# 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense



## abu afak

*15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American








						15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
					

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up




					www.scientificamerican.com
				



[.....]

*1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

*In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..." *

`

.


`.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Creationism has never made sense, some of their explanations are wildly tortured and well.... stupid!

Evolution is a far more stable and reasonable science, they have improved a lot in recent decades in how they explain their fossil and other evidence to create a basic picture of what it is.


----------



## abu afak

Jesus.
Your signature is ******* (USMB's fault) IDIOTIC.
They shouldn't allow Long BILLBOARD sigs that are bigger than 80% of the posts and in which you can't find the posters one and two sentence, replies. Where's the post?

But yes, the #1 Fallacy of Creationist Morons is NOT knowing the difference between the routine use of 'theory,' and the definition of Scientific Theory.

`


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

abu afak said:


> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
> Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> 
> Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [.....]
> 
> *1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
> So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> *In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..." *
> 
> `
> 
> .
> 
> 
> `.


I will never understand why atheists try to disprove religions with scientific arguments.

Creationism is unfalsifiable.  The people who declare themselves the champions of science ought to understand from the get-go that this puts the concept beyond the capacity of science to prove or disprove, so why bother?

When you say, "That magic wand isn't real!  It doesn't even have any batteries in it!" your initial point may be correct, but your reasoning is irrelevant to that point.


----------



## theHawk

abu afak said:


> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
> Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> 
> Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [.....]
> 
> *1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
> So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> *In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..." *
> 
> `
> 
> .
> 
> 
> `.


I don’t get it, are you denying the universe was created?  Even quantum physicists believe in a creation theory, the Big Bang Theory.  Although they have to twist the rules of science and make up some fairy tales with no scientific backing to make the theory work, like “inflation” and “dark matter”.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Not2BSubjugated said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
> Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> 
> Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [.....]
> 
> *1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
> So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> *In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..." *
> 
> `
> 
> .
> 
> 
> `.
> 
> 
> 
> I will never understand why atheists try to disprove religions with scientific arguments.
> 
> Creationism is unfalsifiable.  The people who declare themselves the champions of science ought to understand from the get-go that this puts the concept beyond the capacity of science to prove or disprove, so why bother?
> 
> When you say, "That magic wand isn't real!  It doesn't even have any batteries in it!" your initial point may be correct, but your reasoning is irrelevant to that point.
Click to expand...


Ha ha ha, you don't realize that creationists have for a while tried to have their unprovable belief be taught in the public schools. They LOST, yet still try anyway, despite that it isn't science, it is religion.

*30 years after Edwards v. Aguillard: Why creationism lingers in public schools* 
John E. Taylor
Professor of Law, West Virginia University

June 23, 2017

Excerpt:

This month marks the 30th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, a groundbreaking case that ruled it unconstitutional to require creationism to be taught in public schools.

Though much has changed in 30 years, the broad questions raised by this case remain timely. Who gets to decide what knowledge will be transmitted to the next generation – parents? Elected officials? Academic experts? What role (if any) should the courts play in policing such decisions?

As a scholar of education law and First Amendment law, I’ve seen these very questions animate curricular controversies over climate change, American history, and more.

While recent debates seem to share a common structure with controversies about the teaching of evolution, there’s a key difference: Edwards v. Aguillard stands not for the broad idea that it’s unconstitutional for public schools to teach “bad science,” but for the narrower idea that it’s unconstitutional for them to teach religion as truth.

LINK


----------



## justinacolmena

Sunsettommy said:


> Creationism has never made sense, some of their explanations are wildly tortured and well.... stupid!


There is a spiritual component to life, which is not explained by science or by trials of scientific experimentation.

The Bible says humans inhabited the lush rain forest of the Garden of Eden, that they were naked and not ashamed of it, and that they ate the fruit of certain species of trees, and that they wore undergarments of fig leaves and overcoats of animal skin or fur after they realized they were naked.

_3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.__ For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit._

This does not differ much from Darwin's theories of evolution of great apes who lost their fur and began to wear clothes.

The Bible gets the truth, and the big picture of it right. The theories of evolution are just that: the explanations are too detailed and too precise for the given knowledge, and they get small details wrong in places that really matter.


----------



## Sunsettommy

justinacolmena said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism has never made sense, some of their explanations are wildly tortured and well.... stupid!
> 
> 
> 
> There is a spiritual component to life, which is not explained by science or by trials of scientific experimentation.
> 
> The Bible says humans inhabited the lush rain forest of the Garden of Eden, that they were naked and not ashamed of it, and that they ate the fruit of certain species of trees, and that they wore undergarments of fig leaves and overcoats of animal skin or fur after they realized they were naked.
> 
> _3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.__ For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit._
> 
> This does not differ much from Darwin's theories of evolution of great apes who lost their fur and began to wear clothes.
> 
> The Bible gets the truth, and the big picture of it right. The theories of evolution are just that: the explanations are too detailed and too precise for the given knowledge, and they get small details wrong in places that really matter.
Click to expand...


It is religion pure and simple, thus can't be taught in public schools.

What is preventing Churches from teaching Creationism?


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

Sunsettommy said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
> Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> 
> Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [.....]
> 
> *1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
> So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> *In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..." *
> 
> `
> 
> .
> 
> 
> `.
> 
> 
> 
> I will never understand why atheists try to disprove religions with scientific arguments.
> 
> Creationism is unfalsifiable.  The people who declare themselves the champions of science ought to understand from the get-go that this puts the concept beyond the capacity of science to prove or disprove, so why bother?
> 
> When you say, "That magic wand isn't real!  It doesn't even have any batteries in it!" your initial point may be correct, but your reasoning is irrelevant to that point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha ha, you don't realize that creationists have for a while tried to have their unprovable belief be taught in the public schools. They LOST, yet still try anyway, despite that it isn't science, it is religion.
> 
> *30 years after Edwards v. Aguillard: Why creationism lingers in public schools*
> John E. Taylor
> Professor of Law, West Virginia University
> 
> June 23, 2017
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> This month marks the 30th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, a groundbreaking case that ruled it unconstitutional to require creationism to be taught in public schools.
> 
> Though much has changed in 30 years, the broad questions raised by this case remain timely. Who gets to decide what knowledge will be transmitted to the next generation – parents? Elected officials? Academic experts? What role (if any) should the courts play in policing such decisions?
> 
> As a scholar of education law and First Amendment law, I’ve seen these very questions animate curricular controversies over climate change, American history, and more.
> 
> While recent debates seem to share a common structure with controversies about the teaching of evolution, there’s a key difference: Edwards v. Aguillard stands not for the broad idea that it’s unconstitutional for public schools to teach “bad science,” but for the narrower idea that it’s unconstitutional for them to teach religion as truth.
> 
> LINK
Click to expand...

I don't realize this?  Crazy.  How did I miss it?  Was a living under a rock for, I don't know, all of the 38 years of my life?

I didn't say that arguing to keep creationism out of science classes was a moot point.  I said that disproving creationism with science is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE, and people who claim to champion science ought to understand that you can't apply scientific argument to unfalsifiable ideas.

If you want to keep creationism out of schools and technical decision making, the logical argument to make would be that it isn't objective or scientific specifically BECAUSE it's unfalsifiable, rather than trying to bypass that obvious impediment by bastardizing the very concept of scientific inquiry in your crusade to defend science.


----------



## justinacolmena

Sunsettommy said:


> It is religion pure and simple, thus can't be taught in public schools.


I'm not saying I disagree. If it's going to be taught out of the Bible, then it can certainly be reserved for Sunday school, because there is always a board of directors at the local church, most of whom sit on the local school board as well.

Schoolteachers can a little bit more reserved in teaching evolutionary science at public state-run schools that are officially distinct from the church.

The theories can be taught as theories — to the best of the knowledge of certain scientists — without insisting on the absolute unquestionable truth of them.

If Charles Darwin's theories are taught, then the sources be cited academically by the schoolteacher. If other scientists have theories that reinforce or differ from Darwin's, they they should be cited as well, even for the schoolchildren.

Kids have to learn the theories as theories and be able to cite major sources in their reports.


----------



## Mac-7

abu afak said:


> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
> Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> 
> Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [.....]
> 
> *1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
> So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> *In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..." *
> 
> `
> 
> .
> 
> 
> `.


I wonder how liberals can keep pushing the Dumb Luck Theory of creation when it defies logic?


----------



## zaangalewa

Still the discussion "creation vs evolution" is one of the most stupid discussions in the English speaking world. Creation and evolution are totally different things. Example: Evolution is created - but creation is not evolved.


----------



## zaangalewa

Not2BSubjugated said:


> ... Creationism is unfalsifiable. ...



Creationism : the "ism" shows normally always an ideolgy. Ideologies are in general closed systems of thoughts, Falsifyable within this system of thoughts - not falsifyable outside of this system of toughts.

But the Christains religion is not an ideology - while "darwinism" is the same time often nothing else than an extremist racist ideology. On the other side: The real scientific theory of evolution is not an ideology too.

But the discussion in the internet seems only to be a discussion from ideologists with ideologists, who share a common bad "knowledge" about the belief in god and about the Christian religion as well as about the basics of natural science and the methods and essential arguments of natural science in case of biology.


----------



## zaangalewa

Sunsettommy said:


> ... What is preventing Churches from teaching Creationism



Nothing.


_In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night._


----------



## abu afak

Not2BSubjugated said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
> Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> 
> Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [.....]
> 
> *1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
> So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> *In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..." *
> 
> `
> 
> .
> 
> 
> `.
> 
> 
> 
> I will never understand why atheists try to disprove religions with scientific arguments.
> 
> Creationism is unfalsifiable.  The people who declare themselves the champions of science ought to understand from the get-go that this puts the concept beyond the capacity of science to prove or disprove, so why bother?
> 
> When you say, "That magic wand isn't real!  It doesn't even have any batteries in it!" your initial point may be correct, but your reasoning is irrelevant to that point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha ha, you don't realize that creationists have for a while tried to have their unprovable belief be taught in the public schools. They LOST, yet still try anyway, despite that it isn't science, it is religion.
> 
> *30 years after Edwards v. Aguillard: Why creationism lingers in public schools*
> John E. Taylor
> Professor of Law, West Virginia University
> 
> June 23, 2017
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> This month marks the 30th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, a groundbreaking case that ruled it unconstitutional to require creationism to be taught in public schools.
> 
> Though much has changed in 30 years, the broad questions raised by this case remain timely. Who gets to decide what knowledge will be transmitted to the next generation – parents? Elected officials? Academic experts? What role (if any) should the courts play in policing such decisions?
> 
> As a scholar of education law and First Amendment law, I’ve seen these very questions animate curricular controversies over climate change, American history, and more.
> 
> While recent debates seem to share a common structure with controversies about the teaching of evolution, there’s a key difference: Edwards v. Aguillard stands not for the broad idea that it’s unconstitutional for public schools to teach “bad science,” but for the narrower idea that it’s unconstitutional for them to teach religion as truth.
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't realize this?  Crazy.  How did I miss it?  Was a living under a rock for, I don't know, all of the 38 years of my life?
> 
> I didn't say that arguing to keep creationism out of science classes was a moot point.  I said that disproving creationism with science is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE, and people who claim to champion science ought to understand that you can't apply scientific argument to unfalsifiable ideas.
> 
> If you want to keep creationism out of schools and technical decision making, the logical argument to make would be that it isn't objective or scientific specifically BECAUSE it's unfalsifiable, rather than trying to bypass that obvious impediment by bastardizing the very concept of scientific inquiry in your crusade to defend science.
Click to expand...

One hardly should believe in things just because they cannot be disproven.
That's the reason for the Pastafarianism/The Flying Spaghetti Monster which also cannot be "disproven."

YOU CAN'T PROVE I'M NOT GOD.
That does not give ANY weight to the claim I am.
Got it now?
You're posing Junior High semantics, not logic.

And even for that shallow claim, we know specific creation Myths are false.
Indeed at least 75% of Religions are wrong even if One of their creations myths is correct.
Further, a literal reading of Genesis creation version is demonstrably ridiculous. As is Adam and Eve.

`
``


----------



## Sunsettommy

zaangalewa said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... What is preventing Churches from teaching Creationism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing.
> 
> 
> _In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night._
Click to expand...


It is useless to me because it is a fairy tale story, nothing more.


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> Jesus.
> Your signature is ******* (USMB's fault) IDIOTIC.
> They shouldn't allow Long BILLBOARD sigs that are bigger than 80% of the posts and in which you can't find the posters one and two sentence, replies. Where's the post?
> 
> But yes, the #1 Fallacy of Creationist Morons is NOT knowing the difference between the routine use of 'theory,' and the definition of Scientific Theory.
> 
> `


Then I bet you hate mine.


----------



## Indeependent

Anyone who has studied even the simplest form of life, which is far from simple, and believes in evolution is either an idiot or lying to themselves.
The anatomy, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc... of all life forms is so incredibly tied into an ecosystem that evolution is nothing more than a reason to deny God and thus abandon all respect for human life.


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> One hardly should believe in things just because they cannot be disproven.


Triple negative.  Tricky.


----------



## ding

Indeependent said:


> Anyone who has studied even the simplest form of life, which is far from simple, and believes in evolution is either an idiot or lying to themselves.
> The anatomy, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc... of all life forms is so incredibly tied into an ecosystem that evolution is nothing more than a reason to deny God and thus abandon all respect for human life.


Why can't I believe in both?


----------



## Indeependent

ding said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who has studied even the simplest form of life, which is far from simple, and believes in evolution is either an idiot or lying to themselves.
> The anatomy, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc... of all life forms is so incredibly tied into an ecosystem that evolution is nothing more than a reason to deny God and thus abandon all respect for human life.
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't I believe in both?
Click to expand...

You *can* believe in both if your belief is that evolution does not exclude God's intervention.


----------



## ding

Indeependent said:


> Anyone who has studied even the simplest form of life, which is far from simple, and believes in evolution is either an idiot or lying to themselves.
> The anatomy, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc... of all life forms is so incredibly tied into an ecosystem that evolution is nothing more than a reason to deny God and thus abandon all respect for human life.


Yes, the complexity and interconnections are staggering; mind blowing even.


----------



## ding

Indeependent said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who has studied even the simplest form of life, which is far from simple, and believes in evolution is either an idiot or lying to themselves.
> The anatomy, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc... of all life forms is so incredibly tied into an ecosystem that evolution is nothing more than a reason to deny God and thus abandon all respect for human life.
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't I believe in both?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You *can* believe in both if your belief is that evolution does not exclude God's intervention.
Click to expand...

Why would it need to do that?

I believe that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> One hardly should believe in things just because they cannot be disproven.


Agreed.  In fact believing  something without ever examining what one believes is the worst thing one can do if he is seeking truth.  Many people criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. This is called critical theory and they don't even know they are doing it.  They think this is normal.  They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity.


----------



## Indeependent

ding said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who has studied even the simplest form of life, which is far from simple, and believes in evolution is either an idiot or lying to themselves.
> The anatomy, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc... of all life forms is so incredibly tied into an ecosystem that evolution is nothing more than a reason to deny God and thus abandon all respect for human life.
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't I believe in both?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You *can* believe in both if your belief is that evolution does not exclude God's intervention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would it need to do that?
> 
> I believe that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.
Click to expand...

You are discussing the chuch-mah (wisdom, or thought) of the Creator, who then Made the raw material and then Formed it into perfection.
Yes, since the Creator is not bound by time, everything that exists always exists in parallel with every form that the Creator willed.


----------



## ding

Indeependent said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who has studied even the simplest form of life, which is far from simple, and believes in evolution is either an idiot or lying to themselves.
> The anatomy, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc... of all life forms is so incredibly tied into an ecosystem that evolution is nothing more than a reason to deny God and thus abandon all respect for human life.
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't I believe in both?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You *can* believe in both if your belief is that evolution does not exclude God's intervention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would it need to do that?
> 
> I believe that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are discussing the chuch-mah (wisdom, or thought) of the Creator, who then Made the raw material and then Formed it into perfection.
> Yes, since the Creator is not bound by time, everything that exists always exists in parallel with every form that the Creator willed.
Click to expand...

My perception is that it was willed into existence.  As near as I can tell the universe is an intelligence creating machine.


----------



## ding

Sunsettommy said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... What is preventing Churches from teaching Creationism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing.
> 
> 
> _In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is useless to me because it is a fairy tale story, nothing more.
Click to expand...

So you don't believe the universe began?


----------



## Indeependent

ding said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who has studied even the simplest form of life, which is far from simple, and believes in evolution is either an idiot or lying to themselves.
> The anatomy, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc... of all life forms is so incredibly tied into an ecosystem that evolution is nothing more than a reason to deny God and thus abandon all respect for human life.
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't I believe in both?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You *can* believe in both if your belief is that evolution does not exclude God's intervention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would it need to do that?
> 
> I believe that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are discussing the chuch-mah (wisdom, or thought) of the Creator, who then Made the raw material and then Formed it into perfection.
> Yes, since the Creator is not bound by time, everything that exists always exists in parallel with every form that the Creator willed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My perception is that it was willed into existence.  As near as I can tell the universe is an intelligence creating machine.
Click to expand...

The universe is already over as God is outside time and space.


----------



## luchitociencia

abu afak said:


> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
> Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> 
> Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [.....]
> 
> *1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
> So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> *In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..." *
> 
> `
> 
> .
> 
> 
> `.


False. It was called "evolution" because the pioneers of this theory thought that the modern species are better, more complex and superior and come from former species which were worst, more simpler and inferior.

You call yourself an evolutionist and you are still a complete ignorant of what your theory is about in reality. Lol.

Tell me, because theories of science are to make predictions, looking at the present of our species and assuming a slow change in the environment going warmer, what parts of the human body will evolve in the future? How they will evolve?

If you are right, then answer.

Ha ha ha ha.


----------



## luchitociencia

Indeependent said:


> The universe is already over as God is outside time and space.


Show time. I want to see its flowing. 

I'll love to see how far your ignorance has made you reach the limits of the absurd.


----------



## Indeependent

luchitociencia said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
> Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> 
> Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [.....]
> 
> *1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
> So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> *In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..." *
> 
> `
> 
> .
> 
> 
> `.
> 
> 
> 
> False. It was called "evolution" because the pioneers of this theory thought that the modern species are better, more complex and superior and come from former species which were worst, more simpler and inferior.
> 
> You call yourself an evolutionist and you are still a complete ignorant of what your theory is about in reality. Lol.
> 
> Tell me, because theories of science are to make predictions, looking at the present of our species and assuming a slow change in the environment going warmer, what parts of the human body will evolve in the future? How they will evolve?
> 
> If you are right, then answer.
> 
> Ha ha ha ha.
Click to expand...

We grew arms over a 100,000,000,000 year period because we knew we would have the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## Indeependent

luchitociencia said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The universe is already over as God is outside time and space.
> 
> 
> 
> Show time. I want to see its flowing.
> 
> I'll love to see how far your ignorance has made you reach the limits of the absurd.
Click to expand...

It's called Torah study.
I can read Hebrew; you can't.
I will not denigrate your beliefs.


----------



## ding

Indeependent said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who has studied even the simplest form of life, which is far from simple, and believes in evolution is either an idiot or lying to themselves.
> The anatomy, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc... of all life forms is so incredibly tied into an ecosystem that evolution is nothing more than a reason to deny God and thus abandon all respect for human life.
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't I believe in both?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You *can* believe in both if your belief is that evolution does not exclude God's intervention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would it need to do that?
> 
> I believe that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are discussing the chuch-mah (wisdom, or thought) of the Creator, who then Made the raw material and then Formed it into perfection.
> Yes, since the Creator is not bound by time, everything that exists always exists in parallel with every form that the Creator willed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My perception is that it was willed into existence.  As near as I can tell the universe is an intelligence creating machine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The universe is already over as God is outside time and space.
Click to expand...

So this conversation isn't actually happening?

I believe you are looking at it the wrong way.  As God is outside of space and time God experiences space and time all at once.  Think of it this way, God has an infinite amount of time to spend on anything.  That's what it means to be outside of space and time.


----------



## zaangalewa

Sunsettommy said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... What is preventing Churches from teaching Creationism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing.
> 
> 
> _In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is useless to me because it is a fairy tale story, nothing more.
Click to expand...


And what about if you are your own fairy tale story, who you tells everyone a story about the self made fairy tale "I"? Isn't it much more fascinating what my comrades sang thousands of years ago on their campfires? What had they understood if someone had said to them "... And god said: Let there be electromagnetic waves. And god saw the electromagntic waves, that it was good: and God divided the electromagnetic waves from the darkness ..." ... So what do you understand today really about your world, which would not be the same, if not thousands of years someone had written down this words? _"And god saw it was good what he had done"_ is one of the most important keys to understand what's really written there.

And by the way: "Seven miles boots" do we call today "automobiles". You should perhaps start to think about why you hate spirituality - and you should perhaps also think about,  why you are disrespecting fairy tales.

_If you want your children to be intelligent, read them fairy tales. If you want them to be more intelligent, read them more fairy tales._
Albert Einstein


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

abu afak said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
> Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> 
> Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [.....]
> 
> *1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
> So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> *In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..." *
> 
> `
> 
> .
> 
> 
> `.
> 
> 
> 
> I will never understand why atheists try to disprove religions with scientific arguments.
> 
> Creationism is unfalsifiable.  The people who declare themselves the champions of science ought to understand from the get-go that this puts the concept beyond the capacity of science to prove or disprove, so why bother?
> 
> When you say, "That magic wand isn't real!  It doesn't even have any batteries in it!" your initial point may be correct, but your reasoning is irrelevant to that point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha ha ha, you don't realize that creationists have for a while tried to have their unprovable belief be taught in the public schools. They LOST, yet still try anyway, despite that it isn't science, it is religion.
> 
> *30 years after Edwards v. Aguillard: Why creationism lingers in public schools*
> John E. Taylor
> Professor of Law, West Virginia University
> 
> June 23, 2017
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> This month marks the 30th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, a groundbreaking case that ruled it unconstitutional to require creationism to be taught in public schools.
> 
> Though much has changed in 30 years, the broad questions raised by this case remain timely. Who gets to decide what knowledge will be transmitted to the next generation – parents? Elected officials? Academic experts? What role (if any) should the courts play in policing such decisions?
> 
> As a scholar of education law and First Amendment law, I’ve seen these very questions animate curricular controversies over climate change, American history, and more.
> 
> While recent debates seem to share a common structure with controversies about the teaching of evolution, there’s a key difference: Edwards v. Aguillard stands not for the broad idea that it’s unconstitutional for public schools to teach “bad science,” but for the narrower idea that it’s unconstitutional for them to teach religion as truth.
> 
> LINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't realize this?  Crazy.  How did I miss it?  Was a living under a rock for, I don't know, all of the 38 years of my life?
> 
> I didn't say that arguing to keep creationism out of science classes was a moot point.  I said that disproving creationism with science is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE, and people who claim to champion science ought to understand that you can't apply scientific argument to unfalsifiable ideas.
> 
> If you want to keep creationism out of schools and technical decision making, the logical argument to make would be that it isn't objective or scientific specifically BECAUSE it's unfalsifiable, rather than trying to bypass that obvious impediment by bastardizing the very concept of scientific inquiry in your crusade to defend science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One hardly should believe in things just because they cannot be disproven.
> That's the reason for the Pastafarianism/The Flying Spaghetti Monster which also cannot be "disproven."
> 
> YOU CAN'T PROVE I'M NOT GOD.
> That does not give ANY weight to the claim I am.
> Got it now?
> You're posing Junior High semantics, not logic.
> 
> And even for that shallow claim, we know specific creation Myths are false.
> Indeed at least 75% of Religions are wrong even if One of their creations myths is correct.
> Further, a literal reading of Genesis creation version is demonstrably ridiculous. As is Adam and Eve.
> 
> `
> ``
Click to expand...

I'm posting junior high semantics?  Lol, read it again genius.  You're dropping HS atheism debate points to argue with a point I never made.

Lemme make this real simple for you.  Using science to disprove something that is unfalsifiable exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of what science even is.  I'm not saying that to make the point that I believe in some particular God story because it can't be disproven.  I'm saying it so that monkeys like you will stop making pointless arguments.  If someone wants to put creation into science class, point out that creationism is unfalsifiable and therefore not scientific and move on with your life.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

zaangalewa said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Creationism is unfalsifiable. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism : the "ism" shows normally always an ideolgy. Ideologies are in general closed systems of thoughts, Falsifyable within this system of thoughts - not falsifyable outside of this system of toughts.
> 
> But the Christains religion is not an ideology - while "darwinism" is the same time often nothing else than an extremist racist ideology. On the other side: The real scientific theory of evolution is not an ideology too.
> 
> But the discussion in the internet seems only to be a discussion from ideologists with ideologists, who share a common bad "knowledge" about the belief in god and about the Christian religion as well as about the basics of natural science and the methods and essential arguments of natural science in case of biology.
Click to expand...

Internal falsifiability is all fine and good, but not at all what I'm discussing, and not relevant to the discussion of science vs religion.  The scientific method is PURELY a method of proving hypotheses false to eliminate possibilities and push closer to affirmative understandings.  If a hypothesis cannot be disproven through experiment, you're no longer talking science.  That ought to be not only sufficient reason to separate the teaching of science from creationism, it ought to be the beginning and end of the entire f'in discussion.

I simply wish these "I'm an atheist, debate me!" kids would give it a fuckin' rest.  It's like there's people trying to play tennis on a football field, and rather than simply explain to them that they're playing their game in the wrong setting, the football players start scoring touchdowns to show the tennis players how inferior tennis is to football.

If people would simply remember that science is a method for FINDING truth, and not a synonym OF truth, and certainly not a label to categorize the beliefs and viewpoints of educated/enlightened people, that would go a long way to clear this nonsense up.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

luchitociencia said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
> Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> 
> Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [.....]
> 
> *1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
> So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> *In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..." *
> 
> `
> 
> .
> 
> 
> `.
> 
> 
> 
> False. It was called "evolution" because the pioneers of this theory thought that the modern species are better, more complex and superior and come from former species which were worst, more simpler and inferior.
> 
> You call yourself an evolutionist and you are still a complete ignorant of what your theory is about in reality. Lol.
> 
> Tell me, because theories of science are to make predictions, looking at the present of our species and assuming a slow change in the environment going warmer, what parts of the human body will evolve in the future? How they will evolve?
> 
> If you are right, then answer.
> 
> Ha ha ha ha.
Click to expand...

In all fairness the evolution theory doesn't imply that the species living today are superior to the species that preceded them.  If you go back far enough, according to said theory, you'll find much simpler life, but past a certain point it's not about whether more complex is better, or even whether the species that are alive now survived due to "superiority" to the species that came before them, but rather that the species currently thriving at any given time are simply the ones equipped most appropriately for the current environmental paradigms, all of which are temporary and sometimes shift rapidly and violently.

Essentially, as far as most evolutionary theorists are concerned, humans aren't here because our ancestors won out over the dinosaurs.  Those big bastards wiped their asses with our ancestors.  Humans are here because a meteor wiped out the dinosaurs, and our ancestors, while hiding from said dinosaurs, managed to survive the fallout.


----------



## zaangalewa

Not2BSubjugated said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Creationism is unfalsifiable. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism : the "ism" shows normally always an ideolgy. Ideologies are in general closed systems of thoughts, Falsifyable within this system of thoughts - not falsifyable outside of this system of toughts.
> 
> But the Christains religion is not an ideology - while "darwinism" is the same time often nothing else than an extremist racist ideology. On the other side: The real scientific theory of evolution is not an ideology too.
> 
> But the discussion in the internet seems only to be a discussion from ideologists with ideologists, who share a common bad "knowledge" about the belief in god and about the Christian religion as well as about the basics of natural science and the methods and essential arguments of natural science in case of biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Internal falsifiability is all fine and good,
Click to expand...


It's not fine and good - it's the criterion for an ideology - a closed system of thoughts.



> but not at all what I'm discussing, and not relevant to the discussion of science vs religion.



A discussion "science vs religion" alias "philosophy vs spirituality" is not a discussion about easily comparable things.



> The scientific method is PURELY a method of proving hypotheses false to eliminate possibilities and push closer to affirmative understandings.  If a hypothesis cannot be disproven through experiment, you're no longer talking science.  That ought to be not only sufficient reason to separate the teaching of science from creationism, it ought to be the beginning and end of the entire f'in discussion.



The methods of natural science are a product of the philosophy empirism. Is empirism the same like the creator god, who made more than only this, what is able to be a subject of empirism?



> I simply wish these "I'm an atheist, debate me!"



Hä? ... ah sorry: Eh? ... The belief in atheism is not a very interesting belief. I call atheists normally people, who don't believe to believe.



> kids would give it a fuckin' rest.



Kids? And the F-word? ... Can it be you have not a big idea about how to educate children? ... And what have children now to do with your ideas about your atheism and your ideas about anti-atheists?



> It's like there's people trying to play tennis on a football field, and rather than simply explain to them that they're playing their game in the wrong setting,



You try to tell people they play a wrong game, because you don't like their rules?



> the football players start scoring touchdowns to show the tennis players how inferior tennis is to football.



And? If Tennis players play with a football and have fun ... who cares?



> If people would simply remember that science is a method for FINDING, and not a synonym OF truth, and certainly not a label to categorize the beliefs and viewpoints of educated/enlightened people, that would go a long way to clear this nonsense up.



Natural science is a method to find what are the [mathematical] laws in the nature and what's right or wrong in this context. If we find a natural law on Earth then this natural law is the same in the Andromeda galaxy and every other place and time of the universe.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

zaangalewa said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Creationism is unfalsifiable. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism : the "ism" shows normally always an ideolgy. Ideologies are in general closed systems of thoughts, Falsifyable within this system of thoughts - not falsifyable outside of this system of toughts.
> 
> But the Christains religion is not an ideology - while "darwinism" is the same time often nothing else than an extremist racist ideology. On the other side: The real scientific theory of evolution is not an ideology too.
> 
> But the discussion in the internet seems only to be a discussion from ideologists with ideologists, who share a common bad "knowledge" about the belief in god and about the Christian religion as well as about the basics of natural science and the methods and essential arguments of natural science in case of biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Internal falsifiability is all fine and good,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. It's not fine and good - it's the criterion for an ideology - a closed system of thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but not at all what I'm discussing, and not relevant to the discussion of science vs religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2. A discussion "science vs religion" alias "philosophy vs spiritualiy" is not a discussion about easily comparable things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific method is PURELY a method of proving hypotheses false to eliminate possibilities and push closer to affirmative understandings.  If a hypothesis cannot be disproven through experiment, you're no longer talking science.  That ought to be not only sufficient reason to separate the teaching of science from creationism, it ought to be the beginning and end of the entire f'in discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3. The methods of natural science are a rpduct of the philosophy empirism. Is empirism the same like the creator god, who made more than only thsi what is able to be subsejct of empirism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I simply wish these "I'm an atheist, debate me!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4. Hä? ... ah sorry: Eh? ... The belief in atheism is not a very interesting belief. I call atheists normally people, who don't believe to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kids would give it a fuckin' rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 5. Kids? And the F-word? ... Can it be you have not a big idea about how to educate children? ... And what have children now to do with your ideas about your atheism and your ideas about anti-atheists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's like there's people trying to play tennis on a football field, and rather than simply explain to them that they're playing their game in the wrong setting,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 6. You try to tell people they play a wrong game, because you don't like their rules?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the football players start scoring touchdowns to show the tennis players how inferior tennis is to football.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 7. And? If Tennis players play with a football and have fun ... who cares?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If people would simply remember that science is a method for FINDING, and not a synonym OF truth, and certainly not a label to categorize the beliefs and viewpoints of educated/enlightened people, that would go a long way to clear this nonsense up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 8. Natural science is a method to find what are the [mathematical] laws in the nature and what's right or wrong in this context. If we find a natural law on Earth then this natural law is the same in the Andromeda galaxy and every other place and time of the universe.
Click to expand...

Lol!  It's weird to see a response broken down line by line like that, which nonetheless rarely addresses the points made in any of the lines it breaks down.  Lemme see if I can clear some of this up for ya.  I'm unaware of any quick way to break the format of the post like you did, so I've taken the liberty of numbering each line in the "quote", and I'll use corresponding numbers in my reply.

1.  When I said all fine and good, I was dismissing it as irrelevant to any point I was making in the discussion to which you were responding.  I wasn't arguing with you about the nature or definition of ideology.

2.  Science vs religion is NOT philosophy vs spirituality.  Philosophy is not science.  Science is a method of testing hypotheses through experimentation.  Philosophy, like religion, includes the exploration of the unfalsifiable.  Mind you, I'm not trying to downplay the importance of philosophy, or to imply the superiority of science over any of these other concepts.  However, philosophy and science are NOT synonymous.  And that first comparison, science vs religion, IS actually an easy comparison to make.  One is a method of experimentation, the other is a system of beliefs.

3.  No, empiricism is not like the creator god, assuming for the sake of argument that there is, in fact, a creator god.  Empiricism is a philosophy, the creator god is a being that created the universe.  Quite frankly, this question's answer is so obvious that I'm guessing the meaning got lost somewhere in translation.

4.  I think we largely agree, here.  I think it's foolish for one to confidently declare that they don't believe in God, even if they believe that to be true.  We aren't wired up for not believing in something, and it generally just requires the right circumstances to draw that belief out of someone.  It's like they used to say after WWII, there's no atheists in a foxhole.

5.  When I said kids, I wasn't literally referring to children.  I only used the term to emphasize the immaturity of crusading to prove the stupidly obvious truth that some particular religion isn't scientific.  Anyone claiming that their religion is science doesn't understand their religion, and anyone trying to apply science to religion doesn't understand science.  And, I gotta tell you, it's awfully presumptuous to think that you can extrapolate someone's understanding of education, from the mere fact that they used "fuck" and "kids" in the same sentence.

6.  This has nothing to do with whether or not I like the rules of any game.  The tennis/football thing was a metaphor about simply acknowledging when someone is playing a different game than you are, rather than simply playing back at them as though the two different games are at all compatible.  Scoring touchdowns against someone who is playing tennis is utterly meaningless, even if they're mistakenly trying to play tennis on your football field.  Get it?

7.  I'll try and cut you some slack based on English not being your native language, but good lord man, this was obviously a metaphor.  If I apply your question back to the point I was illustrating with my metaphor, you're essentially asking me this:  If the people who want to teach creationism in science class have a good time doing so, then what's the problem?  The problem is that unfalsifiable ideas aren't science and shouldn't be taught as science, regardless of how much fun it is for the creationists.

8.  I wouldn't be so confident that the laws of nature are uniform throughout the universe.  That's something that we're a long way from being able to verify.


----------



## zaangalewa

Not2BSubjugated said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Creationism is unfalsifiable. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism : the "ism" shows normally always an ideolgy. Ideologies are in general closed systems of thoughts, Falsifyable within this system of thoughts - not falsifyable outside of this system of toughts.
> 
> But the Christains religion is not an ideology - while "darwinism" is the same time often nothing else than an extremist racist ideology. On the other side: The real scientific theory of evolution is not an ideology too.
> 
> But the discussion in the internet seems only to be a discussion from ideologists with ideologists, who share a common bad "knowledge" about the belief in god and about the Christian religion as well as about the basics of natural science and the methods and essential arguments of natural science in case of biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Internal falsifiability is all fine and good,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. It's not fine and good - it's the criterion for an ideology - a closed system of thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but not at all what I'm discussing, and not relevant to the discussion of science vs religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2. A discussion "science vs religion" alias "philosophy vs spiritualiy" is not a discussion about easily comparable things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific method is PURELY a method of proving hypotheses false to eliminate possibilities and push closer to affirmative understandings.  If a hypothesis cannot be disproven through experiment, you're no longer talking science.  That ought to be not only sufficient reason to separate the teaching of science from creationism, it ought to be the beginning and end of the entire f'in discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3. The methods of natural science are a rpduct of the philosophy empirism. Is empirism the same like the creator god, who made more than only thsi what is able to be subsejct of empirism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I simply wish these "I'm an atheist, debate me!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4. Hä? ... ah sorry: Eh? ... The belief in atheism is not a very interesting belief. I call atheists normally people, who don't believe to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kids would give it a fuckin' rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 5. Kids? And the F-word? ... Can it be you have not a big idea about how to educate children? ... And what have children now to do with your ideas about your atheism and your ideas about anti-atheists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's like there's people trying to play tennis on a football field, and rather than simply explain to them that they're playing their game in the wrong setting,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 6. You try to tell people they play a wrong game, because you don't like their rules?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the football players start scoring touchdowns to show the tennis players how inferior tennis is to football.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 7. And? If Tennis players play with a football and have fun ... who cares?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If people would simply remember that science is a method for FINDING, and not a synonym OF truth, and certainly not a label to categorize the beliefs and viewpoints of educated/enlightened people, that would go a long way to clear this nonsense up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 8. Natural science is a method to find what are the [mathematical] laws in the nature and what's right or wrong in this context. If we find a natural law on Earth then this natural law is the same in the Andromeda galaxy and every other place and time of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol!
Click to expand...


Spooky laughing in the beginning.



> It's weird to see a response broken down line by line like that, which nonetheless rarely addresses the points made in any of the lines it breaks down.  Lemme see if I can clear some of this up for ya.  I'm unaware of any quick way to break the format of the post like you did, so I've taken the liberty of numbering each line in the "quote", and I'll use corresponding numbers in my reply.
> 
> 1.  When I said all fine and good, I was dismissing it as irrelevant to any point



Aha. You think what I say is irrelevant - thatäs why you will not waste time to think about this what I think.



> I was making in the discussion to which you were responding.  I wasn't arguing with you about the nature or definition of ideology.



Or with other words. You are an fanatics, who tries to speak about something, because you think something about me what has nothing to do with my person.



> 2.  Science vs religion is NOT philosophy vs spirituality.  Philosophy is not science.



What's wrong. Physics is a part of  natural philosophy for example.



> Science is a method of testing hypotheses through experimentation.



Or withother words: The spirituality of physics  is mathematics and the god of physics is teh experimaent. But not all sciences are able to make experients. It's for example impossible to make in history experiments. What woudöl be today without Alexander the great? Ignoramus, igorabimus.



> Philosophy, like religion, includes the exploration of the unfalsifiable.



So what?



> Mind you, I'm not trying to downplay the importance of philosophy, or to imply the superiority of science over any of these other concepts. However, philosophy and science are NOT synonymous.



What's again wrong. The mother of all sciences is philosophy.



> And that first comparison, science vs religion, IS actually an easy comparison to make.



No.



> One is a method of experimentation, the other is a system of beliefs.



What a nonsense. Just a moment ago you said _"Philosophy, like religion, includes the exploration of the unfalsifiable."_ Now you say philosophy needs experiments.



> 3.  No, empiricism is not like the creator god, assuming for the sake of argument that there is, in fact, a creator god.  Empiricism is a philosophy, the creator god is a being that created the universe.  Quite frankly, this question's answer is so obvious that I'm guessing the meaning got lost somewhere in translation.



A philosophy is a way of thoughts. So the empirism of physics is basing on meta-physics.



> 4.  I think we largely agree, here.  I think it's foolish for one to confidently declare that they don't believe in God, even if they believe that to be true.  We aren't wired up for not believing in something, and it generally just requires the right circumstances to draw that belief out of someone.  It's like they used to say after WWII, there's no atheists in a foxhole.
> 
> 5.  When I said kids, I wasn't literally referring to children.  I only used the term to emphasize the immaturity of crusading to prove the stupidly obvious truth that some particular religion isn't scientific.



Eh?



> Anyone claiming that their religion is science doesn't understand their religion, and anyone trying to apply science to religion doesn't understand science.  And, I gotta tell you, it's awfully presumptuous to think that you can extrapolate someone's understanding of education, from the mere fact that they used "fuck" and "kids" in the same sentence.



I'm sure I'm right. Do you have children? Ask them and their mother what they think about your arts to educate your children.



> 6.  This has nothing to do with whether or not I like the rules of any game.  The tennis/football thing was a metaphor about simply acknowledging when someone is playing a different game than you are, rather than simply playing back at them as though the two different games are at all compatible.  Scoring touchdowns against someone who is playing tennis is utterly meaningless, even if they're mistakenly trying to play tennis on your football field.  Get it?



Sure I got it. To play is a serios thing. And everyone has to follow the same rules. Aye, Captain.



> 7.  I'll try and cut you some slack based on English not being your native language,



Yeah - I'm privileged.



> but good lord man, this was obviously a metaphor.  If I apply your question back to the point I was illustrating with my metaphor, you're essentially asking me this:  If the people who want to teach creationism in science class have a good time doing so, then what's the problem?  The problem is that unfalsifiable ideas aren't science and shouldn't be taught as science, regardless of how much fun it is for the creationists.



Sorry - but we don't have a big problem with religious education in our schools here - better to say: we don't like to miss religious education in our schools. And we also don't like to miss education in natural sciences in our schools.



> 8.  I wouldn't be so confident that the laws of nature are uniform throughout the universe.  That's something that we're a long way from being able to verify.



What a brainwashing bullshit to say so. We never found any exception from this rule.


----------



## luchitociencia

Indeependent said:


> luchitociencia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The universe is already over as God is outside time and space.
> 
> 
> 
> Show time. I want to see its flowing.
> 
> I'll love to see how far your ignorance has made you reach the limits of the absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called Torah study.
> I can read Hebrew; you can't.
> I will not denigrate your beliefs.
Click to expand...

Great, I have the Torah in front of me, and no flowing time is mentioned, unless you use the Chinese pirate Hebrew version.


----------



## luchitociencia

ding said:


> So this conversation isn't actually happening?
> 
> I believe you are looking at it the wrong way.  As God is outside of space and time God experiences space and time all at once.  Think of it this way, God has an infinite amount of time to spend on anything.  That's what it means to be outside of space and time.



You didn't understand the bible at all.

The essence of God is not in the known physical universe.

Plus, the physical universe is formed by space and matter, where time is nothing but a measure invented by man.


----------



## luchitociencia

zaangalewa said:


> And what about if you are your own fairy tale story, who you tells everyone a story about the self made fairy tale "I"? Isn't it much more fascinating what my comrades sang thousands of years ago on their campfires? What had they understood if someone had said to them "... And god said: Let there be electromagnetic waves.



Wrong, not all electromagnetic waves cause illumination as light.



zaangalewa said:


> And god saw the electromagntic waves, that it was good: and God divided the electromagnetic waves from the darkness ..." ... So what do you understand today really about your world, which would not be the same, if not thousands of years someone had written down this words? _"And god saw it was good what he had done"_ is one of the most important keys to understand what's really written there.



Your point has been proved false. 



zaangalewa said:


> And by the way: "Seven miles boots" do we call today "automobiles". You should perhaps start to think about why you hate spirituality - and you should perhaps also think about,  why you are disrespecting fairy tales.



I have missed this part of the seven miles boots. refer me where such comes from.



zaangalewa said:


> _If you want your children to be intelligent, read them fairy tales. If you want them to be more intelligent, read them more fairy tales._
> Albert Einstein



Sure, Einstein was a poor deluded guy who thought time is flexible as babbling gum. His fairy tales known as relativity theories are the most fantastic fantasies ever invented by a loony.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

zaangalewa said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Creationism is unfalsifiable. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism : the "ism" shows normally always an ideolgy. Ideologies are in general closed systems of thoughts, Falsifyable within this system of thoughts - not falsifyable outside of this system of toughts.
> 
> But the Christains religion is not an ideology - while "darwinism" is the same time often nothing else than an extremist racist ideology. On the other side: The real scientific theory of evolution is not an ideology too.
> 
> But the discussion in the internet seems only to be a discussion from ideologists with ideologists, who share a common bad "knowledge" about the belief in god and about the Christian religion as well as about the basics of natural science and the methods and essential arguments of natural science in case of biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Internal falsifiability is all fine and good,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. It's not fine and good - it's the criterion for an ideology - a closed system of thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but not at all what I'm discussing, and not relevant to the discussion of science vs religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2. A discussion "science vs religion" alias "philosophy vs spiritualiy" is not a discussion about easily comparable things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific method is PURELY a method of proving hypotheses false to eliminate possibilities and push closer to affirmative understandings.  If a hypothesis cannot be disproven through experiment, you're no longer talking science.  That ought to be not only sufficient reason to separate the teaching of science from creationism, it ought to be the beginning and end of the entire f'in discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3. The methods of natural science are a rpduct of the philosophy empirism. Is empirism the same like the creator god, who made more than only thsi what is able to be subsejct of empirism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I simply wish these "I'm an atheist, debate me!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4. Hä? ... ah sorry: Eh? ... The belief in atheism is not a very interesting belief. I call atheists normally people, who don't believe to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kids would give it a fuckin' rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 5. Kids? And the F-word? ... Can it be you have not a big idea about how to educate children? ... And what have children now to do with your ideas about your atheism and your ideas about anti-atheists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's like there's people trying to play tennis on a football field, and rather than simply explain to them that they're playing their game in the wrong setting,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 6. You try to tell people they play a wrong game, because you don't like their rules?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the football players start scoring touchdowns to show the tennis players how inferior tennis is to football.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 7. And? If Tennis players play with a football and have fun ... who cares?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If people would simply remember that science is a method for FINDING, and not a synonym OF truth, and certainly not a label to categorize the beliefs and viewpoints of educated/enlightened people, that would go a long way to clear this nonsense up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 8. Natural science is a method to find what are the [mathematical] laws in the nature and what's right or wrong in this context. If we find a natural law on Earth then this natural law is the same in the Andromeda galaxy and every other place and time of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spooky laughing in the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's weird to see a response broken down line by line like that, which nonetheless rarely addresses the points made in any of the lines it breaks down.  Lemme see if I can clear some of this up for ya.  I'm unaware of any quick way to break the format of the post like you did, so I've taken the liberty of numbering each line in the "quote", and I'll use corresponding numbers in my reply.
> 
> 1.  When I said all fine and good, I was dismissing it as irrelevant to any point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A. Aha. You think what I say is irrelevant - thatäs why you will not waste time to think about this what I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was making in the discussion to which you were responding.  I wasn't arguing with you about the nature or definition of ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> B. Or with other words. You are an fanatics, who tries to speak about something, because you think something about me what has nothing to do with my person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  Science vs religion is NOT philosophy vs spirituality.  Philosophy is not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C. What's wrong. Physics is a part of  natural philosophy for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science is a method of testing hypotheses through experimentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> D. Or withother words: The spirituality of physics  is mathematics and the god of physics is teh experimaent. But not all sciences are able to make experients. It's for example impossible to make in history experiments. What woudöl be today without Alexander the great? Ignoramus, igorabimus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophy, like religion, includes the exploration of the unfalsifiable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> E. So what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mind you, I'm not trying to downplay the importance of philosophy, or to imply the superiority of science over any of these other concepts. However, philosophy and science are NOT synonymous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> F. What's again wrong. The mother of all sciences is philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that first comparison, science vs religion, IS actually an easy comparison to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> G. No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One is a method of experimentation, the other is a system of beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> H. What a nonsense. Just a moment ago you said _"Philosophy, like religion, includes the exploration of the unfalsifiable."_ Now you say philosophy needs experiments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  No, empiricism is not like the creator god, assuming for the sake of argument that there is, in fact, a creator god.  Empiricism is a philosophy, the creator god is a being that created the universe.  Quite frankly, this question's answer is so obvious that I'm guessing the meaning got lost somewhere in translation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I. A philosophy is a way of thoughts. So the empirism of physics is basing on meta-physics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  I think we largely agree, here.  I think it's foolish for one to confidently declare that they don't believe in God, even if they believe that to be true.  We aren't wired up for not believing in something, and it generally just requires the right circumstances to draw that belief out of someone.  It's like they used to say after WWII, there's no atheists in a foxhole.
> 
> 5.  When I said kids, I wasn't literally referring to children.  I only used the term to emphasize the immaturity of crusading to prove the stupidly obvious truth that some particular religion isn't scientific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> J. Eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone claiming that their religion is science doesn't understand their religion, and anyone trying to apply science to religion doesn't understand science.  And, I gotta tell you, it's awfully presumptuous to think that you can extrapolate someone's understanding of education, from the mere fact that they used "fuck" and "kids" in the same sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> K. I'm sure I'm right. Do you have children? Ask them and their mother what they think about your arts to educate your children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6.  This has nothing to do with whether or not I like the rules of any game.  The tennis/football thing was a metaphor about simply acknowledging when someone is playing a different game than you are, rather than simply playing back at them as though the two different games are at all compatible.  Scoring touchdowns against someone who is playing tennis is utterly meaningless, even if they're mistakenly trying to play tennis on your football field.  Get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> L. Sure I got it. To play is a serios thing. And everyone has to follow the same rules. Aye, Captain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7.  I'll try and cut you some slack based on English not being your native language,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> M. Yeah - I'm privileged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but good lord man, this was obviously a metaphor.  If I apply your question back to the point I was illustrating with my metaphor, you're essentially asking me this:  If the people who want to teach creationism in science class have a good time doing so, then what's the problem?  The problem is that unfalsifiable ideas aren't science and shouldn't be taught as science, regardless of how much fun it is for the creationists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> N. Sorry - but we don't have a big problem with religious education in our schools here - better to say: we don't like to miss religious education in our schools. And we also don't like to miss natural sciences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8.  I wouldn't be so confident that the laws of nature are uniform throughout the universe.  That's something that we're a long way from being able to verify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> O. What a brainwashing bullshit to say so. We never found any exception from this rule.
Click to expand...

Wow.  For all your spooky laughing, you seem to be having a really hard time understanding what I'm saying.  This time letters in stead of numbers.

A. This response only makes sense when you cut the quote off as you have.  Obviously, saying that something is irrelevant to the conversation at hand isn't the same as saying that it's irrelevant.  Ideology, it's exact definition, and where/if it diverges from religion, are all topics that I consider to be incredibly relevant, just not relevant to the conversation of why religion shouldn't be taught as science.  Maybe stick to what I've actually said rather than selectively cutting sentences apart and then disingenuously using manipulated quotes to try and extrapolate my character flaws?

B. It's not about fanaticism, nor does this have anything to do with what I think about you as a person, true or otherwise.  The reason I say that the nature/definition of ideology is irrelevant here is because the only point I was making is that creationism isn't science.  My argument for this point doesn't require any acknowledgement of the concept of ideology.  It only requires acknowledgement of the fact that creationism is unfalsifiable, and therefore not science.

C. Natural philosophy might discuss physics, and the conceptual categorization of physics as we know it today may even have emerged from natural philosophy.  Natural philosophy still isn't science, and even where the concepts explored in natural philosophy overlap with those explored in physics, the natural philosophy discussion still isn't a scientific one insofar as the scientific method isn't the basis for the ideas being expressed.  It's this simple:  Scientific method = science.  Not scientific method =/= science.

D. When you say that not all sciences are able to make experiments, you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of what science actually is.  If a subject cannot make experiments, it isn't science.  That simple.  History can't be verified or debunked via experimentation because history isn't a science.  Maybe one day the physicists invent a time machine and history becomes scientific, but until there's some way to fully verify historical claims, it ain't that.

E.  So what?  So philosophy is not a science.

F.  The mother of Jesus is Mary.  Mary is not Jesus.  Science emerged from philosophy, but philosophy is not science.  How is this hard to understand?

G.  Yes.

H.  Again, if you would use ENTIRE quotes in stead of chopping them up for effect, I wouldn't have to explain this.  What I said was, "And that first comparison, science vs religion, IS actually an easy comparison to make. One is a method of experimentation, the other is a system of beliefs."  SCIENCE vs religion.  I don't believe that philosophy requires experimentation, which is precisely why I've insisted several times now that philosophy isn't science.  Try to keep up.

I. Ah, I see what you're saying, now.  I don't know about creator God, but it definitely had a hand in the birthing process.

J.  I don't know how to make it much simpler than that.  I wasn't literally referring to children.  I was just calling them "kids" to emphasize the childishness of it all.  Sometimes I refer to myself as a kid for similar reasons.

K.  Based on an exchange of 2 posts on a political message board, you're SURE that you've accurately guessed what, if any, preferences I have in methods of education and the relative effectiveness of those methods?  LMFAO.  I'd love for you to explain the reasoning behind that analysis, Sigmund.

L.  Nah, you don't get "it", if "it" refers to the point I was making.  "It" was never about the importance of adhering to rules.  "It" was about the fruitlessness of expecting people playing a separate game to adhere to the rules of your game.  This conversation is starting to make me wonder if I've stumbled onto that very territory, cuz you're clearly perceiving a different conversation to be taking place than the one that I'm having.

M.  Zing. 

N.  That's solid policy.  Religious and scientific education are both incredibly important, regardless of what one believes.

O.  It's brainwashing bullshit to say that we haven't verified the uniformity of the laws of physics in every corner of the known universe?  Lol!  I hate to break it to you, but nobody's ever brainwashed someone else just to make them skeptical.  Seriously, though, the fact that we haven't disproven this uniformity is NOT verification that it's true.  We've never sent a human further away than our own moon, and the furthest travelled probes that we've ever sent out are barely past the edge of the sun's magnetic field and tens of thousands of years from ever approaching the nearest star, let alone another galaxy, let alone the edges of the universe.  So yeah, we haven't ever disproven this rule, but in all fairness, we still have just a teensy little bit of universe left to explore and learn about before we can rule out that possibility.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

luchitociencia said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this conversation isn't actually happening?
> 
> I believe you are looking at it the wrong way.  As God is outside of space and time God experiences space and time all at once.  Think of it this way, God has an infinite amount of time to spend on anything.  That's what it means to be outside of space and time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't understand the bible at all.
> 
> The essence of God is not in the known physical universe.
> 
> Plus, the physical universe is formed by space and matter, where time is nothing but a measure invented by man.
Click to expand...

That last bit doesn't appear to be true.  Experimentation has proved that entropy occurs at different rates when, for instance, travelling at different speeds.  Time exists and is quantifiable insofar as we can observe how various phenomena affect it.  The only part humans invented are the particular units that we use to measure it.

Humans invented inches, too, but the dimension of length exists whether we choose to measure it or not.


----------



## luchitociencia

Not2BSubjugated said:


> That last bit doesn't appear to be true.  Experimentation has proved that entropy occurs at different rates when, for instance, travelling at different speeds.  Time exists and is quantifiable insofar as we can observe how various phenomena affect it.  The only part humans invented are the particular units that we use to measure it.
> 
> Humans invented inches, too, but the dimension of length exists whether we choose to measure it or not.



Explain the mechanism acting in those observations you say do exist. You must prove that an existing and flowing time is the cause. How is that happening?

You not having the explanation of the mechanism will mean your theory is false, invalid, a nonsense.


----------



## Indeependent

luchitociencia said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luchitociencia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The universe is already over as God is outside time and space.
> 
> 
> 
> Show time. I want to see its flowing.
> 
> I'll love to see how far your ignorance has made you reach the limits of the absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called Torah study.
> I can read Hebrew; you can't.
> I will not denigrate your beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, I have the Torah in front of me, and no flowing time is mentioned, unless you use the Chinese pirate Hebrew version.
Click to expand...

You know Hebrew?
If not, this discussion is over.


----------



## ding

luchitociencia said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this conversation isn't actually happening?
> 
> I believe you are looking at it the wrong way.  As God is outside of space and time God experiences space and time all at once.  Think of it this way, God has an infinite amount of time to spend on anything.  That's what it means to be outside of space and time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't understand the bible at all.
> 
> The essence of God is not in the known physical universe.
> 
> Plus, the physical universe is formed by space and matter, where time is nothing but a measure invented by man.
Click to expand...

I'm not the droid you are looking for.

God can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.


----------



## ding

Not2BSubjugated said:


> luchitociencia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this conversation isn't actually happening?
> 
> I believe you are looking at it the wrong way.  As God is outside of space and time God experiences space and time all at once.  Think of it this way, God has an infinite amount of time to spend on anything.  That's what it means to be outside of space and time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't understand the bible at all.
> 
> The essence of God is not in the known physical universe.
> 
> Plus, the physical universe is formed by space and matter, where time is nothing but a measure invented by man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That last bit doesn't appear to be true.  Experimentation has proved that entropy occurs at different rates when, for instance, travelling at different speeds.  Time exists and is quantifiable insofar as we can observe how various phenomena affect it.  The only part humans invented are the particular units that we use to measure it.
> 
> Humans invented inches, too, but the dimension of length exists whether we choose to measure it or not.
Click to expand...

The best we can say about time is that it is a convenient method for demarcating the expansion of the universe.  






						Problem of time - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

luchitociencia said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That last bit doesn't appear to be true.  Experimentation has proved that entropy occurs at different rates when, for instance, travelling at different speeds.  Time exists and is quantifiable insofar as we can observe how various phenomena affect it.  The only part humans invented are the particular units that we use to measure it.
> 
> Humans invented inches, too, but the dimension of length exists whether we choose to measure it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain the mechanism acting in those observations you say do exist. You must prove that an existing and flowing time is the cause. How is that happening?
> 
> You not having the explanation of the mechanism will mean your theory is false, invalid, a nonsense.
Click to expand...

First off, I'm going to insist that you take note of the first sentence in my last post.  "That last bit doesn't APPEAR to be true."  I'm not saying that this is definite, as science is a method for disproving errant possibilities.  Proving an affirmative assertion is a much trickier, arguably impossible task.

Anyway.

I'm immediately spotting one major hole in your logic:  The validity of an experiment doesn't rest on my personal ability to understand and explain it.  If I can't explain the mechanism of someone else's scientific research, that doesn't disprove anything other than my own understanding.  And we're not talking about -my- theory.  We're talking about Einstein's theory, and there have actually been many experiments made suggesting this to be the case.









						Hafele–Keating experiment - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				












						Three Experiments That Show Relativity Is Real
					

Relativity predicts a lot of phenomena that seem weird, but there are a huge number of experimental tests confirming that it's real. Here are three of the best.




					www.forbes.com
				









						NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment | Science Mission Directorate
					

NASA has announced the results of an epic physics experiment which confirms the reality of a space-time vortex around our planet.




					science.nasa.gov
				






			https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi2nc7pq-HqAhWJjp4KHc8hB-kQFjAEegQIChAJ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.outerplaces.com%2Fscience%2Fitem%2F6019-physicists-confirm-that-time-moves-more-slowly-for-objects-in-motion&usg=AOvVaw1b5JZ5vHUcacSP11RyMvfX
		










						Einstein's "Time Dilation" Prediction Verified
					

Experiments at a particle accelerator have confirmed the "time dilation" effect predicted by Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity




					www.scientificamerican.com
				




You'll notice that the common thread with most of these time experiments is extremely precise time measuring instruments synced up.  Some are kept relatively stationary while others are sent into motion.  As more and more experiments have been conducted to this end, the results have consistently shown not only that the moving clocks measured a different amount of time passing than those that were stationary, but also always as predicted by the mathematics of relativity theory.

In terms of proving that it's the existence and flow of "time" that's the "cause", you're simply talking semantics.  The point is, things occur, and the rate at which they occur is relative to phenomena including, but not necessarily limited to velocity and gravity.  That rate of occurrence is what we call time, and it is a thing whether or not we choose to measure or name it.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

ding said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luchitociencia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this conversation isn't actually happening?
> 
> I believe you are looking at it the wrong way.  As God is outside of space and time God experiences space and time all at once.  Think of it this way, God has an infinite amount of time to spend on anything.  That's what it means to be outside of space and time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't understand the bible at all.
> 
> The essence of God is not in the known physical universe.
> 
> Plus, the physical universe is formed by space and matter, where time is nothing but a measure invented by man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That last bit doesn't appear to be true.  Experimentation has proved that entropy occurs at different rates when, for instance, travelling at different speeds.  Time exists and is quantifiable insofar as we can observe how various phenomena affect it.  The only part humans invented are the particular units that we use to measure it.
> 
> Humans invented inches, too, but the dimension of length exists whether we choose to measure it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The best we can say about time is that it is a convenient method for demarcating the expansion of the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem of time - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

This is a big part of my "seems" bit, as well.

Once you get into quantum physics, you move well beyond territory where I've got even a cursory, conceptual understanding of many of the concepts being presented.  I tend to put a lot of stock into what the atomic clock experiments seem to suggest, but it's definitely possible that human perception is so far removed from reality that things occurring in any sort of succession at all is simply an illusion.  Maybe everything physical already existed/exists/will exist simultaneously, all in a single, immeasurably finite instant, and our disembodied, immaterial consciousnesses have it all fucked up.

Honestly, I've always enjoyed thinking about this stuff.


----------



## ding

Not2BSubjugated said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luchitociencia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this conversation isn't actually happening?
> 
> I believe you are looking at it the wrong way.  As God is outside of space and time God experiences space and time all at once.  Think of it this way, God has an infinite amount of time to spend on anything.  That's what it means to be outside of space and time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't understand the bible at all.
> 
> The essence of God is not in the known physical universe.
> 
> Plus, the physical universe is formed by space and matter, where time is nothing but a measure invented by man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That last bit doesn't appear to be true.  Experimentation has proved that entropy occurs at different rates when, for instance, travelling at different speeds.  Time exists and is quantifiable insofar as we can observe how various phenomena affect it.  The only part humans invented are the particular units that we use to measure it.
> 
> Humans invented inches, too, but the dimension of length exists whether we choose to measure it or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The best we can say about time is that it is a convenient method for demarcating the expansion of the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem of time - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a big part of my "seems" bit, as well.
> 
> Once you get into quantum physics, you move well beyond territory where I've got even a cursory, conceptual understanding of many of the concepts being presented.  I tend to put a lot of stock into what the atomic clock experiments seem to suggest, but it's definitely possible that human perception is so far removed from reality that things occurring in any sort of succession at all is simply an illusion.  Maybe everything physical already existed/exists/will exist simultaneously, all in a single, immeasurably finite instant, and our disembodied, immaterial consciousnesses have it all fucked up.
> 
> Honestly, I've always enjoyed thinking about this stuff.
Click to expand...

The only way reality can manifest itself is through human perception.   To this degree, all physical observation is subjective.

"Early in this century it became evident to all physicists that the observer is an intrinsic component of every physical observation. Physical reality is what physicists recognize to be real. One cannot separate the recognition of existence from existence. As Erwin Schrödinger put it: “The world is a construct of our sensations, perceptions, memories. It is convenient to regard it as existing objectively on its own. But it certainly does not become manifest by its mere existence.”

Let me give a simple example of the intervention of mind in physical observation: Most readers are probably aware that radiation -- light, indeed all elementary particles -- exhibits simultaneously the properties of waves and of particles, though those properties are altogether different -- indeed, mutually exclusive. This is the prime example of a widespread class of relationships that Neils Bohr brought together in his principle of _complementarity_, which notes that numbers of phenomena, in and out of physics, exhibit such mutually exclusive sets of properties; one just has to live with them.

Enter consciousness: the physicist, setting up an experiment on radiation, decides beforehand which of those sets of properties he will encounter. If he does a wave experiment, he gets a wave answer; from a particle experiment he gets a particle answer. To this degree, all physical observation is subjective.

It is primarily physicists who in recent times have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind. Arthur Eddington in 1928 wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff ... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time.... Recognizing that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

Von Weizsacker in 1971 states as “a new and, I feel, intelligible interpretation of quantum theory” what he calls his “Identity Hypothesis: Consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality.”

I like most of all Wolfgang Pauli’s formulation, from 1952: “To us . . . the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

What this kind of thought means essentially is that one has no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves.

As for this seeming a strange viewpoint for a scientist -- at least until one gets used to it -- as in so many other instances, what is wanted is not so much an acceptable concept as an acceptable rhetoric. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? -- virtually the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious."  George Wald



			George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe


----------



## luchitociencia

Indeependent said:


> You know Hebrew?
> If not, this discussion is over.



I know that much that I can easily find  texts from it which have been read according to "tradition" but way away from what ancient Hebrew really says.

No flowing time at all, that is 100% guarantee.


----------



## luchitociencia

ding said:


> luchitociencia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this conversation isn't actually happening?
> 
> I believe you are looking at it the wrong way.  As God is outside of space and time God experiences space and time all at once.  Think of it this way, God has an infinite amount of time to spend on anything.  That's what it means to be outside of space and time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't understand the bible at all.
> 
> The essence of God is not in the known physical universe.
> 
> Plus, the physical universe is formed by space and matter, where time is nothing but a measure invented by man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not the droid you are looking for.
> 
> God can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.
Click to expand...

When you perceive the universe, you are perceiving his signature, not Him. You have been made at his image, not as Him himself.


----------



## luchitociencia

ding said:


> The best we can say about time is that it is a convenient method for demarcating the expansion of the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem of time - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


 A convenient measure. 

And with it you can't demarcate any expansion of the universe because  actually you can't perceive it by any means, so such idea is still hypothetical.


----------



## ding

luchitociencia said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luchitociencia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this conversation isn't actually happening?
> 
> I believe you are looking at it the wrong way.  As God is outside of space and time God experiences space and time all at once.  Think of it this way, God has an infinite amount of time to spend on anything.  That's what it means to be outside of space and time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't understand the bible at all.
> 
> The essence of God is not in the known physical universe.
> 
> Plus, the physical universe is formed by space and matter, where time is nothing but a measure invented by man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not the droid you are looking for.
> 
> God can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you perceive the universe, you are perceiving his signature, not Him. You have been made at his image, not as Him himself.
Click to expand...

I'm not a pantheist, dear.  I don't believe the painter is the painting.  

So was St. Paul wrong when he said, "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made."


----------



## ding

luchitociencia said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best we can say about time is that it is a convenient method for demarcating the expansion of the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem of time - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> A convenient measure.
> 
> And with it you can't demarcate any expansion of the universe because  actually you can't perceive it by any means, so such idea is still hypothetical.
Click to expand...

hmmmm... interesting.  Here is how I perceive it, my dear.

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

I told you I wasn't the droid you were looking for


----------



## luchitociencia

Not2BSubjugated said:


> I'm immediately spotting one major hole in your logic:  The validity of an experiment doesn't rest on my personal ability to understand and explain it.  If I can't explain the mechanism of someone else's scientific research, that doesn't disprove anything other than my own understanding.  And we're not talking about -my- theory.  We're talking about Einstein's theory, and there have actually been many experiments made suggesting this to be the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hafele–Keating experiment - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org



L. Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock laughed of relativists, and said Einstein folled himself and fooled a generation of scientists with his good for nothing theories full of "thought experiments".

I will tell you this. Atomic clocks are so sensitive, because they work thru internal signals and motion of atoms of Cesium, that you move it from one room to another and its time data has been affected already. Mr. Essen knew it, he was the builder of that clock. 



Not2BSubjugated said:


> Three Experiments That Show Relativity Is Real
> 
> 
> Relativity predicts a lot of phenomena that seem weird, but there are a huge number of experimental tests confirming that it's real. Here are three of the best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com



Test 1. I will explain you this way. You have your twin brother, and he will take a trip around the earth at 8 km/s, while you will be resting at the beach, having your refreshment, listening soft rock music.

According to the stupidity called relativity, time will "slow" for your brother because his speed.

But it happens that actually you, resting at the beach, and your brother in the space ship, are both traveling at 27km/s around the sun. In simple words, both of you are actually traveling at the same speed of 27km/s because that is the speed which rules over both of you.

