furthermore, here's my UC Berkeley website admitting that evolution is not observable nor testable -- Misconceptions about evolution - Understanding Evolution.  Smart people know that they admit defeat and is just hypothesis which goes nowhere.

Looks like Do-While Jimmy smacked you around some using science against evolution.  You're dizzy.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> He knows evolution is a BIG LIE and science does not back it up, i.e. science is against it.
> 
> Furthermore, here's my UC Berkeley website admitting that evolution is not observable nor testable -- Misconceptions about evolution - Understanding Evolution.  Smart people know that they admit defeat and is just hypothesis which goes nowhere.
> 
> Looks like Do-While Jimmy smacked you around some using science against evolution.  You're dizzy.




Odd, then, that Do-While is using links from the journal _Nature_. Isn’t that publication affiliated with those evilutionist, atheist scientists?

From the link posted by surada:
“Aug 26, 2021 · Palaeontology: The rise of the lepidosaurs. The skull of a lizard-like reptile from the Triassic of Argentina, dated to be around 231 million years old, sheds light on the origins of the group that gave rise to snakes, lizards and tuataras.”


231 million years?

I thought snakes (talking snakes), we’re invented 6,000 years ago by your various gods. 

Could it be that Do-While, (and life in general), has played a cruel joke on you?


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> Furthermore, here's my UC Berkeley website admitting that evolution is not observable nor testable -- Misconceptions about evolution - Understanding Evolution. Smart people know that they admit defeat and is just hypothesis which goes nowhere.


This is a big irony.  You quote a site saying they admit that, "evolution is not observable nor testable"
You obviously did not read your own website because it says exactly the opposite, that it is a misconception!!! I think you just shot yourself in the foot.

From the link you cited.

*MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable.*​_*CORRECTION: *This misconception encompasses two incorrect ideas: (1) that all science depends on controlled laboratory experiments, and (2) that evolution cannot be studied with such experiments. _​
the site goes on to say,
_To date, evolution is the only well-supported explanation for life’s diversity._​.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Odd, then, that Do-While is using links from the journal _Nature_. Isn’t that publication affiliated with those evilutionist, atheist scientists?
> 
> From the link posted by surada:
> “Aug 26, 2021 · Palaeontology: The rise of the lepidosaurs. The skull of a lizard-like reptile from the Triassic of Argentina, dated to be around 231 million years old, sheds light on the origins of the group that gave rise to snakes, lizards and tuataras.”
> 
> 
> 231 million years?
> 
> I thought snakes (talking snakes), we’re invented 6,000 years ago by your various gods.
> 
> Could it be that Do-While, (and life in general), has played a cruel joke on you?


Nobody can relate to million years.  It's too long a time period and we do not know what happens during that time.  What happens to the earth and rocks.  What kind of weather occurs?  What kind of catastrophes happen such as volcanoes, earthquakes, floods, fires, hurricanes, and so on.  If the Earth was 6,000 years young, then we know what kind of changes could happen as with the global flood.  No one has been able to explain or have a theory.

You should continue to read his monthly newsletter and website as evolution has been destroyed by yours truly.  It will go deeper into the evo articles and going against them or letting you know what the atheist scientists have come up with, but we know they're wrong.  Atheists are usually wrong.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Nobody can relate to million years. It's too long a time period and we do not know what happens during that time.


Yet you are allover this thread pretending to know.

"When you vomit the first thought that fizzles into your colon and accidentally obliterate your entire argument."


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Nobody can relate to million years.  It's too long a time period and we do not know what happens during that time.  What happens to the earth and rocks.  What kind of weather occurs?  What kind of catastrophes happen such as volcanoes, earthquakes, floods, fires, hurricanes, and so on.  If the Earth was 6,000 years young, then we know what kind of changes could happen as with the global flood.  No one has been able to explain or have a theory.
> 
> You should continue to read his monthly newsletter and website as evolution has been destroyed by yours truly.  It will go deeper into the evo articles and going against them or letting you know what the atheist scientists have come up with, but we know they're wrong.  Atheists are usually wrong.


“Relating” to a million years has nothing to do with your version of religious extremism.

BTW, science and knowledge has not been destroyed by you. Your best efforts to use your religious extremism to destroy your credibility has been a success, however. 

Do you not see the absurdity in your frantic attacks on knowledge and science while you reference a blog that links to science journals? Do-While is having a laugh at your expense.

Have you fallen down and bumped your head again?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yet you are allover this thread pretending to know.
> 
> "When you vomit the first thought that fizzles into your colon and accidentally obliterate your entire argument."


No, I can't even imagine what happens in a million years.  That's it.  I don't know.

So you're saying you know what a million years mean or can relate to it?  I'll make it easy for you so you can tell us what happened in 5,000 year increments.  Just think about how much history happened in the past 5,000 years.  I can see you describe 5K or 20K years, but not one million.  However, we're talking about 4.5 M years.  That's a crazy amount of time.

It isn't my first intuition.  I can't even describe what happened on Earth the past 100,000 years.

If you nor the atheists here can do it, then what does my evolution website say or any other evolution website?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> “Relating” to a million years has nothing to do with your version of religious extremism.
> 
> BTW, science and knowledge has not been destroyed by you. Your best efforts to use your religious extremism to destroy your credibility has been a success, however.
> 
> Do you not see the absurdity in your frantic attacks on knowledge and science while you reference a blog that links to science journals? Do-While is having a laugh at your expense.
> 
> Have you fallen down and bumped your head again?


The Bible goes up to around 5,000 years as you know.  The believers can describe what happened during that time and how the Earth was.

It seems like you're making excuses.  What I said was there is no observable nor testable evidence for evolution.  It means that evolution isn't backed up by science and couldn't happen.  It's BS.  Just think if creation science had nothing observable nor testable.  You would say I lost badly and would be lol'd off all the threads that we discussed all this time lol.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> This is from james bond's link. LOLOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Triassic stem lepidosaur illuminates the origin of lizard-like reptiles - Nature
> 
> 
> Taytalura alcoberi, represented by a three-dimensionally preserved skull from the Late Triassic epoch of Argentina, is phylogenetically inferred as the earliest known lepidosauromorph, and reveals that sphenodontian skull architecture is plesiomorphic for lepidosaurs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nature.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palaeontology: The rise of the lepidosaurs | Nature ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palaeontology: The rise of the lepidosaurs | Nature | Nature Portfolio
> 
> 
> Palaeontology: The rise of the lepidosaurs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.natureasia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aug 26, 2021 · Palaeontology: The rise of the lepidosaurs. The skull of a lizard-like reptile from the Triassic of Argentina, dated to be around 231 million years old, sheds light on the origins of the group that gave rise to snakes, lizards and tuataras. The fossil is described in this week’s Nature…


LMAO at your bird brain thinking or is it dinosaur brain thinking.

Do-While and I are laughing our asses off at you.

"
Reptile Classification​
The abstract said there are three kinds of reptiles in the two branches of the mythical reptile evolutionary tree. Archosauromorphs (crocodiles, avian and non-avian dinosaurs) are in one branch.   Lepidosauromorphs (squamates (lizards, snakes) and sphenodontians (tuataras)) are in the other branch.  You are probably familiar with most of them—but not by their technical names.


Archosauromorphs​
You know what crocodiles are.


Non-avian dinosaurs are what you commonly think of as dinosaurs.


“Avian dinosaurs” is the new name for “birds.”  Birds have been declared to be flying (avian) dinosaurs, so birds are now lizards.  If you don’t believe us, just go to the American Museum of Natural History.






*In the view of most paleontologists today, birds are living dinosaurs.* In other words, the traits that we accept as defining birds -- key skeletal features as well as behaviors including nesting and brooding -- actually arose first in some dinosaurs. Most intriguing, and debated, is the evidence of feathers and featherlike structures on these dinosaurs, as seen throughout this exhibition. 2



Birds are dinosaurs.  It must be true.  Scientists say so.  Don’t question them.


Lepidosauromorphs​
Lepidosauromorphs are divided into squamates and sphenodontians.


Squamates are lizards and snakes.  You know what they are.


Sphenodontians are tuatara.  You might not know what they are.






Tuatara were originally classified as lizards in 1831 when the British Museum received a skull. The genus remained *misclassified* until 1867, when Albert Günther of the British Museum noted features similar to birds, turtles, and crocodiles. He proposed the order Rhynchocephalia (meaning "beak head") for the tuatara and its fossil relatives.
At one point many disparately related species were incorrectly referred to the Rhynchocephalia, resulting in what taxonomists call *a "wastebasket taxon".*   Williston proposed the Sphenodontia *to include only tuatara* and their closest fossil relatives in 1925.   3



What should be clear from that quote is that *classification is nothing more than a matter of opinion*, which could change at any time.  Classification appears to be objective because specific criteria are used to determine classification—but the determination of those criteria is subjective and subject to change.   Because the criteria changed, birds became dinosaurs.


Tuatara are reptiles that don’t really fit neatly in any category.   Since all evolutionists believe that species evolved slowly (except those like Stephen J. Gould who don’t believe in gradual evolution) it should be easy for evolutionists to classify tuatara—but it isn’t, so they put species like tuatara (and the platypus) in a wastebasket taxon.


Tuatara were formerly “misclassified.”  *Now they are correctly classified because academics* (who cannot be questioned) *have decided they are properly classified,* just like *birds have now been properly classified as dinosaurs.*






 Tuatara are Sphenodontian"

What you posted are more evos' articles.  What does it do with classification?  Classification is just opinion which could change at any time like when someone who gets caught in a lie or like when you just got caught in attributing atheist science articles to me.  Why don't you pay so we can read the whole article?  You are a cheapskate lol.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> The Bible goes up to around 5,000 years as you know.  The believers can describe what happened during that time and how the Earth was.
> 
> It seems like you're making excuses.  What I said was there is no observable nor testable evidence for evolution.  It means that evolution isn't backed up by science and couldn't happen.  It's BS.  Just think if creation science had nothing observable nor testable.  You would say I lost badly and would be lol'd off all the threads that we discussed all this time lol.



Your claim there is ''no testable evidence for evolution'', is demonstrably wrong as countered by the testable evidence for evolution. 

See how easy that was? I simply present the facts to counter your nonsense claims.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> LMAO at your bird brain thinking or is it dinosaur brain thinking.
> 
> Do-While and I are laughing our asses off at you.
> 
> "
> Reptile Classification​
> The abstract said there are three kinds of reptiles in the two branches of the mythical reptile evolutionary tree. Archosauromorphs (crocodiles, avian and non-avian dinosaurs) are in one branch.   Lepidosauromorphs (squamates (lizards, snakes) and sphenodontians (tuataras)) are in the other branch.  You are probably familiar with most of them—but not by their technical names.
> 
> 
> Archosauromorphs​
> You know what crocodiles are.
> 
> 
> Non-avian dinosaurs are what you commonly think of as dinosaurs.
> 
> 
> “Avian dinosaurs” is the new name for “birds.”  Birds have been declared to be flying (avian) dinosaurs, so birds are now lizards.  If you don’t believe us, just go to the American Museum of Natural History.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In the view of most paleontologists today, birds are living dinosaurs.* In other words, the traits that we accept as defining birds -- key skeletal features as well as behaviors including nesting and brooding -- actually arose first in some dinosaurs. Most intriguing, and debated, is the evidence of feathers and featherlike structures on these dinosaurs, as seen throughout this exhibition. 2
> 
> 
> 
> Birds are dinosaurs.  It must be true.  Scientists say so.  Don’t question them.
> 
> 
> Lepidosauromorphs​
> Lepidosauromorphs are divided into squamates and sphenodontians.
> 
> 
> Squamates are lizards and snakes.  You know what they are.
> 
> 
> Sphenodontians are tuatara.  You might not know what they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara were originally classified as lizards in 1831 when the British Museum received a skull. The genus remained *misclassified* until 1867, when Albert Günther of the British Museum noted features similar to birds, turtles, and crocodiles. He proposed the order Rhynchocephalia (meaning "beak head") for the tuatara and its fossil relatives.
> At one point many disparately related species were incorrectly referred to the Rhynchocephalia, resulting in what taxonomists call *a "wastebasket taxon".*   Williston proposed the Sphenodontia *to include only tuatara* and their closest fossil relatives in 1925.   3
> 
> 
> 
> What should be clear from that quote is that *classification is nothing more than a matter of opinion*, which could change at any time.  Classification appears to be objective because specific criteria are used to determine classification—but the determination of those criteria is subjective and subject to change.   Because the criteria changed, birds became dinosaurs.
> 
> 
> Tuatara are reptiles that don’t really fit neatly in any category.   Since all evolutionists believe that species evolved slowly (except those like Stephen J. Gould who don’t believe in gradual evolution) it should be easy for evolutionists to classify tuatara—but it isn’t, so they put species like tuatara (and the platypus) in a wastebasket taxon.
> 
> 
> Tuatara were formerly “misclassified.”  *Now they are correctly classified because academics* (who cannot be questioned) *have decided they are properly classified,* just like *birds have now been properly classified as dinosaurs.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara are Sphenodontian"
> 
> What you posted are more evos' articles.  What does it do with classification?  Classification is just opinion which could change at any time like when someone who gets caught in a lie or like when you just got caught in attributing atheist science articles to me.  Why don't you pay so we can read the whole article?  You are a cheapskate lol.


More rants from the religious extremist.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> Nobody can relate to million years. It's too long a time period and we do not know what happens during that time.


Maybe a layman can't but it's a scientists job to relate to events that are way outside of casual cognition. You have to "think outside the (earthly) box." Creationists have no reason to think in those extremes.

But, for example, scientists can relate to galaxies that existed billions of years in the past. Or the ability for lasers in a lab to emit pulses as short as a few fempto-seconds. Or the ability to measure gravity waves emanating millions of light-years away that reaches earth with a distortion a fraction of the size of a proton.

The inability to "relate" to extremes in dimension is no reason to dismiss any science.
.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Your claim there is ''no testable evidence for evolution'', is demonstrably wrong as countered by the testable evidence for evolution.
> 
> See how easy that was? I simply present the facts to counter your nonsense claims.


You just say it and present nothing.  All you got is atheist _faith_ which is nothing. In real life, I wouldn't even get into these arguments as the atheists would get p*ssed off because of my victory in front of other people.

I got the 3/4 surface water, KCA, no life from non-life experiment, we all die from A&E's sin, the 3-to-1 majority, people contribute money to Christian churches, and more.  Atheists have no money source for their religion.  Losers all the way around lmao.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> You just say it and present nothing.  All you got is atheist _faith_ which is nothing. In real life, I wouldn't even get into these arguments as the atheists would get p*ssed off because of my victory in front of other people.
> 
> I got the 3/4 surface water, KCA, no life from non-life experiment, we all die from A&E's sin, the 3-to-1 majority, people contribute money to Christian churches, and more.  Atheists have no money source for their religion.  Losers all the way around lmao.


You've got 100% Illogical Trash.
*How does no life from experiments (yet) prove there's a god. YOUR god no less?
(those experiments have yielded many long chain molecules that Tend to form naturally.)
I don't see any gods springing up from nowhere either!
The Bible rather than the Koran or Bhagavad Gita?
You've just got one classic "God of the Gaps".. again.*
Yawner #11,081 from James Bond.
`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> You've got 100% Illogical Trash.
> *How does no life from experiments (yet) prove there's a god. YOUR god no less?
> (those experiments have yielded many long chain molecules that Tend to form naturally.)
> The Bible rather than the Koran or Bhagavad Gita?
> You've just got one classic "God of the Gaps".. again.*
> Yawner #11,081 from James Bond.
> `


I can add all the evidence and realize science backs up the Bible.  I've learned both the Bible and evolution.  All you have is evolution of the gaps.  You're ignorant of the Good Book.  I doubt you've even read the evolution website.  What books have you read about evolution?  It's irony that what your ignorant claims about God has turned 180 and bit you in the ass .

It's like St. George sword got shoved up your you know where.

ETA:  I realize that Christians even have _better weapons_ than you.  Libs got what?  Nothing.  Just like their science.  No wonder they turn atheist.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> I got the 3/4 surface water, KCA, no life from non-life experiment, we all die from A&E's sin, the 3-to-1 majority, people contribute money to Christian churches, and more. Atheists have no money source for their religion. Losers all the way around lmao.


*You are off the rails. None of that has anything to do with Creation Science.*


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> I can add all the evidence and realize science backs up the Bible.


Science does not back up the Genesis. Why do you think it does?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> You just say it and present nothing.  All you got is atheist _faith_ which is nothing. In real life, I wouldn't even get into these arguments as the atheists would get p*ssed off because of my victory in front of other people.
> 
> I got the 3/4 surface water, KCA, no life from non-life experiment, we all die from A&E's sin, the 3-to-1 majority, people contribute money to Christian churches, and more.  Atheists have no money source for their religion.  Losers all the way around lmao.



I can present verifiable data. You don't seem to realize that outside of religious extremism, there is a world that understands knowledge and learning. 

You rely on ancient tales and fables that calm an emotional requirement to shield yourself within a burqa of fear and ignorance.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I can add all the evidence and realize science backs up the Bible.  I've learned both the Bible and evolution.  All you have is evolution of the gaps.  You're ignorant of the Good Book.  I doubt you've even read the evolution website.  What books have you read about evolution?  It's irony that what your ignorant claims about God has turned 180 and bit you in the ass .
> 
> It's like St. George sword got shoved up your you know where.
> 
> ETA:  I realize that Christians even have _better weapons_ than you.  Libs got what?  Nothing.  Just like their science.  No wonder they turn atheist.


And yet, you continuously fail to offer any evidence for your claims to magic and supernaturalism.

You fail to understand that ''the Bible says so'' is not a supportable argument outside of your Jimmy Swaggert madrassah.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Wuwei 

You're welcome to point out where I've said, "Democrats are atheists and communists and want the government to give free stuff to the poor?"

Shit for brains abu afak agrees with you.


----------



## abu afak

Captain Caveman said:


> Wuwei
> 
> You're welcome to point out where I've said, "Democrats are atheists and communists and want the government to give free stuff to the poor?"
> 
> Shit for brains abu afak agrees with you.


I agree you haven't said anything .. and never do.
You are a low IQ emptily combative idiot.
You never post any meat, and can't write a paragraph on any topic. 
So I might indeed 'agree' with any post that mocks your idiocy.
`


----------



## Wuwei

Captain Caveman said:


> Wuwei
> 
> You're welcome to point out where I've said, "Democrats are atheists and communists and want the government to give free stuff to the poor?"
> 
> Shit for brains abu afak agrees with you.


You might be in the wrong thread. I forgot the context. You will have to remind me where I said that.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I can present verifiable data. You don't seem to realize that outside of religious extremism, there is a world that understands knowledge and learning.
> 
> You rely on ancient tales and fables that calm an emotional requirement to shield yourself within a burqa of fear and ignorance.


You can't just say I need billions of years to support my data.

Basically, all you have are ideas.  I like ideas and am for them, but not for atheism and atheist science.


----------



## james bond

abu afak

I got a question for you.  Is there mining still done on mountain tops?

Mining done there found the fossils of animals who died long ago.  Follow up question is how did they get up there lmao?

Did I win again?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> You can't just say I need billions of years to support my data.
> 
> Basically, all you have are ideas.  I like ideas and am for them, but not for atheism and atheist science.



I can say you have presented no data to support your specious claims.

On the other hand, if you were not a slave to dogma you have been indoctrinated with at the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah, you would find overwhelming evidence for biological evolution, a spherical and very old planet… you know, “sciencey” stuff.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> abu afak
> 
> I got a question for you.  Is there mining still done on mountain tops?
> 
> Mining done there found the fossils of animals who died long ago.  Follow up question is how did they get up there lmao?
> 
> Did I win again?


You are unfamiliar with Plate Tectonics and have 'proved' that wrong too?
ie, it's taken the Himalayas 50,000,000 years to rise to their current height and they are STILL rising a little each year. 
THAT'S how the the fossils 'get up there.'
You ignorant **** licker.

`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> You are unfamiliar with Plate Tectonics and have 'proved' that wrong too?
> ie, it's taken the Himalayas 50,000,000 years to rise to their current height and they are STILL rising a little each year.
> THAT'S how the the fossils 'get up there.'
> You ignorant **** licker.
> 
> `


That's what I've already said with the global flood, the fountains of the deep, and plate tectonics founder creationist Alfred Wagener.  If we didn't have the water rise from underneath the sea floor thru plate tectonics, then we wouldn't have the Himalayas nor Mt. Everest.  You were the one who asked the question.







You just admitted to Noah's Flood.  They even found marine fossils up there.  Thus, the threads you start just mean you end up being defeated.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> That's what I've already said with the global flood, the fountains of the deep, and plate tectonics founder creationist Alfred Wagener.  If we didn't have the water rise from underneath the sea floor thru plate tectonics, then we wouldn't have the Himalayas nor Mt. Everest.  You were the one who asked the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just admitted to Noah's Flood.  They even found marine fossils up there.  Thus, the threads you start just mean you end up being defeated.


Haha, such embarrassing nonsense.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> That's what I've already said with the global flood, the fountains of the deep, and plate tectonics founder creationist Alfred Wagener.  If we didn't have the water rise from underneath the sea floor thru plate tectonics, then we wouldn't have the Himalayas nor Mt. Everest.  You were the one who asked the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just admitted to Noah's Flood.  They even found marine fossils up there.  Thus, the threads you start just mean you end up being defeated.


What an idiotic Jumble.
*My Point - unrefuted - was that we don't need a flood to get fossils up mountains with tectonics.
The Himalayas (and many other mountains/plains) are STILL rising and bringing fossils with them, and that has Nothing to do with a flood.*

And of course there is no evidence of Noah's flood.
Unlike Evolution's Serial Fossils/tweeners, no hard evidence, just claims that amount to Incest.

`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> What an idiotic Jumble.
> *My Point - unrefuted - was that we don't need a flood to get fossils up mountains with tectonics.
> The Himalayas (and many other mountains/plains) are STILL rising and bringing fossils with them, and that has Nothing to do with a flood.*
> 
> And of course there is no evidence of Noah's flood.
> Unlike Evolution's Serial Fossils/tweeners, no hard evidence, just claims that amount to Incest.
> 
> `


Jeez.  You lost and are still stupid as abu afak.  We have a new insult for the atheists here lmao.

"What do marine fossils on the top of Mount Everest tell us about the Biblical Flood? Well, we find fossils of marine creatures in limestone near the summit, which means that this area must have been under the sea in the past. Everyone agrees that the top of Everest was once under the sea. However, many people do not associate these rocks and fossils with Noah's Flood because they think there is not enough water to cover the highest mountains. However, they are not considering how the Flood changed the earth's topography.

The mountain ranges formed at the end of the Flood. With vertical earth movements towards the end of the flood, the mountains rose and the water flowed off the continents into the newly formed oceans basins. Indeed, such mountains must have formed quickly and recently, otherwise they would have eroded as quickly as they formed. That's why we have marine fossils at the tops of high mountains."


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Jeez.  You lost and are still stupid as abu afak.  We have a new insult for the atheists here lmao.
> 
> "What do marine fossils on the top of Mount Everest tell us about the Biblical Flood? Well, we find fossils of marine creatures in limestone near the summit, which means that this area must have been under the sea in the past. Everyone agrees that the top of Everest was once under the sea. However, many people do not associate these rocks and fossils with Noah's Flood because they think there is not enough water to cover the highest mountains. However, they are not considering how the Flood changed the earth's topography.
> 
> The mountain ranges formed at the end of the Flood. With vertical earth movements towards the end of the flood, the mountains rose and the water flowed off the continents into the newly formed oceans basins. Indeed, such mountains must have formed quickly and recently, otherwise they would have eroded as quickly as they formed. That's why we have marine fossils at the tops of high mountains."



Unsourced quote (no doubt Liberty U's geology lab) and Obviously not an answer to me.
Quite simply and again:
No Flood was required for plate tectonics to raise the land and fossils with it.
(Himalaya's etc, are still rising)
You dishonest religious OCD case.

`


----------



## Hollie

Marine fossils on the top of Mount Everest tell us nothing about the Biblical Flood. That’s because marine fossils on the top of Mount Everest tell us about geologic uplift and plate tectonics.

Now you see why your time spent at the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah was a complete waste.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Unsourced quote (no doubt Liberty U's geology lab) and Obviously not an answer to me.
> Quite simply and again:
> No Flood was required for plate tectonics to raise the land and fossils with it.
> (Himalaya's etc, are still rising)
> You dishonest religious OCD case.
> 
> `


It reminds me of what kind of atheist I have turned you into.  One who now has paranoia, fear of imprisonment, and stating I am the wrong person accused.  Except, I have the right atheist accused and likely one who will deteriorate to one on the edge of madness.

That's what happens as atheists are usually wrong lmao.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Marine fossils on the top of Mount Everest tell us nothing about the Biblical Flood. That’s because marine fossils on the top of Mount Everest tell us about geologic uplift and plate tectonics.
> 
> Now you see why your time spent at the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah was a complete waste.


It didn't take millions of years.  Neither were they carved by glaciers.  The fountains of the deep also show that NASA is looking for planets with oceans of water below the surface.

Here's what one atheist on Quora claimed lmao:









						How do atheists explain the Earth's formation?
					

Answer (1 of 193): The popular way for atheists to explain our universe's origins is the idea of the multi-verse or bubble universe. "There could be many universes," the thinking goes, and as one of them burns out another one is created, on and on infinitely. This is their way to explain away the...




					www.quora.com
				




Your model atheist, stupid as abu afak, didn't even know about mountain mining.  It's prolly safer mining up on top instead of underneath the ground.


----------



## abu afak

abu afak said:


> *Unsourced quote (no doubt Liberty U's geology lab) and Obviously not an answer to me.
> Quite simply and again:
> No Flood was required for plate tectonics to raise the land and fossils with it.
> (Himalaya's etc, are still rising)
> You dishonest religious OCD case.*
> 
> `


James Bond had NO ANSWER to the above.
Plate tectonics can raise elevation without any global Flood needed, and is doing so at this very moment.

And of course/Again:
There is no evidence of a flood.
Unlike Evolution's Serial Fossils/tweeners, no hard evidence, just claims that amount to Incest.
`


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> The mountain ranges formed at the end of the Flood. With vertical earth movements towards the end of the flood, the mountains rose and the water flowed off the continents into the newly formed oceans basins. Indeed, such mountains must have formed quickly and recently, otherwise they would have eroded as quickly as they formed. That's why we have marine fossils at the tops of high mountains


According to answers in genesis,
_The Flood of Noah’s day (2348 BC) was a year-long global catastrophe that destroyed the pre-Flood world, reshaped the continents, buried billions of creatures, and laid down the rock layers. _​That means all the mountains, earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcano ash due to the motion of the tectonic plates happened quickly only 4300 years ago. That is an unimaginable global disaster in an unimaginably short time. Creation "scientists" have a lot of 'splainin to do.  
.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> It didn't take millions of years.  Neither were they carved by glaciers.  The fountains of the deep also show that NASA is looking for planets with oceans of water below the surface.
> 
> Here's what one atheist on Quora claimed lmao:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do atheists explain the Earth's formation?
> 
> 
> Answer (1 of 193): The popular way for atheists to explain our universe's origins is the idea of the multi-verse or bubble universe. "There could be many universes," the thinking goes, and as one of them burns out another one is created, on and on infinitely. This is their way to explain away the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.quora.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your model atheist, stupid as abu afak, didn't even know about mountain mining.  It's prolly safer mining up on top instead of underneath the ground.


Thermal vents are well understood natural features.  Adding a supernatural element to natural features is really a desperate tactic.


----------



## james bond

Captain Caveman said:


> Shit for brains @abu afak agrees with you.


Shit for brains abu afak works just as fine as insulting someone as being stupid as abu afak.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Shit for brains abu afak works just as fine as insulting someone as being stupid as abu afak.


My posts are all topical if at all possible.
Many come with barbs.
But they are factual posts such as my last few above that are all straightening your dumb @ss out, and you were never able to answer.
Tectonics doesn't need a flood to explain fossils on mountains.

Thus this empty frustrated post.
Third part gossip posts like yours (this with tagging no less) are called 'whoring' on some message boards which don't allow it. No worries here tho.

`


----------



## Captain Caveman

abu afak said:


> I agree you haven't said anything .. and never do.
> You are a low IQ emptily combative idiot.
> You never post any meat, and can't write a paragraph on any topic.
> So I might indeed 'agree' with any post that mocks your idiocy.
> `


If you don't like my opinion of you – improve yourself


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> James Bond had NO ANSWER to the above.
> Plate tectonics can raise elevation without any global Flood needed, and is doing so at this very moment.
> 
> And of course/Again:
> There is no evidence of a flood.
> Unlike Evolution's Serial Fossils/tweeners, no hard evidence, just claims that amount to Incest.
> `


Lol, I already answered you in the thread.  It was Noah's Flood and it happened rapidly, not millions of years.  The proof is the fountains of the deep that go around the world.  It caused the Himalayas and Mt. Everest.  We can see through other catastrophes such as earthquakes, volcanoes, local floods, and such how the Earth's geology changes.  With the global flood, we also had the land mass of Pangea become seven continents and 3/4 of the Earth covered by surface water.  We want a planet with oceans below the surface as it helps make it habitable for life.  Unfortunately, we won't find one.  We can see how the water eroded the Earth's surface beyond your trifle answer.  I can't help it if you're wrong practically all the time.  Face it.  Atheists are usually wrong.  It's why you're so angry, bitter, and full of bile from the continual butt whipping I give you.  Maybe you are a masochist who enjoys the bullwhip .

The Bible explained plate tectonics, but not in those terms.  Creationists Alfred Wegener used the Bible to come up with plate tectonics.  It's all tied to the Bible and you are too stupid as abu afak to realize it.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> It was Noah's Flood and it happened rapidly, not millions of years. The proof is the fountains of the deep that go around the world. It caused the Himalayas and Mt. Everest. We can see through other catastrophes such as earthquakes, volcanoes, local floods, and such how the Earth's geology changes.


According to answers in genesis, the flood happened 2348 BC. That was only 4300 years ago. Do you have a link with details on the fountain of the deep, and where the water went after the catastrophe? In other words what is the science that backs up that part of the bible. 

If there is no reference, there is no science. 
.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> It was Noah's Flood and it happened rapidly, not millions of years. The proof is the fountains of the deep that go around the world. It caused the Himalayas and Mt. Everest. We can see through other catastrophes such as earthquakes, volcanoes, local floods, and such how the Earth's geology changes. With the global flood, we also had the land mass of Pangea become seven continents and 3/4 of the Earth covered by surface water.


You are making that up. According to Genesis 6-8, the mountains were already there before the flood. The Bible says nothing about the land masses changing during the flood. Not only are you lying about science supporting the Bible, you are fabricating what the Bible is saying. 

.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Wuwei said:


> You might be in the wrong thread. I forgot the context. You will have to remind me where I said that.







__





						LOL - "Creation Science" - LOL
					

DukeU said: With one question, you prick.  How did the universe come to exist?  Game, set, and match.   Your question is meant to insinuate a god, but the answer is We Don't know/Know YET, not 'god.'  They made up Fire, Lightning and Fertility gods because they didn't know YET. But when they...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## Baron Von Murderpaws




----------



## surada

james bond said:


> That's what I've already said with the global flood, the fountains of the deep, and plate tectonics founder creationist Alfred Wagener.  If we didn't have the water rise from underneath the sea floor thru plate tectonics, then we wouldn't have the Himalayas nor Mt. Everest.  You were the one who asked the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just admitted to Noah's Flood.  They even found marine fossils up there.  Thus, the threads you start just mean you end up being defeated.



The sea shells were there millions of years before Noah's flood.

The water came from Spring snowmelt from the Zagros mountains and Spring rains.. The Euphrates River Basin often flooded. That's how the delta south of Basra was built.  The flood sediment extends 150 miles wide and 350 miles South to the Persian Gulf.


----------



## Wuwei

Captain Caveman said:


> The vast majority I see going out in society helping others are churches, the vast majority of *atheists are not interested in others, unless they can get some money or benefit out of them*.





Captain Caveman said:


> Tends to be the Salvation Army and local churches. *Nothing from the atheists.*





Wuwei said:


> *Aren't you guys the ones* who say Democrats are atheists and communists and want the government to give free stuff to the poor?


OK. That was what was said.

The quote from me did not say *you* in particular, I said that it was* you guys*. 

I was referring to the fact that the right wing are often complaining about Democrats giving "free stuff" to the poor in the way of welfare. They often call Democrats "communists" which promotes the equal distribution of wealth to all classes. 

So your statement that atheists are not interested in others is not correct.
.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> The sea shells were there millions of years before Noah's flood.
> 
> The water came from Spring snowmelt from the Zagros mountains and Spring rains.. The Euphrates River Basin often flooded. That's how the delta south of Basra was built.  The flood sediment extends 150 miles wide and 350 miles South to the Persian Gulf.


This is why the tv series where the producers/writers state it is a true story, names changed to protect the innocent, etc. and then lie is atheistic.  Or is it Judaism?

We know there were sea shells before Noah's Flood.  That's how the marine fossils got up to the top of the Himalayas and Mt. Everest.  Plate tectonics, fountains of the deep rings, and science backs up the Bible.  OTOH, I'm skipping thru the tv series now as it's not enjoyable when every show states it is true and I know it isn't.  Names changed to protect the innocent, blah, blah, blah.


----------



## Confederate Soldier

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sure. No problem. But before you waste anyone's time, define PRECISELY what you mean by "missing link fossil set". Be specific.



What evolution says is that all of nature, - animals for instance - evolved from one thing. It is physically impossible. It IS possible for things to change within its kind (canines, like wolves, dogs, coyotes, etc. are all related, but not exactly the same) but not out of its kind. You can't mate an elephant with a Giraffe and get an impossibly long necked beast with a trunk. It doesn't work like that. However, if you breed a wolf with a dog, or coyote, you can get hybrids, something totally different, but the same kind.


----------



## Confederate Soldier

surada said:


> You're pretty young. What church/Sunday school did you attend?




I never did.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Confederate Soldier said:


> It IS possible for things to change within its kind (canines, like wolves, dogs, coyotes, etc. are all related, but not exactly the same) but not out of its kind


100% wrong. If a species is always changing, given enough time, an individual will be very different from its ancient ancestors. You couldn't stop it if you tried.

What mechanism do you propose to stop this?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Haha, such embarrassing nonsense.


What's embarrassing is atheists believing in evolution when it isn't science.  Neither observable nor testable.  What comes next for atheism is what other lies will they believe for their "science" lol?  NASA will have found signs of life on another planet?









						NASA discovers salt water oceans under surface of dwarf planet
					

Ceres, the largest known object in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter may be an ocean world with in...




					www.9news.com.au
				




Look at the stupid sh*t the NASA scientists "believe" lmao.

"The story of oceans is the story of life. Oceans define our home planet, covering the majority of Earth’s surface and driving the water cycle that dominates our land and atmosphere. But more profound still, the story of our oceans envelops our home in a far larger context that reaches deep into the universe and places us in a rich family of ocean worlds that span our solar system and beyond."









						Ocean Worlds
					

Ocean Worlds




					www.nasa.gov


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Thermal vents are well understood natural features.  Adding a supernatural element to natural features is really a desperate tactic.


Tell us, what these thermal vents did?  Are you saying life from non-life?


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> Tell us, what these thermal vents did?  Are you saying life from non-life?


Tell us what the fountains of the deep are. Do you think they are thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean?
.


----------



## Confederate Soldier

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 100% wrong. If a species is always changing, given enough time, an individual will be very different from its ancient ancestors. You couldn't stop it if you tried.
> 
> What mechanism do you propose to stop this?




I said that, albeit differently. Dogs now look a hella lot different than what they did 10,000 years ago. But does that mean they came from a fish? No.


----------



## Wuwei

Confederate Soldier said:


> I said that, albeit differently. Dogs now look a hella lot different than what they did 10,000 years ago. But does that mean they came from a fish? No.


That's right. Dogs did not come from fish. This explains the lineage. Dogs are at the top. Fish are at the bottom.


----------



## Confederate Soldier

So


Wuwei said:


> That's right. Dogs did not come from fish. This explains the lineage. Dogs are at the top. Fish are at the bottom.


 from Lungfish to frog, eh? Any fossils found of an in-between thing? It didn't just go from lung fish to frog overnight.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Wuwei said:


> OK. That was what was said.
> 
> The quote from me did not say *you* in particular, I said that it was* you guys*.
> 
> I was referring to the fact that the right wing are often complaining about Democrats giving "free stuff" to the poor in the way of welfare. They often call Democrats "communists" which promotes the equal distribution of wealth to all classes.
> 
> So your statement that atheists are not interested in others is not correct.
> .


Then you should state the right wing, I'm centre right. If they wish to complain, that's their choice. Bearing in mind, a religious person could be Left, Centre or Right.


----------



## Wuwei

Captain Caveman said:


> Then you should state the right wing, I'm centre right. If they wish to complain, that's their choice. Bearing in mind, a religious person could be Left, Centre or Right.


Your statement "*atheists are not interested in others, unless they can get some money or benefit out of them"* is quite an over-generalization too, don't ya think?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Confederate Soldier said:


> I said that, albeit differently. Dogs now look a hella lot different than what they did 10,000 years ago. But does that mean they came from a fish? No.


Right. Now how different do you think they will be after 10 million years? A lot different. 

So no, you did not cover that. What say you?


----------



## Wuwei

Confederate Soldier said:


> So
> 
> from Lungfish to frog, eh? Any fossils found of an in-between thing? It didn't just go from lung fish to frog overnight.


You do realize that is a very sparse chart for illustrative purposes, I'm sure.


----------



## Captain Caveman

Wuwei said:


> Your statement "*atheists are not interested in others, unless they can get some money or benefit out of them"* is quite an over-generalization too, don't ya think?


Experience states otherwise.


----------



## Wuwei

Captain Caveman said:


> Experience states otherwise.


You are hanging out with the wrong atheists.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> What's embarrassing is atheists believing in evolution when it isn't science.  Neither observable nor testable.  What comes next for atheism is what other lies will they believe for their "science" lol?  NASA will have found signs of life on another planet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NASA discovers salt water oceans under surface of dwarf planet
> 
> 
> Ceres, the largest known object in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter may be an ocean world with in...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.9news.com.au
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the stupid sh*t the NASA scientists "believe" lmao.
> 
> "The story of oceans is the story of life. Oceans define our home planet, covering the majority of Earth’s surface and driving the water cycle that dominates our land and atmosphere. But more profound still, the story of our oceans envelops our home in a far larger context that reaches deep into the universe and places us in a rich family of ocean worlds that span our solar system and beyond."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ocean Worlds
> 
> 
> Ocean Worlds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nasa.gov



Biological evolution is both testable and observable. You reject those facts because they conflict with your indoctrination at the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah.

You choose to be a religious extremist.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> What's embarrassing is atheists believing in evolution when it isn't science.  Neither observable nor testable.  What comes next for atheism is what other lies will they believe for their "science" lol?  NASA will have found signs of life on another planet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NASA discovers salt water oceans under surface of dwarf planet
> 
> 
> Ceres, the largest known object in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter may be an ocean world with in...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.9news.com.au
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the stupid sh*t the NASA scientists "believe" lmao.
> 
> "The story of oceans is the story of life. Oceans define our home planet, covering the majority of Earth’s surface and driving the water cycle that dominates our land and atmosphere. But more profound still, the story of our oceans envelops our home in a far larger context that reaches deep into the universe and places us in a rich family of ocean worlds that span our solar system and beyond."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ocean Worlds
> 
> 
> Ocean Worlds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nasa.gov



Religious extremists tend to revile science and learning because both those disciplines challenge the dogma of religionism.

The thought of discovery of life on another planet is really quite devastating to the Christian version of religionism because all existence and all life is an earthly matter to Christianers.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Tell us, what these thermal vents did?  Are you saying life from non-life?



Why do you think thermal vents did anything? You do realize that confusing thermal vents with apparatus invented by the gods to flood the planet is really silly, right?   (<——- rhetorical question)


----------



## Wuwei

Hollie said:


> Why do you think thermal vents did anything? You do realize that confusing thermal vents with apparatus invented by the gods to flood the planet is really silly, right?   (<——- rhetorical question)


He is rather vague with "fountains of the deep". I asked him in post 528,  
_"Tell us what the fountains of the deep are. Do you think they are thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean?"_
But I think he has me on ignore, the coward.
.


----------



## Hollie

Wuwei said:


> He is rather vague with "fountains of the deep". I asked him in post 528,
> _"Tell us what the fountains of the deep are. Do you think they are thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean?"_
> But I think he has me on ignore, the coward.
> .


He may be frantically searching through ICR to find an article.


----------



## Wuwei

Hollie said:


> He may be frantically searching through ICR to find an article.


Probably so. It is in his best interest to keep things vague so people won't zing him with the facts.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Biological evolution is both testable and observable.


No, it isn't or else we would have had results already and the UC Berkeley website wouldn't be excusing itself as hypothesis.



Hollie said:


> You choose to be a religious extremist.


I'm the one who knows both evolution and creation science, so it bothers atheists because science doesn't back up their religion.



Hollie said:


> The thought of discovery of life on another planet is really quite devastating to the Christian version of religionism because all existence and all life is an earthly matter to Christianers.


No, it would not affect Christianity as religion.  My claim is God didn't say anything about life elsewhere besides Earth.  He focused on Earth as it was to be heaven.  Unfortunately, Satan tempted Adam and Eve to sin against God which brought death into our lives.  God had to leave the universe.  Discovery of life on another planet would affect creation science.  The Bible states God stopped creating on the sixth day.  It means no life elsewhere.

We don't need to pile on evolution as its not observable nor testable so didn't even explain Earth or anything.  Why don't you have any description of what happened to Earth in the billions of years we've been existence.  



Hollie said:


> Why do you think thermal vents did anything?


Thermal vents didn't create life from non-life.  It's just another fail in evolution.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> Thermal vents didn't create life from non-life. It's just another fail in evolution.


What are the fountains of the deep?
.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> He may be frantically searching through ICR to find an article.


Right on queue, but calm and collected as I have real science on my side.  Your side doesn't even have an explanation.

"Two recent articles in _Nature Geoscience_ may provide important validations of the global Flood. Did researchers find evidence of the “fountains of the great deep” that started the deluge?


    Timothy Paulsen, from the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, and co-authors from Michigan Technological University and ETH Zurich, found evidence of a spike in volcanic activity and a rapid release of massive amounts of carbon dioxide just prior to the deposition of Cambrian rock layers.1


*Cambrian rocks are considered by many creation geologists to represent the first extensive Flood deposits. Cambrian sediments are the bottom-most layer in the Sauk megasequence and contain fossils of the so-called Cambrian Explosion—the first sediments with prolific numbers of hard-shelled organisms.2"*









						Evidence of Fountains of the Great Deep?
					

Two recent articles in Nature Geoscience may provide important validations of the global Flood. Did researchers find evidence of the “fountains of the great deep” that started the deluge?  	Timothy Paulsen, from the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, and co-authors from Michigan Technological...




					www.icr.org
				




I already posted the fountains of the deep youtube as proof, but here's another from UC Berkeley.  These hydrothermal vents encircle the world along with plate tectonics.  Atheist science can't explain them.  Guess who discovered them?  A group of marine scientists, but they called it like finding the garden of Eden.  The thermal vents are the fountains of the great deep.


At least, Hollie is getting smarter but she still has a ways to go with her faith.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> No, it isn't or else we would have had results already and the UC Berkeley website wouldn't be excusing itself as hypothesis.
> 
> 
> I'm the one who knows both evolution and creation science, so it bothers atheists because science doesn't back up their religion.
> 
> 
> No, it would not affect Christianity as religion.  My claim is God didn't say anything about life elsewhere besides Earth.  He focused on Earth as it was to be heaven.  Unfortunately, Satan tempted Adam and Eve to sin against God which brought death into our lives.  God had to leave the universe.  Discovery of life on another planet would affect creation science.  The Bible states God stopped creating on the sixth day.  It means no life elsewhere.
> 
> We don't need to pile on evolution as its not observable nor testable so didn't even explain Earth or anything.  Why don't you have any description of what happened to Earth in the billions of years we've been existence.
> 
> 
> Thermal vents didn't create life from non-life.  It's just another fail in evolution.


You're desperately trying to convince yourself that your religious claims are true. I can't help but notice that you're unable to refute science data, you simply insist that the Bible is true and then launch into feverish tirades. You continue to parrot the slogan that evolution is neither testable or observable when the facts clearly identify otherwise. 

The charlatans you call "creation scientists" invent what they "bring up" only if it confoems to the "Statement of Faith" they agree to as a part of the creationer cult. If you have any new scientific data on creationism, you should come forward with it. Everything so far submitted by creationers has been completely lacking in evidence and totally unsubstantiated. Science is the process of learning and discovery, not reiterating theology. Have you ever stopped to consider that knowledge derives from inescapable conclusions drawn from the physical evidence that life has descended through millions of years from a common ancestor? Rational people accept biological evolution because that's what the evidence unambiguously tells us. 

So.... since we have no evidence of the Biblical flood just a few thousand years ago and don't understand what ocean thermal vents are, what are these "fountains of the deep" you rattle on about?

Show us the magic.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Right on queue, but calm and collected as I have real science on my side.  Your side doesn't even have an explanation.
> 
> "Two recent articles in _Nature Geoscience_ may provide important validations of the global Flood. Did researchers find evidence of the “fountains of the great deep” that started the deluge?
> 
> 
> Timothy Paulsen, from the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, and co-authors from Michigan Technological University and ETH Zurich, found evidence of a spike in volcanic activity and a rapid release of massive amounts of carbon dioxide just prior to the deposition of Cambrian rock layers.1
> 
> 
> *Cambrian rocks are considered by many creation geologists to represent the first extensive Flood deposits. Cambrian sediments are the bottom-most layer in the Sauk megasequence and contain fossils of the so-called Cambrian Explosion—the first sediments with prolific numbers of hard-shelled organisms.2"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence of Fountains of the Great Deep?
> 
> 
> Two recent articles in Nature Geoscience may provide important validations of the global Flood. Did researchers find evidence of the “fountains of the great deep” that started the deluge?  	Timothy Paulsen, from the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, and co-authors from Michigan Technological...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.icr.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already posted the fountains of the deep youtube as proof, but here's another from UC Berkeley.  These hydrothermal vents encircle the world along with plate tectonics.  Atheist science can't explain them.  Guess who discovered them?  A group of marine scientists, but they called it like finding the garden of Eden.  The thermal vents are the fountains of the great deep.
> 
> 
> At least, Hollie is getting smarter but she still has a ways to go with her faith.


Why would you litter the science forum with nonsense from charlatans at the ICR?

From the ICR website:
"All origins research must begin with a premise.1 ICR holds that the biblical record of primeval history in Genesis 1–11 is factual, historical, and clearly understandable and, therefore, that all things were created and made in six literal days. Life exists because it was created on Earth by a living Creator. Further, the biblical Flood was global and cataclysmic, and its after-effects therefore explain most of the stratigraphic and fossil evidence found in the earth’s crust. It is within this framework that ICR research is conducted."

They literally shout out the bias. They announce they are dishonest.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> Timothy Paulsen, from the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, and co-authors from Michigan Technological University and ETH Zurich, found evidence of a spike in volcanic activity and a rapid release of massive amounts of carbon dioxide just prior to the deposition of Cambrian rock layers.


The first reference you cited refers to the '
"Evidence of The Great Fountains of the Deep*?*" (<-- It is their question mark)
The authors say it is evidence of a rift, but it wasn't a source of flood water. It was a source of CO2. 

The video you referenced concerns a peculiar tectonic shift that gave an unusual hydrothermal vent. The flow was a gentle flow of water. The water came from the ocean through a rift and shares the physics of a coffee percolator moving water by way of a temperature differential. It wasn't a source of water, just a flow.

None of that explains the hydrothermal vents as a source of flood water. Is there another source that shows where the flood water came from?

.


----------



## Wuwei

Hollie said:


> Why would you litter the science forum with nonsense from charlatans at the ICR?
> 
> From the ICR website:
> "All origins research must begin with a premise.1 ICR holds that the biblical record of primeval history in Genesis 1–11 is factual, historical, and clearly understandable and, therefore, that all things were created and made in six literal days. Life exists because it was created on Earth by a living Creator. Further, the biblical Flood was global and cataclysmic, and its after-effects therefore explain most of the stratigraphic and fossil evidence found in the earth’s crust. It is within this framework that ICR research is conducted."
> 
> They literally shout out the bias. They announce they are dishonest.


They literally shout out the bias. They announce they are dishonest
Assuming the conclusion and filtering out contrary evidence is not science. At least they are honest about their dishonesty.

.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> No, it isn't or else we would have had results already and the UC Berkeley website wouldn't be excusing itself as hypothesis.
> 
> 
> I'm the one who knows both evolution and creation science, so it bothers atheists because science doesn't back up their religion.
> 
> 
> No, it would not affect Christianity as religion.  My claim is God didn't say anything about life elsewhere besides Earth.  He focused on Earth as it was to be heaven.  Unfortunately, Satan tempted Adam and Eve to sin against God which brought death into our lives.  God had to leave the universe.  Discovery of life on another planet would affect creation science.  The Bible states God stopped creating on the sixth day.  It means no life elsewhere.
> 
> We don't need to pile on evolution as its not observable nor testable so didn't even explain Earth or anything.  Why don't you have any description of what happened to Earth in the billions of years we've been existence.
> 
> 
> Thermal vents didn't create life from non-life.  It's just another fail in evolution.




What is a hydrothermal vent?








						What is a hydrothermal vent?
					

Hydrothermal vents are the result of sea water percolating down through fissures in the ocean crust in the vicinity of spreading centers or subduction zones.




					oceanservice.noaa.gov
				



Hydrothermal vents are the result of seawater percolating down through fissures in the ocean crust in the vicinity of spreading centers or subduction zones (places on Earth where two tectonic plates move away or towards one another). The cold seawater is heated by hot magma and reemerges to form the vents.


----------



## Wuwei

surada said:


> What is a hydrothermal vent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a hydrothermal vent?
> 
> 
> Hydrothermal vents are the result of sea water percolating down through fissures in the ocean crust in the vicinity of spreading centers or subduction zones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oceanservice.noaa.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hydrothermal vents are the result of seawater percolating down through fissures in the ocean crust in the vicinity of spreading centers or subduction zones (places on Earth where two tectonic plates move away or towards one another). The cold seawater is heated by hot magma and reemerges to form the vents.


Thank you. That's pretty much what I said in post 549, but james won't see it because he has me on ignore.
.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> What is a hydrothermal vent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a hydrothermal vent?
> 
> 
> Hydrothermal vents are the result of sea water percolating down through fissures in the ocean crust in the vicinity of spreading centers or subduction zones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oceanservice.noaa.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hydrothermal vents are the result of seawater percolating down through fissures in the ocean crust in the vicinity of spreading centers or subduction zones (places on Earth where two tectonic plates move away or towards one another). The cold seawater is heated by hot magma and reemerges to form the vents.


It's found around the world and the "fountains of the great deep" or hydrothermal vents show that water came up from the oceans underground and helped cause the global flood.  The Bible stated these vents way before 1977.  It's another process where science backs up the Bible.  You can say it didn't cause the flood, but if anyone knew, then it would've been nice if they mentioned it earlier. 

Don't be like abu afak and state that he knew beforehand like with plate tectonics and the Himalayas and Mt. Everest when I said it first.  I'm glad the idiot is banned temporarily.  I pray I was the one who upset him to get banned lol.  He's not worth discussing stuff with the way he gets so angry and upset.  It shows low IQ.  Anyway, I learned they are called hydrothermal vents from Hollie and you, too.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> It's found around the world and the "fountains of the great deep" or hydrothermal vents show that water came up from the oceans underground and helped cause the global flood


They actually show precisely the opposite, as they show us that is an impossibility and very childish fantasy.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> You're desperately trying to convince yourself that your religious claims are true. I can't help but notice that you're unable to refute science data, you simply insist that the Bible is true and then launch into feverish tirades. You continue to parrot the slogan that evolution is neither testable or observable when the facts clearly identify otherwise.
> 
> The charlatans you call "creation scientists" invent what they "bring up" only if it confoems to the "Statement of Faith" they agree to as a part of the creationer cult. If you have any new scientific data on creationism, you should come forward with it. Everything so far submitted by creationers has been completely lacking in evidence and totally unsubstantiated. Science is the process of learning and discovery, not reiterating theology. Have you ever stopped to consider that knowledge derives from inescapable conclusions drawn from the physical evidence that life has descended through millions of years from a common ancestor? Rational people accept biological evolution because that's what the evidence unambiguously tells us.
> 
> So.... since we have no evidence of the Biblical flood just a few thousand years ago and don't understand what ocean thermal vents are, what are these "fountains of the deep" you rattle on about?
> 
> Show us the magic.


No, I stated from the beginning that it was creation science vs atheist science.  I'm not trying to convince anybody to change sides or their religion.  I'm beginning to think the creationists are right in that we teach creation science vs. evolution at the same time or one course.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> It's found around the world and the "fountains of the great deep" or hydrothermal vents show that water came up from the oceans underground and helped cause the global flood.  The Bible stated these vents way before 1977.  It's another process where science backs up the Bible.  You can say it didn't cause the flood, but if anyone knew, then it would've been nice if they mentioned it earlier.
> 
> Don't be like abu afak and state that he knew beforehand like with plate tectonics and the Himalayas and Mt. Everest when I said it first.  I'm glad the idiot is banned temporarily.  I pray I was the one who upset him to get banned lol.  He's not worth discussing stuff with the way he gets so angry and upset.  It shows low IQ.  Anyway, I learned they are called hydrothermal vents from Hollie and you, too.



He's much brighter than you. Noah's flood is based on the much older Gilgamesh Myth. That's why the Gilgamesh Myth was found on tablets in Sumer, Dilmun and RasShamra a thousand years before there were any Hebrews.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> They actually show precisely the opposite, as they show us that is an impossible and very childish fantasy.


It's surada who said water came up through the vents.  I claimed science backs up the Bible and it helped cause the global flood.  You don't read well prolly because you want to be right so badly when you're not.  You act like a child.  Bad Fort Fun Indiana.  Bad.  Bad.  Bad.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> No, I stated from the beginning that it was creation science vs atheist science.  I'm not trying to convince anybody to change sides or their religion.  I'm beginning to think the creationists are right in that we teach creation science vs. evolution at the same time or one course.



Absolutely not. Teach Cretan science in church and Sunday school


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> It's surada who said water came up through the vents.  I claimed science backs up the Bible and it helped cause the global flood.  You don't read well prolly because you want to be right so badly when you're not.  You act like a child.  Bad ouFort Fun Indiana.  Bad.  Bad.  Bad.



You are talking about an artisan well and I'll wager you have never seen one and don't have a clue what they are.

What is Artesian Water & Is It Healthy? (& Potential Risks)








						What is Artesian Water & Is It Healthy? (& Potential Risks)
					

Artesian water is a kind of spring water that's sourced from underground aquifers - some believe the mineral content makes it healthier, but is that true?




					waterfilterguru.com
				



Aug 01, 2021 · An artesian well is produced by water flowing down an area of degraded land and passing into porous rock, such as gravel, limestone or sand. This porous rock substance needs to be located within a non-porous, impenetrable rock layer, which will create a high-pressure environment.


What is an Artesian Well? - Dales Water








						What is an Artesian Well? - Dales Water
					

When researching a borehole for your property or business you might have come across the term Artesian Well, but what does it actually mean and how is it




					www.daleswater.co.uk
				



Mar 07, 2013 · An artesian well is simply a well that doesn’t require a pump to bring water to the surface; this occurs when there is enough pressure in the aquifer. The pressure forces the water to the surface without any sort of assistance. A Free Flowing Artesian Borehole.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> He's much brighter than you. Noah's flood is based on the much older Gilgamesh Myth. That's why the Gilgamesh Myth was found on tablets in Sumer, Dilmun and RasShamra a thousand years before there were any Hebrews.


LMAO.  abu afak never mentioned any of the science before I did.  Second, he starts attacking me with ad hominem attacks and then says what I said weeks later.  If someone gets me that angry or bothers me that much, then I would just ignore them.  Someone who bugged me to no end would be ignored.  That would be Wuwei since he trolls me and the best way to deal with a troll is to ignore them.  I don't have to go around and acting like a crybaby like Wuwei.  

"
we can know that the true account was recorded by Moses and is found in Genesis 6–9. The many flood myths are retellings of the real event that have been distorted through centuries of passing down information. The earliest records of the event date back two millennia before Jesus was born. Some of these traditions are older than Moses’s writings, but that only confirms that these tablets were written earlier, not that the contents were original or correct.



MythCivilizationSimilarities to the Biblical AccountThe Epic of GilgameshMesopotamiaConstruction of a boat, destruction of all humanity, dove, raven, sacrificeThe Ark of Nu’uHawaiiConstruction of a boat, Nu’u vs. Noah, rainbow, post-flood sacrificeThe Nüwa FloodChinaConstruction of a boat, Nüwa vs. Noah, divine judgmentDeucalion’s FloodGreeceConstruction of a boat, divine judgmentManu’s FloodIndiaConstruction of a boat, preserving animalsUnu PachakutiIncaConstruction of a boat, divine judgmentThai FloodThaiDivine judgment on human cruelty
"

I stated that the Gilgamesh story was based on a true event.  The global flood which happened and was recorded by Moses.  Creation scientists found plate tectonics and prolly found the hydrothermal vents.  Atheist scientists wouldn't be looking for it.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Absolutely not. Teach Cretan science in church and Sunday school


No.  It's not even ground that atheists get away with stating their evolution is science when it's only hypothesis and nothing backs it up; It isn't observable nor testable so it isn't science.  It's a lie like I have been saying.

Anyway, you learned about the fountains of the great deep even though you still don't believe Noah's Flood.  I proved the global flood beyond any reasonable person's doubt.  But you can't explain the surface of Earth covered by oceans, the geology, where the fossils ended up, and more.