So, if any difference is found in time data between your clock and your brother's clock, then definitively is not time dilatation but simply malfunction in your brother's clock.

Your theory has been debunked.

Test 2. There is not suich a thing as gravitational lenses, such is stupidity. The case of the solar eclipse in 1919 is nothing but "atmospheric lens". The Sun's hot atmosphere caused the distortion and the image of a near star will appear to be in a different location. This is a very common optical phenomenon.

Your sh*t theory is debunked again.

Test 3. The results only show how rotation of bodies affect the surroundings. You can't observe any compression of space time, and no similar fantasies.

Your theory debunked one more time.



Not2BSubjugated said:


> NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment | Science Mission Directorate
> 
> 
> NASA has announced the results of an epic physics experiment which confirms the reality of a space-time vortex around our planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> science.nasa.gov



NASA has changed the theory of relativity.

Idiot Einstein never ever mentioned any spinning of bodies as causing gravitational effects. His idea was solely "density" of bodies causing distortion in his imaginary space time.

Your legs have been pulled, because I am more than 20 years already showing relativity as false with its density and gravity. The spinning is not Einstein's idea, it is MY idea.

Go and review all the papers from Einstein, his theory is good for nothing. 



Not2BSubjugated said:


> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi2nc7pq-HqAhWJjp4KHc8hB-kQFjAEegQIChAJ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.outerplaces.com%2Fscience%2Fitem%2F6019-physicists-confirm-that-time-moves-more-slowly-for-objects-in-motion&usg=AOvVaw1b5JZ5vHUcacSP11RyMvfX



Find another source for your propaganda, I don't deal with Google.



Not2BSubjugated said:


> Einstein's "Time Dilation" Prediction Verified
> 
> 
> Experiments at a particle accelerator have confirmed the "time dilation" effect predicted by Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com



The example given about you and your twin brother -right above- deletes completely and forever the stupidity of time dilatation. You will never ever be capable to beat my statements. Not using relativity, that is for sure.

Relativity is a fraud.



Not2BSubjugated said:


> You'll notice that the common thread with most of these time experiments is extremely precise time measuring instruments synced up.  Some are kept relatively stationary while others are sent into motion.  As more and more experiments have been conducted to this end, the results have consistently shown not only that the moving clocks measured a different amount of time passing than those that were stationary, but also always as predicted by the mathematics of relativity theory.



Since nothing is "stationary" in the universe, then your theory is 100% invalid. 

Go back to school, demand your money back, because your teachers have taught you sh*t. Come back, and ask me, I will teach you science based on reality.



Not2BSubjugated said:


> In terms of proving that it's the existence and flow of "time" that's the "cause", you're simply talking semantics.  The point is, things occur, and the rate at which they occur is relative to phenomena including, but not necessarily limited to velocity and gravity.  That rate of occurrence is what we call time, and it is a thing whether or not we choose to measure or name it.



Semantics my ass.

You don't provide the explanation of the mechanism of how time dilates, of how time is affected by a moving object, then you have come here to put crappy links and talk pure sh*t.

You have nothing to validate relativity, you are spreading fraud around.

I'm a master, and I can dance the Macarena over all your relativity sh*t. Lol.


----------



## Crixus

Sunsettommy said:


> Creationism has never made sense, some of their explanations are wildly tortured and well.... stupid!
> 
> Evolution is a far more stable and reasonable science, they have improved a lot in recent decades in how they explain their fossil and other evidence to create a basic picture of what it is.




Even the part where the guy who created the theory proclaimed that black people and woman of all races do not possess the ability to reason at the level of men in the white race? You are coming off a bit racist here.


----------



## Crixus

ding said:


> luchitociencia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best we can say about time is that it is a convenient method for demarcating the expansion of the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem of time - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> A convenient measure.
> 
> And with it you can't demarcate any expansion of the universe because  actually you can't perceive it by any means, so such idea is still hypothetical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hmmmm... interesting.  Here is how I perceive it, my dear.
> 
> We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.
> 
> Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.
> 
> Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.
> 
> Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.
> 
> I told you I wasn't the droid you were looking for
Click to expand...



Psft, you just made all that up. Link or its all fake.


----------



## luchitociencia

ding said:


> I'm not a pantheist, dear.  I don't believe the painter is the painting.
> 
> So was St. Paul wrong when he said, "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made."



A knew a house decorator who had his signature. All the houses he was called to decorate, the window frames of those houses ended painted green color. So, you drive thru the luxury neighborhoods, and typically the houses with green window frames were clients of this professional decorator. You recognize he was there because such a detail.

That is what Paul has said in that phrase. His power, His deity, His invisible nature has been perceived thru the things He has made. 

When you receive his word, when you receive his Holy Spirit, you perceive Him thru them. but actually the Holy Spirit is not Him in essence, but is what He sent for you to have. It comes from Him, but it's not Him.

Jesus himself is not the Father in its essence, like your son comes from you but he is not you.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

luchitociencia said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm immediately spotting one major hole in your logic:  The validity of an experiment doesn't rest on my personal ability to understand and explain it.  If I can't explain the mechanism of someone else's scientific research, that doesn't disprove anything other than my own understanding.  And we're not talking about -my- theory.  We're talking about Einstein's theory, and there have actually been many experiments made suggesting this to be the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hafele–Keating experiment - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L. Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock laughed of relativists, and said Einstein folled himself and fooled a generation of scientists with his good for nothing theories full of "thought experiments".
> 
> I will tell you this. Atomic clocks are so sensitive, because they work thru internal signals and motion of atoms of Cesium, that you move it from one room to another and its time data has been affected already. Mr. Essen knew it, he was the builder of that clock.
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Three Experiments That Show Relativity Is Real
> 
> 
> Relativity predicts a lot of phenomena that seem weird, but there are a huge number of experimental tests confirming that it's real. Here are three of the best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Test 1. I will explain you this way. You have your twin brother, and he will take a trip around the earth at 8 km/s, while you will be resting at the beach, having your refreshment, listening soft rock music.
> 
> According to the stupidity called relativity, time will "slow" for your brother because his speed.
> 
> But it happens that actually you, resting at the beach, and your brother in the space ship, are both traveling at 27km/s around the sun. In simple words, both of you are actually traveling at the same speed of 27km/s because that is the speed which rules over both of you.
> 
> So, if any difference is found in time data between your clock and your brother's clock, then definitively is not time dilatation but simply malfunction in your brother's clock.
> 
> Your theory has been debunked.
> 
> Test 2. There is not suich a thing as gravitational lenses, such is stupidity. The case of the solar eclipse in 1919 is nothing but "atmospheric lens". The Sun's hot atmosphere caused the distortion and the image of a near star will appear to be in a different location. This is a very common optical phenomenon.
> 
> Your sh*t theory is debunked again.
> 
> Test 3. The results only show how rotation of bodies affect the surroundings. You can't observe any compression of space time, and no similar fantasies.
> 
> Your theory debunked one more time.
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment | Science Mission Directorate
> 
> 
> NASA has announced the results of an epic physics experiment which confirms the reality of a space-time vortex around our planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> science.nasa.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NASA has changed the theory of relativity.
> 
> Idiot Einstein never ever mentioned any spinning of bodies as causing gravitational effects. His idea was solely "density" of bodies causing distortion in his imaginary space time.
> 
> Your legs have been pulled, because I am more than 20 years already showing relativity as false with its density and gravity. The spinning is not Einstein's idea, it is MY idea.
> 
> Go and review all the papers from Einstein, his theory is good for nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi2nc7pq-HqAhWJjp4KHc8hB-kQFjAEegQIChAJ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.outerplaces.com%2Fscience%2Fitem%2F6019-physicists-confirm-that-time-moves-more-slowly-for-objects-in-motion&usg=AOvVaw1b5JZ5vHUcacSP11RyMvfX
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Find another source for your propaganda, I don't deal with Google.
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein's "Time Dilation" Prediction Verified
> 
> 
> Experiments at a particle accelerator have confirmed the "time dilation" effect predicted by Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The example given about you and your twin brother -right above- deletes completely and forever the stupidity of time dilatation. You will never ever be capable to beat my statements. Not using relativity, that is for sure.
> 
> Relativity is a fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll notice that the common thread with most of these time experiments is extremely precise time measuring instruments synced up.  Some are kept relatively stationary while others are sent into motion.  As more and more experiments have been conducted to this end, the results have consistently shown not only that the moving clocks measured a different amount of time passing than those that were stationary, but also always as predicted by the mathematics of relativity theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since nothing is "stationary" in the universe, then your theory is 100% invalid.
> 
> Go back to school, demand your money back, because your teachers have taught you sh*t. Come back, and ask me, I will teach you science based on reality.
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of proving that it's the existence and flow of "time" that's the "cause", you're simply talking semantics.  The point is, things occur, and the rate at which they occur is relative to phenomena including, but not necessarily limited to velocity and gravity.  That rate of occurrence is what we call time, and it is a thing whether or not we choose to measure or name it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Semantics my ass.
> 
> You don't provide the explanation of the mechanism of how time dilates, of how time is affected by a moving object, then you have come here to put crappy links and talk pure sh*t.
> 
> You have nothing to validate relativity, you are spreading fraud around.
> 
> I'm a master, and I can dance the Macarena over all your relativity sh*t. Lol.
Click to expand...

Wow, the sheer fucking arrogance of some of these claims is awe inspiring.

If I'm resting on the beach and my twin brother is in an airplane, we're not both moving at the same speed, regardless of the motion of the Earth, the solar system, the galaxy, or the velocity of the universe's expansion.  I, by sitting on the beach, am moving at precisely whatever speed the earth is spiraling through space.  My brother is moving at that speed ADJUSTED by the speed of the aircraft, which is not stationary in relation to the Earth, as I am.  Therefore, our total velocity will be different, even if that difference is only a tiny, tiny fraction of the velocity of the Earth itself.

If we were talking about this experiment with various time keeping instruments happening once or twice and the results coinciding with what we'd expect if relativity were correct, then I'd say that you're probably correct in calling it a chance malfunction.  The fact that such experiments have been replicated many times and the specific differences in the clocks that were in motion, when compared to the clocks that weren't, have tended map out over what one would expect if relativity were mathematically sound, suggests that you SIMPLY ASSERTING OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD that this is "definitively" the result of a malfunction is probably not reliable enough counter-evidence to call Einstein's theory of relativity debunked.

Next, and again, you SIMPLY ASSERTING that gravitational lensing isn't a thing , and claiming that it's the sun's "hot atmosphere" creating the optical illusion doesn't debunk shit.  I'm not sure where you've gotten the idea that your mere claims and whatever counter-explanations you could dream up count as scientific evidence, but that shit's silly as fuck.  You wanna say that you don't believe this shit, that I'm an idiot for finding it even remotely compelling, that's your prerogative, but please do get it through your head that expressing your contradictory opinions isn't the same as disproving scientific theories.

Next up, are you seriously telling me that the NASA article I posted is lying about Einstein's theory to give him credit for something that YOU actually theorized?  Holy shit, even by internet bullshit standards, that is one HELL of a claim!  I'm honestly starting to wonder if your entire reply is just an elaborate troll.  In the first place, you're expecting me to believe that you're a top scientist who's work is right there at the bleeding edge of theoretical physics, yet you've illustrated that you don't quite grasp the concept of relative velocity and you have demonstrated ZERO understanding of replicable results.  That's already goofy as fuck, but then telling me that NASA is giving Einstein YOUR credit!?  Just. . . wow.  I'll bet you stepped out of the shuttle before Armstrong, too, right?  Fuckin NASA.  It ain't right what they've done to you.

"Since nothing is "stationary" in the universe, then your theory is 100% invalid."  This is a good example of your lack of fundamental understanding.  Yes, everything in the universe is moving.  No, it isn't all moving at the same speed.  According to relativity theory, the difference in how time flows at different velocities isn't a binary; there isn't one speed at which time flows in motion and one speed at which it flows when stationary.  Rather, the rate of time's progress changes with velocity.  Therefore, the fact that nothing is stationary is irrelevant.  The differences can, according to all sorts of available literature and recorded experimentation, be observed by observing movement at different velocities.

You're right, though, I don't have an explanation as to the mechanism by which time dilates.  I never claimed to be an expert.  In fact, when I started this conversation by saying that time SEEMS to exist, I didn't even claim to have a confident belief in relativity theory.  From everything I've read, there have been some tweeks and updates, but by and large the experimental evidence thus far has largely confirmed the theory's pillars.  I only put up those links to show you that time dilation experiments aren't just some random shit I dreamed up to try and convince you of a random physics theory.

Here's the fun thing, though.  I don't need to be an expert in physics to see through you.  I don't have to have a PHD in SHIT to know that a guy who claims that, because the Earth is moving, a man sitting on the beach is moving at precisely the same speed as a man in an airplane, ALSO isn't an expert of any sort, let alone a man who's theories are misattributed to Einstein.

A MASTER!?  LMFAO!  Nah, I'm not gonna go bother my old school teachers, and I'm certainly not going to come to you to learn anything.  You, sir, are not only comically stupid for someone so utterly convinced of his own genius, but also cartoonishly full of shit.


----------



## ding

Crixus said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luchitociencia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best we can say about time is that it is a convenient method for demarcating the expansion of the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem of time - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> A convenient measure.
> 
> And with it you can't demarcate any expansion of the universe because  actually you can't perceive it by any means, so such idea is still hypothetical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hmmmm... interesting.  Here is how I perceive it, my dear.
> 
> We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.
> 
> Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.
> 
> Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.
> 
> Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.
> 
> I told you I wasn't the droid you were looking for
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Psft, you just made all that up. Link or its all fake.
Click to expand...

Is your google broken?


----------



## ding

Oh yeah, I almost forgot... Crixus , yoar welcome.


----------



## luchitociencia

Not2BSubjugated said:


> Wow, the sheer fucking arrogance of some of these claims is awe inspiring.



It's because I'm a master.  Do you want me to be humble when I am a master? Lol. Forget it!



Not2BSubjugated said:


> If I'm resting on the beach and my twin brother is in an airplane, we're not both moving at the same speed, regardless of the motion of the Earth, the solar system, the galaxy, or the velocity of the universe's expansion.  I, by sitting on the beach, am moving at precisely whatever speed the earth is spiraling through space.  My brother is moving at that speed ADJUSTED by the speed of the aircraft, which is not stationary in relation to the Earth, as I am.  Therefore, our total velocity will be different, even if that difference is only a tiny, tiny fraction of the velocity of the Earth itself.



Your mind is so narrow.

You say "time dilates because the speed of objects", but having that both are traveling at 29km/s around the sun, no matter how fast your brother travels in the airplane, both of you are traveling at the same speed anyway.

It should be a different scenario if your brother travels at greater speed than 29km/s,  and even so, our solar system travels at 250km/s in the galaxy, so whatever is inside our solar system that is their speed. But wait, our galaxy moves at 630km/s. FRom here, if you believe that crap of flowing time, then time flows the same inside the total galaxy, and no matter how fast you travel inside of it, time won't dilate as long as you don't  travel faster than 630km/s.

So, this is to demonstrate you that such idea of Einstein is nothing but crap to the square.



Not2BSubjugated said:


> If we were talking about this experiment with various time keeping instruments happening once or twice and the results coinciding with what we'd expect if relativity were correct, then I'd say that you're probably correct in calling it a chance malfunction.



Yes, use my Rolex and check its time data after two years in outer space. You will see that the malfunction of my Rolex will be way different than the malfunction of the atomic clock in the satellite.

Use a sand clock in the spaceship and all your crap is over in one dilated second... ha ha ha ha...

I'm a master.



Not2BSubjugated said:


> The fact that such experiments have been replicated many times and the specific differences in the clocks that were in motion,



I just poster "variables" using different kind of clocks to check if your crap is true, but you know that the other clocks will definitively give you other results other than the distorted result of the atomic clock in space.

I m a master, I know.

All your test have zero value when you never tried using variables, which are the test of fire to verify the results of the atomic clock data.



Not2BSubjugated said:


> when compared to the clocks that weren't, have tended map out over what one would expect if relativity were mathematically sound, suggests that you SIMPLY ASSERTING OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD that this is "definitively" the result of a malfunction is probably not reliable enough counter-evidence to call Einstein's theory of relativity debunked.



Relativity is a debunked theory. Time doesn't exist, by consequence, time can't dilate.

I'm a master.



Not2BSubjugated said:


> Next, and again, you SIMPLY ASSERTING that gravitational lensing isn't a thing , and claiming that it's the sun's "hot atmosphere" creating the optical illusion doesn't debunk shit.  I'm not sure where you've gotten the idea that your mere claims and whatever counter-explanations you could dream up count as scientific evidence, but that shit's silly as fuck.



I will respond to your silly argument with a graphic of mine, because I'm a master.








Not2BSubjugated said:


> You wanna say that you don't believe this shit, that I'm an idiot for finding it even remotely compelling, that's your prerogative, but please do get it through your head that expressing your contradictory opinions isn't the same as disproving scientific theories.



Your scientific theories are crap. You won't be able to discredit a single line, letter, word of my graphic.

Do you know why?

Because I'm a master.



Not2BSubjugated said:


> Next up, are you seriously telling me that the NASA article I posted is lying about Einstein's theory to give him credit for something that YOU actually theorized?  Holy shit, even by internet bullshit standards, that is one HELL of a claim!



Idiot Einstein believed that gravity was caused by density of bodies, that's all he believed. Read his writings.

Even the stupidity of black holes was invented with that silly idea.

NASA is full of crap as well, when they also believe that they can see the universe as it was it is past... that is also laughable.

But don't worry about it, just follow my advice, go back to your school, demand your money back because your teachers taught you crap instead of physics.

I will teach you science based on reality. With me you finally will learn how the universe works.

Because... I'm a master.



Not2BSubjugated said:


> I'm honestly starting to wonder if your entire reply is just an elaborate troll.  In the first place, you're expecting me to believe that you're a top scientist who's work is right there at the bleeding edge of theoretical physics, yet you've illustrated that you don't quite grasp the concept of relative velocity and you have demonstrated ZERO understanding of replicable results.



I didn't say that, but you can believe whatever you want.



Not2BSubjugated said:


> That's already goofy as fuck, but then telling me that NASA is giving Einstein YOUR credit!?  Just. . . wow.  I'll bet you stepped out of the shuttle before Armstrong, too, right?  Fuckin NASA.  It ain't right what they've done to you.



Yes, it is MY credit, Silly Albert never ever mentioned any spinning of bodies related to gravity, he only related spinning to time dilatation. He was a loony and his theories were always good for nothing.



Not2BSubjugated said:


> "Since nothing is "stationary" in the universe, then your theory is 100% invalid."  This is a good example of your lack of fundamental understanding.  Yes, everything in the universe is moving.  No, it isn't all moving at the same speed.  According to relativity theory, the difference in how time flows at different velocities isn't a binary; there isn't one speed at which time flows in motion and one speed at which it flows when stationary.



So you agree with nothing in the universe  is stationary.But later you claim time flows at different  velocities.

Ok, now show me how you have detected those velocities of time. Remember that you can't use clocks because clocks are devices calibrated to solely make tic tic tic tic... Clocks can't detect any flowing time and perceive its "flowing".

Houston, a guy here has a problem....

Sheesss, I'm truly a master.



Not2BSubjugated said:


> Rather, the rate of time's progress changes with velocity.  Therefore, the fact that nothing is stationary is irrelevant.  The differences can, according to all sorts of available literature and recorded experimentation, be observed by observing movement at different velocities.



You and your "irrelevant" are going nowhere.

You talk of of available literature. Sure, pure crap theories. Face it, Einstein wasn't a genius but an idiot.

You say "recorded experimentation"m but you never used variables. Your experiments are all invalid if not incomplete.

You say, being observed by observing movement at different velocities. OK, light travels faster than you, so what?

You compete with light going to the Moon. A beam of light is sent to the Moon while you take a Uber spaceship going over there. At the time you have reached the Moon, the light has arrived already, part of it reflected on the surface and gone, another part absorbed. You can't even find where light hit on the Moon. Then, so what?

Reality is that such is all that will happen. Nothing more. Light traveled faster than you and that's all. No dilatation of time, no warping of space, no expansion of the universe, just you arriving way after light to the moon.

All your theories about relativity, and time dilatation are crap.

You better go back to your school, and do it before those fraudulent teachers retire and go away with your money.  They have pulled your legs.



Not2BSubjugated said:


> You're right, though, I don't have an explanation as to the mechanism by which time dilates.  I never claimed to be an expert.  In fact, when I started this conversation by saying that time SEEMS to exist, I didn't even claim to have a confident belief in relativity theory.



Look, a theory of science is not about predictions but EXPLANATIONS. Predictions are only the assumption of what could be the result in an experiment.

How it comes that relativity was accepted as a theory of science when Einstein never explained sh*t, such is a question to be answered by the idiots who follow that fantasy.

Lets say, you make your theory of the Sun orbiting around earth, and the mechanism is asked for you to explain how the sun travels from horizon to horizon. You can do like Ptolemy, and use mathematics alone, but such IS NOT an explanation. His calculations are very good, but the theory itself is crap.

You have with relativity the same scenario, pure abstract mathematics but zero explanation, zero facts.

I can guarantee you what I say because I'm a master.



Not2BSubjugated said:


> From everything I've read, there have been some tweeks and updates, but by and large the experimental evidence thus far has largely confirmed the theory's pillars.  I only put up those links to show you that time dilation experiments aren't just some random shit I dreamed up to try and convince you of a random physics theory.



You did good in discussing this topic with me. Hope you get deeper in those deluded theories but ask questions rather than getting impressed with their computer simulations and attractive pictures, which are just that, entertainment.

Demand the evidence that time really exists and flows. Tell them to show you the instruments used to measure the flowing of time. Remember, nothing else but the flowing of time. You will find out the whole theory is crappy without evidence supporting it.

I can tell because I'm a master.



Not2BSubjugated said:


> Here's the fun thing, though.  I don't need to be an expert in physics to see through you.  I don't have to have a PHD in SHIT to know that a guy who claims that, because the Earth is moving, a man sitting on the beach is moving at precisely the same speed as a man in an airplane, ALSO isn't an expert of any sort, let alone a man who's theories are misattributed to Einstein.



The example given to you was to demonstrate that if time "dilates" then the greater speed is what rules for it, and having the speed of earth as greater than yours and your brother's, then both of you should be experienced the same dilatation of time. The satellites travel in conjunction with earth at 29km/s around the sun, then, any difference between time data in atomic clocks is caused because one of the clocks suffers malfunction.

The atomic clocks are calibrated on ground zero. When exposed to a different environment, their calibration will suffer changes. This is a fact with everything you send to outer space. There are thousands of experiments of all kind performed in the space station, all of them prove and support my statements, all of them show changes without exception. Like mixing liquid metals that can't be mix on earth, or mixing water with cooking oil. You go to that space station and your heart becomes a circumference, and when you return  part of your DNA has changed.

You have learned wrong science in the past, and here you are learning good and verifiable science.



Not2BSubjugated said:


> A MASTER!?  LMFAO!  Nah, I'm not gonna go bother my old school teachers, and I'm certainly not going to come to you to learn anything.  You, sir, are not only comically stupid for someone so utterly convinced of his own genius, but also cartoonishly full of shit.



A master?

What are you talking about?

Are you saying I said I'm a master?!

Where? When?

I''m just a dude like you who is discussing science at a layman forum level.

Come on, you are confusing me with another guy...


----------



## ding

luchitociencia said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a pantheist, dear.  I don't believe the painter is the painting.
> 
> So was St. Paul wrong when he said, "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A knew a house decorator who had his signature. All the houses he was called to decorate, the window frames of those houses ended painted green color. So, you drive thru the luxury neighborhoods, and typically the houses with green window frames were clients of this professional decorator. You recognize he was there because such a detail.
> 
> That is what Paul has said in that phrase. His power, His deity, His invisible nature has been perceived thru the things He has made.
> 
> When you receive his word, when you receive his Holy Spirit, you perceive Him thru them. but actually the Holy Spirit is not Him in essence, but is what He sent for you to have. It comes from Him, but it's not Him.
> 
> Jesus himself is not the Father in its essence, like your son comes from you but he is not you.
Click to expand...

I don't need an explanation on the Trinity.  The Trinity is not some puzzle to be solved.  The Trinity is a relationship to be entered into.


----------



## ding

luchitociencia said:


> Do you want me to be humble when I am a master?   Lol. Forget it!


Why not?  Jesus does.

For those who exalt themselves will be humbled,
and those who humble themselves will be exalted.  Matthew 23:12

Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. Matthew 5:5

...For he who is least among you all is the one who is great. Luke 9:48


----------



## Crixus

ding said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luchitociencia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best we can say about time is that it is a convenient method for demarcating the expansion of the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem of time - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> A convenient measure.
> 
> And with it you can't demarcate any expansion of the universe because  actually you can't perceive it by any means, so such idea is still hypothetical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hmmmm... interesting.  Here is how I perceive it, my dear.
> 
> We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.
> 
> Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.
> 
> Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.
> 
> Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.
> 
> I told you I wasn't the droid you were looking for
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Psft, you just made all that up. Link or its all fake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is your google broken?
Click to expand...


No. Its just that I only giggle fun stuff. That and I thought you were the master?


----------



## ding

Crixus said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> luchitociencia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The best we can say about time is that it is a convenient method for demarcating the expansion of the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem of time - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> A convenient measure.
> 
> And with it you can't demarcate any expansion of the universe because  actually you can't perceive it by any means, so such idea is still hypothetical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hmmmm... interesting.  Here is how I perceive it, my dear.
> 
> We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.
> 
> Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.
> 
> Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.
> 
> Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.
> 
> I told you I wasn't the droid you were looking for
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Psft, you just made all that up. Link or its all fake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is your google broken?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Its just that I only giggle fun stuff. That and I thought you were the master?
Click to expand...

Where'd you get such a silly idea from.  There's nothing special about me.


----------



## Marion Morrison

abu afak said:


> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
> Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> 
> Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [.....]
> 
> *1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
> So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> *In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..." *
> 
> `
> 
> .
> 
> 
> `.


How did mammals come to be?


----------



## Crixus

Marion Morrison said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
> Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> 
> Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [.....]
> 
> *1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
> So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> *In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..." *
> 
> `
> 
> .
> 
> Mammal mommy's and daddy's.
> `.
> 
> 
> 
> How did mammals come to be?
Click to expand...


----------



## ding

Marion Morrison said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
> Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> 
> Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [.....]
> 
> *1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
> So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> *In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..." *
> 
> `
> 
> .
> 
> 
> `.
> 
> 
> 
> How did mammals come to be?
Click to expand...


----------



## Indeependent

luchitociencia said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The universe is already over as God is outside time and space.
> 
> 
> 
> Show time. I want to see its flowing.
> 
> I'll love to see how far your ignorance has made you reach the limits of the absurd.
Click to expand...

What does the word B'Ray-Shis mean?
It doesn't mean "In The Beginning".
Look up "B" as a prefix and look up "Ray-Shis".
The Zohar covers this.
Time and Space do not actually exist.


----------



## zaangalewa

luchitociencia said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what about if you are your own fairy tale story, who you tells everyone a story about the self made fairy tale "I"? Isn't it much more fascinating what my comrades sang thousands of years ago on their campfires? What had they understood if someone had said to them "... And god said: Let there be electromagnetic waves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, not all electromagnetic waves cause illumination as light.
Click to expand...


Your ideas about natural science are strange. If you don't know the eyes of the creatures on planet Earth then how do you "see" (=recognize) this?



> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And god saw the electromagntic waves, that it was good: and God divided the electromagnetic waves from the darkness ..." ... So what do you understand today really about your world, which would not be the same, if not thousands of years someone had written down this words? _"And god saw it was good what he had done"_ is one of the most important keys to understand what's really written there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point has been proved false.
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And by the way: "Seven miles boots" do we call today "automobiles". You should perhaps start to think about why you hate spirituality - and you should perhaps also think about,  why you are disrespecting fairy tales.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have missed this part of the seven miles boots. refer me where such comes from.
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> _If you want your children to be intelligent, read them fairy tales. If you want them to be more intelligent, read them more fairy tales._
> Albert Einstein
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, Einstein was a poor deluded guy who thought time is flexible as babbling gum. His fairy tales known as relativity theories are the most fantastic fantasies ever invented by a loony.
Click to expand...


Okay - you don't take yourselve serios. It's your right to do so.


----------



## zaangalewa

Not2BSubjugated said:


> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zaangalewa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Creationism is unfalsifiable. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationism : the "ism" shows normally always an ideolgy. Ideologies are in general closed systems of thoughts, Falsifyable within this system of thoughts - not falsifyable outside of this system of toughts.
> 
> But the Christains religion is not an ideology - while "darwinism" is the same time often nothing else than an extremist racist ideology. On the other side: The real scientific theory of evolution is not an ideology too.
> 
> But the discussion in the internet seems only to be a discussion from ideologists with ideologists, who share a common bad "knowledge" about the belief in god and about the Christian religion as well as about the basics of natural science and the methods and essential arguments of natural science in case of biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Internal falsifiability is all fine and good,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. It's not fine and good - it's the criterion for an ideology - a closed system of thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but not at all what I'm discussing, and not relevant to the discussion of science vs religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2. A discussion "science vs religion" alias "philosophy vs spiritualiy" is not a discussion about easily comparable things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific method is PURELY a method of proving hypotheses false to eliminate possibilities and push closer to affirmative understandings.  If a hypothesis cannot be disproven through experiment, you're no longer talking science.  That ought to be not only sufficient reason to separate the teaching of science from creationism, it ought to be the beginning and end of the entire f'in discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3. The methods of natural science are a rpduct of the philosophy empirism. Is empirism the same like the creator god, who made more than only thsi what is able to be subsejct of empirism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I simply wish these "I'm an atheist, debate me!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4. Hä? ... ah sorry: Eh? ... The belief in atheism is not a very interesting belief. I call atheists normally people, who don't believe to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kids would give it a fuckin' rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 5. Kids? And the F-word? ... Can it be you have not a big idea about how to educate children? ... And what have children now to do with your ideas about your atheism and your ideas about anti-atheists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's like there's people trying to play tennis on a football field, and rather than simply explain to them that they're playing their game in the wrong setting,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 6. You try to tell people they play a wrong game, because you don't like their rules?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the football players start scoring touchdowns to show the tennis players how inferior tennis is to football.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 7. And? If Tennis players play with a football and have fun ... who cares?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If people would simply remember that science is a method for FINDING, and not a synonym OF truth, and certainly not a label to categorize the beliefs and viewpoints of educated/enlightened people, that would go a long way to clear this nonsense up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 8. Natural science is a method to find what are the [mathematical] laws in the nature and what's right or wrong in this context. If we find a natural law on Earth then this natural law is the same in the Andromeda galaxy and every other place and time of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spooky laughing in the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's weird to see a response broken down line by line like that, which nonetheless rarely addresses the points made in any of the lines it breaks down.  Lemme see if I can clear some of this up for ya.  I'm unaware of any quick way to break the format of the post like you did, so I've taken the liberty of numbering each line in the "quote", and I'll use corresponding numbers in my reply.
> 
> 1.  When I said all fine and good, I was dismissing it as irrelevant to any point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A. Aha. You think what I say is irrelevant - thatäs why you will not waste time to think about this what I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was making in the discussion to which you were responding.  I wasn't arguing with you about the nature or definition of ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> B. Or with other words. You are an fanatics, who tries to speak about something, because you think something about me what has nothing to do with my person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  Science vs religion is NOT philosophy vs spirituality.  Philosophy is not science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C. What's wrong. Physics is a part of  natural philosophy for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science is a method of testing hypotheses through experimentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> D. Or withother words: The spirituality of physics  is mathematics and the god of physics is teh experimaent. But not all sciences are able to make experients. It's for example impossible to make in history experiments. What woudöl be today without Alexander the great? Ignoramus, igorabimus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophy, like religion, includes the exploration of the unfalsifiable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> E. So what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mind you, I'm not trying to downplay the importance of philosophy, or to imply the superiority of science over any of these other concepts. However, philosophy and science are NOT synonymous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> F. What's again wrong. The mother of all sciences is philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that first comparison, science vs religion, IS actually an easy comparison to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> G. No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One is a method of experimentation, the other is a system of beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> H. What a nonsense. Just a moment ago you said _"Philosophy, like religion, includes the exploration of the unfalsifiable."_ Now you say philosophy needs experiments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  No, empiricism is not like the creator god, assuming for the sake of argument that there is, in fact, a creator god.  Empiricism is a philosophy, the creator god is a being that created the universe.  Quite frankly, this question's answer is so obvious that I'm guessing the meaning got lost somewhere in translation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I. A philosophy is a way of thoughts. So the empirism of physics is basing on meta-physics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  I think we largely agree, here.  I think it's foolish for one to confidently declare that they don't believe in God, even if they believe that to be true.  We aren't wired up for not believing in something, and it generally just requires the right circumstances to draw that belief out of someone.  It's like they used to say after WWII, there's no atheists in a foxhole.
> 
> 5.  When I said kids, I wasn't literally referring to children.  I only used the term to emphasize the immaturity of crusading to prove the stupidly obvious truth that some particular religion isn't scientific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> J. Eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone claiming that their religion is science doesn't understand their religion, and anyone trying to apply science to religion doesn't understand science.  And, I gotta tell you, it's awfully presumptuous to think that you can extrapolate someone's understanding of education, from the mere fact that they used "fuck" and "kids" in the same sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> K. I'm sure I'm right. Do you have children? Ask them and their mother what they think about your arts to educate your children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6.  This has nothing to do with whether or not I like the rules of any game.  The tennis/football thing was a metaphor about simply acknowledging when someone is playing a different game than you are, rather than simply playing back at them as though the two different games are at all compatible.  Scoring touchdowns against someone who is playing tennis is utterly meaningless, even if they're mistakenly trying to play tennis on your football field.  Get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> L. Sure I got it. To play is a serios thing. And everyone has to follow the same rules. Aye, Captain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7.  I'll try and cut you some slack based on English not being your native language,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> M. Yeah - I'm privileged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but good lord man, this was obviously a metaphor.  If I apply your question back to the point I was illustrating with my metaphor, you're essentially asking me this:  If the people who want to teach creationism in science class have a good time doing so, then what's the problem?  The problem is that unfalsifiable ideas aren't science and shouldn't be taught as science, regardless of how much fun it is for the creationists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> N. Sorry - but we don't have a big problem with religious education in our schools here - better to say: we don't like to miss religious education in our schools. And we also don't like to miss natural sciences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8.  I wouldn't be so confident that the laws of nature are uniform throughout the universe.  That's something that we're a long way from being able to verify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> O. What a brainwashing bullshit to say so. We never found any exception from this rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow.  For all your spooky laughing, you seem to be having a really hard time understanding what I'm saying.  This time letters in stead of numbers.
> 
> A. This response only makes sense when you cut the quote off as you have.  Obviously, saying that something is irrelevant to the conversation at hand isn't the same as saying that it's irrelevant.  Ideology, it's exact definition, and where/if it diverges from religion, are all topics that I consider to be incredibly relevant, just not relevant to the conversation of why religion shouldn't be taught as science.  Maybe stick to what I've actually said rather than selectively cutting sentences apart and then disingenuously using manipulated quotes to try and extrapolate my character flaws?
> 
> B. It's not about fanaticism, nor does this have anything to do with what I think about you as a person, true or otherwise.  The reason I say that the nature/definition of ideology is irrelevant here is because the only point I was making is that creationism isn't science.  My argument for this point doesn't require any acknowledgement of the concept of ideology.  It only requires acknowledgement of the fact that creationism is unfalsifiable, and therefore not science.
> 
> C. Natural philosophy might discuss physics, and the conceptual categorization of physics as we know it today may even have emerged from natural philosophy.  Natural philosophy still isn't science, and even where the concepts explored in natural philosophy overlap with those explored in physics, the natural philosophy discussion still isn't a scientific one insofar as the scientific method isn't the basis for the ideas being expressed.  It's this simple:  Scientific method = science.  Not scientific method =/= science.
> 
> D. When you say that not all sciences are able to make experiments, you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of what science actually is.  If a subject cannot make experiments, it isn't science.  That simple.  History can't be verified or debunked via experimentation because history isn't a science.  Maybe one day the physicists invent a time machine and history becomes scientific, but until there's some way to fully verify historical claims, it ain't that.
> 
> E.  So what?  So philosophy is not a science.
> 
> F.  The mother of Jesus is Mary.  Mary is not Jesus.  Science emerged from philosophy, but philosophy is not science.  How is this hard to understand?
> 
> G.  Yes.
> 
> H.  Again, if you would use ENTIRE quotes in stead of chopping them up for effect, I wouldn't have to explain this.  What I said was, "And that first comparison, science vs religion, IS actually an easy comparison to make. One is a method of experimentation, the other is a system of beliefs."  SCIENCE vs religion.  I don't believe that philosophy requires experimentation, which is precisely why I've insisted several times now that philosophy isn't science.  Try to keep up.
> 
> I. Ah, I see what you're saying, now.  I don't know about creator God, but it definitely had a hand in the birthing process.
> 
> J.  I don't know how to make it much simpler than that.  I wasn't literally referring to children.  I was just calling them "kids" to emphasize the childishness of it all.  Sometimes I refer to myself as a kid for similar reasons.
> 
> K.  Based on an exchange of 2 posts on a political message board, you're SURE that you've accurately guessed what, if any, preferences I have in methods of education and the relative effectiveness of those methods?  LMFAO.  I'd love for you to explain the reasoning behind that analysis, Sigmund.
> 
> L.  Nah, you don't get "it", if "it" refers to the point I was making.  "It" was never about the importance of adhering to rules.  "It" was about the fruitlessness of expecting people playing a separate game to adhere to the rules of your game.  This conversation is starting to make me wonder if I've stumbled onto that very territory, cuz you're clearly perceiving a different conversation to be taking place than the one that I'm having.
> 
> M.  Zing.
> 
> N.  That's solid policy.  Religious and scientific education are both incredibly important, regardless of what one believes.
> 
> O.  It's brainwashing bullshit to say that we haven't verified the uniformity of the laws of physics in every corner of the known universe?  Lol!  I hate to break it to you, but nobody's ever brainwashed someone else just to make them skeptical.  Seriously, though, the fact that we haven't disproven this uniformity is NOT verification that it's true.  We've never sent a human further away than our own moon, and the furthest travelled probes that we've ever sent out are barely past the edge of the sun's magnetic field and tens of thousands of years from ever approaching the nearest star, let alone another galaxy, let alone the edges of the universe.  So yeah, we haven't ever disproven this rule, but in all fairness, we still have just a teensy little bit of universe left to explore and learn about before we can rule out that possibility.
Click to expand...


I wasted a long time to give a detailed answer - then I decided to delete this answer. Reason: Whatever I would say to you would change nothing.


----------



## ding

Indeependent said:


> luchitociencia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The universe is already over as God is outside time and space.
> 
> 
> 
> Show time. I want to see its flowing.
> 
> I'll love to see how far your ignorance has made you reach the limits of the absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does the word B'Ray-Shis mean?
> It doesn't mean "In The Beginning".
> Look up "B" as a prefix and look up "Ray-Shis".
> The Zohar covers this.
> Time and Space do not actually exist.
Click to expand...

"...THERE is a difference between first and beginning (or principle). The latter exists in the thing of which it is the beginning, or co-exists with it; it need not precede it; e.g., the heart is the beginning of the living being; the element is the beginning of that of which it is the basis. The term "first" is likewise applied to things of this kind; but is also employed in cases where precedence in time alone is to be expressed, and the thing which precedes is not the beginning (or the cause) of the thing that follows. E.g., we say A. was the first inhabitant of this house, after him came B; this does not imply that A is the cause of B inhabiting the house. In Hebrew, teḥillah is used in the sense of "first"; e.g., when God first (teḥillat) spake to Hosea (Hos. 1:1), and the "beginning" is expressed by reshith, derived from rosh, "head," the principal part of the living being as regards position. The Universe has not been created out of an element that preceded it in time, since time itself formed part of the Creation. For this reason Scripture employs the term "bereshit" (in a principle), in which the beth is a preposition denoting "in." The true explanation of the first verse of Genesis is as follows: "In [creating] a principle God created the beings above and the things below." This explanation is in accordance with the theory of the Creation. We find that some of our Sages are reported to have held the opinion that time existed before the Creation. But this report is very doubtful, because the theory that time cannot be imagined with a beginning, has been taught by Aristotle, as I showed you, and is objectionable. Those who have made this assertion have been led to it by a saying of one of our Sages in reference to the terms "one day," "a second day." Taking these terms literally, the author of that saying asked, What determined "the first day," since there was no rotating sphere, and no sun? and continues as follows: Scripture uses the term "one day"; R. Jehudah, son of R. Simon, said: "Hence we learn that the divisions of time have existed previously." R. Abahu said, "Hence we learn that God built worlds and again destroyed them." This latter exposition is still worse than the former. Consider the difficulty which these two Rabbis found in the statement that time existed before the creation of the sun. We shall undoubtedly soon remove this difficulty, unless these two Rabbis intended to infer from the Scriptural text that the divisions of time must have existed before the Creation, and thus adopted the theory of the Eternity of the Universe. But every religious man rejects this. The above saying is, in my opinion, certainly of the same character as that of R. Eliezer, "Whence were the heavens created," etc., (chap. xxvi.). In short, in these questions, do not take notice of the utterances of any person. I told you that the foundation of our faith is the belief that God created the Universe from nothing; that time did not exist previously, but was created: for it depends on the motion of the sphere, and the sphere has been created. You must know that the particle et in the phrase et ha-shamayim ve-et ha-areẓ ("the heavens and the earth") signifies "together with"; our Sages have explained the word in the same sense in many instances. Accordingly they assume that God created with the heavens everything that the heavens contain, and with the earth everything the earth includes. They further say that the simultaneous Creation of the heavens and the earth is implied in the words, "I call unto them, they stand up together" (Ps. xlviii.). Consequently, all things were created together, but were separated from each other successively. Our Sages illustrated this by the following simile: We sow various seeds at the same time; some spring forth after one day, some after two, and some after three days, although all have been sown at the same time. According to this interpretation, which is undoubtedly correct, the difficulty is removed, which led R. Jehudah, son of R. Simon, to utter the above saying, and consisted in the doubt as to the thing by which the first day, the second, and the third were determined. In Bereshit Rabba, our Sages, speaking of the light created on the first day according to the Scriptural account, say as follows: these lights [of the luminaries mentioned in the Creation of the fourth day] are the same that were created on the first day, but were only fixed in their places on the fourth day. The meaning [of the first verse] has thus been clearly stated..."

Maimonides Guide for the Perplexed, Part II, Chapter 30


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

theHawk said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
> Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> 
> Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [.....]
> 
> *1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
> So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> *In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..." *
> 
> `
> 
> .
> 
> 
> `.
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t get it, are you denying the universe was created?  Even quantum physicists believe in a creation theory, the Big Bang Theory.  Although they have to twist the rules of science and make up some fairy tales with no scientific backing to make the theory work, like “inflation” and “dark matter”.
Click to expand...

No, he is specifically talking about the school of creationism that denies evolution. Young earth dolts.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> Anyone who has studied even the simplest form of life, which is far from simple, and believes in evolution is either an idiot or lying to themselves


Haha...in other words, all the scientists who have actually studied it. No, your reading of idiot creationist blogs does not qualify as study.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> You know Hebrew?
> If not, this discussion is over.


Good. You don't belong in this thread. Take your silly voodoo to the religion section.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know Hebrew?
> If not, this discussion is over.
> 
> 
> 
> Good. You don't belong in this thread. Take your silly voodoo to the religion section.
Click to expand...

Oh, look!  It's the Internet Scientist!
Please specify your numerous Science PhDs.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who has studied even the simplest form of life, which is far from simple, and believes in evolution is either an idiot or lying to themselves
> 
> 
> 
> Haha...in other words, all the scientists who have actually studied it. No, your reading of idiot creationist blogs does not qualify as study.
Click to expand...

The scientists who have "studied it" are paid by the atheists who want to devalue human integrity.
There's no way a scientist with any integrity can explain how *millions of different creatures* can survive and evolve over *hundreds of millions of years* into a perfect eco-system.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know Hebrew?
> If not, this discussion is over.
> 
> 
> 
> Good. You don't belong in this thread. Take your silly voodoo to the religion section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, look!  It's the Internet Scientist!
> Please specify your numerous Science PhDs.
Click to expand...

What an idiotic request. I am relating what researchers say. You, with probably barely a GED, are relating the deranged ramblings of religious morons with their brains stuck in the year 600.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> The scientists who have "studied it" are paid by the atheists who want to devalue human integrity.


Another embarrassingly stupid talking point.

That's the thing about science: it doesn't show us what we want it to show us. It shows us what is, regardless of our childish religious fetishes.

You clearly know less than nothing about science and should shut up immediately. We have an entire section dedicated to religious dumbfuckery. I suggest you use it.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know Hebrew?
> If not, this discussion is over.
> 
> 
> 
> Good. You don't belong in this thread. Take your silly voodoo to the religion section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, look!  It's the Internet Scientist!
> Please specify your numerous Science PhDs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What an idiotic request. I am relating what researchers say. You, with probably barely a GED, are relating the deranged ramblings of religious morons with their brains stuck in the year 600.
Click to expand...

Over 50% of my community is comprised of scientists who scoff at evolution.
I notice that the only way you resolve your feelings of inferiority is via ad hominems.
There is not one researcher on YouTube who can explain the number of species fitting perfectly into a global eco-system.
These researchers do their best to avoid being questioned by others who do not fold to their financial donors.


----------



## luchitociencia

Not2BSubjugated said:


> This is a big part of my "seems" bit, as well.
> 
> Once you get into quantum physics, you move well beyond territory where I've got even a cursory, conceptual understanding of many of the concepts being presented.



Concepts, eh? Then define time in physics. In your definition must be included that magic capability you input on it called "dilatation". Your definition must be testable and pass all requirements.

No definition of time fulfilling the asked requirements will automatically invalidate every theory where you use_ time_.



Not2BSubjugated said:


> I tend to put a lot of stock into what the atomic clock experiments seem to suggest, but it's definitely possible that human perception is so far removed from reality that things occurring in any sort of succession at all is simply an illusion.



I'm a master in Sensation and Perception. Years studying and experimenting, I discovered a Law of Perception which establishes that we, humans, and our instruments can't perceive but the present. We perceive solely the present. You look at the cosmos, watch a far away galaxy, you are watching that galaxy in its present, which is simultaneous with your present.

NASA and other ignorant dudes, believe that your brain is capable to see the universe as it was in its past, and because similar idiotic ideas from them, is the reason you also believe that our perception is far from reality, the existing.

It is totally the contrary, our perception is what keep us alive, because we must perceive solely the reality of the universe in order to survive.

And yes, I'M A MASTER.



Not2BSubjugated said:


> Maybe everything physical already existed/exists/will exist simultaneously, all in a single, immeasurably finite instant, and our disembodied, immaterial consciousnesses have it all fucked up.



See? Those idiotic theories have made you stupid. You have abandoned knowledge and have adopted imaginations. You have started to talk peanuts.



Not2BSubjugated said:


> Honestly, I've always enjoyed thinking about this stuff.



Oh my... oh my... I have been discussing with a loony all this time...


----------



## luchitociencia

ding said:


> The only way reality can manifest itself is through human perception.   To this degree, all physical observation is subjective.



Sure, your god is also subjective. And when you are hit by a car and you ended with a broken leg, do not worry about it, that is subjective, it is in your mind only....

...

...  What a bump! ha ha ha ha



ding said:


> "Early in this century it became evident to all physicists that the observer is an intrinsic component of every physical observation. Physical reality is what physicists recognize to be real. One cannot separate the recognition of existence from existence. As Erwin Schrödinger put it: “The world is a construct of our sensations, perceptions, memories. It is convenient to regard it as existing objectively on its own. But it certainly does not become manifest by its mere existence.”




They want to input those ideas in your brain in order to validate the loony theories, After you believe everything is subjective, then they don't have to prove that time exists physically.

The world exists without you.  You are not needed. You are just bacteria living in a particle of dust in the universe.



ding said:


> Let me give a simple example of the intervention of mind in physical observation: Most readers are probably aware that radiation -- light, indeed all elementary particles -- exhibits simultaneously the properties of waves and of particles, though those properties are altogether different -- indeed, mutually exclusive.



Water (liquid)  when is heated can be vapor (gas) and when is forzen can be solid (ice). Its behavior changes. Water particles when travel in group form waves.  Light is just a particle. When is alone is just a particle, and when travels in group forms a wave. What exclusivity are you talking about? 



ding said:


> This is the prime example of a widespread class of relationships that Neils Bohr brought together in his principle of _complementarity_, which notes that numbers of phenomena, in and out of physics, exhibit such mutually exclusive sets of properties; one just has to live with them.



*"Are not gross bodies and light convertible into one another, and may not bodies receive much of their activity from the particles of light which enter their composition?" *(Issac Newton, Optics)

Before the fantasies of Einstein, science was going the right way, science based in observation of nature (reality) and explained with solid understanding.

After relativity and modern quantum mechanics (the quantum mechanics theory before it was mixed with relativity was going the right way) , science became a circus, full of clowns who claim nothing is real but mere illusions. Many modern scientists look for the most extraordinary stupidity ever invented, in order to make you idiot and make profit while doing it. The examples given by Ding are the best demonstration of the current phenomena.




ding said:


> Enter consciousness: the physicist, setting up an experiment on radiation, decides beforehand which of those sets of properties he will encounter. If he does a wave experiment, he gets a wave answer; from a particle experiment he gets a particle answer. To this degree, all physical observation is subjective.



Sure, you make experiments with water, you receive an answer, you make experiments with vapor and you'll receive a different answer, and you make an additional test with ice, and guess what, you will also receive a different answer.

You make an experiment with a drop of water over your head, and you have an answer, you make another experiment but with a 2,000 gallons tank full of water released over you, and you surely will receive a surprised answer. Lol.



ding said:


> It is primarily physicists who in recent times have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind. Arthur Eddington in 1928 wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff ... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time.... Recognizing that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”



Eddington is the dude who made make ups to the plaques from the 1919 expeditions in order to make relativity prediction win over Newton's prediction. According to a review, Newton was the winner in that constest, but Eddington committed fraud to validate relativity against the aproval of all the involved scientists. 

Three years later, in 1922, a member of the Swiss Academy announced that after a review, no other Nobel Prize will be given to Einstein for his Relativity theory, because it was found that Relativity was not science but philosophy.

This announcement is the origin of why Eddington said what he said, because there is no way you can prove Relativity as true unless you live in the world of imagination.



ding said:


> Von Weizsacker in 1971 states as “a new and, I feel, intelligible interpretation of quantum theory” what he calls his “Identity Hypothesis: Consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality.”



Einstein tried very  hard but died without unifying his Relativity with quantum mechanics. Years later, by miracle, relativity was married to quantum mechanics in the middle of the night, no one took credit of such a marvel. There is only the explanation that "an error" was found in the formulas, but by "fixing it" then relativity and quantum mechanics can work together.

This distorted quantum mechanics is the one mentioned by Von Weizsacker.



ding said:


> I like most of all Wolfgang Pauli’s formulation, from 1952: “To us . . . the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”



He said "complementary".




ding said:


> What this kind of thought means essentially is that one has no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves.




Why you said that?

It is complementary for us, in order to recognize reality. But physical reality doesn't need you for you to exists as a universe.

In other words, you need the universe, but the universe doesn't need you.




ding said:


> As for this seeming a strange viewpoint for a scientist -- at least until one gets used to it -- as in so many other instances, what is wanted is not so much an acceptable concept as an acceptable rhetoric. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? -- virtually the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious."  George Wald



An idiot supporting another idiot.

Truth is that pride is the reason why so many scientists have no other choice but to continue with the farce.  

An official recognition that relativity was always false is shame for England, the Queen of England, the State of Israel, the several institutions which honored the retarded as a genius.

This is why they protect themselves.

I'm asking you and others to show the mechanism acting in such time dilatation and you keep silence or deviate the discussion. I ask to define time, same, the definition given is crap and won't fulfill the in... inclusion of such flexibility to dilate. I ask to show the detection of time, and... funny, you come with comparison of clocks...

What you are talking definitively is not science, but you talk about magic, extraordinary dimensions which exist in your mind alone, because no one can detect them with instruments. 

When I read your messages talking about science I just say... Oh my... oh my... what a droid... what a droid... sigh*


----------



## ding

luchitociencia said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way reality can manifest itself is through human perception.   To this degree, all physical observation is subjective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, your god is also subjective. And when you are hit by a car and you ended with a broken leg, do not worry about it, that is subjective, it is in your mind only....
> 
> ...
> 
> ...  What a bump! ha ha ha ha
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Early in this century it became evident to all physicists that the observer is an intrinsic component of every physical observation. Physical reality is what physicists recognize to be real. One cannot separate the recognition of existence from existence. As Erwin Schrödinger put it: “The world is a construct of our sensations, perceptions, memories. It is convenient to regard it as existing objectively on its own. But it certainly does not become manifest by its mere existence.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They want to input those ideas in your brain in order to validate the loony theories, After you believe everything is subjective, then they don't have to prove that time exists physically.
> 
> The world exists without you.  You are not needed. You are just bacteria living in a particle of dust in the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me give a simple example of the intervention of mind in physical observation: Most readers are probably aware that radiation -- light, indeed all elementary particles -- exhibits simultaneously the properties of waves and of particles, though those properties are altogether different -- indeed, mutually exclusive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Water (liquid)  when is heated can be vapor (gas) and when is forzen can be solid (ice). Its behavior changes. Water particles when travel in group form waves.  Light is just a particle. When is alone is just a particle, and when travels in group forms a wave. What exclusivity are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the prime example of a widespread class of relationships that Neils Bohr brought together in his principle of _complementarity_, which notes that numbers of phenomena, in and out of physics, exhibit such mutually exclusive sets of properties; one just has to live with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Are not gross bodies and light convertible into one another, and may not bodies receive much of their activity from the particles of light which enter their composition?" *(Issac Newton, Optics)
> 
> Before the fantasies of Einstein, science was going the right way, science based in observation of nature (reality) and explained with solid understanding.
> 
> After relativity and modern quantum mechanics (the quantum mechanics theory before it was mixed with relativity was going the right way) , science became a circus, full of clowns who claim nothing is real but mere illusions. Many modern scientists look for the most extraordinary stupidity ever invented, in order to make you idiot and make profit while doing it. The examples given by Ding are the best demonstration of the current phenomena.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enter consciousness: the physicist, setting up an experiment on radiation, decides beforehand which of those sets of properties he will encounter. If he does a wave experiment, he gets a wave answer; from a particle experiment he gets a particle answer. To this degree, all physical observation is subjective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, you make experiments with water, you receive an answer, you make experiments with vapor and you'll receive a different answer, and you make an additional test with ice, and guess what, you will also receive a different answer.
> 
> You make an experiment with a drop of water over your head, and you have an answer, you make another experiment but with a 2,000 gallons tank full of water released over you, and you surely will receive a surprised answer. Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is primarily physicists who in recent times have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind. Arthur Eddington in 1928 wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff ... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time.... Recognizing that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eddington is the dude who made make ups to the plaques from the 1919 expeditions in order to make relativity prediction win over Newton's prediction. According to a review, Newton was the winner in that constest, but Eddington committed fraud to validate relativity against the aproval of all the involved scientists.
> 
> Three years later, in 1922, a member of the Swiss Academy announced that after a review, no other Nobel Prize will be given to Einstein for his Relativity theory, because it was found that Relativity was not science but philosophy.
> 
> This announcement is the origin of why Eddington said what he said, because there is no way you can prove Relativity as true unless you live in the world of imagination.
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Von Weizsacker in 1971 states as “a new and, I feel, intelligible interpretation of quantum theory” what he calls his “Identity Hypothesis: Consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Einstein tried very  hard but died without unifying his Relativity with quantum mechanics. Years later, by miracle, relativity was married to quantum mechanics in the middle of the night, no one took credit of such a marvel. There is only the explanation that "an error" was found in the formulas, but by "fixing it" then relativity and quantum mechanics can work together.
> 
> This distorted quantum mechanics is the one mentioned by Von Weizsacker.
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like most of all Wolfgang Pauli’s formulation, from 1952: “To us . . . the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He said "complementary".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> What this kind of thought means essentially is that one has no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why you said that?
> 
> It is complementary for us, in order to recognize reality. But physical reality doesn't need you for you to exists as a universe.
> 
> In other words, you need the universe, but the universe doesn't need you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for this seeming a strange viewpoint for a scientist -- at least until one gets used to it -- as in so many other instances, what is wanted is not so much an acceptable concept as an acceptable rhetoric. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? -- virtually the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious."  George Wald
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An idiot supporting another idiot.
> 
> Truth is that pride is the reason why so many scientists have no other choice but to continue with the farce.
> 
> An official recognition that relativity was always false is shame for England, the Queen of England, the State of Israel, the several institutions which honored the retarded as a genius.
> 
> This is why they protect themselves.
> 
> I'm asking you and others to show the mechanism acting in such time dilatation and you keep silence or deviate the discussion. I ask to define time, same, the definition given is crap and won't fulfill the in... inclusion of such flexibility to dilate. I ask to show the detection of time, and... funny, you come with comparison of clocks...
> 
> What you are talking definitively is not science, but you talk about magic, extraordinary dimensions which exist in your mind alone, because no one can detect them with instruments.
> 
> When I read your messages talking about science I just say... Oh my... oh my... what a droid... what a droid... sigh*
Click to expand...

I'm pretty happy how this conversation went.


----------



## abu afak

Indeependent said:


> Over 50% of my community is comprised of scientists who scoff at evolution.
> I notice that the only way you resolve your feelings of inferiority is via ad hominems.
> There is not one researcher on YouTube who can explain the number of species fitting perfectly into a global eco-system.
> These researchers do their best to avoid being questioned by others who do not fold to their financial donors.


LOL
What an unbelievable pair of FALLACIES.
First the anecdote fallacy about "Your community" which is meaninglsss if you're a bible-belt moron living with non-biology scientists, or a dorm at Liberty University.
Evolution is the very foundation of Modern Biology.

And second, I don't know anyone who can explain a/all billion species and their ecosystems and certainly god/the bible doesn't do it AT ALL. 

NEXT POS please.

`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> NEXT POS please.


Evolution and a Creator are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Indeependent

abu afak said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Over 50% of my community is comprised of scientists who scoff at evolution.
> I notice that the only way you resolve your feelings of inferiority is via ad hominems.
> There is not one researcher on YouTube who can explain the number of species fitting perfectly into a global eco-system.
> These researchers do their best to avoid being questioned by others who do not fold to their financial donors.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> What an unbelievable pair of FALLACIES.
> First the anecdote fallacy about "Your community" which is meaninglsss if you're a bible-belt moron living with non-biology scientists, or a dorm at Liberty University.
> Evolution is the very foundation of Modern Biology.
> 
> And second, I don't know anyone who can explain a/all billion species and their ecosystems and certainly god/the bible doesn't do it AT ALL.
> 
> NEXT POS please.
> 
> `
Click to expand...

I’m an Orthodox Jew...
Tell me my community isn’t comprised of a majority of people with hard science degrees.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated

luchitociencia said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, the sheer fucking arrogance of some of these claims is awe inspiring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's because I'm a master.  Do you want me to be humble when I am a master? Lol. Forget it!
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm resting on the beach and my twin brother is in an airplane, we're not both moving at the same speed, regardless of the motion of the Earth, the solar system, the galaxy, or the velocity of the universe's expansion.  I, by sitting on the beach, am moving at precisely whatever speed the earth is spiraling through space.  My brother is moving at that speed ADJUSTED by the speed of the aircraft, which is not stationary in relation to the Earth, as I am.  Therefore, our total velocity will be different, even if that difference is only a tiny, tiny fraction of the velocity of the Earth itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your mind is so narrow.
> 
> You say "time dilates because the speed of objects", but having that both are traveling at 29km/s around the sun, no matter how fast your brother travels in the airplane, both of you are traveling at the same speed anyway.
> 
> It should be a different scenario if your brother travels at greater speed than 29km/s,  and even so, our solar system travels at 250km/s in the galaxy, so whatever is inside our solar system that is their speed. But wait, our galaxy moves at 630km/s. FRom here, if you believe that crap of flowing time, then time flows the same inside the total galaxy, and no matter how fast you travel inside of it, time won't dilate as long as you don't  travel faster than 630km/s.
> 
> So, this is to demonstrate you that such idea of Einstein is nothing but crap to the square.
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we were talking about this experiment with various time keeping instruments happening once or twice and the results coinciding with what we'd expect if relativity were correct, then I'd say that you're probably correct in calling it a chance malfunction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, use my Rolex and check its time data after two years in outer space. You will see that the malfunction of my Rolex will be way different than the malfunction of the atomic clock in the satellite.
> 
> Use a sand clock in the spaceship and all your crap is over in one dilated second... ha ha ha ha...
> 
> I'm a master.
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that such experiments have been replicated many times and the specific differences in the clocks that were in motion,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just poster "variables" using different kind of clocks to check if your crap is true, but you know that the other clocks will definitively give you other results other than the distorted result of the atomic clock in space.
> 
> I m a master, I know.
> 
> All your test have zero value when you never tried using variables, which are the test of fire to verify the results of the atomic clock data.
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> when compared to the clocks that weren't, have tended map out over what one would expect if relativity were mathematically sound, suggests that you SIMPLY ASSERTING OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD that this is "definitively" the result of a malfunction is probably not reliable enough counter-evidence to call Einstein's theory of relativity debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Relativity is a debunked theory. Time doesn't exist, by consequence, time can't dilate.
> 
> I'm a master.
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next, and again, you SIMPLY ASSERTING that gravitational lensing isn't a thing , and claiming that it's the sun's "hot atmosphere" creating the optical illusion doesn't debunk shit.  I'm not sure where you've gotten the idea that your mere claims and whatever counter-explanations you could dream up count as scientific evidence, but that shit's silly as fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will respond to your silly argument with a graphic of mine, because I'm a master.
> 
> View attachment 366170
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wanna say that you don't believe this shit, that I'm an idiot for finding it even remotely compelling, that's your prerogative, but please do get it through your head that expressing your contradictory opinions isn't the same as disproving scientific theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your scientific theories are crap. You won't be able to discredit a single line, letter, word of my graphic.
> 
> Do you know why?
> 
> Because I'm a master.
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next up, are you seriously telling me that the NASA article I posted is lying about Einstein's theory to give him credit for something that YOU actually theorized?  Holy shit, even by internet bullshit standards, that is one HELL of a claim!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot Einstein believed that gravity was caused by density of bodies, that's all he believed. Read his writings.
> 
> Even the stupidity of black holes was invented with that silly idea.
> 
> NASA is full of crap as well, when they also believe that they can see the universe as it was it is past... that is also laughable.
> 
> But don't worry about it, just follow my advice, go back to your school, demand your money back because your teachers taught you crap instead of physics.
> 
> I will teach you science based on reality. With me you finally will learn how the universe works.
> 
> Because... I'm a master.
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm honestly starting to wonder if your entire reply is just an elaborate troll.  In the first place, you're expecting me to believe that you're a top scientist who's work is right there at the bleeding edge of theoretical physics, yet you've illustrated that you don't quite grasp the concept of relative velocity and you have demonstrated ZERO understanding of replicable results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that, but you can believe whatever you want.
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's already goofy as fuck, but then telling me that NASA is giving Einstein YOUR credit!?  Just. . . wow.  I'll bet you stepped out of the shuttle before Armstrong, too, right?  Fuckin NASA.  It ain't right what they've done to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is MY credit, Silly Albert never ever mentioned any spinning of bodies related to gravity, he only related spinning to time dilatation. He was a loony and his theories were always good for nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Since nothing is "stationary" in the universe, then your theory is 100% invalid."  This is a good example of your lack of fundamental understanding.  Yes, everything in the universe is moving.  No, it isn't all moving at the same speed.  According to relativity theory, the difference in how time flows at different velocities isn't a binary; there isn't one speed at which time flows in motion and one speed at which it flows when stationary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you agree with nothing in the universe  is stationary.But later you claim time flows at different  velocities.
> 
> Ok, now show me how you have detected those velocities of time. Remember that you can't use clocks because clocks are devices calibrated to solely make tic tic tic tic... Clocks can't detect any flowing time and perceive its "flowing".
> 
> Houston, a guy here has a problem....
> 
> Sheesss, I'm truly a master.
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather, the rate of time's progress changes with velocity.  Therefore, the fact that nothing is stationary is irrelevant.  The differences can, according to all sorts of available literature and recorded experimentation, be observed by observing movement at different velocities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and your "irrelevant" are going nowhere.
> 
> You talk of of available literature. Sure, pure crap theories. Face it, Einstein wasn't a genius but an idiot.
> 
> You say "recorded experimentation"m but you never used variables. Your experiments are all invalid if not incomplete.
> 
> You say, being observed by observing movement at different velocities. OK, light travels faster than you, so what?
> 
> You compete with light going to the Moon. A beam of light is sent to the Moon while you take a Uber spaceship going over there. At the time you have reached the Moon, the light has arrived already, part of it reflected on the surface and gone, another part absorbed. You can't even find where light hit on the Moon. Then, so what?
> 
> Reality is that such is all that will happen. Nothing more. Light traveled faster than you and that's all. No dilatation of time, no warping of space, no expansion of the universe, just you arriving way after light to the moon.
> 
> All your theories about relativity, and time dilatation are crap.
> 
> You better go back to your school, and do it before those fraudulent teachers retire and go away with your money.  They have pulled your legs.
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, though, I don't have an explanation as to the mechanism by which time dilates.  I never claimed to be an expert.  In fact, when I started this conversation by saying that time SEEMS to exist, I didn't even claim to have a confident belief in relativity theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, a theory of science is not about predictions but EXPLANATIONS. Predictions are only the assumption of what could be the result in an experiment.
> 
> How it comes that relativity was accepted as a theory of science when Einstein never explained sh*t, such is a question to be answered by the idiots who follow that fantasy.
> 
> Lets say, you make your theory of the Sun orbiting around earth, and the mechanism is asked for you to explain how the sun travels from horizon to horizon. You can do like Ptolemy, and use mathematics alone, but such IS NOT an explanation. His calculations are very good, but the theory itself is crap.
> 
> You have with relativity the same scenario, pure abstract mathematics but zero explanation, zero facts.
> 
> I can guarantee you what I say because I'm a master.
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> From everything I've read, there have been some tweeks and updates, but by and large the experimental evidence thus far has largely confirmed the theory's pillars.  I only put up those links to show you that time dilation experiments aren't just some random shit I dreamed up to try and convince you of a random physics theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did good in discussing this topic with me. Hope you get deeper in those deluded theories but ask questions rather than getting impressed with their computer simulations and attractive pictures, which are just that, entertainment.
> 
> Demand the evidence that time really exists and flows. Tell them to show you the instruments used to measure the flowing of time. Remember, nothing else but the flowing of time. You will find out the whole theory is crappy without evidence supporting it.
> 
> I can tell because I'm a master.
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the fun thing, though.  I don't need to be an expert in physics to see through you.  I don't have to have a PHD in SHIT to know that a guy who claims that, because the Earth is moving, a man sitting on the beach is moving at precisely the same speed as a man in an airplane, ALSO isn't an expert of any sort, let alone a man who's theories are misattributed to Einstein.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The example given to you was to demonstrate that if time "dilates" then the greater speed is what rules for it, and having the speed of earth as greater than yours and your brother's, then both of you should be experienced the same dilatation of time. The satellites travel in conjunction with earth at 29km/s around the sun, then, any difference between time data in atomic clocks is caused because one of the clocks suffers malfunction.
> 
> The atomic clocks are calibrated on ground zero. When exposed to a different environment, their calibration will suffer changes. This is a fact with everything you send to outer space. There are thousands of experiments of all kind performed in the space station, all of them prove and support my statements, all of them show changes without exception. Like mixing liquid metals that can't be mix on earth, or mixing water with cooking oil. You go to that space station and your heart becomes a circumference, and when you return  part of your DNA has changed.
> 
> You have learned wrong science in the past, and here you are learning good and verifiable science.
> 
> 
> 
> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> 
> A MASTER!?  LMFAO!  Nah, I'm not gonna go bother my old school teachers, and I'm certainly not going to come to you to learn anything.  You, sir, are not only comically stupid for someone so utterly convinced of his own genius, but also cartoonishly full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A master?
> 
> What are you talking about?
> 
> Are you saying I said I'm a master?!
> 
> Where? When?
> 
> I''m just a dude like you who is discussing science at a layman forum level.
> 
> Come on, you are confusing me with another guy...
Click to expand...