						A Flood of Evidence
					

Christians need not be intimidated by “scientific” pronouncements that deny the clear words of Genesis. Evidences for the Flood are everywhere if your assumptions don’t blind you to them.




					answersingenesis.org
				












						Noah’s Flood: a Historical, Global Catastrophe
					

Examining the immense biblical data for Noah’s flood as an actual, year-long, worldwide, and catastrophic flood about 4,500 years ago




					answersingenesis.org
				












						Startling Evidence for Noah’s Flood
					

Footprints and sand ‘dunes’ in a Grand Canyon sandstone provide startling evidence for Noah’s Flood.




					answersingenesis.org


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> LMAO.  abu afak never mentioned any of the science before I did.  Second, he starts attacking me with ad hominem attacks and then says what I said weeks later.  If someone gets me that angry or bothers me that much, then I would just ignore them.  Someone who bugged me to no end would be ignored.  That would be Wuwei since he trolls me and the best way to deal with a troll is to ignore them.  I don't have to go around and acting like a crybaby like Wuwei.
> 
> "
> we can know that the true account was recorded by Moses and is found in Genesis 6–9. The many flood myths are retellings of the real event that have been distorted through centuries of passing down information. The earliest records of the event date back two millennia before Jesus was born. Some of these traditions are older than Moses’s writings, but that only confirms that these tablets were written earlier, not that the contents were original or correct.
> 
> 
> 
> MythCivilizationSimilarities to the Biblical AccountThe Epic of GilgameshMesopotamiaConstruction of a boat, destruction of all humanity, dove, raven, sacrificeThe Ark of Nu’uHawaiiConstruction of a boat, Nu’u vs. Noah, rainbow, post-flood sacrificeThe Nüwa FloodChinaConstruction of a boat, Nüwa vs. Noah, divine judgmentDeucalion’s FloodGreeceConstruction of a boat, divine judgmentManu’s FloodIndiaConstruction of a boat, preserving animalsUnu PachakutiIncaConstruction of a boat, divine judgmentThai FloodThaiDivine judgment on human cruelty
> "
> 
> I stated that the Gilgamesh story was based on a true event.  The global flood which happened and was recorded by Moses.  Creation scientists found plate tectonics and prolly found the hydrothermal vents.  Atheist scientists wouldn't be looking for it.




Moses didn't write the Pentateuch.. It wasn't written at all until 850 years after the death of Moses.

Pentateuch
[ˈpen(t)əˌt(y)o͞ok]
DEFINITION
the first five books of the Hebrew Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). Traditionally ascribed to Moses, it is now held by scholars to be a compilation from texts of the 9th to 5th centuries bc.Jewish name Torah.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> You are talking about an artisan well and I'll wager you have never seen one and don't have a clue what they are.
> 
> What is Artesian Water & Is It Healthy? (& Potential Risks)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is Artesian Water & Is It Healthy? (& Potential Risks)
> 
> 
> Artesian water is a kind of spring water that's sourced from underground aquifers - some believe the mineral content makes it healthier, but is that true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> waterfilterguru.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aug 01, 2021 · An artesian well is produced by water flowing down an area of degraded land and passing into porous rock, such as gravel, limestone or sand. This porous rock substance needs to be located within a non-porous, impenetrable rock layer, which will create a high-pressure environment.
> 
> 
> What is an Artesian Well? - Dales Water
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is an Artesian Well? - Dales Water
> 
> 
> When researching a borehole for your property or business you might have come across the term Artesian Well, but what does it actually mean and how is it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.daleswater.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mar 07, 2013 · An artesian well is simply a well that doesn’t require a pump to bring water to the surface; this occurs when there is enough pressure in the aquifer. The pressure forces the water to the surface without any sort of assistance. A Free Flowing Artesian Borehole.


This is the kind of thing I was talking about.  Atheists will make up stories about anything and didn't listen to what was said.  They're poor losers.  What part of fountains of the *deep* or *found as a ring around the world* didn't you understand? Science backed up the Bible once again. I'm leaving this argument as the evidence for a global flood is overwhelming.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Moses didn't write the Pentateuch.. It wasn't written at all until 850 years after the death of Moses.
> 
> Pentateuch
> [ˈpen(t)əˌt(y)o͞ok]
> DEFINITION
> the first five books of the Hebrew Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). Traditionally ascribed to Moses, it is now held by scholars to be a compilation from texts of the 9th to 5th centuries bc.Jewish name Torah.


This must be from the same person who didn't provide a name to verify, but just spewed worthless garbage.  Like I said, poor loser.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> This is the kind of thing I was talking about.  Atheists will make up stories about anything and didn't listen to what was said.  They're poor losers.  What part of fountains of the *deep* or *found as a ring around the world* didn't you understand? Science backed up the Bible once again. I'm leaving this argument as the evidence for a global flood is overwhelming.



Fountains of the Great Deep | Young Biosphere Creation








						Fountains of the Great Deep
					

“The Bleeding World of Noah’s Flood” THE “FOUNTAINS OF THE GREAT DEEP” WERE NOT WATER FOUNTAINS AT ALL BUT LAVA FOUNTAINS AND VOLCANOES –  – FLOOD CAUSED BY METEORITE …




					youngbiospherecreation.com
				



Aug 23, 2018 · “the bleeding world of noah’s flood” the “fountains of the great deep” were not water fountains at all but lava fountains and volcanoes – – flood caused by meteorite impact and destruction of continental supports by magma intrusion above lithosphere and/or elevation of the ocean floor thereby flooding the single continent —


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> This must be from the same person who didn't provide a name to verify, but just spewed worthless garbage.  Like I said, poor loser.



Real Christians don't believe fairy tales. Their faith is more rational and stronger.. and they don't fear science or education.

The Ring of Fire is not water .. and you don't know what an artisan well is.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Fountains of the Great Deep | Young Biosphere Creation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fountains of the Great Deep
> 
> 
> “The Bleeding World of Noah’s Flood” THE “FOUNTAINS OF THE GREAT DEEP” WERE NOT WATER FOUNTAINS AT ALL BUT LAVA FOUNTAINS AND VOLCANOES –  – FLOOD CAUSED BY METEORITE …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> youngbiospherecreation.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aug 23, 2018 · “the bleeding world of noah’s flood” the “fountains of the great deep” were not water fountains at all but lava fountains and volcanoes – – flood caused by meteorite impact and destruction of continental supports by magma intrusion above lithosphere and/or elevation of the ocean floor thereby flooding the single continent —


Robert Ballard, underwater archaeologist.  In 1985, using a robotic submersible equipped with remote-controlled cameras, Ballard and his crew hunted down the world's most famous shipwreck, the Titanic.









						Evidence Noah's Biblical Flood Happened, Says Robert Ballard
					

In an interview with Christiane Amanpour for ABC News, Dr. Robert Ballard, one of the world's leading underwater archaeologists, talked about his findings. His team is scouring the depths of the Black Sea in Turkey in search of traces of an ancient civilization hidden underwater since the time...




					abcnews.go.com
				






			https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j11_3/j11_3_261-262.pdf
		










						Evidence of Fountains of the Great Deep?
					

Two recent articles in Nature Geoscience may provide important validations of the global Flood. Did researchers find evidence of the “fountains of the great deep” that started the deluge?  	Timothy Paulsen, from the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, and co-authors from Michigan Technological...




					www.icr.org


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Robert Ballard, underwater archaeologist.  In 1985, using a robotic submersible equipped with remote-controlled cameras, Ballard and his crew hunted down the world's most famous shipwreck, the Titanic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence Noah's Biblical Flood Happened, Says Robert Ballard
> 
> 
> In an interview with Christiane Amanpour for ABC News, Dr. Robert Ballard, one of the world's leading underwater archaeologists, talked about his findings. His team is scouring the depths of the Black Sea in Turkey in search of traces of an ancient civilization hidden underwater since the time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abcnews.go.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j11_3/j11_3_261-262.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence of Fountains of the Great Deep?
> 
> 
> Two recent articles in Nature Geoscience may provide important validations of the global Flood. Did researchers find evidence of the “fountains of the great deep” that started the deluge?  	Timothy Paulsen, from the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, and co-authors from Michigan Technological...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.icr.org



Robert Ballard is a con artist of the Ron Wyatt type. The Black Sea breech was a slow moving flood. They had plenty of time to move their families and livestock to higher ground.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> Evidence of Fountains of the Great Deep?
> 
> 
> Two recent articles in Nature Geoscience may provide important validations of the global Flood. Did researchers find evidence of the “fountains of the great deep” that started the deluge?  	Timothy Paulsen, from the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, and co-authors from Michigan Technological...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.icr.org


What that article describes is a rapid release of CO2, not water. It was not a hydrothermal vent. A hydrothermal vent slowly recirculates water. It could not raise the sea level.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Robert Ballard is a con artist of the Ron Wyatt type. The Black Sea breech was a slow moving flood. They had plenty of time to move their families and livestock to higher ground.


He doesn't sound like a con artists as he found the Titantic, but he didn't find Noah's Flood in the Black Sea.  Regardless, the other evidence for Noah's Flood is overwhelming.

ETA:  So if atheists are still atheists despite all the evidence for creation, then can we conclude that it's because they just wanna be atheists and have no God/gods?


----------



## Wuwei

Arguments with James B go around in circles – a sort of yes-it-is, no-it-isn't.

Some time ago I read (in one of Michael Shermers books?) That the location of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty were found to be mediated in separate areas of the brain. So a belief in creation science is mediated in one part and the disbelief in evolution is in another part. A dual challenge.

Trying to get another person to change their belief systems, of course, is almost impossible. A tactic that I used with a die-hard climate denier who used butchered science worked fairly well  - find inconsistencies in his science. 

I steered away from evolution because it is firmly in Bonds disbelief system. The trick is to find scientific inconsistencies in his beliefs of scientific creationism. One way to do that is to get him to explain his science in detail. He is reluctant do that because he knows that it would be riddled with inconsistencies. He really wants to fall back to his mantra “science backs the Bible” or the “fountains of the deep”. I think pressing Bond on his science works well to the extent that he put me on ignore. If he sets the rules of debate it will continue to go in circles.

Why is all this important? We simply don't want creation science in science classrooms.

.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> No, I stated from the beginning that it was creation science vs atheist science.  I'm not trying to convince anybody to change sides or their religion.  I'm beginning to think the creationists are right in that we teach creation science vs. evolution at the same time or one course.


“Creation science” is a false label as there is no “science” in your religious belief.

You're not understanding. The fraud of Christian fundamentalism under the burqa of creation science is what has reduced creationism to mere carnival nonsense.

The charlatans at the Disco'tute can submit their data supporting a 6,000 year old planet for peer review. That will be be difficult, of course, as charlatans do no research.


Even if we are generous regarding standards and criteria, the peer-reviewed scientific output from the entirety of the ID’iot creationist movement is virtually zero. Rather pathetic, especially considering the long history and funding of the movement. One week's worth of peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary biology exceeds the entire history of ID’iot creationist research.

As an example of just how fraudulent the Disco’tute really is:

Intelligent design think tank's “institute” is a Shutterstock image

A green screen plus a stock image of a lab equals instant credibility.









						Intelligent design think tank's “institute” is a Shutterstock image
					

A green screen plus a stock image of a lab equals instant credibility.




					arstechnica.com
				










As a think tank focused on intelligent design, the Discovery Institute presumably has no need for physical laboratories—its research is mostly imagination-based. So it seemed odd to Richard Hoppe of Panda’s Thumb when he saw a video of one of the Institute’s researchers spouting all sorts of bad science from a lab setting. Although the video was datelined from the “Biologic Institute” of the Discovery Institute, it turns out that the nonsensical rant was green-screened in front of a stock image


----------



## james bond

Here's where it gets difficult for me as there are still explanations for where all the water came from.


Hollie said:


> “Creation science” is a false label as there is no “science” in your religious belief.
> 
> You're not understanding. The fraud of Christian fundamentalism under the burqa of creation science is what has reduced creationism to mere carnival nonsense.
> 
> The charlatans at the Disco'tute can submit their data supporting a 6,000 year old planet for peer review. That will be be difficult, of course, as charlatans do no research.
> 
> 
> Even if we are generous regarding standards and criteria, the peer-reviewed scientific output from the entirety of the ID’iot creationist movement is virtually zero. Rather pathetic, especially considering the long history and funding of the movement. One week's worth of peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary biology exceeds the entire history of ID’iot creationist research.
> 
> As an example of just how fraudulent the Disco’tute really is:
> 
> Intelligent design think tank's “institute” is a Shutterstock image
> 
> A green screen plus a stock image of a lab equals instant credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent design think tank's “institute” is a Shutterstock image
> 
> 
> A green screen plus a stock image of a lab equals instant credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arstechnica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a think tank focused on intelligent design, the Discovery Institute presumably has no need for physical laboratories—its research is mostly imagination-based. So it seemed odd to Richard Hoppe of Panda’s Thumb when he saw a video of one of the Institute’s researchers spouting all sorts of bad science from a lab setting. Although the video was datelined from the “Biologic Institute” of the Discovery Institute, it turns out that the nonsensical rant was green-screened in front of a stock image


You're putting words in my mouth.  I wasn't the one who discussed ID.  You're the one.  I'm the one who discusses how science backs up the Bible.

So, *how else can you explain the hydrothermal vents, the geology of our Earth, 3/4 surface sea water, the Himalayas, Mt. Everest, Grand Canyon, incredible erosion/sedimentation, fossils of plants and animals buried in it, and more?  Are you going to tell me glaciers?  Are you going to steal things I've said and suddenly claim it happened rapidly instead of millions of years?*

It's you who just loves to spew out your wrong opinions of me and belittle the true science.  You never answer my questions.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Here's where it gets difficult for me as there are still explanations for where all the water came from.
> 
> You're putting words in my mouth.  I wasn't the one who discussed ID.  You're the one.  I'm the one who discusses how science backs up the Bible.
> 
> So, *how else can you explain the hydrothermal vents, the geology of our Earth, 3/4 surface sea water, the Himalayas, Mt. Everest, Grand Canyon, incredible erosion/sedimentation, fossils of plants and animals buried in it, and more?  Are you going to tell me glaciers?  Are you going to steal things I've said and suddenly claim it happened rapidly instead of millions of years?*
> 
> It's you who just loves to spew out your wrong opinions of me and belittle the true science.  You never answer my questions.


You seem to be having a great deal of difficulty understanding what a hydrothermal vents is. Most any science related site can give you the details. There's nothing supernatural about hydrothermal vents and the geology surrounding their existence. 

Here's a question for "science backs up the bibles" aficionados: why would the gods use super heated water from the "fountains of the deep" when they decided to flood the planet and kill most of humanity? 

Why do you think hydrothermal vents spew super heated water? What, exactly, is supernatural about hydrothermal vents?

Your bolded text "reads" like a rather frantic, emotional outburst.The geology of the planet is fairly well understood. As you insist there are supernatural forces employed by the gods to explain the planet's physical features, I will require you first demonstrate the existence of those gods before you can attribute supernatural causation of those physical features.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> You seem to be having a great deal of difficulty understanding what a hydrothermal vents is. Most any science related site can give you the details. There's nothing supernatural about hydrothermal vents and the geology surrounding their existence.
> 
> Here's a question for "science backs up the bibles" aficionados: why would the gods use super heated water from the "fountains of the deep" when they decided to flood the planet and kill most of humanity?
> 
> Why do you think hydrothermal vents spew super heated water? What, exactly, is supernatural about hydrothermal vents?
> 
> Your bolded text "reads" like a rather frantic, emotional outburst.The geology of the planet is fairly well understood. As you insist there are supernatural forces employed by the gods to explain the planet's physical features, I will require you first demonstrate the existence of those gods before you can attribute supernatural causation of those physical features.


What Freidrich Nietzsce said fits you well, “And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”  You see what you want to see and miss what the other evidence is telling you.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> What Freidrich Nietzsce said fits you well, “And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”  You see what you want to see and miss what the other evidence is telling you.


That was quite the sidestep. The physical features of hydrothermal vents have no characteristics that suggest supernatural intervention. 

There is every reason to accept a naturalistic explanation to the physical world as opposed to any claimed supernatural causation and that is because we have no evidence of any supernatural events.  It is a pretty simple matter that the supernaturalists fail to comprehend; they need to provide some support for the existence of their supernatural gods before they can assign universe building tasks to them.


Supernaturalism is not a necessary requirement for science. Nothing about the natural world suggests supermagical "designer" to account for the complexity we see in nature. That would include appeals to your version of a "designer" which is only one claim to a supermagical designer among many claimed designers. NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to any designer including yours. ID'iot creationers have presented no evidence that something in the rational, natural world shows signs of being designed by magical means, (something that could not have arisen naturally). ID creationists are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims and if course, they do not. Scientists do not "take it on faith" that the natural answers are there... that is all they have evidence of.


----------



## Wuwei

Hollie said:


> Supernaturalism is not a necessary requirement for science. Nothing about the natural world suggests supermagical "designer" to account for the complexity we see in nature.


I would go further and say supernaturalism must not be present at all if it is to be called creation science. However at this point I have little idea what creation science is other than an attempt to dismiss evolution.

.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> That was quite the sidestep. The physical features of hydrothermal vents have no characteristics that suggest supernatural intervention.
> 
> There is every reason to accept a naturalistic explanation to the physical world as opposed to any claimed supernatural causation and that is because we have no evidence of any supernatural events.  It is a pretty simple matter that the supernaturalists fail to comprehend; they need to provide some support for the existence of their supernatural gods before they can assign universe building tasks to them.
> 
> 
> Supernaturalism is not a necessary requirement for science. Nothing about the natural world suggests supermagical "designer" to account for the complexity we see in nature. That would include appeals to your version of a "designer" which is only one claim to a supermagical designer among many claimed designers. NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to any designer including yours. ID'iot creationers have presented no evidence that something in the rational, natural world shows signs of being designed by magical means, (something that could not have arisen naturally). ID creationists are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims and if course, they do not. Scientists do not "take it on faith" that the natural answers are there... that is all they have evidence of.


It's what keeps you from getting what I've said.  I should use Nietzsce more often.  Did you even look at the map?  How do you think these hydrothermal vents circle the world?  They were there since ancient times and not 1977.  Anyway, I can see that you didn't get it as the abyss looks back upon you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Confederate Soldier     Where did you go?


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> This must be from the same person who didn't provide a name to verify, but just spewed worthless garbage.  Like I said, poor loser.



Where did you get your map for fountains of the deep?


----------



## surada

Hollie said:


> That was quite the sidestep. The physical features of hydrothermal vents have no characteristics that suggest supernatural intervention.
> 
> There is every reason to accept a naturalistic explanation to the physical world as opposed to any claimed supernatural causation and that is because we have no evidence of any supernatural events.  It is a pretty simple matter that the supernaturalists fail to comprehend; they need to provide some support for the existence of their supernatural gods before they can assign universe building tasks to them.
> 
> 
> Supernaturalism is not a necessary requirement for science. Nothing about the natural world suggests supermagical "designer" to account for the complexity we see in nature. That would include appeals to your version of a "designer" which is only one claim to a supermagical designer among many claimed designers. NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to any designer including yours. ID'iot creationers have presented no evidence that something in the rational, natural world shows signs of being designed by magical means, (something that could not have arisen naturally). ID creationists are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims and if course, they do not. Scientists do not "take it on faith" that the natural answers are there... that is all they have evidence of.



There is a lot of these vents in the Red Sea and some small plate movement..  About 10 years ago the Red Sea got 26 feet wider.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> It's what keeps you from getting what I've said.  I should use Nietzsce more often.  Did you even look at the map?  How do you think these hydrothermal vents circle the world?  They were there since ancient times and not 1977.  Anyway, I can see that you didn't get it as the abyss looks back upon you.


Did the gods take a map of the flat Earth and hire a surveyor to stake out the locations of where they wanted hydrothermal vents? If so, provide some evidence for that. 

Thanks.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Where did you get your map for fountains of the deep?


Wikimedia.

I started with that some claim as the ring of fire which are volcanoes.  It didn't come together until Hollie mentioned hydrothermal vents.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Wikimedia.
> 
> I started with that some claim as the ring of fire which are volcanoes.  It didn't come together until Hollie mentioned hydrothermal vents.


You might want to also check wikireligiousextremism.

Otherwise, more reliable sources will identify that hydrothermal vents are found typically along mid-ocean ridges. Not just coincidentally, these are areas with active geologic faults.

Do you need some reliable sources to understand what hydrothermal vents  and geologic faults are?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Did the gods take a map of the flat Earth and hire a surveyor to stake out the locations of where they wanted hydrothermal vents? If so, provide some evidence for that.
> 
> Thanks.


You tell me.  People are always asking where all the water for Noah's Flood came from?


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Wikimedia.
> 
> I started with that some claim as the ring of fire which are volcanoes.  It didn't come together until Hollie mentioned hydrothermal vents.



I didn't find it. Why don't you link it?


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> You tell me.  People are always asking where all the water for Noah's Flood came from?



From the snowmelt of the Zagros Mountains and spring rains. The flood was 150 miles wide and 350 miles to the south so they would have thought their whole world was flooded. You know it says eretz.. which means land not earth.


----------



## surada

Article

By Tremper Longman On July 05, 2016
The Bible in Ancient Context
The Flood
Young-earth creationist figurehead Ken Ham, is scheduled to open on July 7, 2016 in Williamstown, Kentucky. The centerpiece of the new attraction is a “full-size” wooden reconstruction of the ark described in Genesis 6-9. Though the ark will not actually be put in water, Ham believes that the attraction will help convince people that a literal reading of the Flood story in Genesis is not only possible but necessary for Christians to affirm.

In this series of posts, I want to use this occasion to raise questions about the proper interpretation of the story of the Flood. As an evangelical Protestant, I believe that the Bible is God’s Word, and as God’s Word it is true in all that it teaches. As many of you know, that is the accepted definition of inerrancy. So we begin our study with a look at what Genesis 6-9 intends to teach.

My particular interest in the Flood story arose from my earlier thinking about Genesis 1-3. In the past couple decades, Evangelicals have returned to the question of human origins, as depicted in these opening chapters of the Bible, because of the powerful evidence in support of evolution provided by the mapping of the human genome. To be honest, I never had any problem with evolution because I felt confident that while the Bible tells us that God created everything (including humanity), it did not intend to tell us how he did so.

Snip

Hyperbole is a form of figurative language. 

Snip

The flood story is filled with hyperbole that would have been recognized by its ancient audience as a figurative description of an event in order to produce an effect and make a point (for which see next post). That the Bible uses hyperbole in this way elsewhere can be illustrated by many examples, but let’s look closely at the account of the conquest in Joshua 1-12.

The picture we get of the Conquest in these chapters is summed up by Joshua 11:23: “So Joshua took the entire land, just as the Lord had directed Moses, and he gave it as an inheritance to Israel according to their tribal divisions. Then the land had rest from war.”

snip

Not only do we have obvious figurative language in the Flood story, but we also have (as we have seen with the description of the creation), interplay with ancient Near Eastern flood stories. Space does not permit me to give a detailed account of all of them, but let me just mention the Gilgamesh Epic.

This flood story predates the biblical account and describes the gods bringing a massive flood on humanity. One man and his family survive by building an ark on which he brings animals. At the end of the flood he sends out three birds to check and see if the floodwaters have receded. As soon as he steps out of the ark, he offers a sacrifice.

As familiar as this story sounds to those of us who know the biblical account, we also note the differences. The gods send the flood not because of human sin, but because humans make too much noise. One god out of the many gods of Babylon decides to tell his devotee to build an ark. The ark is a big cube! And we could go on.

snip

And in a word, you don’t have to know that much about science to understand that there is not a shred of evidence that supports the idea of a global flood. I don’t have the space to present the scientific studies that lead to this conclusion, but I can point you to many sources. You might start with the recent posts here about the Grand Canyon. Or look at Davis A. Young, The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church’s Response to Extrabiblical Evidence (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) or the more recent The Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth, edited by C. Hill, et.al., which asks the question “Can Noah’s Flood Explain the Grand Canyon?” and answers with a decided “No.” Also be on the lookout for article “The Genesis Flood and Geology,” in the Zondervan Dictionary of Christianity and Science, edited by P. Copan, T. Longman, C. Reese, and M. Strauss, due out in Spring 2017. Here, by the way, the “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”; it is significant, even telling. If there were a global flood, there would be indisputable evidence.

snip









						Genesis and the Flood: Understanding the Biblical Story - Articles
					

We need to remember that the Bible, while written for us, was not written to us.




					biologos.org


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> I started with that some claim as the ring of fire which are volcanoes. It didn't come together until @Hollie mentioned hydrothermal vents


*Hydro*thermal vents are the ring of *fire*? That doesn't sound right.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> You might want to also check wikireligiousextremism.
> 
> Otherwise, more reliable sources will identify that hydrothermal vents are found typically along mid-ocean ridges. Not just coincidentally, these are areas with active geologic faults.
> 
> Do you need some reliable sources to understand what hydrothermal vents  and geologic faults are?


Active geologic faults.  Hey, more evidence to support the global flood.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Article
> 
> By Tremper Longman On July 05, 2016
> The Bible in Ancient Context
> The Flood
> Young-earth creationist figurehead Ken Ham, is scheduled to open on July 7, 2016 in Williamstown, Kentucky. The centerpiece of the new attraction is a “full-size” wooden reconstruction of the ark described in Genesis 6-9. Though the ark will not actually be put in water, Ham believes that the attraction will help convince people that a literal reading of the Flood story in Genesis is not only possible but necessary for Christians to affirm.
> 
> In this series of posts, I want to use this occasion to raise questions about the proper interpretation of the story of the Flood. As an evangelical Protestant, I believe that the Bible is God’s Word, and as God’s Word it is true in all that it teaches. As many of you know, that is the accepted definition of inerrancy. So we begin our study with a look at what Genesis 6-9 intends to teach.
> 
> My particular interest in the Flood story arose from my earlier thinking about Genesis 1-3. In the past couple decades, Evangelicals have returned to the question of human origins, as depicted in these opening chapters of the Bible, because of the powerful evidence in support of evolution provided by the mapping of the human genome. To be honest, I never had any problem with evolution because I felt confident that while the Bible tells us that God created everything (including humanity), it did not intend to tell us how he did so.
> 
> Snip
> 
> Hyperbole is a form of figurative language.
> 
> Snip
> 
> The flood story is filled with hyperbole that would have been recognized by its ancient audience as a figurative description of an event in order to produce an effect and make a point (for which see next post). That the Bible uses hyperbole in this way elsewhere can be illustrated by many examples, but let’s look closely at the account of the conquest in Joshua 1-12.
> 
> The picture we get of the Conquest in these chapters is summed up by Joshua 11:23: “So Joshua took the entire land, just as the Lord had directed Moses, and he gave it as an inheritance to Israel according to their tribal divisions. Then the land had rest from war.”
> 
> snip
> 
> Not only do we have obvious figurative language in the Flood story, but we also have (as we have seen with the description of the creation), interplay with ancient Near Eastern flood stories. Space does not permit me to give a detailed account of all of them, but let me just mention the Gilgamesh Epic.
> 
> This flood story predates the biblical account and describes the gods bringing a massive flood on humanity. One man and his family survive by building an ark on which he brings animals. At the end of the flood he sends out three birds to check and see if the floodwaters have receded. As soon as he steps out of the ark, he offers a sacrifice.
> 
> As familiar as this story sounds to those of us who know the biblical account, we also note the differences. The gods send the flood not because of human sin, but because humans make too much noise. One god out of the many gods of Babylon decides to tell his devotee to build an ark. The ark is a big cube! And we could go on.
> 
> snip
> 
> And in a word, you don’t have to know that much about science to understand that there is not a shred of evidence that supports the idea of a global flood. I don’t have the space to present the scientific studies that lead to this conclusion, but I can point you to many sources. You might start with the recent posts here about the Grand Canyon. Or look at Davis A. Young, The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church’s Response to Extrabiblical Evidence (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) or the more recent The Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth, edited by C. Hill, et.al., which asks the question “Can Noah’s Flood Explain the Grand Canyon?” and answers with a decided “No.” Also be on the lookout for article “The Genesis Flood and Geology,” in the Zondervan Dictionary of Christianity and Science, edited by P. Copan, T. Longman, C. Reese, and M. Strauss, due out in Spring 2017. Here, by the way, the “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”; it is significant, even telling. If there were a global flood, there would be indisputable evidence.
> 
> snip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis and the Flood: Understanding the Biblical Story - Articles
> 
> 
> We need to remember that the Bible, while written for us, was not written to us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> biologos.org


Now, you've moved on to theistic evolution . Can't you stick to a science topic?

Show me some hard evidence such as are there pockets where we see NEW hydrothermal vents?


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Now, you've moved on to theistic evolution . Can't you stick to a science topic?
> 
> Show me some hard evidence such as are there pockets where we see NEW hydrothermal vents?



You didn't read it , did you? The author is an intelligent, educated man and a Christian, not  of the Ken Hamm variety..

Hydro thermal vents are caused by shifts in tectonic plates.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> You tell me.  People are always asking where all the water for Noah's Flood came from?


The only people asking about the source of water for a global flood are the christian religious extremists who press a literal, Flat Earth interpretation of the Bibles.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Active geologic faults.  Hey, more evidence to support the global flood.


Geologic faults do nothing to support a global flood. That is precisely why you offered nothing to support a global flood. 

Pleading ignorance about science matters is a poor excuse for your religious extremism.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> You didn't read it , did you? The author is an intelligent, educated man and a Christian, not  of the Ken Hamm variety..
> 
> Hydro thermal vents are caused by shifts in tectonic plates.


Biologos is theistic evolution.  Nuff said.

I'll take your response as admission of no new hydrothermal vents.  I think it happened in the ancient past.  I had an youtube (now gone) that showed ridges in the ocean floor around the world, but can't remember if they said they were hydrothermal vents.  Anyway, there is still debate as to whether hydrothermal vents are what's described in the Bible.  There has been some wild descriptions and hypothesis of what the fountains of the deep were.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Biologos is theistic evolution.  Nuff said.
> 
> I'll take your response as admission of no new hydrothermal vents.  I think it happened in the ancient past.  I had an youtube (now gone) that showed ridges in the ocean floor around the world, but can't remember if they said they were hydrothermal vents.  Anyway, there is still debate as to whether hydrothermal vents are what's described in the Bible.  There has been some wild descriptions and hypothesis of what the fountains of the deep were.


Those "wild descriptions and hypothesis of what the fountains of the deep were." are only wild descriptions and hypotheses engaged in by fundamentalist Christian ministries and ID'iot creation ministries 

The relevant first world has a firm grasp regarding hydrothermal vents and offers nothing to indicate they are of supernatural origin.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Those "wild descriptions and hypothesis of what the fountains of the deep were." are only wild descriptions and hypotheses engaged in by fundamentalist Christian ministries and ID'iot creation ministries
> 
> The relevant first world has a firm grasp regarding hydrothermal vents and offers nothing to indicate they are of supernatural origin.


Again, you can't find any new hydrothermal vents.  That's why I agreed and thought the vents were the fountains of the deep or part of it.  What I understood before were there were ridges sticking out of the ocean floor that encircled the world such as the the mid-Atlantic ridge.

Why don't you talk about the hydrothermal vents?  They are a lot more interesting than your usual diatribe.

ETA:  Here's what the abyss could look like.  Does it look back at you atheists?


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> Again, you can't find any new hydrothermal vents. That's why I agreed and thought the vents were the fountains of the deep or part of it. What I understood before were there were ridges sticking out of the ocean floor that encircled the world such as the the mid-Atlantic ridge.


Neither the ridges nor hydrothermal vents can cause a world wide flood. Ridges spew magma, Vents recirculate water.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Wuwei said:


> Neither the ridges nor hydrothermal vents can cause a world wide flood. Ridges spew magma, Vents recirculate water.


Hahaha

Wait

So james bond  thinks there are large reservoirs of water hiding in the core of the planet?

Hahaha omfg 9 years olds are smarter


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hahaha
> 
> Wait
> 
> So james bond  thinks there are large reservoirs of water hiding in the core of the planet?
> 
> Hahaha omfg 9 years olds are smarter


Atheists are usually wrong.  It's a fact, Jack.  You should stay out of the adult or the smarter 9 yr-olds conversations LMAO.  I thought you were smarter than stupid as abu afak . And stupider than abu afak Wuwei is still following me even though he thinks I'm a troll . I got his troll arse on ignore, but can tell when to read.

An ocean of water is found 620 miles below Earth's surface - and if it dries up, life on our planet could END​
*Two studies found evidence of oceans of water in Earth's lower mantle *
*The first found a water-filled mineral called brucite exists in the deep Earth*
*A second study found this water is much deeper than any seen before*
*It is unclear how much water is being stored, but previous studies suggest it could be the same amount as all the oceans put together *









						A huge ocean of water is found 620 miles below Earth's surface
					

Two studies from Florida State University and Northwestern University suggest that this deep water is vital for geodynamic activity which is important in sustaining life on the planet.




					www.dailymail.co.uk
				




NASA is looking for a planet with water below its surface.

Large Reservoir of Liquid Water Found Deep Below the Surface of Mars​A reservoir of what could be water has been spotted beneath the South Pole of Mars.​




__





						NASA Astrobiology
					

Large Reservoir of Liquid Water Found Deep Below the Surface of Mars A reservoir of what could be water has been spotted beneath the South Pole of Mars.




					astrobiology.nasa.gov


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Again, you can't find any new hydrothermal vents.  That's why I agreed and thought the vents were the fountains of the deep or part of it.  What I understood before were there were ridges sticking out of the ocean floor that encircled the world such as the the mid-Atlantic ridge.
> 
> Why don't you talk about the hydrothermal vents?  They are a lot more interesting than your usual diatribe.
> 
> ETA:  Here's what the abyss could look like.  Does it look back at you atheists?



“Again, you can't find any new hydrothermal vents.” ……because I say so.

You consistently make nonsense claims.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Atheists are usually wrong.  It's a fact, Jack.  You should stay out of the adult or the smarter 9 yr-olds conversations LMAO.  I thought you were smarter than stupid as abu afak . And stupider than abu afak Wuwei is still following me even though he thinks I'm a troll . I got his troll arse on ignore, but can tell when to read.
> 
> An ocean of water is found 620 miles below Earth's surface - and if it dries up, life on our planet could END​
> *Two studies found evidence of oceans of water in Earth's lower mantle *
> *The first found a water-filled mineral called brucite exists in the deep Earth*
> *A second study found this water is much deeper than any seen before*
> *It is unclear how much water is being stored, but previous studies suggest it could be the same amount as all the oceans put together *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A huge ocean of water is found 620 miles below Earth's surface
> 
> 
> Two studies from Florida State University and Northwestern University suggest that this deep water is vital for geodynamic activity which is important in sustaining life on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailymail.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NASA is looking for a planet with water below its surface.
> 
> Large Reservoir of Liquid Water Found Deep Below the Surface of Mars​A reservoir of what could be water has been spotted beneath the South Pole of Mars.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NASA Astrobiology
> 
> 
> Large Reservoir of Liquid Water Found Deep Below the Surface of Mars A reservoir of what could be water has been spotted beneath the South Pole of Mars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> astrobiology.nasa.gov



Hilarious you’re cutting and pasting from evilutionist, atheist scientists.

Did you realize you just discredited your own vilification of science?

No. Obviously you’re not that aware.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> It is unclear how much water is being stored, but previous studies suggest it could be the same amount as all the oceans put together


If the water deep in the mantle is the same as all the water in the ocean, there are 332,500,000 cubic miles of water in mantle.

The surface area of the earth is 197,000,000 sq mi.

That means the water in the ocean would rise by 1.6 miles if all the mantle water were added to it.

The tallest mountain is over 4 miles high.

That means the mantle water will not cover all the mountains of the earth.

Even if the mantle water made it up to the surface there would be a huge mantle cavity of 1.6 miles deep. And if that cavity collapsed, God (<-- metaphor) knows what would happen at the surface.

A tremendous amount of exothermic energy would be released from the brucite. Then there is the problem of requiring that same energy to put the water back into the mantle when the flood recedes.

Conclusion: Science does not back up the Bible by a long shot.


----------



## Wuwei

Since Bond has me on ignore, anyone is welcome to copy and paste post 603 in a reply. Don't quote it because that would also be on ignore. You are invited to take credit for it too.

.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> “Again, you can't find any new hydrothermal vents.” ……because I say so.
> 
> You consistently make nonsense claims.


No, I challenged you to find new ones to counter the evidence of the global flood, but you couldn't and went to your bag of atheist rants.



Hollie said:


> Hilarious you’re cutting and pasting from evilutionist, atheist scientists.
> 
> Did you realize you just discredited your own vilification of science?
> 
> No. Obviously you’re not that aware.


It isn't important that you atheists don't believe in a global flood nor God when the evidence looks at them in the face.  We discovered science does not back up evilution or evolution.  I don't vilify real science as science backs up the Bible.

And after all that...

>>Obviously you’re not that aware.<<

You should look in an infinity of mirror images and say that.  It's you and not I.

I'm here to talk real science and not fake science like evilution/evolution.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> No, I challenged you to find new ones to counter the evidence of the global flood, but you couldn't and went to your bag of atheist rants.
> 
> It isn't important that you atheists don't believe in a global flood nor God when the evidence looks at them in the face.  We discovered science does not back up evilution or evolution.  I don't vilify real science as science backs up the Bible.


You should look at post 603. Creationists have no story on where the water came from and where it went.
.


----------



## Confederate Soldier

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Confederate Soldier     Where did you go?




I went hunting.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> No, I challenged you to find new ones to counter the evidence of the global flood, but you couldn't and went to your bag of atheist rants.
> 
> 
> It isn't important that you atheists don't believe in a global flood nor God when the evidence looks at them in the face.  We discovered science does not back up evilution or evolution.  I don't vilify real science as science backs up the Bible.
> 
> And after all that...
> 
> >>Obviously you’re not that aware.<<
> 
> You should look in an infinity of mirror images and say that.  It's you and not I.
> 
> I'm here to talk real science and not fake science like evilution/evolution.



Obviously, you have decided to abandon the silly, “fountains of the deep” nonsense in reference to hydrothermal vents.

Is it just a coincidence that hydrothermal vents tend to be found along geologic fault lines? It’s so strange because hydrothermal vents and the life that grows around them rely on a heat source. What could that heat source be?


----------



## Wuwei

Hollie said:


> Obviously, you have decided to abandon the silly, “fountains of the deep” nonsense in reference to hydrothermal vents.
> 
> Is it just a coincidence that hydrothermal vents tend to be found along geologic fault lines? It’s so strange because hydrothermal vents and the life that grows around them rely on a heat source. What could that heat source be?


He doesn't want to talk coherently about science of the bible although he keeps bringing that mantra up. All he wants to do is change the subject back to his  fantasy that evolution is not backed up by science. 

Evolution has nothing to do with science in the Genesis. One major issue he avoids is the fact that the timeline of the first 6 days of the genesis fails miserably with any science. 
.


----------



## Hollie

Wuwei said:


> He doesn't want to talk coherently about science of the bible although he keeps bringing that mantra up. All he wants to do is change the subject back to his  fantasy that evolution is not backed up by science.
> 
> Evolution has nothing to do with science in the Genesis. One major issue he avoids is the fact that the timeline of the first 6 days of the genesis fails miserably with any science.
> .


Exactly. There is no requirement for "belief" in the face of empirical data. One can reach conclusions when the data supports the theory and testing leads to conclusions. This is a pretty basic method for separating mere gainsay from what we call knowledge. The data supporting biological evolution to include fossil evidence as it exists along with the supporting disciplines of biology, chemistry, earth science, etc., have been fully adequate to convince generation after generation of scientists in varying fields of study of the reality of biological evolution, and stands as a major line of evidence for the theory of common descent. Anti-evolutionary critics (almost exclusively fundamentalist Christians), should take some time to explain why this should be so, given that paleontologists and biologists subscribe to many different religious beliefs.


----------



## Wuwei

Hollie said:


> Exactly. There is no requirement for "belief" in the face of empirical data. One can reach conclusions when the data supports the theory and testing leads to conclusions. This is a pretty basic method for separating mere gainsay from what we call knowledge. The data supporting biological evolution to include fossil evidence as it exists along with the supporting disciplines of biology, chemistry, earth science, etc., have been fully adequate to convince generation after generation of scientists in varying fields of study of the reality of biological evolution, and stands as a major line of evidence for the theory of common descent. Anti-evolutionary critics (almost exclusively fundamentalist Christians), should take some time to explain why this should be so, given that paleontologists and biologists subscribe to many different religious beliefs.


Yes, and finding a fake Piltdown man or missing links is enough to invalidate all that science.

_*BrainBriefs . . . Art Markman and Bob Duke*_

In their book they discuss how the brain can hold contradictory theories in different brain areas and not care or be aware of it until the contradiction is pointed out. The conflict can cause a reexamination of oneself, or a quick change of topic or a weak rationalization.

It is easier when the opposing beliefs are in different contexts. Like capital punishment or killing someone who seems to frighten you is OK, but aborting an immature fetus is not OK.

Smarter creationists know what evolution science is and they know they have a conflict with science and it is totally irksome when people successfully point it out. The first gambit with our resident creationist is a snow job, especially with someone new. Some here know how to counter any bastardization of science he can come up with and continually show his contradictions. So the recourse is to change the subject - mostly to evolution or brandishing the Bible, or a volley of insults. 

With me it's a fun game. Being on his ignore list makes it fun lurking in his shadows not knowing what I'm saying and peeking now and then. I really don't care what he believes except that they want to put creationism in a science class and that is destructive. 
.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Obviously, you have decided to abandon the silly, “fountains of the deep” nonsense in reference to hydrothermal vents.
> 
> Is it just a coincidence that hydrothermal vents tend to be found along geologic fault lines? It’s so strange because hydrothermal vents and the life that grows around them rely on a heat source. What could that heat source be?


You are talking about geothermal or Earth's heating features like a volcano or Earth making its own heat from the core.  That's what makes them from the great deep and hydrothermal.  Do you know what causes the Earth to heat up as we get towards the core?  The water came from the great deep refers to the subterranean oceans of which I posted an article.  That shut the dumb atheists up.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> You are talking about geothermal or Earth's heating features like a volcano or Earth making its own heat from the core.  That's what makes them from the great deep and hydrothermal.  Do you know what causes the Earth to heat up as we get towards the core?  The water came from the great deep refers to the subterranean oceans of which I posted an article.  That shut the dumb atheists up.


“Do you know what causes the Earth to heat up as we get towards the core?”

The gods did it?

I would encourage you to look at sources other than the ICR for an answer to your question. The ICR falsely includes the term “research” in their title  so why don’t you show us the magic show us the research documents they have submitted for peer review. The preceding is rhetorical wa we both know that fundamentalist Christian ministries such as the ICR do no research and publish in no peer reviewed journals.

Why don’t you supply a link to research data that shows the origin of the water volume required to cover the plant as described in the Noah fable. Similarly, other than appeals to magic and supernaturalism, where did that water volume disappear to?


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> You are talking about geothermal or Earth's heating features like a volcano or Earth making its own heat from the core. That's what makes them from the great deep and hydrothermal. Do you know what causes the Earth to heat up as we get towards the core? The water came from the great deep refers to the subterranean oceans of which I posted an article. That shut the dumb atheists up.


It did not shut me up, and I am not an atheist.

If the water deep in the mantle is the same amount as all the water in the ocean, there are 332,500,000 cubic miles of water in both ocean and mantle.

Divide the cubic miles of mantle water by the surface area of the earth, 197,000,000 sq mi. to get
332,500,000 / 197,000,000 = 1.6 miles.

That means the oceans would rise by around 1.6 miles if all the mantle water were added to it. The tallest mountain is over 4 miles high which means the mantle water will not cover all the mountains of the earth.

Even if the mantle water went to the surface there would be a huge mantle cavity of 1.6 miles deep.  There would be an enormous energy release when that cavity collapses.

A tremendous amount of energy would be released from the escape of water. There is no energy to force the water back into the mantle so the flood flood can recede.

(There is also an exothermic reaction when the water leaves the brucite with no way to regain that energy for the flood to recede. But that's thermodynamics and is beyond the understanding of creationists.)

.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> “Do you know what causes the Earth to heat up as we get towards the core?”
> 
> The gods did it?
> 
> I would encourage you to look at sources other than the ICR for an answer to your question. The ICR falsely includes the term “research” in their title  so why don’t you show us the magic show us the research documents they have submitted for peer review. The preceding is rhetorical wa we both know that fundamentalist Christian ministries such as the ICR do no research and publish in no peer reviewed journals.
> 
> Why don’t you supply a link to research data that shows the origin of the water volume required to cover the plant as described in the Noah fable. Similarly, other than appeals to magic and supernaturalism, where did that water volume disappear to?


You can't answer the question.  What I can observe is one can't have a smaller replica of Earth with a hot molten core and cool outside or else they would have to provide energy to the core to keep it molten.  With no energy, it would cool into a solid.  This may be difficult as one would prolly have to have a solid first with an empty core and after pour the molten liquid in.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> You can't answer the question. What I can observe is one can't have a smaller replica of Earth with a hot molten core and cool outside or else they would have to provide energy to the core to keep it molten. With no energy, it would cool into a solid. This may be difficult as one would prolly have to have a solid first with an empty core and after pour the molten liquid in.


What? You are saying the earth started out hollow and someone poured molten liquid into it? Who, God? That is absolutely absurd.  He is going wacko now that he has put the people who know more about science on ignore.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> He knows evolution is a BIG LIE and science does not back it up, i.e. science is against it.
> 
> Furthermore, here's my UC Berkeley website admitting that evolution is not observable nor testable -- Misconceptions about evolution - Understanding Evolution.  Smart people know that they admit defeat and is just hypothesis which goes nowhere.
> 
> Looks like Do-While Jimmy smacked you around some using science against evolution.  You're dizzy.



Would your religion collapse if you studied science or got an education?

Human Evolution Evidence | The Smithsonian Institution's ...
humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
Jul 26, 2021 · Scientists have discovered a wealth of evidence concerning human evolution, and this evidence comes in many forms. Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years. Millions of stone tools, figurines and …


----------



## surada

Wuwei said:


> What? You are saying the earth started out hollow and someone poured molten liquid into it? Who, God? That is absolutely absurd.  He is going wacko now that he has put the people who know more about science on ignore.



He doesn't understand that pressure causes heat when tectonic plates push against each other.









						Introduction to Human Evolution
					






					humanorigins.si.edu


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Would your religion collapse if you studied science or got an education?
> 
> Human Evolution Evidence | The Smithsonian Institution's ...
> humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
> Jul 26, 2021 · Scientists have discovered a wealth of evidence concerning human evolution, and this evidence comes in many forms. Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years. Millions of stone tools, figurines and …


Christianity wouldn't collapse as science backs up the Bible and the majority of the peoples are winners.  I already said there are no millions and billions of years.  What you post are the atheist scientist papers which are based on the lies and assumptions of evolution.  Changes in the brain and body size aren't that great and not over the past millions of years.  Smithsonian is one of the most liberal, i.e. atheist, and pro evolution in regards to evolution.  You and them are losers.  Atheists and their scientists are usually losers because they're usually wrong.  What should happen is the Smithsonian collapses.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> He doesn't understand that pressure causes heat when tectonic plates push against each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Introduction to Human Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> humanorigins.si.edu


It was the creationists who discovered tectonic plates lol.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> It was the creationists who discovered tectonic plates lol.



Alfred Wegener was a meteorologist and a Christian (1915) but he wasn't the first.. Point is he wasn't stuck in Bible literalism.









						Plate Tectonics: Creationist Idea Still Makes Accurate Predictions
					

The science of plate tectonics in geology, started by a creationist in the 19th century, continues to provide testable predictions within a biblical worldview.




					answersingenesis.org


----------



## Wuwei

surada said:


> He doesn't understand that pressure causes heat when tectonic plates push against each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Introduction to Human Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> humanorigins.si.edu


Yes, but his screwy science seems to be a lot more than that in the following post:


james bond said:


> You are talking about geothermal or Earth's heating features like a volcano or Earth making its own heat from the core. That's what makes them from the great deep and hydrothermal. Do you know what causes the Earth to heat up as we get towards the core? The water came from the great deep refers to the subterranean oceans of which I posted an article. That shut the dumb atheists up.


It is a mish-mash of geological thoughts that are so poorly stated that they don't make much sense. The subterranean oceans he refers to are magnesium hydroxides thought to be 410 to 660 km below Earth's surface. They are certainly not oceans and not enough to cause Noah's flood.
.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Alfred Wegener was a meteorologist and a Christian (1915) but he wasn't the first.. Point is he wasn't stuck in Bible literalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plate Tectonics: Creationist Idea Still Makes Accurate Predictions
> 
> 
> The science of plate tectonics in geology, started by a creationist in the 19th century, continues to provide testable predictions within a biblical worldview.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> answersingenesis.org


So close, but so far.  You and the atheist geologists are still losers, i.e. no global flood, no fast catastrophism.  Had you read the article, it would've pointed out,

"The Bible held the clue to revolutionizing our understanding of geology. And if scientists would look to God’s Word—rather than their own fallible understanding—for the true history of the world, think how much further advanced science and knowledge would be! We still understand so much less than we could about this world because the vast majority of geologists (and other scientists) ignore biblical history, believing, instead, in ideas like slow-and-gradual processes over millions of years."

...

"It’s worth noting that Snider-Pelligrini wasn’t the last creation scientist to study and consider plate tectonics. Others have, such as Dr. John Baumgardner, a prominent physicist, who proposed catastrophic plate tectonics, a model for how the earth’s crust could have rapidly broken apart and moved during the flood. His model gave testable results. As one article explains:




> [Baumgardner’s] theory suggested that the “cold” crust, located beneath the pre-Flood oceans, should have sunk the full 1,800 miles (2900 km) to the base of the earth’s hot mantle, where the temperatures are up to 7,232°F (4000°C). This crust would have melted if it had millions of years to reach the base of the mantle, sinking as slowly as today’s rates. On the other hand, if it sank quickly 4,350 years ago, as Baumgardner’s theory suggested, then piles of those plates should still be found at the base of the mantle, cooler than the mantle around them.





> As scientists have peered under earth’s crust with this technology, they discovered cold material, just as this model—based on the biblical timeline and a global flood—predicted!



Well, that was back in the 1980s, and science has certainly progressed since then. With new technology, scientists can actually test such an idea. And as scientists have peered under earth’s crust with this technology, they discovered cold material, just as this model—based on the biblical timeline and a global flood—predicted! This is another confirmation that the Bible’s history is true and that Baumgardner’s model is an accurate explanation of what happened during the flood."


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> So close, but so far.  You and the atheist geologists are still losers, i.e. no global flood, no fast catastrophism.  Had you read the article, it would've pointed out,
> 
> "The Bible held the clue to revolutionizing our understanding of geology. And if scientists would look to God’s Word—rather than their own fallible understanding—for the true history of the world, think how much further advanced science and knowledge would be! We still understand so much less than we could about this world because the vast majority of geologists (and other scientists) ignore biblical history, believing, instead, in ideas like slow-and-gradual processes over millions of years."
> 
> ...
> 
> "It’s worth noting that Snider-Pelligrini wasn’t the last creation scientist to study and consider plate tectonics. Others have, such as Dr. John Baumgardner, a prominent physicist, who proposed catastrophic plate tectonics, a model for how the earth’s crust could have rapidly broken apart and moved during the flood. His model gave testable results. As one article explains:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that was back in the 1980s, and science has certainly progressed since then. With new technology, scientists can actually test such an idea. And as scientists have peered under earth’s crust with this technology, they discovered cold material, just as this model—based on the biblical timeline and a global flood—predicted! This is another confirmation that the Bible’s history is true and that Baumgardner’s model is an accurate explanation of what happened during the flood."



He teaches at Liberty University.









						Biography of Dr. John Baumgardner
					

About Dr. John Baumgardner, author and creator of Global Flood.



					www.globalflood.org


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> He teaches at Liberty University.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biography of Dr. John Baumgardner
> 
> 
> About Dr. John Baumgardner, author and creator of Global Flood.
> 
> 
> 
> www.globalflood.org


"Soon after my conversion I began a four-year tour of active duty in the U. S. Air Force, a time of exciting and deep spiritual growth. A desire for Christian ministry then led me to join the campus ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ.  Grieved by the deliberate use of evolution to assault and destroy the faith of Christian college students that I observed on the campus where I served, I began to present classroom lectures and evening forums to expose evolution’s fraudulent claims.  In researching issues relating to the Genesis Flood and earth history in preparation for some of these events, I realized that Noah’s Flood logically involved planetary scale tectonic catastrophe. This awareness prompted me to leave Campus Crusade in 1978 to begin a Ph.D. program in geophysics at UCLA to obtain the training and credentials specifically to address the problem of the mechanism of the Genesis Flood at a professional scientific level.  My Ph.D. thesis research involved the development of a 3-D spherical finite element model for the earth’s mantle, a program now known as TERRA.  Most of this thesis research I conducted at Los Alamos National Laboratory.  I completed my Ph.D. from UCLA in geophysics and space physics in 1983."

You provide the evidence of Noah's Flood as "logically involved planetary scale tectonic catastrophe."  I was able to deduce it myself from the evidence.  OTOH, the atheists do not have anything logical nor testable to compare to observable catastrophism.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> "Soon after my conversion I began a four-year tour of active duty in the U. S. Air Force, a time of exciting and deep spiritual growth. A desire for Christian ministry then led me to join the campus ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ.  Grieved by the deliberate use of evolution to assault and destroy the faith of Christian college students that I observed on the campus where I served, I began to present classroom lectures and evening forums to expose evolution’s fraudulent claims.  In researching issues relating to the Genesis Flood and earth history in preparation for some of these events, I realized that Noah’s Flood logically involved planetary scale tectonic catastrophe. This awareness prompted me to leave Campus Crusade in 1978 to begin a Ph.D. program in geophysics at UCLA to obtain the training and credentials specifically to address the problem of the mechanism of the Genesis Flood at a professional scientific level.  My Ph.D. thesis research involved the development of a 3-D spherical finite element model for the earth’s mantle, a program now known as TERRA.  Most of this thesis research I conducted at Los Alamos National Laboratory.  I completed my Ph.D. from UCLA in geophysics and space physics in 1983."
> 
> You provide the evidence of Noah's Flood as "logically involved planetary scale tectonic catastrophe."  I was able to deduce it myself from the evidence.  OTOH, the atheists do not have anything logical nor testable to compare to observable catastrophism.



Plate tectonics had nothing to do with the world wide flood myth,

The mountains didn't all pop up at once nor did Pangea break up rapidly.


----------



## Wuwei

surada said:


> Plate tectonics had nothing to do with the world wide flood myth,
> 
> The mountains didn't all pop up at once nor did Pangea break up rapidly.


Dropping bible school to get a PhD explains why some PhDs believe in creationism.  I would like to see his scientific publications on the recent planetary catastrophe.


----------



## surada

Wuwei said:


> Dropping bible school to get a PhD explains why some PhDs believe in creationism.  I would like to see his scientific publications on the recent planetary catastrophe.



Liberty University is very fundamentalist... Dispensationalism and Dominionism.. flavored ith the Scofield heresy.. These guys will kill the Christian faith completely in another 50 years.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> You can't answer the question.  What I can observe is one can't have a smaller replica of Earth with a hot molten core and cool outside or else they would have to provide energy to the core to keep it molten.  With no energy, it would cool into a solid.  This may be difficult as one would prolly have to have a solid first with an empty core and after pour the molten liquid in.


I certainly won't answer any question with the non-answer of 'the gods did it'.  

Identify the source of your ''observation''.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> You can't answer the question.  What I can observe is one can't have a smaller replica of Earth with a hot molten core and cool outside or else they would have to provide energy to the core to keep it molten.  With no energy, it would cool into a solid.  This may be difficult as one would prolly have to have a solid first with an empty core and after pour the molten liquid in.



That's about as dumb as I ever heard.. Why don't you write to Liberty University with your observation. Science doesn't back up the Bible. You fundamentalists will kill Christianity if you keep it up.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> "Soon after my conversion I began a four-year tour of active duty in the U. S. Air Force, a time of exciting and deep spiritual growth. A desire for Christian ministry then led me to join the campus ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ.  Grieved by the deliberate use of evolution to assault and destroy the faith of Christian college students that I observed on the campus where I served, I began to present classroom lectures and evening forums to expose evolution’s fraudulent claims.  In researching issues relating to the Genesis Flood and earth history in preparation for some of these events, I realized that Noah’s Flood logically involved planetary scale tectonic catastrophe. This awareness prompted me to leave Campus Crusade in 1978 to begin a Ph.D. program in geophysics at UCLA to obtain the training and credentials specifically to address the problem of the mechanism of the Genesis Flood at a professional scientific level.  My Ph.D. thesis research involved the development of a 3-D spherical finite element model for the earth’s mantle, a program now known as TERRA.  Most of this thesis research I conducted at Los Alamos National Laboratory.  I completed my Ph.D. from UCLA in geophysics and space physics in 1983."
> 
> You provide the evidence of Noah's Flood as "logically involved planetary scale tectonic catastrophe."  I was able to deduce it myself from the evidence.  OTOH, the atheists do not have anything logical nor testable to compare to observable catastrophism.








						Encyclopedia of American Loons
					

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.




					americanloons.blogspot.com
				




John R. Baumgardner is a geophysicist, young earth creationist, and Christian fundamentalist. So yes, he is another one of those people whom creationists rely on so heavily, since he’s got credentials (he has a PhD in geophysics from UCLA), and in fact some reputable, real science publications (not using creationism, of course).

Baumgardner’s life task is to provide scientific proof of the Deluge myth, a goal he has entertained ever since he, according to himself, turned to Christianity in his twenties.
He is famous for creating a computer program (“Terra”) to model the flood, and is a central member of RATE (and IDEA). His main schtick is the “runaway subduction model” of the flood, which relies essentially on magic: The pre-flood ocean floor sunk into the underlying mantle, which then bubbled up massive amounts of magma; virtually the entire existing ocean floor on the entire planet was formed this way in a very short period of time. Which means that 2 billion km3 worth of lava flows, at 1200 degrees C, were released below the oceans at once. The amount of heat and energy released this way (about 1028 j) would of course boil off the oceans (so much for the flood) and perhaps even the atmosphere. But, of course, Baumgardner does what creationists do in such cases: a _miracle_ happened. It is actually rather interesting (and occasionally close to endearing) that creationists attempt to give their views this extra science-sounding ornaments; at the very foundation of the theory there is the miracle of Jesus. One would think that it would be easier and more elegant to just posit these miracles directly, without the additional scientific bells and whistles. Unless the point is deception, of course.