I'm honestly going to have to apologize for even starting this conversation.  I didn't realize I was going to try and discuss concepts like proving and disproving with someone who's literally going to continuously cite his own expertise for absolute dipshit claims.

Your rolex?  A fucking sand clock?  Yes, these are definitely sensitive and accurate enough time pieces to quantify the sort of tiny variations that would theoretically occur at such relatively small differences in speed as humans are capable of producing.  Brilliant.  Also, don't let the experiments using particle acceleration get in the way of your narrative.  If you ignore them and just scoff at the velocity of an airplane being different than sitting on the beach, that basically proves Einstein was a dumbass.

Speaking of velocity, you're absolutely right.  Only something moving faster, in relation to the earth, than the overall velocity of the earth travelling through space, has a different velocity from anything else on earth.  Brilliant!

Also, your graph is amazing.  Showing me a diagram on atmospheric lensing totally debunks the idea of gravitational lensing.  How could TWO things affect light?  Genius!

Speaking of light, you're absolutely correct.  If time is real and is effected by velocity, then how come someone travelling to the moon on a spaceship can't find the evidence of a beam of light that left Earth for the moon at the same time?  Fucking genius!  I can't believe I've never thought of it like that!  If time is real, where is the evidence of the light that's been absorbed on the moon?  De-fucking-bunked!  What a master!

I especially like when you blow "my" experiments out of the water.  All of the experiments that anybody has ever done, they all ignored variables.  No need to point to a single example.  That blanket claim, when levelled by such a true MASTER, is as good as proof.  Brilliant!

You're a master at intellectual autofellatio, and I'd wager very little else.  For the record, I'm not saying that any of them are infallible and giving us gospel, and I'm not making any such claims about any theory or idea we've been discussing.  But of course I've mentioned all of that before, and it hasn't stopped you from continuing to characterize everything I've said as though I'm some kind of zealot for every idea I discuss.  I'm going to stop responding to you now, as the concept of relative velocity is clearly beyond your capacity, and because most of your "arguments" are based purely on your own unsubstantiated claims regarding every scientist and study you dismiss en masse.


----------



## abu afak

Indeependent said:


> I’m an Orthodox Jew...
> Tell me my community isn’t comprised of a majority of people with hard science degrees.


Tell me that's not so idiotic/Fallacious.
Orthodox Jews may be experts in the Torah/Talmud but not Biology.
Orthodox Jews believe in Creationism and Genesis, not 'hard science.'
What a stupid and anecdotal offer of proof.
You just Outed your "community."

I'm a secular/atheist Jew with a math degree and Mensa member.
Also joining Intertel/top 1% as Mensa is just top 2%.
You are so outgunned wittle guy.

`


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> Evolution and a Creator are not mutually exclusive.


Unless you're a biblical literalist.
Of course, your 'creator' has to compete with other 'creators,' while evolution/science is universally true.
`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution and a Creator are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you're a biblical literalist.
> Of course, your 'creator' has to compete with other 'creators,' while science is universally true.
> `
Click to expand...

Don't be silly.


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m an Orthodox Jew...
> Tell me my community isn’t comprised of a majority of people with hard science degrees.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me that's not so idiotic/Fallacious.
> Orthodox Jews may be experts in the Torah/Talmud but not Biology.
> Orthodox Jews believe in Creationism and Genesis, not 'hard science.'
> What a stupid and anecdotal offer of proof.
> You just Outed your "community."
> 
> I'm a secular/atheist Jew with a math degree and Mensa member.
> Also joining Intertel/top 1% as Mensa is just top 2%.
> You are so outgunned wittle guy.
> 
> `
Click to expand...

Maybe you should read Maimonides Guide for the Perplexed then.  

I've read some of your posts.  I'm not impressed.  Let's go.  Come at me, bro.


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> Maybe you should read Maimonides Guide for the Perplexed then.
> 
> I've read some of your posts.  I'm not impressed.  Let's go.  Come at me, bro.


You never write more than one or two sentences. (and again below!)
And that all get's lost in your longest post: your sig.
You're a ******* illiterate.


----------



## ding

I see a lot of clicking on reactions, but I don't see a walking of the talk.


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should read Maimonides Guide for the Perplexed then.
> 
> I've read some of your posts.  I'm not impressed.  Let's go.  Come at me, bro.
> 
> 
> 
> You never write more than one or two sentences.
> And that all get's lost in your longest post: your sig.
> You're ******* idiot.
Click to expand...

So, you are saying you don't want a piece of me then?

Seems like if I am an idiot you wouldn't be afraid of proving it.


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should read Maimonides Guide for the Perplexed then.
> 
> I've read some of your posts.  I'm not impressed.  Let's go.  Come at me, bro.
> 
> 
> 
> You never write more than one or two sentences.
> And that all get's lost in your longest post: your sig.
> You're ******* idiot.
Click to expand...

So you don't find it unusual that a universe which was created from nothing popped into existence ~14 billion years ago, especially since it is geared to produce intelligence?


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> You never write more than one or two sentences.


Really?  You can't say that you didn't ask for it.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

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.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Let's see what you got.


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution and a Creator are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you're a biblical literalist.
> Of course, your 'creator' has to compete with other 'creators,' while evolution/science is universally true.
> `
Click to expand...

I like how you said your creator and put creator in quotes.  I believe your problem is that the original meaning was lost through time, so it's not entirely your fault for not understanding what YOUR ancient people understood.  But it is your fault for not exploring it more especially when it didn't make sense to you.  Why?  Because there is no other document like it in the history of mankind.  Surely there must be something to it.  So it should have peeked your curiosity and motivated you to discover what they were saying.  Especially since they knew that the universe was created from nothing 6,000 years before science proved it.  So I will give you a primer.

The first five books of the Bible (known as the Torah) were written by Moses - an adopted son of the king of Egypt - in approximately 1400 B.C.. These five books focus on the beginning of the nation of Israel; but the first 11 chapters of the Torah records the history that all nations have in common. These allegorical accounts of the history of the world had been passed down from generation to generation orally for thousands of years. Moses did not really write the first 11 chapters of the Bible. Moses was the first Hebrew to record them.

Approximately 800 years before Moses recorded the allegorical accounts of the history of the world. The Chinese recorded this history as symbols in the Chinese language. They drew pictures to express words or ideas. Simple pictures were combined to make more complex thoughts. They used well known history and common everyday things to make a word so people could easily remember it. The account of Genesis found it's way into the Chinese written language because the Chinese had migrated from the cradle of civilization. Prior to this migration they all shared a common history and religion.

The Bible even explains how it was possible for the Chinese to record the account of Genesis 800 years before Moses recorded it. The account of the Tower of Babel was the allegorical account of the great migration from Mesopotamia. This also explains why all ancient cultures have an account of a great flood. Because they all shared a common history and religion before the great migration from the cradle of civilization.

So if we start from the belief that the first eleven chapters of the Torah are an allegorical account of world history before the great migration from Mesopotamia - which was an actual historical event - then the first eleven chapters of the Torah takes on new meaning. Seen in this light these accounts should be viewed less like fairy tales and more like how important information was passed down in ancient times. Just as the Chinese used well known history and everyday things as symbols in their written language to make words easier to remember, ancient man used stories to pass down historical events and important knowledge to future generations. Interspersed in these allegorical accounts of history are wisdoms that they deemed important enough to pass down and remember. Such as man knows right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he didn't do wrong. Most people don't even realize this wisdom is in the Torah because they read it critically instead of searching for the wisdom that ancient man knew and found important enough to include in his account of world history.

We have to keep in mind that these accounts are 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years. Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing. We shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world. Unfortunately, we are so far removed from these events that we have lost all original meaning. If you were to ask almost any Jew what the Tower of Babel was about he would have no clue that it was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization. That is not intended to be a criticism. It is intended to be an illustration of just how difficult a task it is to discover the original meaning from ancient accounts from 6,000 years ago. We read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make ourselves feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom. Shame on you.


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never write more than one or two sentences.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You can't say that you didn't ask for it.
> 
> At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.
> 
> So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.
> 
> If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.
> 
> But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.
> 
> So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.
> 
> We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.
> 
> The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.
> 
> 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.
> 
> All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.
> 
> If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.
> 
> Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.
> 
> So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.
> 
> Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.
> 
> If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.
> 
> Let's see what you got.
Click to expand...

WTF is that?
Your perception of god?
What is that?
Is their any proof or even Evidence of a god in there?

It's just Long and stupid. A Baffle em with BS
Are there any Hard FACTS in there?

WTF is that?

`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never write more than one or two sentences.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You can't say that you didn't ask for it.
> 
> At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.
> 
> So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.
> 
> If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.
> 
> But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.
> 
> So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.
> 
> We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.
> 
> The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.
> 
> 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.
> 
> All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.
> 
> If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.
> 
> Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.
> 
> So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.
> 
> Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.
> 
> If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.
> 
> Let's see what you got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF is that?
> Your perception of god?
> What is that?
> Is their any proof or even Evidence of god in there?
> 
> It's just Long and stupid/
> Baffle em with BS
> Are there any hard FACTS in there?
> 
> WTF is that?
> 
> `
Click to expand...

Doesn't really seem like the response a member of Mensa would make.


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> Doesn't really seem like the response a member of Mensa would make.


Response to WHAT?
*Again, Is there a single hard fact in there that is proof or evidence of a god?*
Any fact at all?
It's an idiot's diatribe.
You think long makes it authoritative?

IF you had something tangible/good you could say it in a single paragraph.
Instead it's long and baffling insanity.
`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't really seem like the response a member of Mensa would make.
> 
> 
> 
> Response to WHAT?
> *Again, Is there a single hard fact in there that is proof or evidence of a god?*
> Any fact at all?
> It's an idiot's diatribe.
> You think long makes it authoritative?
> 
> IF you had something tangible/good you could say it in a single paragraph.
> Instead it's long and baffling insanity.
> `
Click to expand...

That's rhetoric, dummy. 

Pick something and show me, dummy.

Let's see some of that superior intelligence of yours.  Pick apart my statements.  Show me how they are false or illogical.  You can't.  Because you are a dummy.


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't really seem like the response a member of Mensa would make.
> 
> 
> 
> Response to WHAT?
> *Again, Is there a single hard fact in there that is proof or evidence of a god?*
> Any fact at all?
> It's an idiot's diatribe.
> You think long makes it authoritative?
> 
> IF you had something tangible/good you could say it in a single paragraph.
> Instead it's long and baffling insanity.
> `
Click to expand...

Let's go paragraph by paragraph.



> At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.



What's false about this, dummy?


----------



## ding

I don't know if this guy is lazy or stupid.  Could be both.


----------



## ding




----------



## ding

I think I see the problem.  abu afak can only criticize what he doesn't believe.  He can't actually make an argument for what he believes.    He practices critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what he does not believe to arrive at what he does believe without ever having to examine what he believes. He confuses critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something he never does.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Let's go paragraph by paragraph.
> 
> 
> 
> At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

Debate? Repeatedly stating wishful (false) dichotomies as if established facts? Fodder for only the "lowest common denominators" indeed.


----------



## Grumblenuts

> "In the opinion of the committee that I chair, this effort was truly heroic. We were just blown away," says Will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An artist's concept of twisted spacetime around a black hole. Credit: Joe Bergeron of Sky & Telescope magazine.
> The results of Gravity Probe B give physicists renewed confidence that the strange predictions of Einstein's theory are indeed correct, and that these predictions may be applied elsewhere. The type of spacetime vortex that exists around Earth is duplicated and magnified elsewhere in the cosmos--around massive neutron stars, black holes, and active galactic nuclei.


Hilarious how "physicists" are depicted as though somehow lacking confidence in Einstein's theory where that's all they've been indoctrinated with from birth. And I just love how the image so clearly depicts the inherent magnetic/dielectric coupling driving all of nature far more than suggesting any wacko theory of "spacetime" being "warped" by masses. The donut shaped magnetic field bisected by the dielectric plane. The axis centered upon the region of both highest and potential near zero density. The spiraling so nearly depicting the hyperboloids (or simply the opposed cones) bounding each field. The multi filament thread down the middle suggesting not only the expected natural gyroscopic precession, but also the field antenna-like axis of mass/energy exchange with its surroundings. That is an atom, a planet, a sun, a galaxy..


----------



## Death Angel

justinacolmena said:


> The Bible says humans inhabited the lush rain forest of the Garden of Eden,


Gardens are not "lush (overgrown) rainforests (jungle). Other than that mistake, I mostly agree


----------



## Death Angel

THIS thread is why the RELIGION of Atheism is a RELIGION


----------



## Grumblenuts

Death Angel said:


> Atheism is


lack of belief by definition. Religion is the opposite. Now go suck an egg.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's go paragraph by paragraph.
> 
> 
> 
> At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Debate? Repeatedly stating wishful (false) dichotomies as if established facts? Fodder for only the "lowest common denominators" indeed.
Click to expand...

It's called logic and reason based on observations.  If you could attack them using logic and reason and actually explain what you disagreed with specifically that would be one thing.  But that's not what you idiots do.  All you and your ilk can offer are vague dismissals with no basis or reason.  That's you guys dismissing your defeats so you can ignore your incongruities.  I have no incongruities which is why you can't explain where the flaw in my logic is.  









						Next time send me a bigger one.
					

Mystery, Alaska (1999) clip with quote Next time send me a bigger one.     Yarn is the best search for video clips by quote.     Find the exact moment in a TV show, movie, or music video you want to share.     Easily move forward or backward to get to the perfect clip.




					getyarn.io


----------



## ding

Death Angel said:


> THIS thread is why the RELIGION of Atheism is a RELIGION


I wish they would get their religion out of our government.  It's hilarious how they made an end run around the establishment clause and turn around and use it to keep rival religions out.  And that's why my signature line is so long.

Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. *Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. *They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.


----------



## Hollie

Death Angel said:


> THIS thread is why the RELIGION of Atheism is a RELIGION


Atheism is not a religion. Your comment is just another tired slogan used primarily by angry xtians.


----------



## Indeependent

abu afak said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m an Orthodox Jew...
> Tell me my community isn’t comprised of a majority of people with hard science degrees.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me that's not so idiotic/Fallacious.
> Orthodox Jews may be experts in the Torah/Talmud but not Biology.
> Orthodox Jews believe in Creationism and Genesis, not 'hard science.'
> What a stupid and anecdotal offer of proof.
> You just Outed your "community."
> 
> I'm a secular/atheist Jew with a math degree and Mensa member.
> Also joining Intertel/top 1% as Mensa is just top 2%.
> You are so outgunned wittle guy.
> 
> `
Click to expand...

You are a moron; Jews have more Noble Science Prizes than any other group on earth and plenty of them are Orthodox.
Not to mention that Israel takes the latest military equipment from the US and makes it 10x better.
Please tell me none of your physicians are Orthodox Jews.
You must be a real self-hating piece of crap to submit this stupid post.

BTW, Mensa is nothing to brag about when you live in an Orthodox Community.
Most of the Rabbis I know could debate you on any subject and make you look like a fool.
I will presume that you aren't aware that the Talmud contains extremely heavy science/math discussions way ahead of it's time.

You really are out of touch with reality.


----------



## Indeependent

abu afak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never write more than one or two sentences.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You can't say that you didn't ask for it.
> 
> At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.
> 
> So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.
> 
> If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.
> 
> But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.
> 
> So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.
> 
> We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.
> 
> The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.
> 
> 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.
> 
> All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.
> 
> If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.
> 
> Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.
> 
> So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.
> 
> Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.
> 
> If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.
> 
> Let's see what you got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF is that?
> Your perception of god?
> What is that?
> Is their any proof or even Evidence of a god in there?
> 
> It's just Long and stupid. A Baffle em with BS
> Are there any Hard FACTS in there?
> 
> WTF is that?
> 
> `
Click to expand...

Any mathematician who actually *studies* the Torah cannot deny the veracity thereof.
The Torah is packed with statements and events that are too easy to dismiss if they didn't happen.
Try an Aish HaTorah Discovery weekend where all the Orthodox scientists from all the esteemed universities will address your issues.
I know, I know, the heads of the Departments of just about every university that Frum Jews run bought their positions.


----------



## abu afak

Indeependent said:


> You are a moron; Jews have more Noble Science Prizes than any other group on earth and plenty of them are Orthodox.
> Not to mention that Israel takes the latest military equipment from the US and makes it 10x better.
> Please tell me none of your physicians are Orthodox Jews.
> You must be a real self-hating piece of crap to submit this stupid post.
> 
> BTW, Mensa is nothing to brag about when you live in an Orthodox Community.
> Most of the Rabbis I know could debate you on any subject and make you look like a fool.
> I will presume that you aren't aware that the Talmud contains extremely heavy science/math discussions way ahead of it's time.
> 
> You really are out of touch with reality.


You're the Moron and a LIAR
*You Have NOT shown a SINGLE SCIENTIST, not to mention the relevant Biologist among your 50 neighbors.
You have NOT shown a significant (if any) Jewish Nobel scientists were Orthodox.
The most famous among smart Jews: [perhaps] Einstein, Bobby Fischer, Oppenheimer, were NOT religious, much less orthodox.
Religion is a JOKE. and Einstein said so about Judaism as well.*

Orthodox are Genesis Kweationist clowns.
You won't be learning any Biology or Geology from those Mullahs.
Instead they spend all their time pouring over FICTIONAL scripture.
You're an IDIOT

*The Smarter you are, the LESS Likely you are to believe in God.
Serious Scientists, like the Natl Academy of Sciences are 90+% NON-believers.*

`


----------



## Indeependent

abu afak said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a moron; Jews have more Noble Science Prizes than any other group on earth and plenty of them are Orthodox.
> Not to mention that Israel takes the latest military equipment from the US and makes it 10x better.
> Please tell me none of your physicians are Orthodox Jews.
> You must be a real self-hating piece of crap to submit this stupid post.
> 
> BTW, Mensa is nothing to brag about when you live in an Orthodox Community.
> Most of the Rabbis I know could debate you on any subject and make you look like a fool.
> I will presume that you aren't aware that the Talmud contains extremely heavy science/math discussions way ahead of it's time.
> 
> You really are out of touch with reality.
> 
> 
> 
> You're the Moron and a LIAR
> *You Have NOT shown a SINGLE SCIENTIST, not to mention the relevant Biologist among your 50 neighbors.
> You have NOT shown a significant (if any) Jewish Nobel scientists were Orthodox.
> The most famous among smart Jews: [perhaps] Einstein, Bobby Fischer, Oppenheimer, were NOT religious, much less orthodox.
> Religion is a JOKE. and Einstein said so about Judaism as well.*
> 
> Orthodox are Genesis Kweationist clowns.
> You won't be learning any Biology or Geology from those Mullahs.
> Instead they spend all their time pouring over FICTIONAL scripture.
> You're an IDIOT
> 
> *The Smarter you are, the LESS Likely you are to believe in God.
> Serious Scientists, like the Natl Academy of Sciences are 90+% NON-believers.*
> 
> `
Click to expand...

Translation...
You are too much of a coward to look because you are terrified of how your fellow Liberals would shun you.
I know plenty of self-hating Jews like you who I can destroy in a face to face debate within 15 minutes and I've done it many times.

I will be sure to forward your comments to Yeshiva University.


----------



## abu afak

You're the Moron and a LIAR
*You Have NOT shown a SINGLE SCIENTIST, not to mention the relevant Biologist among your 50 neighbors.
You have NOT shown a significant (if any) Jewish Nobel scientists were Orthodox.
The most famous among smart Jews: [perhaps] Einstein, Bobby Fischer, Oppenheimer, were NOT religious, much less orthodox.
Religion is a JOKE. and Einstein said so about Judaism as well.*

Orthodox are Genesis Kweationist clowns.
You won't be learning any Biology or Geology from those Mullahs.
Instead they spend all their time pouring over FICTIONAL scripture.
You're an IDIOT

*The Smarter you are, the LESS Likely you are to believe in God.
Serious Scientists, like the Natl Academy of Sciences are 90+% NON-believers.


Anyone of even average IQ could have at least looked up an Orthodox Jewish Nobel winner (if there were any) in UNDER ONE Minute.
But you are THEE Stupidest religionist I have ever seen Shonda-Brain.

You are DISHONEST FILTH as well, making claim after claim based solely on your ethnicity that you cannot back up even 1c worth you CLOWN.*

`
`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> Over 50% of my community is comprised of scientists who scoff at evolution.


You're a shameless little liar. You know not one working scientist in any relevant field who denies evolution. Not one. Lying little weasel.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Over 50% of my community is comprised of scientists who scoff at evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> You're a shameless little liar. You know not one working scientist in any relevant field who denies evolution. Not one. Lying little weasel.
Click to expand...

Translation...You only read the sites and watch videos that agree with you.
I'd like you to point me to a YouTube video that explains how millions of species evolved in concert with each other over hundreds of millions of years without dying out.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> Translation...You only read the sites and watch videos that agree with you.


An obviously idiotic statement. My views in evolution derive from the evidence, which is why the entire scientific community has come to 9berwhelming consensus on evolution. Which is why one would have to go very far out of their way to find any credible video or argument against it.

So, you lie. You lie like a little weasel. And even if you weren't lying, your silly lie would still have no impact on the truth. So enjoy wasting your credibility and your time.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Translation...You only read the sites and watch videos that agree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> An obviously idiotic statement. My views in evolution derive from the evidence, which is why the entire scientific community has come to 9berwhelming consensus on evolution. Which is why one would have to go very far out of their way to find any credible video or argument against it.
> 
> So, you lie. You lie like a little weasel. And even if you weren't lying, your silly lie would still have no impact on the truth. So enjoy wasting your credibility and your time.
Click to expand...

So you have PhDs in how many science specialties?
I'm impressed...that you're so full of shit.

Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.

You don't even realize how stupid you're making yourself look.

I actually spent time reading about this from a neutral point of view and realized that unless someone knows *everything*,  they're full of it.

Now drop the ad hominems and point me to a YouTube video where someone explains what I just asked for.
After all, YouTube has *everything*.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Regardless, there's logically no sizable scientific community where 50% "scoff at evolution." Not even among this community. You're living in


----------



## ding

Hollie said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> THIS thread is why the RELIGION of Atheism is a RELIGION
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a religion. Your comment is just another tired slogan used primarily by angry xtians.
Click to expand...

Maybe not for the ordinary, average, run of the mill atheists, but for militant atheists, yeah, it is.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> So you have PhDs in how many science specialties?


Irrelevant. And if this mattered to you, you would side with the overwhelming consensus of the global scientific  community.  So spare me, you whiny fraud.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Indeependent said:


> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.


Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"


----------



## Indeependent

Grumblenuts said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
Click to expand...

Tell that to the evolutionists.


----------



## Indeependent

abu afak said:


> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
> Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> 
> Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [.....]
> 
> *1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
> So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> *In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..." *
> 
> `
> 
> .
> 
> 
> `.


Except it's not well explained to someone who is well versed in the necessary multitude of disciplines involved in the so-called science of evolution.

I predict an ad hominem of how intelligent you are that is completely void of a well formed argument with which to bolster that claim.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Indeependent said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
Click to expand...

Why? I was quoting and specifically addressing only your claims.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> Tell that to the evolutionists.


The "evolutionists" taught us that. So your comment is idiotic.


----------



## esalla

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> 
> 
> The "evolutionists" taught us that. So your comment is idiotic.
Click to expand...

Too bad that you were not still a sea cucumber


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
Click to expand...


Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.

How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.


----------



## Hollie

Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum
					

For a group of paleontologists, a tour of the Creation Museum seemed like a great tongue-in-cheek way to cap off a serious conference.




					phys.org
				




"It's sort of a monument to scientific illiteracy, isn't it?" said Jerry Lipps, professor of geology, paleontology and evolution at University of California, Berkeley.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
Click to expand...

The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
Click to expand...

And the fact is that there is no one on earth who has mastered the numerous sciences required to truly understand and explain why a deer became a deer and not a lion or why a bed bug did not want to be a bird.


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
Click to expand...


An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition. 

Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? 

I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
Click to expand...

I will be honest and humble...
I know many scientists who know what they don't know and I know less than they do.
They know that no one on earth has mastered the required disciplines and then spent 50 years proving this "theory" to be true.
They all state that no one in history who hasn't been paid off can prove even an electron's worth of evidence for evolution.
I can watch pro-evolution on YouTube all day long and then watch one video that questions why dozens of points weren't discussed to prove anything.

I am a data analyst and I know if someone is bluffing when they ask for non-required data and when they're being honest.

Your search requires you to spend many years mastering the required sciences and documentation methods...
If your haven't *begun* this process yet...*WHY NOT*?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Indeependent said:


> They know that no one on earth has mastered the required disciplines and then spent 50 years proving this "theory" to be true.


Scientists don't prove theories period. They test them, test them some more.., modify where apparently needed, rinse and repeat..

As the lady just said, you have yet to seriously begin testing your positive claim of supernatural intervention.


----------



## Indeependent

Grumblenuts said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> They know that no one on earth has mastered the required disciplines and then spent 50 years proving this "theory" to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists don't prove theories period. They test them, test them some more.., modify where apparently needed, rinse and repeat..
> 
> As the lady just said, you have yet to seriously begin testing your positive claim of supernatural intervention.
Click to expand...

You have yet to prove there is a scientist on earth that has mastered 20+ sciences and spent 50 years proving his theory.


----------



## Grumblenuts

You are just being silly. Here's some light reading I was just perusing. Who knows, might cheer you up:


> Contrary to previous predictions, powerful moralizing ‘big gods’ and prosocial supernatural punishment tend to appear only after the emergence of ‘megasocieties’ with populations of more than around one million people. Moralizing gods are not a prerequisite for the evolution of social complexity, but they may help to sustain and expand complex multi-ethnic empires after they have become established. By contrast, rituals that facilitate the standardization of religious traditions across large populations generally precede the appearance of moralizing gods. This suggests that ritual practices were more important than the particular content of religious belief to the initial rise of social complexity. Supernatural agents that punish direct affronts to themselves (for example, failure to perform sacrifices or observe taboos) are commonly represented in global history, but rarely are such deities believed to punish moral violations in interactions between humans. Recent millennia, however, have seen the rise and spread of several ‘prosocial religions’, which include either powerful ‘moralizing high gods’  (MHG; for example, the Abrahamic God) or more general ‘broad supernatural punishment’ (BSP) of moral transgressions


----------



## Indeependent

Grumblenuts said:


> You are just being silly. Here's some light reading I was just perusing. Who knows, might cheer you up:
> 
> 
> 
> Contrary to previous predictions, powerful moralizing ‘big gods’ and prosocial supernatural punishment tend to appear only after the emergence of ‘megasocieties’ with populations of more than around one million people. Moralizing gods are not a prerequisite for the evolution of social complexity, but they may help to sustain and expand complex multi-ethnic empires after they have become established. By contrast, rituals that facilitate the standardization of religious traditions across large populations generally precede the appearance of moralizing gods. This suggests that ritual practices were more important than the particular content of religious belief to the initial rise of social complexity. Supernatural agents that punish direct affronts to themselves (for example, failure to perform sacrifices or observe taboos) are commonly represented in global history, but rarely are such deities believed to punish moral violations in interactions between humans. Recent millennia, however, have seen the rise and spread of several ‘prosocial religions’, which include either powerful ‘moralizing high gods’
Click to expand...

And yet Atheism, a relatively new and "enlightened" belief system, has resulted in far more murders in the last 200 years than any religious system.


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will be honest and humble...
> I know many scientists who know what they don't know and I know less than they do.
> They know that no one on earth has mastered the required disciplines and then spent 50 years proving this "theory" to be true.
> They all state that no one in history who hasn't been paid off can prove even an electron's worth of evidence for evolution.
> I can watch pro-evolution on YouTube all day long and then watch one video that questions why dozens of points weren't discussed to prove anything.
> 
> I am a data analyst and I know if someone is bluffing when they ask for non-required data and when they're being honest.
> 
> Your search requires you to spend many years mastering the required sciences and documentation methods...
> If your haven't *begun* this process yet...*WHY NOT*?
Click to expand...

I don’t have any way of knowing what scientists you may have contact with so I’m not clear what your comment about required disciplines and 50 years trying to prove a theory. Additionally, I would never suggest anyone learn science matters watching YouTube videos. 


Biological complexity (and the evolution of greater complexity over immense time scales), is readily observed in the fosill and biological record. 

While all of the mechanisms that allowed biological life on the planet to first spark to life are not understood, abiogenesis and then the mechanisms of evolution are fully consistent with natural processes. 

Please identify how you account for supernatural processes and the various supernatural agents who managed those processes. Nature routinely finds suboptimal solutions that various gods would never choose. Nature is constrained by contingent history, gods are not. The consequences of the difference are obvious and compelling.

Furthermore the harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, the ugliness of competition, all of that contradicts the notion of "Beautiful, simple, unstoppable" gods directing the natural world.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will be honest and humble...
> I know many scientists who know what they don't know and I know less than they do.
> They know that no one on earth has mastered the required disciplines and then spent 50 years proving this "theory" to be true.
> They all state that no one in history who hasn't been paid off can prove even an electron's worth of evidence for evolution.
> I can watch pro-evolution on YouTube all day long and then watch one video that questions why dozens of points weren't discussed to prove anything.
> 
> I am a data analyst and I know if someone is bluffing when they ask for non-required data and when they're being honest.
> 
> Your search requires you to spend many years mastering the required sciences and documentation methods...
> If your haven't *begun* this process yet...*WHY NOT*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t have any way of knowing what scientists you may have contact with so I’m not clear what your comment about required disciplines and 50 years trying to prove a theory. Additionally, I would never suggest anyone learn science matters watching YouTube videos.
> 
> 
> Biological complexity (and the evolution of greater complexity over immense time scales), is readily observed in the fosill and biological record.
> 
> While all of the mechanisms that allowed biological life on the planet to first spark to life are not understood, abiogenesis and then the mechanisms of evolution are fully consistent with natural processes.
> 
> Please identify how you account for supernatural processes and the various supernatural agents who managed those processes. Nature routinely finds suboptimal solutions that various gods would never choose. Nature is constrained by contingent history, gods are not. The consequences of the difference are obvious and compelling.
> 
> Furthermore the harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, the ugliness of competition, all of that contradicts the notion of "Beautiful, simple, unstoppable" gods directing the natural world.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you haven't been keeping up with how the fossil record has been proven to be a lie.
I'm also glad you don't realize that Biology is only one of the many sciences that must be mastered to prove evolution.

You're doing well.

There is only One God, not many.
The fact that you don't believe in God is your perogative.

I agree, why would a slime want to be a deer rather than a lion?
I guess all the slime got together and decided who would become Poison Ivy or one of a million varieties of Rose over the next several hundred million years.

Extinctions occur all the time.
Yet the next mass of slime doesn't become what just went extinct.
Life forms exist while they are needed.


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just being silly. Here's some light reading I was just perusing. Who knows, might cheer you up:
> 
> 
> 
> Contrary to previous predictions, powerful moralizing ‘big gods’ and prosocial supernatural punishment tend to appear only after the emergence of ‘megasocieties’ with populations of more than around one million people. Moralizing gods are not a prerequisite for the evolution of social complexity, but they may help to sustain and expand complex multi-ethnic empires after they have become established. By contrast, rituals that facilitate the standardization of religious traditions across large populations generally precede the appearance of moralizing gods. This suggests that ritual practices were more important than the particular content of religious belief to the initial rise of social complexity. Supernatural agents that punish direct affronts to themselves (for example, failure to perform sacrifices or observe taboos) are commonly represented in global history, but rarely are such deities believed to punish moral violations in interactions between humans. Recent millennia, however, have seen the rise and spread of several ‘prosocial religions’, which include either powerful ‘moralizing high gods’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet Atheism, a relatively new and "enlightened" belief system, has resulted in far more murders in the last 200 years than any religious system.
Click to expand...


Atheism is not a belief system.There is no real atheist asserted philosophy, all of atheismtends to be a critique of theist assertions. Even the Big Bang doesn't address god issues. Maybe god is behind the Big Bang, who knows? Atheism is really a philosophical rejection of the assertions of theism as undemonstrated and fallacious, nothing more.

If you are looking for an “ouch context” regarding cause of death over the last 200 years, it seems you’re arbitrarily hoping to exclude the atrocities of religion. The other mistake you’re making is to equate the Marxist/Leninist/ communist atrocities with atheism. They are political ideologies and the atrocities of those ideologies were a result of psychopaths.

Religions don’t have quite the excuse of political ideology to hand-wave off their infliction of suffering and death.


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will be honest and humble...
> I know many scientists who know what they don't know and I know less than they do.
> They know that no one on earth has mastered the required disciplines and then spent 50 years proving this "theory" to be true.
> They all state that no one in history who hasn't been paid off can prove even an electron's worth of evidence for evolution.
> I can watch pro-evolution on YouTube all day long and then watch one video that questions why dozens of points weren't discussed to prove anything.
> 
> I am a data analyst and I know if someone is bluffing when they ask for non-required data and when they're being honest.
> 
> Your search requires you to spend many years mastering the required sciences and documentation methods...
> If your haven't *begun* this process yet...*WHY NOT*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t have any way of knowing what scientists you may have contact with so I’m not clear what your comment about required disciplines and 50 years trying to prove a theory. Additionally, I would never suggest anyone learn science matters watching YouTube videos.
> 
> 
> Biological complexity (and the evolution of greater complexity over immense time scales), is readily observed in the fosill and biological record.
> 
> While all of the mechanisms that allowed biological life on the planet to first spark to life are not understood, abiogenesis and then the mechanisms of evolution are fully consistent with natural processes.
> 
> Please identify how you account for supernatural processes and the various supernatural agents who managed those processes. Nature routinely finds suboptimal solutions that various gods would never choose. Nature is constrained by contingent history, gods are not. The consequences of the difference are obvious and compelling.
> 
> Furthermore the harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, the ugliness of competition, all of that contradicts the notion of "Beautiful, simple, unstoppable" gods directing the natural world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm glad you haven't been keeping up with how the fossil record has been proven to be a lie.
> I'm also glad you don't realize that Biology is only one of the many sciences that must be mastered to prove evolution.
> 
> You're doing well.
> 
> There is only One God, not many.
> The fact that you don't believe in God is your perogative.
> 
> I agree, why would a slime want to be a deer rather than a lion?
> I guess all the slime got together and decided who would become Poison Ivy or one of a million varieties of Rose over the next several hundred million years.
> 
> Extinctions occur all the time.
> Yet the next mass of slime doesn't become what just went extinct.
> Life forms exist while they are needed.
Click to expand...


Conspiracy theories about the fossil record being proven to be a lie are less entertaining than they used to be. While you have some odd notions of biology, I can’t help but notice a certain lack of support for the conspiracy theories.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Yep, before it was


Indeependent said:


> I'd like you to point me to a YouTube video that explains how millions of species evolved in concert with each other over hundreds of millions of years without dying out.


Now it's


Indeependent said:


> Extinctions occur all the time.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just being silly. Here's some light reading I was just perusing. Who knows, might cheer you up:
> 
> 
> 
> Contrary to previous predictions, powerful moralizing ‘big gods’ and prosocial supernatural punishment tend to appear only after the emergence of ‘megasocieties’ with populations of more than around one million people. Moralizing gods are not a prerequisite for the evolution of social complexity, but they may help to sustain and expand complex multi-ethnic empires after they have become established. By contrast, rituals that facilitate the standardization of religious traditions across large populations generally precede the appearance of moralizing gods. This suggests that ritual practices were more important than the particular content of religious belief to the initial rise of social complexity. Supernatural agents that punish direct affronts to themselves (for example, failure to perform sacrifices or observe taboos) are commonly represented in global history, but rarely are such deities believed to punish moral violations in interactions between humans. Recent millennia, however, have seen the rise and spread of several ‘prosocial religions’, which include either powerful ‘moralizing high gods’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet Atheism, a relatively new and "enlightened" belief system, has resulted in far more murders in the last 200 years than any religious system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a belief system.There is no real atheist asserted philosophy, all of atheismtends to be a critique of theist assertions. Even the Big Bang doesn't address god issues. Maybe god is behind the Big Bang, who knows? Atheism is really a philosophical rejection of the assertions of theism as undemonstrated and fallacious, nothing more.
> 
> If you are looking for an “ouch context” regarding cause of death over the last 200 years, it seems you’re arbitrarily hoping to exclude the atrocities of religion. The other mistake you’re making is to equate the Marxist/Leninist/ communist atrocities with atheism. They are political ideologies and the atrocities of those ideologies were a result of psychopaths.
> 
> Religions don’t have quite the excuse of political ideology to hand-wave off their infliction of suffering and death.
Click to expand...

The Big Bang is in complete accordance with the Torah's first verse; even professional atheist admit such.
It's also mentioned in the Talmud.
You should acquaint yourself via YouTube with professional atheists.
There is no professional atheist who doesn't claim to be a Bible expert, even though in practice they misquote and make up verse as they lecture.


----------



## Indeependent

Grumblenuts said:


> Yep, before it was
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like you to point me to a YouTube video that explains how millions of species evolved in concert with each other over hundreds of millions of years without dying out.
> 
> 
> 
> Now it's
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Extinctions occur all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

But you still haven't addressed...
How millions of species evolved in concert with each other over hundreds of millions of years.
Why did the slime prefer to be the prey rather than the King of The Jungle.
Did they have a meeting?
Why did the bee not decide to become a wasp?


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just being silly. Here's some light reading I was just perusing. Who knows, might cheer you up:
> 
> 
> 
> Contrary to previous predictions, powerful moralizing ‘big gods’ and prosocial supernatural punishment tend to appear only after the emergence of ‘megasocieties’ with populations of more than around one million people. Moralizing gods are not a prerequisite for the evolution of social complexity, but they may help to sustain and expand complex multi-ethnic empires after they have become established. By contrast, rituals that facilitate the standardization of religious traditions across large populations generally precede the appearance of moralizing gods. This suggests that ritual practices were more important than the particular content of religious belief to the initial rise of social complexity. Supernatural agents that punish direct affronts to themselves (for example, failure to perform sacrifices or observe taboos) are commonly represented in global history, but rarely are such deities believed to punish moral violations in interactions between humans. Recent millennia, however, have seen the rise and spread of several ‘prosocial religions’, which include either powerful ‘moralizing high gods’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet Atheism, a relatively new and "enlightened" belief system, has resulted in far more murders in the last 200 years than any religious system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a belief system.There is no real atheist asserted philosophy, all of atheismtends to be a critique of theist assertions. Even the Big Bang doesn't address god issues. Maybe god is behind the Big Bang, who knows? Atheism is really a philosophical rejection of the assertions of theism as undemonstrated and fallacious, nothing more.
> 
> If you are looking for an “ouch context” regarding cause of death over the last 200 years, it seems you’re arbitrarily hoping to exclude the atrocities of religion. The other mistake you’re making is to equate the Marxist/Leninist/ communist atrocities with atheism. They are political ideologies and the atrocities of those ideologies were a result of psychopaths.
> 
> Religions don’t have quite the excuse of political ideology to hand-wave off their infliction of suffering and death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Big Bang is in complete accordance with the Torah's first verse; even professional atheist admit such.
> It's also mentioned in the Talmud.
> You should acquaint yourself via YouTube with professional atheists.
> There is no professional atheist who doesn't claim to be a Bible expert, even though in practice they misquote and make up verse as they lecture.
Click to expand...

A couple of points. There is nothing to indicate that any holy text is in "accordance'' with the expansion of the universe. That's a rather common claim that is utterly unsupported. Another common claim is that the genesis fable is also in ''accordance'' with science but I have found no indication that such a fable, to include talking serpents, is in ''accordance'' with science.

I have no knowledge of what a ''professional atheist'' is. Further, I have no indication that you are the spokesperson for professional atheism.

Lastly, you seem to spend way too much time watching youtube as opposed to actually studying.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Indeependent said:


> But you still haven't addressed...
> How millions of species evolved in concert with each other over hundreds of millions of years.
> Why did the slime prefer to be the prey rather than the King of The Jungle.


Evolution acts to help species survive their environment. It's not about preferences, votes, or planning. If there's a niche, nature is apt to fill it.


----------



## Indeependent

Grumblenuts said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you still haven't addressed...
> How millions of species evolved in concert with each other over hundreds of millions of years.
> Why did the slime prefer to be the prey rather than the King of The Jungle.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution acts to help species survive their environment. It's not about preferences, votes, or planning. If there's a niche, nature is apt to fill it.
Click to expand...

Wow!
Slime spent hundreds of millions of years in an environment of pure chaos evolving into the planet we now inhabit.

Do you feel stupid yet?


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just being silly. Here's some light reading I was just perusing. Who knows, might cheer you up:
> 
> 
> 
> Contrary to previous predictions, powerful moralizing ‘big gods’ and prosocial supernatural punishment tend to appear only after the emergence of ‘megasocieties’ with populations of more than around one million people. Moralizing gods are not a prerequisite for the evolution of social complexity, but they may help to sustain and expand complex multi-ethnic empires after they have become established. By contrast, rituals that facilitate the standardization of religious traditions across large populations generally precede the appearance of moralizing gods. This suggests that ritual practices were more important than the particular content of religious belief to the initial rise of social complexity. Supernatural agents that punish direct affronts to themselves (for example, failure to perform sacrifices or observe taboos) are commonly represented in global history, but rarely are such deities believed to punish moral violations in interactions between humans. Recent millennia, however, have seen the rise and spread of several ‘prosocial religions’, which include either powerful ‘moralizing high gods’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet Atheism, a relatively new and "enlightened" belief system, has resulted in far more murders in the last 200 years than any religious system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a belief system.There is no real atheist asserted philosophy, all of atheismtends to be a critique of theist assertions. Even the Big Bang doesn't address god issues. Maybe god is behind the Big Bang, who knows? Atheism is really a philosophical rejection of the assertions of theism as undemonstrated and fallacious, nothing more.
> 
> If you are looking for an “ouch context” regarding cause of death over the last 200 years, it seems you’re arbitrarily hoping to exclude the atrocities of religion. The other mistake you’re making is to equate the Marxist/Leninist/ communist atrocities with atheism. They are political ideologies and the atrocities of those ideologies were a result of psychopaths.
> 
> Religions don’t have quite the excuse of political ideology to hand-wave off their infliction of suffering and death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Big Bang is in complete accordance with the Torah's first verse; even professional atheist admit such.
> It's also mentioned in the Talmud.
> You should acquaint yourself via YouTube with professional atheists.
> There is no professional atheist who doesn't claim to be a Bible expert, even though in practice they misquote and make up verse as they lecture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A couple of points. There is nothing to indicate that any holy text is in "accordance'' with the expansion of the universe. That's a rather common claim that is utterly unsupported. Another common claim is that the genesis fable is also in ''accordance'' with science but I have found no indication that such a fable, to include talking serpents, is in ''accordance'' with science.
> 
> I have no knowledge of what a ''professional atheist'' is. Further, I have no indication that you are the spokesperson for professional atheism.
> 
> Lastly, you seem to spend way too much time watching youtube as opposed to actually studying.
Click to expand...

Thanks for admitting you never read and studied the 1st chapter of Genesis.
I spend way more time studying than watching YouTube.
It doesn’t take too many videos to realize the farce of evolution.


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just being silly. Here's some light reading I was just perusing. Who knows, might cheer you up:
> 
> 
> 
> Contrary to previous predictions, powerful moralizing ‘big gods’ and prosocial supernatural punishment tend to appear only after the emergence of ‘megasocieties’ with populations of more than around one million people. Moralizing gods are not a prerequisite for the evolution of social complexity, but they may help to sustain and expand complex multi-ethnic empires after they have become established. By contrast, rituals that facilitate the standardization of religious traditions across large populations generally precede the appearance of moralizing gods. This suggests that ritual practices were more important than the particular content of religious belief to the initial rise of social complexity. Supernatural agents that punish direct affronts to themselves (for example, failure to perform sacrifices or observe taboos) are commonly represented in global history, but rarely are such deities believed to punish moral violations in interactions between humans. Recent millennia, however, have seen the rise and spread of several ‘prosocial religions’, which include either powerful ‘moralizing high gods’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet Atheism, a relatively new and "enlightened" belief system, has resulted in far more murders in the last 200 years than any religious system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is not a belief system.There is no real atheist asserted philosophy, all of atheismtends to be a critique of theist assertions. Even the Big Bang doesn't address god issues. Maybe god is behind the Big Bang, who knows? Atheism is really a philosophical rejection of the assertions of theism as undemonstrated and fallacious, nothing more.
> 
> If you are looking for an “ouch context” regarding cause of death over the last 200 years, it seems you’re arbitrarily hoping to exclude the atrocities of religion. The other mistake you’re making is to equate the Marxist/Leninist/ communist atrocities with atheism. They are political ideologies and the atrocities of those ideologies were a result of psychopaths.
> 
> Religions don’t have quite the excuse of political ideology to hand-wave off their infliction of suffering and death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Big Bang is in complete accordance with the Torah's first verse; even professional atheist admit such.
> It's also mentioned in the Talmud.
> You should acquaint yourself via YouTube with professional atheists.
> There is no professional atheist who doesn't claim to be a Bible expert, even though in practice they misquote and make up verse as they lecture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A couple of points. There is nothing to indicate that any holy text is in "accordance'' with the expansion of the universe. That's a rather common claim that is utterly unsupported. Another common claim is that the genesis fable is also in ''accordance'' with science but I have found no indication that such a fable, to include talking serpents, is in ''accordance'' with science.
> 
> I have no knowledge of what a ''professional atheist'' is. Further, I have no indication that you are the spokesperson for professional atheism.
> 
> Lastly, you seem to spend way too much time watching youtube as opposed to actually studying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for admitting you never read and studied the 1st chapter of Genesis.
> I spend way more time studying than watching YouTube.
> It doesn’t take too many videos to realize the farce of evolution.
Click to expand...

Your juvenile "...thanks for admitting'' comment is rather pointless. You offered nothing to support your specious claim so why get defensive when it's called out as phony?

Your juvenile ''...farce of evolution'', is rather pointless as biological evolution is among the best supported theories in science with supported evidence. 

Leave youtube for a bit and learn some terms and definitions that will help you understand science.


----------



## bripat9643

Not2BSubjugated said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
> Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> 
> Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [.....]
> 
> *1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
> So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> *In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..." *
> 
> `
> 
> .
> 
> 
> `.
> 
> 
> 
> I will never understand why atheists try to disprove religions with scientific arguments.
> 
> Creationism is unfalsifiable.  The people who declare themselves the champions of science ought to understand from the get-go that this puts the concept beyond the capacity of science to prove or disprove, so why bother?
> 
> When you say, "That magic wand isn't real!  It doesn't even have any batteries in it!" your initial point may be correct, but your reasoning is irrelevant to that point.
Click to expand...

Actually, it doesn't.  Creationists often contradict themselves, and their excuses go against accepted scientific truths.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Indeependent said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you still haven't addressed...
> How millions of species evolved in concert with each other over hundreds of millions of years.
> Why did the slime prefer to be the prey rather than the King of The Jungle.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution acts to help species survive their environment. It's not about preferences, votes, or planning. If there's a niche, nature is apt to fill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow!
> Slime spent hundreds of millions of years in an environment of pure chaos evolving into the planet we now inhabit.
> 
> Do you feel stupid yet?
Click to expand...

Not at all and chaos is in the eye of the beholder. Things like temperature range, pressure, available moisture, minerals, and air quality limit the abundance and variety of lifeforms possible during any time period.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.


That's not an argument. That's a statement. 

Obviously he is not familiar with your low level of intellect and should not have requested a formal argument from you.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not an argument. That's a statement.
> 
> Obviously he is not familiar with your low level of intellect and should not have requested a formal argument from you.
Click to expand...

I am still waiting for you to post a non-ad hominem.
All you do is Link to articles that you have failed to analyze.

Now please explain how 2 microbes got together and decided that in 500 million years one would be a male and one would be a female and they would start a species.
Then explain how million of microbes paired off and did the same thing but all decided to start their own species.

You can't...and neither can any of the scientists you adore.


----------



## Indeependent

Grumblenuts said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you still haven't addressed...
> How millions of species evolved in concert with each other over hundreds of millions of years.
> Why did the slime prefer to be the prey rather than the King of The Jungle.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution acts to help species survive their environment. It's not about preferences, votes, or planning. If there's a niche, nature is apt to fill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow!
> Slime spent hundreds of millions of years in an environment of pure chaos evolving into the planet we now inhabit.
> 
> Do you feel stupid yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all and chaos is in the eye of the beholder. Things like temperature range, pressure, available moisture, minerals, and air quality limit the abundance and variety of lifeforms possible during any time period.
Click to expand...

Microbes came out of a massive explosion and decided to create male/female pairs and decided to do so in millions of varieties in a span of hundreds of millions of years.
What nonsense.

Did you ever consider flow charting evolution from the Big Bang Theory?
The odds of having a planet that can sustain life as we know it is mathematically impossible.


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you still haven't addressed...
> How millions of species evolved in concert with each other over hundreds of millions of years.
> Why did the slime prefer to be the prey rather than the King of The Jungle.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution acts to help species survive their environment. It's not about preferences, votes, or planning. If there's a niche, nature is apt to fill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow!
> Slime spent hundreds of millions of years in an environment of pure chaos evolving into the planet we now inhabit.
> 
> Do you feel stupid yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all and chaos is in the eye of the beholder. Things like temperature range, pressure, available moisture, minerals, and air quality limit the abundance and variety of lifeforms possible during any time period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Microbes came out of a massive explosion and decided to create male/female pairs and decided to do so in millions of varieties in a span of hundreds of millions of years.
> What nonsense.
> 
> Did you ever consider flow charting evolution from the Big Bang Theory?
> The odds of having a planet that can sustain life as we know it is mathematically impossible.
Click to expand...

Microbes don’t have decision making abilities.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you still haven't addressed...
> How millions of species evolved in concert with each other over hundreds of millions of years.
> Why did the slime prefer to be the prey rather than the King of The Jungle.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution acts to help species survive their environment. It's not about preferences, votes, or planning. If there's a niche, nature is apt to fill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow!
> Slime spent hundreds of millions of years in an environment of pure chaos evolving into the planet we now inhabit.
> 
> Do you feel stupid yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all and chaos is in the eye of the beholder. Things like temperature range, pressure, available moisture, minerals, and air quality limit the abundance and variety of lifeforms possible during any time period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Microbes came out of a massive explosion and decided to create male/female pairs and decided to do so in millions of varieties in a span of hundreds of millions of years.
> What nonsense.
> 
> Did you ever consider flow charting evolution from the Big Bang Theory?
> The odds of having a planet that can sustain life as we know it is mathematically impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Microbes don’t have decision making abilities.
Click to expand...

Exactly...and yet, what in *your *mind is impossible, actually happened...millions of male/female species.
*Exact Pattern Evolution* across *millions* of species over *hundreds of millions* of year?
I don't think so.


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you still haven't addressed...
> How millions of species evolved in concert with each other over hundreds of millions of years.
> Why did the slime prefer to be the prey rather than the King of The Jungle.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution acts to help species survive their environment. It's not about preferences, votes, or planning. If there's a niche, nature is apt to fill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow!
> Slime spent hundreds of millions of years in an environment of pure chaos evolving into the planet we now inhabit.
> 
> Do you feel stupid yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all and chaos is in the eye of the beholder. Things like temperature range, pressure, available moisture, minerals, and air quality limit the abundance and variety of lifeforms possible during any time period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Microbes came out of a massive explosion and decided to create male/female pairs and decided to do so in millions of varieties in a span of hundreds of millions of years.
> What nonsense.
> 
> Did you ever consider flow charting evolution from the Big Bang Theory?
> The odds of having a planet that can sustain life as we know it is mathematically impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Microbes don’t have decision making abilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly...and yet, what in *your *mind is impossible, actually happened...millions of male/female species.
> *Exact Pattern Evolution* across *millions* of species over *hundreds of millions* of year?
> I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Why did you make a nonsense claim and then agree you made a nonsense claim while deflecting from your nonsense claim?


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you still haven't addressed...
> How millions of species evolved in concert with each other over hundreds of millions of years.
> Why did the slime prefer to be the prey rather than the King of The Jungle.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution acts to help species survive their environment. It's not about preferences, votes, or planning. If there's a niche, nature is apt to fill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow!
> Slime spent hundreds of millions of years in an environment of pure chaos evolving into the planet we now inhabit.
> 
> Do you feel stupid yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all and chaos is in the eye of the beholder. Things like temperature range, pressure, available moisture, minerals, and air quality limit the abundance and variety of lifeforms possible during any time period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Microbes came out of a massive explosion and decided to create male/female pairs and decided to do so in millions of varieties in a span of hundreds of millions of years.
> What nonsense.
> 
> Did you ever consider flow charting evolution from the Big Bang Theory?
> The odds of having a planet that can sustain life as we know it is mathematically impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Microbes don’t have decision making abilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly...and yet, what in *your *mind is impossible, actually happened...millions of male/female species.
> *Exact Pattern Evolution* across *millions* of species over *hundreds of millions* of year?
> I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did you make a nonsense claim and then agree you made a nonsense claim while deflecting from your nonsense claim?
Click to expand...

What nonsense claim did I make?
I wanted *you* to realize that evolution is a crock by explicitly explaining what *evolutionists* are saying.

I hope you understand what these 2 sentences are trying to relay...
*Microbes came out of a massive explosion and decided to create male/female pairs and decided to do so in millions of varieties in a span of hundreds of millions of years.
What nonsense.*


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you still haven't addressed...
> How millions of species evolved in concert with each other over hundreds of millions of years.
> Why did the slime prefer to be the prey rather than the King of The Jungle.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution acts to help species survive their environment. It's not about preferences, votes, or planning. If there's a niche, nature is apt to fill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow!
> Slime spent hundreds of millions of years in an environment of pure chaos evolving into the planet we now inhabit.
> 
> Do you feel stupid yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all and chaos is in the eye of the beholder. Things like temperature range, pressure, available moisture, minerals, and air quality limit the abundance and variety of lifeforms possible during any time period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Microbes came out of a massive explosion and decided to create male/female pairs and decided to do so in millions of varieties in a span of hundreds of millions of years.
> What nonsense.
> 
> Did you ever consider flow charting evolution from the Big Bang Theory?
> The odds of having a planet that can sustain life as we know it is mathematically impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Microbes don’t have decision making abilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly...and yet, what in *your *mind is impossible, actually happened...millions of male/female species.
> *Exact Pattern Evolution* across *millions* of species over *hundreds of millions* of year?
> I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did you make a nonsense claim and then agree you made a nonsense claim while deflecting from your nonsense claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What nonsense claim did I make?
> I wanted *you* to realize that evolution is a crock by explicitly explaining what *evolutionists* are saying.
> 
> I hope you understand what these 2 sentences are trying to relay...
> *Microbes came out of a massive explosion and decided to create male/female pairs and decided to do so in millions of varieties in a span of hundreds of millions of years.
> What nonsense.*
Click to expand...

What are “evilutionists” saying? Are they saying microbes are making decisions about things? I think it was you who wrote that.

Such a claim sounds like nonsense.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Yes, no point in making up claims for others. Quote one actually making said claims or go fish.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Indeependent said:


> Microbes came out of a massive explosion


Highly doubtful and unnecessary.


> and decided


No. Microbes have never decided anything. They've simply evolved instead.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> am still waiting for you to post a non-ad hominem.


 then you are a whiny moron, because I already have


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> *Exact Pattern Evolution* across *millions* of species over *hundreds of millions* of year?


What is this embarrassing horseshit you're making up now?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Y'know, if two heads were really better than one we'd probably all have at least two by now.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Indeependent said:


> *Exact Pattern Evolution* across *millions* of species over *hundreds of millions* of year?
> I don't think so.


Me neither. Polyploidy has mixed things up. If something can happen, then given sufficient time, it will. Probability drives nature.


----------



## Indeependent

Grumblenuts said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Exact Pattern Evolution* across *millions* of species over *hundreds of millions* of year?
> I don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> Me neither. Polyploidy has mixed things up. If something can happen, then given sufficient time, it will. Probability drives nature.
Click to expand...

Uh huh...


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Exact Pattern Evolution* across *millions* of species over *hundreds of millions* of year?
> 
> 
> 
> What is this embarrassing horseshit you're making up now?
Click to expand...

Yet another ad hominem by the guy who can never respond to a discrete presentation of facts.
Does anything embarrass you.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> am still waiting for you to post a non-ad hominem.
> 
> 
> 
> then you are a whiny moron, because I already have
Click to expand...

Which post of yours?
All I see is you stating, minus facts, that you believe something to be a fact, followed by ad hominems directed towards those that disagree with you.


----------



## Indeependent

Grumblenuts said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Microbes came out of a massive explosion
> 
> 
> 
> Highly doubtful and unnecessary.
> 
> 
> 
> and decided
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Microbes have never decided anything. They've simply evolved instead.
Click to expand...

The Big Bang...the universe came for an expansion of condensed matter.


----------



## Indeependent

Grumblenuts said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Microbes came out of a massive explosion
> 
> 
> 
> Highly doubtful and unnecessary.
> 
> 
> 
> and decided
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Microbes have never decided anything. They've simply evolved instead.
Click to expand...

Uh huh.
They all evolved into a perfect eco-system by...mistake.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Indeependent said:


> a perfect eco-system


Explain your notion of "perfect" and we might actually get somewhere.


----------



## Indeependent

Grumblenuts said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> a perfect eco-system
> 
> 
> 
> Explain your notion of "perfect" and we might actually get somewhere.
Click to expand...

I admire you admitting that you never studied how flora, insects and animals all depend on each other and keep each other's populations in check.
Now stop shooting bears in NJ because we need more bears invading the NJ suburbs.


----------



## LittleNipper

Here are 15 rebuttals to the jargon of Evolutionists : 15 Answers to Evolutionist Misconceptions (Part 1) | Biblical Science Institute


----------



## LittleNipper

This is part 2 in a continuation regarding Evolutionists Misconceptions: 15 Answers to Evolutionist Misconceptions (Part 2) | Biblical Science Institute


----------



## LittleNipper

This part 3 regarding the Evolutionist and his misconceptions: 15 Answers to Evolutionist Misconceptions (Part 3) | Biblical Science Institute


----------



## Frankeneinstein

What happen fella's? the crash and burn of american civilization just not doing it for ya? ya decided to go nuke? for the OP, was gravity ever just a theory? can you give any law that was once theory but now law?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Indeependent said:


> The Big Bang...the universe came for an expansion of condensed matter.


Implausible. Sorry. There was no matter (locally anyway) for a long while after the Bang. Too hot. What makes sense is a sudden massive release of energy due to an inevitable coupling of long built up magnetic and dielectric fields.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Frankeneinstein said:


> for the OP, was gravity ever just a theory? can you give any law that was once theory but now law?


Scientific theories and laws always remain distinct.


----------



## Orangecat

One group believes life was created by a supreme being, the other group believes life was created by a giant explosion. Fun stuff.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Grumblenuts said:


> Scientific theories and laws always remain distinct.


From each other? if so that means evolution can never be a law of science? it will forever be just a theory? how is that decided? is there a trigger mechanism that decides that? or an opinion? or does each get categorized based on some scientific protocol?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Frankeneinstein said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific theories and laws always remain distinct.
> 
> 
> 
> From each other? if so that means evolution can never be a law of science? it will forever be just a theory? how is that decided? is there a trigger mechanism that decides that? or an opinion? or does each get categorized based on some scientific protocol?
Click to expand...

Read the link.


> In fact, facts, theories and laws — as well as hypotheses — are separate parts of the scientific method. Though they may evolve, they aren't upgraded to something else.


----------



## Indeependent

Grumblenuts said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang...the universe came for an expansion of condensed matter.
> 
> 
> 
> Implausible. Sorry. There was no matter (locally anyway) for a long while after the Bang. Too hot. What makes sense is a sudden massive release of energy due to an inevitable coupling of long built up magnetic and dielectric fields.
Click to expand...

Matter can be neither be created nor destroyed.
A 1st grader is taught this.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> This part 3 regarding the Evolutionist and his misconceptions: 15 Answers to Evolutionist Misconceptions (Part 3) | Biblical Science Institute



Religionists have a problem with retreating to magic and supernaturalism as answers to contingent reality because magic and supernaturalism don’t actually address the questions.

Religionists such as Lisle who are associated with charlatans at AIG would do well to offer something more than “.... it’s supernatural”.






						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
				




So how do you explain the starlight problem when you believe in a 6-day creation 6000 years ago? Lisle’s solution is simple: “creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically.” So the inerrancy of the Bible is actually an axiom. He even published a paper in AiG’s “Answers Research Journal” claiming to have a more sophisticated solution and emphasizing that critics should have an open mind. The argument in the paper is: “The Bible must be true. Genesis says the stars were created simultaneously, on Day Four, 6000 years ago. This conflicts with relativity. Therefore relativity is wrong. Therefore The Bible must be true.” Even the dimmest student would spot the problem here, but Lisle proudly points out that “So far, no one has published in a peer-reviewed journal any criticism of this model.” [hat tip Rationalwiki]. It’s all like the weirdest sort of Alex Jones conspiracy, really – anything is taken to confirm the preheld view, even when it’s evidence against it.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Indeependent said:


> Matter can be neither be created nor destroyed.
> A 1st grader is taught this.


Thus the grave need for 2nd grade.


----------



## Indeependent

Grumblenuts said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matter can be neither be created nor destroyed.
> A 1st grader is taught this.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus the grave need for 2nd grade.
Click to expand...

Your desperation does not resolve the issue that every physicist is vainly dealing with...
Eternal matter.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This part 3 regarding the Evolutionist and his misconceptions: 15 Answers to Evolutionist Misconceptions (Part 3) | Biblical Science Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religionists have a problem with retreating to magic and supernaturalism as answers to contingent reality because magic and supernaturalism don’t actually address the questions.
> 
> Religionists such as Lisle who are associated with charlatans at AIG would do well to offer something more than “.... it’s supernatural”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you explain the starlight problem when you believe in a 6-day creation 6000 years ago? Lisle’s solution is simple: “creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically.” So the inerrancy of the Bible is actually an axiom. He even published a paper in AiG’s “Answers Research Journal” claiming to have a more sophisticated solution and emphasizing that critics should have an open mind. The argument in the paper is: “The Bible must be true. Genesis says the stars were created simultaneously, on Day Four, 6000 years ago. This conflicts with relativity. Therefore relativity is wrong. Therefore The Bible must be true.” Even the dimmest student would spot the problem here, but Lisle proudly points out that “So far, no one has published in a peer-reviewed journal any criticism of this model.” [hat tip Rationalwiki]. It’s all like the weirdest sort of Alex Jones conspiracy, really – anything is taken to confirm the preheld view, even when it’s evidence against it.
Click to expand...

Because Erev does not mean Evening and Boker does not mean Morning.
Erev is an unresolved Mixture and Boker is Clarity.
There was also no sun until the 4th day so no one knows how long the 3 cycles of Mixture and Clarity were.


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This part 3 regarding the Evolutionist and his misconceptions: 15 Answers to Evolutionist Misconceptions (Part 3) | Biblical Science Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religionists have a problem with retreating to magic and supernaturalism as answers to contingent reality because magic and supernaturalism don’t actually address the questions.
> 
> Religionists such as Lisle who are associated with charlatans at AIG would do well to offer something more than “.... it’s supernatural”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you explain the starlight problem when you believe in a 6-day creation 6000 years ago? Lisle’s solution is simple: “creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically.” So the inerrancy of the Bible is actually an axiom. He even published a paper in AiG’s “Answers Research Journal” claiming to have a more sophisticated solution and emphasizing that critics should have an open mind. The argument in the paper is: “The Bible must be true. Genesis says the stars were created simultaneously, on Day Four, 6000 years ago. This conflicts with relativity. Therefore relativity is wrong. Therefore The Bible must be true.” Even the dimmest student would spot the problem here, but Lisle proudly points out that “So far, no one has published in a peer-reviewed journal any criticism of this model.” [hat tip Rationalwiki]. It’s all like the weirdest sort of Alex Jones conspiracy, really – anything is taken to confirm the preheld view, even when it’s evidence against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because Erev does not mean Evening and Boker does not mean Morning.
> Erev is an unresolved Mixture and Boker is Clarity.
> There was also no sun until the 4th day so no one knows how long the 3 cycles of Mixture and Clarity were.
Click to expand...

Because this is not the religion forum, you can argue that elsewhere.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This part 3 regarding the Evolutionist and his misconceptions: 15 Answers to Evolutionist Misconceptions (Part 3) | Biblical Science Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religionists have a problem with retreating to magic and supernaturalism as answers to contingent reality because magic and supernaturalism don’t actually address the questions.
> 
> Religionists such as Lisle who are associated with charlatans at AIG would do well to offer something more than “.... it’s supernatural”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you explain the starlight problem when you believe in a 6-day creation 6000 years ago? Lisle’s solution is simple: “creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically.” So the inerrancy of the Bible is actually an axiom. He even published a paper in AiG’s “Answers Research Journal” claiming to have a more sophisticated solution and emphasizing that critics should have an open mind. The argument in the paper is: “The Bible must be true. Genesis says the stars were created simultaneously, on Day Four, 6000 years ago. This conflicts with relativity. Therefore relativity is wrong. Therefore The Bible must be true.” Even the dimmest student would spot the problem here, but Lisle proudly points out that “So far, no one has published in a peer-reviewed journal any criticism of this model.” [hat tip Rationalwiki]. It’s all like the weirdest sort of Alex Jones conspiracy, really – anything is taken to confirm the preheld view, even when it’s evidence against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because Erev does not mean Evening and Boker does not mean Morning.
> Erev is an unresolved Mixture and Boker is Clarity.
> There was also no sun until the 4th day so no one knows how long the 3 cycles of Mixture and Clarity were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because this is not the religion forum, you can argue that elsewhere.
Click to expand...

I’m not the one who initiated a subject that is easily answered by a verse.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Indeependent said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matter can be neither be created nor destroyed.
> A 1st grader is taught this.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus the grave need for 2nd grade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your desperation does not resolve the issue that every physicist is vainly dealing with...
> Eternal matter.
Click to expand...

Clearly your desperation, not mine. Like every "creation science" peddler you try to force "isolated" or "closed" system thermodynamic fantasy upon open system reality, plus you ignore mass/energy equivalence.


Grumblenuts said:


> There was no matter (locally anyway) for a long while after the Bang. Too hot.


^A cosmological fact only the equivalent of a 1st grader would presume to argue with at this point.


> *380, 000 years**:* when the nearly uniform soup cooled to about 3000 Kelvin, atoms formed nuclei and electrons. Photons ceased to scatter and streamed through space unhindered, turning the prior opaque universe into one with visible light.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Be sure not to miss the neat phrasing and application of "Hitchens's Razor."


----------



## Indeependent

Grumblenuts said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matter can be neither be created nor destroyed.
> A 1st grader is taught this.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus the grave need for 2nd grade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your desperation does not resolve the issue that every physicist is vainly dealing with...
> Eternal matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly your desperation, not mine. Like every "creation science" peddler you try to force "isolated" or "closed" system thermodynamic fantasy upon open system reality, plus you ignore mass/energy equivalence.
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no matter (locally anyway) for a long while after the Bang. Too hot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^A cosmological fact only the equivalent of a 1st grader would presume to argue with at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> *380, 000 years**:* when the nearly uniform soup cooled to about 3000 Kelvin, atoms formed nuclei and electrons. Photons ceased to scatter and streamed through space unhindered, turning the prior opaque universe into one with visible light.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Uh...
Where does this confirm your statement that matter appeared spontaneously?
Unless you think atoms aren’t matter.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Indeependent said:


> Uh...
> Where does this confirm your statement that matter appeared spontaneously?


Uh...
First quote me stating "that matter appeared spontaneously" or, better yet, just ask what you'd really like me to clarify.. Like "What is an atom" and how that might relate to when widely recognizable "matter" first appeared in our Universe? For those answers -- try actually reading my previous posts.


----------



## Grumblenuts

If, instead, you wanted to know why I insist upon our Universe always being an "open" system, before, during, and after the Big Bang, as opposed to it being presumed a "closed" or "isolated" one.. then you might be getting somewhere..


----------



## abu afak

Indeependent said:


> Matter can be neither be created nor destroyed.
> A 1st grader is taught this.


But god can be created/appear/poof!
Only your magic is good.
My what logic you have.

`


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This part 3 regarding the Evolutionist and his misconceptions: 15 Answers to Evolutionist Misconceptions (Part 3) | Biblical Science Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religionists have a problem with retreating to magic and supernaturalism as answers to contingent reality because magic and supernaturalism don’t actually address the questions.
> 
> Religionists such as Lisle who are associated with charlatans at AIG would do well to offer something more than “.... it’s supernatural”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you explain the starlight problem when you believe in a 6-day creation 6000 years ago? Lisle’s solution is simple: “creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically.” So the inerrancy of the Bible is actually an axiom. He even published a paper in AiG’s “Answers Research Journal” claiming to have a more sophisticated solution and emphasizing that critics should have an open mind. The argument in the paper is: “The Bible must be true. Genesis says the stars were created simultaneously, on Day Four, 6000 years ago. This conflicts with relativity. Therefore relativity is wrong. Therefore The Bible must be true.” Even the dimmest student would spot the problem here, but Lisle proudly points out that “So far, no one has published in a peer-reviewed journal any criticism of this model.” [hat tip Rationalwiki]. It’s all like the weirdest sort of Alex Jones conspiracy, really – anything is taken to confirm the preheld view, even when it’s evidence against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because Erev does not mean Evening and Boker does not mean Morning.
> Erev is an unresolved Mixture and Boker is Clarity.
> There was also no sun until the 4th day so no one knows how long the 3 cycles of Mixture and Clarity were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because this is not the religion forum, you can argue that elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m not the one who initiated a subject that is easily answered by a verse.
Click to expand...

A verse answers nothing. A snappy one-liner from one of countless religious texts doesn't tell us about the natural world, it tells us about fear and superstition.

First, let’s clear up a misunderstanding. Since we were speaking of humans and human consciousness, I didn’t feel it necessary to qualify the model composed of “reason” or rationality in the same context as religious belief. Second, you are welcomed to strip down the model composed of reason and rationality and examine it. Conversely, what is to be gained by stripping down one particular model of magic and supernaturalism, asserting there may be one or more supernatural entities, and then not expounding what those supernatural entities might be? There are many reasons for trust in reason and rationality. I have empirical data to support reason and rationality. The fundamentalist has ‘divine revelation”, whatever that revelation might be. If someday it’s discovered that there is a mode of perception that is better than reason and/or accessible to humans, then I’m happy to include it in my model. But you haven’t established that (no one has) and so I’m not about to accept your claims that reason is limited or fallible are true when you don’t know that for a fact. As knowledge is gained, reason gains more and more of a foothold, while faith and your collection of “supernatural entities” doesn’t.


----------



## Grumblenuts

abu afak, I'm laughing with you, not at you.


----------



## Hollie

abu afak said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matter can be neither be created nor destroyed.
> A 1st grader is taught this.
> 
> 
> 
> But god can be created/appear/poof!
> Only your magic is good.
> My what logic you have.
> 
> `
Click to expand...

I think it's a neat trick to be able to defend the magical properties of one's particular version of gods with "but... but.... but... but.... my gods are exempt from any questioning.''


----------



## Indeependent

abu afak said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matter can be neither be created nor destroyed.
> A 1st grader is taught this.
> 
> 
> 
> But god can be created/appear/poof!
> Only your magic is good.
> My what logic you have.
> 
> `
Click to expand...

I’m waiting for your genius to provide your first post that actually contains information as opposed to an ad hominem.
I’m sure I will wait forever.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matter can be neither be created nor destroyed.
> A 1st grader is taught this.
> 
> 
> 
> But god can be created/appear/poof!
> Only your magic is good.
> My what logic you have.
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it's a neat trick to be able to defend the magical properties of one's particular version of gods with "but... but.... but... but.... my gods are exempt from any questioning.''
Click to expand...

Why would you think God would not allow you to examine His word and not ask questions?


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This part 3 regarding the Evolutionist and his misconceptions: 15 Answers to Evolutionist Misconceptions (Part 3) | Biblical Science Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religionists have a problem with retreating to magic and supernaturalism as answers to contingent reality because magic and supernaturalism don’t actually address the questions.
> 
> Religionists such as Lisle who are associated with charlatans at AIG would do well to offer something more than “.... it’s supernatural”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you explain the starlight problem when you believe in a 6-day creation 6000 years ago? Lisle’s solution is simple: “creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically.” So the inerrancy of the Bible is actually an axiom. He even published a paper in AiG’s “Answers Research Journal” claiming to have a more sophisticated solution and emphasizing that critics should have an open mind. The argument in the paper is: “The Bible must be true. Genesis says the stars were created simultaneously, on Day Four, 6000 years ago. This conflicts with relativity. Therefore relativity is wrong. Therefore The Bible must be true.” Even the dimmest student would spot the problem here, but Lisle proudly points out that “So far, no one has published in a peer-reviewed journal any criticism of this model.” [hat tip Rationalwiki]. It’s all like the weirdest sort of Alex Jones conspiracy, really – anything is taken to confirm the preheld view, even when it’s evidence against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because Erev does not mean Evening and Boker does not mean Morning.
> Erev is an unresolved Mixture and Boker is Clarity.
> There was also no sun until the 4th day so no one knows how long the 3 cycles of Mixture and Clarity were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because this is not the religion forum, you can argue that elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m not the one who initiated a subject that is easily answered by a verse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A verse answers nothing. A snappy one-liner from one of countless religious texts doesn't tell us about the natural world, it tells us about fear and superstition.
> 
> First, let’s clear up a misunderstanding. Since we were speaking of humans and human consciousness, I didn’t feel it necessary to qualify the model composed of “reason” or rationality in the same context as religious belief. Second, you are welcomed to strip down the model composed of reason and rationality and examine it. Conversely, what is to be gained by stripping down one particular model of magic and supernaturalism, asserting there may be one or more supernatural entities, and then not expounding what those supernatural entities might be? There are many reasons for trust in reason and rationality. I have empirical data to support reason and rationality. The fundamentalist has ‘divine revelation”, whatever that revelation might be. If someday it’s discovered that there is a mode of perception that is better than reason and/or accessible to humans, then I’m happy to include it in my model. But you haven’t established that (no one has) and so I’m not about to accept your claims that reason is limited or fallible are true when you don’t know that for a fact. As knowledge is gained, reason gains more and more of a foothold, while faith and your collection of “supernatural entities” doesn’t.
Click to expand...

You realize that your post contains nothing to bolster evolution.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Indeependent said:


> You realize that your post contains nothing to bolster evolution.


Evolution needs no bolstering since it already enjoys overwhelming support among the scientifically literate. Even Catholics have no problem with it.


----------



## abu afak

Indeependent said:


> Uh huh.
> *They all evolved into a perfect eco-system by...mistake.*


What's "perfect"?
You mean the possibly billions of failed mutations and now extinct species?
What an IDIOT!
What we have is what's left are those best suited to current conditions.
It was trial and error, and evolution/mutation keeping up with differing conditions (climate etc).
That's still happening, not creation/design.

You're so ******* stupid.

`


----------



## Indeependent

abu afak said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh.
> *They all evolved into a perfect eco-system by...mistake.*
> 
> 
> 
> What's "perfect"?
> You mean the possibly billions of failed mutations and now extinct species?
> What an IDIOT!
> What we have is what's left were those best suited to current conditions.
> It was trial and error, and evolution keeping up with differing conditions (climate etc).
> That's still happening, not creation.
> 
> You're so ******* stupid.
> 
> `
Click to expand...

An ad hominem...by a self-proclaimed genius!
Evolution does not explain *millions* of male/female mates.

Millions of Slime got together and decided to evolve, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of distinct male/female mates.
Address that issue.
You can't.

I bet no one ever laid it out like this before because you only associate with like minded people who have never dissected what the real life situation has to look like.
But you see, I am an example of why so many Orthodox Jews become very successful Attorneys and Financiers.


----------



## abu afak

Indeependent said:


> An ad hominem...by a self-proclaimed genius!
> Evolution does not explain *millions* of male/female mates.
> *Millions of Slime got together and decided to evolve, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of distinct male/female mates.
> Address that issue.
> You can't.
> 
> I bet no one ever laid it out like this before because you only associate with like minded people who have never dissected what the real life situation has to look like.
> But you see, I am an example of why so many Orthodox Jews become very successful Attorneys and Financiers.*


It is ad hom, but WTF, ACCURATE.

What the hell does that mean "explain millions of male/female species."?
Not all living things are male/female or reproduce that way.
Your premises are too idiotic to even discuss.

I can't even address that issue?
*Only someone (YOU) breathtakingly STUPID would say that because it's easily referenced. 


			evolution of sexes - Google Search
		

DUH! *

Orthodox Jews are NO smarter than Secular or Atheist Jews, and no doubt dumber as you are an example.

*You Filthy BIGOTED brain dead Moron, you couldn't Name ONE of a 100 Jewish Nobel winners who was Orthodox when challenged.
Their brains are limited by religious beliefs.
Pathetic.*

You Sick 40 IQ Religious BIGOT.

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> Yet another ad hominem


That was not an ad hominem. You clearly have no idea what that term means.

You also clearly know less than nothing about evolution.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> They all evolved into a perfect eco-system by...mistake.


Perfect?  Wha? These are terms and ideas that scientists do not use. Only religious nutters.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another ad hominem
> 
> 
> 
> That was not an ad hominem. You clearly have no idea what that term means.
> 
> You also clearly know less than nothing about evolution.
Click to expand...

And you have not presented any evolutionist who has ever addressed this issue.
Let alone the fact that every physicist alive admits that our universe is mathematically impossible.


----------



## Indeependent

abu afak said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> An ad hominem...by a self-proclaimed genius!
> Evolution does not explain *millions* of male/female mates.
> *Millions of Slime got together and decided to evolve, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of distinct male/female mates.
> Address that issue.
> You can't.
> 
> I bet no one ever laid it out like this before because you only associate with like minded people who have never dissected what the real life situation has to look like.
> But you see, I am an example of why so many Orthodox Jews become very successful Attorneys and Financiers.*
> 
> 
> 
> It is ad hom, but WTF, ACCURATE.
> 
> What the hell does that mean "explain millions of male/female species."?
> Not all living things are male/female or reproduce that way.
> Your premises are too idiotic to even discuss.
> 
> I can't even address that issue?
> *Only someone (YOU) breathtakingly STUPID would say that because it's easily referenced.
> 
> 
> evolution of sexes - Google Search
> 
> 
> DUH! *
> 
> Orthodox Jews are NO smarter than Secular or Atheist Jews, and no doubt dumber as you are an example.
> 
> *You Filthy BIGOTED brain dead Moron, you couldn't Name ONE of a 100 Jewish Nobel winners who was Orthodox when challenged.
> Their brains are limited by religious beliefs.
> Pathetic.*
> 
> You Sick 40 IQ Religious BIGOT.
> 
> `
Click to expand...

Are you retarded?
You're a self-confessed genius and yet you don't understand what the evolution scenario farce entails?

There are *millions *of *male/female paired species* that supposedly evolved over *hundreds of millions of years* that evolutionists explain away as random occurrences of survival of the fittest.

*How the heck do even two pieces of slime become a perfect male/female pair?*
One must be *Emotionally Disturbed* and *Mentally Ill* to fall for this nonsense.

By the way, when I was a kid I believed this crap until I learned to ask discriminating questions on Wall Street.
I started asking discriminating questions  on every topic I encountered.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Indeependent said:


> fact that every physicist alive admits that our universe is mathematically impossible.


Wrong again. 


> "If you accept the idea that both space itself, and all the stuff in space, have no properties at all except mathematical properties," then the idea that everything is mathematical "starts to sound a little bit less insane," Tegmark said in a talk given Jan. 15 here at The Bell House. The talk was based on his book "Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality" (Knopf, 2014).
> 
> "If my idea is wrong, physics is ultimately doomed," Tegmark said. But if the universe really is mathematics, he added, "There's nothing we can't, in principle, understand."


----------



## Indeependent

Grumblenuts said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> fact that every physicist alive admits that our universe is mathematically impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> 
> 
> "If you accept the idea that both space itself, and all the stuff in space, have no properties at all except mathematical properties," then the idea that everything is mathematical "starts to sound a little bit less insane," Tegmark said in a talk given Jan. 15 here at The Bell House. The talk was based on his book "Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality" (Knopf, 2014).
> 
> "If my idea is wrong, physics is ultimately doomed," Tegmark said. But if the universe really is mathematics, he added, "There's nothing we can't, in principle, understand."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Every physicist alive admits that our universe is mathematically impossible.

Where does that quote disagree?
All he says is that the impossible can be imagined.
You are *literate*?
And to boot...I bet he's still searching.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Are you illiterate? Where does he " admits that our universe is mathematically impossible."?

He literally says "space itself, and all the stuff in space," has "no properties at all except mathematical properties,"

In case you really are illiterate, he's saying math alone suffices to fully define the Universe and everything within. And he's right. Physicists are increasingly realizing the same. No surprise for me since math (geometry and probability mainly) is what has clearly driven the Universe, just as the Greeks first imagined.


----------



## Grumblenuts

> In physics and cosmology, the mathematical universe hypothesis (MUH), also known as the ultimate ensemble theory, is a speculative "theory of everything" (TOE) proposed by cosmologist Max Tegmark.[1][2]
> 
> Tegmark's MUH is: Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure.[3] That is, *the physical universe is not merely described by mathematics, but is mathematics (specifically, a mathematical structure).* Mathematical existence equals physical existence, and all structures that exist mathematically exist physically as well. Observers, including humans, are "self-aware substructures (SASs)". In any mathematical structure complex enough to contain such substructures, they "will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world".[4]
> 
> The theory can be considered a form of Pythagoreanism or Platonism in that it proposes the existence of mathematical entities; a form of mathematical monism in that it denies that anything exists except mathematical objects; and a formal expression of ontic structural realism.


----------



## abu afak

> ="Indeependent"
> An ad hominem...by a self-proclaimed genius!
> Evolution does not explain *millions* of male/female mates.
> *Millions of Slime got together and decided to evolve, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of distinct male/female mates.
> Address that issue.
> You can't.
> 
> I bet no one ever laid it out like this before because you only associate with like minded people who have never dissected what the real life situation has to look like.
> But you see, I am an example of why so many Orthodox Jews become very successful Attorneys and Financiers.*




Any answer Independent you Racist POS? NO.

What the hell does that mean "explain millions of male/female species."?
Not all living things are male/female or reproduce that way.
Your premises are too idiotic to even discuss.

I can't even address that issue?
*Only someone (YOU) breathtakingly STUPID would say that because it's easily referenced. 


			evolution of sexes - Google Search
		

DUH! *

Orthodox Jews are NO smarter than Secular or Atheist Jews, and no doubt dumber as you are an example.

*You Filthy BIGOTED brain dead Moron, you couldn't Name ONE of a 100 Jewish Nobel winners who was Orthodox when challenged.
Their brains are limited by religious beliefs.
Pathetic.*

You Sick 40 IQ Religious BIGOT.

`


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matter can be neither be created nor destroyed.
> A 1st grader is taught this.
> 
> 
> 
> But god can be created/appear/poof!
> Only your magic is good.
> My what logic you have.
> 
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it's a neat trick to be able to defend the magical properties of one's particular version of gods with "but... but.... but... but.... my gods are exempt from any questioning.''
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you think God would not allow you to examine His word and not ask questions?
Click to expand...

What word of what gods? 

Identify a single, verifiable instance of your gods communicating with someone.


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> fact that every physicist alive admits that our universe is mathematically impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> 
> 
> "If you accept the idea that both space itself, and all the stuff in space, have no properties at all except mathematical properties," then the idea that everything is mathematical "starts to sound a little bit less insane," Tegmark said in a talk given Jan. 15 here at The Bell House. The talk was based on his book "Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality" (Knopf, 2014).
> 
> "If my idea is wrong, physics is ultimately doomed," Tegmark said. But if the universe really is mathematics, he added, "There's nothing we can't, in principle, understand."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every physicist alive admits that our universe is mathematically impossible.
> 
> Where does that quote disagree?
> All he says is that the impossible can be imagined.
> You are *literate*?
> And to boot...I bet he's still searching.
Click to expand...


Can we agree that your statement is a fraud? 

Can we agree that you obviously are not the spokes-religionist for every physicist alive?


----------



## Grumblenuts

I agree.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This part 3 regarding the Evolutionist and his misconceptions: 15 Answers to Evolutionist Misconceptions (Part 3) | Biblical Science Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religionists have a problem with retreating to magic and supernaturalism as answers to contingent reality because magic and supernaturalism don’t actually address the questions.
> 
> Religionists such as Lisle who are associated with charlatans at AIG would do well to offer something more than “.... it’s supernatural”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you explain the starlight problem when you believe in a 6-day creation 6000 years ago? Lisle’s solution is simple: “creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically.” So the inerrancy of the Bible is actually an axiom. He even published a paper in AiG’s “Answers Research Journal” claiming to have a more sophisticated solution and emphasizing that critics should have an open mind. The argument in the paper is: “The Bible must be true. Genesis says the stars were created simultaneously, on Day Four, 6000 years ago. This conflicts with relativity. Therefore relativity is wrong. Therefore The Bible must be true.” Even the dimmest student would spot the problem here, but Lisle proudly points out that “So far, no one has published in a peer-reviewed journal any criticism of this model.” [hat tip Rationalwiki]. It’s all like the weirdest sort of Alex Jones conspiracy, really – anything is taken to confirm the preheld view, even when it’s evidence against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because Erev does not mean Evening and Boker does not mean Morning.
> Erev is an unresolved Mixture and Boker is Clarity.
> There was also no sun until the 4th day so no one knows how long the 3 cycles of Mixture and Clarity were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because this is not the religion forum, you can argue that elsewhere.
Click to expand...

The day you can create a living thing in a classroom experiment and repeat this event multiple times, I will say that your excuse for science is invalid. Until such a time, GOD did it and that's the ONLY logical and oldest explanation. All others are impotent and have not been proven.


----------



## Grumblenuts

god did it < the lamest, most impotent, copycat, uninspired,.. rationalization ever!


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This part 3 regarding the Evolutionist and his misconceptions: 15 Answers to Evolutionist Misconceptions (Part 3) | Biblical Science Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religionists have a problem with retreating to magic and supernaturalism as answers to contingent reality because magic and supernaturalism don’t actually address the questions.
> 
> Religionists such as Lisle who are associated with charlatans at AIG would do well to offer something more than “.... it’s supernatural”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you explain the starlight problem when you believe in a 6-day creation 6000 years ago? Lisle’s solution is simple: “creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically.” So the inerrancy of the Bible is actually an axiom. He even published a paper in AiG’s “Answers Research Journal” claiming to have a more sophisticated solution and emphasizing that critics should have an open mind. The argument in the paper is: “The Bible must be true. Genesis says the stars were created simultaneously, on Day Four, 6000 years ago. This conflicts with relativity. Therefore relativity is wrong. Therefore The Bible must be true.” Even the dimmest student would spot the problem here, but Lisle proudly points out that “So far, no one has published in a peer-reviewed journal any criticism of this model.” [hat tip Rationalwiki]. It’s all like the weirdest sort of Alex Jones conspiracy, really – anything is taken to confirm the preheld view, even when it’s evidence against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because Erev does not mean Evening and Boker does not mean Morning.
> Erev is an unresolved Mixture and Boker is Clarity.
> There was also no sun until the 4th day so no one knows how long the 3 cycles of Mixture and Clarity were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because this is not the religion forum, you can argue that elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The day you can create a living thing in a classroom experiment and repeat this event multiple times, I will say that your excuse for science is invalid. Until such a time, GOD did it and that's the ONLY logical and oldest explanation. All others are impotent and have not been proven.
Click to expand...

The day you can create a living thing _the gods_ in a classroom experiment and repeat this event multiple times, I will say that your excuse for science  _the gods_ is invalid. Until such a time, THE GODS _Amun Ra_ did it and that's the ONLY logical and oldest explanation. All others are impotent and have not been proven.


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
Click to expand...

Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.

Lol


----------



## Taz

theHawk said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
> Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> 
> Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [.....]
> 
> *1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
> So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> *In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..." *
> 
> `
> 
> .
> 
> 
> `.
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t get it, are you denying the universe was created?  Even quantum physicists believe in a creation theory, the Big Bang Theory.  Although they have to twist the rules of science and make up some fairy tales with no scientific backing to make the theory work, like “inflation” and “dark matter”.
Click to expand...

At least scientists are still looking, creationists have settled on a fairy tale, and science of course isn’t in the business of disproving fairy tales.


----------



## Taz

Indeependent said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who has studied even the simplest form of life, which is far from simple, and believes in evolution is either an idiot or lying to themselves.
> The anatomy, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc... of all life forms is so incredibly tied into an ecosystem that evolution is nothing more than a reason to deny God and thus abandon all respect for human life.
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't I believe in both?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You *can* believe in both if your belief is that evolution does not exclude God's intervention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would it need to do that?
> 
> I believe that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are discussing the chuch-mah (wisdom, or thought) of the Creator, who then Made the raw material and then Formed it into perfection.
> Yes, since the Creator is not bound by time, everything that exists always exists in parallel with every form that the Creator willed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My perception is that it was willed into existence.  As near as I can tell the universe is an intelligence creating machine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The universe is already over as God is outside time and space.
Click to expand...

Is that your final answer?


----------



## Taz

esalla said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
Click to expand...

So everything is god. How quaint.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This part 3 regarding the Evolutionist and his misconceptions: 15 Answers to Evolutionist Misconceptions (Part 3) | Biblical Science Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religionists have a problem with retreating to magic and supernaturalism as answers to contingent reality because magic and supernaturalism don’t actually address the questions.
> 
> Religionists such as Lisle who are associated with charlatans at AIG would do well to offer something more than “.... it’s supernatural”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you explain the starlight problem when you believe in a 6-day creation 6000 years ago? Lisle’s solution is simple: “creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically.” So the inerrancy of the Bible is actually an axiom. He even published a paper in AiG’s “Answers Research Journal” claiming to have a more sophisticated solution and emphasizing that critics should have an open mind. The argument in the paper is: “The Bible must be true. Genesis says the stars were created simultaneously, on Day Four, 6000 years ago. This conflicts with relativity. Therefore relativity is wrong. Therefore The Bible must be true.” Even the dimmest student would spot the problem here, but Lisle proudly points out that “So far, no one has published in a peer-reviewed journal any criticism of this model.” [hat tip Rationalwiki]. It’s all like the weirdest sort of Alex Jones conspiracy, really – anything is taken to confirm the preheld view, even when it’s evidence against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because Erev does not mean Evening and Boker does not mean Morning.
> Erev is an unresolved Mixture and Boker is Clarity.
> There was also no sun until the 4th day so no one knows how long the 3 cycles of Mixture and Clarity were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because this is not the religion forum, you can argue that elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The day you can create a living thing in a classroom experiment and repeat this event multiple times, I will say that your excuse for science is invalid. Until such a time, GOD did it and that's the ONLY logical and oldest explanation. All others are impotent and have not been proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The day you can create a living thing _the gods_ in a classroom experiment and repeat this event multiple times, I will say that your excuse for science  _the gods_ is invalid. Until such a time, THE GODS _Amun Ra_ did it and that's the ONLY logical and oldest explanation. All others are impotent and have not been proven.
Click to expand...

I get my prayers answered, and I don't believe in coincidence.


----------



## esalla

Taz said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So everything is god. How quaint.
Click to expand...

God represents intelligence, which is far more likely to create things than nothing.

Do you disagree?


----------



## esalla

Taz said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
> Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> 
> Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [.....]
> 
> *1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
> So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> *In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..." *
> 
> `
> 
> .
> 
> 
> `.
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t get it, are you denying the universe was created?  Even quantum physicists believe in a creation theory, the Big Bang Theory.  Although they have to twist the rules of science and make up some fairy tales with no scientific backing to make the theory work, like “inflation” and “dark matter”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At least scientists are still looking, creationists have settled on a fairy tale, and science of course isn’t in the business of disproving fairy tales.
Click to expand...

Actually when scientist go to mars and adapt any form of life, lol god is proven


----------



## Indeependent

Taz said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who has studied even the simplest form of life, which is far from simple, and believes in evolution is either an idiot or lying to themselves.
> The anatomy, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc... of all life forms is so incredibly tied into an ecosystem that evolution is nothing more than a reason to deny God and thus abandon all respect for human life.
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't I believe in both?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You *can* believe in both if your belief is that evolution does not exclude God's intervention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would it need to do that?
> 
> I believe that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are discussing the chuch-mah (wisdom, or thought) of the Creator, who then Made the raw material and then Formed it into perfection.
> Yes, since the Creator is not bound by time, everything that exists always exists in parallel with every form that the Creator willed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My perception is that it was willed into existence.  As near as I can tell the universe is an intelligence creating machine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The universe is already over as God is outside time and space.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that your final answer?
Click to expand...

Compared to the fact that you have no answer except for an ad hominem?


----------



## Grumblenuts

LittleNipper said:


> I get my prayers answered, and I don't believe in coincidence.


Indeed. Same here. For example:

_"OMG! JFC! Dear lord, please strike me with a gigantic lightning bolt right now if you exist."
_
And,.. nothing.. Again! Poof! See? Proof!


----------



## Grumblenuts

And,.. still nothing..


----------



## Indeependent

Grumblenuts said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get my prayers answered, and I don't believe in coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. Same here. For example:
> 
> _"OMG! JFC! Dear lord, please strike me with a gigantic lightning bolt right now if you exist."_
> 
> And,.. nothing.. Again! Poof! See? Proof!
Click to expand...

Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
Focus.


----------



## Grumblenuts

And,.. still nothing.. 

Coincidence? I don't think so!


----------



## Taz

esalla said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So everything is god. How quaint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God represents intelligence, which is far more likely to create things than nothing.
> 
> Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

Intelligence doesn’t make deformed and retarded babies.


----------



## Indeependent

Taz said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So everything is god. How quaint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God represents intelligence, which is far more likely to create things than nothing.
> 
> Do you disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Intelligence doesn’t make deformed and retarded babies.
Click to expand...

It's obvious that you reflect upon yourself poorly.
Very few people are exceptional, most are average and some are less then average.
In fact, most people who consider themselves perfect, or who are truly exceptional, are arrogant and rather worthless to mankind.
I think you are a very angry person and you may have a good reason for being angry.
My community spends an enormous amount of time and money helping people who can't help themselves rather than spending that time and money on denying God.


----------



## Indeependent

Taz said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So everything is god. How quaint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God represents intelligence, which is far more likely to create things than nothing.
> 
> Do you disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Intelligence doesn’t make deformed and retarded babies.
Click to expand...

Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
Focus.


----------



## Grumblenuts

And,.. still nothing..


----------



## Indeependent

Grumblenuts said:


> And,.. still nothing..


We know you have nothing; you don't have to keep telling us.


----------



## Hollie

esalla said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
Click to expand...


At least you’re consistently pointless. An achievement of some merit, I guess.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you’re consistently pointless. An achievement of some merit, I guess.
Click to expand...

Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
Focus.

Remember, this is not MSNBC or CNN where you can spout bullshit without expecting questions.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This part 3 regarding the Evolutionist and his misconceptions: 15 Answers to Evolutionist Misconceptions (Part 3) | Biblical Science Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religionists have a problem with retreating to magic and supernaturalism as answers to contingent reality because magic and supernaturalism don’t actually address the questions.
> 
> Religionists such as Lisle who are associated with charlatans at AIG would do well to offer something more than “.... it’s supernatural”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you explain the starlight problem when you believe in a 6-day creation 6000 years ago? Lisle’s solution is simple: “creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically.” So the inerrancy of the Bible is actually an axiom. He even published a paper in AiG’s “Answers Research Journal” claiming to have a more sophisticated solution and emphasizing that critics should have an open mind. The argument in the paper is: “The Bible must be true. Genesis says the stars were created simultaneously, on Day Four, 6000 years ago. This conflicts with relativity. Therefore relativity is wrong. Therefore The Bible must be true.” Even the dimmest student would spot the problem here, but Lisle proudly points out that “So far, no one has published in a peer-reviewed journal any criticism of this model.” [hat tip Rationalwiki]. It’s all like the weirdest sort of Alex Jones conspiracy, really – anything is taken to confirm the preheld view, even when it’s evidence against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because Erev does not mean Evening and Boker does not mean Morning.
> Erev is an unresolved Mixture and Boker is Clarity.
> There was also no sun until the 4th day so no one knows how long the 3 cycles of Mixture and Clarity were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because this is not the religion forum, you can argue that elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The day you can create a living thing in a classroom experiment and repeat this event multiple times, I will say that your excuse for science is invalid. Until such a time, GOD did it and that's the ONLY logical and oldest explanation. All others are impotent and have not been proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The day you can create a living thing _the gods_ in a classroom experiment and repeat this event multiple times, I will say that your excuse for science  _the gods_ is invalid. Until such a time, THE GODS _Amun Ra_ did it and that's the ONLY logical and oldest explanation. All others are impotent and have not been proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get my prayers answered, and I don't believe in coincidence.
Click to expand...


The notion that one can communicate with the gods and spirit worlds is commonplace among religionists. I suppose they feel they are in a unique position to intercede and exert influence upon a deity from whom they seek a favor? In short, influence peddling.

I forget which of the gods are in charge of rewards for hard work and rational decision making but they treat me fairly so I don’t pester them with requests.


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you’re consistently pointless. An achievement of some merit, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Remember, this is not MSNBC or CNN where you can spout bullshit without expecting questions.
Click to expand...

What is _Slime Scheme_™️?

Is that something you study at your madrassah?


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This part 3 regarding the Evolutionist and his misconceptions: 15 Answers to Evolutionist Misconceptions (Part 3) | Biblical Science Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religionists have a problem with retreating to magic and supernaturalism as answers to contingent reality because magic and supernaturalism don’t actually address the questions.
> 
> Religionists such as Lisle who are associated with charlatans at AIG would do well to offer something more than “.... it’s supernatural”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you explain the starlight problem when you believe in a 6-day creation 6000 years ago? Lisle’s solution is simple: “creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically.” So the inerrancy of the Bible is actually an axiom. He even published a paper in AiG’s “Answers Research Journal” claiming to have a more sophisticated solution and emphasizing that critics should have an open mind. The argument in the paper is: “The Bible must be true. Genesis says the stars were created simultaneously, on Day Four, 6000 years ago. This conflicts with relativity. Therefore relativity is wrong. Therefore The Bible must be true.” Even the dimmest student would spot the problem here, but Lisle proudly points out that “So far, no one has published in a peer-reviewed journal any criticism of this model.” [hat tip Rationalwiki]. It’s all like the weirdest sort of Alex Jones conspiracy, really – anything is taken to confirm the preheld view, even when it’s evidence against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because Erev does not mean Evening and Boker does not mean Morning.
> Erev is an unresolved Mixture and Boker is Clarity.
> There was also no sun until the 4th day so no one knows how long the 3 cycles of Mixture and Clarity were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because this is not the religion forum, you can argue that elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The day you can create a living thing in a classroom experiment and repeat this event multiple times, I will say that your excuse for science is invalid. Until such a time, GOD did it and that's the ONLY logical and oldest explanation. All others are impotent and have not been proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The day you can create a living thing _the gods_ in a classroom experiment and repeat this event multiple times, I will say that your excuse for science  _the gods_ is invalid. Until such a time, THE GODS _Amun Ra_ did it and that's the ONLY logical and oldest explanation. All others are impotent and have not been proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get my prayers answered, and I don't believe in coincidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The notion that one can communicate with the gods and spirit worlds is commonplace among religionists. I suppose they feel they are in a unique position to intercede and exert influence upon a deity from whom they seek a favor? In short, influence peddling.
> 
> I forget which of the gods are in charge of rewards for hard work and rational decision making but they treat me fairly and don’t demand that I pester them with requests.
Click to expand...

Let's focus on what *you* believe in...
Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
Focus.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you’re consistently pointless. An achievement of some merit, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Remember, this is not MSNBC or CNN where you can spout bullshit without expecting questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is _Slime Scheme_™️?
> 
> Is that something you study at your madrassah?
Click to expand...

Are you so stupid that you forget other people can read your posts?

How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
Now stop being an idiot and address the question of find an atheist that does address the issue.


----------



## Taz

Indeependent said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So everything is god. How quaint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God represents intelligence, which is far more likely to create things than nothing.
> 
> Do you disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Intelligence doesn’t make deformed and retarded babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
Click to expand...

That’s 2 posts in a row in which I have no fucking idea what the fuck you’re on about. Are you drunk like the Pope?


----------



## Indeependent

Taz said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So everything is god. How quaint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God represents intelligence, which is far more likely to create things than nothing.
> 
> Do you disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Intelligence doesn’t make deformed and retarded babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s 2 posts in a row in which I have no fucking idea what the fuck you’re on about. Are you drunk like the Pope?
Click to expand...

You never know what anybody is discussing because you're an idiot.

Now address the Slime Scheme or find an atheist that can.


----------



## Taz

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you’re consistently pointless. An achievement of some merit, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Remember, this is not MSNBC or CNN where you can spout bullshit without expecting questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is _Slime Scheme_™️?
> 
> Is that something you study at your madrassah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you so stupid that you forget other people can read your posts?
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> Now stop being an idiot and address the question of find an atheist that does address the issue.
Click to expand...

So how did all the different animals come about?


----------



## Taz

Indeependent said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So everything is god. How quaint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God represents intelligence, which is far more likely to create things than nothing.
> 
> Do you disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Intelligence doesn’t make deformed and retarded babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s 2 posts in a row in which I have no fucking idea what the fuck you’re on about. Are you drunk like the Pope?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You never know what anybody is discussing because you're an idiot.
> 
> Now address the Slime Scheme or find an atheist that can.
Click to expand...

You rarely make any sense, now focus, how old is the earth?


----------



## Indeependent

Taz said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you’re consistently pointless. An achievement of some merit, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Remember, this is not MSNBC or CNN where you can spout bullshit without expecting questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is _Slime Scheme_™️?
> 
> Is that something you study at your madrassah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you so stupid that you forget other people can read your posts?
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> Now stop being an idiot and address the question of find an atheist that does address the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how did all the different animals come about?
Click to expand...

You sided with evolution from slime and I challenged you to find a study that addresses the impossibility of evolution.
If you want to ignore my input, at least don't be lazy and not back up what you believe.


----------



## Indeependent

Taz said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So everything is god. How quaint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God represents intelligence, which is far more likely to create things than nothing.
> 
> Do you disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Intelligence doesn’t make deformed and retarded babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s 2 posts in a row in which I have no fucking idea what the fuck you’re on about. Are you drunk like the Pope?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You never know what anybody is discussing because you're an idiot.
> 
> Now address the Slime Scheme or find an atheist that can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You rarely make any sense, now focus, how old is the earth?
Click to expand...

I answered that yesterday.
Admit you either ignored the answer or didn't want to see it and I will tell you how old the earth is.
The earth is way older than 6,000 of our years and scripture supports that fact.


----------



## Taz

Indeependent said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you’re consistently pointless. An achievement of some merit, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Remember, this is not MSNBC or CNN where you can spout bullshit without expecting questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is _Slime Scheme_™️?
> 
> Is that something you study at your madrassah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you so stupid that you forget other people can read your posts?
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> Now stop being an idiot and address the question of find an atheist that does address the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how did all the different animals come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sided with evolution from slime and I challenged you to find a study that addresses the impossibility of evolution.
> If you want to ignore my input, at least don't be lazy and not back up what you believe.
Click to expand...

What study? Make sense for crissakes.


----------



## Taz

Indeependent said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So everything is god. How quaint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God represents intelligence, which is far more likely to create things than nothing.
> 
> Do you disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Intelligence doesn’t make deformed and retarded babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s 2 posts in a row in which I have no fucking idea what the fuck you’re on about. Are you drunk like the Pope?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You never know what anybody is discussing because you're an idiot.
> 
> Now address the Slime Scheme or find an atheist that can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You rarely make any sense, now focus, how old is the earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I answered that yesterday.
> Admit you either ignored the answer or didn't want to see it and I will tell you how old the earth is.
> The earth is way older than 6,000 of our years and scripture supports that fact.
Click to expand...

I didn’t see your answer. How much way older than 6000 years?


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you’re consistently pointless. An achievement of some merit, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Remember, this is not MSNBC or CNN where you can spout bullshit without expecting questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is _Slime Scheme_™️?
> 
> Is that something you study at your madrassah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you so stupid that you forget other people can read your posts?
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> Now stop being an idiot and address the question of find an atheist that does address the issue.
Click to expand...


Ah, a name-caller. That adds a great deal to your saliva-slinging tirades.


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So everything is god. How quaint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God represents intelligence, which is far more likely to create things than nothing.
> 
> Do you disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Intelligence doesn’t make deformed and retarded babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s 2 posts in a row in which I have no fucking idea what the fuck you’re on about. Are you drunk like the Pope?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You never know what anybody is discussing because you're an idiot.
> 
> Now address the Slime Scheme or find an atheist that can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You rarely make any sense, now focus, how old is the earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I answered that yesterday.
> Admit you either ignored the answer or didn't want to see it and I will tell you how old the earth is.
> The earth is way older than 6,000 of our years and scripture supports that fact.
Click to expand...


“way older than 6,000 of our years”.

How many in dog years?


----------



## Indeependent

Taz said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you’re consistently pointless. An achievement of some merit, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Remember, this is not MSNBC or CNN where you can spout bullshit without expecting questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is _Slime Scheme_™️?
> 
> Is that something you study at your madrassah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you so stupid that you forget other people can read your posts?
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> Now stop being an idiot and address the question of find an atheist that does address the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how did all the different animals come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sided with evolution from slime and I challenged you to find a study that addresses the impossibility of evolution.
> If you want to ignore my input, at least don't be lazy and not back up what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What study? Make sense for crissakes.
Click to expand...

It's obvious you are being purposely moronic concerning your "faith" in evolution.
You believe that single celled creatures became *millions* of male/female insects, animals and humans over *hundreds of millions* of years.
So you believe that these "*unique*", "*freak*, "*Accidental*" occurrences occurred *millions* of times.
How many times have you won a 100+ million dollar lottery.
If you continue to prove you are too stupid to under this simple question, I will no longer respond to you.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you’re consistently pointless. An achievement of some merit, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Remember, this is not MSNBC or CNN where you can spout bullshit without expecting questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is _Slime Scheme_™️?
> 
> Is that something you study at your madrassah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you so stupid that you forget other people can read your posts?
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> Now stop being an idiot and address the question of find an atheist that does address the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, a name-caller. That adds a great deal to your saliva-slinging tirades.
Click to expand...

Ad hominem.
I have posted the *same*, *clearly stated* question at least 20 times and you continue to either make believe you don't understand the question or you are not a very intelligent person.

For the 21st and *last* time...
How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So everything is god. How quaint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God represents intelligence, which is far more likely to create things than nothing.
> 
> Do you disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Intelligence doesn’t make deformed and retarded babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s 2 posts in a row in which I have no fucking idea what the fuck you’re on about. Are you drunk like the Pope?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You never know what anybody is discussing because you're an idiot.
> 
> Now address the Slime Scheme or find an atheist that can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You rarely make any sense, now focus, how old is the earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I answered that yesterday.
> Admit you either ignored the answer or didn't want to see it and I will tell you how old the earth is.
> The earth is way older than 6,000 of our years and scripture supports that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “way older than 6,000 of our years”.
> 
> How many in dog years?
Click to expand...

I explicitly posted this answer for you from the Torah yesterday and you responded that I shouldn't reference the Torah to answer your question from a Bible.
It seems you are either a person filled with hate or have the IQ of a tadpole.

You have trouble with me getting annoyed that I am annoyed that you unwilling to respond to anything I post with nothing but disdain.
Tough.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So everything is god. How quaint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God represents intelligence, which is far more likely to create things than nothing.
> 
> Do you disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Intelligence doesn’t make deformed and retarded babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s 2 posts in a row in which I have no fucking idea what the fuck you’re on about. Are you drunk like the Pope?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You never know what anybody is discussing because you're an idiot.
> 
> Now address the Slime Scheme or find an atheist that can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You rarely make any sense, now focus, how old is the earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I answered that yesterday.
> Admit you either ignored the answer or didn't want to see it and I will tell you how old the earth is.
> The earth is way older than 6,000 of our years and scripture supports that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “way older than 6,000 of our years”.
> 
> How many in dog years?
Click to expand...

Whatever science says.
There was no sun until the 4th day.
If that doesn't answer your question, out conversing is over with.


----------



## esalla

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So everything is god. How quaint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God represents intelligence, which is far more likely to create things than nothing.
> 
> Do you disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Intelligence doesn’t make deformed and retarded babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s 2 posts in a row in which I have no fucking idea what the fuck you’re on about. Are you drunk like the Pope?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You never know what anybody is discussing because you're an idiot.
> 
> Now address the Slime Scheme or find an atheist that can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You rarely make any sense, now focus, how old is the earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I answered that yesterday.
> Admit you either ignored the answer or didn't want to see it and I will tell you how old the earth is.
> The earth is way older than 6,000 of our years and scripture supports that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “way older than 6,000 of our years”.
> 
> How many in dog years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever science says.
> There was no sun until the 4th day.
> If that doesn't answer your question, out conversing is over with.
Click to expand...

Makes no sense actually because without a Sun there could be no night and day so how would day 1 2 3 be defined


----------



## ding

Taz said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So everything is god. How quaint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God represents intelligence, which is far more likely to create things than nothing.
> 
> Do you disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Intelligence doesn’t make deformed and retarded babies.
Click to expand...

Maimonides responds...

"...Whatever is formed of any matter receives the most perfect form possible in that species of matter ; in each individual case the defects are in accordance with the defects of that individual matter...."

MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Part 3, Chapter XII, Titled *"Three Kinds of'Evil : (1) That caused by the Nature "of Man" ; (2) Caused by Man to Man ; (3) Caused by Man to himself"* Page 267 - 272


----------



## ding

Bam!


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you’re consistently pointless. An achievement of some merit, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Remember, this is not MSNBC or CNN where you can spout bullshit without expecting questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is _Slime Scheme_™️?
> 
> Is that something you study at your madrassah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you so stupid that you forget other people can read your posts?
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> Now stop being an idiot and address the question of find an atheist that does address the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, a name-caller. That adds a great deal to your saliva-slinging tirades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem.
> I have posted the *same*, *clearly stated* question at least 20 times and you continue to either make believe you don't understand the question or you are not a very intelligent person.
> 
> For the 21st and *last* time...
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
Click to expand...

I’m going to count to three....


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So everything is god. How quaint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God represents intelligence, which is far more likely to create things than nothing.
> 
> Do you disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Intelligence doesn’t make deformed and retarded babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s 2 posts in a row in which I have no fucking idea what the fuck you’re on about. Are you drunk like the Pope?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You never know what anybody is discussing because you're an idiot.
> 
> Now address the Slime Scheme or find an atheist that can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You rarely make any sense, now focus, how old is the earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I answered that yesterday.
> Admit you either ignored the answer or didn't want to see it and I will tell you how old the earth is.
> The earth is way older than 6,000 of our years and scripture supports that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “way older than 6,000 of our years”.
> 
> How many in dog years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever science says.
> There was no sun until the 4th day.
> If that doesn't answer your question, out conversing is over with.
Click to expand...

Finally.


----------



## Indeependent

esalla said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So everything is god. How quaint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God represents intelligence, which is far more likely to create things than nothing.
> 
> Do you disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Intelligence doesn’t make deformed and retarded babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s 2 posts in a row in which I have no fucking idea what the fuck you’re on about. Are you drunk like the Pope?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You never know what anybody is discussing because you're an idiot.
> 
> Now address the Slime Scheme or find an atheist that can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You rarely make any sense, now focus, how old is the earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I answered that yesterday.
> Admit you either ignored the answer or didn't want to see it and I will tell you how old the earth is.
> The earth is way older than 6,000 of our years and scripture supports that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “way older than 6,000 of our years”.
> 
> How many in dog years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever science says.
> There was no sun until the 4th day.
> If that doesn't answer your question, out conversing is over with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Makes no sense actually because without a Sun there could be no night and day so how would day 1 2 3 be defined
Click to expand...

I explained this yesterday.
Erev (Evening) and Boker (Morning) and incorrect translations.
These words are translated later on correctly as Erev (Mixture) and Boker (Clarity).
A Yome (supposedly Day, and I don't know what Yome really means) is a Mixture/Clarity, which requires energy, but not an actual star.
A Yome, from a kaballistic standpoint, is an allotted spark of life force.


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you’re consistently pointless. An achievement of some merit, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Remember, this is not MSNBC or CNN where you can spout bullshit without expecting questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is _Slime Scheme_™️?
> 
> Is that something you study at your madrassah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you so stupid that you forget other people can read your posts?
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> Now stop being an idiot and address the question of find an atheist that does address the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, a name-caller. That adds a great deal to your saliva-slinging tirades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem.
> I have posted the *same*, *clearly stated* question at least 20 times and you continue to either make believe you don't understand the question or you are not a very intelligent person.
> 
> For the 21st and *last* time...
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m going to count to three....
Click to expand...

Four comes next doofy


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you’re consistently pointless. An achievement of some merit, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Remember, this is not MSNBC or CNN where you can spout bullshit without expecting questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is _Slime Scheme_™️?
> 
> Is that something you study at your madrassah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you so stupid that you forget other people can read your posts?
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> Now stop being an idiot and address the question of find an atheist that does address the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, a name-caller. That adds a great deal to your saliva-slinging tirades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem.
> I have posted the *same*, *clearly stated* question at least 20 times and you continue to either make believe you don't understand the question or you are not a very intelligent person.
> 
> For the 21st and *last* time...
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m going to count to three....
Click to expand...

I doubt you can.

How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.\
I can't answer this question because it didn't happen.


----------



## Dr Grump

justinacolmena said:


> There is a spiritual component to life, which is not explained by science or by trials of scientific experimentation.



It is easily explainable though.. It's called peoples' imagination.


----------



## Taz

Indeependent said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you’re consistently pointless. An achievement of some merit, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Remember, this is not MSNBC or CNN where you can spout bullshit without expecting questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is _Slime Scheme_™️?
> 
> Is that something you study at your madrassah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you so stupid that you forget other people can read your posts?
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> Now stop being an idiot and address the question of find an atheist that does address the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how did all the different animals come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sided with evolution from slime and I challenged you to find a study that addresses the impossibility of evolution.
> If you want to ignore my input, at least don't be lazy and not back up what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What study? Make sense for crissakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's obvious you are being purposely moronic concerning your "faith" in evolution.
> You believe that single celled creatures became *millions* of male/female insects, animals and humans over *hundreds of millions* of years.
> So you believe that these "*unique*", "*freak*, "*Accidental*" occurrences occurred *millions* of times.
> How many times have you won a 100+ million dollar lottery.
> If you continue to prove you are too stupid to under this simple question, I will no longer respond to you.
Click to expand...

So you think an invisible being magically poofed everything into being out of nothing?


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you’re consistently pointless. An achievement of some merit, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Remember, this is not MSNBC or CNN where you can spout bullshit without expecting questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is _Slime Scheme_™️?
> 
> Is that something you study at your madrassah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you so stupid that you forget other people can read your posts?
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> Now stop being an idiot and address the question of find an atheist that does address the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, a name-caller. That adds a great deal to your saliva-slinging tirades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem.
> I have posted the *same*, *clearly stated* question at least 20 times and you continue to either make believe you don't understand the question or you are not a very intelligent person.
> 
> For the 21st and *last* time...
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m going to count to three....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt you can.
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.\
> I can't answer this question because it didn't happen.
Click to expand...


Well, you did write: “For the 21st and last time...”. And here you are, again. 

The gods are not going to be happy about this.


----------



## Grumblenuts

esalla said:


> Makes no sense actually because without a Sun there could be no night and day so how would day 1 2 3 be defined


This topic is about nonsense. So stop making sense.. or  Maimonides will slap you silly with his evil wet Man noodle!


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you’re consistently pointless. An achievement of some merit, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Remember, this is not MSNBC or CNN where you can spout bullshit without expecting questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is _Slime Scheme_™️?
> 
> Is that something you study at your madrassah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you so stupid that you forget other people can read your posts?
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> Now stop being an idiot and address the question of find an atheist that does address the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, a name-caller. That adds a great deal to your saliva-slinging tirades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem.
> I have posted the *same*, *clearly stated* question at least 20 times and you continue to either make believe you don't understand the question or you are not a very intelligent person.
> 
> For the 21st and *last* time...
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m going to count to three....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt you can.
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.\
> I can't answer this question because it didn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you did write: “For the 21st and last time...”. And here you are, again.
> 
> The gods are not going to be happy about this.
Click to expand...

Sorry Doofy that is not evidence that DNA wrote itself


----------



## Indeependent

Taz said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you’re consistently pointless. An achievement of some merit, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Remember, this is not MSNBC or CNN where you can spout bullshit without expecting questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is _Slime Scheme_™️?
> 
> Is that something you study at your madrassah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you so stupid that you forget other people can read your posts?
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> Now stop being an idiot and address the question of find an atheist that does address the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how did all the different animals come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sided with evolution from slime and I challenged you to find a study that addresses the impossibility of evolution.
> If you want to ignore my input, at least don't be lazy and not back up what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What study? Make sense for crissakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's obvious you are being purposely moronic concerning your "faith" in evolution.
> You believe that single celled creatures became *millions* of male/female insects, animals and humans over *hundreds of millions* of years.
> So you believe that these "*unique*", "*freak*, "*Accidental*" occurrences occurred *millions* of times.
> How many times have you won a 100+ million dollar lottery.
> If you continue to prove you are too stupid to under this simple question, I will no longer respond to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think an invisible being magically poofed everything into being out of nothing?
Click to expand...

Not magic...there's science behind creation, unlike there being no science behind evolution.
We disagree on whether or not there is a Supreme Being.

But I notice you're are incapable of finding any evolutionist to explain my question.
And I know you will continue to ignore what *you *can't answer.


----------



## Indeependent

Grumblenuts said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Makes no sense actually because without a Sun there could be no night and day so how would day 1 2 3 be defined
> 
> 
> 
> This topic is about nonsense. So stop making sense.. or  Maimonides will slap you silly with his evil wet Man noodle!
Click to expand...

Maimonides...Just one of the greatest scientists in the history of mankind...what the heck.


----------



## Taz

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So everything is god. How quaint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God represents intelligence, which is far more likely to create things than nothing.
> 
> Do you disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Intelligence doesn’t make deformed and retarded babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maimonides responds...
> 
> "...Whatever is formed of any matter receives the most perfect form possible in that species of matter ; in each individual case the defects are in accordance with the defects of that individual matter...."
> 
> MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
> Part 3, Chapter XII, Titled *"Three Kinds of'Evil : (1) That caused by the Nature "of Man" ; (2) Caused by Man to Man ; (3) Caused by Man to himself"* Page 267 - 272
Click to expand...

Why should I give a fuck what that dude says?


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you’re consistently pointless. An achievement of some merit, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Remember, this is not MSNBC or CNN where you can spout bullshit without expecting questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is _Slime Scheme_™️?
> 
> Is that something you study at your madrassah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you so stupid that you forget other people can read your posts?
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> Now stop being an idiot and address the question of find an atheist that does address the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, a name-caller. That adds a great deal to your saliva-slinging tirades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem.
> I have posted the *same*, *clearly stated* question at least 20 times and you continue to either make believe you don't understand the question or you are not a very intelligent person.
> 
> For the 21st and *last* time...
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m going to count to three....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt you can.
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.\
> I can't answer this question because it didn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you did write: “For the 21st and last time...”. And here you are, again.
> 
> The gods are not going to be happy about this.
Click to expand...

God is not happy with your unwillingness to seek out an answer to a question.
There's nothing worse than a person who won't seek an answer to a question.


----------



## Indeependent

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So everything is god. How quaint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God represents intelligence, which is far more likely to create things than nothing.
> 
> Do you disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Intelligence doesn’t make deformed and retarded babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maimonides responds...
> 
> "...Whatever is formed of any matter receives the most perfect form possible in that species of matter ; in each individual case the defects are in accordance with the defects of that individual matter...."
> 
> MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
> Part 3, Chapter XII, Titled *"Three Kinds of'Evil : (1) That caused by the Nature "of Man" ; (2) Caused by Man to Man ; (3) Caused by Man to himself"* Page 267 - 272
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should I give a fuck what that dude says?
Click to expand...

Because he's recognized as one of the greatest geniuses that ever lived.


----------



## Taz

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you’re consistently pointless. An achievement of some merit, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Remember, this is not MSNBC or CNN where you can spout bullshit without expecting questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is _Slime Scheme_™️?
> 
> Is that something you study at your madrassah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you so stupid that you forget other people can read your posts?
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> Now stop being an idiot and address the question of find an atheist that does address the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, a name-caller. That adds a great deal to your saliva-slinging tirades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem.
> I have posted the *same*, *clearly stated* question at least 20 times and you continue to either make believe you don't understand the question or you are not a very intelligent person.
> 
> For the 21st and *last* time...
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m going to count to three....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt you can.
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.\
> I can't answer this question because it didn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you did write: “For the 21st and last time...”. And here you are, again.
> 
> The gods are not going to be happy about this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is not happy with your unwillingness to seek out an answer to a question.
> There's nothing worse than a person who won't seek an answer to a question.
Click to expand...

How do you know that god gives a shit?


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you’re consistently pointless. An achievement of some merit, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Remember, this is not MSNBC or CNN where you can spout bullshit without expecting questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is _Slime Scheme_™️?
> 
> Is that something you study at your madrassah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you so stupid that you forget other people can read your posts?
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> Now stop being an idiot and address the question of find an atheist that does address the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, a name-caller. That adds a great deal to your saliva-slinging tirades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem.
> I have posted the *same*, *clearly stated* question at least 20 times and you continue to either make believe you don't understand the question or you are not a very intelligent person.
> 
> For the 21st and *last* time...
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m going to count to three....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt you can.
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.\
> I can't answer this question because it didn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you did write: “For the 21st and last time...”. And here you are, again.
> 
> The gods are not going to be happy about this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is not happy with your unwillingness to seek out an answer to a question.
> There's nothing worse than a person who won't seek an answer to a question.
Click to expand...

What question?

For the 22nd and last time, answer the question.


----------



## Indeependent

Taz said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you’re consistently pointless. An achievement of some merit, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Remember, this is not MSNBC or CNN where you can spout bullshit without expecting questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is _Slime Scheme_™️?
> 
> Is that something you study at your madrassah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you so stupid that you forget other people can read your posts?
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> Now stop being an idiot and address the question of find an atheist that does address the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, a name-caller. That adds a great deal to your saliva-slinging tirades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem.
> I have posted the *same*, *clearly stated* question at least 20 times and you continue to either make believe you don't understand the question or you are not a very intelligent person.
> 
> For the 21st and *last* time...
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m going to count to three....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt you can.
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.\
> I can't answer this question because it didn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you did write: “For the 21st and last time...”. And here you are, again.
> 
> The gods are not going to be happy about this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is not happy with your unwillingness to seek out an answer to a question.
> There's nothing worse than a person who won't seek an answer to a question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know that god gives a shit?
Click to expand...

Because you're still alive.

Tell us how to add to mankind's quality of life other than being a keyboard cynic.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you’re consistently pointless. An achievement of some merit, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Remember, this is not MSNBC or CNN where you can spout bullshit without expecting questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is _Slime Scheme_™️?
> 
> Is that something you study at your madrassah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you so stupid that you forget other people can read your posts?
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> Now stop being an idiot and address the question of find an atheist that does address the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, a name-caller. That adds a great deal to your saliva-slinging tirades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem.
> I have posted the *same*, *clearly stated* question at least 20 times and you continue to either make believe you don't understand the question or you are not a very intelligent person.
> 
> For the 21st and *last* time...
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m going to count to three....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt you can.
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.\
> I can't answer this question because it didn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you did write: “For the 21st and last time...”. And here you are, again.
> 
> The gods are not going to be happy about this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is not happy with your unwillingness to seek out an answer to a question.
> There's nothing worse than a person who won't seek an answer to a question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What question?
> 
> For the 22nd and last time, answer the question.
Click to expand...

Goodbye, retard.


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you’re consistently pointless. An achievement of some merit, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Remember, this is not MSNBC or CNN where you can spout bullshit without expecting questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is _Slime Scheme_™️?
> 
> Is that something you study at your madrassah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you so stupid that you forget other people can read your posts?
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> Now stop being an idiot and address the question of find an atheist that does address the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, a name-caller. That adds a great deal to your saliva-slinging tirades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem.
> I have posted the *same*, *clearly stated* question at least 20 times and you continue to either make believe you don't understand the question or you are not a very intelligent person.
> 
> For the 21st and *last* time...
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m going to count to three....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt you can.
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.\
> I can't answer this question because it didn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you did write: “For the 21st and last time...”. And here you are, again.
> 
> The gods are not going to be happy about this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is not happy with your unwillingness to seek out an answer to a question.
> There's nothing worse than a person who won't seek an answer to a question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What question?
> 
> For the 22nd and last time, answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Goodbye, retard.
Click to expand...

Yes...

Go on...


And how does that make you feel?


----------



## Taz

Indeependent said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you’re consistently pointless. An achievement of some merit, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Remember, this is not MSNBC or CNN where you can spout bullshit without expecting questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is _Slime Scheme_™️?
> 
> Is that something you study at your madrassah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you so stupid that you forget other people can read your posts?
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> Now stop being an idiot and address the question of find an atheist that does address the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, a name-caller. That adds a great deal to your saliva-slinging tirades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem.
> I have posted the *same*, *clearly stated* question at least 20 times and you continue to either make believe you don't understand the question or you are not a very intelligent person.
> 
> For the 21st and *last* time...
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m going to count to three....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt you can.
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.\
> I can't answer this question because it didn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you did write: “For the 21st and last time...”. And here you are, again.
> 
> The gods are not going to be happy about this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is not happy with your unwillingness to seek out an answer to a question.
> There's nothing worse than a person who won't seek an answer to a question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know that god gives a shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you're still alive.
> 
> Tell us how to add to mankind's quality of life other than being a keyboard cynic.
Click to expand...

Don’t believe in fairy tales.


----------



## Dr Grump

Indeependent said:


> Not magic...there's science behind creation, unlike there being no science behind evolution.
> 
> But I notice you're are incapable of finding any evolutionist to explain my question.



There is plenty of science behind evolution. Fucking hell, you can even google if you are too lazy to go to the library...


----------



## Grumblenuts

And,.. still nothing..

*Focus* people! Pray with me now:

Dear Lord, My Personal Jesus, Thou Who Art So Big, Fearful, And Mighty,

I, nay we, beseech You, please, oh pretty please!,

Do strike the nuts of brother Grumblenuts with a lightning bolt directly this instant!


----------



## Grumblenuts

..nothing again..


----------



## Grumblenuts

And,.. still nothing..


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> And,.. still nothing..


Good call mocking the Creator of existence.


----------



## ding

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So everything is god. How quaint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God represents intelligence, which is far more likely to create things than nothing.
> 
> Do you disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Intelligence doesn’t make deformed and retarded babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maimonides responds...
> 
> "...Whatever is formed of any matter receives the most perfect form possible in that species of matter ; in each individual case the defects are in accordance with the defects of that individual matter...."
> 
> MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
> Part 3, Chapter XII, Titled *"Three Kinds of'Evil : (1) That caused by the Nature "of Man" ; (2) Caused by Man to Man ; (3) Caused by Man to himself"* Page 267 - 272
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should I give a fuck what that dude says?
Click to expand...

You should always care what logic says, Taz.


----------



## ding

Taz said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you’re consistently pointless. An achievement of some merit, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Remember, this is not MSNBC or CNN where you can spout bullshit without expecting questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is _Slime Scheme_™️?
> 
> Is that something you study at your madrassah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you so stupid that you forget other people can read your posts?
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> Now stop being an idiot and address the question of find an atheist that does address the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, a name-caller. That adds a great deal to your saliva-slinging tirades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem.
> I have posted the *same*, *clearly stated* question at least 20 times and you continue to either make believe you don't understand the question or you are not a very intelligent person.
> 
> For the 21st and *last* time...
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m going to count to three....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt you can.
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.\
> I can't answer this question because it didn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you did write: “For the 21st and last time...”. And here you are, again.
> 
> The gods are not going to be happy about this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is not happy with your unwillingness to seek out an answer to a question.
> There's nothing worse than a person who won't seek an answer to a question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know that god gives a shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you're still alive.
> 
> Tell us how to add to mankind's quality of life other than being a keyboard cynic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t believe in fairy tales.
Click to expand...

They only seem like fairy tales to you because that's what you are looking for, Taz.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> And,.. still nothing..
> 
> 
> 
> Good call mocking the Creator of existence.
Click to expand...

Thanks. But I'm performing a scientific experiment. You're welcome to try replicating my results. Everyone else too! Pray for your god to strike you, me, or anyone else you can monitor, with lightning and report the results here. It's like evolution theory. Real Science!


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> And,.. still nothing..
> 
> 
> 
> Good call mocking the Creator of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks. But I'm performing a scientific experiment. You're welcome to try replicating my results. Everyone else too! Pray for your god to strike you, me, or anyone else you can monitor, with lightning and report the results here. It's like evolution theory. Real Science!
Click to expand...

Garbage in equals garbage out.  If you start from a flawed position, it doesn't prove what you think it means.  It only serves to confirm your bias.

But please do continue mocking God, it's only harming you.  It's not harming God or those who love God.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> And,.. still nothing..
> 
> 
> 
> Good call mocking the Creator of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks. But I'm performing a scientific experiment. You're welcome to try replicating my results. Everyone else too! Pray for your god to strike you, me, or anyone else you can monitor, with lightning and report the results here. It's like evolution theory. Real Science!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Garbage in equals garbage out.  If you start from a flawed position, it doesn't prove what you think it means.  It only serves to confirm your bias.
Click to expand...

Yes, you just said essentially nothing. Great job!


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> And,.. still nothing..
> 
> 
> 
> Good call mocking the Creator of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks. But I'm performing a scientific experiment. You're welcome to try replicating my results. Everyone else too! Pray for your god to strike you, me, or anyone else you can monitor, with lightning and report the results here. It's like evolution theory. Real Science!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Garbage in equals garbage out.  If you start from a flawed position, it doesn't prove what you think it means.  It only serves to confirm your bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you just said essentially nothing. Great job!
Click to expand...

That's what you heard because that was what you wanted to hear.


----------



## ding

You are going to lose this battle.


----------



## Hollie

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> And,.. still nothing..
> 
> 
> 
> Good call mocking the Creator of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks. But I'm performing a scientific experiment. You're welcome to try replicating my results. Everyone else too! Pray for your god to strike you, me, or anyone else you can monitor, with lightning and report the results here. It's like evolution theory. Real Science!
Click to expand...

Prayer in exchange for stuff. I’ll go with that. Prayer and I get rewards. It’s almost like good behavior will prompt Santa to bring me presents.


----------



## ding

Hollie said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> And,.. still nothing..
> 
> 
> 
> Good call mocking the Creator of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks. But I'm performing a scientific experiment. You're welcome to try replicating my results. Everyone else too! Pray for your god to strike you, me, or anyone else you can monitor, with lightning and report the results here. It's like evolution theory. Real Science!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prayer in exchange for stuff. I’ll go with that. Prayer and I get rewards. It’s almost like good behavior will prompt Santa to bring me presents.
Click to expand...

Garbage in equals garbage out, dear.  You see prayer that way because it confirms your bias.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Hollie said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> And,.. still nothing..
> 
> 
> 
> Good call mocking the Creator of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks. But I'm performing a scientific experiment. You're welcome to try replicating my results. Everyone else too! Pray for your god to strike you, me, or anyone else you can monitor, with lightning and report the results here. It's like evolution theory. Real Science!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prayer in exchange for stuff. I’ll go with that. Prayer and I get rewards. It’s almost like good behavior will prompt Santa to bring me presents.
Click to expand...

Or kill yourself now. Or kill your worst enemy.. Only, so far the results have all been negative. Extremely reliable. Not likely coincidence..


----------



## Grumblenuts

What could it mean?


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> What could it mean?