Baumgardner also worked with Ron Wyatt on one of Wyatt’s attempts to find the Ark, though to Baumgardner’s credit he did not accept Wyatt’s claims that the rock formations they found were actual remnants of the Ark. It is not obviously to his credit that he accepts global warming: “Yes, global temperatures are rising […], but […] it’s because Earth has been warming slowly but surely ever since Noah's Flood 5,000 years ago,” according to WorldNetDaily, who apparently thought Baumgardner’s delusional ravings were worth writing up in an article.

Canadian creationist David Buckna is apparently a fan, and his JAQing off, without a shred of concern that his points get thoroughly debunked, constitute an almost wonderful version of the Gish gallop. To underline the insanity of flood geology, the garbled unhingedness of the rants of Kelly Hollowell are illustrative as well.

*Diagnosis: A sad case of a probably intelligent person who failed to distinguish science from its cargo cult incarnation. Baumgardner is happily continuing a long tradition of medieval theosophistry when applying his background to provide heavyweight answers to deep questions such as calculating the numbers of animals that could be on the Ark or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. *


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> It was the creationists who discovered tectonic plates lol.



No. It was not.


----------



## Wuwei

surada said:


> That's about as dumb as I ever heard.. Why don't you write to Liberty University with your observation. Science doesn't back up the Bible. You fundamentalists will kill Christianity if you keep it up.


I can understand people who are comfortable with creationism. I have an aunt and two sisters-in-law who believe. They are nice people and we get along great. I would never attempt to kill their Christianity. Also it's fine for james bond to have faith. There is no worry that I would kill his Christianity. The only problem is that he is not comfortable with his own Christianity and manically tries to defend it by distorting physics and other sciences. He also attacks and tries (but fails) to humiliate those who point out his self-contradictions in science. As you point out he is not doing anyone any good.
.


----------



## surada

Wuwei said:


> I can understand people who are comfortable with creationism. I have an aunt and two sisters-in-law who believe. They are nice people and we get along great. I would never attempt to kill their Christianity. Also it's fine for james bond to have faith. There is no worry that I would kill his Christianity. The only problem is that he is not comfortable with his own Christianity and manically tries to defend it by distorting physics and other sciences. He also attacks and tries (but fails) to humiliate those who point out his self-contradictions in science. As you point out he is not doing anyone any good.
> .



Well said.. Problem is the fundamentalists will ultimately drive people away from faith. Even little kids question Jonah being swallowed by a fish..

Once it is explained as a comic novella about how Jonah wanted God to destroy the people of Ninevah who had repented... it makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Wuwei

Hollie said:


> Diagnosis: A sad case of a probably intelligent person who failed to distinguish science from its cargo cult incarnation. Baumgardner is happily continuing a long tradition of medieval theosophistry when applying his background to provide heavyweight answers to deep questions such as calculating the numbers of animals that could be on the Ark or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.


I just read the final chapters of the (313 pg) book "_Why People Believe Weird Things_". Michael Shermer is a well known author and personality but his book was very disappointing. It was mostly tales about people who believe in intelligent design, clairvoyance, ghosts, the holocaust hoax, alien abductions, etc. His WHY was very brief. People are drawn to,
_Immediate gratification._ A quick easy answer to what their own future is, where the universe came from ...
_Morality and Meaning_. Science and cold logic omits the meaning of life and a code for humans ...
_Hope_. Humans seek a better life and greater levels of happiness...

It seems that these requirements are innate in humans and can surpass science and logic. 

Belief, disbelief, and uncertainty are mediated in separate parts of the brain and can coexist to a certain extent. Some people may not even have an inner-conflict or even being aware of it.
.


----------



## Wuwei

Wuwei said:


> Some people may not even have an inner-conflict or even being aware of it.


Oops; missing words. The last sentence should be:
_Some people may not even *care they* have an inner conflict or even be aware of it._


----------



## Hollie

Wuwei said:


> I just read the final chapters of the (313 pg) book "_Why People Believe Weird Things_". Michael Shermer is a well known author and personality but his book was very disappointing. It was mostly tales about people who believe in intelligent design, clairvoyance, ghosts, the holocaust hoax, alien abductions, etc. His WHY was very brief. People are drawn to,
> _Immediate gratification._ A quick easy answer to what their own future is, where the universe came from ...
> _Morality and Meaning_. Science and cold logic omits the meaning of life and a code for humans ...
> _Hope_. Humans seek a better life and greater levels of happiness...
> 
> It seems that these requirements are innate in humans and can surpass science and logic.
> 
> Belief, disbelief, and uncertainty are mediated in separate parts of the brain and can coexist to a certain extent. Some people may not even have an inner-conflict or even being aware of it.



"Belief, disbelief, and uncertainty are mediated in separate parts of the brain and can coexist to a certain extent. Some people may not even have an inner-conflict or even being aware of it."

I think those are great observations. 

IMHO, the search for "meaning" is at the heart of the religious impulse. We are driven by the despair of our own existential anxieties to generate meaning and purpose for ourselves. I think this is all the result of the unavoidable psychological conflict between our basic instinct for survival and the intellectual realization of our own mortality. We find meaning in self transcendent acts and concepts. By reaching out beyond ourselves to find connections to larger communities and realities we somehow escape our own mortalities, at least symbolically. If our creative efforts, or our children, or our communities, or our species, survive our own personal mortality, we gain a symbolic sense of immortality through our connections to these things. If the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge through _reason_ contributes to the health of the planet, the survival of our species, a better quality of life, etc., it is profoundly meaningful. Human emotions have their source in natural instincts we see every day in the common animal kingdom. We simply have added a vast array of texture to emotions that simpler animals do not. I embrace human passion joyfully; it is a part of the wonder of being alive. That we pay for our emotions with fears and acts of questionable ethics is a price we have to be willing to pay, given the choice.

The _only_ "condemning aspect" of my life is the _Christian based_ idea that as an imperfect being I deserve Hell by default. I'm fairly honest, I work hard, I love my friends and family, etc.-- in short, I'm your average person who lives a quiet life dealing with life's challenges. I cannot imagine rating eternal torment because I don't acquiesce to the Christian defined salvation program. I ask myself:

"Which is more likely: That there's really this angry god out there who would actually behave that way, or it's really in the religion’s interest to establish a social dynamic where the threat of _eternal torment_ is the outcome for not joining in that religion and btw supporting it financially. What's more likely, man needs a savior for being human, or the Church, an entity of sweeping power for more than a thousand years, needs to convince me I need them and only them?"

I think the answer is really obvious and simple. If such a thing is the reality (and of course there's no evidence for such) then I'll have to "account for my actions". But my worst "crime" in this realm is being imperfect and not believing that which I find is not supported. I can do nothing about such a god who would condemn me for such a trivial issue, nor can I do anything about the fact (my term) that after death it's nothing but a dreamless sleep. Both are equally depressing, hopeless, and bleak, and there's a marginal difference between condemning most people who ever existed to an eternity of despair versus _everyone_ being condemned to an eternity of nothingness. It's hopeless because if such a god exists, there is no sense in morality, no true justice, and basically we are nothing but minions created to worship an infinite Ego or be consigned to everlasting torment.


----------



## surada

Hollie said:


> "Belief, disbelief, and uncertainty are mediated in separate parts of the brain and can coexist to a certain extent. Some people may not even have an inner-conflict or even being aware of it."
> 
> I think those are great observations.
> 
> IMHO, the search for "meaning" is at the heart of the religious impulse. We are driven by the despair of our own existential anxieties to generate meaning and purpose for ourselves. I think this is all the result of the unavoidable psychological conflict between our basic instinct for survival and the intellectual realization of our own mortality. We find meaning in self transcendent acts and concepts. By reaching out beyond ourselves to find connections to larger communities and realities we somehow escape our own mortalities, at least symbolically. If our creative efforts, or our children, or our communities, or our species, survive our own personal mortality, we gain a symbolic sense of immortality through our connections to these things. If the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge through _reason_ contributes to the health of the planet, the survival of our species, a better quality of life, etc., it is profoundly meaningful. Human emotions have their source in natural instincts we see every day in the common animal kingdom. We simply have added a vast array of texture to emotions that simpler animals do not. I embrace human passion joyfully; it is a part of the wonder of being alive. That we pay for our emotions with fears and acts of questionable ethics is a price we have to be willing to pay, given the choice.
> 
> The _only_ "condemning aspect" of my life is the _Christian based_ idea that as an imperfect being I deserve Hell by default. I'm fairly honest, I work hard, I love my friends and family, etc.-- in short, I'm your average person who lives a quiet life dealing with life's challenges. I cannot imagine rating eternal torment because I don't acquiesce to the Christian defined salvation program. I ask myself:
> 
> "Which is more likely: That there's really this angry god out there who would actually behave that way, or it's really in the religion’s interest to establish a social dynamic where the threat of _eternal torment_ is the outcome for not joining in that religion and btw supporting it financially. What's more likely, man needs a savior for being human, or the Church, an entity of sweeping power for more than a thousand years, needs to convince me I need them and only them?"
> 
> I think the answer is really obvious and simple. If such a thing is the reality (and of course there's no evidence for such) then I'll have to "account for my actions". But my worst "crime" in this realm is being imperfect and not believing that which I find is not supported. I can do nothing about such a god who would condemn me for such a trivial issue, nor can I do anything about the fact (my term) that after death it's nothing but a dreamless sleep. Both are equally depressing, hopeless, and bleak, and there's a marginal difference between condemning most people who ever existed to an eternity of despair versus _everyone_ being condemned to an eternity of nothingness. It's hopeless because if such a god exists, there is no sense in morality, no true justice, and basically we are nothing but minions created to worship an infinite Ego or be consigned to everlasting torment.



Great post..

The problem IMO is indulging in supernatural fantasy as a way to deal with anxiety and inner conflict.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

abu afak said:


> We don't know/know yet.
> That's why we've had and discarded thousands of other gods: when we found out.


"We used to believe in thousands of gods. Then it was 100. Now it's one. We are getting closer to the truth every time."

- Christopher Hitchens


----------



## Wuwei

Hollie said:


> The _only_ "condemning aspect" of my life is the _Christian based_ idea that as an imperfect being I deserve Hell by default. I'm fairly honest, I work hard, I love my friends and family, etc.-- in short, I'm your average person who lives a quiet life dealing with life's challenges. I cannot imagine rating eternal torment because I don't acquiesce to the Christian defined salvation program. I ask myself:
> 
> "Which is more likely: That there's really this angry god out there who would actually behave that way, or it's really in the religion’s interest to establish a social dynamic where the threat of _eternal torment_ is the outcome for not joining in that religion and btw supporting it financially. What's more likely, man needs a savior for being human, or the Church, an entity of sweeping power for more than a thousand years, needs to convince me I need them and only them?"


I once felt that way, and I said if there was heaven, I have done nothing to deserve hell so I would go to heaven. I said it to a Catholic priest while doing pre-marriage counseling. My to-be wife asked him in private if that was true. He said yes. It was comforting to her, (and surprisingly a little to me too.)
.


----------



## Wuwei

I have said this before,

The fine tuning of physics laws is often cited by Intelligent Designers as one proof of God, but it is also an old observation that all physicists are aware of. It certainly is amazing that the the values of physical constants and the fundamental forces allow everything from the universe formation to galactic structure to molecular structure and DNA. 

I have studied physics over many decades and am awed by the nature quantum mechanics of the Standard Model and the prediction of the Higgs boson, and the very fact that the basic laws of physics follows mathematics to an unprecedented accuracy. The agreement between basic particle physics experiments with mathematical models is in the range of one part per billion or trillion.

To me the great mysteries are why the hard sciences follows mathematics to a minute detail; the complexity of the plethora of elements and how it led to organic compounds; and consciousness and intelligence in man so he can begin to grasp all this.

Intelligent design Christians want to focus on God with whatever liturgy they use. My "liturgy" is to investigate the "design" in all it's evidential and mathematical glory. There is no point in considering a "designer" or "first cause" simply because it falls outside any logical path of investigation. My religion is a continually transforming deism. They are stuck with an ancient text that is taken literally.

I would think an artist would be more impressed if someone ignored the artist and spent a life time studying his art rather than a lifetime praising the artist and sacrificing animals at an altar for him. 

.


----------



## surada

Wuwei said:


> I once felt that way, and I said if there was heaven, I have done nothing to deserve hell so I would go to heaven. I said it to a Catholic priest while doing pre-marriage counseling. My to-be wife asked him in private if that was true he said yes. It was comforting to her, (and surprisingly a little to me too.)
> .



Neither Jews nor Muslims believe in Original Sin (nor do I) so they aren't saddled with that "sin".


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> That's about as dumb as I ever heard.. Why don't you write to Liberty University with your observation. Science doesn't back up the Bible. You fundamentalists will kill Christianity if you keep it up.


You can't explain the "observation," while I can.  Go ahead and try you atheist putz.  Atheists need to die (before they get it) of the iron core and molten liquid around it.  How can something like this evolve?

If you have no answer, then just say, "I need to die before I get it."


----------



## Hollie

Wuwei said:


> I just read the final chapters of the (313 pg) book "_Why People Believe Weird Things_". Michael Shermer is a well known author and personality but his book was very disappointing. It was mostly tales about people who believe in intelligent design, clairvoyance, ghosts, the holocaust hoax, alien abductions, etc. His WHY was very brief. People are drawn to,
> _Immediate gratification._ A quick easy answer to what their own future is, where the universe came from ...
> _Morality and Meaning_. Science and cold logic omits the meaning of life and a code for humans ...
> _Hope_. Humans seek a better life and greater levels of happiness...
> 
> It seems that these requirements are innate in humans and can surpass science and logic.
> 
> Belief, disbelief, and uncertainty are mediated in separate parts of the brain and can coexist to a certain extent. Some people may not even have an inner-conflict or even being aware of it.
> .



I guess the notion of justice / injustice defeats the purpose of the eternal sacrifice... that sacrifice is for sins against God (as per Christian theology) but what about man against man??? Who pays the price and who gets rewards?? 

That was the point of the faith (rewards in an afterlife) and the promise of religion in the first place! And my overwhelming experience is that believers find it very easy to believe because the dynamic of the belief system makes you feel good about choosing "correctly" and it addresses your concerns about mortality. It just doesn't back them up with any authority. 

My point is that faced with a belief that there is no safety net, we can either roll up into a ball or we can face our reality, and that is a noble response to a cold and unmovable truth. I don't think I could diminish that aspect of it.


----------



## Hollie

surada said:


> Well said.. Problem is the fundamentalists will ultimately drive people away from faith. Even little kids question Jonah being swallowed by a fish..
> 
> Once it is explained as a comic novella about how Jonah wanted God to destroy the people of Ninevah who had repented... it makes a lot of sense.


So we can see that people select those tales / fables that they are comfortable with, and merely ignore the rest. This is tremendously arbitrary, and outright foolish. It also is evidence that holy texts are not always the books one should use to support ethical foundations. 

Now, by way of example, I know there are many references in the Bible to love and compassion, but there is a single fatal problem with the NT. That is, that Jesus does not explain why his doctrines are good for mankind, he commands obedience for them and levies a system of rewards or punishments based on adherence and conformity. Jesus doesn't say, "Be good to one another because you are each precious," Jesus states, "Believe and obey and you will see heaven-- doubt and disobey and you will earn eternal damnation".


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> So we can see that people select those tales / fables that they are comfortable with, and merely ignore the rest


Well it beats the alternative...


----------



## Wuwei

Hollie said:


> My point is that faced with a belief that there is no safety net, we can either roll up into a ball or we can face our reality, and that is a noble response to a cold and unmovable truth. I don't think I could diminish that aspect of it.


This is an excerpt of a letter I sent to someone who was writing a book about peoples view of life.

There is a Zen story that I always tried to live up to. It is about a man who was chased to a cliff by a lion. He found a vine growing down the cliff-side and started climbing down. The lion couldn't follow, but there was another lion at the bottom of the cliff. The man could go neither up nor down. Then a mouse started nibbling at the top of the vine. In not too long the vine would be severed. Then he saw some grapes growing at the side of the cliff that he could reach. How delicious!​​I thought that was one of those unsatisfying stories that only a Zen master could cook up until about a year later, when I saw a reference to the "lions of birth and death." It dawned on me then what the story was about. I always took literature so literally. We are all caught on a vine. We just have to make the best of it. We are all visitors to this house of self-awareness. We should be cordial guests during our brief stay, and no matter what, we should be happy that we were invited.​.


----------



## Wuwei

Hollie said:


> So we can see that people select those tales / fables that they are comfortable with, and merely ignore the rest. This is tremendously arbitrary, and outright foolish. It also is evidence that holy texts are not always the books one should use to support ethical foundations.


Certainly from our perspective it is tremendously arbitrary and foolish.  From the perspective of the believer it is human nature, and called bias conformation. IMHO it could be considered a defect where the person has blind spots in their cognition and confabulate over them so that they are in harmony with their defect.

I think it's similar to Anosognosia, a condition in which a person with a disability is cognitively unaware of having it. I'm thinking the disability could be an immutable belief in flat earth, ESP, literal creationism, etc. This is one clinical example ...

*The Anton-Babinski syndrome* (Wikipedia)​is a rare symptom of brain damage occurring in the occipital lobe. Those who have it are cortically blind, but affirm, often quite adamantly and in the face of clear evidence of their blindness, that they are capable of seeing. Failing to accept being blind, people with Anton syndrome dismiss evidence of their condition and employ confabulation to fill in the missing sensory input​
.


----------



## abu afak

Hollie said:


> So we can see that people select those tales / fables that they are comfortable with, and merely ignore the rest. This is tremendously arbitrary, and outright foolish. It also is evidence that holy texts are not always the books one should use to support ethical foundations.
> 
> Now, by way of example, I know there are many references in the Bible to love and compassion, but there is a single fatal problem with the NT. That is, that Jesus does not explain why his doctrines are good for mankind, he commands obedience for them and levies a system of rewards or punishments based on adherence and conformity. Jesus doesn't say, "Be good to one another because you are each precious," Jesus states, "Believe and obey and you will see heaven-- doubt and disobey and you will earn eternal damnation".


“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.  When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”​- Stephen Roberts.

`


----------



## Dagosa

abu afak said:


> “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.  When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”​- Stephen Roberts.
> 
> `


Exactly ! At least an agnostic is open to the truth. A devout anti science Christian has no interest in it.


----------



## Dagosa

Wuwei said:


> I have said this before,
> 
> The fine tuning of physics laws is often cited by Intelligent Designers as one proof of God, but it is also an old observation that all physicists are aware of. It certainly is amazing that the the values of physical constants and the fundamental forces allow everything from the universe formation to galactic structure to molecular structure and DNA.
> 
> I have studied physics over many decades and am awed by the nature quantum mechanics of the Standard Model and the prediction of the Higgs boson, and the very fact that the basic laws of physics follows mathematics to an unprecedented accuracy. The agreement between basic particle physics experiments with mathematical models is in the range of one part per billion or trillion.
> 
> To me the great mysteries are why the hard sciences follows mathematics to a minute detail; the complexity of the plethora of elements and how it led to organic compounds; and consciousness and intelligence in man so he can begin to grasp all this.
> 
> Intelligent design Christians want to focus on God with whatever liturgy they use. My "liturgy" is to investigate the "design" in all it's evidential and mathematical glory. There is no point in considering a "designer" or "first cause" simply because it falls outside any logical path of investigation. My religion is a continually transforming deism. They are stuck with an ancient text that is taken literally.
> 
> I would think an artist would be more impressed if someone ignored the artist and spent a life time studying his art rather than a lifetime praising the artist and sacrificing animals at an altar for him.
> 
> .


If we think we are just fine running the physics we already have, remember that QT was not  tuning, it turned Newtonian Physics on its head. The physics that we use now is just adaptable to the situation we are in. Our daily life  doesn’t lend it self to thinking about Quantum theory But Newtonion Physics.   Until of course, you pick up your cell phone. 99.99 % of  the population doesn’t even know or understand this. . . That’s why religion is so popular. It’s for the Masses who need their actions controlled to protect themselves from their own ignorance.


----------



## Wuwei

Dagosa said:


> If we think we are just fine running the physics we already have, remember that QT was not  tuning, it turned Newtonian Physics on its head. The physics that we use now is just adaptable to the situation we are in. Our daily life  doesn’t lend it self to thinking about Quantum theory But Newtonion Physics.   Until of course, you pick up your cell phone. 99.99 % of  the population doesn’t even know or understand this. . . That’s why religion is so popular. It’s for the Masses who need their actions controlled to protect themselves from their own ignorance.


I agree, but I was referring to the finely tuned physical constants in Quantum Field Theory. As many physicists and even creationists have pointed out, if any of these constants were slightly changed, the ability to form stable galaxies, nuclei, molecules, and life would be compromised.
Fundamental forces, 
the speed of light in vacuum c, 
the gravitational constant G, 
the Planck constant h, 
the elementary charge e. 
fine-structure constant α, et al.
.


----------



## Dagosa

Wuwei said:


> I agree, but I was referring to the finely tuned physical constants in Quantum Field Theory. As many physicists and even creationists have pointed out, if any of these constants were slightly changed, the ability to form stable galaxies, nuclei, molecules, and life would be compromised.
> Fundamental forces,
> the speed of light in vacuum c,
> the gravitational constant G,
> the Planck constant h,
> the elementary charge e.
> fine-structure constant α, et al.
> .


And you realize, none of which you listed is absolute and subject to change. Some maybe on another  level   which would shake the foundation of atomic physics as we know it. Really, who ever considered the universe was once no bigger then a basketball unless we looked at everything on the atomic level instead of the molecular level. We always leave some thing open for a complete revision of physics.

Still, we don’t constider QT when we are shooting quail; or doing a short term weather forecast;  it’s still Newtonian physics. So really, nothing is discarded , just added on to. And the most trivial of revision may ultimately lead to a completely new set of laws, all compliant in only one set of circumstances.


----------



## Dagosa

Wuwei said:


> if any of these constants were slightly changed, the ability to form stable galaxies, nuclei, molecules, and life would be compromised.
> Fundamental forces,


Really, stability is only an illusion and only from our POV. The galaxies are not stable from a stars lifeting POV. They die, are swallowed up and/or  regenerated  From their POV with dynamic and frequent regularity.  

A fly from its POV lives a long a fulfilling lifetime in only 15-25 days. Whose to say that from another, 80 years is a long time. Or even 10,000 years. So, just a different understanding of time makes all of our observations suspect. Even those you listed. Who is to say that everything we have or will experience is happening simultaneously. That makes all measured velocities over time, irrelevant for example. So then, your list is less important then position of the observer.


----------



## Dagosa

Wuwei said:


> I agree, but I was referring to the finely tuned physical constants in Quantum Field Theory. As many physicists and even creationists have pointed out, if any of these constants were slightly changed, the ability to form stable galaxies, nuclei, molecules, and life would be compromised.
> Fundamental forces,
> the speed of light in vacuum c,
> the gravitational constant G,
> the Planck constant h,
> the elementary charge e.
> fine-structure constant α, et al.
> .





Wuwei said:


> I agree, but I was referring to the finely tuned physical constants in Quantum Field Theory. As many physicists and even creationists have pointed out, if any of these constants were slightly changed, the ability to form stable galaxies, nuclei, molecules, and life would be compromised.
> Fundamental forces,
> the speed of light in vacuum c,
> the gravitational constant G,
> the Planck constant h,
> the elementary charge e.
> fine-structure constant α, et al.
> .


Given  what we know right now, absolutely. But with no exceptions, over time there are major changes in the way we view our world(s) and the physics we use to understand it. The biggest mistake science can ever make, is to sit back and think we have explained anything completely .


----------



## Wuwei

Dagosa said:


> And you realize, none of which you listed is absolute and subject to change. Some maybe on another level which would shake the foundation of atomic physics as we know it. Really, who ever considered the universe was once no bigger then a basketball unless we looked at everything on the atomic level instead of the molecular level. We always leave some thing open for a complete revision of physics.
> 
> Still, we don’t constider QT when we are shooting quail; or doing a short term weather forecast; it’s still Newtonian physics. So really, nothing is discarded , just added on to. And the most trivial of revision may ultimately lead to a completely new set of laws, all compliant in only one set of circumstances.


Of course.  That is all very well known.


Dagosa said:


> Really, stability is only an illusion and only from our POV. The galaxies are not stable from a stars lifeting POV. They die, are swallowed up and/or  regenerated  From their POV with dynamic and frequent regularity.
> 
> A fly from its POV lives a long a fulfilling lifetime in only 15-25 days. Whose to say that from another, 80 years is a long time. Or even 10,000 years. So, just a different understanding of time makes all of our observations suspect. Even those you listed. Who is to say that everything we have or will experience is happening simultaneously. That makes all measured velocities over time, irrelevant for example. So then, your list is less important then position of the observer.


Yes, that is obvious. I was referring to the the actual ability to form, for example, molecules. If the fine structure constant were significantly smaller, atomic forces may be too weak to hold molecules together. Or if it is larger, molecular forces may be such that molecules, are too rigid. For example silicon is above carbon in the periodic table, also with four valence electrons, but there is not silicon based life forms because the molecular forces are stronger. A similar argument holds with stars and the strong force.


Dagosa said:


> Given what we know right now, absolutely. But with no exceptions, over time there are major changes in the way we view our world(s) and the physics we use to understand it. The biggest mistake science can ever make, is to sit back and think we have explained anything completely .


That is certainly true. Bohr's Correspondence Principle covered that many decades ago.
It was generalized to physics of the future by the Generalized Correspondence Principle. See section 7 in:




__





						Bohr’s Correspondence Principle (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
					





					plato.stanford.edu
				



.


.


----------



## Dagosa

Wuwei said:


> Of course.  That is all very well known.
> 
> Yes, that is obvious. I was referring to the the actual ability to form, for example, molecules. If the fine structure constant were significantly smaller, atomic forces may be too weak to hold molecules together. Or if it is larger, molecular forces may be such that molecules, are too rigid. For example silicon is above carbon in the periodic table, also with four valence electrons, but there is not silicon based life forms because the molecular forces are stronger. A similar argument holds with stars and the strong force.
> 
> That is certainly true. Bohr's Correspondence Principle covered that many decades ago.
> It was generalized to physics of the future by the Generalized Correspondence Principle. See section 7 in:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bohr’s Correspondence Principle (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> plato.stanford.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> .


Yup
the physics on the molecular level differ from that on the atomic level. it’s that simple but hard to understand.  We don’t know what exists in a universe when  for life forms is not based on carbon but some other element. We don’t now  because we don’t have enough information. That’s science. The two universes could coexists. We’re not there. But we do speculate bout worm holes for space travel as a way of going from one time/distance to another. I like the movie “contact” in a story written by Carl Sagan for that reason. It actually makes more sense for space travel then any another possibility.

Its a perfect example of how dramatic changes in physics is MORE LIKELY  then small ones as we learn more.
So really,I’m not disagreeing so much as I think there is much more to our universe then knowing  a few basic relationships. We are just as far away from the answers as we were thousands of  years ago when mah thought a GOD was responsible for everything…..really, that may be true. We’ll never know it all. Even the aliens in ”contact” knew little, only slightly more then us and they could transport themselves anywhere and read our minds. So really, they are GODs to anyone who thinks we are class to the answers. The aren’t and never will be. The more we know, the less we realize we know.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I guess the notion of justice / injustice defeats the purpose of the eternal sacrifice... that sacrifice is for sins against God (as per Christian theology) but what about man against man??? Who pays the price and who gets rewards??
> 
> That was the point of the faith (rewards in an afterlife) and the promise of religion in the first place! And my overwhelming experience is that believers find it very easy to believe because the dynamic of the belief system makes you feel good about choosing "correctly" and it addresses your concerns about mortality. It just doesn't back them up with any authority.
> 
> My point is that faced with a belief that there is no safety net, we can either roll up into a ball or we can face our reality, and that is a noble response to a cold and unmovable truth. I don't think I could diminish that aspect of it.


>>It just doesn't back them up with any authority.<<

You still don't get it and never will like I said.  How much of a higher authority can you get than God?  It's His words in the Bible and we NT people found out science backs up His words.

Humans vs. humans are taken care of by commandments 6-to-10 of the Ten Commandments.  Do you need for me to repeat them for you?

>>My point is that faced with a belief that there is no safety net, we can either roll up into a ball or we can face our reality, and that is a noble response to a cold and unmovable truth. I don't think I could diminish that aspect of it.<<

What do you mean by safety net?  For the atheists and unforgiven?  I think you're getting it if it is to "a cold and unmovable truth."  There is no safety net, but I won't be there to witness it.  You can witness me without the safety net though.