That is exactly your problem, YOU have not explored all the options for what it could mean.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> And,.. still nothing..
> 
> 
> 
> Good call mocking the Creator of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks. But I'm performing a scientific experiment. You're welcome to try replicating my results. Everyone else too! Pray for your god to strike you, me, or anyone else you can monitor, with lightning and report the results here. It's like evolution theory. Real Science!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prayer in exchange for stuff. I’ll go with that. Prayer and I get rewards. It’s almost like good behavior will prompt Santa to bring me presents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or kill yourself now. Or kill your worst enemy.. Only, so far the results have all been negative. Extremely reliable. Not likely coincidence..
Click to expand...

I don't see how anyone could see it that way.  You are constantly being pruned.  In that regard everything works for good.  You just can't see how.


----------



## Hollie

Grumblenuts said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> And,.. still nothing..
> 
> 
> 
> Good call mocking the Creator of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks. But I'm performing a scientific experiment. You're welcome to try replicating my results. Everyone else too! Pray for your god to strike you, me, or anyone else you can monitor, with lightning and report the results here. It's like evolution theory. Real Science!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prayer in exchange for stuff. I’ll go with that. Prayer and I get rewards. It’s almost like good behavior will prompt Santa to bring me presents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or kill yourself now. Or kill your worst enemy.. Only, so far the results have all been negative. Extremely reliable. Not likely coincidence..
Click to expand...

Not sure I want to kill my worst enemy. Even if I joined a different club, I’m the wrong gender for those sweet carnal rewards.

I’ll stick with Santa. He always came through for me.


----------



## Grumblenuts

And again you say nothing. "Garbage in, garbage out" cannot apply, because I've enlisted the help of all that claim success in speaking to their gods. People like LittleNipper who claimed her/his prayer were always answered. Those claiming to have developed "a personal relationship with" theirs. Your "Garbage in" only serves to dis-empower yourself along with them. What a jerk.


----------



## ding

Hollie said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> And,.. still nothing..
> 
> 
> 
> Good call mocking the Creator of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks. But I'm performing a scientific experiment. You're welcome to try replicating my results. Everyone else too! Pray for your god to strike you, me, or anyone else you can monitor, with lightning and report the results here. It's like evolution theory. Real Science!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prayer in exchange for stuff. I’ll go with that. Prayer and I get rewards. It’s almost like good behavior will prompt Santa to bring me presents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or kill yourself now. Or kill your worst enemy.. Only, so far the results have all been negative. Extremely reliable. Not likely coincidence..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure I want to kill my worst enemy. Even if I joined a different club, I’m the wrong gender for those sweet carnal rewards.
> 
> I’ll stick with Santa. He always came through for me.
Click to expand...

Again...  Garbage in equals garbage out, dear. You see prayer that way because it confirms your bias.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Hollie said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> And,.. still nothing..
> 
> 
> 
> Good call mocking the Creator of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks. But I'm performing a scientific experiment. You're welcome to try replicating my results. Everyone else too! Pray for your god to strike you, me, or anyone else you can monitor, with lightning and report the results here. It's like evolution theory. Real Science!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prayer in exchange for stuff. I’ll go with that. Prayer and I get rewards. It’s almost like good behavior will prompt Santa to bring me presents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or kill yourself now. Or kill your worst enemy.. Only, so far the results have all been negative. Extremely reliable. Not likely coincidence..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure I want to kill my worst enemy. Even if I joined a different club, I’m the wrong gender for those sweet carnal rewards.
> 
> I’ll stick with Santa. He always came through for me.
Click to expand...

It's all good. But what's wrong with the Tooth Fairy? The Easter Bunny?


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> And again you say nothing. "Garbage in, garbage out" cannot apply, because I've enlisted the help of all that claim success in speaking to their gods. People like LittleNipper who claimed her/his prayer were always answered. Those claiming to have developed "a personal relationship with" theirs. Your "Garbage in" only serves to dis-empower yourself along with them. What a jerk.


If you can't figure out what garbage in equals garbage out, I'm afraid I can't help you.  It's a common phrase that any one who claims to be enlightened by science should understand. 

You aren't Little Nipper, so YOUR understanding of things is not limited to the understanding of others.  Yo have an obligation to yourself.  That obligation does not transfer top others or be satisfied when you start from a faulty position as a starting point.  It is incumbent upon you to explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth.  Not anyone else.  You.  If you take a position that makes no sense to you and you look no further, that error lies on you and no one else.  
So why are you limiting yourself to what others believe when you are more than capable to actually find explanations which make more sense to you?


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> And,.. still nothing..
> 
> 
> 
> Good call mocking the Creator of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks. But I'm performing a scientific experiment. You're welcome to try replicating my results. Everyone else too! Pray for your god to strike you, me, or anyone else you can monitor, with lightning and report the results here. It's like evolution theory. Real Science!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prayer in exchange for stuff. I’ll go with that. Prayer and I get rewards. It’s almost like good behavior will prompt Santa to bring me presents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or kill yourself now. Or kill your worst enemy.. Only, so far the results have all been negative. Extremely reliable. Not likely coincidence..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure I want to kill my worst enemy. Even if I joined a different club, I’m the wrong gender for those sweet carnal rewards.
> 
> I’ll stick with Santa. He always came through for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's all good. But what's wrong with the Tooth Fairy? The Easter Bunny?
Click to expand...

I can see how serious you take the origin questions.


----------



## Hollie

Grumblenuts said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> And,.. still nothing..
> 
> 
> 
> Good call mocking the Creator of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks. But I'm performing a scientific experiment. You're welcome to try replicating my results. Everyone else too! Pray for your god to strike you, me, or anyone else you can monitor, with lightning and report the results here. It's like evolution theory. Real Science!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prayer in exchange for stuff. I’ll go with that. Prayer and I get rewards. It’s almost like good behavior will prompt Santa to bring me presents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or kill yourself now. Or kill your worst enemy.. Only, so far the results have all been negative. Extremely reliable. Not likely coincidence..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure I want to kill my worst enemy. Even if I joined a different club, I’m the wrong gender for those sweet carnal rewards.
> 
> I’ll stick with Santa. He always came through for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's all good. But what's wrong with the Tooth Fairy? The Easter Bunny?
Click to expand...

Those bastards. The tooth fairy only rewarded me after a bit of pain and it was the damn candy brought by the Easter bunny (who colluded with the tooth fairy) who were jointly responsible.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> It is incumbent upon you to explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth. Not anyone else. You. If you take a position that makes no sense to you and you look no further, that error lies on you and no one else.


Thus the point (from scientific method) of replication and peer review,.. Which I've been inviting, unlike you've done here, dopey.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is incumbent upon you to explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth. Not anyone else. You. If you take a position that makes no sense to you and you look no further, that error lies on you and no one else.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus the point (from scientific method) of replication and peer review,.. Which I've been inviting, unlike you've done here, dopey.
Click to expand...

You haven't invited anything.  You want to scientifically test prayer?  Ok, what exactly are you testing?  What is your hypothesis?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Man, you're slow! I developed it all at a snails pace.. and there ain't that much to it!


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> Man, you're slow! I developed it all at a snails pace.. and there ain't that much to it!


So you can't state your hypothesis?

I didn't think you would?  Even you know how stupid it would sound.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> Man, you're slow! I developed it all at a snails pace.. and there ain't that much to it!


You talk big but you can't walk the talk.


----------



## ding

Hollie said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> And,.. still nothing..
> 
> 
> 
> Good call mocking the Creator of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks. But I'm performing a scientific experiment. You're welcome to try replicating my results. Everyone else too! Pray for your god to strike you, me, or anyone else you can monitor, with lightning and report the results here. It's like evolution theory. Real Science!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prayer in exchange for stuff. I’ll go with that. Prayer and I get rewards. It’s almost like good behavior will prompt Santa to bring me presents.
Click to expand...

That sounds like garbage in to me.  It is easier for you to build straw men than to actually put in effort.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man, you're slow! I developed it all at a snails pace.. and there ain't that much to it!
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't state your hypothesis?
> 
> I didn't think you would?  Even you know how stupid it would sound.
Click to expand...

Not at all, sparky pants. Alternatively, you could simply review the thread as I implied. But, no worries, I'll explain it more formally.. after getting my dinner ready..


----------



## Taz

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So everything is god. How quaint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God represents intelligence, which is far more likely to create things than nothing.
> 
> Do you disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Intelligence doesn’t make deformed and retarded babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maimonides responds...
> 
> "...Whatever is formed of any matter receives the most perfect form possible in that species of matter ; in each individual case the defects are in accordance with the defects of that individual matter...."
> 
> MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
> Part 3, Chapter XII, Titled *"Three Kinds of'Evil : (1) That caused by the Nature "of Man" ; (2) Caused by Man to Man ; (3) Caused by Man to himself"* Page 267 - 272
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should I give a fuck what that dude says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should always care what logic says, Taz.
Click to expand...

He wears a towel wrapped around his head. That’s not logical.


----------



## Taz

ding said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you’re consistently pointless. An achievement of some merit, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Remember, this is not MSNBC or CNN where you can spout bullshit without expecting questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is _Slime Scheme_™️?
> 
> Is that something you study at your madrassah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you so stupid that you forget other people can read your posts?
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> Now stop being an idiot and address the question of find an atheist that does address the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, a name-caller. That adds a great deal to your saliva-slinging tirades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem.
> I have posted the *same*, *clearly stated* question at least 20 times and you continue to either make believe you don't understand the question or you are not a very intelligent person.
> 
> For the 21st and *last* time...
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m going to count to three....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt you can.
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.\
> I can't answer this question because it didn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you did write: “For the 21st and last time...”. And here you are, again.
> 
> The gods are not going to be happy about this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is not happy with your unwillingness to seek out an answer to a question.
> There's nothing worse than a person who won't seek an answer to a question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know that god gives a shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you're still alive.
> 
> Tell us how to add to mankind's quality of life other than being a keyboard cynic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t believe in fairy tales.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They only seem like fairy tales to you because that's what you are looking for, Taz.
Click to expand...

They aren’t based on science, just fairy tales. Virgin birth, flood, ...


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man, you're slow! I developed it all at a snails pace.. and there ain't that much to it!
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't state your hypothesis?
> 
> I didn't think you would?  Even you know how stupid it would sound.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all, sparky pants. Alternatively, you could simply review the thread as I implied. But, no worries, I'll explain it more formally.. after getting my dinner ready..
Click to expand...

I can't wait to read your hypothesis.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Wait.. just an aside first though,


ding said:


> If you can't figure out what garbage in equals garbage out, I'm afraid I can't help you. It's a common phrase that any one who claims to be enlightened by science should understand.


That's actually an old computer programming cliche, not something commonly related to "science" you pusillanimous pile of pontificating porcupine piss. 

Ah, better.. now with that out of the way..


----------



## ding

Taz said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain grass, shrubs, bushes, trees that don't grow fruit, trees that grow fruit, fruits and vegetables, insects of millions of varieties, birds of millions of varieties, animals of all shapes and sizes, humans.
> And how they all survived for hundreds of millions of years evolving into a perfect eco-system.
> 
> 
> 
> Those haven't "all survived" so not "perfect" and certainly not humans "for hundreds of millions of years"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you offer a competing argument?  The complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are not some grand conspiracy theory as religionists want to believe.
> 
> How does letting biological adaptations work over billions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it clearly doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature vs. the claims to supernaturalism, a young earth and claims to various gods leaves religionism as a safe place for fear and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The counter argument is that the Creator/Sustainer is the obvious master of all knowledge possessed by mankind and has been more than happy to encourage mankind to discover it and use it to benefit mankind.
> Mankind, however, habitually uses it for the powerful few.
> Jews do not envision a cruel, jealous, limited God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument in favor of supernaturalism is not a counter argument. It's an unrealized supposition.
> 
> Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?
> 
> I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of ''creators / sustainers'' and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste of articles that someone found while scouring the internet. I have no reason to accept the claim that some alleged, supernatural ''master of all knowledge'' is extant in the natural, rational world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> 
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you’re consistently pointless. An achievement of some merit, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> Remember, this is not MSNBC or CNN where you can spout bullshit without expecting questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is _Slime Scheme_™️?
> 
> Is that something you study at your madrassah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you so stupid that you forget other people can read your posts?
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> Now stop being an idiot and address the question of find an atheist that does address the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, a name-caller. That adds a great deal to your saliva-slinging tirades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem.
> I have posted the *same*, *clearly stated* question at least 20 times and you continue to either make believe you don't understand the question or you are not a very intelligent person.
> 
> For the 21st and *last* time...
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m going to count to three....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt you can.
> 
> How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.\
> I can't answer this question because it didn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you did write: “For the 21st and last time...”. And here you are, again.
> 
> The gods are not going to be happy about this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is not happy with your unwillingness to seek out an answer to a question.
> There's nothing worse than a person who won't seek an answer to a question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know that god gives a shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you're still alive.
> 
> Tell us how to add to mankind's quality of life other than being a keyboard cynic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t believe in fairy tales.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They only seem like fairy tales to you because that's what you are looking for, Taz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They aren’t based on science, just fairy tales. Virgin birth, flood, ...
Click to expand...

The laws of nature say otherwise, Taz.  As for your understanding of ancient man's allegorical account of historical events and his understanding of the answers to the origin questions, I don't believe you posses the intellect for that conversation.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> Wait.. just an aside first though,
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't figure out what garbage in equals garbage out, I'm afraid I can't help you. It's a common phrase that any one who claims to be enlightened by science should understand.
> 
> 
> 
> That's actually an old computer programming cliche, not something commonly related to "science" you pusillanimous pile of pontificating porcupine piss.
> 
> Ah, better.. now with that out of the way..
Click to expand...

A physicist setting up an experiment on radiation, decides beforehand which of those sets of properties he will encounter. If he does a wave experiment, he gets a wave answer; from a particle experiment he gets a particle answer. If he were to conclude radiation was not a particle when he set up his experiment for a wave, that would be garbage in equals garbage out.

This is not an isolated example.  In fact, it is the reason for peer reviews, to make sure there was no garbage in that yielded garbage out.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Okay, dingbat. Just for you:


Grumblenuts said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get my prayers answered, and I don't believe in coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. Same here. For example:
> 
> _"OMG! JFC! Dear lord, please strike me with a gigantic lightning bolt right now if you exist."_
> 
> And,.. nothing.. Again! Poof! See? Proof!
Click to expand...

That's where it started. Testing LittleNipper's hypothesis, "I get my prayers answered, and I don't believe in coincidence." Now just one person (as in this case) reporting positive results does not mean their theory holds any water generally. So  I went ahead and tested it foe myself, on myself, and got no result. Same analysis. Being just one person as well, my negative result means little to nothing in general. Indeed,  may be doing it wrong. I may not be as qualified as others to perform the experiment. So, I invited others to repeat my experiment either to confirm or negate my results. Let's see.. Yep, so far, you still got nuthin'!


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> Okay, dingbat. Just for you:
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get my prayers answered, and I don't believe in coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. Same here. For example:
> 
> _"OMG! JFC! Dear lord, please strike me with a gigantic lightning bolt right now if you exist."_
> 
> And,.. nothing.. Again! Poof! See? Proof!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's where it started. Testing LittleNipper's hypothesis, "I get my prayers answered, and I don't believe in coincidence." Now just one person (as in this case) reporting positive results does not mean their theory holds any water generally. So  I went ahead and tested it foe myself, on myself, and got no result. Same analysis. Being just one person as well, my negative result means little to nothing in general. Indeed,  may be doing it wrong. I may not be as qualified as others to perform the experiment. So, I invited others to repeat my experiment either to confirm or negate my results. Let's see.. Yep, so far, you still got nuthin'!
Click to expand...

I'm not asking for his hypothesis.  I am asking for YOUR hypothesis.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> Yep, so far, you still got nuthin'!


I have you being unable to provide YOUR hypothesis.  That's something.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.. just an aside first though,
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't figure out what garbage in equals garbage out, I'm afraid I can't help you. It's a common phrase that any one who claims to be enlightened by science should understand.
> 
> 
> 
> That's actually an old computer programming cliche, not something commonly related to "science" you pusillanimous pile of pontificating porcupine piss.
> 
> Ah, better.. now with that out of the way..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A physicist setting up an experiment on radiation, decides beforehand which of those sets of properties he will encounter. If he does a wave experiment, he gets a wave answer; from a particle experiment he gets a particle answer. If he were to conclude radiation was not a particle when he set up his experiment for a wave, that would be garbage in equals garbage out.
> 
> This is not an isolated example.  In fact, it is the reason for peer reviews, to make sure there was no garbage in that yielded garbage out.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I'm telling you the notion came from programming you moron.  It's likely that I was among the first thousand people to use the expression AS INTENDED. Now sit down, poser.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.. just an aside first though,
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't figure out what garbage in equals garbage out, I'm afraid I can't help you. It's a common phrase that any one who claims to be enlightened by science should understand.
> 
> 
> 
> That's actually an old computer programming cliche, not something commonly related to "science" you pusillanimous pile of pontificating porcupine piss.
> 
> Ah, better.. now with that out of the way..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A physicist setting up an experiment on radiation, decides beforehand which of those sets of properties he will encounter. If he does a wave experiment, he gets a wave answer; from a particle experiment he gets a particle answer. If he were to conclude radiation was not a particle when he set up his experiment for a wave, that would be garbage in equals garbage out.
> 
> This is not an isolated example.  In fact, it is the reason for peer reviews, to make sure there was no garbage in that yielded garbage out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, and I'm telling you the notion came from programming you moron.  In it's likely that I was among the first thousand people to use the expression AS INTENDED. Now sit down, poser.
Click to expand...

And I am telling you its meaning is not limited to programming.  It can be used in any situation where logic is tested.  

Specifically, your belief that the purpose of prayer is to get stuff.  

Still waiting on YOUR hypothesis BTW.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, so far, you still got nuthin'!
> 
> 
> 
> I have you being unable to provide YOUR hypothesis.  That's something.
Click to expand...

Wait, you just said it wasn't my hypothesis.. Go fish.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, so far, you still got nuthin'!
> 
> 
> 
> I have you being unable to provide YOUR hypothesis.  That's something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait, you just said it wasn't my hypothesis.. Go fish.
Click to expand...

Like I said before, I didn't think YOU could provide one.  I win.  Again.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> And I am telling you its meaning is not limited to programming.


No need to tell me, sparky. I knew more about it than you to begin with.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, so far, you still got nuthin'!
> 
> 
> 
> I have you being unable to provide YOUR hypothesis.  That's something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait, you just said it wasn't my hypothesis.. Go fish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said before, I didn't think YOU could provide one.  I win.  Again.
Click to expand...

You're just scaring the fish is all.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts has fallen into the trap of criticizing what he doesn't believe to arrive at what he does believe without ever actually testing what he believes.  

It is the reason why Grumblenuts has never seriously considered why prayer exists in the first place.  He has made an assumption that prayer is based upon fairytales.  As such everything he sees is skewed to that result.  

The problem with that is that according to natural selection prayer still exists because it provides a functional advantage.  According to natural selection, if something does not provide a functional advantage it is eventually discarded.

Since prayer has existed since the beginning of man, clearly prayer provides functional advantage from a darwinian point of view.


----------



## Indeependent

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I am telling you its meaning is not limited to programming.
> 
> 
> 
> No need to tell me, sparky. I knew more about it than you to begin with.
Click to expand...

Your post contents belie your knowledge.
AKA...you post like a simpleton.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I am telling you its meaning is not limited to programming.
> 
> 
> 
> No need to tell me, sparky. I knew more about it than you to begin with.
Click to expand...

It doesn't seem that way to me as you literally were arguing against the reason peer reviews are performed.  

Still waiting for YOUR hypothesis on prayer.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, so far, you still got nuthin'!
> 
> 
> 
> I have you being unable to provide YOUR hypothesis.  That's something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait, you just said it wasn't my hypothesis.. Go fish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said before, I didn't think YOU could provide one.  I win.  Again.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're just scaring the fish is all.
Click to expand...

I am winning the battle.

Still waiting on YOUR hypothesis on prayer.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Indeependent said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I am telling you its meaning is not limited to programming.
> 
> 
> 
> No need to tell me, sparky. I knew more about it than you to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post contents belie your knowledge.
> AKA...you post like a simpleton.
Click to expand...

Just making sure not to lose people like you and ding, clearly among the lowest common denominators here.

Seems an impossible task, but I try.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I am telling you its meaning is not limited to programming.
> 
> 
> 
> No need to tell me, sparky. I knew more about it than you to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post contents belie your knowledge.
> AKA...you post like a simpleton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just making sure not to lose people like you and ding, clearly among the lowest common denominators here.
Click to expand...

^dunning effect


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I am telling you its meaning is not limited to programming.
> 
> 
> 
> No need to tell me, sparky. I knew more about it than you to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post contents belie your knowledge.
> AKA...you post like a simpleton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just making sure not to lose people like you and ding, clearly among the lowest common denominators here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^dunning effect
Click to expand...

Indeed. You do seem unreachable.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I am telling you its meaning is not limited to programming.
> 
> 
> 
> No need to tell me, sparky. I knew more about it than you to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post contents belie your knowledge.
> AKA...you post like a simpleton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just making sure not to lose people like you and ding, clearly among the lowest common denominators here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^dunning effect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. You do seem unreachable.
Click to expand...

That's still the dunning effect


----------



## Grumblenuts

Yes, dingbat. It is. Youse win da Darwin Award.. hands down.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I am telling you its meaning is not limited to programming.
> 
> 
> 
> No need to tell me, sparky. I knew more about it than you to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post contents belie your knowledge.
> AKA...you post like a simpleton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just making sure not to lose people like you and ding, clearly among the lowest common denominators here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^dunning effect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. You do seem unreachable.
Click to expand...

So you won't be providing your hypothesis on prayer?

Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> Yes, dingbat. It is. Youse win da Darwin Award.. hands down.


I'm not the one who is denying natural selection.  That's you.


----------



## Indeependent

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I am telling you its meaning is not limited to programming.
> 
> 
> 
> No need to tell me, sparky. I knew more about it than you to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your post contents belie your knowledge.
> AKA...you post like a simpleton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just making sure not to lose people like you and ding, clearly among the lowest common denominators here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^dunning effect
Click to expand...

More like dumbing effect


----------



## abu afak

esalla said:


> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> Lol


Hey Quesadilla, you MORON.
How did god get 'created out of nothing.'?

Or that logical to you?
`


----------



## abu afak

Indeependent said:


> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.


The slime to larger slime scheme is better than the 'god from nothing scheme' OrthoDucks ahole.
.'`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you found a study on evolution that deals with the Slime Scheme?
> Focus.
> 
> 
> 
> The slime to larger slime scheme is better than the 'god from nothing scheme' OrthoDucks ahole.
> .'`
Click to expand...

You can funny this too, Mr. Mensa.  

The data overwhelmingly shows that man is a spiritual being. It is for good reason that David Foster Wallace said that we all worship something and the only choice in the matter is what we choose to worship. We are literally hardwired for it. Throughout history every society has overwhelmingly held the belief that man is more than just matter and that there is a higher power than man. When we look at the data today we see that more and more people are rejecting organized religion but have not abandoned their belief that they are more than just matter or that there is a force which connects or binds us all. From the atheist's vantage point these beliefs exist because of evolutionary forces. But the reality is that even that argument confirms that spirituality offers a functional advantage over materialism. According to natural selection there are two main components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation. So even natural selection confirms that spirituality is a behavior which leads to success. Otherwise, according to natural selection, it would have been abandoned long ago. As mankind has gained more and more knowledge of his natural surroundings his desire for spirituality has not diminished. In fact, the more materialistic we became the less satisfied we became.


----------



## ding

So explore the functional advantage that spirituality has over materialism.

William James said, "When all is said and done, we are in the end absolutely dependent on the universe; and into sacrifices and surrenders of some sort, deliberately looked at and accepted, we are drawn and pressed as into our only permanent positions of repose. Now in those states of mind which fall short of religion, the surrender is submitted to as an imposition of necessity, and the sacrifice is undergone at the very best without complaint. In the religious life, on the contrary, surrender and sacrifice are positively espoused: even unnecessary givings-up are added in order that the happiness may increase. Religion thus makes easy and felicitous what in any case is necessary; and if it be the only agency that can accomplish this result, its vital importance as a human faculty stands vindicated beyond dispute. It becomes an essential organ of our life, performing a function which no other portion of our nature can so successfully fulfill."

So there you have it.  Functional advantage.


----------



## ding

Next time send me a bigger one.
					

Mystery, Alaska (1999) clip with quote Next time send me a bigger one.     Yarn is the best search for video clips by quote.     Find the exact moment in a TV show, movie, or music video you want to share.     Easily move forward or backward to get to the perfect clip.




					getyarn.io


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> Spiritual


There's evidence you're spiritual/delusional, but NO evidence there's an object of your beliefs, nor all the contrary ones.
You are a logical disaster/cumstain.
There is overwhelming evidence for Evolution though.


`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can funny this too, Mr. Mensa.
> 
> The data overwhelmingly shows that man is a spiritual being. It is for good reason that David Foster Wallace said that we all worship something and the only choice in the matter is what we choose to worship. We are literally hardwired for it. Throughout history every society has overwhelmingly held the belief that man is more than just matter and that there is a higher power than man. When we look at the data today we see that more and more people are rejecting organized religion but have not abandoned their belief that they are more than just matter or that there is a force which connects or binds us all. From the atheist's vantage point these beliefs exist because of evolutionary forces. But the reality is that even that argument confirms that spirituality offers a functional advantage over materialism. According to natural selection there are two main components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation. So even natural selection confirms that spirituality is a behavior which leads to success. Otherwise, according to natural selection, it would have been abandoned long ago. As mankind has gained more and more knowledge of his natural surroundings his desire for spirituality has not diminished. In fact, the more materialistic we became the less satisfied we became.
> 
> 
> 
> There's evidence you're spiritual/delusional, but NO evidence there's an object of your beliefs, nor all the contrary ones.
> You are a logical disaster/cumstain.
> There is overwhelming evidence for Evolution though.
> 
> 
> `
Click to expand...

I like how you couldn't bring yourself to reply to the whole post.  Don't worry, I added the rest.  

Evolution and a Creator are not mutually exclusive.  It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

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.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual
> 
> 
> 
> There's evidence you're spiritual/delusional, but NO evidence there's an object of your beliefs, nor all the contrary ones.
> You are a logical disaster/cumstain.
> There is overwhelming evidence for Evolution though.
> 
> 
> `
Click to expand...

Is everyone who disagrees with you delusional?

Do you call people at your work cumstains when they disagree with you?


----------



## abu afak

So Ding-a-Ling has No answer to the simple fact.



abu afak said:


> *There's evidence you're spiritual/delusional, but NO evidence there's an object of your beliefs, nor all the contrary ones.
> You are a logical disaster/cumstain.
> There is overwhelming evidence for Evolution though.*


IOW, you cannot prove, or even show EVIDENCE of a god .
While I can show overwhelming EVIDENCE for evolution

Your posts are Delusional distraction/Deflections from that simple fact.

`


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit


It would also have no purpose. "Spirit" is simply the way you sneak in your appeal to religious belief. _God did it!_ Nope. And as always, you neglect the Aether (math) which necessarily precedes any space, time, matter, or energy. All or which, as I've indicated before, can easily be referred to simply as "Nature" or "Natural" meaning what would be the case without human interference, including any supposed interference from man's conveniently concocted spirits or gods. 

The result of randomly tossing an evenly weighted coin infinite times clearly depends upon no plan, gods, or laws. Probability (Nature) dictates that it will be exactly 50/50 in the limit.. whether flipped by man or monkey. Addition and multiplication exhibit commutative and associative properties, not plans, gods, or laws. Because math is a real part of Nature. A part that we've only partially explored and _discovered_, much the same as crows have done. We don't create, invent, or plan math. It would all be there waiting, just the same, with or without us.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit
> 
> 
> 
> It would also have no purpose. "Spirit" is simply the way you sneak in your appeal to religious belief. _God did it!_ Nope. And as always, you neglect the Aether (math) which necessarily precedes any space, time, matter, or energy. All or which, as I've indicated before, can easily be referred to simply as "Nature" or "Natural" meaning what would be the case without human interference, including any supposed interference from man's conveniently concocted spirits or gods.
> 
> The result of randomly tossing an evenly weighted coin infinite times clearly depends upon no plan, gods, or laws. Probability (Nature) dictates that it will be exactly 50/50 in the limit.. whether flipped by man or monkey. Addition and multiplication exhibit commutative and associative properties, not plans, gods, or laws. Because math is a real part of Nature. A part that we've only partially explored and _discovered_, much the same as crows have done. We don't create, invent, or plan math. It would all be there waiting, just the same, with or without us.
Click to expand...

Randomly tossing a coin requires a prime mover.  So does nature. In fact, your explanation implies it was guided.  What is math if not mind stuff?

So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit
> 
> 
> 
> It would also have no purpose. "Spirit" is simply the way you sneak in your appeal to religious belief. _God did it!_ Nope. And as always, you neglect the Aether (math) which necessarily precedes any space, time, matter, or energy. All or which, as I've indicated before, can easily be referred to simply as "Nature" or "Natural" meaning what would be the case without human interference, including any supposed interference from man's conveniently concocted spirits or gods.
> 
> The result of randomly tossing an evenly weighted coin infinite times clearly depends upon no plan, gods, or laws. Probability (Nature) dictates that it will be exactly 50/50 in the limit.. whether flipped by man or monkey. Addition and multiplication exhibit commutative and associative properties, not plans, gods, or laws. Because math is a real part of Nature. A part that we've only partially explored and _discovered_, much the same as crows have done. We don't create, invent, or plan math. It would all be there waiting, just the same, with or without us.
Click to expand...

It's not an accident that the universe is an intelligence creating machine.   

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. 

Were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit
> 
> 
> 
> It would also have no purpose. "Spirit" is simply the way you sneak in your appeal to religious belief. _God did it!_ Nope. And as always, you neglect the Aether (math) which necessarily precedes any space, time, matter, or energy. All or which, as I've indicated before, can easily be referred to simply as "Nature" or "Natural" meaning what would be the case without human interference, including any supposed interference from man's conveniently concocted spirits or gods.
> 
> The result of randomly tossing an evenly weighted coin infinite times clearly depends upon no plan, gods, or laws. Probability (Nature) dictates that it will be exactly 50/50 in the limit.. whether flipped by man or monkey. Addition and multiplication exhibit commutative and associative properties, not plans, gods, or laws. Because math is a real part of Nature. A part that we've only partially explored and _discovered_, much the same as crows have done. We don't create, invent, or plan math. It would all be there waiting, just the same, with or without us.
Click to expand...

"...It is primarily physicists who in recent times have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind. Arthur Eddington in 1928 wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff ... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time.... Recognizing that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

Von Weizsacker in 1971 states as “a new and, I feel, intelligible interpretation of quantum theory” what he calls his “Identity Hypothesis: Consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality.”

I like most of all Wolfgang Pauli’s formulation, from 1952: “To us . . . the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

What this kind of thought means essentially is that one has no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves.

As for this seeming a strange viewpoint for a scientist -- at least until one gets used to it -- as in so many other instances, what is wanted is not so much an acceptable concept as an acceptable rhetoric. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? -- virtually the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious..."  George Wald


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> So Ding-a-Ling has No answer to the simple fact.
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There's evidence you're spiritual/delusional, but NO evidence there's an object of your beliefs, nor all the contrary ones.
> You are a logical disaster/cumstain.
> There is overwhelming evidence for Evolution though.*
> 
> 
> 
> IOW, you cannot prove, or even show EVIDENCE of a god .
> While I can show overwhelming EVIDENCE for evolution
> 
> Your posts are Delusional distraction/Deflections from that simple fact.
> 
> `
Click to expand...

Existence is evidence of God, dummy. 

Didn't I already say like two times that God and evolution are not mutually exclusive?


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> but NO evidence there's an object of your beliefs


You mean besides the physical laws of nature, the biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature?

I thought I already explained this to you.  Oh well, I guess I'll have to do it again.  Oh bother...

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.



We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.



The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.



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.



All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.



If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

 

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

 

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

 

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

 

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit
> 
> 
> 
> It would also have no purpose. "Spirit" is simply the way you sneak in your appeal to religious belief. _God did it!_ Nope. And as always, you neglect the Aether (math) which necessarily precedes any space, time, matter, or energy. All or which, as I've indicated before, can easily be referred to simply as "Nature" or "Natural" meaning what would be the case without human interference, including any supposed interference from man's conveniently concocted spirits or gods.
> 
> The result of randomly tossing an evenly weighted coin infinite times clearly depends upon no plan, gods, or laws. Probability (Nature) dictates that it will be exactly 50/50 in the limit.. whether flipped by man or monkey. Addition and multiplication exhibit commutative and associative properties, not plans, gods, or laws. Because math is a real part of Nature. A part that we've only partially explored and _discovered_, much the same as crows have done. We don't create, invent, or plan math. It would all be there waiting, just the same, with or without us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Randomly tossing a coin requires a prime mover.  So does nature. In fact, your explanation implies it was guided.  What is math if not mind stuff?
> 
> So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's been obvious that you'll just repeat the same pile of long debunked gibberish no matter what anyone says. I'm sure there's at least one descriptive word for that.. Hmm?..


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Randomly tossing a coin requires a prime mover.


^


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit
> 
> 
> 
> It would also have no purpose. "Spirit" is simply the way you sneak in your appeal to religious belief. _God did it!_ Nope. And as always, you neglect the Aether (math) which necessarily precedes any space, time, matter, or energy. All or which, as I've indicated before, can easily be referred to simply as "Nature" or "Natural" meaning what would be the case without human interference, including any supposed interference from man's conveniently concocted spirits or gods.
> 
> The result of randomly tossing an evenly weighted coin infinite times clearly depends upon no plan, gods, or laws. Probability (Nature) dictates that it will be exactly 50/50 in the limit.. whether flipped by man or monkey. Addition and multiplication exhibit commutative and associative properties, not plans, gods, or laws. Because math is a real part of Nature. A part that we've only partially explored and _discovered_, much the same as crows have done. We don't create, invent, or plan math. It would all be there waiting, just the same, with or without us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Randomly tossing a coin requires a prime mover.  So does nature. In fact, your explanation implies it was guided.  What is math if not mind stuff?
> 
> So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it's been obvious that you'll just repeat the same pile of long debunked gibberish no matter what anyone says. I'm sure there's at least one descriptive word for that.. Hmm?..
Click to expand...

It hasn't been debunked.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Randomly tossing a coin requires a prime mover.
> 
> 
> 
> ^
Click to expand...

Sometimes.



"...It is primarily physicists who in recent times have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind. Arthur Eddington in 1928 wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff ... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time.... Recognizing that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

Von Weizsacker in 1971 states as “a new and, I feel, intelligible interpretation of quantum theory” what he calls his “Identity Hypothesis: Consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality.”

I like most of all Wolfgang Pauli’s formulation, from 1952: “To us . . . the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

What this kind of thought means essentially is that one has no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves.

As for this seeming a strange viewpoint for a scientist -- at least until one gets used to it -- as in so many other instances, what is wanted is not so much an acceptable concept as an acceptable rhetoric. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? -- virtually the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious..." George Wald


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit
> 
> 
> 
> It would also have no purpose. "Spirit" is simply the way you sneak in your appeal to religious belief. _God did it!_ Nope. And as always, you neglect the Aether (math) which necessarily precedes any space, time, matter, or energy. All or which, as I've indicated before, can easily be referred to simply as "Nature" or "Natural" meaning what would be the case without human interference, including any supposed interference from man's conveniently concocted spirits or gods.
> 
> The result of randomly tossing an evenly weighted coin infinite times clearly depends upon no plan, gods, or laws. Probability (Nature) dictates that it will be exactly 50/50 in the limit.. whether flipped by man or monkey. Addition and multiplication exhibit commutative and associative properties, not plans, gods, or laws. Because math is a real part of Nature. A part that we've only partially explored and _discovered_, much the same as crows have done. We don't create, invent, or plan math. It would all be there waiting, just the same, with or without us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Randomly tossing a coin requires a prime mover.  So does nature. In fact, your explanation implies it was guided.  What is math if not mind stuff?
> 
> So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it's been obvious that you'll just repeat the same pile of long debunked gibberish no matter what anyone says. I'm sure there's at least one descriptive word for that.. Hmm?..
Click to expand...

Can you debunk this?

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit
> 
> 
> 
> It would also have no purpose. "Spirit" is simply the way you sneak in your appeal to religious belief. _God did it!_ Nope. And as always, you neglect the Aether (math) which necessarily precedes any space, time, matter, or energy. All or which, as I've indicated before, can easily be referred to simply as "Nature" or "Natural" meaning what would be the case without human interference, including any supposed interference from man's conveniently concocted spirits or gods.
> 
> The result of randomly tossing an evenly weighted coin infinite times clearly depends upon no plan, gods, or laws. Probability (Nature) dictates that it will be exactly 50/50 in the limit.. whether flipped by man or monkey. Addition and multiplication exhibit commutative and associative properties, not plans, gods, or laws. Because math is a real part of Nature. A part that we've only partially explored and _discovered_, much the same as crows have done. We don't create, invent, or plan math. It would all be there waiting, just the same, with or without us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Randomly tossing a coin requires a prime mover.  So does nature. In fact, your explanation implies it was guided.  What is math if not mind stuff?
> 
> So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it's been obvious that you'll just repeat the same pile of long debunked gibberish no matter what anyone says. I'm sure there's at least one descriptive word for that.. Hmm?..
Click to expand...

Can you debunk this?

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit
> 
> 
> 
> It would also have no purpose. "Spirit" is simply the way you sneak in your appeal to religious belief. _God did it!_ Nope. And as always, you neglect the Aether (math) which necessarily precedes any space, time, matter, or energy. All or which, as I've indicated before, can easily be referred to simply as "Nature" or "Natural" meaning what would be the case without human interference, including any supposed interference from man's conveniently concocted spirits or gods.
> 
> The result of randomly tossing an evenly weighted coin infinite times clearly depends upon no plan, gods, or laws. Probability (Nature) dictates that it will be exactly 50/50 in the limit.. whether flipped by man or monkey. Addition and multiplication exhibit commutative and associative properties, not plans, gods, or laws. Because math is a real part of Nature. A part that we've only partially explored and _discovered_, much the same as crows have done. We don't create, invent, or plan math. It would all be there waiting, just the same, with or without us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Randomly tossing a coin requires a prime mover.  So does nature. In fact, your explanation implies it was guided.  What is math if not mind stuff?
> 
> So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it's been obvious that you'll just repeat the same pile of long debunked gibberish no matter what anyone says. I'm sure there's at least one descriptive word for that.. Hmm?..
Click to expand...

Can you debunk this?

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.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit
> 
> 
> 
> It would also have no purpose. "Spirit" is simply the way you sneak in your appeal to religious belief. _God did it!_ Nope. And as always, you neglect the Aether (math) which necessarily precedes any space, time, matter, or energy. All or which, as I've indicated before, can easily be referred to simply as "Nature" or "Natural" meaning what would be the case without human interference, including any supposed interference from man's conveniently concocted spirits or gods.
> 
> The result of randomly tossing an evenly weighted coin infinite times clearly depends upon no plan, gods, or laws. Probability (Nature) dictates that it will be exactly 50/50 in the limit.. whether flipped by man or monkey. Addition and multiplication exhibit commutative and associative properties, not plans, gods, or laws. Because math is a real part of Nature. A part that we've only partially explored and _discovered_, much the same as crows have done. We don't create, invent, or plan math. It would all be there waiting, just the same, with or without us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Randomly tossing a coin requires a prime mover.  So does nature. In fact, your explanation implies it was guided.  What is math if not mind stuff?
> 
> So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it's been obvious that you'll just repeat the same pile of long debunked gibberish no matter what anyone says. I'm sure there's at least one descriptive word for that.. Hmm?..
Click to expand...

Can you debunk this?

So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.


----------



## ding




----------



## ding

Grumblenuts , you have debunked jack shit.  I could write pages of support for each sentence of what you refer to as "debunked gibberish."  You haven't even attempted to debunk one sentence of it.


----------



## ding

Next time send me a bigger one.
					

Mystery, Alaska (1999) clip with quote Next time send me a bigger one.     Yarn is the best search for video clips by quote.     Find the exact moment in a TV show, movie, or music video you want to share.     Easily move forward or backward to get to the perfect clip.




					getyarn.io


----------



## esalla

abu afak said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> Lol
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Quesadilla, you MORON.
> How did god get 'created out of nothing.'?
> 
> Or that logical to you?
> `
Click to expand...

I was created by God and when my Sons travel to other planets they will create new life and they will not mutilate the genitals of the women that they bring along.

Yawning


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> The data overwhelmingly shows that man is a spiritual being.


By providing zero quotes or source information for verification you make plain that this alleged "data" driven claim is plucked straight from nowhere but your ass. Try being honest about your (ab)use of terms for once. First clearly define what you mean by "spiritual" if you dare.

In reality "The data overwhelmingly shows" only "that man is" an evolved being, not a "spiritual" one.



> Roughly eight-in-ten U.S. adults (81%) say humans have evolved over time, according to data from a new Pew Research Center study.
> _{...snip...}_
> Scientists *overwhelmingly agree that humans evolved *over time, and most Americans are aware that this is the case. Among scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, *98% say they believe humans evolved* over time.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Speaking of which,


Grumblenuts said:


> That's actually an old computer programming cliche, not something commonly related to "science" you pusillanimous pile of pontificating porcupine piss.





> In computer science, garbage in, garbage out (GIGO) is the concept that flawed, or nonsense input data produces nonsense output or "garbage". In the UK the term sometimes used is rubbish in, rubbish out (RIRO).[1][2][3]
> 
> The principle also applies more generally to all analysis and logic, in that arguments are unsound if their premises are flawed.


Notice first that the phrase is still not "garbage in equals garbage out" as you idiotically asserted. Also that , as I indicated, it was first used in "computer science" and later applied "more generally to all analysis and logic" - not simply to your "science" in general assertion which further revealed you to be just a desperate, pathetic poser. A dancing fool.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts , you have debunked jack shit.  I could write pages of support for each sentence of what you refer to as "debunked gibberish."  You haven't even attempted to debunk one sentence of it.


----------



## esalla

esalla said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie you have no clue as to how stupid you are.  How is life creating itself out of nothing in a pond not supernatural.
> Lol
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Quesadilla, you MORON.
> How did god get 'created out of nothing.'?
> 
> Or that logical to you?
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was created by God and when my Sons travel to other planets they will create new life and they will not mutilate the genitals of the women that they bring along.
> 
> Yawning
Click to expand...

What kind of human being laughs at mutilating women?

Silly turd


----------



## Grumblenuts

esalla said:


> What kind of human being laughs at mutilating women?


Sig line:

*"I EAT AUNT JEMIMA'S GRITS EVERY CHANCE I GET

M M GOOD, LICK IT UP







"*


What kind of human being laughs at racial stereotyping of women?









						Why Aunt Jemima has been considered a racist symbol by many for years
					

Quaker Oats announced it will replace and rename its breakfast brand Aunt Jemima, which has been accused of perpetuating a racist stereotype.




					www.today.com


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The data overwhelmingly shows that man is a spiritual being.
> 
> 
> 
> By providing zero quotes or source information for verification you make plain that this alleged "data" driven claim is plucked straight from nowhere but your ass. Try being honest about your (ab)use of terms for once. First clearly define what you mean by "spiritual" if you dare.
> 
> In reality "The data overwhelmingly shows" only "that man is" an evolved being, not a "spiritual" one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roughly eight-in-ten U.S. adults (81%) say humans have evolved over time, according to data from a new Pew Research Center study.
> _{...snip...}_
> Scientists *overwhelmingly agree that humans evolved *over time, and most Americans are aware that this is the case. Among scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, *98% say they believe humans evolved* over time.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Look at any poll, dummy.  

Physiologically speaking man is pretty much the same as he was 10,000 years ago.  If you are trying to argue man has gotten less spiritual, you are doing a poor job of it.  

Let me say this for the third time, evolution and a Creator are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts , you have debunked jack shit.  I could write pages of support for each sentence of what you refer to as "debunked gibberish."  You haven't even attempted to debunk one sentence of it.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for your first attempt at debunking my statements.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

abu afak said:


> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
> Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> 
> Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [.....]
> 
> *1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
> So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> *In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..." *
> 
> `
> 
> .
> 
> 
> `.


May the Force be with you.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> Speaking of which,
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's actually an old computer programming cliche, not something commonly related to "science" you pusillanimous pile of pontificating porcupine piss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In computer science, garbage in, garbage out (GIGO) is the concept that flawed, or nonsense input data produces nonsense output or "garbage". In the UK the term sometimes used is rubbish in, rubbish out (RIRO).[1][2][3]
> 
> The principle also applies more generally to all analysis and logic, in that arguments are unsound if their premises are flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice first that the phrase is still not "garbage in equals garbage out" as you idiotically asserted. Also that , as I indicated, it was first used in "computer science" and later applied "more generally to all analysis and logic" - not simply to your "science" in general assertion which further revealed you to be just a desperate, pathetic poser. A dancing fool.
Click to expand...

You are desperate.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Physiologically speaking man is pretty much the same as he was 10,000 years ago. If you are trying to argue man has gotten less spiritual, you are doing a poor job of it.
> 
> Let me say this for the third time, evolution and a Creator are not mutually exclusive.


You're doing a desperate job of "trying to argue" alright. Here's an idea, try defining what you mean by "spiritual" if other than just "god-did-it," wimp.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Physiologically speaking man is pretty much the same as he was 10,000 years ago. If you are trying to argue man has gotten less spiritual, you are doing a poor job of it.
> 
> Let me say this for the third time, evolution and a Creator are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> 
> 
> You're doing a desperate job of "trying to argue" alright. Here's an idea, try defining what you mean by "spiritual" if other than just "god-did-it," wimp.
Click to expand...

Dude, the argument is over.  You haven't debunked one statement.  And I have given you every opportunity.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Physiologically speaking man is pretty much the same as he was 10,000 years ago. If you are trying to argue man has gotten less spiritual, you are doing a poor job of it.
> 
> Let me say this for the third time, evolution and a Creator are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> 
> 
> You're doing a desperate job of "trying to argue" alright. Here's an idea, try defining what you mean by "spiritual" if other than just "god-did-it," wimp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, the argument is over.  You haven't debunked one statement.  And I have given you every opportunity.
Click to expand...

So you've got nothin' as usual. Your surrender noted. Bubbye!


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Physiologically speaking man is pretty much the same as he was 10,000 years ago. If you are trying to argue man has gotten less spiritual, you are doing a poor job of it.
> 
> Let me say this for the third time, evolution and a Creator are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> 
> 
> You're doing a desperate job of "trying to argue" alright. Here's an idea, try defining what you mean by "spiritual" if other than just "god-did-it," wimp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, the argument is over.  You haven't debunked one statement.  And I have given you every opportunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you've got nothin' as usual. Your surrender noted. Bubbye!
Click to expand...

pwned


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> pwned


*p*uny *w*iddle *n*obody *e*xiting *d*iscussion.. upon being challenged to define his terms. Poor fella.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> pwned
> 
> 
> 
> *p*uny *w*iddle *n*obody *e*xiting *d*iscussion.. upon being challenged to define his terms. Poor fella.
Click to expand...

This is the extent of your capabilities.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> pwned
> 
> 
> 
> *p*uny *w*iddle *n*obody *e*xiting *d*iscussion.. upon being challenged to define his terms. Poor fella.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the extent of your capabilities.
Click to expand...

More extensive than simply saying "pwned"


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> pwned
> 
> 
> 
> *p*uny *w*iddle *n*obody *e*xiting *d*iscussion.. upon being challenged to define his terms. Poor fella.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the extent of your capabilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More extensive than simply saying "pwned"
Click to expand...

I was talking about the level of intellectual discourse.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> I was talking about the level of intellectual discourse.


No kidding. So was I. Define "spiritual"..


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> pwned
> 
> 
> 
> *p*uny *w*iddle *n*obody *e*xiting *d*iscussion.. upon being challenged to define his terms. Poor fella.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the extent of your capabilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More extensive than simply saying "pwned"
Click to expand...

You and your ilk can't objectively analyze the existence of a creator because you only analyze the worst possible perception of a creator.  In fact, you have no real perception.  You couldn't even offer a description of your perception.  Your kind never does.  You have never attempted to analyze the best possible perception of a creator. 

Why do you care about being good?


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about the level of intellectual discourse.
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding. So was I. Define "spiritual"..
Click to expand...

Not of the material or proceeding from the material.  Incorporeal.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about the level of intellectual discourse.
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding. So was I. Define "spiritual"..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not of the material or proceeding from the material.  Incorporeal.
Click to expand...

OMFG, finally! What made that so tough?


> Incorporeal
> *ADJECTIVE*
> 
> 
> 1 Not composed of matter; having no material existence.
> _‘ghostly presences and incorporeal beings’_


So do you picture your god as some sort of a ghost?


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about the level of intellectual discourse.
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding. So was I. Define "spiritual"..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not of the material or proceeding from the material.  Incorporeal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMFG, finally! What made that so tough?
> 
> 
> 
> Incorporeal
> *ADJECTIVE*
> 
> 
> 1 Not composed of matter; having no material existence.
> _‘ghostly presences and incorporeal beings’_
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So do you picture your god as some sort of a ghost?
Click to expand...

I don't recall you asking and it should have been more than obvious what my perception of God is if you had actually read what I wrote.

There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Why do you care about being good?


Why wouldn't I? Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you care about being good?
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't I? Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?
Click to expand...

It's important to you.  You wouldn't want to not be good.  Why is that?


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about the level of intellectual discourse.
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding. So was I. Define "spiritual"..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not of the material or proceeding from the material.  Incorporeal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMFG, finally! What made that so tough?
> 
> 
> 
> Incorporeal
> *ADJECTIVE*
> 
> 
> 1 Not composed of matter; having no material existence.
> _‘ghostly presences and incorporeal beings’_
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So do you picture your god as some sort of a ghost?
Click to expand...

So let's hear your best possible perception of God.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you care about being good?
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't I? Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's important to you.  You wouldn't want to not be good.  Why is that?
Click to expand...

Dodging simple questions is apparently your idea of good. So being good is evidently not very important to you. Why is that? I already indicated that I was raised well. That's why I care.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you care about being good?
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't I? Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's important to you.  You wouldn't want to not be good.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dodging simple questions is apparently your idea of good. So being good is evidently not very important to you. Why is that? I already indicated that I was raised well. That's why I care.
Click to expand...

So if you were raised to believe owning slaves was good, you would have accepted that? You would have believed that that was good?

Or how about having sex with a 12 year old?  If you were raised to believe having sex with a 12 year old was good, you would have believed that was good?

What question did I dodge?  I told you what my perception of God was.  I couldn't have been more detailed in my belief and the basis for my belief.

Considering that you still haven't provided your description of your best possible perception of God, it is ironic that you are accusing me of dodging a question.  I've asked that question very clearly like three times now.

Of course wanting to be good is important.  We were made that way for a purpose.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about the level of intellectual discourse.
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding. So was I. Define "spiritual"..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not of the material or proceeding from the material.  Incorporeal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMFG, finally! What made that so tough?
> 
> 
> 
> Incorporeal
> *ADJECTIVE*
> 
> 
> 1 Not composed of matter; having no material existence.
> _‘ghostly presences and incorporeal beings’_
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So do you picture your god as some sort of a ghost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So let's hear your best possible perception of God.
Click to expand...

And again, you simply dodge the question. You are an individual. There's no "us" in you. Stop being such a horse's ass. Try conversing like an adult.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you care about being good?
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't I? Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's important to you.  You wouldn't want to not be good.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dodging simple questions is apparently your idea of good. So being good is evidently not very important to you. Why is that? I already indicated that I was raised well. That's why I care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you were raised to believe owning slaves was good, you would have accepted that? You would have believed that that was good?
> 
> Or how about having sex with a 12 year old?  If you were raised to believe having sex with a 12 year old was good, you would have believed that was good?
> 
> What question did I dodge?  I told you what my perception of God was.  I couldn't have been more detailed in my belief and the basis for my belief.
> 
> Considering that you still haven't provided your description of your best possible perception of God, it is ironic that you are accusing me of dodging a question.  I've asked that question very clearly like three times now.
Click to expand...

" Why wouldn't I? Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?"
Duh!


----------



## Grumblenuts

"So do you picture your god as some sort of a ghost?" (Yes or no?)


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> "So do you picture your god as some sort of a ghost?" (Yes or no?)


No.  Consciousness without form.  I don't see that as some ghost.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about the level of intellectual discourse.
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding. So was I. Define "spiritual"..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not of the material or proceeding from the material.  Incorporeal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMFG, finally! What made that so tough?
> 
> 
> 
> Incorporeal
> *ADJECTIVE*
> 
> 
> 1 Not composed of matter; having no material existence.
> _‘ghostly presences and incorporeal beings’_
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So do you picture your god as some sort of a ghost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So let's hear your best possible perception of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again, you simply dodge the question. You are an individual. There's no "us" in you. Stop being such a horse's ass. Try conversing like an adult.
Click to expand...

We are made that way for a purpose.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about the level of intellectual discourse.
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding. So was I. Define "spiritual"..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not of the material or proceeding from the material.  Incorporeal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMFG, finally! What made that so tough?
> 
> 
> 
> Incorporeal
> *ADJECTIVE*
> 
> 
> 1 Not composed of matter; having no material existence.
> _‘ghostly presences and incorporeal beings’_
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So do you picture your god as some sort of a ghost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So let's hear your best possible perception of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again, you simply dodge the question. You are an individual. There's no "us" in you. Stop being such a horse's ass. Try conversing like an adult.
Click to expand...

So let's hear your best possible perception of God.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you care about being good?
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't I? Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's important to you.  You wouldn't want to not be good.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dodging simple questions is apparently your idea of good. So being good is evidently not very important to you. Why is that? I already indicated that I was raised well. That's why I care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you were raised to believe owning slaves was good, you would have accepted that? You would have believed that that was good?
> 
> Or how about having sex with a 12 year old?  If you were raised to believe having sex with a 12 year old was good, you would have believed that was good?
> 
> What question did I dodge?  I told you what my perception of God was.  I couldn't have been more detailed in my belief and the basis for my belief.
> 
> Considering that you still haven't provided your description of your best possible perception of God, it is ironic that you are accusing me of dodging a question.  I've asked that question very clearly like three times now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> " Why wouldn't I? Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?"
> Duh!
Click to expand...

So if you were raised to believe owning slaves was good, you would have accepted that? You would have believed that that was good?

Or how about having sex with a 12 year old? If you were raised to believe having sex with a 12 year old was good, you would have believed that was good?


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> So let's hear your best possible perception of God.


Being an atheist, I don't believe in gods. But you knew that already, so why ask? Stupidity or meanness?


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let's hear your best possible perception of God.
> 
> 
> 
> Being an atheist, I don't believe in gods. But you knew that already, so why ask? Stupidity or meanness?
Click to expand...

So you can't objectively analyze if God exists.  Your bias prevents you from even attempting.

There was nothing mean or stupid of my asking.  It is a fair question.  You seem like you pride yourself on being objective but if you can't even allow yourself to see the other side there is literally no way for you to be objective.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you care about being good?
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't I? Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's important to you.  You wouldn't want to not be good.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dodging simple questions is apparently your idea of good. So being good is evidently not very important to you. Why is that? I already indicated that I was raised well. That's why I care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you were raised to believe owning slaves was good, you would have accepted that? You would have believed that that was good?
> 
> Or how about having sex with a 12 year old?  If you were raised to believe having sex with a 12 year old was good, you would have believed that was good?
> 
> What question did I dodge?  I told you what my perception of God was.  I couldn't have been more detailed in my belief and the basis for my belief.
> 
> Considering that you still haven't provided your description of your best possible perception of God, it is ironic that you are accusing me of dodging a question.  I've asked that question very clearly like three times now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> " Why wouldn't I? Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?"
> Duh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you were raised to believe owning slaves was good, you would have accepted that? You would have believed that that was good?
> 
> Or how about having sex with a 12 year old? If you were raised to believe having sex with a 12 year old was good, you would have believed that was good?
Click to expand...

You first, dopey.. Answer the fucking question!


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let's hear your best possible perception of God.
> 
> 
> 
> Being an atheist, I don't believe in gods. But you knew that already, so why ask? Stupidity or meanness?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't objectively analyze if God exists.  Your bias prevents you from even attempting.
> 
> There was nothing mean or stupid of my asking.  It is a fair question.  You seem like you pride yourself on being objective but if you can't even allow yourself to see the other side there is literally no way for you to be objective.
Click to expand...

So you just can't answer a fucking simple question why?


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you care about being good?
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't I? Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's important to you.  You wouldn't want to not be good.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dodging simple questions is apparently your idea of good. So being good is evidently not very important to you. Why is that? I already indicated that I was raised well. That's why I care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you were raised to believe owning slaves was good, you would have accepted that? You would have believed that that was good?
> 
> Or how about having sex with a 12 year old?  If you were raised to believe having sex with a 12 year old was good, you would have believed that was good?
> 
> What question did I dodge?  I told you what my perception of God was.  I couldn't have been more detailed in my belief and the basis for my belief.
> 
> Considering that you still haven't provided your description of your best possible perception of God, it is ironic that you are accusing me of dodging a question.  I've asked that question very clearly like three times now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> " Why wouldn't I? Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?"
> Duh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you were raised to believe owning slaves was good, you would have accepted that? You would have believed that that was good?
> 
> Or how about having sex with a 12 year old? If you were raised to believe having sex with a 12 year old was good, you would have believed that was good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You first, dopey.. Answer the fucking question!
Click to expand...

No.  I wouldn't.  Logic wouldn't allow it.  Being objective I would be able to see both sides.  I would be able to see how it affected others.  I would know that it was not good.  There is nothing subjective about truth.  Truth is based upon logic.  It is independent of man.  

But your position seems to be that you would think it was good because to you good is what you were taught.  Right?

So let me ask again, why do you want to be good?


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let's hear your best possible perception of God.
> 
> 
> 
> Being an atheist, I don't believe in gods. But you knew that already, so why ask? Stupidity or meanness?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't objectively analyze if God exists.  Your bias prevents you from even attempting.
> 
> There was nothing mean or stupid of my asking.  It is a fair question.  You seem like you pride yourself on being objective but if you can't even allow yourself to see the other side there is literally no way for you to be objective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you just can't answer a fucking simple question why?
Click to expand...

You are hanging yourself and I am handing you the rope to do it.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let's hear your best possible perception of God.
> 
> 
> 
> Being an atheist, I don't believe in gods. But you knew that already, so why ask? Stupidity or meanness?
Click to expand...

So it isn't possible for you to form a best possible perception of God?


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let's hear your best possible perception of God.
> 
> 
> 
> Being an atheist, I don't believe in gods. But you knew that already, so why ask? Stupidity or meanness?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't objectively analyze if God exists.  Your bias prevents you from even attempting.
> 
> There was nothing mean or stupid of my asking.  It is a fair question.  You seem like you pride yourself on being objective but if you can't even allow yourself to see the other side there is literally no way for you to be objective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you just can't answer a fucking simple question why?
Click to expand...

I have answered every single question.

You are angry because I have brought you to two of your incongruities and your pride will not allow you to admit your mistake.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you care about being good?
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't I? Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's important to you.  You wouldn't want to not be good.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dodging simple questions is apparently your idea of good. So being good is evidently not very important to you. Why is that? I already indicated that I was raised well. That's why I care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you were raised to believe owning slaves was good, you would have accepted that? You would have believed that that was good?
> 
> Or how about having sex with a 12 year old?  If you were raised to believe having sex with a 12 year old was good, you would have believed that was good?
> 
> What question did I dodge?  I told you what my perception of God was.  I couldn't have been more detailed in my belief and the basis for my belief.
> 
> Considering that you still haven't provided your description of your best possible perception of God, it is ironic that you are accusing me of dodging a question.  I've asked that question very clearly like three times now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> " Why wouldn't I? Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?"
> Duh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you were raised to believe owning slaves was good, you would have accepted that? You would have believed that that was good?
> 
> Or how about having sex with a 12 year old? If you were raised to believe having sex with a 12 year old was good, you would have believed that was good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You first, dopey.. Answer the fucking question!
Click to expand...




Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let's hear your best possible perception of God.
> 
> 
> 
> Being an atheist, I don't believe in gods. But you knew that already, so why ask? Stupidity or meanness?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't objectively analyze if God exists.  Your bias prevents you from even attempting.
> 
> There was nothing mean or stupid of my asking.  It is a fair question.  You seem like you pride yourself on being objective but if you can't even allow yourself to see the other side there is literally no way for you to be objective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you just can't answer a fucking simple question why?
Click to expand...

I did.  Every single one.  

You still haven't answered these questions though.

So if you were raised to believe owning slaves was good, you would have accepted that? You would have believed that that was good?

Or how about having sex with a 12 year old? If you were raised to believe having sex with a 12 year old was good, you would have believed that was good?


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you care about being good?
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't I? Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's important to you.  You wouldn't want to not be good.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dodging simple questions is apparently your idea of good. So being good is evidently not very important to you. Why is that? I already indicated that I was raised well. That's why I care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you were raised to believe owning slaves was good, you would have accepted that? You would have believed that that was good?
> 
> Or how about having sex with a 12 year old?  If you were raised to believe having sex with a 12 year old was good, you would have believed that was good?
> 
> What question did I dodge?  I told you what my perception of God was.  I couldn't have been more detailed in my belief and the basis for my belief.
> 
> Considering that you still haven't provided your description of your best possible perception of God, it is ironic that you are accusing me of dodging a question.  I've asked that question very clearly like three times now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> " Why wouldn't I? Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?"
> Duh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you were raised to believe owning slaves was good, you would have accepted that? You would have believed that that was good?
> 
> Or how about having sex with a 12 year old? If you were raised to believe having sex with a 12 year old was good, you would have believed that was good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You first, dopey.. Answer the fucking question!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I wouldn't.  Logic wouldn't allow it.  Being objective I would be able to see both sides.  I would be able to see how it affected others.  I would know that it was not good.  There is nothing subjective about truth.  Truth is based upon logic.  It is independent of man.
> 
> But your position seems to be that you would think it was good because to you good is what you were taught.  Right?
> 
> So let me ask again, why do you want to be good?
Click to expand...

Still waiting so I'll ask you once again, [given "Why wouldn't I" ( - be good having been "raised well")..]  "Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?"


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let's hear your best possible perception of God.
> 
> 
> 
> Being an atheist, I don't believe in gods. But you knew that already, so why ask? Stupidity or meanness?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't objectively analyze if God exists.  Your bias prevents you from even attempting.
> 
> There was nothing mean or stupid of my asking.  It is a fair question.  You seem like you pride yourself on being objective but if you can't even allow yourself to see the other side there is literally no way for you to be objective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you just can't answer a fucking simple question why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are hanging yourself and I am handing you the rope to do it.
Click to expand...

In your dreams evidently..


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you care about being good?
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't I? Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's important to you.  You wouldn't want to not be good.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dodging simple questions is apparently your idea of good. So being good is evidently not very important to you. Why is that? I already indicated that I was raised well. That's why I care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you were raised to believe owning slaves was good, you would have accepted that? You would have believed that that was good?
> 
> Or how about having sex with a 12 year old?  If you were raised to believe having sex with a 12 year old was good, you would have believed that was good?
> 
> What question did I dodge?  I told you what my perception of God was.  I couldn't have been more detailed in my belief and the basis for my belief.
> 
> Considering that you still haven't provided your description of your best possible perception of God, it is ironic that you are accusing me of dodging a question.  I've asked that question very clearly like three times now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> " Why wouldn't I? Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?"
> Duh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you were raised to believe owning slaves was good, you would have accepted that? You would have believed that that was good?
> 
> Or how about having sex with a 12 year old? If you were raised to believe having sex with a 12 year old was good, you would have believed that was good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You first, dopey.. Answer the fucking question!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I wouldn't.  Logic wouldn't allow it.  Being objective I would be able to see both sides.  I would be able to see how it affected others.  I would know that it was not good.  There is nothing subjective about truth.  Truth is based upon logic.  It is independent of man.
> 
> But your position seems to be that you would think it was good because to you good is what you were taught.  Right?
> 
> So let me ask again, why do you want to be good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting so I'll ask you once again, [given "Why wouldn't I" ( - be good having been "raised well")..]  "Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?"
Click to expand...

Because there was a time when people owned slaves and adult men had sex with minors.  According to you if you had been raised that way you would have thought that was good.

Tell me otherwise.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let's hear your best possible perception of God.
> 
> 
> 
> Being an atheist, I don't believe in gods. But you knew that already, so why ask? Stupidity or meanness?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it isn't possible for you to form a best possible perception of God?
Click to expand...

No perception period. Lacking belief in gods (being a self-identified atheist) should make it plain that I entertain no such self-delusions!


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let's hear your best possible perception of God.
> 
> 
> 
> Being an atheist, I don't believe in gods. But you knew that already, so why ask? Stupidity or meanness?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't objectively analyze if God exists.  Your bias prevents you from even attempting.
> 
> There was nothing mean or stupid of my asking.  It is a fair question.  You seem like you pride yourself on being objective but if you can't even allow yourself to see the other side there is literally no way for you to be objective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you just can't answer a fucking simple question why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are hanging yourself and I am handing you the rope to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In your dreams evidently..
Click to expand...

I have you admitting you would have thought owning slaves and having sex with kids was good if you had been raised that way.  And admitting that you can't be objective.  So it's in reality, not my dreams.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let's hear your best possible perception of God.
> 
> 
> 
> Being an atheist, I don't believe in gods. But you knew that already, so why ask? Stupidity or meanness?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it isn't possible for you to form a best possible perception of God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No perception period. Lacking belief in gods (being a self-identified atheist) should make it plain that I entertain no such self-delusions!
Click to expand...

So you can't be objective.


----------



## ding

I'm pretty sure I just proved that God exists.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you care about being good?
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't I? Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's important to you.  You wouldn't want to not be good.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dodging simple questions is apparently your idea of good. So being good is evidently not very important to you. Why is that? I already indicated that I was raised well. That's why I care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you were raised to believe owning slaves was good, you would have accepted that? You would have believed that that was good?
> 
> Or how about having sex with a 12 year old?  If you were raised to believe having sex with a 12 year old was good, you would have believed that was good?
> 
> What question did I dodge?  I told you what my perception of God was.  I couldn't have been more detailed in my belief and the basis for my belief.
> 
> Considering that you still haven't provided your description of your best possible perception of God, it is ironic that you are accusing me of dodging a question.  I've asked that question very clearly like three times now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> " Why wouldn't I? Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?"
> Duh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you were raised to believe owning slaves was good, you would have accepted that? You would have believed that that was good?
> 
> Or how about having sex with a 12 year old? If you were raised to believe having sex with a 12 year old was good, you would have believed that was good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You first, dopey.. Answer the fucking question!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  I wouldn't.  Logic wouldn't allow it.  Being objective I would be able to see both sides.  I would be able to see how it affected others.  I would know that it was not good.  There is nothing subjective about truth.  Truth is based upon logic.  It is independent of man.
> 
> But your position seems to be that you would think it was good because to you good is what you were taught.  Right?
> 
> So let me ask again, why do you want to be good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting so I'll ask you once again, [given "Why wouldn't I" ( - be good having been "raised well")..]  "Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?"
Click to expand...

How would they know what raising you well was?


----------



## ding

It is so important for Grumblenuts to be good and not believe in God that he can't reconcile good being independent of man.  He can't admit that good is based upon logic and is therefore independent what some men might teach.  That just because something was generally accepted by society as being good that didn't make it good in actuality because good was independent of what man wanted it to be.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> I did. Every single one.


Bullpucky.



ding said:


> You still haven't answered these questions though.
> 
> So if you were raised to believe owning slaves was good, you would have accepted that? You would have believed that that was good?
> 
> Or how about having sex with a 12 year old? If you were raised to believe having sex with a 12 year old was good, you would have believed that was good?


No, that doesn't fit with my experience of being "raised well." You mean if I weren't me? Then I suppose blue monkeys could suddenly fly out my ass like they appear to do from yours. Sure, what the fuck ever!


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did. Every single one.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullpucky.
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't answered these questions though.
> 
> So if you were raised to believe owning slaves was good, you would have accepted that? You would have believed that that was good?
> 
> Or how about having sex with a 12 year old? If you were raised to believe having sex with a 12 year old was good, you would have believed that was good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that doesn't fit with my experience of being "raised well." You mean if I weren't me? Then I suppose blue monkeys could suddenly fly out my ass like they appear to do from yours. Sure, what the fuck ever!
Click to expand...

Dude, you said you learned what good was from your parents and that if they taught you that it was good to own slaves and fuck minors then by God that's what good was.


----------



## ding

It is so important for Grumblenuts to be good that when presented with a dilemma of his own making he argues that he wouldn't have been taught that.

Of course he fails to recognize that that means that whoever taught him that must have used logic to inform their opinion thus proving my point that good is independent of man and is based on logic and reasoning.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did. Every single one.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullpucky.
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't answered these questions though.
> 
> So if you were raised to believe owning slaves was good, you would have accepted that? You would have believed that that was good?
> 
> Or how about having sex with a 12 year old? If you were raised to believe having sex with a 12 year old was good, you would have believed that was good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that doesn't fit with my experience of being "raised well." You mean if I weren't me? Then I suppose blue monkeys could suddenly fly out my ass like they appear to do from yours. Sure, what the fuck ever!
Click to expand...

So if you were taught that good was against the norm of what society thought was good, how did the people teaching you figure out what was good?


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting so I'll ask you once again, [given "Why wouldn't I" ( - be good having been "raised well")..]  "Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?"
> 
> 
> 
> Because there was a time when people owned slaves and adult men had sex with minors.  According to you if you had been raised that way you would have thought that was good.
> 
> Tell me otherwise.
Click to expand...

You (and I) were not of that time. You're just dodging or simply deluding yourself. 
Answer - the - fucking - question !


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting so I'll ask you once again, [given "Why wouldn't I" ( - be good having been "raised well")..]  "Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?"
> 
> 
> 
> Because there was a time when people owned slaves and adult men had sex with minors.  According to you if you had been raised that way you would have thought that was good.
> 
> Tell me otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You (and I) were not of that time. You're just dodging or simply deluding yourself.
> Answer - the - fucking - question !
Click to expand...

You could have been in the movie dodgeball the way you are dodging these questions. 

I think it is pretty sad that you would have accepted banging minors and owning slaves instead of saying you would have known using logic and reason that what people thought was good was really bad.

You want to be a good person, but a good person doesn't say that whatever they are taught that's all they know.  They know a hell of a lot more than that.  They have eyes.  They have ears. They have brains.  They can form their own opinions.

This is why militant atheists in general are pieces of shit.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting so I'll ask you once again, [given "Why wouldn't I" ( - be good having been "raised well")..]  "Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?"
> 
> 
> 
> Because there was a time when people owned slaves and adult men had sex with minors.  According to you if you had been raised that way you would have thought that was good.
> 
> Tell me otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You (and I) were not of that time. You're just dodging or simply deluding yourself.
> Answer - the - fucking - question !
Click to expand...

You wouldn't have been a good person because you can't be objective.  Is that the question you wanted answered, Mr. Dodgeball?


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did. Every single one.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullpucky.
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't answered these questions though.
> 
> So if you were raised to believe owning slaves was good, you would have accepted that? You would have believed that that was good?
> 
> Or how about having sex with a 12 year old? If you were raised to believe having sex with a 12 year old was good, you would have believed that was good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that doesn't fit with my experience of being "raised well." You mean if I weren't me? Then I suppose blue monkeys could suddenly fly out my ass like they appear to do from yours. Sure, what the fuck ever!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, you said you learned what good was from your parents and that if they taught you that it was good to own slaves and fuck minors then by God that's what good was.
Click to expand...

"Dude", what I really said is all still right there^. Evidently you were simply raised to blatantly lie and have gotten away with it far too long.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting so I'll ask you once again, [given "Why wouldn't I" ( - be good having been "raised well")..]  "Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?"
> 
> 
> 
> Because there was a time when people owned slaves and adult men had sex with minors.  According to you if you had been raised that way you would have thought that was good.
> 
> Tell me otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You (and I) were not of that time. You're just dodging or simply deluding yourself.
> Answer - the - fucking - question !
Click to expand...

If you were raised well that means the people raising you discovered good through logic and reason and not what they were taught.  Good is independent of man.  Prove otherwise.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> It is so important for Grumblenuts to be good that when presented with a dilemma of his own making he argues that he wouldn't have been taught that.
> 
> Of course he fails to recognize that that means that whoever taught him that must have used logic to inform their opinion thus proving my point that good is independent of man and is based on logic and reasoning.


It talks to itself and pats its own back periodically. One gets used to it eventually


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did. Every single one.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullpucky.
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't answered these questions though.
> 
> So if you were raised to believe owning slaves was good, you would have accepted that? You would have believed that that was good?
> 
> Or how about having sex with a 12 year old? If you were raised to believe having sex with a 12 year old was good, you would have believed that was good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that doesn't fit with my experience of being "raised well." You mean if I weren't me? Then I suppose blue monkeys could suddenly fly out my ass like they appear to do from yours. Sure, what the fuck ever!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, you said you learned what good was from your parents and that if they taught you that it was good to own slaves and fuck minors then by God that's what good was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Dude", what I really said is all still right there^. Evidently you were simply raised to blatantly lie and have gotten away with it far too long.
Click to expand...

You have no conscience and an undeserved ego.  Predictable surprises await.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting so I'll ask you once again, [given "Why wouldn't I" ( - be good having been "raised well")..]  "Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?"
> 
> 
> 
> Because there was a time when people owned slaves and adult men had sex with minors.  According to you if you had been raised that way you would have thought that was good.
> 
> Tell me otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You (and I) were not of that time. You're just dodging or simply deluding yourself.
> Answer - the - fucking - question !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you were raised well that means the people raising you discovered good through logic and reason and not what they were taught.  Good is independent of man.  Prove otherwise.
Click to expand...

No, it means they were influenced and informed by both (hopefully). Mental illness being more prevalent than most like to think.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is so important for Grumblenuts to be good that when presented with a dilemma of his own making he argues that he wouldn't have been taught that.
> 
> Of course he fails to recognize that that means that whoever taught him that must have used logic to inform their opinion thus proving my point that good is independent of man and is based on logic and reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> It talks to itself and pats its own back periodically. One gets used to it eventually
Click to expand...

Great rebuttal.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting so I'll ask you once again, [given "Why wouldn't I" ( - be good having been "raised well")..]  "Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?"
> 
> 
> 
> Because there was a time when people owned slaves and adult men had sex with minors.  According to you if you had been raised that way you would have thought that was good.
> 
> Tell me otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You (and I) were not of that time. You're just dodging or simply deluding yourself.
> Answer - the - fucking - question !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you were raised well that means the people raising you discovered good through logic and reason and not what they were taught.  Good is independent of man.  Prove otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it means they were influenced and informed by both (hopefully). Mental illness being more prevalent than most like to think.
Click to expand...

Too late.  You lost.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> You have no conscience and an undeserved ego. Predictable surprises await.





Grumblenuts said:


> It talks to itself and pats its own back periodically. One gets used to it eventually


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting so I'll ask you once again, [given "Why wouldn't I" ( - be good having been "raised well")..]  "Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?"
> 
> 
> 
> Because there was a time when people owned slaves and adult men had sex with minors.  According to you if you had been raised that way you would have thought that was good.
> 
> Tell me otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You (and I) were not of that time. You're just dodging or simply deluding yourself.
> Answer - the - fucking - question !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you were raised well that means the people raising you discovered good through logic and reason and not what they were taught.  Good is independent of man.  Prove otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it means they were influenced and informed by both (hopefully). Mental illness being more prevalent than most like to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too late.  You lost.
Click to expand...

Ah, taking your ball and going home again?
BUBBYE!


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting so I'll ask you once again, [given "Why wouldn't I" ( - be good having been "raised well")..]  "Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?"
> 
> 
> 
> Because there was a time when people owned slaves and adult men had sex with minors.  According to you if you had been raised that way you would have thought that was good.
> 
> Tell me otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You (and I) were not of that time. You're just dodging or simply deluding yourself.
> Answer - the - fucking - question !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you were raised well that means the people raising you discovered good through logic and reason and not what they were taught.  Good is independent of man.  Prove otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it means they were influenced and informed by both (hopefully). Mental illness being more prevalent than most like to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too late.  You lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, taking your ball and going home again?
> BUBBYE!
Click to expand...

Game's over.  I won.


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> Game's over.  I won.


*You never won anything
You have NO evidence for a god and never even mention your Fake one.
That's how laughable it/he is.

You just Drool up long and short philosophical BS, never Hard EVIDENCE.*

`
`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Game's over.  I won.
> 
> 
> 
> *You never won anything
> You have NO evidence for a god and never even mention your Fake one.
> That's how laughable it/he is.
> 
> You just Drool up long and short philosophical BS, never Hard EVIDENCE.*
> 
> `
> `
Click to expand...

By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works. The physical laws of nature, the biological laws of nature, the moral laws of nature and everything which has unfolded according to those laws since space and time were created from nothing popped into existence ~14 billion years ago say there is evidence of God's existence.

But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation. God, who creates and conserves all things by his Word, provides men with constant evidence of himself in created realities. Wishing to open up the way to heavenly salvation - he manifested himself from the very beginning. This revelation was not broken off by the fall. God buoyed hope of salvation by promising redemption. He has never ceased to show his solicitude for the human race. For he wishes to give eternal life to all those who seek salvation by patience in well-doing.


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Game's over.  I won.
> 
> 
> 
> *You never won anything
> You have NO evidence for a god and never even mention your Fake one.
> That's how laughable it/he is.
> 
> You just Drool up long and short philosophical BS, never Hard EVIDENCE.*
> 
> `
> `
Click to expand...

Why is it important to you to do good and to be good?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> And you have not presented any evolutionist who has ever addressed this issue.


What issue? Re-state it. You are all over the place. Be succinct, and precise with your language.


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works. The physical laws of nature, the biological laws of nature, the moral laws of nature and everything which has unfolded according to those laws since space and time were created from nothing popped into existence ~14 billion years ago say there is evidence of God's existence.
> 
> But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation. God, who creates and conserves all things by his Word, provides men with constant evidence of himself in created realities. Wishing to open up the way to heavenly salvation - he manifested himself from the very beginning. This revelation was not broken off by the fall. God buoyed hope of salvation by promising redemption. He has never ceased to show his solicitude for the human race. For he wishes to give eternal life to all those who seek salvation by patience in well-doing.


*Drooling Brain Damaged Garbage..
The Universe is a MESS. Stars exploding , Galaxies colliding (as we Will with Andromeda.)

99.9999999999999999999999999% of the universe uninhabitable by man, his ostensible ultimate Kweation. 
Many creatures like us full of anatomical Vestiges of our Evolutionary forerunners. (Wisdom Teeth, Appendix, Coccyx, etc)

Your a brainwashed Mental Defective whose been hopelessly indoctrinated.*


`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works. The physical laws of nature, the biological laws of nature, the moral laws of nature and everything which has unfolded according to those laws since space and time were created from nothing popped into existence ~14 billion years ago say there is evidence of God's existence.
> 
> But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation. God, who creates and conserves all things by his Word, provides men with constant evidence of himself in created realities. Wishing to open up the way to heavenly salvation - he manifested himself from the very beginning. This revelation was not broken off by the fall. God buoyed hope of salvation by promising redemption. He has never ceased to show his solicitude for the human race. For he wishes to give eternal life to all those who seek salvation by patience in well-doing.
> 
> 
> 
> *Drooling Brain Damaged Garbage..
> The Universe is a MESS. Stars exploding , Galaxies colliding (as we Will with Andromeda.)
> 
> 99.9999999999999999999999999% of the universe uninhabitable by man, his ostensible ultimate Kweation.
> Many creatures like us full of anatomical Vestiges of our Evolutionary forerunners. (Wisdom Teeth, Appendix, Coccyx, etc)
> 
> Your a brainwashed Mental Defective whose been hopelessly indoctrinated.*
> 
> 
> `
Click to expand...

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere


A tautology. Yes, if the laws were different, our universe would be different. This is not an argument for fine tuning of the universe. We are fined tuned to the universe we happened to evolve in 13 billion years after it came into existence, not the other way around.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere
> 
> 
> 
> A tautology. Yes, if the laws were different, our universe would be different. This is not an argument for fine tuning of the universe. We are fined tuned to the universe we happened to evolve in 13 billion years after it came into existence, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to exist existed before space and time were created because the laws of nature existed before space and time.

Due to the symmetry of particles and anti-particles, the universe should have been created with equal amounts of particles and anti-particles through the quantum tunneling event which led to the creation of space and time and left a universe filled only with radiation.

Instead for every 1,000,000,000 anti particles there existed 1,000,000,001 particles.   So that when all the mutual annihilation had happened, there remained over that one particle per billion, and that now constitutes all the matter in the universe -- all the galaxies, the stars and planets, and of course all life.

That's some mighty fine tuning.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere
> 
> 
> 
> A tautology. Yes, if the laws were different, our universe would be different. This is not an argument for fine tuning of the universe. We are fined tuned to the universe we happened to evolve in 13 billion years after it came into existence, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to exist existed before space and time were created because the laws of nature existed before space and time.

Both protons and neutrons have masses almost two thousand times the mass of an electron 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.

That's some mighty fine tuning.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere
> 
> 
> 
> A tautology. Yes, if the laws were different, our universe would be different. This is not an argument for fine tuning of the universe. We are fined tuned to the universe we happened to evolve in 13 billion years after it came into existence, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to exist existed before space and time were created because the laws of nature existed before space and time. 

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? 

Any difference at all in electric charge would be enough to make all the matter in the universe charged; plus or minus. Since like charges repel one another, all the matter in the universe would repel all the other matter and overwhelm the forces of gravitation that bring matter together. There would be no stars, no galaxies -- and of course no life.

That's some mighty fine tuning.


----------



## ding

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. 

That's some mighty fine tuning.


----------



## ding

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).  These 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. 

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. 

The structure of matter is hardwired to produce life.  That's some mighty fine tuning.


----------



## Grumblenuts

That's a lot of very crude circular reasoning amounting to bupkis.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> That's a lot of very crude circular reasoning amounting to bupkis.


How so?


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> That's a lot of very crude circular reasoning amounting to bupkis.


Speaking of circular reasoning I am reminded of yours.

Do you believe it is wrong to buy and sell people?  And is that just a personal opinion or is there a logical reason for that belief?


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> That's a lot of very crude circular reasoning amounting to bupkis.


And you can reply directly to my posts.  You don't have to be afraid of me.  I don't bite.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lot of very crude circular reasoning amounting to bupkis.
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
Click to expand...

For example:


ding said:


> But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation. God, who creates and conserves all things by his Word, provides men with constant evidence of himself in created realities. Wishing to open up the way to heavenly salvation - he manifested himself from the very beginning. This revelation was not broken off by the fall. God buoyed hope of salvation by promising redemption. He has never ceased to show his solicitude for the human race. For he wishes to give eternal life to all those who seek salvation by patience in well-doing.


If your god really wanted "man" to appreciate his alleged presence, plans, and good will toward us.. he sure chose incredibly roundabout and risky ways of doing it. Nothing apparent stopping him from dropping by to give us weekly updates on his doings, how he feels regarding this COVID-19 pandemic, and so forth. But, y'know, everyone's entitled to their delusions. You wanna spend the balance of your short existence here making up excuses and hoping not to just be worm food when you die, be my guest. I think I've got better things to do.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lot of very crude circular reasoning amounting to bupkis.
> 
> 
> 
> And you can reply directly to my posts.  You don't have to be afraid of me.  I don't bite.
Click to expand...

I know. But you'll soon just take your ball and go home again. Chicken.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lot of very crude circular reasoning amounting to bupkis.
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For example:
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation. God, who creates and conserves all things by his Word, provides men with constant evidence of himself in created realities. Wishing to open up the way to heavenly salvation - he manifested himself from the very beginning. This revelation was not broken off by the fall. God buoyed hope of salvation by promising redemption. He has never ceased to show his solicitude for the human race. For he wishes to give eternal life to all those who seek salvation by patience in well-doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your god really wanted "man" to appreciate his alleged presence, plans, and good will toward us.. he sure chose incredibly roundabout and risky ways of doing it. Nothing apparent stopping him from dropping by to give us weekly updates on his doings, how he feels regarding this COVID-19 pandemic, and so forth. But, y'know, everyone's entitled to their delusions. You wanna spend the balance of your short existence here making up excuses and hoping not to just be worm food when you die, be my guest. I think I've got better things to do.
Click to expand...

That's not an explanation of circular logic, Einstein.  Please try again.  

That's just you thinking you know better what God should and shouldn't do.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lot of very crude circular reasoning amounting to bupkis.
> 
> 
> 
> And you can reply directly to my posts.  You don't have to be afraid of me.  I don't bite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know. But you'll soon just take your ball and go home again. Chicken.
Click to expand...

That hasn't been the case in the past.   Do you believe it is wrong to buy and sell people? And is that just a personal opinion or is there a logical reason for that belief?


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lot of very crude circular reasoning amounting to bupkis.
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For example:
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation. God, who creates and conserves all things by his Word, provides men with constant evidence of himself in created realities. Wishing to open up the way to heavenly salvation - he manifested himself from the very beginning. This revelation was not broken off by the fall. God buoyed hope of salvation by promising redemption. He has never ceased to show his solicitude for the human race. For he wishes to give eternal life to all those who seek salvation by patience in well-doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your god really wanted "man" to appreciate his alleged presence, plans, and good will toward us.. he sure chose incredibly roundabout and risky ways of doing it. Nothing apparent stopping him from dropping by to give us weekly updates on his doings, how he feels regarding this COVID-19 pandemic, and so forth. But, y'know, everyone's entitled to their delusions. You wanna spend the balance of your short existence here making up excuses and hoping not to just be worm food when you die, be my guest. I think I've got better things to do.
Click to expand...

An example of circular logic is like when you said right and wrong was determined by what you were taught and when I pointed out that people had been taught that it was OK for men to have sex with children and if you had been taught that you would have believed it was right for men to have sex with children you argued you would have been taught better.  That's circular logic, dummy.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> you argued you would have been taught better.  That's circular logic, dummy.


No, that's just you lying to yourself again, dummy.


----------



## ding

ding said:


> An example of circular logic is like when you said right and wrong was determined by what you were taught and when I pointed out that people had been taught that it was OK for men to have sex with children and if you had been taught that you would have believed it was right for men to have sex with children you argued you would have been taught better. That's circular logic, dummy.





Grumblenuts said:


> No, that's just you lying to yourself again, dummy.


Seems like you are the one who is lying to  himself.  You believe right is what gets taught instead of being based upon logical reasons.  You will lose this argument every time. 

What did I lie about exactly?  That you believe right is what gets taught?


----------



## ding

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create. 



If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to exist existed before space and time were created because the laws of nature existed before space and time.

Due to the symmetry of particles and anti-particles, the universe should have been created with equal amounts of particles and anti-particles through the quantum tunneling event which led to the creation of space and time and left a universe filled only with radiation.

Instead for every 1,000,000,000 anti particles there existed 1,000,000,001 particles. So that when all the mutual annihilation had happened, there remained over that one particle per billion, and that now constitutes all the matter in the universe -- all the galaxies, the stars and planets, and of course all life.

That's some mighty fine tuning. 



If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to exist existed before space and time were created because the laws of nature existed before space and time.

Both protons and neutrons have masses almost two thousand times the mass of an electron 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.

That's some mighty fine tuning. 



If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to exist existed before space and time were created because the laws of nature existed before space and time.

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?

Any difference at all in electric charge would be enough to make all the matter in the universe charged; plus or minus. Since like charges repel one another, all the matter in the universe would repel all the other matter and overwhelm the forces of gravitation that bring matter together. There would be no stars, no galaxies -- and of course no life.

That's some mighty fine tuning. 



If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to exist existed before space and time were created because the laws of nature existed before space and time. 

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). These 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.

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.

The structure of matter is hardwired to produce life. That's some mighty fine tuning.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> An example of circular logic is like when you said right and wrong was determined by what you were taught and when I pointed out that people had been taught that it was OK for men to have sex with children and if you had been taught that you would have believed it was right for men to have sex with children you argued you would have been taught better. That's circular logic, dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's just you lying to yourself again, dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems like you are the one who is lying to  himself.  You believe right is what gets taught instead of being based upon logical reasons.  You will lose this argument every time.
> 
> What did I lie about exactly?  That you believe right is what gets taught?
Click to expand...

Again, "_{...}_ you argued you would have been taught better." That's you lying. Dummy.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> An example of circular logic is like when you said right and wrong was determined by what you were taught and when I pointed out that people had been taught that it was OK for men to have sex with children and if you had been taught that you would have believed it was right for men to have sex with children you argued you would have been taught better. That's circular logic, dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's just you lying to yourself again, dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems like you are the one who is lying to  himself.  You believe right is what gets taught instead of being based upon logical reasons.  You will lose this argument every time.
> 
> What did I lie about exactly?  That you believe right is what gets taught?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, "_{...}_ you argued you would have been taught better." That's you lying. Dummy.
Click to expand...

Then I guess you would have believed it was right for men  to have sex with kids if that's what you had been taught.

Whereas I would have used reason and logic to know better.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> when you said right and wrong was determined by what you were taught


That's not what I said either.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> An example of circular logic is like when you said right and wrong was determined by what you were taught and when I pointed out that people had been taught that it was OK for men to have sex with children and if you had been taught that you would have believed it was right for men to have sex with children you argued you would have been taught better. That's circular logic, dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's just you lying to yourself again, dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems like you are the one who is lying to  himself.  You believe right is what gets taught instead of being based upon logical reasons.  You will lose this argument every time.
> 
> What did I lie about exactly?  That you believe right is what gets taught?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, "_{...}_ you argued you would have been taught better." That's you lying. Dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then I guess you would have believed it was right for men  to have sex with kids if that's what you had been taught.
> 
> Whereas I would have used reason and logic to know better.
Click to expand...

Said the oblivious dancing fool.. continuing to fool only himself..


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> when you said right and wrong was determined by what you were taught
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said either.
Click to expand...

Sure it is.  Because you believe there is no such thing as a universal good independent of man.  You believe in moral relativity.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> An example of circular logic is like when you said right and wrong was determined by what you were taught and when I pointed out that people had been taught that it was OK for men to have sex with children and if you had been taught that you would have believed it was right for men to have sex with children you argued you would have been taught better. That's circular logic, dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's just you lying to yourself again, dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems like you are the one who is lying to  himself.  You believe right is what gets taught instead of being based upon logical reasons.  You will lose this argument every time.
> 
> What did I lie about exactly?  That you believe right is what gets taught?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, "_{...}_ you argued you would have been taught better." That's you lying. Dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then I guess you would have believed it was right for men  to have sex with kids if that's what you had been taught.
> 
> Whereas I would have used reason and logic to know better.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Said the oblivious dancing fool.. continuing to fool only himself..
Click to expand...

You shit your pants every time you see an alert from me.


----------



## ding




----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> when you said right and wrong was determined by what you were taught
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said either.
Click to expand...

If you need to work out what is good because you had bad teachers, let me know and I'll show you how to work through it using logic and reason.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> when you said right and wrong was determined by what you were taught
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is.  Because you believe there is no such thing as a universal good independent of man.  You believe in moral relativity.
Click to expand...

Well, if I said it then it stands to reason that you'd simply quote me doing so by now.. but just keep making an ass of yourself here instead


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> when you said right and wrong was determined by what you were taught
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you need to work out what is good because you had bad teachers, let me know and I'll show you how to work through it using logic and reason.
Click to expand...

Why, because you can't rely upon your gods to help with that anymore?


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> when you said right and wrong was determined by what you were taught
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is.  Because you believe there is no such thing as a universal good independent of man.  You believe in moral relativity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if I said it then it stands to reason that you'd simply quote me doing so by now.. but just keep making an ass of yourself here instead
Click to expand...

Feel free to state what you believe.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> when you said right and wrong was determined by what you were taught
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you need to work out what is good because you had bad teachers, let me know and I'll show you how to work through it using logic and reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why, because you can't rely upon your gods to help with that anymore?
Click to expand...

God is logic, dummy.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> when you said right and wrong was determined by what you were taught
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is.  Because you believe there is no such thing as a universal good independent of man.  You believe in moral relativity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if I said it then it stands to reason that you'd simply quote me doing so by now.. but just keep making an ass of yourself here instead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free to state what you believe.
Click to expand...

I believe it ain't anywhere near the rocket science you and many religionists seem to think it is. We are born with some sense of right and wrong which is then influenced, for better or worse, by our interactions with others or lack thereof.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> when you said right and wrong was determined by what you were taught
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is.  Because you believe there is no such thing as a universal good independent of man.  You believe in moral relativity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if I said it then it stands to reason that you'd simply quote me doing so by now.. but just keep making an ass of yourself here instead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free to state what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe it ain't anywhere near the rocket science you and many religionists seem to think it is. We are born with some sense of right and wrong which is then influenced, for better or worse, by our interactions with others or lack thereof.
Click to expand...

So you believe it is discovered.  That's right.  It is discovered. 

#winning


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> God is logic, dummy.


You wish and thereby make it so.. Presto!


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> *We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe Permeated with life, in which life Arises Inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible.* Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.


*So you AGREE with the Slimy pond!
In fact, and according to you, life is plentiful because of the mere elements and conditions.
There is no evidence however linking that to any divinity.*

What a spectacular Moron you are.
Alert you allies.
`


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> when you said right and wrong was determined by what you were taught
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is.  Because you believe there is no such thing as a universal good independent of man.  You believe in moral relativity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if I said it then it stands to reason that you'd simply quote me doing so by now.. but just keep making an ass of yourself here instead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free to state what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe it ain't anywhere near the rocket science you and many religionists seem to think it is. We are born with some sense of right and wrong which is then influenced, for better or worse, by our interactions with others or lack thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you believe it is discovered.  That's right.  It is discovered.
> 
> #winning
Click to expand...

I believe you must be illiterate.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is logic, dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> You wish and thereby make it so.. Presto!
Click to expand...

It's in keeping with ancient man's understanding of God.  This isn't a new thought.

I can tell it disturbs you though.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> when you said right and wrong was determined by what you were taught
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is.  Because you believe there is no such thing as a universal good independent of man.  You believe in moral relativity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if I said it then it stands to reason that you'd simply quote me doing so by now.. but just keep making an ass of yourself here instead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free to state what you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe it ain't anywhere near the rocket science you and many religionists seem to think it is. We are born with some sense of right and wrong which is then influenced, for better or worse, by our interactions with others or lack thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you believe it is discovered.  That's right.  It is discovered.
> 
> #winning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe you must be illiterate.
Click to expand...

If I believed false things like you I'd be evasive too.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is logic, dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> You wish and thereby make it so.. Presto!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's in keeping with ancient man's understanding of God.  This isn't a new thought.
> 
> I can tell it disturbs you though.
Click to expand...

It does somewhat because they had an excuse. You no longer do.


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe Permeated with life, in which life Arises Inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible.* Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.
> 
> 
> 
> So you AGREE with the Slimy pond!
> In fact, and according to you, life is plentiful because of the mere elements and condition.
> There is no evidence however linking that to any divinity
> 
> What a spectacular Moron you are.
> Alert you allies.
> `
Click to expand...

Belief in a creator and evolution are not mutually exclusive.... 


















...for the 4th time.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is logic, dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> You wish and thereby make it so.. Presto!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's in keeping with ancient man's understanding of God.  This isn't a new thought.
> 
> I can tell it disturbs you though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does somewhat because they had an excuse. You no longer do.
Click to expand...

You have never made a serious attempt at trying to see a best possible perception of God.

If you had you would understand that God is not a noun but a verb.


----------



## esalla

abu afak said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe Permeated with life, in which life Arises Inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible.* Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.
> 
> 
> 
> *So you AGREE with the Slimy pond!
> In fact, and according to you, life is plentiful because of the mere elements and conditions.
> There is no evidence however linking that to any divinity.*
> 
> What a spectacular Moron you are.
> Alert you allies.
> `
Click to expand...

The genetic code is evidence of God as codes that rearrange matter do do things not in accordance with deposition of that matter according to atomic weight require a material rearrangement not according to physical laws.  So life creating itself is an unscientific parable


----------



## abu afak

> Belief in a creator and evolution are not mutually exclusive....
> ...for the 4th time.


But you believe god created the ''perfect" ratio of elements!
Whatever the **** that means!
Which is BASELESS and irrelevant, because many are fairly useless.
*Again, it's the classic"GodDidIt"/"God of the Gaps" FALLACY with NO evidence/proof.
ZERO.*

You are stupendously Stupid and post withOUT reason, just wishful thinking/Faith.
`


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> Belief in a creator and evolution are not mutually exclusive....
> ...for the 4th time.
> 
> 
> 
> But you believe god created the ''perfect" ratio of elements!
> Whatever the **** that means!
> Which is BASELESS and irrelevant, because many are fairly useless.
> *Again, it's the classic"GodDidIt"/"God of the Gaps" FALLACY with NO evidence/proof.
> ZERO.*
> 
> You are stupendously Stupid and post withOUT reason.
> `
Click to expand...

Intelligence is built into the fabric of the natural laws that's how He did it.  This is what it looks like when consciousness without form wills the material world into existence.  

You think this was an accident?  No.  It was hardwired into the fabric of existence.


----------



## 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.


----------



## ding

The universe is an intelligence creating machine because it was created by infinite intelligence.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> You have never made a serious attempt at trying to see a best possible perception of God.
> 
> If you had you would understand that God is not a noun but a verb.


Makes sense since I'm an atheist and if "God is not a noun but a verb" then please supply some sentences using "God" (a proper noun obviously) as a verb.. for my entertainment alone


----------



## ding

How does an intelligence creating machine create intelligence?

1. Cosmic evolution
2. Stellar evolution
3. Chemical evolution
4. Biological evolution
5. The evolution of consciousness


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have never made a serious attempt at trying to see a best possible perception of God.
> 
> If you had you would understand that God is not a noun but a verb.
> 
> 
> 
> Makes sense since I'm an atheist and if "God is not a noun but a verb" then please supply some sentences using "God" (a proper noun obviously) as a verb.. for my entertainment alone
Click to expand...

God is love.  God is truth.  God is logic.  God is intelligence. God is consciousness. God is reality.  God is existence.


----------



## ding

Ancient man understood:

1. That God is the creator of existence
2. The unity of God
3. The incorporeality of God


----------



## Grumblenuts

esalla said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe Permeated with life, in which life Arises Inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible.* Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.
> 
> 
> 
> *So you AGREE with the Slimy pond!
> In fact, and according to you, life is plentiful because of the mere elements and conditions.
> There is no evidence however linking that to any divinity.*
> 
> What a spectacular Moron you are.
> Alert you allies.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The genetic code is evidence of God as codes that rearrange matter do do things not in accordance with deposition of that matter according to atomic weight require a material rearrangement not according to physical laws.  So life creating itself is an unscientific parable
Click to expand...

Neither would matter's crystallization into different types of rock by that logic.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have never made a serious attempt at trying to see a best possible perception of God.
> 
> If you had you would understand that God is not a noun but a verb.
> 
> 
> 
> Makes sense since I'm an atheist and if "God is not a noun but a verb" then please supply some sentences using "God" (a proper noun obviously) as a verb.. for my entertainment alone
Click to expand...

You couldn't figure any of this out on your own because you have never seriously tried to perceive God.  You perceived God to be some magical fairy tale and everything you saw was skewed to that result.

There's not one single thing you did that could be considered an attempt  to perceive God in a positive light. Whereas if you  had been trying to objectively analyze the evidence for God creating the material world you would have had a balanced analysis.

So you don't understand that is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. You don't understand that God can't be matter and energy like us.  So you can't possibly understand that God is more like a verb than a noun.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have never made a serious attempt at trying to see a best possible perception of God.
> 
> If you had you would understand that God is not a noun but a verb.
> 
> 
> 
> Makes sense since I'm an atheist and if "God is not a noun but a verb" then please supply some sentences using "God" (a proper noun obviously) as a verb.. for my entertainment alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is love.  God is truth.  God is logic.  God is intelligence. God is consciousness. God is reality.  God is existence.
Click to expand...

All nouns. The only verb there being "is", dummy.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe Permeated with life, in which life Arises Inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible.* Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.
> 
> 
> 
> *So you AGREE with the Slimy pond!
> In fact, and according to you, life is plentiful because of the mere elements and conditions.
> There is no evidence however linking that to any divinity.*
> 
> What a spectacular Moron you are.
> Alert you allies.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The genetic code is evidence of God as codes that rearrange matter do do things not in accordance with deposition of that matter according to atomic weight require a material rearrangement not according to physical laws.  So life creating itself is an unscientific parable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither would matter's crystallization into different types of rock by that logic.
Click to expand...

Wrong.  Show me the code for that? 

You want to see the code for life?  It's called DNA.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have never made a serious attempt at trying to see a best possible perception of God.
> 
> If you had you would understand that God is not a noun but a verb.
> 
> 
> 
> Makes sense since I'm an atheist and if "God is not a noun but a verb" then please supply some sentences using "God" (a proper noun obviously) as a verb.. for my entertainment alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is love.  God is truth.  God is logic.  God is intelligence. God is consciousness. God is reality.  God is existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All nouns. The only verb there being "is", dummy.
Click to expand...

Which are incorporeal, dummy.

aaaa haaaa!


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe Permeated with life, in which life Arises Inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible.* Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.
> 
> 
> 
> *So you AGREE with the Slimy pond!
> In fact, and according to you, life is plentiful because of the mere elements and conditions.
> There is no evidence however linking that to any divinity.*
> 
> What a spectacular Moron you are.
> Alert you allies.
> `
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The genetic code is evidence of God as codes that rearrange matter do do things not in accordance with deposition of that matter according to atomic weight require a material rearrangement not according to physical laws.  So life creating itself is an unscientific parable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither would matter's crystallization into different types of rock by that logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  Show me the code for that?
> 
> You want to see the code for life?  It's called DNA.
Click to expand...

Yep, definitely illiterate!


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have never made a serious attempt at trying to see a best possible perception of God.
> 
> If you had you would understand that God is not a noun but a verb.
> 
> 
> 
> Makes sense since I'm an atheist and if "God is not a noun but a verb" then please supply some sentences using "God" (a proper noun obviously) as a verb.. for my entertainment alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is love.  God is truth.  God is logic.  God is intelligence. God is consciousness. God is reality.  God is existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All nouns. The only verb there being "is", dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which are incorporeal, dummy.
> 
> aaaa haaaa!
Click to expand...

And still not verbs, idjit.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Time to grab your ball and make like a tree again..


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have never made a serious attempt at trying to see a best possible perception of God.
> 
> If you had you would understand that God is not a noun but a verb.
> 
> 
> 
> Makes sense since I'm an atheist and if "God is not a noun but a verb" then please supply some sentences using "God" (a proper noun obviously) as a verb.. for my entertainment alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is love.  God is truth.  God is logic.  God is intelligence. God is consciousness. God is reality.  God is existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All nouns. The only verb there being "is", dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which are incorporeal, dummy.
> 
> aaaa haaaa!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And still not verbs, idjit.
Click to expand...

The idiot is the one who let's society define right and wrong instead of logic.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> Time to grab your ball and make like a tree again..


It's good that you wore brown pants today.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> The idiot is the one who let's society define right and wrong instead of logic.


Sounds as though you really don't like being the idiot. Then stop concocting such non sequitur assertions. No one's suggested anything like that false dichotomy but you.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idiot is the one who let's society define right and wrong instead of logic.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds as though you really don't like being the idiot. Then stop concocting such non sequitur assertions. No one's suggested anything like that false dichotomy but you.
Click to expand...

That's moral relativity gets you.  Deal with it.


----------



## LittleNipper

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This part 3 regarding the Evolutionist and his misconceptions: 15 Answers to Evolutionist Misconceptions (Part 3) | Biblical Science Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religionists have a problem with retreating to magic and supernaturalism as answers to contingent reality because magic and supernaturalism don’t actually address the questions.
> 
> Religionists such as Lisle who are associated with charlatans at AIG would do well to offer something more than “.... it’s supernatural”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you explain the starlight problem when you believe in a 6-day creation 6000 years ago? Lisle’s solution is simple: “creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically.” So the inerrancy of the Bible is actually an axiom. He even published a paper in AiG’s “Answers Research Journal” claiming to have a more sophisticated solution and emphasizing that critics should have an open mind. The argument in the paper is: “The Bible must be true. Genesis says the stars were created simultaneously, on Day Four, 6000 years ago. This conflicts with relativity. Therefore relativity is wrong. Therefore The Bible must be true.” Even the dimmest student would spot the problem here, but Lisle proudly points out that “So far, no one has published in a peer-reviewed journal any criticism of this model.” [hat tip Rationalwiki]. It’s all like the weirdest sort of Alex Jones conspiracy, really – anything is taken to confirm the preheld view, even when it’s evidence against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because Erev does not mean Evening and Boker does not mean Morning.
> Erev is an unresolved Mixture and Boker is Clarity.
> There was also no sun until the 4th day so no one knows how long the 3 cycles of Mixture and Clarity were.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I missed this. You may also wish to consider the following perspective: Evening and Morning (Genesis 1) – Deeper Christian


----------



## Grumblenuts

^


> What is fascinating about the words “evening” and “morning” is that they convey more than mere times of the day.
> 
> *Evening*
> The word in Hebrew for “evening” is _erev (_or_ ereb)_.  It does mean darkness, dusk, evening, and sunset, but it came out of the understanding of obscurity, mixture, chaos, increasing entropy.
> 
> When the day approaches evening, things increasingly get obscured, it becomes hard to see, darkness (chaos) encroaches, and there is seeming movement toward disorder (entropy). The word came to mean “evening” because of this.
> 
> *Morning*
> The morning is the opposite of evening. Sunlight pierces the darkness and things become discernible.  Entropy decreases, visibility is restored, and a seeming order ensues. This is why the Hebrew word _boker (_or_ boqer)_ came to mean “morning.”


Fascinating indeed that

Erev does, in fact, mean Evening - the direct opposite of Indeependent's claim
Boker does, in fact, mean Morning - the direct opposite of Indeependent's claim
Just never you mind there being no "Sun, Moon, & Stars" until "the fourth day"
How "obscure" is used to obscure the _No light so how could anyone tell?_ question
Indeed, no light > "hard to see" | light > "things become discernible" > "visibility is restored"
"entropy" is depicted and employed opposite to its actual meaning 
In reality, "Sunlight" produces warmth > greater "entropy," "chaos," "mixture," less "order"


----------



## Grumblenuts

In addition to getting entropy completely backwards, as in the example provided by LittleNipper above, esalla and ding have been getting it wrong as well, arguing that "life" and "DNA"("code") reduce entropy. That is true only in a sense and within closed systems which don't actually exist. In reality, all systems are open. One must account for the energy being provided by the environment which is always greater than any return from local increases in order. That is true even from their classic "closed universe" thermodynamic perspective. No perpetual motion machinery allowed.

Life is truly in the struggle and that struggle mostly boils down to combating entropy. _Life is entropy. Only increasingly so with age. _Embrace it. Engage it. Don't waste your life believing and preaching a bunch of happy nonsense just because life is hard and ends in rot. It is. It does. So what? Put on your big boy/gal pants and start dealing with it at face value. All we've really got is each other. Safety in numbers. Two heads better than one. Sharing. Empathy. Trust. Working together rather than fomenting false division and war. Increasing overall happiness always being our task.


----------



## Hollie

Grumblenuts said:


> In addition to getting entropy completely backwards, as in the example provided by LittleNipper above, esalla and ding have been getting it wrong as well, arguing that "life" and "DNA"("code") reduce entropy. That is true only in a sense and within closed systems which don't actually exist. In reality, all systems are open. One must account for the energy being provided by the environment which is always greater than any return from local increases in order. That is true even from their classic "closed universe" thermodynamic perspective. No perpetual motion machinery allowed.
> 
> Life is truly in the struggle and that struggle mostly boils down to combating entropy. _Life is entropy. Only increasingly so with age. _Embrace it. Engage it. Don't waste your life believing and preaching a bunch of happy nonsense just because life is hard and ends in rot. It is. It does. So what? Put on your big boy/gal pants and start dealing with it at face value. All we've really got is each other. Safety in numbers. Two heads better than one. Sharing. Empathy. Trust. Working together rather than fomenting false division and war. Increasing overall happiness always being our task.



“Sharing. Empathy. Trust.”

How dare you!

Burn in Hell sinner.

Ok. Wait for the verse to come around...
_Jesus loves me, this I know
For the Bible tells me so
Little ones to Him belong
They are weak, but He is strong_


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> In addition to getting entropy completely backwards, as in the example provided by LittleNipper above, esalla and ding have been getting it wrong as well, arguing that "life" and "DNA"("code") reduce entropy. That is true only in a sense and within closed systems which don't actually exist. In reality, all systems are open. One must account for the energy being provided by the environment which is always greater than any return from local increases in order. That is true even from their classic "closed universe" thermodynamic perspective. No perpetual motion machinery allowed.
> 
> Life is truly in the struggle and that struggle mostly boils down to combating entropy. _Life is entropy. Only increasingly so with age. _Embrace it. Engage it. Don't waste your life believing and preaching a bunch of happy nonsense just because life is hard and ends in rot. It is. It does. So what? Put on your big boy/gal pants and start dealing with it at face value. All we've really got is each other. Safety in numbers. Two heads better than one. Sharing. Empathy. Trust. Working together rather than fomenting false division and war. Increasing overall happiness always being our task.


No.  I don't argue that, dummy.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.


----------



## ding

Hollie said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to getting entropy completely backwards, as in the example provided by LittleNipper above, esalla and ding have been getting it wrong as well, arguing that "life" and "DNA"("code") reduce entropy. That is true only in a sense and within closed systems which don't actually exist. In reality, all systems are open. One must account for the energy being provided by the environment which is always greater than any return from local increases in order. That is true even from their classic "closed universe" thermodynamic perspective. No perpetual motion machinery allowed.
> 
> Life is truly in the struggle and that struggle mostly boils down to combating entropy. _Life is entropy. Only increasingly so with age. _Embrace it. Engage it. Don't waste your life believing and preaching a bunch of happy nonsense just because life is hard and ends in rot. It is. It does. So what? Put on your big boy/gal pants and start dealing with it at face value. All we've really got is each other. Safety in numbers. Two heads better than one. Sharing. Empathy. Trust. Working together rather than fomenting false division and war. Increasing overall happiness always being our task.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Sharing. Empathy. Trust.”
> 
> How dare you!
> 
> Burn in Hell sinner.
> 
> Ok. Wait for the verse to come around...
> _Jesus loves me, this I know
> For the Bible tells me so
> Little ones to Him belong
> They are weak, but He is strong_
Click to expand...

He doesn't walk the talk and neither do you.


----------



## Grumblenuts




----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> One must account for the energy being provided by the environment which is always greater than any return from local increases in order.


That is an incorrect way of looking at it. The proper way of stating it is that there are no 100% efficient processes and usable energy will be lost in each transaction. 

What you said was that energy won’t be gained. It also won’t stay the same, dummy.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> No. I don't argue that, dummy.


Granted,  I was being kind. What you really argued was even dumber, dummy.


ding said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> One must account for the energy being provided by the environment which is always greater than any return from local increases in order.
> 
> 
> 
> That is an incorrect way of looking at it. The proper way of stating it is that there are no 100% efficient processes and usable energy will be lost in each transaction.
> 
> What you said was that energy won’t be gained. It also won’t stay the same, dummy.
Click to expand...

I'll just leave that for others to evaluate. I always just find your pretenses of having a clue hilarious.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I don't argue that, dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> Granted,  I was being kind. What you really argued was even dumber, dummy.
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> One must account for the energy being provided by the environment which is always greater than any return from local increases in order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is an incorrect way of looking at it. The proper way of stating it is that there are no 100% efficient processes and usable energy will be lost in each transaction.
> 
> What you said was that energy won’t be gained. It also won’t stay the same, dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll just leave that for others to evaluate. I always just find your pretenses of having a clue hilarious.
Click to expand...

No.  That was you bearing false witness against me.  Not you being kind.  It was the opposite of you being kind, dummy.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Sorry the world remains greater than the sum of your fragile ego parts. 
Here, this should cheer you up:


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Grumblenuts said:


> Sorry the world remains greater than the sum of your fragile ego parts.
> Here, this should cheer you up:


The yellow ones are his favorite.


----------



## Grumblenuts

I'm not even gonna ask how you know that, lol


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Grumblenuts said:


> I'm not even gonna ask how you know that, lol


By deduction. Nobody likes yellow. Therefore ding will post 20 pages of copypasta ontological nonsense that PROVES yellow is the best, and then he will declare victory.


----------



## Indeependent

Grumblenuts said:


> ^
> 
> 
> 
> What is fascinating about the words “evening” and “morning” is that they convey more than mere times of the day.
> 
> *Evening*
> The word in Hebrew for “evening” is _erev (_or_ ereb)_.  It does mean darkness, dusk, evening, and sunset, but it came out of the understanding of obscurity, mixture, chaos, increasing entropy.
> 
> When the day approaches evening, things increasingly get obscured, it becomes hard to see, darkness (chaos) encroaches, and there is seeming movement toward disorder (entropy). The word came to mean “evening” because of this.
> 
> *Morning*
> The morning is the opposite of evening. Sunlight pierces the darkness and things become discernible.  Entropy decreases, visibility is restored, and a seeming order ensues. This is why the Hebrew word _boker (_or_ boqer)_ came to mean “morning.”
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating indeed that
> 
> Erev does, in fact, mean Evening - the direct opposite of Indeependent's claim
> Boker does, in fact, mean Morning - the direct opposite of Indeependent's claim
> Just never you mind there being no "Sun, Moon, & Stars" until "the fourth day"
> How "obscure" is used to obscure the _No light so how could anyone tell?_ question
> Indeed, no light > "hard to see" | light > "things become discernible" > "visibility is restored"
> "entropy" is depicted and employed opposite to its actual meaning
> In reality, "Sunlight" produces warmth > greater "entropy," "chaos," "mixture," less "order"
Click to expand...

Thanks for admitting you don't know Hebrew.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> Granted, I was being kind. What you really argued was even dumber, dummy.





ding said:


> No. That was you bearing false witness against me. Not you being kind. It was the opposite of you being kind, dummy.





Grumblenuts said:


> Sorry the world remains greater than the sum of your fragile ego parts.


Not sure what that has to do with you bearing false witness against me by misstating what I believe.

And as for fragile egos, it would seem your failure to apologize reveals more about yours than mine.


----------



## Grumblenuts

So "Granted", "Sorry", and a whole bag of dicks weren't enough for ya? Ah, poor fella


----------



## Grumblenuts

Indeependent said:


> Thanks for admitting you don't know Hebrew.


No problem. Yeah, I don't know Hebrew. Greek either. But I can often smell pure bullshit a mile away.


----------



## Indeependent

Grumblenuts said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting you don't know Hebrew.
> 
> 
> 
> No problem. Yeah, I don't know Hebrew. Greek either. But I can often smell pure bullshit a mile away.
Click to expand...

Cool...You know Hebrew is all over this thing called the...Internet.
In fact, Ding proved me right and your Emotional Disturbance couldn't handle it so you ignored it.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> So "Granted", "Sorry", and a whole bag of dicks weren't enough for ya? Ah, poor fella


Laughing leads to crying.


----------



## Grumblenuts

According to Biblica.com:


> The earliest copies of parts of the Hebrew Old Testament were discovered in 1947. They are part of the famous Dead Sea Scrolls and actually date back to the first century BC. Even though they are at least 900 years older than any parts of the Bible we had before this, they are not the originals. They are copies. The originals have all been lost or destroyed. But we are not at all doubtful that we may not have the original text. Copying by scribes was done with great care in those days and because the text was regarded as sacred, the copyists were extremely painstaking. Today some 5000 hand-copied documents exist of all or part of the Bible, *and they agree in 98% of the text! No other ancient writing has this amount of underlying support with such amazing agreement as to the text.*
> 
> Yes, we do have what God wanted us to have! By way of translation, we now have His revelation in our own language and in 2300 other languages, too. Today we have the very Bible that comes to us from the three languages used in the original. Truly we can say, “God speaks my language, too!”


And what version does Biblica.com use? "the New International Version (NIV)"
And how does it translate "erev" and "boker" in Genesis 1?


> *The Beginning*
> 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.


"Waters" already? Seriously?


> 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 *God called the light “day,”* *and the darkness he called “night.”* *And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.*


The very "first day" Ho boy.. 


> And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.


Wait, already? Whaa?..


> And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.


Damn, skippy.. not from what I've been hearing lately! Supposed to be all dark still!..


> 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.


Ah, so before there was just some temporary light fixture this "God" was apparently turning on during "the day" and switching off at "night" for some weird, undisclosed reason. Apparently bored and unhappy with doing this daily chore, this "God" then "made" the Sun, Moon, and "the stars." Never mind that the Sun is also a star, that other planets go without mention, that the Moon just reflects the Sun's light so isn't really a "light" source,..

What a story. A true classic!


----------



## Grumblenuts

Indeependent said:


> Cool...You know Hebrew is all over this thing called the...Internet.
> In fact, Ding proved me right and your Emotional Disturbance couldn't handle it so you ignored it.


You did what now?


----------



## Indeependent

Grumblenuts said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool...You know Hebrew is all over this thing called the...Internet.
> In fact, Ding proved me right and your Emotional Disturbance couldn't handle it so you ignored it.
> 
> 
> 
> You did what now?
Click to expand...

Are you aware that your post is not at all grammatically related to my post?
Not that *I'm* surprised.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Indeependent said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool...You know Hebrew is all over this thing called the...Internet.
> In fact, Ding proved me right and your Emotional Disturbance couldn't handle it so you ignored it.
> 
> 
> 
> You did what now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you aware that your post is not at all grammatically related to my post?
> Not that *I'm* surprised.
Click to expand...

Oh well. Didn't really expect you to get the point in the first place.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Reading this version should make clear that these supposed original Hebrews (mainly Moses apparently), along with those making the alleged 5,000 or so "original" copies / translations, had no idea whatsoever that the Earth orbited the Sun, nor that the Moon orbited the Earth. They were strictly Flat Earthers who presumed these two "lights" just traveled across the sky. The Sun during the day. The Moon at night.

The Moon could actually be going by anytime, by why get technical? Well, because one hell of a lot of people still imagine this "God chose" to only communicate this important history / "message" to this backward bunch of people, way back when. A living god, especially one that many claim to engage with "personally," could easily update this pile of ignorant nonsense to make it better conform with our modern, scientific understanding of reality. But no. We must rely upon our best modern revisionists to explain how we're just reading it all wrong instead.

No, laughing doesn't lead to crying, dummy. We choose to laugh because it beats the alternative. Life is struggle.


----------



## Indeependent

Grumblenuts said:


> Reading this version should make clear that these supposed original Hebrews (mainly Moses apparently), along with those making the alleged 5,000 or so "original" copies / translations, had no idea whatsoever that the Earth orbited the Sun, nor that the Moon orbited the Earth. They were strictly Flat Earthers who presumed these two "lights" just traveled across the sky. The Sun during the day. The Moon at night.
> 
> The Moon could actually be going by anytime, by why get technical? Well, because one hell of a lot of people still imagine this "God chose" to only communicate this important history / "message" to this backward bunch of people, way back when. A living god, especially one that many claim to engage with "personally," could easily update this pile of ignorant nonsense to make it better conform with our modern, scientific understanding of reality. But no. We must rely upon our best modern revisionists to explain how we're just reading it all wrong instead.
> 
> No, laughing doesn't lead to crying, dummy. We choose to laugh because it beats the alternative. Life is struggle.


I'll skip the fact that this is Christian English and opposed to Hebrew.
To which verse or verses are you referring?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Genesis 1 obviously. You pick. It's all just silliness to me.


----------



## Indeependent

Grumblenuts said:


> Genesis 1 obviously. You pick. It's all just silliness to me.


You are inferring you have read it and I don't believe you have.
Be specific; I know it's hard for you, but give it a shot.


----------



## Grumblenuts

I didn't just read it. I already quoted and analyzed much of it above. Go with that.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> Reading this version should make clear that these supposed original Hebrews (mainly Moses apparently), along with those making the alleged 5,000 or so "original" copies / translations, had no idea whatsoever that the Earth orbited the Sun, nor that the Moon orbited the Earth. They were strictly Flat Earthers who presumed these two "lights" just traveled across the sky. The Sun during the day. The Moon at night.
> 
> The Moon could actually be going by anytime, by why get technical? Well, because one hell of a lot of people still imagine this "God chose" to only communicate this important history / "message" to this backward bunch of people, way back when. A living god, especially one that many claim to engage with "personally," could easily update this pile of ignorant nonsense to make it better conform with our modern, scientific understanding of reality. But no. We must rely upon our best modern revisionists to explain how we're just reading it all wrong instead.
> 
> No, laughing doesn't lead to crying, dummy. We choose to laugh because it beats the alternative. Life is struggle.


Kind of hard to tell who you are responding to.  I guess you don't want them getting alerts. 

Creatio ex nihlo is a belief of the Judaeo-Christian faith, dummy. 

That you see life as a struggle instead of an amazing, precious and rare gift speaks volumes about you and your biases and lack of objectivity.


----------



## ding

Indeependent said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis 1 obviously. You pick. It's all just silliness to me.
> 
> 
> 
> You are inferring you have read it and I don't believe you have.
> Be specific; I know it's hard for you, but give it a shot.
Click to expand...

Dude, won't go on record for shit. I would say he was intellectually dishonest but I he's not intellectual.  He's a google surfer who searches for anything that confirms his bias.  He dismisses his defeats and ignores his incongruities.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Kind of hard to tell who you are responding to. I guess you don't want them getting alerts.
> 
> Creatio ex nihlo is a belief of the Judaeo-Christian faith, dummy.
> 
> That you see life as a struggle instead of an amazing, precious and rare gift speaks volumes about you and your biases and lack of objectivity.


Sure looks like you're pretending to respond to me, but failing miserably and just talking to yourself as usual.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of hard to tell who you are responding to. I guess you don't want them getting alerts.
> 
> Creatio ex nihlo is a belief of the Judaeo-Christian faith, dummy.
> 
> That you see life as a struggle instead of an amazing, precious and rare gift speaks volumes about you and your biases and lack of objectivity.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure looks like you're pretending to respond to me, but failing miserably and just talking to yourself as usual.
Click to expand...

I'm defeating you.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Sorry, this isn't a board game. You're just angry because your nonsense still fails to impress me. Run along now back to your safe zone, wimp. Bubbye!


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> Sorry, this isn't a board game. You're just angry because your nonsense still fails to impress me. Run along now back to your safe zone, wimp. Bubbye!


You aren't that important, bro.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> By deduction. Nobody likes yellow. Therefore ding will post 20 pages of copypasta ontological nonsense that PROVES yellow is the best, and then he will declare victory.


Indeed. A shame that many seem not to have noticed the pattern yet. I get obsessed with selling Aether theory at times - which is obviously never "nothing." You've argued with me about it. So has ding. Time and again. But I've never even considered spamming the board with copypasta like he does. Like a two year old. Now he feigns shock and anguish that I still find his "nothing theory" utterly ridiculous. Yeah. Sure. Sure. Uh huh.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> By deduction. Nobody likes yellow. Therefore ding will post 20 pages of copypasta ontological nonsense that PROVES yellow is the best, and then he will declare victory.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. A shame that many seem not to have noticed the pattern yet. I get obsessed with selling Aether theory at times - which is obviously never "nothing." You've argued with me about it. So has ding. Time and again. But I've never even considered spamming the board with copypasta like he does. Like a two year old. Now he feigns shock and anguish that I still find his "nothing theory" utterly ridiculous. Yeah. Sure. Sure. Uh huh.
Click to expand...

Yellow is the best


----------



## abu afak

Quasar44 said:


> Gravity is as fact as anything
> Wow are you an ignoramus



Evolution is also a fact.

*15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American








						15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
					

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up




					www.scientificamerican.com
				



[.....]

*1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

*In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..." *

`


----------



## abu afak

Viktor said:
			
		

> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
> Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> 
> Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [.....]
> 
> *1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
> So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> *In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..." *
> 
> `
> 
> .
Click to expand...


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> I'm defeating you.


LOL Bible Belt.
You couldn't defeat anything with your 95% one-line posts.
Of course, there IS nothing to say/No Evidence on your side TO say.
You could cut it to 5 letters: 'Faith.'

`


----------



## abu afak

ANOTHER IDIOT CHIRPS IN
*See the OP.*


andaronjim said:


> *Science is always about someone's theory.  Evolution is a conglomeration of theories that until proven, remain just theories. * Back when i was young, a Brontosaurus was the largest animal at the time, slow moving and cold blooded, today the theories are that it is warm blooded and not so slow.  Until one is actually seen, the theory still remains.



*And as I've said 100 times here...
Science doesn't deal in "Proof", only math does.
Science deals in theories affirmed over time.
Evolution has stood the test of time - 160 years- and a burst of New sciences. (and 100,000 fossils found only in the correct strata.)
All relevant ones help confirm it, (DNA, Isotopic dating, etc) and NONE Contradict it.
Evolution has Overwhelming EVIDENCE. *(God NONE)

*`*


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> The truth is people weren't taught human evolution.  *Human evolution isn't a fact.  Even Darwin didn't say that.*  Furthermore, there is no valid evidence for a common ancestor.  That kills it right there.  And who wants to be a monkey's uncle like you?  Are you hairy, eat bananas, sh*t in the jungle, and walk on fours?



indent]
*abu afak*

*15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American








						15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
					

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up




					www.scientificamerican.com
				



[.....]

*1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

*In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..." *

`[/indent]


----------



## abu afak

Grumblenuts said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> By deduction. Nobody likes yellow. Therefore ding will post 20 pages of copypasta ontological nonsense that PROVES yellow is the best, and then he will declare victory.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. A shame that many seem not to have noticed the pattern yet. I get obsessed with selling Aether theory at times - which is obviously never "nothing." You've argued with me about it. So has ding. Time and again. But I've never even considered spamming the board with copypasta like he does. Like a two year old. Now he feigns shock and anguish that I still find his "nothing theory" utterly ridiculous. Yeah. Sure. Sure. Uh huh.
Click to expand...

He's a very strange one.
He needs lots of attention.
Usually get's it with one-line nonsense and persists until he doe.

`


----------



## Grumblenuts

abu afak said:


> Usually get's it with one-line nonsense and persists until he doe.


a deer, a female deer
Ray, a drop of golden sun
Me, a name I call..

Oh, stop that, Nuts!


----------



## abu afak

ding said:


> Dude, won't go on record for shit. I would say he was intellectually dishonest but I he's not intellectual.  He's a google surfer who searches for anything that confirms his bias.  He dismisses his defeats and ignores his incongruities.


It's not easy finding somtheing of yours to quote that's more than one line.=/seentence.


----------



## ding

abu afak said:


> It's not easy finding somtheing of yours to quote that's more than one line.=/seentence.


Less is more when it comes to dealing with the intellectually unenlightened.


----------



## abu afak

Grumblenuts said:


> Indeed. A shame that many seem not to have noticed the pattern yet. I get obsessed with selling Aether theory at times - which is obviously never "nothing." You've argued with me about it. So has ding. Time and again. But I've never even considered spamming the board with copypasta like he does. Like a two year old. Now he feigns shock and anguish that I still find his "nothing theory" utterly ridiculous. Yeah. Sure. Sure. Uh huh.


You should just Ignore Ding.
I would call him a one-line wonder, but oft he doesn't make it past 6 or 7 words.
An inveterate No-content last-worder.
`


----------



## Grumblenuts

abu afak said:


> You should just Ignore Ding.


 I was.. for well over a year now! Wtf? You probably just woke him. Great.. he'll be slithering out from under yonder rock any moment..


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> I've won ever since arriving here because you, atheists, atheist scientists, and other sinners have lost since the 1850s.  *All you had to do was produce one OBSERVABLE evidence for evolution and would have won.  For example, a monkey that walks like a human....*




"...The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries.

*For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows.*
But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). *Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly..."*

`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> "...The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries.
> 
> *For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows.*
> But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). *Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly..."*
> 
> `


Those were all human as we see the different types of humans today.  For example, we have DNA in people today from the Neanderthal.  That is OBSERVABLE.  OTOH, you have no DNA of anything like an ape-human.  Again, you lose and I win!


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> indent]
> *abu afak*
> 
> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
> Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> 
> Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [.....]
> 
> *1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
> So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> *In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..." *
> 
> `[/indent]


Facts are those persistent things that both sides can use.  Such as the Earth is spherical.  Even Flattie Hollie was proven wrong in this forum.  She had to go to Jimmy for more ammo.  In fact, your atheist scientist, Neil deGrasse Tyson was wrong about how far back flat Earth-ness had been -- The Medieval Flat Earth .

Face it.  There are no facts in evolution such as descent with modification.  Nothing is observable.

What you should do with the evos here is discuss things with them and find OBSERVABLE evidence.  Back up your "descent with modification."  Then you'd have a better argument.  But that takes brain work and you're too dumb for that.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Facts are those persistent things that both sides can use.  Such as the Earth is spherical.  Even Flattie Hollie was proven wrong in this forum.  She had to go to Jimmy for more ammo.  In fact, your atheist scientist, Neil deGrasse Tyson was wrong about how far back flat Earth-ness had been -- The Medieval Flat Earth .
> 
> Face it.  There are no facts in evolution such as descent with modification.  Nothing is observable.
> 
> What you should do with the evos here is discuss things with them and find OBSERVABLE evidence.  Back up your "descent with modification."  Then you'd have a better argument.  But that takes brain work and you're too dumb for that.


^^^^ the dangers of religious extremism.


----------



## Death Angel

Grumblenuts said:


> lack of belief by definition. Religion is the opposite. Now go suck an egg.


Oh, you definately have BELIEFS and they are based on FAITH.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Facts are those persistent things that both sides can use.  Such as the Earth is spherical.  Even Flattie Hollie was proven wrong in this forum.  She had to go to Jimmy for more ammo.  In fact, your atheist scientist, Neil deGrasse Tyson was wrong about how far back flat Earth-ness had been -- The Medieval Flat Earth .
> 
> Face it.  There are no facts in evolution such as descent with modification.  Nothing is observable.
> 
> What you should do with the evos here is discuss things with them and find OBSERVABLE evidence.  Back up your "descent with modification."  Then you'd have a better argument.  But that takes brain work and you're too dumb for that.


*Fossils are not only "observable" they exist in hard form as Evidence.*
Like bones/forensic evidence in any crime.
Much better than astronomy and guessing from 1000 Light Years away.
Then there's DNA to confirm and compare more recent finds and Extant species.
All consistent, as Evo is with every relevant science.

*As do Anatomical remnants of our ancestors ON our bodies Now.
Coccyx (where our tails were), The extra Wisdom Teeth (that oft have to be removed and are dangerous but for modern dentistry) from when we were herbivorous and lived in trees.*

Evidence for god presented by Bond.
Remains ZERO.

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Death Angel said:


> Oh, you definately have BELIEFS and they are based on FAITH.


Such as? Name two. This is the science section, not the rubber room. Name two and explain why it is faith to believe them.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> *Fossils are not only "observable" they exist in hard form as Evidence.*
> Like bones/forensic evidence in any crime.
> Much better than astronomy and guessing from 1000 Light Years away.
> Then there's DNA to confirm and compare more recent finds and Extant species.
> All consistent, as Evo is with every relevant science.
> 
> *As do Anatomical remnants of our ancestors ON our bodies Now.
> Coccyx (where our tails were), The extra Wisdom Teeth (that oft have to be removed and are dangerous but for modern dentistry) from when we were herbivorous and lived in trees.*
> 
> Evidence for god presented by Bond.
> Remains ZERO.
> 
> `


>>
*Fossils are not only "observable" they exist in hard form as Evidence.*
Like bones/forensic evidence in any crime.
Much better than astronomy and guessing from 1000 Light Years away.
Then there's DNA to confirm and compare more recent finds and Extant species.
All consistent, as Evo is with every relevant science.<<

My side is the one with fossils as we use C14 dating on them.  It shows they are 50,000 years or less as their radiocarbon is still remaining.  What about the soft tissue and C14 remaining in dinosaur fossils?  It is evidence for dinosaurs aren't billions of years old.  Same with the design of the information-rich DNA.  The DNA molecule called coding regions have the same property of “sequence specificity” or “specified complexity” that characterizes written codes, linguistic texts, and protein molecules.  That could not have happened by chance as your side _assumes_. 

THE KNOCKOUT PUNCH!!!  I also found that the creationists found "evolution" first.  It was Alfred Russel Wallace who did it before Darwin, but since he argued for spiritualism, he was ousted by the scientific community of that time (same with atheist science today!) -- Alfred Russel Wallace-co-inventor of Darwinism - creation.com.  History has shown Darwin was wrong about a lot of what he wrote, so Darwinism is not talked about much today.  If it turned out to be Wallace-ism, then there prolly would be much more of a _lively_ discussion.  It was creationist Wallace who wrote the "human spirit, the mind, and the faculties of speech, art, music, mathematics, humour and morality could not have arisen by natural and sexual selection alone."

The intelligent people here can laugh you off the forum now as I chalk up another victory with this.