----------



## Dagosa

james bond said:


> >>It just doesn't back them up with any authority.<<
> 
> You still don't get it and never will like I said.  How much of a higher authority can you get than God?  It's His words in the Bible and we NT people found out science backs up His words.
> 
> Humans vs. humans are taken care of by commandments 6-to-10 of the Ten Commandments.  Do you need for me to repeat them for you?
> 
> >>My point is that faced with a belief that there is no safety net, we can either roll up into a ball or we can face our reality, and that is a noble response to a cold and unmovable truth. I don't think I could diminish that aspect of it.<<
> 
> What do you mean by safety net?  For the atheists and unforgiven?  I think you're getting it if it is to "a cold and unmovable truth."  There is no safety net, but I won't be there to witness it.  You can witness me without the safety net though.


Which God are you talking about. Everytime a believer talks about “God”, we are entitled to ask, which one ? Well, which is it ?


----------



## abu afak

Dagosa said:


> Which God are you talking about. Everytime a believer talks about “God”, we are entitled to ask, which one ? Well, which is it ?


That's what I've been saying for years here: "Which/Witch one?"
Because at least 75% of believers are wrong even if one is right.

Then what if one shows up and the stars form the word 'Vishnu' in Hindi one night?
The following day there would a disaster.
Mass suicide (or suicide at Mass) among multitudes of other believers.
There whole lives a joke/Lie.

For me, an Atheist OTOH, it would be thrilling to find out there was a god, and I would gladly follow the precepts of what would then be more than a faith/but a truth.
`


----------



## Dagosa

abu afak said:


> That's what I've been saying for years here: "Which/Witch one?"
> Because at least 75% of believers are wrong even if one is right.
> 
> Then what if one shows up and the stars form the word 'Vishnu' in Hindi one night?
> The following day there would a disaster.
> Mass suicide (or suicide at Mass) among multitudes of other believers.
> There whole lives a joke/Lie.
> 
> For me, an Atheist OTOH, it would be thrilling to find out there was a god, and I would gladly follow the precepts of what would then be more than a faith/but a truth.
> `


Exactly. Notice, we get no answer .....otherwise, Christians would have to admit that literally, everyone else is an “ atheist”. The “ though shelt not have any-other god before me” always gets in the way. 

Can’t have other gods competing for donations.


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> *Creation science* or *scientific creationism* is a Pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible.
> 
> It is often presented without overt faith-based language, but instead relies on reinterpreting scientific results to argue that various myths in the Book of Genesis and other select biblical passages are scientifically valid. The most commonly advanced ideas of creation science include special creation based on the Genesis creation narrative and flood geology based on the Genesis flood narrative.[1] Creationists also claim they can disprove or reexplain a variety of scientific facts,[2] theories and paradigms of geology,[3] cosmology, biological evolution,[4][5] archaeology,[6][7] history, and linguistics using creation science.[8] Creation science was foundational to intelligent design.[9]
> 
> In contrast with the views of creation science,* the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science Fails to qualify as scientific because it Lacks empirical support, supplies No testable hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.*[10][11]
> 
> *Courts, *most often in the United States where the question has been asked in the context of teaching the subject in public schools,* have consistently ruled since the 1980s that creation science is a Religious view rather than a scientific one.
> 
> Historians,[12] philosophers of science and skeptics have described creation science as a Pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.* [13][14][15][16][17]
> 
> *Professional biologists have criticized creation science for being unscholarly,[18] and even as a Dishonest and misguided Sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences.*[19]...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .











						New Big Bang evidence supports Biblical creation, says Orthodox physicist
					

Counters nonreligious professor: The Genesis account of the formation of the heavens and the earth has nothing to do with science




					www.timesofisrael.com


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> New Big Bang evidence supports Biblical creation, says Orthodox physicist
> 
> 
> Counters nonreligious professor: The Genesis account of the formation of the heavens and the earth has nothing to do with science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.timesofisrael.com


Same old desperate apologism, different scientific discovery. *yawn*


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Same old desperate apologism, different scientific discovery. *yawn*


It's not a coincidence that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce life and intelligence, dummy.

The universe we live in is considered to be unnatural by physicists for that very reason.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> It's not a coincidence that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce life and intelligence


Shaman ding has spoken!

Heed his words, all ye who value your eternal souls!


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> It's not a coincidence that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce life and intelligence, dummy.
> 
> The universe we live in is considered to be unnatural by physicists for that very reason.


The universe was "hardwired to produce life and intelligence" yet we only have one (currently) exception of trillions?
The universe is clearly/at least 99.999999999999999999 Hostile to life.

And the universe is a chaotic/random place.
Stars being born and dying in supernova killing everything with 100 light years...
Galaxies colliding, as ours will with Andromeda in a few billion years. That will be a gas, especially if there is life other life!
`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> The universe was "hardwired to produce life and intelligence" yet we only have one (currently) exception of trillions?
> The universe is clearly/at least 99.999999999999999999 Hostile to life.
> 
> And the universe is a chaotic/random place.
> Stars being born and dying in supernova killing everything with 100 light years,...
> Galaxies colliding, as ours will with Andromeda in a few billion years. That will be a gas, especially if there is life other life!
> `


Which doesn't change the fact that it's not a coincidence that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce life and intelligence.  Our universe is considered to be unnatural by cosmologists and physicists.  As in it is odd or not natural for a universe to be hardwired for life and intelligence.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Shaman ding has spoken!
> 
> Heed his words, all ye who value your eternal souls!


Laughing leads to crying.


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> It doesn't change that there is NO SUCH "Fact."
> You delusional lying ***hole
> Where is your Evidence?
> The universe is 99.999999999999999+++ Hostile to life and chaotic, which not only changes, but refutes your claim.
> 
> `


Ummm... the very nature of matter for starters, dummy.  Learn some science.


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> Which doesn't change the fact that it's not a coincidence that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce life and intelligence.  Our universe is considered to be unnatural by cosmologists and physicists.  As in it is odd or not natural for a universe to be hardwired for life and intelligence.


It doesn't change that there is NO SUCH "Fact."
You delusional lying ***hole
Where is your Evidence?
The universe is 99.999999999999999+++ Hostile to life and chaotic, which not only changes, but refutes your claim.
Stars exploding/galaxies colliding, etc.

`The more Ding is PORKED the more he tries to bury/Multi-post his way out.
He's a childish Fraud.

`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> It doesn't change that there is NO SUCH "Fact."
> You delusional lying ***hole
> Where is your Evidence?
> The universe is 99.999999999999999+++ Hostile to life and chaotic, which not only changes, but refutes your claim.
> Stars exploding/galaxies colliding, etc.
> 
> `The more Ding is PORKED the more he tries to bury/Multi-post his way out.
> He's a childish Fraud.
> 
> `


George Wald, a Nobel Laureate, disagrees with you, dummy.



			George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe
		




> There is good reason to believe that we are in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. How many such places are there? Arthur Eddington, the great British physicist, gave us a formula: one hundred billion stars make a galaxy, and one hundred billion galaxies make a universe. The lowest estimate I have ever seen of the fraction of them that might possess a planet that could support life is one percent. That means one billion such places in our home galaxy, the Milky Way; and with about one billion such galaxies within reach of our telescopes, the already observed universe should contain at least one billion billion -- 1018 -- places that can support life
> 
> So we can take this to be a universe that breeds life; and yet, were any one of a considerable number of physical properties of our universe other than it is -- some of those properties basic, others seeming trivial, almost accidental -- that life, that now appears to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere.
> 
> I can only sample that story here and, to give this account a little structure, I shall climb the scale of states of organization of matter, from small to great.
> 
> But first, a preliminary question: How is it that we have a universe of matter at all?
> 
> Our universe is made of four kinds of so-called elementary particles: neutrons, protons, electrons, and photons, which are particles of radiation. (I disregard neutrinos, since they do not interact with other matter; also the host of other particles that appear transiently in the course of high‑energy nuclear interactions.) The only important qualification one need make to such a simple statement is that the first three particles exist also as antiparticles, the particles constituting matter, the anti-particles anti-matter. When matter comes into contact with anti-matter they mutually annihilate each other, and their masses are instantly turned into radiation according to Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2, in which E is the energy of the radiation, m is the annihilated mass, and c is the speed of light.
> 
> The positive and negative electric charges that divide particles from anti-particles are perfectly symmetrical. So the most reasonable expectation is that exactly equal numbers of both particles and anti-particles entered the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion in which our universe is thought to have begun. In that case, however, in the enormous compression of material at the Big Bang, there must have occurred a tremendous storm of mutual annihilation, ending with the conversion of all the particles and anti-particles into radiation. We should have come out of the Big Bang with a universe containing only radiation.
> 
> Fortunately for us, it seems that a tiny mistake was made. In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey discovered a new microwave radiation that fills the universe, coming equally from all directions, wherever one may be. It is by far the dominant radiation in the universe; billions of years of starlight have added to it only negligibly. It is commonly agreed that this is the residue remaining from that gigantic firestorm of mutual annihilation in the Big Bang.
> 
> It turns out that there are about one billion photons of that radiation for every proton in the universe. Hence it is thought that what went into the Big Bang were not exactly equal numbers of particles and anti-particles, but that for every billion anti-particles there were one billion and one particles, so that when all the mutual annihilation had happened, there remained over that one particle per billion, and that now contitutes all the matter in the universe -- all the galaxies, the stars and planets, and of course all life.
> 
> I should like now to raise two problems to do with protons and electrons, one involving their masses, the other their electric charge.
> 
> Every atom has a nucleus composed of protons and neutrons, except the smallest one, hydrogen, which has only one proton as its nucleus. Electrons orbit these nuclei at distances relatively greater than separate our sun from its planets. Both protons and neutrons have masses almost two thousand times the mass of an electron -- 1840 times when I last looked -- so virtually the whole mass of an atom is in its nucleus. Hence the atom is hardly disturbed at all by the motions of its electrons, and an atom can hold its position in a molecule, and molecules their positions in larger structures. Only that circumstance permits molecules to hold their shapes, and solids to exist.
> 
> If on the contrary the protons and neutrons were closer in mass to the electrons, whether light or heavy, then the motions of the electrons would be reflected in reciprocal motions by the others. All structures composed of such atoms would be fluid; in such a universe nothing would stay put. There could not be the fitting together of molecular shapes that permits not only crystals to form, but living organisms.
> 
> And now, electric charge: How does it come about that elementary particles so altogether different otherwise as the proton and electron possess the same numerical charge? How is it that the proton is exactly as plus-charged as the electron is minus-charged?
> 
> It may help to accept this as a legitimate scientific question to know that in 1959 two of our most distinguished astrophysicists, Lyttleton and Bondi, proposed that in fact the proton and electron differ in charge by the almost infinitesimal amount, 2 x 10 -18e -- two billion billionths e, in which e is the already tiny charge on either the proton or electron. The reason they made that proposal is that, given that nearly infinitesimal difference in charge, all the matter in the universe would be charged, and in the same sense, plus or minus. Since like charges repel one another, all the matter in the universe would repel all the other matter, and so the universe would expand, just as it is believed to do. The trouble with that idea is that yes, the universe would expand, but -- short of extraordinary special dispensations - it would not do anything else. Even so small a difference in electric charge would be enough to overwhelm the forces of gravitation that bring matter together; and so we should have no planets, no stars, no galaxies -- and, worst of all, no physicists.
> 
> No need to worry, however. Shortly after Lyttleton and Bondi’s proposal, John King and his group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology began to test experimentally whether the proton and electron differ in charge, and found that the charges appear to be wholly identical. That is an extraordinary fact, and not made easier to understand by the present belief that, though the electron is a single, apparently indivisible particle, the proton is made up of three quarks, to of them with charges of +2/3 e, and one with a charge of -1/3 e.
> 
> To summarize, if the proton and neutron did not have enormously greater mass than the electron, all matter would be fluid; and if the proton and electron did not possess exactly the same electric charge, no matter would aggregate. These are primary conditions for the existence of life in the universe.
> 
> Now, to leave the elementary particles and go on to atoms, to elements. Of the 92 natural elements, ninety-nine percent of the living matter we know is composed of just four: hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and carbon (C). That is bound to be true wherever life exists in the universe, for only those four elements possess the unique properties upon which life depends.
> 
> Their unique position in chemistry can be stated in a sentence: They -- in the order given -- are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations (i.e., those mimicking the inert gases) by gaining respectively one, two, three, and four electrons. Gaining electrons, in the sense of sharing them with other atoms, is the mechanism of forming chemical bonds, hence molecules. The lightest elements make not only the tightest bonds, hence the most stable molecules, but introduce a unique property crucial for life: of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further.
> 
> Now, professors sometimes tell their students foolish things, which the students carefully learn and reproduce on exams and eventually teach the next generation. When chemistry professors teach the periodic system of elements, one has those horizontal periods of the elements and the professors say, “If you go down vertically, the elements repeat their same properties.” That is utter nonsense, as any kid with a chemistry set would know. For under oxygen comes sulfur. Try breathing sulfur somethime. Under nitrogen comes phosphorus. There is not any phosphorus in that kid’s chemistry set. It is too dangerous; it bursts into flame spontaneously on exposure to air. And under carbon comes silicon.
> 
> If that chemistry professor were talking sense, there are two molecules that should have very similar properties: carbon dioxide (CO2) and silicon dioxide (SiO2). Well, in carbon dioxide the central carbon is tied to both of the oxygen atoms by double bonds O=C=O. Those double bonds completely saturate the combining tendencies of all three atoms, hence CO2 is a happy, independent molecule. It goes off in the air as a gas, and dissolves in all the waters of the Earth, and those are the places from which living organisms extract their carbon.
> 
> But silicon cannot form a double bond, hence in silicon dioxide the central silicon is tied to the two oxygens only by single bonds, leaving four half‑formed bonds -- four unpaired electrons -- two on the silicon and one on each oxygen, ready to pair with any other available lone electrons. But where can one find them? Obviously on neighboring silicone dioxide molecules, so each molecule binds to the next, and that to the next, and on and on until you end up with a rock -- for example quartz, which is just silicone dioxide molecules bound to one another to form a great super-molecule. The reason quartz is so hard is that to break it one must break numerous chemical bonds. And that is why, though silicon is 135 times as plentiful as carbon in the Earth’s surface, it makes rocks, and to make living organisms one must turn to carbon. I could make a parallel argument for oxygen and nitrogen.
> 
> These four elements, Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, also provide an example of the astonishing togetherness of our universe. They make up the “organic” molecules that constitute living organisms on a planet, and the nuclei of these same elements interact to generate the light of its star. Then the organisms on the planet come to depend wholly on that starlight, as they must if life is to persist. So it is that all life on the Earth runs on sunlight. I do not need spiritual enlightenment to know that I am one with the universe -- that is just good physics.
> 
> Now let’s go up a step, to molecules. By far the most important molecule for living organisms is water. I think we can feel sure that if there is no liquid water, there is no life, anywhere in the universe. Water also happens to be the strangest molecule in all chemistry; and its strangest property is that ice floats. If ice did not float, I doubt that life would exist in the universe.
> 
> Virtually everything contracts on cooling. That is how we make thermometers: a bit of red-dyed alcohol, mercury if you can afford it, put in a capillary tube contracts on cooling, and you read the temperature. Everything does this. So does water, down to four degrees centigrade. But between four and zero degrees centigrade, where it freezes, it expands, so rapidly that the ice that forms is less dense than liquid water. The complete hydrogen bonding among the water molecules in ice holds them more widely spaced than in liquid water, so ice floats.
> 
> Nothing else does that. But what if water behaved like virtually everything else, and continued to contract on cooling? Then the increasingly dense water would constantly be sinking to the bottom, and freezing would begin at the bottom, , not as now at the top, and would end by freezing the water solidly. A really large mass of ice takes forever to melt, even at higher temperatures.
> 
> In my region of the United States, New England, the fishermen wait all winter for the ponds to freeze over. That is the best time to go fishing. They take their fishing equipment in one hand, a bottle of whiskey in the other, and cut themselves a round hole in the ice. Up to that point the fish were getting along fine. These creatures live through the winter with no trouble, and as soon as the warm weather comes, that skin of ice on the surface melts and with that everything is free again. If ice did not float, it is hard to see how any life could survive a cold spell. On any planet in the universe, if a freeze occured even once in many millions of years, that would probably be enough to block the rise of life, and to kill any life that had arisen.
> 
> And now another step up, to stars. The first generation of stars began as hydrogen, and lived by fusing it to helium. A hydrogen atom is composed of a proton as nucleus and one electron moving about it; but at temperatures of about five million degrees they are driven apart, and one is dealing with naked protons, hydrogen nuclei. Now four such protons, each of mass 1, begin to fuse to a helium nucleus of about mass 4, but in this process a very small amount of mass is lost -- four protons have a slightly larger mass than a helium nucleus -- and this tiny loss of mass is converted into radiation according to Einstein’s equation, E=mc2. Even so small a loss of mass yields a huge amount of radiation, and that flood of radiation pours out in the interior of what had been a collapsing mass of gas and stops its further collapse, stabilizing it, and is also the source of starlight.
> 
> Eventually, though, this process runs every star short of hydrogen. With that, it generates less energy and so begins to collapse again, and as it collapses it heats up some more. When the temperature in its deep interior reaches about one hundred million degrees, the helium nuclei begin to fuse. Two helium nuclei, each of mass 4, fuse to make beryllium, of mass 8, a nucleus so unstable as to disintegrate within 10-16 second (ten million billionths of a second).Yet in these enormous masses of material and at such high temperatures there are always a few beryllium nuclei, and here and there one of them adds another helium: 8 and 4 make 12, the mass of carbon. That is how carbon comes into the universe. Then a carbon nucleus can add another helium: 12 plus 4 make 16, the mass of oxygen, and that is how oxygen enters the universe. Also carbon, even at somewhat lower temperatures, can add hydrogens, and carbon-12 plus two hydrogens make 14, the mass of nitrogen. That is how nitrogen enters the universe.
> 
> These new processes, together with its heating by collapse, have by now puffed up our star to enormous size. It has become a Red Giant, a dying star. In its dying, it has made the elements of which life is composed. It is a moving realization that stars must die before organisms can live.
> 
> These Red Giants are in a delicate condition, and by distillation and in such stellar catastrophes as flares, novas, and supernovas they spew their substance out to become part of the great masses of gases and dust that fill all interstellar space. Over eons of time, great masses of those gases and dust are drawn together by their mutual gravitation to form new generations of stars. But such latecomers, unlike the first generation of stars made wholly of hydrogen and helium, contain also carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen. And we know that our Sun is such a later-generation star because we are here, because the Earth is one of those planets in the universe that supports life.
> 
> Finally, we have a cosmic principle: To have such a universe as this requires an extraordinary balance between two great cosmic forces: that of dispersion (expansion), powered by the Big Bang, and that of aggregation, powered by gravitation. If the forces of expansion were dominant, that would yield an isotropically dispersed universe lacking local clusters, galaxies or planetary systems; all the matter would be flying apart, and there would be no large solid bodies, hence no place for life. If, on the contrary, gravitation were dominant, the initial expansion produced by the Big Bang would have slowed up and come to an end, followed by a universal collapse, perhaps in preparation for the next Big Bang. There would be no time for life to arise, or it would be quickly destroyed.
> 
> We live in a universe in which it has just lately been realized that those two forces are in exact balance, so that the universe as a whole is expanding wherever one looks, everything very distant is going away from us, but locally there are so-called local groups and clusters, where whole clusters of galaxies are held together by gravitation. Our own relatively small cluster contains, in addition to the Milky Way, the Andromeda galaxy (M31). It is very much like our galaxy, but a little smaller, and there is also a still smaller galaxy, all part of our local group. Most of you have probably heard that we measure the expansion of the universe by the so-called red shift. The further one looks out into space, the redder the light is, compared to the same sources on earth. That is interpeted as an expression of the Doppler Effect, and taken to mean that the more distant an astronomical body, the faster it is receding from us. But the first such color shift ever to be discovered, by the astronomer Slipher back in 1912, was not a red shift by a blue shift. He was looking at our sister galaxy, Andromeda, and observed a blue shift because, far from receding, the Andromeda galaxy is coming toward us at about 125 miles per second. It is just this exact balance between the steady expansion of the universe as a whole and its stability locally that affords both enormous reaches of time and countless sites for the development of life.
> 
> I have here only sampled briefly an argument that extends much further. The nub of that argument is that our universe possesses a remarkably detailed constellation of properties, and as it happens, it is just that constellation that breeds life. It takes no great intelligence or imagination to conceive of other universes, indeed any number of them, each of which might be perfectly good, stable universes, but lifeless.
> 
> How did it happen that, with what seem to be so many other options, our universe came out just as it did? From our own self‑centered point of view, that is the best way to make a universe: But what I want to know is, how did the universe find that out?
> 
> It may be objected that the question would not arise if we were not here to ask it. Yet here we are, and strangely insistent on asking that kind of question. Perhaps that indeed is the answer: That this is a life‑breeding universe precisely in order eventually to bring forth creatures that ask and attempt to answer such questions, so that through them the universe can come not only to be, but to be known; indeed can come to know itself. That leads me to my other great problem, that of consciousness.


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> George Wald, a Nobel Laureate, disagrees with you, dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe


I think there is other life in the universe, but it has nothing to do with "Hardwiring" by anyone or a "god."
That's a Religious claim.
(and there's probably more life in a "messy room.".. under the debris.)
`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> I think there is other life in the universe, but it has nothing to do with "Hardwiring" by anyone or a "god."
> That's a Religious claim.
> `


I addressed that in post #671.  Or more accurately, Nobel Laureate George Wald addressed it.


----------



## ding

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> I addressed that in post #671.  Or more accurately, Nobel Laureate George Wald addressed it.


Wald's take is not proof and it does not validate your claim:
 ""It's not a coincidence that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce life and intelligence, dummy.""
Your claim was 'ordered' Intelligent Design.
A Universally Discredited idea.
However the universe we know came into existence it doesn't preclude what became life here wasn't just the result of an infinite amount of coincidences.

In other universes of different elements, another type of life may have eventually popped up as well without it's rocks being "Hardwired" by anyone/anything either.

`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> Wald's take is not proof and it does not validate your claim:
> ""It's not a coincidence that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce life and intelligence, dummy.""
> Your claim was 'ordered' Intelligent Design.
> A Universally Discredited idea.
> However the universe we know came into existence it doesn't preclude what became life here wasn't just the result of an infinite amount of coincidences.
> 
> In other universes of different elements, another type of life may have eventually popped up as well without it's rocks being "Hardwired" by anyone/anything either.
> 
> `


Cool story, bro.

“Naturalness” is a term coined by Albert Einstein, and it is used to describe the elegantly intricate laws of nature. In a natural universe, absolutely everything can be explained with the aid of mathematics. All of the constants of nature are refined by the physical laws of nature and the entire puzzle makes perfect sense. In a unnatural universe, the horrible idea that some of the fundamental laws of nature are an arbitrary byproducts of the random fluctuations in the fabric of spacetime becomes a reality.


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> Cool story, bro.
> 
> “Naturalness” is a term coined by Albert Einstein, and it is used to describe the elegantly intricate laws of nature. In a natural universe, absolutely everything can be explained with the aid of mathematics. All of the constants of nature are refined by the physical laws of nature and the entire puzzle makes perfect sense. In a unnatural universe, the horrible idea that some of the fundamental laws of nature are an arbitrary byproducts of the random fluctuations in the fabric of spacetime becomes a reality.


Bodies and elements have properties which in no way implies a creator, just the reality of physicality.
Those innate properties are what scientists study and occasionally figure out.

Evolution is the result of infinite numbers of RANDOM Mutations/Mistakes, a tiny amount of which are beneficial and take hold.
That is Not order, that is "Messy room" Trial and error. 
`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> Bodies and elements have properties which in no way implies a creator, just the reality of physicality.
> Those innate properties are what scientists study and occasionally figure out.
> 
> Evolution is the result of infinite numbers of RANDOM Mutations/Mistakes, a tiny amount of which are beneficial and take hold.
> That is Not order, that is "Messy room" Trial and error.
> `


Cool story.

"The word “natural” has multiple meanings.  The one that scientists are using in this context isn’t “having to do with nature” but rather “typical” or “or “generic” — “just what you’d have expected”, or “the usual”  — as in, “naturally the baby started screaming when she bumped her head”, or “naturally it costs more to live near the city center”, or “I hadn’t worn those glasses in months, so naturally they were dusty.”  And unnatural is when the baby doesn’t scream, when the city center is cheap, and when the glasses are pristine. Usually, when something unnatural happens, there’s a good reason.

In most contexts in particle physics and related subjects, surprises — big surprises, anyway — are pretty rare.  That means that if you look at a physical system, it usually behaves more or less along lines that, with some experience as a scientist, you’d naturally expect. If it doesn’t, then (experience shows) there’s generally a really good reason… and if that reason isn’t obvious, the unnatural behavior of the system may be pointing you to something profound that you don’t yet know.

For our purposes here, the reason the notion of naturalness is so important is that there are two big surprises in nature that we particle physicists and our friends have to confront.  The first is that the cosmological constant [often referred to as “dark `energy’ ” in public settings] is amazingly small, compared to what you’d naturally expect.  The second is that the hierarchy between the strength of gravity and the strengths of the other forces is amazingly big, compared to what you’d expect.

The second one can be restated as follows: the Standard Model  (combined with Einstein’s theory of gravity) — the set of equations we use to predict the behavior of all the known elementary particles and all the known forces — is a profoundly, enormously, spectacularly unnatural theory. There’s only one aspect of physics — perhaps only one aspect in all of science — that is more unnatural than the Standard Model, and that’s the cosmological constant."  _Matt Strassler_


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> Cool story.
> 
> "The word “natural” has multiple meanings.  The one that scientists are using in this context isn’t “having to do with nature” but rather “typical” or “or “generic” — “just what you’d have expected”, or “the usual”  — as in, “naturally the baby started screaming when she bumped her head”, or “naturally it costs more to live near the city center”, or “I hadn’t worn those glasses in months, so naturally they were dusty.”  And unnatural is when the baby doesn’t scream, when the city center is cheap, and when the glasses are pristine. Usually, when something unnatural happens, there’s a good reason.
> 
> In most contexts in particle physics and related subjects, surprises — big surprises, anyway — are pretty rare.  That means that if you look at a physical system, it usually behaves more or less along lines that, with some experience as a scientist, you’d naturally expect. If it doesn’t, then (experience shows) there’s generally a really good reason… and if that reason isn’t obvious, the unnatural behavior of the system may be pointing you to something profound that you don’t yet know.
> 
> For our purposes here, the reason the notion of naturalness is so important is that there are two big surprises in nature that we particle physicists and our friends have to confront.  The first is that the cosmological constant [often referred to as “dark `energy’ ” in public settings] is amazingly small, compared to what you’d naturally expect.  The second is that the hierarchy between the strength of gravity and the strengths of the other forces is amazingly big, compared to what you’d expect.
> 
> The second one can be restated as follows: the Standard Model  (combined with Einstein’s theory of gravity) — the set of equations we use to predict the behavior of all the known elementary particles and all the known forces — is a profoundly, enormously, spectacularly unnatural theory. There’s only one aspect of physics — perhaps only one aspect in all of science — that is more unnatural than the Standard Model, and that’s the cosmological constant."  _Matt Strassler_


Long but nonresponsive "baffle em with BS" post.
No one else is going to read it either.
`

`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> Long but nonresponsive "baffle em with BS' post.
> `
> 
> `


No.  It actually posits that we live in a logical universe where every cause has an effect.  It's silly of you to argue against it but that's your mistake to make.


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> No.  It actually posits that we live in a logical universe where every cause has an effect.  It's silly of you to argue against it but that's your mistake to make.


IOW, the usual, Non-responsive high frequency posting
Your stock in trade.
`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> IOW, the usual, Non-responsive high frequency posting
> Your stock in trade.
> `


It's pretty hard for someone to argue that every effect did not have a cause.  Just like it's hard to argue that cause and effect doesn't mean everything  happens for a reason.  It would be unscientific to not believe that every effect had a cause and happened for a reason.  You'd have to believe in magic to not believe that.  Is that what you believe in?  Magic?  Do you believe in magic?


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> IOW, the usual, Non-responsive high frequency posting
> Your stock in trade.
> `


Do you believe you live in a logical universe or a magical universe?


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> It's pretty hard for someone to argue that every effect did not have a cause.  Just like it's hard to argue that the very basis of cause and effect is that everything happens for a reason.  It would be unscientific to not believe that every effect had a cause and happened for a reason.  You'd have to believe in magic to not believe that.  Is that what you believe in?  Magic?  Do you believe in magic?


Actually it's more logical to say "we don't know/know yet," just as we do for other versions of (your present) "God of the Gap' posts.
IOW, manufacturing causes (oft gods) for things we do not understand yet is Not logical. 
`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> Actually it's more logical to say "we don't know/know yet," just as we do for other versions of (your present) "God of the Gap' posts.
> IOW, manufacturing causes (oft gods) for things we do not understand yet is Not logical.
> `


You believe it's more logical to say you don't know if you live in a logical universe than it is say you live in a logical universe where every effect had a cause?  

You do realize you are literally arguing against science, right?


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> You believe it's more logical to say you don't know if you live in a logical universe than it is say you live in a logical universe where every effect had a cause?
> 
> You do realize you are literally arguing against science, right?