ETA:  Read it and weep atheist losers -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_16.  Wallace also was responsible for plate tectonics and more.  Now, that's a great scientist.  Not Darwin nor Darwinism.  No one quotes his book, _On the Origin of Species_.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Death Angel get back here


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> >>
> *Fossils are not only "observable" they exist in hard form as Evidence.*
> Like bones/forensic evidence in any crime.
> Much better than astronomy and guessing from 1000 Light Years away.
> Then there's DNA to confirm and compare more recent finds and Extant species.
> All consistent, as Evo is with every relevant science.<<
> 
> My side is the one with fossils as we use C14 dating on them.  It shows they are 50,000 years or less as their radiocarbon is still remaining.  What about the soft tissue and C14 remaining in dinosaur fossils?  It is evidence for dinosaurs aren't billions of years old.  Same with the design of the information-rich DNA.  The DNA molecule called coding regions have the same property of “sequence specificity” or “specified complexity” that characterizes written codes, linguistic texts, and protein molecules.  That could not have happened by chance as your side _assumes_.
> 
> THE KNOCKOUT PUNCH!!!  I also found that the creationists found "evolution" first.  It was Alfred Russel Wallace who did it before Darwin, but since he argued for spiritualism, he was ousted by the scientific community of that time (same with atheist science today!) -- Alfred Russel Wallace-co-inventor of Darwinism - creation.com.  History has shown Darwin was wrong about a lot of what he wrote, so Darwinism is not talked about much today.  If it turned out to be Wallace-ism, then there prolly would be much more of a _lively_ discussion.  It was creationist Wallace who wrote the "human spirit, the mind, and the faculties of speech, art, music, mathematics, humour and morality could not have arisen by natural and sexual selection alone."
> 
> The intelligent people here can laugh you off the forum now as I chalk up another victory with this.
> 
> ETA:  Read it and weep atheist losers -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_16.  Wallace also was responsible for plate tectonics and more.  Now, that's a great scientist.  Not Darwin nor Darwinism.  No one quotes his book, _On the Origin of Species_.


What?
this is incoherent  and So stupid it's hard to believe.

*1. C14 dating is just ONE (Duh James, Duh James) of the radio-isotopic elements for dating and is only good at 50,000 years or less. (because it only has a 5400 yr half life)
Other are good to Millions. *

*Wiki - Radiometric dating*​Contents​1    Fundamentals​.1    Radioactive decay​1.2    Decay constant determination​1.3    Accuracy of radiometric dating​1.4    Closure temperature​1.5    The age equation​
*2    Modern dating methods*​*2.1    Uranium–lead dating method*​*2.2    Samarium–neodymium dating method*​*2.3    Potassium–argon dating method*​*2.4    Rubidium–strontium dating method*​*2.5    Uranium–thorium dating method*​*2.6    Radiocarbon dating method*​*2.7    Fission track dating method*​*2.8    Chlorine-36 dating method*​*2.9    Luminescence dating methods*​*2.10    Other methods*​
*3    Dating with decay products of short-lived extinct radionuclides*​*3.1    The 129I – 129Xe chronometer*​*3.2    The 26Al – 26Mg chronometer*​
4    See also​5    References​- - - - - - - - - - - -

*2. Some fossils such as Mammoths still lived until ie, 10-15,000 yrs ago so C14 would be fine.
3. Dinosaurs did NOT and C14 would not work/be appropriate.

4. You did not answer anything I said. (re Anatomical vestiges, etc)
Just made stupid other claims. 

5. We have Hard Forensic evidence of Evolution, just as is used at modern trials.
Re race/species, age, cause/time of death, where/the strata they were found in, etc.
And because we know Evo is a Fact we can and HAVE even predicted what we will find/the between species.

6. And the kult Kweationist James Bond has posted NO evidence for a god.. ever.
Thousands of posts, No points/Nothing.
He just keeps talking like the raving lunatic/street person he is. *

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

abu afak said:


> What?
> this is incoherent  and So stupid it's hard to believe.
> 
> *1. C14 dating is just ONE (Duh James, Duh James) of the radio-isotopic elements for dating and is only good at 50,000 years or less. (because it only has a 5400 yr half life)
> Other are good to Millions. *
> 
> *Wiki - Radiometric dating*​*Contents*​*1    Fundamentals*​*1.1    Radioactive decay*​*1.2    Decay constant determination*​*1.3    Accuracy of radiometric dating*​*1.4    Closure temperature*​*1.5    The age equation*​
> *2    Modern dating methods*​*2.1    Uranium–lead dating method*​*2.2    Samarium–neodymium dating method*​*2.3    Potassium–argon dating method*​*2.4    Rubidium–strontium dating method*​*2.5    Uranium–thorium dating method*​*2.6    Radiocarbon dating method*​*2.7    Fission track dating method*​*2.8    Chlorine-36 dating method*​*2.9    Luminescence dating methods*​*2.10    Other methods*​
> *3    Dating with decay products of short-lived extinct radionuclides*​*3.1    The 129I – 129Xe chronometer*​*3.2    The 26Al – 26Mg chronometer*​
> *4    See also*​*5    References*​- - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> *2. Some fossils such as Mammoths still lived until ie, 10-15,000 yrs ago so C14 would be fine.
> 3. Dinosaurs did NOT and C14 would not work/be appropriate.
> 
> 4. You did not answer anything I said. (re Anatomical vestiges, etc)
> Just made stupid other claims.
> 
> We have Hard Forensic evidence of Evolution, just as is used at modern trials.
> Re race/species, age, cause/time of death, where/the strata they were found in, etc.
> And because we know Evo is a Fact we can and HAVE even predicted what we will find/the between species.*
> 
> `


Funny thing is, Bond the fraud will happily rely on carbon dating, when he finds a piece of rock that is dated as 2000 years old and insists it is from Jesus's bidet.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> >>
> *Fossils are not only "observable" they exist in hard form as Evidence.*
> Like bones/forensic evidence in any crime.
> Much better than astronomy and guessing from 1000 Light Years away.
> Then there's DNA to confirm and compare more recent finds and Extant species.
> All consistent, as Evo is with every relevant science.<<
> 
> My side is the one with fossils as we use C14 dating on them.  It shows they are 50,000 years or less as their radiocarbon is still remaining.  What about the soft tissue and C14 remaining in dinosaur fossils?  It is evidence for dinosaurs aren't billions of years old.  Same with the design of the information-rich DNA.  The DNA molecule called coding regions have the same property of “sequence specificity” or “specified complexity” that characterizes written codes, linguistic texts, and protein molecules.  That could not have happened by chance as your side _assumes_.
> 
> THE KNOCKOUT PUNCH!!!  I also found that the creationists found "evolution" first.  It was Alfred Russel Wallace who did it before Darwin, but since he argued for spiritualism, he was ousted by the scientific community of that time (same with atheist science today!) -- Alfred Russel Wallace-co-inventor of Darwinism - creation.com.  History has shown Darwin was wrong about a lot of what he wrote, so Darwinism is not talked about much today.  If it turned out to be Wallace-ism, then there prolly would be much more of a _lively_ discussion.  It was creationist Wallace who wrote the "human spirit, the mind, and the faculties of speech, art, music, mathematics, humour and morality could not have arisen by natural and sexual selection alone."
> 
> The intelligent people here can laugh you off the forum now as I chalk up another victory with this.
> 
> ETA:  Read it and weep atheist losers -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_16.  Wallace also was responsible for plate tectonics and more.  Now, that's a great scientist.  Not Darwin nor Darwinism.  No one quotes his book, _On the Origin of Species_.


So… you just refuted your earlier rants a insisting on a 6,000 year old planet.

Your winning (or is it whining) about things you dont understand is laughable.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> What?
> this is incoherent  and So stupid it's hard to believe.
> 
> *1. C14 dating is just ONE (Duh James, Duh James) of the radio-isotopic elements for dating and is only good at 50,000 years or less. (because it only has a 5400 yr half life)
> Other are good to Millions. *
> 
> *Wiki - Radiometric dating*​Contents​1    Fundamentals​.1    Radioactive decay​1.2    Decay constant determination​1.3    Accuracy of radiometric dating​1.4    Closure temperature​1.5    The age equation​
> *2    Modern dating methods*​*2.1    Uranium–lead dating method*​*2.2    Samarium–neodymium dating method*​*2.3    Potassium–argon dating method*​*2.4    Rubidium–strontium dating method*​*2.5    Uranium–thorium dating method*​*2.6    Radiocarbon dating method*​*2.7    Fission track dating method*​*2.8    Chlorine-36 dating method*​*2.9    Luminescence dating methods*​*2.10    Other methods*​
> *3    Dating with decay products of short-lived extinct radionuclides*​*3.1    The 129I – 129Xe chronometer*​*3.2    The 26Al – 26Mg chronometer*​
> 4    See also​5    References​- - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> *2. Some fossils such as Mammoths still lived until ie, 10-15,000 yrs ago so C14 would be fine.
> 3. Dinosaurs did NOT and C14 would not work/be appropriate.
> 
> 4. You did not answer anything I said. (re Anatomical vestiges, etc)
> Just made stupid other claims.
> 
> 5. We have Hard Forensic evidence of Evolution, just as is used at modern trials.
> Re race/species, age, cause/time of death, where/the strata they were found in, etc.
> And because we know Evo is a Fact we can and HAVE even predicted what we will find/the between species.
> 
> 6. And the kult Kweationist James Bond has posted NO evidence for a god.. ever.
> Thousands of posts, No points/Nothing.
> He just keeps talking like the raving lunatic/street person he is. *
> 
> `


You couldn't address the other evidence, so may as well admit defeat already.  Darwin and Darwinism were a losing proposition.  Otherwise, we would hear a lot more from his book as I stated.

My evidence of the dinosaur fossils and soft tissue are from the Cretaceous limestone, which is allegedly 144 to 65 million years old.  It means Darwin, you, and the rest of the muck and yuck have lost.  How is it possible for dinosaur fossils supposedly that "old" to have C14 remaining as well as soft tissue?

Anatomical vestiges are easily explained and have been by others in this forum.  What parts did YOU explain?  Go ahead, Einstein, explain your vestiges and then I can counter.

You have nothing observable for evolution.  OTOH, we had Alfred Russel Wallace who founded "evolution" before Darwin and accomplished much more as a scientist.  He had some of the best animal collections ever.

I just provided more evidence with creation scientist Alfred Russel Wallace and criticized deGrasse Tyson lol.  I'm not sure what Tyson accomplished as you can't even explain what he did.

I would say that I have provided more than enough evidence in my last post as Wallace-ism was BEFORE Darwinism and he said, the "human spirit, the mind, and the faculties of speech, art, music, mathematics, humour and morality could not have arisen by natural and sexual selection alone."  LMAO , you don't even know when you've been whipped like the mongrel that you are.

Basically, your radiometric dating is way off because of your atheistic assumptions.  The evidence shows the radioisotope decay does not match to calendar year.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Funny thing is, Bond the fraud will happily rely on carbon dating, when he finds a piece of rock that is dated as 2000 years old and insists it is from Jesus's bidet.


You mean the same Jesus who could reportedly walk on water and rise from the dead still needed a bidet to keep his butt from stinking?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Grumblenuts said:


> You mean the same Jesus who could reportedly walk on water and rise from the dead still needed a bidet to keep his butt from stinking?


well yeah, you know how your butt stinks. Now imagine having a magical, uber-powerful butt that has been around forever. I imagine he could clear a room pretty quickly, if he didn't stay on it.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> You couldn't address the other evidence, so may as well admit defeat already.  Darwin and Darwinism were a losing proposition.  Otherwise, we would hear a lot more from his book as I stated.
> 
> My evidence of the dinosaur fossils and soft tissue are from the Cretaceous limestone, which is allegedly 144 to 65 million years old.  It means Darwin, you, and the rest of the muck and yuck have lost.  How is it possible for dinosaur fossils supposedly that "old" to have C14 remaining as well as soft tissue?
> 
> Anatomical vestiges are easily explained and have been by others in this forum.  What parts did YOU explain?  Go ahead, Einstein, explain your vestiges and then I can counter.
> 
> You have nothing observable for evolution.  OTOH, we had Alfred Russel Wallace who founded "evolution" before Darwin and accomplished much more as a scientist.  He had some of the best animal collections ever.
> 
> I just provided more evidence with creation scientist Alfred Russel Wallace and criticized deGrasse Tyson lol.  I'm not sure what Tyson accomplished as you can't even explain what he did.
> 
> I would say that I have provided more than enough evidence in my last post as Wallace-ism was BEFORE Darwinism and he said, the "human spirit, the mind, and the faculties of speech, art, music, mathematics, humour and morality could not have arisen by natural and sexual selection alone."  LMAO , you don't even know when you've been whipped like the mongrel that you are.
> 
> Basically, your radiometric dating is way off because of your atheistic assumptions.  The evidence shows the radioisotope decay does not match to calendar year.


*Everything you say is Ignorant or Lies.
You conflated/ST!LL CONFATE ALL radiometric dating as Carbon/C14 Dating!!!
You idiot.*
You're too stupid to debate, So I only hold your stunning Idiocy/Christian Cult views up for abuse
Thereby showing you know NOTHING.

Russell believed in Evolution of different species, NOT your view.

You have not explained away any of my HARD EVIDENCE, Progressive Fossils over time, and the predictability of it only because of evolution.

*You LIED for the umpteenth time in claiming you explained away our anatomical vestiges, just ignored or LIED about it. Your specialty.*

You are a Mentally Ill Jesus Cult Freak who needs to be hospitalized if you are not already.

*Everyone else with your views knows they have been refuted and STFU.
But you're Insane and DISHONEST.

And again, after app 11 thousand posts, Bond has not posted a shred of Evidence for a god.*

`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> What?
> this is incoherent  and So stupid it's hard to believe.
> 
> *1. C14 dating is just ONE (Duh James, Duh James) of the radio-isotopic elements for dating and is only good at 50,000 years or less. (because it only has a 5400 yr half life)
> Other are good to Millions. *
> 
> *Wiki - Radiometric dating*​Contents​1    Fundamentals​.1    Radioactive decay​1.2    Decay constant determination​1.3    Accuracy of radiometric dating​1.4    Closure temperature​1.5    The age equation​
> *2    Modern dating methods*​*2.1    Uranium–lead dating method*​*2.2    Samarium–neodymium dating method*​*2.3    Potassium–argon dating method*​*2.4    Rubidium–strontium dating method*​*2.5    Uranium–thorium dating method*​*2.6    Radiocarbon dating method*​*2.7    Fission track dating method*​*2.8    Chlorine-36 dating method*​*2.9    Luminescence dating methods*​*2.10    Other methods*​
> *3    Dating with decay products of short-lived extinct radionuclides*​*3.1    The 129I – 129Xe chronometer*​*3.2    The 26Al – 26Mg chronometer*​
> 4    See also​5    References​- - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> *2. Some fossils such as Mammoths still lived until ie, 10-15,000 yrs ago so C14 would be fine.
> 3. Dinosaurs did NOT and C14 would not work/be appropriate.
> 
> 4. You did not answer anything I said. (re Anatomical vestiges, etc)
> Just made stupid other claims.
> 
> 5. We have Hard Forensic evidence of Evolution, just as is used at modern trials.
> Re race/species, age, cause/time of death, where/the strata they were found in, etc.
> And because we know Evo is a Fact we can and HAVE even predicted what we will find/the between species.
> 
> 6. And the kult Kweationist James Bond has posted NO evidence for a god.. ever.
> Thousands of posts, No points/Nothing.
> He just keeps talking like the raving lunatic/street person he is. *
> 
> `


I win easily because you can't explain anatomical vestiges of which I asked you to explain.  I don't mean a cut and paste job.  

What I provided was science backs up Genesis in the Bible.  This is the science forum and you want evidence of God/gods.  You are just trying to troll me and are a walking contradiction.  I have to put Hollie and Fort Fun Indiana way above you now.  All you do is cut and paste, can't answer diddly, and prolly the biggest hypocrite,  You are the worst atheist science guy here, so I can just avoid your dumbest posts.  I win by addition by subtraction.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> So… you just refuted your earlier rants a insisting on a 6,000 year old planet.
> 
> Your winning (or is it whining) about things you dont understand is laughable.


I've explained that the 6,000 year old planet was a response by creationists against the billions of years of universe and Earth from 1956.  It just took the Biblical chronology of the people listed throughout history and added them up.  The age of the Earth is not mentioned in the Bible.

abu afak is such a weakling and can't explain elementary evolution like vestigial organs.  If he could explain, then he would've realized no organs are without purpose and the atheist scientist who came up with Lamarckism, Jean Baptiste Lamarck, was disregarded by the evolutionists.  Lamarck also came up with evolution before Darwin which shows why Darwin wasn't much of a scientist.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I've explained that the 6,000 year old planet was a response by creationists against the billions of years of universe and Earth from 1956.  It just took the Biblical chronology of the people listed throughout history and added them up.  The age of the Earth is not mentioned in the Bible.
> 
> abu afak is such a weakling and can't explain elementary evolution like vestigial organs.  If he could explain, then he would've realized no organs are without purpose and the atheist scientist who came up with Lamarckism, Jean Baptiste Lamarck, was disregarded by the evolutionists.  Lamarck also came up with evolution before Darwin which shows why Darwin wasn't much of a scientist.


It’s funny watching you stutter and mumble as your phony claims collide with the facts.


----------



## Anomalism

james bond said:


> I've explained that the 6,000 year old planet was a response by creationists against the billions of years of universe and Earth from 1956.  It just took the Biblical chronology of the people listed throughout history and added them up.  The age of the Earth is not mentioned in the Bible.
> 
> abu afak is such a weakling and can't explain elementary evolution like vestigial organs.  If he could explain, then he would've realized no organs are without purpose and the atheist scientist who came up with Lamarckism, Jean Baptiste Lamarck, was disregarded by the evolutionists.  Lamarck also came up with evolution before Darwin which shows why Darwin wasn't much of a scientist.


I would pay money to watch you debate a scientist in person. We could put it on Youtube.


----------



## james bond

Anomalism said:


> I would pay money to watch you debate a scientist in person. We could put it on Youtube.


Money isn't what you'd be paying with, buy your perfect life spirit.  However, this is the S&T section, so that's all I'll say.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Money isn't what you'd be paying with, buy your perfect life spirit.  However, this is the S&T section, so that's all I'll say.


WWJ(immy)D


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> WWJ(immy)D


I don't think my message would be much different from here.  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.  Why else would you believe in something horribly, horribly, horribly wrong?  Your side believed in an infinite universe as science.  Your side thinks they found natural selection.  Your side thinks a fairy tale is science.  It isn't a coincidence that everything your science and your side claims contradicts the Holy Book.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I don't think my message would be much different from here.  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.  Why else would you believe in something horribly, horribly, horribly wrong?  Your side believed in an infinite universe as science.  Your side thinks they found natural selection.  Your side thinks a fairy tale is science.  It isn't a coincidence that everything your science and your side claims contradicts the Holy Book.


Please take your Jimmy Swaggert style street corner Bible thumping to the religion forum.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Please take your Jimmy Swaggert style street corner Bible thumping to the religion forum.


The lowest atheist here doesn't know yet how the universe, Earth, and everything in it got here.  The atheists should know since they had billions of years to figure it out while the creationists admit they only had thousands.  The side with the truth should have the answers and my side and I have been able to show the evidence and observable science.

Some of the best evidence is the complexity of the human brain and how a baby develops in a mother's womb.  Also, the creationists have shown that all of human organs are used.  It's the low IQ types who do not understand or cannot accept the hard evidence.  If one looks at the observable evidence, practically everything points to an intelligent creator and designer.  That is observable science.  One does not have to make up unintelligent matter and energy, the latter which violates the laws of conservation.


----------



## Wuwei

abu afak said:


> Everything you say is Ignorant or Lies.
> You conflated/ST!LL CONFATE ALL radiometric dating as Carbon/C14 Dating!!!
> You idiot...........etc



There is no point in replying logically or in detail to james bond. He simply has a creationist script that he will recite back. Nothing else.

He is playing you. One sign of a troll is to know he is outlandish to others, and thereby to try to get a rise out of them. It gives him joy when people take him seriously and respond in kind.

A troll trick, which he uses a lot, is to simply accuse you of what he is guilty of.

Another standard troll trick he uses is to proclaim "I'm winning". That challenge will get a rise out of others only if they take him seriously.

He knows he is trolling in the name of Jesus in a context that has no place in science. I firmly believe he falsely thinks science is in the bible, but that does not make him less of a troll.

He will no doubt continue his unchristian acrid responses and taunting. Trying to talk at his level only satisfies his ego and encourages him. If you really feel he needs a response from you, just brush him off for what he is, a troll.

.


----------



## james bond

This thread is looking more like > 15 answers to atheist nonsense since one has already admitted they don't have any answers for why the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here.  This despite the atheists' hero book called On the Origin of Species and everything being here for billions of years.  Just the Anthropic Principle beats Darwin's book.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> There is no point in replying logically or in detail to james bond. He simply has a creationist script that he will recite back. Nothing else.
> 
> He is playing you. One sign of a troll is to know he is outlandish to others, and thereby to try to get a rise out of them. It gives him joy when people take him seriously and respond in kind.
> 
> A troll trick, which he uses a lot, is to simply accuse you of what he is guilty of.
> 
> Another standard troll trick he uses is to proclaim "I'm winning". That challenge will get a rise out of others only if they take him seriously.
> 
> He knows he is trolling in the name of Jesus in a context that has no place in science. I firmly believe he falsely thinks science is in the bible, but that does not make him less of a troll.
> 
> He will no doubt continue his unchristian acrid responses and taunting. Trying to talk at his level only satisfies his ego and encourages him. If you really feel he needs a response from you, just brush him off for what he is, a troll.
> 
> .


You're still _butthurt_ from finding out the creationists only used age of the Earth to destroy atheist's arguments for an old Earth.  You're even afraid to direct your answers to me now like the cowardly troll that you are.  The hard evidence is the Earth was formed by catastrophes such as the global flood.  We see it today with local floods, volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, typhoons, tsunamis, virus outbreaks, and more.  It doesn't take billions of years for the geology to change like the false belief of uniformitarianism.


----------



## abu afak

How Crazy is James Bond?
Top of this page:



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.



I just had to memorialize the above.
So you can discount any science of the last century really. Or even longer.
Any by non-devout Christians too.


`


----------



## Wuwei

abu afak said:


> How Crazy is James Bond?
> Top of this page:
> 
> 
> 
> I just had to memorialize the above.
> So you can discount any science of the last century really. Or even longer.
> Any by non-devout Christians too.
> 
> 
> `


Well, yeah, the guy is trolling the science forum. If science was to be replaced by the bible then we would have to cancel quantum mechanics and believe the earth is a flat disc and is motionless while the sun and moon circle it.

.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> The lowest atheist here doesn't know yet how the universe, Earth, and everything in it got here.  The atheists should know since they had billions of years to figure it out while the creationists admit they only had thousands.  The side with the truth should have the answers and my side and I have been able to show the evidence and observable science.
> 
> Some of the best evidence is the complexity of the human brain and how a baby develops in a mother's womb.  Also, the creationists have shown that all of human organs are used.  It's the low IQ types who do not understand or cannot accept the hard evidence.  If one looks at the observable evidence, practically everything points to an intelligent creator and designer.  That is observable science.  One does not have to make up unintelligent matter and energy, the latter which violates the laws of conservation.


Creationer Cultists are a danger to themselves and others. There is no evidence for supernaturalism as an answer to anything other than fear and ignorance. 

Let go of the fear and ignorance you cling to.


----------



## Wuwei

Hollie said:


> Let go of the fear and ignorance you cling to.


Good point.
Yes, james bond fear drives you. Let go of your fears. Treat the Bible with the respect it deserves. Don't use the Bible as a tool to fill your soul with hatred. Satan is forcing you to viscously lash out at your fellow man and turning you into a Troll in the name of the Bible. Jesus will be very disappointed in you. 

.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> How Crazy is James Bond?
> Top of this page:
> 
> 
> 
> I just had to memorialize the above.
> So you can discount any science of the last century really. Or even longer.
> Any by non-devout Christians too.
> 
> 
> `


Give us something from the last century that was observable?  My side has unbiased witnesses.  How nutty as a fruitcake is abu afak?


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> Good point.
> Yes, james bond fear drives you. Let go of your fears. Treat the Bible with the respect it deserves. Don't use the Bible as a tool to fill your soul with hatred. Satan is forcing you to viscously lash out at your fellow man and turning you into a Troll in the name of the Bible. Jesus will be very disappointed in you.
> 
> .


Fear?  After living my full life here, then I welcome death.  It's too bad that you won't be able to do the same.  I fear _early death_ has been predicted for you.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> Fear?  After living my full life here, then I welcome death.  It's too bad that you won't be able to do the same.  I fear _early death_ has been predicted for you.


Death has nothing to do with my post. You have many times called someone a piece of shit. You have denigrated races. Really you should repent. This is what you ignored in my post:

_Don't use the Bible as a tool to fill your soul with hatred. Satan is forcing you to viscously lash out at your fellow man and turning you into a Troll in the name of the Bible. Jesus will be very disappointed in you_.

.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> Death has nothing to do with my post. You have many times called someone a piece of shit. You have denigrated races. Really you should repent. This is what you ignored in my post:
> 
> _Don't use the Bible as a tool to fill your soul with hatred. Satan is forcing you to viscously lash out at your fellow man and turning you into a Troll in the name of the Bible. Jesus will be very disappointed in you_.
> 
> .


What do you tell an atheist if they're about to die?  That you'll be praying for their health and safety?  No.  I'm not sure what you can nor any atheist and their scientists can do do when death is upon them.  Live short and prosper and give that four finger sign ?


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> *Give us something from the last century that was observable? * My side has unbiased witnesses.  How nutty as a fruitcake is abu afak?


1. Everything from the last century is observable.

2. ie, all my thread starts like Anatomical Vestiges are observable in many creatures.
*All the Evidence for Evolution is observable because we still have it.
The ever increasing Fossil record of between species (with ie, bones that are increasingly more human and less ape, but not pure either).

All the technology (electronics, medicine, etc) we use today, including the computers we type on are observable science from the last 100 years.*
Where is your Evidence of a god in the last 100 years?

3. Your god is no more observable than the Islamic or Hindu one or 10,000 other patched together religious FABLES.
Divinity is NOT Observable you wildly deluded freak and there is NO evidence.
*The Bible Fable is not evidence any more that the Koranic one, or Hindu one, or the North American Indian Bear God.*

3a. Bond is back to Circular/Circle Jerk reasoning. Bible-God-Bible-God-Bible.
*You need extra-Biblical Hard Evidence, not a closed circuit brainwash.*
I posted some/a lot, you have posted NONE.
And you have to LIE a lot and use laugh-logic because you have Zero evidence

4-ever. You need to be in an Institution and I think there is a good chance you are.

`


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> What do you tell an atheist if they're about to die?  That you'll be praying for their health and safety?  No.  I'm not sure what you can nor any atheist and their scientists can do do when death is upon them.  Live short and prosper and give that four finger sign ?


What does death have to do with my post. I think you should be more worried about your own soul, not mine. You turned it toward death and ignored this twice now. 


Wuwei said:


> _Don't use the Bible as a tool to fill your soul with hatred. Satan is forcing you to viscously lash out at your fellow man and turning you into a Troll in the name of the Bible. Jesus will be very disappointed in you_.


You must be afraid you have blasphemed the Bible by using it as a trolling tool. As a non-Christian I have given it more reverence than you.
.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> Death has nothing to do with my post. You have many times called someone a piece of shit. You have denigrated races. Really you should repent. This is what you ignored in my post:
> 
> _Don't use the Bible as a tool to fill your soul with hatred. Satan is forcing you to viscously lash out at your fellow man and turning you into a Troll in the name of the Bible. Jesus will be very disappointed in you_.
> 
> .


>>_Don't use the Bible as a tool to fill your soul with hatred. Satan is forcing you to viscously lash out at your fellow man and turning you into a Troll in the name of the Bible. Jesus will be very disappointed in you_.<<

The above is interesting in that you use the Bible and Satan AGAINST me.  Isn't that part of what you ignore, disavow, and don't believe in?  Why don't you use it  in the POSITIVE?  The above statements can be construed as one of the most HYPOCRITICAL statements I've read here.   *Creationists think it's nearly impossible to get the atheists to see their POV and creation science,* but when it comes to YOUR early death, then you abandon your non-beliefs and use the Bible, Satan, and Jesus.  Good luck in the your next life kiddo.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> 1. Everything from the last century is observable.


Give us some examples.  I still see nothing.  Did they exist for millions or billions of years which your scientists claim?



abu afak said:


> 2. ie, all my thread starts like Anatomical Vestiges are observable in many creatures.


Please explain your anatomical vestiges.  Explain it in your own words even if they're stupid.  I'm not a mind reader.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Where is your Evidence of a god in the last 100 years?


It shows you haven't been paying attention due to your dullness.  We found that the universe had a beginning.  Didn't I mention the KCA?  Do I need to repeat myself just because you are dense?  I guess I am starting to believe in infinite density.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> The above is interesting in that you use the Bible and Satan AGAINST me. Isn't that part of what you ignore, disavow, and don't believe in? Why don't you use it in the POSITIVE? The above statements can be construed as one of the most HYPOCRITICAL statements I've read here. *Creationists think it's nearly impossible to get the atheists to see their POV and creation science,* but when it comes to YOUR early death, then you abandon your non-beliefs and use the Bible, Satan, and Jesus. Good luck in the your next life kiddo.


I'm not the one who goes around calling folks pieces of shit like you frequently do. I'm not the one who calls someone's mother a whore. With your vile attitude you are the one who is going to have to worry about hell. Good luck with that, my BFF.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> I don't think my message would be much different from here.  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.  Why else would you believe in something horribly, horribly, horribly wrong?  Your side believed in an infinite universe as science.  Your side thinks they found natural selection.  Your side thinks a fairy tale is science.  It isn't a coincidence that everything your science and your side claims contradicts the Holy Book.


That is one of the most amazing anti-science statements I have seen. That makes creation science a total farce.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> With your vile attitude you are the one who is going to have to worry about hell. Good luck with that, my BFF.


You believe in hell now when it comes to me?  How about you?  Are you believing in the afterlife if there are BFF?  I doubt I want us to be BFF .


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> That is one of the most amazing anti-science statements I have seen. That makes creation science a total farce.


Or atheist science is a total farce.  As I've repeated many times, it's creation science vs atheist science.  Only one is true and I'm on the side where I can't change anything while you can change your hypothesis as many times as you want even though none of it is observable.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Give us some examples.  I still see nothing.


1. Everything from the last century is observable.

2. ie, all my thread starts like Anatomical Vestiges are observable in many creatures.
*All the Evidence for Evolution is observable because we still have it.
The ever increasing Fossil record of between species (with ie, bones that are increasingly more human and less ape, but not pure either).

All the technology (electronics, medicine, etc) we use today, including the computers we type on are observable science from the last 100 years.*
Where is your Evidence of a god in the last 100 years?

3. Your god is no more observable than the Islamic or Hindu one or 10,000 other patched together religious FABLES.
Divinity is NOT Observable you wildly deluded freak and there is NO evidence.
*The Bible Fable is not evidence any more that the Koranic one, or Hindu one, or the North American Indian Bear God.*

3a. Bond is back to Circular/Circle Jerk reasoning. Bible-God-Bible-God-Bible.
*You need extra-Biblical Hard Evidence, not a closed circuit brainwash.*
I posted some/a lot, you have posted NONE.
And you have to LIE a lot and use laugh-logic because you have Zero evidence

4-ever. You need to be in an Institution and I think there is a good chance you are.

`


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> You believe in hell now when it comes to me? How about you?


Nope. Not me I am never going to hell.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> Or atheist science is a total farce. As I've repeated many times, it's creation science vs atheist science. Only one is true and I'm on the side where I can't change anything while you can change your hypothesis as many times as you want even though none of it is observable.


Yep, you are stuck thousands of years in the past. Scientists can explore the world with an open mind.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> Nope. Not me I am never going to hell.


I don't know why this topic is in the science section, but keep repeating that.  God the Father gave authority to Jesus as judge in which he will have judicial power over Satan and his followers, which includes the atheists and sinners, due to His greatest sacrifice.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I don't know why this topic is in the science section, but keep repeating that.  God the Father gave authority to Jesus as judge in which he will have judicial power over Satan and his followers, which includes the atheists and sinners, due to His greatest sacrifice.


It seems very desperate when you insist on spamming the science forums with your extremist religious beliefs. 

Jimmy Swaggert is no ones hero.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> I don't know why this topic is in the science section


You don't know? You are the one who keeps putting Christianity into the science section!!!


james bond said:


> God the Father gave authority to Jesus as judge in which he will have judicial power over Satan and his followers, which includes the atheists and sinners, due to His greatest sacrifice.


Great. I'm good. I'm not an atheist or sinner. But you better watch yourself because you will be judged as having a vile attitude toward most of people of the world including those who spend their lives studying the laws of nature that you claim your God created.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> What do you tell an atheist if they're about to die?  That you'll be praying for their health and safety?  No.  I'm not sure what you can nor any atheist and their scientists can do do when death is upon them.  Live short and prosper and give that four finger sign ?



You don't have to be an atheist to question the supernatural or accept science and education. The Bible stories were never supposed to be science or history.. They are allegories and morality tales to teach us about our relationship with God.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> You don't have to be an atheist to question the supernatural or accept science and education. The Bible stories were never supposed to be science or history.. They are allegories and morality tales to teach us about our relationship with God.


Not when today's science misleads people from real science, i.e. creation science, and replaces it with evolution the lie.  The creationists have KCA and the Anthropic Principle while evolutionists have nothing observable except natural selection which they stole from God.  But the real test is humans from apes and birds from dinosaurs in which you fail miserably.  The Bible is the truth as science backs up the Bible even though it isn't a science book.  That's strike three and yer out.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

surada said:


> You don't have to be an atheist to question the supernatural or accept science and education. The Bible stories were never supposed to be science or history.. They are allegories and morality tales to teach us about our relationship with God.


Basically, fiction. Found in the Lifetime Network section of the library.


----------



## surada

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Basically, fiction. Found in the Lifetime Network section of the library.



They are wonderful children's stories. Adults should have a deeper understanding.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Not when today's science misleads people from real science, i.e. creation science, and replaces it with evolution the lie.  The creationists have KCA and the Anthropic Principle while evolutionists have nothing observable except natural selection which they stole from God.  But the real test is humans from apes and birds from dinosaurs in which you fail miserably.  The Bible is the truth as science backs up the Bible even though it isn't a science book.  That's strike three and yer out.


Not according to your posts.
Yours are all Bible/god/Bible/god/Bible Circular 'reasoning.'
Really only one self-supporting myth.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Not according to your posts.
> Yours are all Bible/god/Bible/god/Bible Circular 'reasoning.'
> Really only one self-supporting myth.


Hahahahahahahahaha.  You are a joke and the circular reasoning guru which is false logic.  It's because you can't think of examples to support evolution.  Already, I destroyed birds from dinosaurs because birds lived at the same time.  Humans from monkeys isn't true either because there isn't any evidence for an ape-human ancestor.  Once evidence for humans and dinosaurs living together is conclusive, evolution would be destroyed.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> They are wonderful children's stories. Adults should have a deeper understanding.


You atheist guys are ignorant as shit.

Here is archaeology and history supporting the Bible.  Nothing in archaeology and history has supported evolution you dumbshitz lol.

9 Discoveries that Confirm the Bible


Do you have anything on evolution with 2.6 M views on youtube lmao?


----------



## Dr Grump

james bond said:


> You believe in hell now when it comes to me?  How about you?  Are you believing in the afterlife if there are BFF?  I doubt I want us to be BFF .


Are you a Christian?


----------



## james bond

Dr Grump said:


> Are you a Christian?


What do you think?  Just watch my posts.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> You don't know? You are the one who keeps putting Christianity into the science section!!!
> 
> Great. I'm good. I'm not an atheist or sinner. But you better watch yourself because you will be judged as having a vile attitude toward most of people of the world including those who spend their lives studying the laws of nature that you claim your God created.


After all this time haha.  You are the ultimate fail and keep failing.  I put _creation science_ into the science section while you put trolling into the S&T.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> ie, all my thread starts like Anatomical Vestiges are observable in many creatures.


That they are no anatomical vestiges is observable as scientists have learned more about these vestiges.  You subscribe to failed science and evolution.  Try again.


----------



## abu afak

Dr Grump said:


> Are you a Christian?


James Bond is clearly an Islamist sent to Discredit Christianity by making it seem that the religion is made up of 100% Biblical Literalists/Fundamentalists.

Thereby making Islam more reasonable by comparison.

You're "going to Hell" if you don't believe every doctrinal Anti-Scientific word he says. Of course, NONE of his words belong IN a Science section, but religion.

`


----------



## Dr Grump

james bond said:


> What do you think?  Just watch my posts.


Were you parents Christians and are you in the US?


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> What do you think?  Just watch my posts.



I doubt that you are a Christian - because of your posts. Truth is always true - independent from the person who speaks out the thruth. Ideology (most simple: the way how anyone likes to think) is not able to replace this. Biological evolution is a fact. Everyone is able to see the contruction kit of the evolution all around - is able to see biologically more near and more far creatures. To close the own eyes but to tell others nonsense has not a lot to do with Christianity.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> I doubt that you are a Christian - because of your posts. Truth is always true - independent from the person who speaks out the thruth. Ideology (most simple: the way how anyone likes to think) is not able to replace this. Biological evolution is a fact. Everyone is able to see the contruction kit of the evolution all around - is able to see biologically more near and more far creatures. To close the own eyes but to tell others nonsense has not a lot to do with Christianity.


First, I am baptized and am Christian since 2012.  I am led by the Holy Ghost and have Jesus in my heart.  God the Father accepts me the way I am and wanted me to continue here. 

I don't think you nor my detractors really read my posts as I am for creation science and against evolution.  God created natural selection so that takes care of microevolution.  There is no argument against that and both sides agree.  What is nefarious about evolution is humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs.  It has led to long time.  You can believe that all you want, but I think a Christian who believes in old evolution can be misled.  God gave us a new Earth.  What's next are you going to give up?

Are you just going to accept this -- 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense – By John Rennie on July 1, 2002


----------



## james bond

Anyway, Do-While is a friend of mine and he published this.

"
It is “Just a Theory”​
The first argument creationists use, according to _Scientific American_, is






*1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law. * 1



Serious creationists rarely, if ever, use this argument.  We have been publishing this newsletter for almost six years.  We invite you to look through all the back issues, and you will see we have never used it.


But some “casual creationists”, who don’t believe in evolution but don’t really know why, sometimes do dismiss evolution because it is “just a theory.”  We saw the argument used once in a letter to the editor of our local newspaper.  So, we really can’t blame _Scientific American_ for attacking this idea.  Their argument is,






Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. 2



This is actually an indictment of the public school system.  They should not be blaming creationists for this misunderstanding if it is what is taught in public schools.


One place where we have seen this “hierarchy of certainty” expressed is at the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History (which certainly isn’t a cesspool of creationist propaganda).  We told you about their “Facts, Theories, and Speculation” display in our December, 2001, newsletter. The Field Museum presents a theory as being somewhere between a fact and speculation on the continuum of certainty.  So, blame the public schools, and blame the Field Museum, too, if you are going to blame creationists.


Usually, when evolutionists try to combat the “only a theory” argument, they drag gravity into it.  They say Newton’s theory of gravity is “just a theory, too.”  The difference between gravity and evolution, of course, is that one can do repeatable experiments to test the theory of gravity.  Engineers can measure the amount of force it takes to stretch a spring a certain length.  Then, they hang various masses from the spring and measure how far it stretches.  From this they can determine the force of gravity pulling on the mass.


Furthermore, the theory of gravity made some interesting predictions.  Astronomers noted that some of the outer planets did not orbit in the path one would expect.  They calculated that some other gravitational force must be acting on them.  From that they calculated where an unknown planet must be.  They looked in that location and discovered Pluto.  The theory of gravity predicted a planet of a particular size in a particular orbit, and it turned out to be a correct prediction.


The theory of evolution isn’t like the theory of gravity.  We have neither the time, talent,  nor the material to build a lifeless planet just like Earth orbiting around a star just like the Sun to see if life will evolve on it after a few billion years.  But we can perform some interesting experiments on a smaller scale.  Many scientists have done experiments trying to find some way for lifeless chemicals to assemble themselves into living cells.  Just as alchemists, after many failures, admitted that there isn’t any way to turn lead into gold, evolutionists will someday have to admit that there isn’t any way to turn brackish water into bacteria.  In fact, those origin of life experiments have shown us some good reasons why chemicals can’t come to life by purely natural processes.


Breeding experiments have shown that there are limits to how much artificial selection can modify a variety.  There is every reason to believe that natural selection would have the same limits as artificial selection does.  In fact, with what we now know about genes and information theory, we understand why those limits are there, and why mutation and natural selection can’t cross them.


Unlike the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution doesn’t have a lot of experimental confirmation to support it.  In fact, the experimental evidence against evolution would certainly have caused the theory to have been rejected long ago, if it weren’t for the religious implications that go along with it.


The theory of evolution doesn’t have a very good record when it comes to prediction, either.  Darwin said that the fossil record should show innumerable transitional forms.  It doesn’t. The “Cambrian explosion” of fossils is not what would be expected if the theory of evolution were true.  Evolutionists first tried to explain away the scientific observations by saying that there were gaps in the fossil record.  More recently, they have tried to explain it away with “punctuated equilibrium” (which we have discussed on several occasions, the most recent being last month).


If evolution were true, there would not be such clear divisions between classes, orders, and families.  It should be really hard to decide if certain living creatures were reptiles or mammals because there should be innumerable living transitional forms.


So, *serious creationists don’t reject evolution because it is “only a theory.”  They reject it because it is a theory that is not consistent with modern scientific observation.*


Circular Reasoning​




*2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest. * 3



Actually, we would say that statement is a tautology, which is a special case of circular reasoning because it is a self-defining relationship.  It is “true by virtue of its logical form alone.” 4


_Scientific American_ is misrepresenting the creationist argument here because this isn’t the circular reasoning that serious creationists usually attack.  We attack the more subtle forms of circular reasoning, where the rocks are dated by the evolutionary ages of the fossils, and the evolutionary ages of the fossils are determined from the ages of the rocks containing them.  We also love to point out that the type of radioactive dating used to determine the age of rocks is selected based on the presumed age of the rocks.  Then, when the radioactive measurement gives the expected age, it is assumed to be correct, and all other radioactive “minority reports” are immediately destroyed to avoid the confusion and doubt that would certainly result.


*Creationists generally don’t have a problem with the definition of “survival of the fittest.”*  Nor do they disagree with the minor, short-term effects that environmental pressure has on the survival of the various varieties of critters in general, and Darwin’s finches in particular.  _Scientific American_’s second answer is *an irrelevant rebuttal of a bogus argument.*


Evolution isn’t Testable​
_Scientific American_ says creationists claim that,






*3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created. *
This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.
These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Galápagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time. 5



Well, evolution certainly does make “claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.”  But, in answer to their first statement, we have already discussed how some major concepts of the theory of evolution are testable and falsifiable.  These parts fail because they make inaccurate predictions, or contradict repeatable observations.


Experiments regarding the origin of life have shown that life cannot have a purely natural origin.  Breeding experiments do confirm microevolution, and also reveal why macroevolution *cannot* happen.


But some of the major claims of evolution, such as the claim that reptiles evolved into mammals, never have been observed, nor have they been repeated.  *Scientific American is just blowing smoke when it says, “Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.”


Reconstructions based on fossils and DNA are pure speculation, and often contradictory.*  The attempt to associate microevolution, for which there is abundant scientific evidence, with macroevolution, which is contradicted by so much scientific evidence, is shameless.


_Scientific American_ says, “Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.”   This is a perfect example of what we discussed last month, in the article on “Individual Evolution”.  What does _Scientific American_ mean by “profound changes in populations?”  Since it is certainly true that natural selection, mutations, and cross breeding of different varieties of the same species can change the demographics of a population, their statement (with the possible exception of symbiosis) is true.  But they aren’t just talking about demographics.  They no doubt are saying that an isolated population can turn into a population of an entirely new species, which is utterly false.


*They are using a rhetorical trick which, in debate, is called “the fallacy of the middle term.”*  For example, if Paul is taller than Jim, and Jim is taller than Dave, it must be true that Paul is taller than Dave because both are compared to Jim, which is a common middle term.


Given a term with two different meanings, an unethical person can establish that one meaning is true, then use the term as if the other meaning is true.  The classic example is, “Nothing is better than complete happiness.  Half a sandwich is better than nothing.  Therefore, half a sandwich is better than complete happiness.”  The middle term, “nothing”, has two different meanings.  It is a fallacy of the middle term because although it appears there are three terms, there are actually four different terms which have been mapped to three different words, with two terms having different meanings for the same word.


Evolutionists use the term “evolution” to mean "a change in demographics" (which has been scientifically verified) in one breath, and then macroevolution in the next breath, and try to make you think that they are the same thing.  They aren’t.  The change in demographics is the result of the increase or decrease in the number of individuals in the population who have certain *previously existing* genes.   Macroevolution requires the creation of brand new genes.  Even though both processes are called “evolution”, they are entirely different processes.


The really amazing statement in their third answer to “creationist nonsense” is,






Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. *If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way.* If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But *no one has yet produced such evidence.* 6



They really shot themselves in their proverbial feet there!  The point they are trying to make is that if there was any scientific evidence that inanimate matter came to life once, then inanimate matter might have come to life many times.  If matter came to life many times, then there would not be one common ancestor, and each major biological group would have had a different origin.  But since scientific experiments prove that inanimate matter cannot possibly come to life, they say, it must only have happened once!


The truth is that *there is no documentation of spontaneous generation of even one complex life-form from inanimate matter because it has never happened--not even once.*  That refutes the theory of evolution (as it is taught in public schools) because it is “dead on arrival.”


According to the grand theory of evolution, life began in a warm pond full of inanimate amino acids (or someplace very hot, or someplace very cold).  Therefore, inanimate matter had to form something living that could reproduce offspring that natural selection could select from. But, as they point out, there is no evidence that this has ever happened.


(Of course, one superintelligent alien has appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth, but we are just going to let their statement lie there without further comment.)


Scientists Doubt the Theory​
The most amusing part of the _Scientific American_ article was their fourth point.






*4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution. *
No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. 7



Do you think they really believe that? If so, why did they publish an eight-page article defending evolution?  They haven’t published proof of the round earth. That’s because scientists don’t take the flat earth theory seriously.  But they did have to try to defend the theory of evolution because it is losing adherents, even among scientists.


Their words and actions don’t match.  If evolution isn’t losing adherents, what is all the big fuss about?  They know that the theory of evolution really is losing adherents at an unprecedented rate.  The editors of _Scientific American_ said as much in the first three sentences of the editorial they wrote to introduce the feature article.






Preaching to the converted is unrewarding, so why should _Scientific American_ publish an article about the errors of creationism [see page 78]? Surely this magazine’s readers don’t need to be convinced.   Unfortunately, *skepticism of evolution is more rampant* than might be supposed. 8



Last month we told you that Eugenie C. Scott got this year’s Public Service Award from the National Science Board.  In her acceptance speech she said the award “highlights the importance of scientists taking the anti-evolution movement seriously.”





_Scientific American_ showed this graph on page 81.  They didn’t refer to it specifically in their article because they apparently thought it spoke for itself.
We wonder what they think it said.  Probably, they think it shows that highly educated people don’t believe in young-earth creationism.









We think that it really shows that the longer evolutionists are allowed to brainwash students, the more successful they will be.  But, even after at least 16 years of brainwashing, 40 percent of the people still won’t believe the lie they are being taught.  Almost 30 percent of the people with advanced degrees don’t believe in evolution.  If the theory of evolution were true, that number would be zero.  It isn't zero because many well-educated people can see the bankruptcy of the theory of evolution, despite years of evolutionary indoctrination.


Don’t let them tell you that they aren’t scared!  They are either panicking, or in denial, or both.


Disagreements Indicate Lack of Evidence​
Their next point was,






*5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution. *
Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a species apart from modern humans, and much more. These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology. 9



*These disputes are NOT like those found in all other branches of science.*  For example, there was briefly a dispute about cold fusion, but it was quickly resolved because the experiments could not be reproduced, and the “excess heat” that was allegedly measured could be accounted for by experimental error.


There aren’t even disputes like these in non-evolutionary biology.  *When was the last time you read a headline that said, “Biologists now say the liver, not the heart, actually pumps blood!” ?*


The reason why there are debates about evolutionary topics is because the things being discussed are matters of opinion, not scientific facts.  Somebody finds a part of a jaw and thinks it came from a  human ancestor.  A second scientist (who usually has also discovered a part of a jaw, which he claims came from a human ancestor) says the first scientist is wrong.  There is more ego involved than evidence.   Objectivity is distorted by the desire (perhaps even the need) to have bragging rights.


If there really was some solid evidence that one kind of species has ever turned into another kind of species, biologists would agree on it, just as they agree on the function of internal organs.


_Scientific American_ also says in this section,






Yet creationists delight in dissecting out phrases from Gould's voluminous prose to make him sound as though he had doubted evolution … 10



No, we don’t think Gould doubted evolution.  We do, however, point out that facts he himself presented did not support the conclusions he drew.  He knew that the fossil record contained no transitional forms, or other evidence for evolution.  That’s why he came up with punctuated equilibrium.  It was his rationalization of how evolution could be true, despite the fossil record as he knew it.  Nobody would care if *we* said, *“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”* 11 But the fact that *he* said it  makes it worth quoting.


_Scientific American_ goes on to say






.. and they [creationists] present punctuated equilibrium as though it allows new species to materialize overnight or birds to be born from reptile eggs. 12



Actually, _Scientific American_ is confusing Goldschmidt’s “hopeful monster theory”  with Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium.  The hopeful monster theory is like punctuated equilibrium on steroids.  Although the two theories differ in the amount of evolution that can take place in a single generation, both eventually have to confront the problem that a reptilian parent had to have had a mammalian child at some point for either theory to be true.  According to either theory, something without a backbone gave birth to something that did.  These are facts that evolutionists don’t like to face.


Why Do Monkeys Still Exist?​




*6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? *
This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor. 13



We have never heard a serious creationist make this argument.  We invite you to search the back issues of our newsletter to verify for yourself that we have never used the argument.  We don’t think you will find it on the Answers In Genesis, or Institute For Creation Research web sites, either.


Ironically, children are often taught in public schools that people descended from monkeys.  Students are likely to be confused by that and ask their teachers, “If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? ”.  Again, the criticism should be leveled against the public school science curriculum, not creationists.


As _Scientific American_ said, it is more accurate to say that *the theory of evolution says that both humans and apes descended from a common UNKNOWN ancestor, the existence of which one must accept by faith.*


The Origin of Life​




*7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.
The origin of life remains very much a mystery,* but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. 14



Evolution certainly cannot explain how life first appeared on Earth. The origin of life does remain very much a mystery.  There is no nonsense there!  But *biochemists have NOT learned how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry.*  In fact, they now know many more reasons why chemicals can’t spontaneously form something living than they did in the 1950’s.  The more they study the origin of life, the more apparent it is that life could not have formed spontaneously.


The hate mail we get often includes statements to the effect that we don’t understand evolution because the theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of life.  It is true that Darwinian evolution just attempts to explain how existing species change into other species, and says nothing about the origin of life.  But, when we talk about evolution, we are talking about the theory of evolution as it is taught in the American public schools.  American school children are taught that primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry.


*Many evolutionists want desperately to separate the origin of life from the origin of species because they know that spontaneous generation of life is impossible.*  But they really can’t do that because the theory of evolution is supposed to explain how we got here without any supernatural activity creating life.  They have to include the origin of life for it to explain how we got here.


*The theory of evolution is quite literally, “dead on arrival.”  It begins with lifeless chemicals on a lifeless planet.  Somehow the theory of evolution needs to get those lifeless chemicals to combine to form something living, which can be transformed by mutation and natural selection.*  It can’t do it.


Ironically, in answer number 3 and answer number 7, *Scientific American admitted that there isn’t a single documented case of inanimate chemicals coming to life, and that the origin of life is a mystery.  We are quoting them not to make it appear that they doubt evolution, but to show that they believe in evolution in spite of evidence they are fully aware of.*


To Be Continued …​
Unfortunately, we are out of space, so we will have to conclude this essay next month."





__





						No Nonsense
					





					www.scienceagainstevolution.org
				




Some creationists here just give and join their bandwagon.


----------



## Hollie

Dr Grump said:


> Were you parents Christians and are you in the US?


I suspect he's Islamic and on a personal Jihad to discredit Christianity and Christians as extremist.

Why else would anyone cut and paste walls of text from a blogger called Do-While Jones?


----------



## james bond

Anyway, back to abu afak..

"
Usually, when evolutionists try to combat the “only a theory” argument, they drag gravity into it.  They say Newton’s theory of gravity is “just a theory, too.”  The difference between gravity and evolution, of course, is that one can do repeatable experiments to test the theory of gravity.  Engineers can measure the amount of force it takes to stretch a spring a certain length.  Then, they hang various masses from the spring and measure how far it stretches.  From this they can determine the force of gravity pulling on the mass.


Furthermore, the theory of gravity made some interesting predictions.  Astronomers noted that some of the outer planets did not orbit in the path one would expect.  They calculated that some other gravitational force must be acting on them.  From that they calculated where an unknown planet must be.  They looked in that location and discovered Pluto.  The theory of gravity predicted a planet of a particular size in a particular orbit, and it turned out to be a correct prediction.


The theory of evolution isn’t like the theory of gravity.  We have neither the time, talent,  nor the material to build a lifeless planet just like Earth orbiting around a star just like the Sun to see if life will evolve on it after a few billion years.  But we can perform some interesting experiments on a smaller scale.  Many scientists have done experiments trying to find some way for lifeless chemicals to assemble themselves into living cells.  Just as alchemists, after many failures, admitted that there isn’t any way to turn lead into gold, evolutionists will someday have to admit that there isn’t any way to turn brackish water into bacteria.  In fact, those origin of life experiments have shown us some good reasons why chemicals can’t come to life by purely natural processes.


Breeding experiments have shown that there are limits to how much artificial selection can modify a variety.  There is every reason to believe that natural selection would have the same limits as artificial selection does.  In fact, with what we now know about genes and information theory, we understand why those limits are there, and why mutation and natural selection can’t cross them.


Unlike the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution doesn’t have a lot of experimental confirmation to support it.  In fact, the experimental evidence against evolution would certainly have caused the theory to have been rejected long ago, if it weren’t for the religious implications that go along with it.


The theory of evolution doesn’t have a very good record when it comes to prediction, either.  Darwin said that the fossil record should show innumerable transitional forms.  It doesn’t. The “Cambrian explosion” of fossils is not what would be expected if the theory of evolution were true.  Evolutionists first tried to explain away the scientific observations by saying that there were gaps in the fossil record.  More recently, they have tried to explain it away with “punctuated equilibrium” (which we have discussed on several occasions, the most recent being last month).


If evolution were true, there would not be such clear divisions between classes, orders, and families.  It should be really hard to decide if certain living creatures were reptiles or mammals because there should be innumerable living transitional forms.


So, *serious creationists don’t reject evolution because it is “only a theory.”  They reject it because it is a theory that is not consistent with modern scientific observation."*

I didn't know you evos tried to generate abiogenesis.  No wonder you gave up and good thing lol.  We can bury that since you admitted it doesn't work.  Just admit nothing backs up evolution and we're done here.


----------



## JoeBlow

james bond said:


> Anyway, back to abu afak..
> 
> "
> Usually, when evolutionists try to combat the “only a theory” argument, they drag gravity into it.  They say Newton’s theory of gravity is “just a theory, too.”  The difference between gravity and evolution, of course, is that one can do repeatable experiments to test the theory of gravity.  Engineers can measure the amount of force it takes to stretch a spring a certain length.  Then, they hang various masses from the spring and measure how far it stretches.  From this they can determine the force of gravity pulling on the mass.
> 
> 
> Furthermore, the theory of gravity made some interesting predictions.  Astronomers noted that some of the outer planets did not orbit in the path one would expect.  They calculated that some other gravitational force must be acting on them.  From that they calculated where an unknown planet must be.  They looked in that location and discovered Pluto.  The theory of gravity predicted a planet of a particular size in a particular orbit, and it turned out to be a correct prediction.
> 
> 
> The theory of evolution isn’t like the theory of gravity.  We have neither the time, talent,  nor the material to build a lifeless planet just like Earth orbiting around a star just like the Sun to see if life will evolve on it after a few billion years.  But we can perform some interesting experiments on a smaller scale.  Many scientists have done experiments trying to find some way for lifeless chemicals to assemble themselves into living cells.  Just as alchemists, after many failures, admitted that there isn’t any way to turn lead into gold, evolutionists will someday have to admit that there isn’t any way to turn brackish water into bacteria.  In fact, those origin of life experiments have shown us some good reasons why chemicals can’t come to life by purely natural processes.
> 
> 
> Breeding experiments have shown that there are limits to how much artificial selection can modify a variety.  There is every reason to believe that natural selection would have the same limits as artificial selection does.  In fact, with what we now know about genes and information theory, we understand why those limits are there, and why mutation and natural selection can’t cross them.
> 
> 
> Unlike the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution doesn’t have a lot of experimental confirmation to support it.  In fact, the experimental evidence against evolution would certainly have caused the theory to have been rejected long ago, if it weren’t for the religious implications that go along with it.
> 
> 
> The theory of evolution doesn’t have a very good record when it comes to prediction, either.  Darwin said that the fossil record should show innumerable transitional forms.  It doesn’t. The “Cambrian explosion” of fossils is not what would be expected if the theory of evolution were true.  Evolutionists first tried to explain away the scientific observations by saying that there were gaps in the fossil record.  More recently, they have tried to explain it away with “punctuated equilibrium” (which we have discussed on several occasions, the most recent being last month).
> 
> 
> If evolution were true, there would not be such clear divisions between classes, orders, and families.  It should be really hard to decide if certain living creatures were reptiles or mammals because there should be innumerable living transitional forms.
> 
> 
> So, *serious creationists don’t reject evolution because it is “only a theory.”  They reject it because it is a theory that is not consistent with modern scientific observation."*
> 
> I didn't know you evos tried to generate abiogenesis.  No wonder you gave up and good thing lol.  We can bury that since you admitted it doesn't work.  Just admit nothing backs up evolution and we're done here.


Most likely this is how life made it to earth

Panspermia - Wikipedia


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

JoeBlow said:


> Most likely this is how life made it to earth
> 
> Panspermia - Wikipedia


Doubtful.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> First, I am baptized and am Christian since 2012.



For the age of 9-10 years you sound a little old.




james bond said:


> I am led by the Holy Ghost and have Jesus in my heart.



What seems to exclude some other people who don't share your political opinions.



james bond said:


> God the Father accepts me the way I am



God the Father accepts everyone. He made us all.



james bond said:


> and wanted me to continue here.



Perhaps you should read from time to time what you write.



james bond said:


> I don't think you nor my detractors really read my posts as I am for creation science and against evolution.



Creation science is not existing and the really scientific theory of evolution is "more than a hypothese" how John Paul II said.

_“Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical [Humani generis by Pius XII], new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.  It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge.  The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory. ”_
*John Paul II*



james bond said:


> God created natural selection so that takes care of microevolution.



This statement sounds in my ears like an empty phrase.



james bond said:


> There is no argument against that and both sides agree.



Which "two sides"?



james bond said:


> What is nefarious about evolution is humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs.  It has led to long time.  You can believe that all you want, but I think a Christian who believes in old evolution can be misled.



Evolution is a natural law - like gravity.  There is no new or old evolution or a new or old gravity. What grows is our knowledge. Today we know some things people who had lived 200 years ago did not know - and today we do not know some things what other people in 200 years will know. We need for example a much better understanding for this what gravity is - and I'm sure we will also need a better understanding of evolution. So if you like to work together with biologists to solve the scientific problems around the natural law biological evolution then it could be a good idea to study biology.



james bond said:


> God gave us a new Earth.



Which new Earth? ... ah ... now I remember ... It's a very long time when theologists discussed about why god had created also "the new world" (America).



james bond said:


> What's next are you going to give up?



I hopefully will always give up everything what's wrong - but hopefully I never will give up.



james bond said:


> Are you just going to accept this -- 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense – By John Rennie on July 1, 2002



I don't have a big idea what the idiots are writing who are using the expression "Creationists" for Christians.


----------



## james bond

JoeBlow said:


> Most likely this is how life made it to earth
> 
> Panspermia - Wikipedia


You'd have an argument if you can show life exists elsewhere.  We haven't found any life in our solar system besides Earth.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> For the age of 9-10 years you sound a little old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What seems to exclude some other people who don't share your political opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> God the Father accepts everyone. He made us all.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should read from time to time what you write.
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is not existing and the really scientific theory of evolution is "more than a hypothese" how John Paul II said.
> 
> _“Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical [Humani generis by Pius XII], new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.  It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge.  The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory. ”_
> *John Paul II*
> 
> 
> 
> This statement sounds in my ears like an empty phrase.
> 
> 
> 
> Which "two sides"?
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a natural law - like gravity.  There is no new or old evolution or a new or old gravity. What grows is our knowledge. Today we know some things people who had lived 200 years ago did not know - and today we do not know some things what other people in 200 years will know. We need for example a much better understanding for this what gravity is - and I'm sure we will also need a better understanding of evolution. So if you like to work together with biologists to solve the scientific problems around the natural law biological evolution then it could be a good idea to study biology.
> 
> 
> 
> Which new Earth? ... ah .. now I remeber ... It's a very long time when theologists discussed about why god had created also "the new world" (America).
> 
> 
> 
> I hopefully will always give up everything what's wrong - but hopefully I never will give up.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a big idea what the idiots are writing who are using the expression "creationists" for Christians.


I didn't get past your first reply.  No point in reading more insulting remarks from other creationists (who believe in evolution and long time); I get enough of that from the atheists here.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> Evolution is a natural law - like gravity. There is no new or old evolution or a new or old gravity. What grows is our knowledge. Today we know some things people who had lived 200 years ago did not know - and today we do not know some things what other people in 200 years will know. We need for example a much better understanding for this what gravity is - and I'm sure we will also need a better understanding of evolution. So if you like to work together with biologists to solve the scientific problems around the natural law biological evolution then it could be a good idea to study biology.


Will answer your above statement once more.  I already answered this and I'm right that you do not read nor understand my posts.  Maybe you should discuss with Mensa abu afak?

"Furthermore, the theory of gravity made some interesting predictions.   Astronomers noted that some of the outer planets did not orbit in the path one would expect.  They calculated that some other gravitational force must be acting on them.  From that they calculated where an unknown planet must be.  They looked in that location and discovered Pluto.  The theory of gravity predicted a planet of a particular size in a particular orbit, and it turned out to be a correct prediction.


The theory of evolution isn’t like the theory of gravity.  We have neither the time, talent,  nor the material to build a lifeless planet just like Earth orbiting around a star just like the Sun to see if life will evolve on it after a few billion years. * But we can perform some interesting experiments on a smaller scale.  Many scientists have done experiments trying to find some way for lifeless chemicals to assemble themselves into living cells.  Just as alchemists, after many failures, admitted that there isn’t any way to turn lead into gold, evolutionists will someday have to admit that there isn’t any way to turn brackish water into bacteria.  In fact, those origin of life experiments have shown us some good reasons why chemicals can’t come to life by purely natural processes.*


Breeding experiments have shown that there are limits to how much artificial selection can modify a variety.  There is every reason to believe that natural selection would have the same limits as artificial selection does.  In fact, with what we now know about genes and information theory, we understand why those limits are there, and why mutation and natural selection can’t cross them.


*Unlike the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution doesn’t have a lot of experimental confirmation to support it.  In fact, the experimental evidence against evolution would certainly have caused the theory to have been rejected long ago, if it weren’t for the religious implications that go along with it.*


The theory of evolution doesn’t have a very good record when it comes to prediction, either.  Darwin said that the fossil record should show innumerable transitional forms.  It doesn’t. The “Cambrian explosion” of fossils is not what would be expected if the theory of evolution were true.  Evolutionists first tried to explain away the scientific observations by saying that there were gaps in the fossil record.  More recently, they have tried to explain it away with “punctuated equilibrium” (which we have discussed on several occasions, the most recent being last month).


If evolution were true, there would not be such clear divisions between classes, orders, and families.  It should be really hard to decide if certain living creatures were reptiles or mammals because there should be innumerable living transitional forms."


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Will answer your above statement once more.  I already answered this and I'm right that you do not read nor understand my posts.  Maybe you should discuss with Mensa abu afak?
> 
> "Furthermore, the theory of gravity made some interesting predictions.   Astronomers noted that some of the outer planets did not orbit in the path one would expect.  They calculated that some other gravitational force must be acting on them.  From that they calculated where an unknown planet must be.  They looked in that location and discovered Pluto.  The theory of gravity predicted a planet of a particular size in a particular orbit, and it turned out to be a correct prediction.
> 
> 
> The theory of evolution isn’t like the theory of gravity.  We have neither the time, talent,  nor the material to build a lifeless planet just like Earth orbiting around a star just like the Sun to see if life will evolve on it after a few billion years. * But we can perform some interesting experiments on a smaller scale.  Many scientists have done experiments trying to find some way for lifeless chemicals to assemble themselves into living cells.  Just as alchemists, after many failures, admitted that there isn’t any way to turn lead into gold, evolutionists will someday have to admit that there isn’t any way to turn brackish water into bacteria.  In fact, those origin of life experiments have shown us some good reasons why chemicals can’t come to life by purely natural processes.*
> 
> 
> Breeding experiments have shown that there are limits to how much artificial selection can modify a variety.  There is every reason to believe that natural selection would have the same limits as artificial selection does.  In fact, with what we now know about genes and information theory, we understand why those limits are there, and why mutation and natural selection can’t cross them.
> 
> 
> *Unlike the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution doesn’t have a lot of experimental confirmation to support it.  In fact, the experimental evidence against evolution would certainly have caused the theory to have been rejected long ago, if it weren’t for the religious implications that go along with it.*
> 
> 
> The theory of evolution doesn’t have a very good record when it comes to prediction, either.  Darwin said that the fossil record should show innumerable transitional forms.  It doesn’t. The “Cambrian explosion” of fossils is not what would be expected if the theory of evolution were true.  Evolutionists first tried to explain away the scientific observations by saying that there were gaps in the fossil record.  More recently, they have tried to explain it away with “punctuated equilibrium” (which we have discussed on several occasions, the most recent being last month).
> 
> 
> If evolution were true, there would not be such clear divisions between classes, orders, and families.  It should be really hard to decide if certain living creatures were reptiles or mammals because there should be innumerable living transitional forms."


Have there been any experiments to find a god, or just 10,000 failed claims, and still Hundreds off Conflicting 'gods,' with at, least 75% of the planet wrong.
There are self-replicating inorganic molecules. 

`


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> Will answer your above statement once more.  I already answered this and I'm right that you do not read nor understand my posts.  Maybe you should discuss with Mensa abu afak?
> 
> "Furthermore, the theory of gravity made some interesting predictions.   Astronomers noted that some of the outer planets did not orbit in the path one would expect.  They calculated that some other gravitational force must be acting on them.  From that they calculated where an unknown planet must be.  They looked in that location and discovered Pluto.  The theory of gravity predicted a planet of a particular size in a particular orbit, and it turned out to be a correct prediction.
> 
> 
> The theory of evolution isn’t like the theory of gravity.  We have neither the time, talent,  nor the material to build a lifeless planet just like Earth orbiting around a star just like the Sun to see if life will evolve on it after a few billion years. * But we can perform some interesting experiments on a smaller scale.  Many scientists have done experiments trying to find some way for lifeless chemicals to assemble themselves into living cells.  Just as alchemists, after many failures, admitted that there isn’t any way to turn lead into gold, evolutionists will someday have to admit that there isn’t any way to turn brackish water into bacteria.  In fact, those origin of life experiments have shown us some good reasons why chemicals can’t come to life by purely natural processes.*
> 
> 
> Breeding experiments have shown that there are limits to how much artificial selection can modify a variety.  There is every reason to believe that natural selection would have the same limits as artificial selection does.  In fact, with what we now know about genes and information theory, we understand why those limits are there, and why mutation and natural selection can’t cross them.
> 
> 
> *Unlike the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution doesn’t have a lot of experimental confirmation to support it.*



You are a mammal.



james bond said:


> *  In fact, the experimental evidence against evolution would certainly have caused the theory to have been rejected long ago, if it weren’t for the religious implications that go along with it.*
> 
> 
> The theory of evolution doesn’t have a very good record when it comes to prediction, either.