You need to read my 'God of the Gaps' thread I just responded in.
You have a logic issue.
And thanks for promoting (so far) 3 of my threads about religionist fallacies like yours.. and counting.
`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> You need to read my 'God of the Gaps' thread I just responded in.
> You have a logic issue.


There has never been an effect that was uncaused in the history of the universe. Cause and effect is literally the basis for science. Only an imbecile would argue against it.


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> There has never been an effect that was uncaused in the history of the universe. Cause and effect is literally the basis for science. Only an imbecile would argue against it.


And cause does not necessarily have a purpose or order or hardwiring.
And no one knows the cause of the Universe.. yet.
*You invoking discredited Intelligent Design and 'order,' and 'hardwiring' is unscientific and illogical.*

`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> And cause does not necessarily have a purpose or order or hardwiring.
> And no one knows the cause of the Universe.. yet.
> *You invoking discredited Intelligent Design and 'order,' and 'hardwiring' is unscientific and illogical.*
> 
> `


We can move on to that once you stop making idiotic arguments that you don't live in a logical universe where every cause has an effect.  First you must acknowledge that you live in a logical universe where every cause has an effect.  

Or I will just keep beating you over the head with it.  Fair enough?


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> We can move on to that once you stop making idiotic arguments that you don't live in a logical universe where every cause has an effect.  First you must acknowledge that you live in a logical universe where every cause has an effect.
> 
> Or I will just keep beating you over the head with it.  Fair enough?



Who's beating who over the head?
Who's pumping my threads up?
Below is unanswered

*Cause does not necessarily have a purpose or order or hardwiring.
And no one knows the 'cause' of the Universe.. yet.
You invoking discredited Intelligent Design and 'order,' and 'hardwiring' is unscientific and illogical.

`*


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> Who's beating who over the head?
> Who's pumping my threads up?
> 
> *Cause does not necessarily have a purpose or order or hardwiring.
> And no one knows the 'cause' of the Universe.. yet.
> You invoking discredited Intelligent Design and 'order,' and 'hardwiring' is unscientific and illogical.
> 
> `*


You still haven't acknowledged that you live in a logical universe where every cause has an effect.  What's it like in your magical universe where anything can happen for no reason at all.  I'm truly fascinated by your beliefs.  Are you a Scientologist?


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> You still haven't acknowledged that you live in a logical universe where every cause has an effect.  What's it like in your magical universe where anything can happen for no reason at all.  I'm truly fascinated by your beliefs.  Are you a Scientologist?


And what is that "Cause"?
We don't know/know yet.
*Cause does not necessarily have a 'purpose' or 'order' or 'hardwiring.'

`*


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> And what is that "Cause"?
> We don't know/know yet.
> *Cause does not necessarily have a 'purpose' or 'order' or 'hardwiring.'
> 
> `*


I am only trying to establish if you believe in cause and effect and that cause and effect means that everything happens for a logical reasons.  We can get into specifics once you acknowledge this.  I'm not going to play your squeeze balloon game.  I'm going to pin you down point by point.

The first point is that we live in a logical universe where every cause has an effect.  Yes or no?  I say yes.  Science says yes.  Only idiots say no.  What do you say?


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> I am only trying to establish if you believe in cause and effect and that cause and effect means everything which happens for a logical reason.  We can get into specifics once you acknowledge this.  I'm not going to play your squeeze balloon game.  I'm going to pin you down point by point.
> 
> The first point is that we live in a logical universe where every cause has an effect.  Yes or no?  I say yes.  Science says yes.  Only idiots say no.  What do you say?


False. all through this mess *You have baselessly declared and characterized it as purposeful, orderly, etc. (really Discredited ID) and Discredited 'God of the Gaps.'*
And fact is neither you nor anyone else knows the cause.. yet. If any.


`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> False. all through this mess *You have baselessly declared and characterized it as purposeful, orderly, etc. (really Discredited ID) and Discredited 'God of the Gaps.'*
> And fact is neither you nor anyone else knows the cause.. yet.
> 
> `


So you don't believe in cause and effect and are an idiot.  I guess this conversation is over then as it would be illogical for me to hold a discussion with an idiot who does not acknowledge cause and effect.


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> I am only trying to establish if you believe in cause and effect and that cause and effect means that everything happens for a logical reasons.  We can get into specifics once you acknowledge this.  I'm not going to play your squeeze balloon game.  I'm going to pin you down point by point.
> 
> The first point is that we live in a logical universe where every cause has an effect.  Yes or no?  I say yes.  Science says yes.  Only idiots say no.  What do you say?


And cause does not necessarily have a 'purpose' or 'order' or 'hardwiring.'
And no one knows the cause of the Universe.. yet.
*You invoking discredited Intelligent Design and 'order,' and 'hardwiring' is unscientific and illogical.
`*


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> And cause does not necessarily have a 'purpose' or 'order' or 'hardwiring.'
> And no one knows the cause of the Universe.. yet.
> *You invoking discredited Intelligent Design and 'order,' and 'hardwiring' is unscientific and illogical.
> `*


You don't believe in cause and effect so it doesn't matter.  Apparently you believe things happen magically.


----------



## ding

Who knew that atheism teaches to not believe in the scientific principle of cause and effect?


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> *Who knew that atheism teaches to not believe in the scientific principle of cause and effect?*


???
*Atheism just allows me to say "I/we don't know/know yet,"
while your religious indoctrination (I-D) force you to jump to conclusions/foist BS about some 'ordered,' 'purposeful' and hardwired universe when it is simply not true and not in evidence.*
`
I'm glad you finally Outed yourself as a hamstrung Religious believer.
Implying god is the cause and I deny it because I'm an atheist!!
Gameover Pilgrim.
`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> ???
> *Atheism just allows me to say "I/we don't know/know yet,"
> while your religious indoctrination (I-D) force you to jump to conclusions/foist BS about some 'ordered,' 'purposeful' and hardwired universe when it is simply not true and not in evidence.*
> `
> I'm glad you finally Outed yourself as a hamstrung Religious believer.
> Implying god is the cause and I deny it because I'm an atheist!!
> Gameover Pilgrim.
> `


You don't know about cause and effect?  It's only the basis of science, dummy.


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> You don't know about cause and effect?  It's only the basis of science, dummy.


???
Atheism just allows me to say "I/we don't know/know yet,"
while your religious indoctrination (I-D) force you to jump to conclusions/foist BS about some 'ordered,' 'purposeful' and hardwired universe when it is simply not true and not in evidence.
`
I'm glad you finally Outed yourself as a hamstrung Religious believer.
Implying god is the cause and I deny it because I'm an atheist!!
Gameover Pilgrim.
`

(Thanks for the Bump!)


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> ???
> Atheism just allows me to say "I/we don't know/know yet,"
> while your religious indoctrination (I-D) force you to jump to conclusions/foist BS about some 'ordered,' 'purposeful' and hardwired universe when it is simply not true and not in evidence.
> `
> I'm glad you finally Outed yourself as a hamstrung Religious believer.
> Implying god is the cause and I deny it because I'm an atheist!!
> Gameover Pilgrim.
> `
> 
> (Thanks for the Bump!)


So atheism is responsible;e for you denying cause and effect?  Because that's exactly what you are doing when you say you don't know yet if every effect had a cause.  

Seems really stupid of you posting in a science forum with a belief like that.


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> You don't know about cause and effect?  It's only the basis of science, dummy.


No, again Moron.
You have like a 12 IQ.
*Just that we don't always know the Cause/know it YET and that's no reason to fabricate a god you IDIOT.

By your 'reasoning' the Fire, Lightening, and Fertility gods (and 10,000) other would have been valid assumptions.
They are not and were not as we know now.
So we wait until we do know the cause.

Stalking many of my threads with one-line gibberish and making an idiot of yourself.*
may have to report this STALKING behavior soon, but you are bumping my threads to the top so I'm reluctant to stop you.

*If you do it again I will WAIT until the thread drifts down the page and then USE it again to Bump it back to the top with an answer.*
`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> No, again Moron.
> You have like a 12 IQ.
> *Just that we don't always know the Cause/know it YET and that's no reason to fabricate a god you IDIOT.
> 
> By your 'reasoning' the Fire, Lightening, and Fertility gods (and 10,000) other would have been valid assumptions.
> They are not and were not as we know now.
> So we wait until we do know the cause.
> 
> Stalking many of my threads with one-line gibberish and making an idiot of yourself.*
> may have to report this STALKING behavior soon, but you are bumping my threads to the top so I'm reluctant to stop you.
> 
> *If you do it again I will WAIT until the thread drifts down the page and then USE it again to Bump it back to the top with an answer.*
> `


You keep repeating yourself but the reality is every effect had a cause.


----------



## ding

ding:  has there ever been an uncaused event.

abu afuk:  we just don't know yet.

ding:  do you believe in the principle of cause and effect.

abu afuk:  it's too soon to tell.

ding: so it's too soon to know if increasing CO2 causes temperatures to rise.

abu afuk:  correct.  we just don't know yet.

ding: thank you very much


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Laughing leads to crying.


Oh no,the shaman is making magical threats, now!

Put down the dead goat. Adjust the bone in your nose. Your magical incantations and curses hold no power here.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oh no,the shaman is making magical threats, now!
> 
> Put down the dead goat. Adjust the bone in your nose. Your magical incantations and curses hold no power here.


Actually it's the basis of the saeculum cycle.  Elevate your game, bro.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Actually it's the basis of the saeculum cycle.  Elevate your game, bro.


Hahahaha


Oooookay, shaman.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hahahaha
> 
> 
> Oooookay, shaman.


It's perfectly logical that laughing leads to crying.  I'm sure if you think about it you will figure it out.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> It's perfectly logical that laughing leads to crying.  I'm sure if you think about it you will figure it out.


I heard you the first time, shaman.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I heard you the first time, shaman.


But you don't understand why.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> But do you don't understand why.


Oh no!


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oh no!


Exactly.  You are apathetic and ignorant about it.


----------



## ding

Iron Sharpens Iron


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Exactly.  You are apathetic and ignorant about it.


Oh no!

Ding, do you think you found something that any 4 year old can't Google, like you did? 

No, shaman.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oh no!
> 
> Ding, do you think you found something that any 4 year old can't Google, like you did?
> 
> No, shaman.


I think you can use google searches until the cows come home and you won't find it.  This is an exercise in human nature and logic.  You don't strike me as a deep thinker.


----------



## abu afak

Dagosa said:


> Exactly. Notice, we get no answer .....otherwise, Christians would have to admit that literally, everyone else is an “ atheist”. The “ though shelt not have any-other god before me” always gets in the way.
> 
> Can’t have other gods competing for donations.


I've been using the term/twin "Which/Witch god" for years.
They, in fact, disagree with at least 75% of the planet.

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”​- Stephen Roberts

`


----------



## Dagosa

abu afak said:


> I've been using the term/twin "Which/Witch god" for years.
> They, in fact, disagree with at least 75% of the planet.
> 
> “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”​- Stephen Roberts
> 
> `


You’re reading my mail .


----------



## abu afak

Dagosa said:


> You’re reading my mail .



If I had any inside abilities, no offense, but that would be way down the list of my priorities.
BTW, I have been using the 'which/witch' god twin for many years.
I could probably trace it back to several other boards.
`


----------



## abu afak

'Creation Science' classically Includes...
'Intelligent Design' and 'Irreducible  ͛c͛o͛m͛p͛l͛e͛x͛i͛t͛y͛.'

(two recent substitute Frauds for Creationism posted here)
`


----------



## abu afak

I've said it for quite some time​YEC IS the biggest Conspiracy theory. It (and James Bond) defy at least 6 branches of science or Lie about/twist them.









						Why creationism bears all the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory
					

An inevitable part of the internet age, some conspiracy theories appear and then fade, but in the US particularly, creationism seems firmly embedded in religion, education and pseudoscience.




					theconversation.com
				



​*Why Creationism bears all the hallmarks of a Conspiracy theory*​February 4, 2021

""Many people around the world looked on aghast as they witnessed the harm done by conspiracy theories such as QAnon and the myth of the stolen US election that led to the attack on the US Capitol Building on January 6. Yet while these ideas will no doubt fade in time, there is arguably a much more enduring conspiracy theory that also pervades America in the form of young Earth creationism. And it’s one that we cannot ignore because it is dangerously opposed to science....

Creationism re-emerged in this form in reaction to the mid-20th century emphasis on science education. Its key text is the long-time best seller, The Genesis Flood, by John C Whitcomb and Henry M Morris. This provided the inspiration for Morris’s own Institute for Creation Research, and for its offshoots, Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International.

Ken Ham, the founder and chief executive of Answers in Genesis, is also responsible for the highly lucrative Ark Encounter theme park and Creation Museum in Kentucky. As a visit to any of these websites will show, their creationism is completely hostile to science, while paradoxically claiming to be scientific.

Demonising and discrediting​These are Common Conspiracy theory tactics at play. *Creationists go to great lengths to Demonise the proponents of evolution, *and to undermine the overwhelming evidence in its favour.
[.....]
[.....]

Why just last night James Bond accused ME and Scientific American of "Bestiality."

`


----------



## surada

The Irish Ram said:


> Lol  allah  lol


Did you know that every language has a word for God.


----------



## Dagosa

surada said:


> Did you know that every language has a word for God.


Probably every  language has a word for fantasy too.


----------



## surada

1.5 million-year-old fossil rewrites 'Out of Africa' theory
					

But some experts want more evidence.




					www.livescience.com


----------



## abu afak

surada said:


> 1.5 million-year-old fossil rewrites 'Out of Africa' theory
> 
> 
> But some experts want more evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.livescience.com


We learn more every day, and it does not point to Adam and Eve, but a web of Hominids and Hominins ******* everything that moved.
Not much behavior change.

`


----------



## abu afak

'Creation Science' classically Includes...
'Intelligent Design' and 'Irreducible ͛c͛o͛m͛p͛l͛e͛x͛i͛t͛y͛.'

(two recent substitute Frauds for Creationism posted here by Seymour Flops)

`


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> The Bible goes up to around 5,000 years as you know.  The believers can describe what happened during that time and how the Earth was.
> 
> It seems like you're making excuses.  What I said was there is no observable nor testable evidence for evolution.  It means that evolution isn't backed up by science and couldn't happen.  It's BS.  Just think if creation science had nothing observable nor testable.  You would say I lost badly and would be lol'd off all the threads that we discussed all this time lol.


Well....
'The Ark' Museum/exhibit' gets about 1 million people/Pilgrims a year.
That 'proves' the flood right?
`


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> *Creation science is the REAL SCIENCE.  Evolution is based on observation of the Earth after the flood and isn't correct.  They assumed the global flood was a religious fairy tale.  The atheist scientists started with the wrong scenario and went way wrong.  Satan could not have done better. * It's like how he fooled Adam and Eve.  Evolution is the fairy tale, but you do not have the metal fortitude and capacity to be able to figure it out.  Evolution has no scientific evidence while science backs up creation.
> 
> Everything I learned about science backs up creation while none of it validates evolution.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Well....
> 'The Ark' Museum/exhibit' gets about 1 million people/Pilgrims a year.
> That 'proves' the flood right?
> `


God's word is the ULTIMATE proof of the global flood.  For physical proof, you, yourself gave us the flood stories found all around the world.  Ancient Babylonians, Native Americans, Australian Aboriginals, Aztecs, Romans, Greeks, Chinese, Mayans, Inuits, and more.  You can't find Darwin's BS stories around the world.  You farked yourself.

For physical, we have 3/4 of the Earth's surface covered by oceans.  Not only that, 3/4 of the land surface is sedimentary or washed away rocks.  Will you fall down on your knees and admit you are SAF and POS now?


----------



## Dagosa

You’re a strange dude. You got everything ass backwards.


----------



## abu afak

`







`


----------



## james bond

Some, like abu afak and his writer, need to die for their ABSOLUTE PROOF they want.  It is written that they will receive EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT.  Unbelievers will be sent immediately to a temporary holding place of torment, and once Jesus returns, then they will be judged and condemned to their final destination of being tossed into the Lake of Fire.

This is the good news.  Other good news is Adam and Even had three sons after Cain killed Abel and had _other sons and daughters_ afterward. Thus, the males and females were able to populate the world. Today, we see that our population doubles every forty years as further evidence. SAF and POS people like abu afak need to die for their evidence as they do not believe and question the Bible even though science backs it up. I suppose one can't help people who have their heads filled with the rocks of evolution.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Some, like abu afak and his writer, need to die for their ABSOLUTE PROOF they want.  It is written that they will receive EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT.  Unbelievers will be sent immediately to a temporary holding place of torment, and once Jesus returns, then they will be judged and condemned to their final destination of being tossed into the Lake of Fire.
> 
> This is the good news.  Other good news is Adam and Even had three sons after Cain killed Abel and had _other sons and daughters_ afterward. Thus, the males and females were able to populate the world. Today, we see that our population doubles every forty years as further evidence. SAF and POS people like abu afak need to die for their evidence as they do not believe and question the Bible even though science backs it up. I suppose one can't help people who have their heads filled with the rocks of evolution.


Your gods have a real "thing" for familial and incestuous relations.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Eve was busy!


----------



## surada

abu afak said:


> *Creation science* or *scientific creationism* is a Pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible.
> 
> It is often presented without overt faith-based language, but instead relies on reinterpreting scientific results to argue that various myths in the Book of Genesis and other select biblical passages are scientifically valid. The most commonly advanced ideas of creation science include special creation based on the Genesis creation narrative and flood geology based on the Genesis flood narrative.[1] Creationists also claim they can disprove or reexplain a variety of scientific facts,[2] theories and paradigms of geology,[3] cosmology, biological evolution,[4][5] archaeology,[6][7] history, and linguistics using creation science.[8] Creation science was foundational to intelligent design.[9]
> 
> In contrast with the views of creation science,* the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science Fails to qualify as scientific because it Lacks empirical support, supplies No testable hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.*[10][11]
> 
> *Courts, *most often in the United States where the question has been asked in the context of teaching the subject in public schools,* have consistently ruled since the 1980s that creation science is a Religious view rather than a scientific one.
> 
> Historians,[12] philosophers of science and skeptics have described creation science as a Pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.* [13][14][15][16][17]
> 
> *Professional biologists have criticized creation science for being unscholarly,[18] and even as a Dishonest and misguided Sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences.*[19]...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Creation science is very comical.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> God's word is the ULTIMATE proof of the global flood.  For physical proof, you, yourself gave us the flood stories found all around the world.  Ancient Babylonians, Native Americans, Australian Aboriginals, Aztecs, Romans, Greeks, Chinese, Mayans, Inuits, and more.  You can't find Darwin's BS stories around the world.  You farked yourself.
> 
> For physical, we have 3/4 of the Earth's surface covered by oceans.  Not only that, 3/4 of the land surface is sedimentary or washed away rocks.  Will you fall down on your knees and admit you are SAF and POS now?


There was no global flood. The story arose in Mesopotamian mythology before Adam and Eve.

Probably based on huge floods that periodically engulfed the Euphrates river basin. There's evidence for that based on flood sediment and the King's list. Most myths and fables teach a lesson in morality. That doesn't make them history.  Christians understood that until about 1916 when protestant ministers gathered in Philadelphia in a massive backlash against science and modernity. Que Schofield promoting Christian Zionism and futurism.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Creation science is very comical.


You didn't get it.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Your gods have a real "thing" for familial and incestuous relations.


You won't get it until the end.  The atheists and ags will get it then.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> You won't get it until the end.  The atheists and ags will get it then.


The hyper-religious sure like making threats on behalf of their gods.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> You didn't get it.


It's a huge step backwards for Christians. It's Protestant backlash against science and modernity from 1916. It's promotion of ignorance in favor of mythos and futurism.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> There was no global flood. The story arose in Mesopotamian mythology before Adam and Eve.
> 
> Probably based on huge floods that periodically engulfed the Euphrates river basin. There's evidence for that based on flood sediment and the King's list. Most myths and fables teach a lesson in morality. That doesn't make them history.  Christians understood that until about 1916 when protestant ministers gathered in Philadelphia in a massive backlash against science and modernity. Que Schofield promoting Christian Zionism and futurism.


I presented the evidence of marine fossils all over our mountains and hills.  How can they end up on top of Mt. Everest?  We also have the wavy sedimentary layers.

Anyway, I am resolved that the atheists, ags and you experience death and *ultimate pain, agony and suffering afterward*. It won't provide me any satisfaction as I know I did my best to present the hard evidence. Your side doesn't have any. But it gives me satisfaction to win my argument today and in the now. I am the winner while you are the losers in regards to science. The other stuff is something I won't ever see, i.e. what happened to my detractors. That's more the religious part.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> I presented the evidence of marine fossils all over our mountains and hills.  How can they end up on top of Mt. Everest?  We also have the wavy sedimentary layers.
> 
> Anyway, I am resolved that the atheists, ags and you experience death and *ultimate pain, agony and suffering afterward*. It won't provide me any satisfaction as I know I did my best to present the hard evidence. Your side doesn't have any. But it gives me satisfaction to win my argument today and in the now. I am the winner while you are the losers in regards to science. The other stuff is something I won't ever see, i.e. what happened to my detractors. That's more the religious part.


Did you learn about plate tectonics in college?


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> It's a huge step backwards for Christians. It's Protestant backlash against science and modernity from 1916. It's promotion of ignorance in favor of mythos and futurism.


I still don't think our argument has to do with religion.  We are arguing science even though it must bring in creation.  After all, it is what happened as to origin of life.

OTOH, with evolution, it's your side that brings in the religion of atheism.  I mean with that comes the fire and brimstone that the creationists have.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Did you learn about plate tectonics in college?


Sure.  With the continental drift theory.  It backs up the global flood and how one or two huge land masses were broken up.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Sure.  With the continental drift theory.  It backs up the global flood and how one or two huge land masses were broken up.


If you're talking about Pangea. That's more than 20 million years ago.


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> the religion of atheism


___Atheism_ is not a belief system nor is it _a religion_.
Can't deal with facts? Go pound sand.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Some, like abu afak and his writer, need to die for their ABSOLUTE PROOF they want.  It is written that they will receive EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT.  Unbelievers will be sent immediately to a temporary holding place of torment, and once Jesus returns, then they will be judged and condemned to their final destination of being tossed into the Lake of Fire.
> 
> This is the good news.  Other good news is Adam and Even had three sons after Cain killed Abel and had _other sons and daughters_ afterward. Thus, the males and females were able to populate the world. Today, we see that our population doubles every forty years as further evidence. SAF and POS people like abu afak need to die for their evidence as they do not believe and question the Bible even though science backs it up. I suppose one can't help people who have their heads filled with the rocks of evolution.


On the Contrary you Lying brainwashed Clown.
I reject the "Proof" false standard in the Evo/Creation debate
Hundreds of times in fact.
Why?
Scientific theories are based on consistent EVIDENCE over time.
Theories are not "Proven" they are affirmed by that evidence and consistent observation over time.

No one can "Prove" there is no god, nor that I'M not god... of course!

But Evolution has overwhelming EVIDENCE, god/s have NONE.

So I not only don't use it, I have Rejected it regularly and pointed this out.

Many of my threads starts have "Evidence" of Evolution in the title line, none have "proof."

`


----------



## surada

Grumblenuts said:


> ___Atheism_ is not a belief system nor is it _a religion_.
> Can't deal with facts? Go pound sand.


 Correct. Atheism is not a religion. Do you suppose any of these Creationists ever took a course in geology?


----------



## Grumblenuts

I recall a popular YouTube geologist who claimed to be religious, but nothing hinting of creationism, no.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> ___Atheism_ is not a belief system nor is it _a religion_.
> Can't deal with facts? Go pound sand.


Your facts are by SATAN.  He's such a trickster who makes you believe lies are facts.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> On the Contrary you Lying brainwashed Clown.
> I reject the "Proof" false standard in the Evo/Creation debate
> Hundreds of times in fact.
> Why?
> Scientific theories are based on consistent EVIDENCE over time.
> Theories are not "Proven" they are affirmed by that evidence and consistent observation over time.
> 
> No one can "Prove" there is no god, nor that I'M not god... of course!
> 
> But Evolution has overwhelming EVIDENCE, god/s have NONE.
> 
> So I not only don't use it, I have Rejected it regularly and pointed this out.
> 
> Many of my threads starts have "Evidence" of Evolution, none have "proof."
> 
> `


SATAN has tricked you the most.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Your facts are by SATAN.  He's such a trickster who makes you believe lies are facts.


Lol what is your evidence for Satan?


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Lol what is your evidence for Satan?


Just hold a match to your hand lol.


----------



## james bond

Who else could it be but SATAN who can make you ignore science backing up the Bible and creation and believe in the LIES of evolution?  It really is EVIL-ution.


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> Your facts are by SATAN.  He's such a trickster who makes you believe lies are facts.


Oh, someone's forcing you to ignore facts? Could it be SATAN? Sadly, no. It's just you. But SATAN is welcome to go pound sand as well, if that makes you feel any better.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> Oh, someone's forcing you to ignore facts? Could it be SATAN? Sadly, no. It's just you. But SATAN is welcome to go pound sand as well, if that makes you feel any better.


I am one of the BEST creationists here in explaining creation science, but even someone semi-professional as me can FORGET about SATAN.  That's what he wants.  He doesn't want people to PROVE HE EXISTS.  Easily, he can influence you and the other amateurs here about the LIES OF EVIL-UTION.  There are NO FACTS.  It has NO EVIDENCE, but more and more people believe it.  Even the Bible predicts EVIL-UTION will take over the majority and then comes the end of the world.  Creationists look forward to it, but they got the rapture.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> I am one of the BEST creationists here in explaining creation science, but even someone semi-professional as me can FORGET about SATAN.  That's what he wants.  He doesn't want people to PROVE HE EXISTS.  Easily, he can influence you and the other amateurs here about the LIES OF EVIL-UTION.  There are NO FACTS.  It has NO EVIDENCE, but more and more people believe it.  Even the Bible predicts EVIL-UTION will take over the majority and then comes the end of the world.  Creationists look forward to it, but they got the rapture.


It was the end of temple Judaism not the end of the world.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> It was the end of temple Judaism not the end of the world.


The end of the world is prolly near.  The first prediction was by Sir Isaac Newton, back in his day, for 2060.  I agree with that, too.  What has to happen is the majority believe in EVIL-UTION!

Most of us won't be alive to see it, but does it really matter for the atheist and ag evolutionists as they're going to all end up in the same place.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> The hyper-religious sure like making threats on behalf of their gods.


Not gods, but one 3-in-1 God or TRINITY.  You're wrong about me being hyper-religious.  I am more science-minded in this forum as science backs me up, but NEVER you and your kind.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I am one of the BEST creationists here in explaining creation science, but even someone semi-professional as me can FORGET about SATAN.  That's what he wants.  He doesn't want people to PROVE HE EXISTS.  Easily, he can influence you and the other amateurs here about the LIES OF EVIL-UTION.  There are NO FACTS.  It has NO EVIDENCE, but more and more people believe it.  Even the Bible predicts EVIL-UTION will take over the majority and then comes the end of the world.  Creationists look forward to it, but they got the rapture.


Actually, you represent the very worst example of hyper-religious extremism and the maladjusted personality that results.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Other than that, how's it hangin', Jimbo?


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> It was the end of temple Judaism not the end of the world.


The global flood was the end of world 1 except for those on Noah's ark.  The global fire will be the end of world 2 and that will be all there is to Earth and human life.

Can anyone escape the fire in the sky?  No one is supposed to survive according to the Bible.  Those in satellites can not be far enough away and living on the moon or Mars will not do it either.  There won't be anyplace in the universe one can escape.

IT WOULD BE A GLORIOUS SIGHT FOR THE BELIEVERS!!!


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> The global flood was the end of world 1 except for those on Noah's ark.  The global fire will be the end of world 2 and that will be all there is to Earth and human life.
> 
> Can anyone escape the fire in the sky?  No one is supposed to survive according to the Bible.  Those in satellites can not be far enough away and living on the moon or Mars will not do it either.  There won't be anyplace in the universe one can escape.
> 
> IT WOULD BE A GLORIOUS SIGHT FOR THE BELIEVERS!!!



Get help.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> The global flood was the end of world 1 except for those on Noah's ark.  The global fire will be the end of world 2 and that will be all there is to Earth and human life.
> 
> Can anyone escape the fire in the sky?  No one is supposed to survive according to the Bible.  Those in satellites can not be far enough away and living on the moon or Mars will not do it either.  There won't be anyplace in the universe one can escape.
> 
> IT WOULD BE A GLORIOUS SIGHT FOR THE BELIEVERS!!!


You should read the Bible and stay away from the reactionaries.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Get help.


It would be glorious for the believers because of the rapture.  The non-believers won't have it as good just like with the global flood.  Thus, you'll need help.



surada said:


> You should read the Bible and stay away from the reactionaries.


Here's what the Bible or what God states:

"The rapture of the church is the event in which God “snatches away” all believers from the earth in order to make way for His righteous judgment to be poured out on the earth during the tribulation period. The rapture is described primarily in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18 and 1 Corinthians 15:50–54. God will resurrect all believers who have died, give them glorified bodies, and take them from the earth, along with all living believers, who will also be given glorified bodies at that time. “For the Lord Himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever” (1 Thessalonians 4:16–17)."

Of course, you'll have to fend for yourself with the other EVIL-utionists.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> Other than that, how's it hangin', Jimbo?


A lil to the right.  How's it hangin' for you?


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> It would be glorious for the believers because of the rapture.  The non-believers won't have it as good just like with the global flood.  Thus, you'll need help.
> 
> 
> Here's what the Bible or what God states:
> 
> "The rapture of the church is the event in which God “snatches away” all believers from the earth in order to make way for His righteous judgment to be poured out on the earth during the tribulation period. The rapture is described primarily in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18 and 1 Corinthians 15:50–54. God will resurrect all believers who have died, give them glorified bodies, and take them from the earth, along with all living believers, who will also be given glorified bodies at that time. “For the Lord Himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever” (1 Thessalonians 4:16–17)."
> 
> Of course, you'll have to fend for yourself with the other EVIL-utionists.


There is no rapture. That's false doctrine.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> It would be glorious for the believers because of the rapture.  The non-believers won't have it as good just like with the global flood.  Thus, you'll need help.
> 
> 
> Here's what the Bible or what God states:
> 
> "The rapture of the church is the event in which God “snatches away” all believers from the earth in order to make way for His righteous judgment to be poured out on the earth during the tribulation period. The rapture is described primarily in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18 and 1 Corinthians 15:50–54. God will resurrect all believers who have died, give them glorified bodies, and take them from the earth, along with all living believers, who will also be given glorified bodies at that time. “For the Lord Himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever” (1 Thessalonians 4:16–17)."
> 
> Of course, you'll have to fend for yourself with the other EVIL-utionists.


I suppose living in fear is something you can't help. Hating yourself and hating others is a miserable existence.

Save the Bible thumping for your Sunday madrassah hate-fest.


----------



## surada

Hollie said:


> I suppose living in fear is something you can't help. Hating yourself and hating others is a miserable existence.
> 
> Save the Bible thumping for your Sunday madrassah hate-fest.


There's no rapture. They should study the scripture in context.


----------



## Grumblenuts

What glorious tech has ever been developed "because of the rapture"?
What does "creation science" actually create?


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> There is no rapture. That's false doctrine.


This is why you are a loser.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> This is why you are a loser.


The rapture was invented in 1800.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> The rapture was invented in 1800.


Maybe the word "rapture" was invented, but all Christians know what's it about.  The word "rapture" is not in Scripture, but the Bible states it as the event in which God “snatches away” all believers from the earth in order to make way for His righteous judgment to be poured out on the earth during the tribulation period.  It is described as,

"The Coming of the Lord

13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. 15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord,4 that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words." 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18

What are you going to do when the rapture doesn't happen for you and the non-believers?  What can you do, but "Burn, Baby, Burn."


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Maybe the word "rapture" was invented.  The word "rapture" is not in Scripture, but the Bible states it as the event in which God “snatches away” all believers from the earth in order to make way for His righteous judgment to be poured out on the earth during the tribulation period.  It is described as,
> 
> "The Coming of the Lord
> 
> 13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. 15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord,4 that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words." 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
> 
> What are you going to do when the rapture doesn't happen for you and the non-believers?


What are you going to do when the gods decide the hate and derision you promote is not a part of their godly office policy?


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Maybe the word "rapture" was invented, but all Christians know what's it about.  The word "rapture" is not in Scripture, but the Bible states it as the event in which God “snatches away” all believers from the earth in order to make way for His righteous judgment to be poured out on the earth during the tribulation period.  It is described as,
> 
> "The Coming of the Lord
> 
> 13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. 15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord,4 that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words." 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
> 
> What are you going to do when the rapture doesn't happen for you and the non-believers?  What can you do, but "Burn, Baby, Burn."


This was to comfort the people who were waiting for Christ to return. They were concerned about friends who had died before Christ's return... and afraid they would miss out.


----------



## Grumblenuts

_No, no. Come back! I swear there's been a huge misunderstanding. I literally fell asleep is all! _


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> This was to comfort the people who were waiting for Christ to return. They were concerned about friends who had died before Christ's return... and afraid they would miss out.


I can see how some people would interpret it like that, but that's not what the Bible states.  It has come be known popularly as the rapture, but the Bible states it as below.


"The rapture of the church is the event in which God “snatches away” all believers from the earth in order to make way for His righteous judgment to be poured out on the earth during the tribulation period. The rapture is described primarily in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18 and 1 Corinthians 15:50–54. God will resurrect all believers who have died, give them glorified bodies, and take them from the earth, along with all living believers, who will also be given glorified bodies at that time. “For the Lord Himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever” (1 Thessalonians 4:16–17)."









						What is the rapture of the church? | GotQuestions.org
					

What is the rapture of the church? Is the rapture biblical? What occurs at the rapture? Does the Bible even teach the concept of the rapture?



					www.gotquestions.org
				




I hope that the believers trust my YEC websites and if they have any questions, then post them here or contact me.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I can see how some people would interpret it like that, but that's not what the Bible states.  It has come be known popularly as the rapture, but the Bible states it as below.
> 
> 
> "The rapture of the church is the event in which God “snatches away” all believers from the earth in order to make way for His righteous judgment to be poured out on the earth during the tribulation period. The rapture is described primarily in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18 and 1 Corinthians 15:50–54. God will resurrect all believers who have died, give them glorified bodies, and take them from the earth, along with all living believers, who will also be given glorified bodies at that time. “For the Lord Himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever” (1 Thessalonians 4:16–17)."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the rapture of the church? | GotQuestions.org
> 
> 
> What is the rapture of the church? Is the rapture biblical? What occurs at the rapture? Does the Bible even teach the concept of the rapture?
> 
> 
> 
> www.gotquestions.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that the believers trust my YEC websites and if they have any questions, then post them here or contact me.



"... will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.''

Is this where we meet the fat, naked babies playing harps?



There Will Be No Rapture, But If There Was You Wouldn't Want To Be Taken Up​




__





						There Will Be No Rapture, But If There Was You Wouldn't Want To Be Taken Up — St. Mary's Catholic Center
					

The rapture is a 19th Century invention of a Scottish visionary who misinterpreted several verses from the Bible, esp 1 Thes 4:17, which is the most quoted verse by rapture supporters. This is the verse where the word "rapture" comes from. It reads:    "Then we who are alive, who are




					www.aggiecatholic.org
				







The rapture is a 19th Century invention of a Scottish visionary who misinterpreted several verses from the Bible, esp 1 Thes 4:17, which is the most quoted verse by rapture supporters. This is the verse where the word "rapture" comes from. It reads:


> _"Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together* with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord."_


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> I can see how some people would interpret it like that, but that's not what the Bible states.  It has come be known popularly as the rapture, but the Bible states it as below.
> 
> 
> "The rapture of the church is the event in which God “snatches away” all believers from the earth in order to make way for His righteous judgment to be poured out on the earth during the tribulation period. The rapture is described primarily in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18 and 1 Corinthians 15:50–54. God will resurrect all believers who have died, give them glorified bodies, and take them from the earth, along with all living believers, who will also be given glorified bodies at that time. “For the Lord Himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever” (1 Thessalonians 4:16–17)."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the rapture of the church? | GotQuestions.org
> 
> 
> What is the rapture of the church? Is the rapture biblical? What occurs at the rapture? Does the Bible even teach the concept of the rapture?
> 
> 
> 
> www.gotquestions.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that the believers trust my YEC websites and if they have any questions, then post them here or contact me.


Got questions is very shallow and makes their.money on the Scofield heresy.


----------



## Grumblenuts

_JEREMY__: Uh, shall we take our cars?

FIONA: Do we need them?

GEOFFREY: Why not?

ANGELA: Yes. Why not?_


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> What glorious tech has ever been developed "because of the rapture"?
> What does "creation science" actually create?


It doesn't create, but creation science leads to true science, i.e. science that backs up the Bible.  Do you even get who creates?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> What are you going to do when the gods decide the hate and derision you promote is not a part of their godly office policy?


It's hate of sin and avoidance of the devil.  Usually, I don't mention him but he's the one behind it all.  It really is something to witness his power when his main power is his love of wanting to hide.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> It's hate of sin and avoidance of the devil.  Usually, I don't mention him but he's the one behind it all.  It really is something to witness his power when his main power is his love of wanting to hide.


He's sneaking up behind you.


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> It doesn't create, but creation science leads to true science, i.e. science that backs up the Bible.  Do you even get who creates?


Yes, I call her Mother Nature. You really don't want to mess with her!


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> Yes, I call her Mother Nature. You really don't want to mess with her!


Sheesh.  That isn't Biblical nor does science back her up.  It was fiction invented by the Greeks.

Today, it's tied into the 60s hippie movement.  If the hat fits, then wear it .


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> He's sneaking up behind you.


The way I look at it Jesus isn't coming again to die for us.  He was humble and took it last time as prophecized.  This time he's gonna kick major arse and signal the end of the world, so what's the diff if a few unbelievers get it early?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> The way I look at it Jesus isn't coming again to die for us.  He was humble and took it last time as prophecized.  This time he's gonna kick major arse and signal the end of the world, so what's the diff if a few unbelievers get it early?


Sociopathy disguised as religious extremism.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Sociopathy disguised as religious extremism.


That's medical science, but knew you had something in regards to science in there .


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> That's medical science, but knew you had something in regards to science in there .


Yes. Among the most deranged sociopaths are those who use religion to further their illness.


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> Sheesh.  That isn't Biblical nor does science back her up.  It was fiction invented by the Greeks.
> 
> Today, it's tied into the 60s hippie movement.  If the hat fits, then wear it .


Sheesh. It's just a sexier way of saying "nature." How about The Aether? You about to sit still and listen to me proselytize on that year after year? No, you are not. And I don't blame you. Nonetheless, you all should anyway 

See how I frightened you into submission there? That was deliberate!


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> Sheesh. It's just a sexier way of saying "nature." How about The Aether? You about to sit still and listen to me proselytize on that year after year? No, you are not. And I don't blame you. Nonetheless, you all should anyway
> 
> See how I frightened you into submission there? That was deliberate!


I knew you were a hippie.  Maybe still is hmm...?


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> On the Contrary you Lying brainwashed Clown.
> I reject the "Proof" false standard in the Evo/Creation debate
> Hundreds of times in fact.
> Why?
> Scientific theories are based on consistent EVIDENCE over time.
> Theories are not "Proven" they are affirmed by that evidence and consistent observation over time.
> 
> No one can "Prove" there is no god, nor that I'M not god... of course!
> 
> But Evolution has overwhelming EVIDENCE, god/s have NONE.
> 
> So I not only don't use it, I have Rejected it regularly and pointed this out.
> 
> Many of my threads starts have "Evidence" of Evolution in the title line, none have "proof."
> 
> `


If you want science from creation science, we see throughout our history that sexual intercourse and natural selection based on creation (not mutation and millions of years) has created families of animals to keep up their survival.  Evolution doesn't even have an explanation for sex, history, natural selection based on mutation and millions of years and more.  You have run away from difficult science questions all of your life because you are an intellectual coward.  It would be awesome to see you "disappear" from here one day.  The members will hear and see the BIGGEST LOL IN THE HISTORY OF USMB!  I pray that I'll outlive you.


----------



## james bond

Shall I say it?  I have defeated abu afak once again.  The score must be a million to zero now -- I AM UNDEFEATED.

Anyway, it means follow creation science instead of evolution, i.e. follow winners instead of losers.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Yes. Among the most deranged sociopaths are those who use religion to further their illness.


And with that, you go off the rails once more.  This is S&T.  Maybe you should try the atheist RELIGION, but I just posted something there to make Grumblenuts and you, the 60s/70s, go off your rockers.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> And with that, you go off the rails once more.  This is S&T.  Maybe you should try the atheist RELIGION, but I just posted something there to make Grumblenuts and you, the 60s/70s, go off your rockers.


No. You continue to be pompous and sociopathic.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> No. You continue to be pompous and sociopathic.


You mean my premonition?  That has nothing to do with wrath of God or religion.  It could just be a coincidence that Wuwei disappeared after trolling God.  However, the feeling came back for June, _the red month_. (I don't even have any idea where I pick out June nor call it a red month now.) It could apply to one of two who seemed to have trolled you know who. I don't think it has to do with being pompous or a sociopath. It's just a feeling.


----------



## james bond

There's more.  Maybe the premonition has changed me to being more surly (?).  I should just rest from USMB for a bit . Until June.

June doom.  Divide the red month into thirds.  Look for it in the first third.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> The way I look at it Jesus isn't coming again to die for us.  He was humble and took it last time as prophecized.  This time he's gonna kick major arse and signal the end of the world, so what's the diff if a few unbelievers get it early?


Jesus predicted disaster for Jerusalem and the temple. The end of the world as they knew it.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Shall I say it?  I have defeated abu afak once again.  The score must be a million to zero now -- I AM UNDEFEATED.
> 
> Anyway, it means follow creation science instead of evolution, i.e. follow winners instead of losers.


Abu afak is light years ahead of you.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Abu afak is light years ahead of you.


As usual, he was wrong and ran away.  Copy and paste from the std evo websites.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Jesus predicted disaster for Jerusalem and the temple. The end of the world as they knew it.


I agree as science backs up the Bible.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> No. You continue to be pompous and *sociopathic*.


It's just _my_ premonition based on intuition.  I don't get to pick who it is, but do know who it is.

I'll tell you what.  If I am right a second time with one of the two choices, then I'll stop posting here.  We'll know during one of the first ten days of June.  Obviously, I don't want to be right about another.  If I'm wrong, then the first was just a coicidence and I'll continue posting like others here.  Does that sound fair?


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> I agree as science backs up the Bible.


What does that have to do with science? The Roman garrisons and foreign armies under Titus destroyed Jerusalem during the grape harvest.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> What does that have to do with science? The Roman garrisons and foreign armies under Titus destroyed Jerusalem during the grape harvest.


Due to your insulting comment, I should _retract_ my offer.  This is why I am here.  To show how science backs up the Bible, but my opponents do not get it.  Your response demonstrates that I should remain and continue demonstrating creation science.  This is my lot in life on USMB.

If one of the atheists dies fulfilling my premonition, learns the hard way as my sign below, then I'll just have to go woo hoo I was right and carry on . I'll count it as five points instead of the usual one.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> It's just _my_ premonition based on intuition.  I don't get to pick who it is, but do know who it is.
> 
> I'll tell you what.  If I am right a second time with one of the two choices, then I'll stop posting here.  We'll know during one of the first ten days of June.  Obviously, I don't want to be right about another.  If I'm wrong, then the first was just a coicidence and I'll continue posting like others here.  Does that sound fair?


It appears you're getting more deranged.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Due to your insulting comment, I should _retract_ my offer.  This is why I am here.  To show how science backs up the Bible, but my opponents do not get it.  Your response demonstrates that I should remain and continue demonstrating creation science.  This is my lot in life on USMB.
> 
> If one of the atheists dies fulfilling my premonition, learns the hard way as my sign below, then I'll just have to go woo hoo I was right and carry on . I'll count it as five points instead of the usual one.
> 
> View attachment 637415


^^^^ Jim Jones wannabe.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> ^^^^ Jim Jones wannabe.


C'mon, that's a low blow even for you.  JJ killed his followers in mass suicide.

Evolutionists get taken away by the other guy after their deaths.  That's a fact (and not a premonition).


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

james bond said:


> Evolutionists get taken away by the other guy after their deaths.  That's a fact (and not a premonition).



Have you seen this happen?


----------



## james bond

PV System said:


> Have you seen this happen?


Yes, just look at yourself in the mirror.  You have been DECEIVED and marked already.  Satan has taken countless billions despite the warnings of believers with war, famine, strife, viruses and worse.  What you want isn't possible as Satan remains in the spiritual world, but he has great influence over ours.

The ultimate will be the fire in the sky matching the global flood.  Humans will be able to see all of this.  All of human life will be wiped out in a LOUD ROAR, THUNDEROUS CRASH, AND BOOMING NOISE and there will be no more life in the universe.

Here's a sample -- Putin lights up the sky testing nuclear-capable Yars missiles

The creationists know Satan influences the non-believers on Earth and nowhere else.  Their scientists know there is no life anywhere else.  Not even a microbe.  As I said, Satan loves to hide and so the non-believers will eventually outnumber the believers and then Jesus will return, set the sky on fire and all the non-believers will die.  You may live to be able to see this happen, best swag is 2060, but it will be short lived.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> It appears you're getting more deranged.


Deranged?  Look at the posters on your side.  They actually believe a LIE is science and think they have evidence when there isn't any.  That's deranged. 

I would describe myself as getting more REALISTIC.  The science is SUPPORTING ME MORE AND MORE, but yet it's been prophecized that YOUR SIDE WOULD GET THE MAJORITY IN ABOUT another 40 years.  And then it's ALL OVER -- THE END OF THE WORLD.  GOD COULD NOT LET THIS CHARADE GO ON AND FINALLY ENDS IT LIKE HE DID ONCE ALREADY WITH A GLOBAL FLOOD!  A famous scientist whom we all know predicted this.


----------



## james bond

The OP escapes.  He isn't even on the radar.  I guess he lives a full life.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Deranged?  Look at the posters on your side.  They actually believe a LIE is science and think they have evidence when there isn't any.  That's deranged.
> 
> I would describe myself as getting more REALISTIC.  The science is SUPPORTING ME MORE AND MORE, but yet it's been prophecized that YOUR SIDE WOULD GET THE MAJORITY IN ABOUT another 40 years.  And then it's ALL OVER -- THE END OF THE WORLD.  GOD COULD NOT LET THIS CHARADE GO ON AND FINALLY ENDS IT LIKE HE DID ONCE ALREADY WITH A GLOBAL FLOOD!  A famous scientist whom we all know predicted this.


Did you fall off the edge of your flat earth and bump your head?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Did you fall off the edge of your flat earth and bump your head?


Stone cold.  Like abu afak, you're not even on the radar as someone to disappear in June.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Deranged?  Look at the posters on your side.  They actually believe a LIE is science and think they have evidence when there isn't any.  That's deranged.
> 
> I would describe myself as getting more REALISTIC.  The science is SUPPORTING ME MORE AND MORE, but yet it's been prophecized that YOUR SIDE WOULD GET THE MAJORITY IN ABOUT another 40 years.  And then it's ALL OVER -- THE END OF THE WORLD.  GOD COULD NOT LET THIS CHARADE GO ON AND FINALLY ENDS IT LIKE HE DID ONCE ALREADY WITH A GLOBAL FLOOD!  A famous scientist whom we all know predicted this.


Deranged is being kind to you.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Stone cold.  Like abu afak, you're not even on the radar as someone to disappear in June.


Your Jim Jones complex is really creepy.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Deranged is being kind to you.


There are consequences of being an atheist (you know who wanted to me to warn you).  There are truth and consequences.

I'll keep my premos to myself, but it still won't stop them if I'm right.  Of course, I could be wrong.


----------



## james bond

BTW, I received my own warning.  I'm not supposed to say ANTD anymore.

It's like the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and people are entitled to believe what they want with their free will.

Wow.  It's EXACTLY like it again.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Deranged?  Look at the posters on your side.  They actually believe a LIE is science and think they have evidence when there isn't any.  That's deranged.
> 
> I would describe myself as getting more REALISTIC.  The science is SUPPORTING ME MORE AND MORE, but yet it's been prophecized that YOUR SIDE WOULD GET THE MAJORITY IN ABOUT another 40 years.  And then it's ALL OVER -- THE END OF THE WORLD.  GOD COULD NOT LET THIS CHARADE GO ON AND FINALLY ENDS IT LIKE HE DID ONCE ALREADY WITH A GLOBAL FLOOD!  A famous scientist whom we all know predicted this.


You share many attributes with Jim Jones.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> You share many attributes with Jim Jones.


And what attributes were those, Ms. Flat Earth poster girl?

It seems your Flat Earth followers voted you in.  Do you know that guy in the middle?  I don't think it's photoshop lol.





Didn't JJ and his followers commit mass suicide?  What year was that?  Heh.  You're giving your age away.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> And what attributes were those, Ms. Flat Earth poster girl?
> 
> It seems your Flat Earth followers voted you in.  Do you know that guy in the middle?  I don't think it's photoshop lol.
> 
> View attachment 638731
> 
> Didn't JJ and his followers commit mass suicide?  What year was that?  Heh.  You're giving your age away.


Another of your unhinged tirades.


----------



## Tinhatter

abu afak said:


> *Creation science* or *scientific creationism* is a Pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible.
> 
> It is often presented without overt faith-based language, but instead relies on reinterpreting scientific results to argue that various myths in the Book of Genesis and other select biblical passages are scientifically valid. The most commonly advanced ideas of creation science include special creation based on the Genesis creation narrative and flood geology based on the Genesis flood narrative.[1] Creationists also claim they can disprove or reexplain a variety of scientific facts,[2] theories and paradigms of geology,[3] cosmology, biological evolution,[4][5] archaeology,[6][7] history, and linguistics using creation science.[8] Creation science was foundational to intelligent design.[9]
> 
> In contrast with the views of creation science,* the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science Fails to qualify as scientific because it Lacks empirical support, supplies No testable hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.*[10][11]
> 
> *Courts, *most often in the United States where the question has been asked in the context of teaching the subject in public schools,* have consistently ruled since the 1980s that creation science is a Religious view rather than a scientific one.
> 
> Historians,[12] philosophers of science and skeptics have described creation science as a Pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.* [13][14][15][16][17]
> 
> *Professional biologists have criticized creation science for being unscholarly,[18] and even as a Dishonest and misguided Sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences.*[19]...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Creation 'science' is the xtian attempt to infiltrate real Science, and subvert it to the benefit of its 'true believers'. 'The Science' is leftists attempt to infiltrate real Science, and subvert it to the benefit of its 'true believers'.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Tinhatter said:


> Creation 'science' is the xtian attempt to infiltrate real Science, and subvert it to the benefit of its 'true believers'. 'The Science' is leftists attempt to infiltrate real Science, and subvert it to the benefit of its 'true believers'.


Well that's utter horseshit.


----------



## Tinhatter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well that's utter horseshit.



Such a well reasoned response from one of the xtian or leftist intelligentsia is quite surprising, and will most certainly be cause to rethink my opinion!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Tinhatter said:


> Such a well reasoned response from one of the xtian or leftist intelligentsia is quite surprising, and will most certainly be cause to rethink my opinion!


Ha, well, not my intention anyway.

But we are in agreement in general on the science. It can't really be infiltrated, though.


----------



## Grumblenuts

_I said, watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical
Liberal, oh fanatical, criminal
Won't you sign up your name, we'd like to feel you're acceptable
Respectable, oh presentable, a vegetable
Oh, take it take it yeah_


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> I am one of the BEST creationists here in explaining creation science, but even someone semi-professional as me can FORGET about SATAN.  That's what he wants.  He doesn't want people to PROVE HE EXISTS.  Easily, he can influence you and the other amateurs here about the LIES OF EVIL-UTION.  There are NO FACTS.  It has NO EVIDENCE, but more and more people believe it.  Even the Bible predicts EVIL-UTION will take over the majority and then comes the end of the world.  Creationists look forward to it, but they got the rapture.


You should consider a non-fiction topic instead of no-evidence kweationism.

`


----------



## Dagosa

abu afak said:


> You should consider a non-fiction topic instead of no-evidence kweationism.
> 
> `


That’s like saying you’re the brightest person in a room full of morons.


----------



## surada

Tinhatter said:


> Creation 'science' is the xtian attempt to infiltrate real Science, and subvert it to the benefit of its 'true believers'. 'The Science' is leftists attempt to infiltrate real Science, and subvert it to the benefit of its 'true believers'.



Leftists are creationists????


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> You should consider a non-fiction topic instead of no-evidence kweationism.
> 
> `


We still have C-14 remaining in our earth rocks, so radiocarbon dating tells us we have a young Earth.  Your scientists just made up stuff to fit evolutionary long time.  

Intelligent design tells us that we were created.  Randomness cannot create our wonderful brains.

Evolution is the one with no science.  You are SAF.


----------



## james bond

abu afak will be suffering in hell forever as one who does not believe.  I won't know what happens to him there, but he'll see me clearly in heaven.

Anyway, the proof is with having faith first.  Then the truth reveals itself.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> abu afak will be suffering in hell forever as one who does not believe.  I won't know what happens to him there, but he'll see me clearly in heaven.
> 
> Anyway, the proof is with having faith first.  Then the truth reveals itself.


^^^^^ Jimmy Swaggert wannabe.


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> Anyway, the proof is with having faith first. Then the truth reveals itself.


Self-Delusion:
Swallowing fantasy first..
Habitually planting ones cart firmly before their logic horse..
Naturally results in..
The twoof going poof!


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> Self-Delusion:
> Swallowing fantasy first..
> Habitually planting ones cart firmly before their logic horse..
> Naturally results in..
> The twoof going poof!


On the contrary, it is I who has science backing him up.  You're the one with the twoof going poof lol!

How loud can you scream in pain?  Answer:  It doesn't matter as I won't be able to hear you.  But you'll be able to see me.


----------



## Old Rocks

Hang on Sloopy said:


> No opinion either way.
> 
> But how did this all start, the universe. Don't give me big bang or anything.how did this start


Very simple answer, We do not yet know. But we do know that some old white guy with a beard did not simply wave it all into existence.


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> On the contrary, it is I who has science backing him up.  You're the one with the twoof going poof lol!
> 
> How loud can you scream in pain?  Answer:  It doesn't matter as I won't be able to hear you.  But you'll be able to see me.


tl;dr


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> tl;dr


Too SAF and worthless.  No need to go further .

I even got evidence of humans living with dinosaurs.


----------



## james bond

They knew the truth in the 1960s .


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> They knew the truth in the 1960s .


You're just drawn to the soft core porn of women in those skimpy outfits, right?


----------



## surada

Hollie said:


> ^^^^^ Jimmy Swaggert wannabe.



Lol exactly! 🤣😂🤣😆😂🤣


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Lol exactly! 🤣😂🤣😆😂🤣


Jimmy Swaggert usually has little to do with creation science as the latter deals with how God's creatures including humans populated the Earth over two days.  It gives us our origins as science backs it up.  It's people like you who believe in "scientific" fantasies.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Jimmy Swaggert usually has little to do with creation science as the latter deals with how God's creatures including humans populated the Earth over two days.  It gives us our origins as science backs it up.  It's people like you who believe in "scientific" fantasies.



Creation science is not science, it's religion for bronze age people.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Jimmy Swaggert usually has little to do with creation science as the latter deals with how God's creatures including humans populated the Earth over two days.  It gives us our origins as science backs it up.  It's people like you who believe in "scientific" fantasies.



Swaggert embraced the GAP theory.





__





						History Topic: The Meaning of Genesis 1
					

History Topic: The Meaning of Genesis 1



					counterbalance.org


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Swaggert embraced the GAP theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History Topic: The Meaning of Genesis 1
> 
> 
> History Topic: The Meaning of Genesis 1
> 
> 
> 
> counterbalance.org


The gap theory is just like evolution as it was made in order to fit the science.  Only creation as explained in the Bible and its timeline fits the science.  For example, we have rocks with C-14 remaining that shows a young Earth.  You believe with the majority of people, especially atheists, in long time.  Swaggart has been tricked to go away from creation science, but not his religion.  Evolution is supposed to be science today, but it's a trick from Satan.  Thus, we have more atheists and people turning away from Christianity and the Bible.  This is what is prophecized in the Bible and eventually the majority will believe in evolution and then will come the end of the world.  Present history is all playing out to what it is said in the Bible.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> The gap theory is just like evolution as it was made in order to fit the science.  Only creation as explained in the Bible and its timeline fits the science.  For example, we have rocks with C-14 remaining that shows a young Earth.  You believe with the majority of people, especially atheists, in long time.  Swaggart has been tricked to go away from creation science, but not his religion.  Evolution is supposed to be science today, but it's a trick from Satan.  Thus, we have more atheists and people turning away from Christianity and the Bible.  This is what is prophecized in the Bible and eventually the majority will believe in evolution and then will come the end of the world.  Present history is all playing out to what it is said in the Bible.



''... Thus, we have more atheists and people turning away from Christianity and the Bible.''


The result of angry, hyper-religious antagonists.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> ''... Thus, we have more atheists and people turning away from Christianity and the Bible.''
> 
> 
> The result of angry, hyper-religious antagonists.


Man, you sound like an angry beotch lol.

All I did was tell the truth.  If you don't believe it, then you should have something to contradict it.  Instead, what was written about 1500 years ago is what is becoming true.  It was prophecized that your side would win and we have the end of the world after that.

Be prepared for your suffering.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Man, you sound like an angry beotch lol.
> 
> All I did was tell the truth.  If you don't believe it, then you should have something to contradict it.  Instead, what was written about 1500 years ago is what is becoming true.  It was prophecized that your side would win and we have the end of the world after that.
> 
> Be prepared for your suffering.


What ''twoofs'' did you tell? You make empty threats about people going to hell to assuage the fear and self-loathing you possess.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> What ''twoofs'' did you tell? You make empty threats about people going to hell to assuage the fear and self-loathing you possess.


I've given you much more than you deserve since you do not understand science.  You are wacko like a Lizzie Borden an axe in her hands.


----------