Exactly. Evolution is not teleological. So expressions like for example "the evolution of cars" are nonsense; the developement of cars follows our intuition, knowledge, plans and vogues and other human factors. And when butterflies would not exist then I doubt about that anyone had the fantasy to find out anything about the possible existance of such a lifeform which could be more than only fantasy. But we had not even the fantasy to do so.



james bond said:


> Darwin said that the fossil record should show innumerable transitional forms.  It doesn’t. The “Cambrian explosion” of fossils is not what would be expected if the theory of evolution were true.  Evolutionists first tried to explain away the scientific observations by saying that there were gaps in the fossil record.  More recently, they have tried to explain it away with “punctuated equilibrium” (which we have discussed on several occasions, the most recent being last month).
> 
> 
> If evolution were true, there would not be such clear divisions between classes, orders, and families.  It should be really hard to decide if certain living creatures were reptiles or mammals because there should be innumerable living transitional forms."



99% or more of all Christians worldwide do not share your belief in a form of anti-evolution which you and others call "Creationism". We believe just simple god made everything - also evolution - and he was, is and always will be "the creator". Creation is not over yet. But this means not every form of theory of evolution is right or wrong. What's right or wrong and not only a semblance in context of the biological evolution of a species needs normally not a Christian discussion - that's just simple a discussion in the science biology. Example: The phylogeny of our eyes has nothing to do with an expression like "to see a problem". With all forms of light measurement systems in the complete electromagnetic spectrum we are able to see for example a problem - if we have the awareness or consciousness (and instruments like for example our eyes) to do so. But "to see" something with our "inner eyes" is what we need - even if we are blind. The light we speak about is not physics - it is meta-physics - perhaps more like a meta-physics in a similar way how mathematics is the meta-physics of physics.


----------



## JoeBlow

james bond said:


> You'd have an argument if you can show life exists elsewhere.  We haven't found any life in our solar system besides Earth.


They’ve found the building blocks of life all over the place. Actual life will probably be discovered within our lifetime.


----------



## JoeBlow

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Doubtful.


They’ve found the building blocks of life all over the place. Actual life will probably be discovered within our lifetime.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I suspect he's Islamic and on a personal Jihad to discredit Christianity and Christians as extremist.
> 
> Why else would anyone cut and paste walls of text from a blogger called Do-While Jones?


I am 100% American, 100% Christian and 100% YEC.  I doubt that makes me an extremist.  Why don't you talk with zaangalewa about being Christian and evolutionist?


----------



## james bond

JoeBlow said:


> They’ve found the building blocks of life all over the place. Actual life will probably be discovered within our lifetime.


Doubtful as one can't create life from non-life.  Only life begats life and we only have life on Earth.  I doubt life could start elsewhere even with panspermia from Earth as the solar winds are too harsh for any life.  It's like God made it so that we can't live anywhere, but on Earth for a long time.  Maybe living in a space station, but they would need some place to get supplies..


----------



## zaangalewa

abu afak said:


> Have there been any experiments to find a god, or just 10,000 failed claims, and still Hundreds off Conflicting 'gods,' with at, least 75% of the planet wrong.
> There are self-replicating inorganic molecules.
> 
> `



The problem with the theories about self-organization of matter is it that evolution starts from a single point - from a first living reproductive structure. So it looks like the start of living matter is an extremely seldom event. If all matter is in principle self-organizing - why do we nearly never see this? And even in case god made this to happen - how to know that god was it who made this to happen or not to happen?


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> Doubtful as one can't create life from non-life.



We are made with totally normal "dead" matter - or how the bible says: unspecific "dust".

-----
_All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return. Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth? So I saw that there is nothing better than that a man should rejoice in his work, for that is his lot. Who can bring him to see what will be after him?_
 -----



james bond said:


> Only life begats life and we only have life on Earth.  I doubt life could start elsewhere even with panspermia from Earth as the solar winds are too harsh for any life.  It's like God made it so that we can't live anywhere, but on Earth for a long time.  Maybe living in a space station, but they would need some place to get supplies..





JoeBlow said:


> They’ve found the building blocks of life all over the place. Actual life will probably be discovered within our lifetime.



Only one fact: Last week I read our solar system exists within a nearly empty bubble in the size of about 1000 lightyears. A series of super nova explosions made this bubble. So whatever someone likes to think about the existance of aliens -  I guess before we are able to leave this bubble will pass some decades of thousands of years.


----------



## zaangalewa

abu afak

Are you not able to say what you think because you are not thinking at all?


----------



## JoeBlow

james bond said:


> Doubtful as one can't create life from non-life.  Only life begats life and we only have life on Earth.  I doubt life could start elsewhere even with panspermia from Earth as the solar winds are too harsh for any life.  It's like God made it so that we can't live anywhere, but on Earth for a long time.  Maybe living in a space station, but they would need some place to get supplies..


How do you know that life can't be made from its own building blocks? Life could have started on many, many planets out there.


----------



## JoeBlow

zaangalewa said:


> Only one fact: Last week I read our solar system exists within a nearly empty bubble in the size of about 1000 lightyears. A series of super nova explosions made this bubble. So whatever someone likes to think about the existance of aliens -  I guess before we are able to leave this bubble will pass some decades of thousands of years.


More advanced civilizations can travel through space a lot faster, maybe even time travel.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> More advanced civilizations can travel through space a lot faster, maybe even time travel.



Everyone loves science fiction - but this has nothing to do with reality. That's entertainement. Our atmosphere protects us from the radiation of the sun and the sun protects us from the interstellar radiation. The faster we would travel the higher grows the radiation which will destroy everything in a space ship. And nowhere outside is any life. Even on our own planet exist big areas where multicellular life is impossible. Multicellular life is anyway only since about 500-600 million years existing in noteworthy dimensions - although our own planet has very best conditions for the existence of life. Perhaps also because of this 1000 lightyears big empty bubble. We have not only not a light idea how to travel in galactic dimensions - we have absolutelly not any idea how to do so ... except we wander slowly with a generation spaceship and take our home with us. But we need also gravitation on board of such a big ship and a complete biospere. But not to forget: the biosphere experiments failed. We are intelligent enough to be able to destroy our biosphere - but we are not intelligent enough to know how to make a stable isolated biosphere. Otherwise in only some hundred or some thousand years we could perhaps build such a spaceship with a stable biosphere and to find coordinates where to travel.


----------



## james bond

JoeBlow said:


> How do you know that life can't be made from its own building blocks? Life could have started on many, many planets out there.


I'm know _absolutely_ from Louis Pasteur's swan neck flask experiment. He disproved spontaneous generation and abiogenesis in it. 

I just learned that the stupid atheist scientists have continued to try abiogenesis experiments despite Pasteur's genius work. It just goes to show atheists wishful thinking or brand of faith, i.e. beliefs in lies such as evolution, doesn't work!


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> Everyone loves science fiction - but this has nothing to do with reality. That's entertainement. Our atmosphere protects us from the radiation of the sun and the sun protects us from the interstellar radiation. The faster we would travel the higher grows the radiation which will destroy everything in a space ship. And nowhere outside is any life. Even on our own planet exist big areas where multicellular life is impossible. Multicellular life is anyway only since about 500-600 million years existing in noteworthy dimensions - although our own planet has very best conditions for the existence of life. Perhaps also because of this 1000 lightyears big empty bubble. We have not only not a light idea how to travel in galactic dimensions - we have absolutelly not any idea how to do so ... except we wander slowly with a generation spaceship and take our home with us. But we need also gravitation on board of such a big ship and a complete biospere. But not to forget: the biosphere experiments failed. We are intelligent enough to be able to destroy our biosphere - but we are not intelligent enough to know how to make a stable isolated biosphere. Otherwise in only some hundred or some thousand years we could perhaps build such a spaceship with a stable biosphere and to find coordinates where to travel.


I don't understand your post.  You do not believe that one can time travel into the future?  It has been experimentally proven that one can by flying off into space and returning.  If one could do it near the speed of light, then they would travel further into the future.  Time travel into the past is impossible and sci-fi.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> We are made with totally normal "dead" matter - or how the bible says: unspecific "dust".


You're missing the important part in God, the Creator, so you are wrong.


----------



## JoeBlow

james bond said:


> I'm know _absolutely_ from Louis Pasteur's swan neck flask experiment. He disproved spontaneous generation and abiogenesis in it.
> 
> I just learned that the stupid atheist scientists have continued to try abiogenesis experiments despite Pasteur's genius work. It just goes to show atheists wishful thinking or brand of faith, i.e. beliefs in lies such as evolution, doesn't work!


So you're saying that you know that throughout the whole universe it can't have happened because we haven't done it yet? Is that your final answer?


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> I just learned that the stupid atheist scientists have continued to try abiogenesis experiments despite Pasteur's genius work. It just goes to show atheists wishful thinking or brand of faith, i.e. beliefs in lies such as evolution, doesn't work!


..and God looked down upon those many hydrothermal vents and declared them "_Good! _(Then, lacking understanding of modern chemistry and microbiology, he proceeded to experiment..)_ Now lemme just stick a few of these stinky little microbes I saw multiplying over there into each.. _(Then a short while later..)_ Ah, myself! I'm like magic, I swear! I've created life! LIFE FROM NOTHING! BWAHAHAHAA! Take that you fool, Louie!"









						Earliest known life forms - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



_


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> I'm know _absolutely_ from Louis Pasteur's swan neck flask experiment. He disproved spontaneous generation and abiogenesis in it.



Lives water? How much water is in your body? Why do you need it?



james bond said:


> I just learned that the stupid atheist scientists



Learn from intelligent atheist scientist if you are not able to learn from stupid atheist scientists.



james bond said:


> have continued to try abiogenesis experiments despite Pasteur's genius work.



To be honest: I don't have any idea what you try to speak about here. For me it's totally clear that there is only one common creation from god for us all. What is dead today will live tomorrow. Perhaps one day every quant of the universe will be part of a living structure. Who knows?



james bond said:


> It just goes to show atheists wishful thinking or brand of faith, i.e. beliefs in lies such as evolution, doesn't work!



So what? Everyone believes also something what's wrong. You believe for example evolution is wrong. I don't think so because god made it this way.



By the way: Do you have any explanation why the Germanic language of the Anglo-Saxons (English) uses "brother sun and sister moon"? In the German language it would be "sister sun and brother moon".


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> I don't understand your post.  You do not believe that one can time travel into the future?



We do a time travel into the future. It will possibly end with our death.  



james bond said:


> It has been experimentally proven that one can by flying off into space and returning.  If one could do it near the speed of light, then they would travel further into the future.



And the backround radiation of the universe would kill you because of the extreme heat which is now only 3° K.



james bond said:


> Time travel into the past is impossible



Why?



james bond said:


> and sci-fi.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> You're missing the important part in God, the Creator, so you are wrong.


Your god is your idiot always when you don't have an answer?


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> ..and God looked down upon those many hydrothermal vents and declared them "_Good! _(Then, lacking understanding of modern chemistry and microbiology, he proceeded to experiment..)_ Now lemme just stick a few of these stinky little microbes I saw multiplying over there into each.. _(Then a short while later..)_ Ah, myself! I'm like magic, I swear! I've created life! LIFE FROM NOTHING! BWAHAHAHAA! Take that you fool, Louie!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Earliest known life forms - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _


SMH, too many errors in your article and head, especially "..and God looked down upon those many hydrothermal vents and declared them "_Good! _(Then, lacking understanding of modern chemistry and microbiology, he proceeded to experiment..)."

What happens when He says to you, "_BWAHAHAHAA! Take that you fool, @Grumblenuts?"_  All of us creationists would love to see what you get.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> SMH, too many errors in your article and head, especially "..and God looked down upon those many hydrothermal vents and declared them "_Good! _(Then, lacking understanding of modern chemistry and microbiology, he proceeded to experiment..)."
> 
> What happens when He says to you, "_BWAHAHAHAA! Take that you fool, @Grumblenuts?"_  All of us creationists would love to see what you get.



And you do seriosly wonder yourselve  why I have a problem to see in you a serious Christian - only because you have not any problem to break one of the 10 commandements just for fun?


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> SMH, too many errors in your article and head, especially "..and God looked down upon those many hydrothermal vents and declared them "_Good! _(Then, lacking understanding of modern chemistry and microbiology, he proceeded to experiment..)."


What are you babbling about now? I posted a link to a Wikipedia page and wrote some silly satire. Don't like it? Good. You weren't meant to. Don't understand it at all? Fully expected that as well. Sometimes one can only hope that some crazed reader out there trips over the thread, picks up on the vibe, and gets a chuckle out of it.. some sunny day.

_We'll meet again
Don't know where
Don't know when.._


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> What are you babbling about now? I posted a link to a Wikipedia page and wrote some silly satire. Don't like it? Good. You weren't meant to. Don't understand it at all? Fully expected that as well. Sometimes one can only hope that some crazed reader out there trips over the thread, picks up on the vibe, and gets a chuckle out of it.. some sunny day.
> 
> _We'll meet again
> Don't know where
> Don't know when.._


>>
_We'll meet again
Don't know where
Don't know when..<<_

I hope not!!!  Once was enough lol.

I was referring to the spontaneous generation (called abiogenesis today) experiments the atheist scientists keep trying.  Of course, they ALL failed and so it makes me happy and lol at the WRONG atheists and their scientists.  Atheists are usually wrong.  Of course, they won't give up in their _wrong_ beliefs about evolution.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> We do a time travel into the future. It will possibly end with our death.
> 
> 
> 
> And the backround radiation of the universe would kill you because of the extreme heat which is now only 3° K.
> 
> 
> 
> Why?


Lol, no.  It just means that you're still the same age while everyone else on Earth aged and it's a future time from the time you left.  

You don't know why we can't time travel into the past?  Hint:  How fast would your space ship have to go?


----------



## Seymour Flops

Not2BSubjugated said:


> I will never understand why atheists try to disprove religions with scientific arguments.
> 
> Creationism is unfalsifiable.  The people who declare themselves the champions of science ought to understand from the get-go that this puts the concept beyond the capacity of science to prove or disprove, so why bother?
> 
> When you say, "That magic wand isn't real!  It doesn't even have any batteries in it!" your initial point may be correct, but your reasoning is irrelevant to that point.


Creationism is indeed unfalsifiable. No experiment can be performed to determine whether it did or did not happen. So it is not science on any but a layman's inaccurate  sense of the word.

But the sane is true for Darwinism. Any attempt to test what did happen can only at best show whether something might have happened.

Whether Darwinist, or creationist, or intelligent design theorist, if a person insists we must accept one unscientific theory and exclude other unscientific theories, they are guilty of special pleading, a common rhetorical fallacy.


----------



## Wuwei

Seymour Flops said:


> Creationism is indeed unfalsifiable. No experiment can be performed to determine whether it did or did not happen. So it is not science on any but a layman's inaccurate sense of the word.
> 
> But the sane is true for Darwinism. Any attempt to test what did happen can only at best show whether something might have happened.
> 
> Whether Darwinist, or creationist, or intelligent design theorist, if a person insists we must accept one unscientific theory and exclude other unscientific theories, they are guilty of special pleading, a common rhetorical fallacy.


Do you have a suggestion on how to handle your unprovability problem. Maybe everyone should go their separate ways and not make futile arguments on a message board?
.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> Lol, no.  It just means that you're still the same age while everyone else on Earth aged and it's a future time from the time you left.
> 
> You don't know why we can't time travel into the past?



I have some ideas about why this could be impossible - but I have also some ideas why it could be possible.



james bond said:


> Hint:  How fast would your space ship have to go?



If you like to warm up 3°K to 100°C then this is a difference of 370°. 370/3 = ~ 12500%. A growth of a mass from 1 kg to 125 kg needs ... about 0.999968% of the lightspeed ... if I calculated this in the right way - what I doubt because I am not a physicist. But if this is right I could say everyone who tries to travel 125 times faster into the future than all others around are doing would throw the own body into a cooking universe.


----------



## zaangalewa

Seymour Flops said:


> Creationism is indeed unfalsifiable. ...



When you see a pot it was made from human beings. What to do with the word "unfalsifiable" in such an easily evident context? 

The problem with our own creation and the creation of everything what we know - today we could call this in natural science also "the birth of the universe" - is totally different from any other problem which we know. 

Let me tell you my biggest problem in this context: It's impossible for me - absolutelly impossible - to think that this universe here makes not any sense at all - although I don't know what the sense of this universe is. 
This "sense" - whatever it is - decided - however this is possible - to create time and suddenly - whatever suddenly means now -  existed time. But there had been never anything to sense before this had happened. ... And now tell me what to falsify or to verify in which way. Nothing what you and I are able to say about such a situation makes any sense at all. 

But means this now I am able to believe that the existence of the universe makes not any sense? Still I am not able to believe this! And even if someone will murder me on a totally senseless reason for to show that nothing makes any sense at all - then I would nevertheless not be able to believe such things happen because this universe (=this plan of god) is senseless.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Wuwei said:


> Do you have a suggestion on how to handle your unprovability problem. Maybe everyone should go their separate ways and not make futile arguments on a message board?
> .


I suppose we could do that.

But I see such rigidity of personality, anger, and bitterness in many posters. I fear that if they did not have people like me making rational arguments for them to respond to with personal attacks, they would be kicking their dogs, beating their kids or lighting sleeping spouses on fire.

I'm happy to be a safety valve for them.


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> I suppose we could do that.
> 
> But I see such rigidity of personality, anger, and bitterness in many posters. I fear that if they did not have people like me making rational arguments for them to respond to with personal attacks, they would be kicking their dogs, beating their kids or lighting sleeping spouses on fire.
> 
> I'm happy to be a safety valve for them.


You have not made any Rational arguments.
You believe in ID, and beyond that a god. There is no rational/tangible evidence for any supernatural being.
ie,
*You said in THIS thread LIAR Boy: (then lied about it)
Post #352*
in: More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges



> Seymour Flops said:
> *Who sent the Meteor that came right in time for the smart little rodent proto-mammals to be saved from the far less intelligent, but ravenously hunting dinosaurs?
> Was that another co-inkie-dink? *


`


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> abu afak
> 
> Are you not able to say what you think because you are not thinking at all?


abu afak and the atheists do not have any science from evolution to talk about.  They are here to only voice their complaints about creationists.  Will they be complaining about us forever?

Yes.  "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7

I suppose we can remain whole longer if we are embalmed _properly_ before burial -- After someone dies and has been embalmed, how long will their body last before you have to have the funeral?, but it doesn't matter even if we are creamated.  I've heard it's better to be whole to be resurrected but the Bible states it doesn't matter.  Some are watching too many Walking Dead shows lol.

"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life." Romans 6:3-4


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> You have not made any Rational arguments.
> You believe in ID, and beyond that a god. There is no rational/tangible evidence for any supernatural being.
> ie,
> *You said in THIS thread LIAR Boy: (then lied about it)
> Post #352*
> in: More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges
> 
> 
> `


Dude, you brought up the dino-busting meteor, not me. Click on your own link and see for yourself.

Wuwei you see what I mean about giving these unstable types an outlet to vent?

I doubt Abu has kids, but without me, I can easily picture him buying a half-dozen hamsters at a pet shop so he can stomp them one by one when he gets frustrated with life.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Seymour Flops said:


> Creationism is indeed unfalsifiable. No experiment can be performed to determine whether it did or did not happen. So it is not science on any but a layman's inaccurate  sense of the word.
> 
> But the sane is true for Darwinism. Any attempt to test what did happen can only at best show whether something might have happened.
> 
> Whether Darwinist, or creationist, or intelligent design theorist, if a person insists we must accept one unscientific theory and exclude other unscientific theories, they are guilty of special pleading, a common rhetorical fallacy.


Sorry, no. Pseudoscience is:


> _noun_
> 
> 
> a collection of beliefs or practices *mistakenly regarded as* being based on scientific method.


"Creationism" intentionally defies logic and by definition:


> _noun_
> 
> 
> *the belief* that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as *in the* *biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution*.


Science:


> _noun_
> 
> 
> the intellectual and practical activity encompassing *the systematic study* of the structure and behaviour *of* *the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.*


Belief:


> _noun_
> 
> 
> 1.
> an *acceptance* that a statement is true or that something exists.


Faith:


> _noun_
> 
> 
> 1.
> complete *trust* or confidence in someone or something.


Science has allowed us to evolve beyond having to rely upon belief and faith.


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> Dude, you brought up the dino-busting meteor, not me. Click on your own link and see for yourself.
> 
> Wuwei you see what I mean about giving these unstable types an outlet to vent?
> 
> I doubt Abu has kids, but without me, I can easily picture him buying a half-dozen hamsters at a pet shop so he can stomp them one by one when he gets frustrated with life.


*I brought it up as a geological, evolution-changing fact, because it is.
YOU suggested GodDidIt and it was "No co-inkie-dinkie."

You are a Religious crackpot who got caught/outed.*
You have no rational argument.
*`*


----------



## Seymour Flops

Grumblenuts said:


> Sorry, no. Pseudoscience is:
> 
> "Creationism" intentionally defies logic and by definition:
> 
> Science:
> 
> Belief:
> 
> Faith:
> 
> Science has allowed us to evolve beyond having to rely upon belief and faith.


True, but the study of the origin of life on Earth is not science.


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> *I brought it up as a geological, evolution-changing fact, because it is.
> YOU suggested GodDidIt and it was "No co-inkie-dinkie."
> 
> You are a Religious crackpot who got caught/outed.*
> You have no rational argument.
> *`*


I did not suggest any such thing. I asked a question.

If my questions make you uncomfortable, blame the lies you've taken comfort in.

Then go stomp your hamster.


----------



## Grumblenuts

So what did Pasteur actually prove / refute / demonstrate with his "Swan neck" experiments?:


> In 1862, the great French scientist Louis Pasteur tested the validity of a widely held *belief in* spontaneous generation.


{...}


> Pasteur thus refuted *the notion of* spontaneous generation.


{...}


> Pasteur's experiment showed that microbes cannot arise from nonliving materials *under the conditions that existed on Earth during his lifetime. But his experiment did not prove that spontaneous generation never occurred.* Eons ago, conditions on Earth and in the atmosphere above it were vastly different. Indeed, conditions similar to those found on primitive Earth may have existed, or may exist now, on other bodies in our solar system and elsewhere. This has led scientists to ask whether life has originated on other bodies in space, as it did on Earth.


I would simply add that his use of scientific method to refute "a widely held belief" or "notion" clearly does not help a Creationist's cause at all. In fact, quite the contrary.

That's why I poked fun _*at that notion*_ earlier.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> Do you have a suggestion on how to handle your unprovability problem. Maybe everyone should go their separate ways and not make futile arguments on a message board?


I've provided plenty of scientific evidence for God, but the atheists still do not believe.

I've also suggested to _have faith in God_ which is a sure fire winner.

However, the atheists here appear to have their own faith in Darwin, evolution even without any evidence for macroevolution and no God/gods.  If I'm wrong, then what do the atheists have in terms of evidence or experiments to show evolution?

Thus, my final absolute proof in spite your faith in atheism is death.  It is also my reward for my faith.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> So what did Pasteur actually prove / refute / demonstrate with his "Swan neck" experiments?


He used broth that would quickly become contaminated with bacteria if left in the open air.  He put the contaminated broth in a open flask and boiled it to kill the bacteria.  He left it sitting and it became contaminated again.

Next he designed a swan neck flask and put the uncontaminated boiled broth in there and let it sit in the open air.  It did not become contaminated.

This showed that spontaneous generation/abiogenesis did not happen.  What does it show to the atheists?


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> I have some ideas about why this could be impossible - but I have also some ideas why it could be possible.
> 
> 
> 
> If you like to warm up 3°K to 100°C then this is a difference of 370°. 370/3 = ~ 12500%. A growth of a mass from 1 kg to 125 kg needs ... about 0.999968% of the lightspeed ... if I calculated this in the right way - what I doubt because I am not a physicist. But if this is right I could say everyone who tries to travel 125 times faster into the future than all others around are doing would throw the own body into a cooking universe.


It's impossible to time travel back into the past because they would have to travel faster than light.

I just laugh at these atheist scientists who think they can travel at FTL speeds -- Faster than light travel is possible, scientist claims.  What do you think?  Am I assuming too harshly?

Creation scientists have their own light travel time problem -- Solving the Light Travel Time Problem.

Here's my _new_ hypothesis in regards to our spacetime universe expanding.  It isn't from the big bang and our current universe.  I started to think there isn't enough energy to keep our current universe expanding.  Thus, what we see expanding is our spacetime past and that somewhere out in spacetime our current universe changes to our past spacetime expansion.  Thus, we can hypothetically travel to our past (assuming our past exists in past spacetime and light).


----------



## Wuwei

Seymour Flops said:


> I suppose we could do that.
> 
> But I see such rigidity of personality, anger, and bitterness in many posters. I fear that if they did not have people like me making rational arguments for them to respond to with personal attacks, they would be kicking their dogs, beating their kids or lighting sleeping spouses on fire.
> 
> I'm happy to be a safety valve for them.


If that's what you want, have fun. I used to show easy to understand science to them about the impossibilities of the Genesis but when they have no answer they just blow up. They can't think outside the box. Logic does not work. 
.


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> He used broth


No shkidding, Sherlock.


james bond said:


> This showed that spontaneous generation/abiogenesis did not happen.  What does it show to the atheists?


Since you chose to truncate my answer instead of replying to it like an adult, here it is again (link is provided):


> In 1862, the great French scientist Louis Pasteur tested the validity of a widely held *belief in* spontaneous generation.
> _{...}_
> Pasteur thus refuted *the notion of* spontaneous generation.
> _{...}_
> Pasteur's experiment showed that microbes cannot arise from nonliving materials *under the conditions that existed on Earth during his lifetime. But his experiment did not prove that spontaneous generation never occurred.* Eons ago, conditions on Earth and in the atmosphere above it were vastly different. Indeed, conditions similar to those found on primitive Earth may have existed, or may exist now, on other bodies in our solar system and elsewhere. This has led scientists to ask whether life has originated on other bodies in space, as it did on Earth.


I'll take this opportunity to add, "the conditions that existed on Earth during his lifetime" include relatively recently discovering the microscope, for example, without which Pasteur would have effectively been blind. Since Pasteur, our equipment and scientific understanding has again improved tremendously. Instead of embracing that, you choose to regress back to the time when people had no choice but to fear gods and spiritual nonsense. Enjoy. I prefer experiencing current reality, no matter how harsh, and helping to improve upon it.. instead of doing whatever you imagine you're doing.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> abu afak and the atheists do not have any science from evolution to talk about.  They are here to only voice their complaints about creationists.  Will they be complaining about us forever?
> 
> Yes.  "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7
> 
> I suppose we can remain whole longer if we are embalmed _properly_ before burial -- After someone dies and has been embalmed, how long will their body last before you have to have the funeral?, but it doesn't matter even if we are creamated.  I've heard it's better to be whole to be resurrected but the Bible states it doesn't matter.  Some are watching too many Walking Dead shows lol.
> 
> "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life." Romans 6:3-4


?


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> It's impossible to time travel back into the past because they would have to travel faster than light.



But you don't know why you say so, isn't it?  



james bond said:


> I just laugh at these atheist scientists who think they can travel at FTL speeds -- Faster than light travel is possible, scientist claims.  What do you think?  Am I assuming too harshly?
> 
> Creation scientists have their own light travel time problem -- Solving the Light Travel Time Problem.
> 
> Here's my _new_ hypothesis in regards to our spacetime universe expanding.  It isn't from the big bang



¿It isn't from a first beginning?



james bond said:


> and our current universe.  I started to think there isn't enough energy to keep our current universe expanding.



It expands



james bond said:


> Thus, what we see expanding is our spacetime past and that somewhere out in spacetime our current universe changes to our past spacetime expansion.



Sounds weird.



james bond said:


> Thus, we can hypothetically travel to our past (assuming our past exists in past spacetime and light).



So you seem to think where and when was yesterday still today this where and when exists and our universe is there. But what if there is nothing in this position now? No space, no time, no energy - only nothing?


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> True, but the study of the origin of life on Earth is not science.


Biology isn't science?

I'm not clear that screeching ''the gods did it'' will ever allow us to learn much. You folks spent 800 years during the Dark Ages squashing human discovery and intellect.


----------



## zaangalewa

Grumblenuts said:


> ...
> 
> Science has allowed us to evolve beyond having to rely upon belief and faith.



A nice short form of some of the most weird prejudices.

_"Science has allowed us"_

Science gives not any allownesses nor forbids science anything. Established scientists are perhaps doing such things - but this is a sociological problem of power structures and has nothign to do with science on its own. Hundreds and thousands of scientists in the past tried for example to construct perpetua mobilia before Julius Robert von Mayer and Rudolf Clausius showed that such systems are theoretically impossible - what doesn't mean they did allow or forbid something. It makes just simple not any sense to try to construct a perpetuum mobile.

_"allowed us to evolve"_

Evolution is not any process who depends on human beings. Evolution is part of the nature - like gravity is for example part of the nature. No one allows gravity or forbids gravity to do or not to do what gravity is doing. Same with evolution. And it exists not any direction of evolution. "To evolve" is also able to mean "to degenerate".

_"beyond having to rely upon belief and faith."_

Max Plank for example relied upon the Christian belief and faith. And in general is atheism also only a form of spiritual belief.


----------



## zaangalewa

Hollie said:


> Biology isn't science?
> 
> I'm not clear that screeching ''the gods did it'' will ever allow us to learn much. You folks spent 800 years during the Dark Ages squashing human discovery and intellect.



Give me the exact date of this 800 years please. It never existed what we call "dark age" in history. "Dark" means in science only "not to know enough" - like for example in the more modern expressions dark matter or dark energy (two totally different things which have nothing to do with each other). This means not this matter is dark or this energy is dark. And the Middle ages were not "dark". We know a lot about this times of history. 1/3rd of a year were for example celebration days. Perhaps they would call us "slaves" - if they could had been able to study us.


----------



## Grumblenuts

zaangalewa said:


> Science gives not any allownesses nor forbids science anything.


Jesus
"allow" as in {Oxford Dictionaries}: 


> 2.
> give the necessary time or opportunity for.
> "he stopped for a moment to allow his eyes to adjust"


, Your Tediousness.


----------



## Grumblenuts

zaangalewa said:


> Science gives not any allownesses


Yeah, screw English. Here:




__





						Urban Dictionary: allowness
					

uses similar to expressions like allow it and allow you




					www.urbandictionary.com
				



Enjoy!


----------



## Seymour Flops

zaangalewa said:


> When you see a pot it was made from human beings. What to do with the word "unfalsifiable" in such an easily evident context?


Nothing.

We can see evidence of a designer in the apparent design of the pot.  We can see evidence of the designer in the apparent design of life on Earth, which is far more complex and more impossible to come about without intelligent intervention than a pot.

But science requires falsifiability.  There's no experiment we can perform whose result might disprove that the pot was designed.  Nor that the pot was designed.  

Because past events are not subject to experimentation.  The same is true for Origin of Species and abiogenesis.  We know they happened and we can use our common sense to know that they did not happen randomly.  But they happened in the past, so they are no more subject to experimentation than Darwinian evolution is.


zaangalewa said:


> The problem with our own creation and the creation of everything what we know - today we could call this in natural science also "the birth of the universe" - is totally different from any other problem which we know.
> 
> Let me tell you my biggest problem in this context: It's impossible for me - absolutelly impossible - to think that this universe here makes not any sense at all - although I don't know what the sense of this universe is.
> This "sense" - whatever it is - decided - however this is possible - to create time and suddenly - whatever suddenly means now -  existed time. But there had been never anything to sense before this had happened. ... And now tell me what to falsify or to verify in which way. Nothing what you and I are able to say about such a situation makes any sense at all.
> 
> But means this now I am able to believe that the existence of the universe makes not any sense? Still I am not able to believe this! And even if someone will murder me on a totally senseless reason for to show that nothing makes any sense at all - then I would nevertheless not be able to believe such things happen because this universe (=this plan of god) is senseless.


I understand your desire that the universe makes sense.  But your will to believe that they universe has a purpose is no more scientifically valid than Hollie and her desire to believe that there is no designer of the universe or of life on Earth.


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> Nothing.
> 
> We can see evidence of a designer in the apparent design of the pot.  We can see evidence of the designer in the apparent design of life on Earth, which is far more complex and more impossible to come about without intelligent intervention than a pot.
> 
> But science requires falsifiability.  There's no experiment we can perform whose result might disprove that the pot was designed.  Nor that the pot was designed.
> 
> Because past events are not subject to experimentation.  The same is true for Origin of Species and abiogenesis.  We know they happened and we can use our common sense to know that they did not happen randomly.  But they happened in the past, so they are no more subject to experimentation than Darwinian evolution is.
> 
> I understand your desire that the universe makes sense.  But your will to believe that they universe has a purpose is no more scientifically valid than Hollie and her desire to believe that there is no designer of the universe or of life on Earth.


I have no desire to believe or disbelieve in any designer gods. The natural world is the only world we have knowledge of. There is nothing unnatural about this realm and every indication that the gods humans have invented were the result of fear and superstition. 

''We'' see no evidence of any supernatural designers. Identify a single element in nature that shows supernatural design. You can't, so why make statements that have no expectation of being supported? For all the desperate attempts by creationers to force their designer gods on others, there is always this confounding lack of evidence for any of the thousands of gods invented by humans. 

We can, however, make a rational and reasoned case for abiogenesis as a natural phenomenon without intervention of supernatural agents. The processes of biological evolution follow readily from there.

The evidence that evolution has occurred is overwhelming and comes from multiple different sources, each of which independently establishes the identical pattern of evolutionary descent. The sources for that evidence come independently from anatomy, genetics, biogeography, biochemistry and the fossil record.

The fossil record of human evolution from apelike ancestors is particularly rich and well documented with multiple intermediate species between modern humans and those ancestors.

There is a reason why the western depiction of the jeebus is of a tall, fair-haired, fair-skinned, blue-eyed man. He is reinvented in the image of his creator: westerners.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Seymour Flops said:


> But science requires falsifiability.


Baloney.


> The legendary philosopher of science Karl Popper argued that good science is falsifiable, in that it makes precise claims which can be tested and then discarded (falsified) if they don’t hold up under testing. For example, if you find a case of COVID-19 without lung damage, then you falsify the hypothesis that it always causes lung damage. According to Popper, science progresses by making conjectures, subjecting them to rigorous tests, and then discarding those that fail.


One can't know starting any scientific endeavor. Falsifiability is philosophical and just one tasty morsel of Scientific Method. It is not required to correctly use the word, nor to perform "science" which just involves studying anything, Flops. Whether past, present, or future. Go fish.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Grumblenuts said:


> Baloney.
> 
> One can't know starting any scientific endeavor. Falsifiability is philosophical and just one tasty morsel of Scientific Method. It is not required to correctly use the word, nor to perform "science" which just involves studying anything, Flops. Whether past, present, or future. Go fish.


That's a weird debate technique - posting a quote that confirms what I said and then saying I'm wrong because "go fish."

I'll use that quote in the future, thanks!

Not that most people don't already know that a theory cannot be scientific if it isn't falsifiable . . .


----------



## Seymour Flops

Hollie said:


> The fossil record of human evolution from apelike ancestors is particularly rich and well documented with multiple intermediate species between modern humans and those ancestors.


Yet, they feel the need to constantly re-arrange the order of the supposed species of sub-humans.

What is your opinion of Java Man and where it fits in with human evolution?



> We can, however, make a rational and reasoned case for abiogenesis as a natural phenomenon without intervention of supernatural agents. The processes of biological evolution follow readily from there.


Oh, we can?

Please do then.  I've never seen that done, so I will be most impressed if you can pull it off.


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> Yet, they feel the need to constantly re-arrange the order of the supposed species of sub-humans.
> 
> What is your opinion of Java Man and where it fits in with human evolution?
> 
> 
> Oh, we can?
> 
> Please do then.  I've never seen that done, so I will be most impressed if you can pull it off.


You float the usual conspiracy theories from any of the creationer ministries claiming "they'' are re-arranging the fossil evidence. Name the conspirators. Identify where your alleged conspiracy is taking place. 


Yes. We can make a rational and reasoned case for abiogenesis as a natural phenomenon without intervention of supernatural agents. Life on the planet is proof of abiogenesis. Rational and reasoned arguments can be made to support the case of life being developed is a completely natural process. All the basic building blocks of life are in abundance in the universe. 

So, then. As a counter argument, first make a rational and reasoned argument for your particular gods. You need to make that case first, then you can make a case for your gods pulling a rabbit fully formed humans, a snake and fresh fruit out of their hats.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Hollie said:


> You float the usual conspiracy theories from any of the creationer ministries claiming "they'' are re-arranging the fossil evidence. Name the conspirators. Identify where your alleged conspiracy is taking place.


Link me the post where I claim any conspiracy, so I know you're not a crazy as you seem.


Hollie said:


> Yes. We can make a rational and reasoned case for abiogenesis as a natural phenomenon without intervention of supernatural agents. Life on the planet is proof of abiogenesis. Rational and reasoned arguments can be made to support the case of life being developed is a completely natural process. All the basic building blocks of life are in abundance in the universe.


That's the second time you've claimed you can make a reasoned and rational case for abiogenesis as a natural phenomena.  So it is the second time I say go ahead, and do it then.



Hollie said:


> So, then. As a counter argument, first make a rational and reasoned argument for your particular gods. You need to make that case first, then you can make a case for your gods pulling a rabbit fully formed humans, a snake and fresh fruit out of their hats.


So, again:  What is your opinion of Java Man's place in human evolution?


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> Link me the post where I claim any conspiracy, so I know you're not a crazy as you seem.
> 
> That's the second time you've claimed you can make a reasoned and rational case for abiogenesis as a natural phenomena.  So it is the second time I say go ahead, and do it then.
> 
> 
> So, again:  What is your opinion of Java Man's place in human evolution?



Are multiple people posting under your account? That would make sense with multiple threads / multiple threads with the same topic.

You posted: ''Yet, they feel the need to constantly re-arrange the order of the supposed species of sub-humans.''

I responded with: ''you float the usual conspiracy theories from any of the creationer ministries claiming "they'' are re-arranging the fossil evidence. Name the conspirators. Identify where your alleged conspiracy is taking place.''

Who is ''they''? Who are the alleged conspirators doing the re-arranging you believe is being done.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Hollie said:


> Are multiple people posting under your account? That would make sense with multiple threads / multiple threads with the same topic.


Multiple people posting under the same account?  Would that be better or worse than the same person posting under multiple accounts?


Hollie said:


> You posted: ''Yet, they feel the need to constantly re-arrange the order of the supposed species of sub-humans.''
> 
> I responded with: ''you float the usual conspiracy theories from any of the creationer ministries claiming "they'' are re-arranging the fossil evidence. Name the conspirators. Identify where your alleged conspiracy is taking place.''
> 
> Who is ''they''? Who are the alleged conspirators doing the re-arranging you believe is being done.


"They" are the people who are desperately searching for evidence that humans descended from non-humans.  I don't think it's a conspiracy, I just think they haven't been successful so far.  If they ever are, I'll say, "hey, look at that!  They finally found what they've been searching for for over a hundred years.  Kudos to them!

I have no emotional attachment to one idea over all others about the origin of species on Earth.  I just don't want to swallow lies, such as "it's settled," as if they were truth.  I don't want to pretend to fall for hoaxes to keep from hurting your feelings.

So . . . feel free to respond to the rest of that post:



Seymour Flops said:


> That's the second time you've claimed you can make a reasoned and rational case for abiogenesis as a natural phenomena.  So it is the second time I say go ahead, and do it then.
> 
> 
> So, again:  What is your opinion of Java Man's place in human evolution?


I'll wait.


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> Multiple people posting under the same account?  Would that be better or worse than the same person posting under multiple accounts?
> 
> "They" are the people who are desperately searching for evidence that humans descended from non-humans.  I don't think it's a conspiracy, I just think they haven't been successful so far.  If they ever are, I'll say, "hey, look at that!  They finally found what they've been searching for for over a hundred years.  Kudos to them!
> 
> I have no emotional attachment to one idea over all others about the origin of species on Earth.  I just don't want to swallow lies, such as "it's settled," as if they were truth.  I don't want to pretend to fall for hoaxes to keep from hurting your feelings.
> 
> So . . . feel free to respond to the rest of that post:
> 
> 
> I'll wait.



So.... your conspiracy theory implicates an un-named cabal of conspirators. You can't identify them but you're certain the cabal exists. 

Don't tell anyone else I told you, but, if you go outside and remain hidden, you will see the black helicopters circling overhead. 

Remember. You never heard this from me.


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> Link me the post where I claim any conspiracy, so I know you're not a crazy as you seem.
> 
> That's the second time you've claimed you can make a reasoned and rational case for abiogenesis as a natural phenomena.  So it is the second time I say go ahead, and do it then.



I just did. The other person using your account didn't read my earlier post.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Hollie said:


> So.... your conspiracy theory implicates an un-named cabal of conspirators. You can't identify them but you're certain the cabal exists.
> 
> Don't tell anyone else I told you, but, if you go outside and remain hidden, you will see the black helicopters circling overhead.
> 
> Remember. You never heard this from me.


Non-responsive.

Here are your questions:


Seymour Flops said:


> That's the second time you've claimed you can make a reasoned and rational case for abiogenesis as a natural phenomena.  So it is the second time I say go ahead, and do it then.
> 
> 
> So, again:  What is your opinion of Java Man's place in human evolution?


Take your time, I guess . . .


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> Non-responsive.
> 
> Here are your questions:
> 
> Take your time, I guess . . .



Tell us more about your conspiracy theory involving the cabal of ''they'' (the cabal of ''they' who you can't identify), who are trying to re-arrange something, the ''something'' you can't identify. 

Fascinating.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Hollie said:


> Tell us more about your conspiracy theory involving the cabal of ''they'' (the cabal of ''they' who you can't identify), who are trying to re-arrange something, the ''something'' you can't identify.
> 
> Fascinating.


Zzzzzzzzz . . . zzzzzzzzzzz . . . zzzzzzzzzzz . . . *snort* hmph?  Oh, I'm sorry.

Your repetitive jabbering had me nodding off.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Seymour Flops said:


> That's a weird debate technique - posting a quote that confirms what I said and then saying I'm wrong because "go fish."
> 
> I'll use that quote in the future, thanks!
> 
> Not that most people don't already know that a theory cannot be scientific if it isn't falsifiable . . .


No, no, it's all you, buddy. Your weirdness. I'm really no match. See, one minute you're pretending to be some logic guru, the next you're moving your goalposts around like a crazed ref on crack.. Wow, just look at you go:


Seymour Flops said:


> But science requires falsifiability.





Seymour Flops said:


> a theory cannot be scientific if it isn't falsifiable


'Fraid Google has ruled the official term for that "aggravated backpedaling," sonny. Penalty --15 yards off a short pier.. Ooooh, darn.. Smack.. Right on the noggin'.. Not sure he'll be able to just walk that one off, Ed. Ewww, he's not even moving, Carl..


----------



## Grumblenuts

Hollie said:


> Are multiple people posting under your account? That would make sense with multiple threads / multiple threads with the same topic.


Yep, walks like a duck..

I've been ignoring him. Saw enough. No idea he'd been so busy.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Seymour Flops said:


> That's a weird debate technique


That's so cute, you thinking we're debating here 
You ten yet?


----------



## abu afak

Flops believes in ID, and beyond that a god. There is no rational/tangible evidence for any supernatural being.
He's a Fraud.
ie,
*Post #352 in "More Strong Evidence for Evolution..."* accidentally OUTING himself. (then lied about it)




__





						More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges
					

In the grand scheme of things there is still more evidence of creation than of evolution. :bow3:  In the grander scheme of grand schemes, it hasn't gone unnoticed that the creationers offer no evidence to support their claims to supernatural creation.



					www.usmessageboard.com
				





Seymour Flops said:


> *Who sent the meteor that came right in time for the smart little rodent proto-mammals to be saved from the far less intelligent, but ravenously hunting dinosaurs?
> Was that another co-inkie-dink?*



Enjoy the page Seymour
`


----------



## zaangalewa

Grumblenuts said:


> Jesus
> "allow" as in {Oxford Dictionaries}:
> 
> , Your Tediousness.



That's a very special nice poetic use of the word "allow" - but you do not write poems. You write agitatoric atheistic nonsense - and no one else murdered so many people on Earth as atheists did do on reason of their belief - which they often say they don't have.


----------



## zaangalewa

Grumblenuts said:


> Yeah, screw English. Here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Urban Dictionary: allowness
> 
> 
> uses similar to expressions like allow it and allow you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.urbandictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enjoy!


 I use her "to allow" o snensof the ergman word "ERÖAUBERN


----------



## zaangalewa

Seymour Flops said:


> Nothing.
> 
> We can see evidence of a designerin the apparent design of the pot.



If we would find a Martian xrkst we would not know what its and who made it.



Seymour Flops said:


> We can see evidence of the designer in the apparent design of life on Earth,



No. We see life forms which "fit" to this planet and its biosphere. We believe - how pope Francis said it very nice - that _"with every species which dies out we lose a voice of god" _



Seymour Flops said:


> which is far more complex and more impossible to come about without intelligent intervention than a pot.



This complexity is indeed an indicator that the other side of this what we call "fitness" in biology is not any simple answer.



Seymour Flops said:


> But science requires falsifiability.



Yes and no. Also a scientits believes that a nail is able to cause pain without to have to make an experiment.



Seymour Flops said:


> There's no experiment we can perform whose result might disprove that the pot was designed.  Nor that the pot was designed.



I don't understand what you said here. We know what a pot is becae we learned it. But once was a first pot created who got "babies". In this case of "evolution" we leave the sphere of biology.



Seymour Flops said:


> Because past events are not subject to experimentation.



True and not really true - we are connected with all times - depending on the information we get in the moment from everwhere and "everywhen" of the universe.



Seymour Flops said:


> The same is true for Origin of Species and abiogenesis.



Do you miss a missing link betwen an H+ ion and an human being? I don't do this. Everyone and everything has always to do wtith each other. What not interacts is not existing. One of the most nice answers in context to one of the boring "misssing link" questions I heard from Konrad Lorenz when he was asked about a missing link beteween apes and human beings He answered: _"The missing link between apes and human beings? That are we!"_



Seymour Flops said:


> We know they happened and we can use our common sense



I have a little German problem with this expression because I doubt the normal translation "gesunder Menschenverstand" has really something to do with "common sense".



Seymour Flops said:


> to know that they did not happen randomly.  But they happened in the past, so they are no more subject to experimentation than Darwinian evolution is.
> 
> I understand your desire that the universe makes sense.



¿Desire? 



Seymour Flops said:


> But your will to believe



¿will?



Seymour Flops said:


> that they universe has a purpose is no more scientifically valid than Hollie and her desire to believe that there is no designer of the universe or of life on Earth.



Tell me why something exists at all and why not exists only noting. And tel me why you think science and atheism is the same. Atheism is a spiritual belief.


----------



## Grumblenuts

zaangalewa said:


> That's a very special nice poetic use of the word "allow" - but


No, it's really not - but it couldn't be just you - embarrassing yourself - in public - again.


----------



## Grumblenuts

zaangalewa said:


> I use her "to allow" o snensof the ergman word "ERÖAUBERN


That Google translates to "conquer" here. So

"Science gives not any allownesses conquering nor forbids science anything."

Slightly better - still not good.

"Science neither allows nor forbids anything."

Way better.

"Science allows everything." or "Science allows for everything."

Now you're getting somewhere.

"Science allows (or permits, or enables) *us* _*to study* _anything._" _

Now you're cooking with gas.


----------



## Grumblenuts

zaangalewa said:


> I have a little German problem with this expression because I doubt the normal translation "gesunder Menschenverstand" has really something to do with "common sense".





> Common sense is sound, practical judgment concerning everyday matters, or a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge in a manner that is shared by nearly all people. The everyday understanding of common sense derives from historical philosophical discussion involving several European languages.


- Wikipedia


----------



## Grumblenuts

zaangalewa said:


> Atheism is a spiritual belief.


Atheism is _lack of_ spiritual belief. Don't like it? Tough. At least deal with it honestly.


----------



## Not a Monkeys Uncle

abu afak said:


> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
> Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> 
> Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [.....]
> 
> *1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
> So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.



Answer this:: Where did all matter come from - or - how was all matter created, and what was there before all matter was created

Answer that definitively, or shut your bitch ass mouth.

You see, I can answer it and you cannot.



abu afak said:


> *In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..." *



Pure bullshit. Evolution is a theory, not fact. You are a liar.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Not a Monkeys Uncle said:


> Answer this:: Where did all matter come from - or - how was all matter created, and what was there before all matter was created
> 
> Answer that definitively, or shut your bitch ass mouth.


Explain what is "material" about any sort of force or electromagnetic field? Are they things or "no things"? Gee, stumped already? No worries -- your atomistic idiot club will Shirley rule long into the future, virtually unchallenged. Your safety assured by the full faith and weight of the Modern Physics Establishment!


----------



## Seymour Flops

Grumblenuts said:


> No, no, it's all you, buddy. Your weirdness. I'm really no match. See, one minute you're pretending to be some logic guru, the next you're moving your goalposts around like a crazed ref on crack.. Wow, just look at you go:
> 
> 
> 'Fraid Google has ruled the official term for that "aggravated backpedaling," sonny. Penalty --15 yards off a short pier.. Ooooh, darn.. Smack.. Right on the noggin'.. Not sure he'll be able to just walk that one off, Ed. Ewww, he's not even moving, Carl..


I guess English is a second language for you "and" Hollie?

Those two statements you quoted mean the same thing. The second uses a double negative which can confuse the simple minded. My bad.


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> Flops believes in ID, and beyond that a god. There is no rational/tangible evidence for any supernatural being.
> He's a Fraud.
> ie,
> *Post #352 in "More Strong Evidence for Evolution..."* accidentally OUTING himself. (then lied about it)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges
> 
> 
> In the grand scheme of things there is still more evidence of creation than of evolution. :bow3:  In the grander scheme of grand schemes, it hasn't gone unnoticed that the creationers offer no evidence to support their claims to supernatural creation.
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enjoy the page Seymour
> `


Yeah, I outed myself as a poster who asks questions that Abu can't answer.


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> I guess English is a second language for you "and" Hollie?
> 
> Those two statements you quoted mean the same thing. The second uses a double negative which can confuse the simple minded. My bad.


At least for me, it's second nature (<------- see what I did there?), to see threads opened by creationers whose only goal is to attack science, knowledge and the striving for understanding that defines so much of humanity. 

You folks are entirely predictable.


----------



## zaangalewa

Grumblenuts said:


> No, it's really not - but it couldn't be just you - embarrassing yourself - in public - again.


A question which I ask me sometimes in such contextes: Why are nearly all US-Americans always only ignorant, intrigant, arrogant and aggressive assholes  when they try to speak with other people in the world? Do you learn to be so in your schools? Is this an educated mentality?


----------



## zaangalewa

Grumblenuts said:


> Atheism is _lack of_ spiritual belief.'



That's what you believe. You believe not to believe.



Grumblenuts said:


> Don't like it? Tough. At least deal with it honestly.



I never deal with anything.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Hollie said:


> At least for me, it's second nature (<------- see what I did there?), to see threads opened by creationers whose only goal is to attack science, knowledge and the striving for understanding that defines so much of humanity.
> 
> You folks are entirely predictable.


It's second nature to you to see a post you disagree with but cannot express why, to pretend that it is something it's not and then argue against that false interpretation.

Even then, your argument is lame.


----------



## zaangalewa

Grumblenuts said:


> - Wikipedia



My problem is that I never trust in any form of common sense because of my "gesunder Menschenverstand" (="sane human kind"). Or with other words: All mankind is also able to be totally wrong while only one human being is perhaps right. How to know without to think? I remember for example when the USA made their "preemptive strike" (=war of agression) against the Iraq under Saddam Husein. When you was on this warpath it was absolutelly impossible to speak with only one US-American in a reasonable way. In the end this had been one of the most stupid wars the USA ever had done. Now in the last days you killed a leader of ISIS in Syria - an ISIS which never had existed if you had not made this war. And what the world made and makes in Syria is a shame for all mankind.


----------



## zaangalewa

Grumblenuts said:


> That Google translates to "conquer" here. So
> 
> "Science gives not any allownesses conquering nor forbids science anything."
> 
> Slightly better - still not good.



What about: _"Science neither permits nor prohibits anything." - _but it is really not any motivation for me to try to learn to speak English in a better way. This single sentence was not an important part of my message to you.



Grumblenuts said:


> "Science neither allows nor forbids anything."
> 
> Way better.
> 
> "Science allows everything." or "Science allows for everything."
> 
> Now you're getting somewhere.
> 
> "Science allows (or permits, or enables) *us* _*to study* _anything._" _
> 
> Now you're cooking with gas.


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> It's second nature to you to see a post you disagree with but cannot express why, to pretend that it is something it's not and then argue against that false interpretation.
> 
> Even then, your argument is lame.


You might want to coordinate your posted comments with the other folks using your account.

I disagree with your conspiracy theories because you define some unnamed, unidentified cabal of "they" as somehow manipulating fossil evidence. You cannot offer anything more than conspiracy theories to support that claim.


You (or someone else), posted: "...pretend that it is something it's not and then argue against that false interpretation".

Coherent sentences would go a long way toward inviting a response.

Are you under the impression that your railing against evilutionist atheist science is any different from the creationers who opened threads similar to yours? The terms you use and even the profound ignorance of science matters is not just similar to earlier creationer rants, they're identical.


----------



## Grumblenuts

zaangalewa said:


> My problem is that I never trust in any form of common sense because of my "gesunder Menschenverstand" (="sane human kind"). Or with other words: All mankind is also able to be totally wrong while only one human being is perhaps right. How to know without to think? I remember for example when the USA made their "preemptive strike" (=war of agression) against the Iraq under Saddam Husein. When you was on this warpath it was absolutelly impossible to speak with only one US-American in a reasonable way. In the end this had been one of the most stupid wars the USA ever had done. Now in the last days you killed a leader of ISIS in Syria - an ISIS which never had existed if you had not made this war. And what the world made and makes in Syria is a shame for all mankind.


Well, you didn't ask me along with many others, including my wife, kids, and friends. Adding insult to injury, this time we managed to kill ten women and children out of thirteen  supposed enemies and called it "success." A drone could have easily done that well horribly without all the self-risk, expense, and political fanfare. That's how Obama did it. Not all of us lack common sense here either. It was as much BS back then as it is now. We're not a monolith. You should well know that a critical mass of Brownshirts is all the MIC needs to ensure that our senseless warring remains endless. You'd be stuck in the same loop if you hadn't got your ass kicked.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Science!


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> ?


>>


> *james bond said:*
> 
> 
> @abu afak and the atheists do not have any science from evolution to talk about. They are here to only voice their complaints about creationists.  Will they be complaining about us forever?
> 
> Yes.  "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7
> 
> I suppose we can remain whole longer if we are embalmed _properly_ before burial -- After someone dies and has been embalmed, how long will their body last before you have to have the funeral?, but it doesn't matter even if we are creamated. I've heard it's better to be whole to be resurrected but the Bible states it doesn't matter. Some are watching too many Walking Dead shows lol.
> 
> "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life." Romans 6:3-4


<<

What part do you not understand?


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> But you don't know why you say so, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> ¿It isn't from a first beginning?
> 
> 
> 
> It expands
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds weird.
> 
> 
> 
> So you seem to think where and when was yesterday still today this where and when exists and our universe is there. But what if there is nothing in this position now? No space, no time, no energy - only nothing?


Of course, I know about time travel back into the past.  The past is spacetime and our relation to it.  I may have gone to the park and library yesterday.  Where did that light waves, matter and spacetime go?  What do you think the past is?  If the past is physical, then we can visit and change it if we can travel FTL.

Furthermore, you do not answer my questions either while I try to answer yours.  It means you don't know like the _average _evolutionist.


----------



## Seymour Flops

Hollie said:


> You might want to coordinate your posted comments with the other folks using your account.
> 
> I disagree with your conspiracy theories because you define some unnamed, unidentified cabal of "they" as somehow manipulating fossil evidence. You cannot offer anything more than conspiracy theories to support that claim.
> 
> 
> You (or someone else), posted: "...pretend that it is something it's not and then argue against that false interpretation".
> 
> Coherent sentences would go a long way toward inviting a response.
> 
> Are you under the impression that your railing against evilutionist atheist science is any different from the creationers who opened threads similar to yours? The terms you use and even the profound ignorance of science matters is not just similar to earlier creationer rants, they're identical.


I guess my account has been hacked, then. I was very skeptical of that idea, but you seem so sure, that I guess it must be true.

Since it is those hacked posts that seem to trigger you, ill avoid responding to you temporarily. But please stay consistent with the repetitive jabber. That way the hacker will think everything is normal.

When the hacker responds to you we'll know it wasn't me so we can report them to the mods.


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> I guess my account has been hacked, then. I was very skeptical of that idea, but you seem so sure, that I guess it must be true.
> 
> Since it is those hacked posts that seem to trigger you, ill avoid responding to you temporarily. But please stay consistent with the repetitive jabber. That way the hacker will think everything is normal.
> 
> When the hacker responds to you we'll know it wasn't me so we can report them to the mods.


Who is triggered? You seem to be incensed that anyone would dare question your claims to magic and supernaturalism performed by the gods. 

If you have no intention of supporting those claims, try posting in the religion forum where you will have an agreeable audience.


----------



## zaangalewa

Grumblenuts said:


> Well,



I guess now will come a stupid statement.



Grumblenuts said:


> you didn't ask me along with many others, including my wife, kids, and friends.



Why should anyone ask you anything if you anyway will always only speak about your own "I"?



Grumblenuts said:


> Adding insult to injury, this time we managed to kill ten women and children out of thirteen  supposed enemies and called it "success."



¿Braincancer?



Grumblenuts said:


> A drone could have easily done that well horribly without all the self-risk, expense, and political fanfare.



US-Americans murdered millions in America and other places of the world.



Grumblenuts said:


> That's how Obama did it.



¿Obama?



Grumblenuts said:


> Not all of us lack common sense here either.



So do you like to say 1 or 2 US Americans have a common sense?



Grumblenuts said:


> It was as much BS back then as it is now. We're not a monolith.



The world is the USA. And your monolith war moral is: _"The only good member of the rest of the world I saw was dead because "right or wrong, my country"". _



Grumblenuts said:


> You should well know that a critical mass of Brownshirts is all the MIC needs to ensure that our senseless warring remains endless.



?



Grumblenuts said:


> You'd be stuck in the same loop if you hadn't got your ass kicked.



Which loop?

By the way: It was a stupid statement what you said here. In my ears you sound like a drug addict.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> >>
> 
> <<
> 
> What part do you not understand?



I did not understand the sense of your statement in this context.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> Of course, I know about time travel back into the past.  The past is spacetime and our relation to it.



"Spacetime" is another expression for that mass stretches as well time and space - nevertheless we see in time, space and power totally different qualities. The main reason for this is our system of perceptions which evolved in fitness to mesocosmic structures. What we find is that we are able to see "everywhen" in the universe past - or with other words: We are able to see in parts the complete history of the universe. We are not able to see the current universe - nevertheless this current universe will be able to be an influence in our future.



james bond said:


> I may have gone to the park and library yesterday.  Where did that light waves, matter and spacetime go?



I don't have any idea what you call spacetime in this context. You can see what you did do yesterday with an exact positioned mirror. But this explains not what now is in this position if you could see the present time there.



james bond said:


> What do you think the past is?



The facts which made everything what exists now.



james bond said:


> If the past is physical, then we can visit and change it if we can travel FTL.



No. We do not even know whether there is somehting like a spacetime there n-o-w in this moment. We see only the reflections of this what had been there and which are reaching us now on our "ride on a razor blade" which separates our past and our future.



james bond said:


> Furthermore, you do not answer my questions either while I try to answer yours.



No idea what you speak about.



james bond said:


> It means you don't know like the _average _evolutionist.



Only because the neverending English discussion "evolution vs creation" is an extremely strange and senseless discussion means not that I don't know a lot about evolution and also some things about creation.


----------



## Grumblenuts

zaangalewa said:


> I guess now will come a stupid statement.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should anyone ask you anything if you anyway will always only speak about your own "I"?
> 
> 
> 
> ¿Braincancer?
> 
> 
> 
> US-Americans murdered millions in America and other places of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> ¿Obama?
> 
> 
> 
> So do you like to say 1 or 2 US Americans have a common sense?
> 
> 
> 
> The world is the USA. And your monolith war moral is: _"The only good member of the rest of the world I saw was dead because "right or wrong, my country"". _
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> Which loop?
> 
> By the way: It was a stupid statement what you said here. In my ears you sound like a drug addict.


Thanks. Great. FU too, moron. Bubbye again!


----------



## MaryAnne11

Mac-7 said:


> I wonder how liberals can keep pushing the Dumb Luck Theory of creation when it defies logic?


I could have sworn it was Republicans pushing creationism!


----------



## Mac-7

MaryAnne11 said:


> I could have sworn it was Republicans pushing creationism!


 Creationism is the anthesis of dumb luck evolution


----------



## MaryAnne11

Mac-7 said:


> Creationism is the anthesis of dumb luck evolution


So which party is pushing it?


----------



## Mac-7

MaryAnne11 said:


> So which party is pushing it?


Republicans tend to support Creationism or Intelligent Design while democrats lean toward pure dumb luck evolution


----------



## MaryAnne11

Mac-7 said:


> Republicans tend to support Creationism or Intelligent Design while democrats lean toward pure dumb luck evolution


You think Science is dumb luck? I think everything is the luck of the draw. Only explanation of why bad things happen to good people while the bad go merrily along. At least it looks that way right now.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Mac-7 said:


> Creationism is the anthesis of dumb luck evolution


The flowering period of a plant "of dumb luck evolution", eh?


----------



## Grumblenuts

MaryAnne11 said:


> You think Science is dumb luck? I think everything is the luck of the draw. Only explanation of why bad things happen to good people while the bad go merrily along. At least it looks that way right now.


I think the effect probability has on our everyday lives is generally underappreciated, but bad things are just more likely to happen and bad news sells. All making good things happen a worthy goal and lifelong challenge. Let the bad go merrily along. They're not you.


----------



## Mac-7

Grumblenuts said:


> The flowering period of a plant "of dumb luck evolution", eh?


?


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> I did not understand the sense of your statement in this context.


I've heard it one will not be resurrected if they are not whole after death.  For example, if they are cremated, then they cannot rise again.

This is just superstition.  One could die in a horrible auto accident and be decapitated, but they can be resurrected no matter what condition their physical body is in.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> Science!


Which answer did you choose?  Mine was D.


----------



## zaangalewa

Mac-7 said:


> Creationism is the anthesis of dumb luck evolution



To call Christians Creationists is an attack from believers in atheism who try to make natural science to an estoeric form of not-god. Someone has to study natural science to understand this not-god. This not-god expects only to be strong and intelligent. Who is not strong (=rich) and intelligent (=educated in a university) will be killed (="selected") from the rules of their ideas about evolution (which have often not really to do with the real laws of evolution).


----------



## Mac-7

zaangalewa said:


> To call Christians Creationists is an attack from believers in atheism who try to make natural science to an estoeric form of not-god. Someone has to study natural science to understand this not-god. This not-god expects only to be strong and intelligent. Who is not strong (=rich) and intelligent (=educated in a university) will be killed (="selected") from the rules of their ideas about evolution (which have often not really to do with the real laws of evolution).


Aw go suck up to putin and the arabs and ike iranians and the chicoms

and leave religion discussions to people who care


----------



## zaangalewa

Mac-7 said:


> ?


By the way Mac-7. Your signature _"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."_" - means for example for Christians not to call anyone else a fool - because this also means someone is godless. But this only god knows. What we see is only a snapshot - and in many cases this snapshot is only a schnapsshot.

I would say in the discussion "evolutionism vs creationism" as well the "evolutionists" and the "creationists" have not a big idea about natural science and also not a big idea about the Christian religion. Yesterday I met a tree. Her name was Clara. She and I have a common ancestor - we are relatives = sisters and brothers.


----------



## zaangalewa

Mac-7 said:


> Aw go suck up to putin and the arabs and ike iranians and the chicoms
> 
> and leave religion discussions to people who care



I don't have any idea why people say such stupid things as you are doing. What do you expect to find in your personal third world war? Salvation from your self-made psychologocal pain by dying the radiation sickness?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mac-7 said:


> Creationism is the anthesis of dumb luck evolution


Evolution is the opposite of random.  Selection is not random. I am pretty sure I have explained this to you before.


----------



## Mac-7

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Evolution is the opposite of random.  Selection is not random. I am pretty sure I have explained this to you before.


Its idea behind godless evolution is very random

and impossible


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mac-7 said:


> Its idea behind godless evolution is very random
> 
> and impossible


False. It is not random. Saying so makes you look like you know nothing about any of it.

Why are there white rabbits and bears in the north, and brown ones in the south? 

Luck?

No, the entire idea is the opposite of random. Selection is not random. 

As for "impossible": your magical divinations and incantations have no place in the science section,shaman.


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> Which answer did you choose? Mine was D.


None seemed exactly right to me. I just figured it would be vert fast and non-zero depending upon mild steel's compressibility (or whatever the proper term is) and how much delay could possibly be introduced by standing wave vibration. Explaining how he had to rethink his own presumptions and keep making major adjustments was great. The idea of just using an alligator clip to eliminate the first sensor was brilliant.


----------



## abu afak

zaangalewa said:


> I don't have any idea why people say such stupid things as you are doing. What do you expect to find in your personal third world war? Salvation from your self-made psychologocal pain by dying the radiation sickness?


They've been indoctrinated since birth and have lost not just any introspection, but to search for info about anything.

``


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> "Spacetime" is another expression for that mass stretches as well time and space - nevertheless we see in time, space and power totally different qualities. The main reason for this is our system of perceptions which evolved in fitness to mesocosmic structures. What we find is that we are able to see "everywhen" in the universe past - or with other words: We are able to see in parts the complete history of the universe. We are not able to see the current universe - nevertheless this current universe will be able to be an influence in our future.


That power of expansion of the physical universe can't last forever.  We do not even know its source based on our current understanding of the universe.  This expansion power has the power to make galaxies collide.  Next, is there the spacetime and matter of the past.  Does it exist or did it just dissipate like light?  If it did, then we have no past that we can go back to even if we could travel at FTL speeds.



zaangalewa said:


> I don't have any idea what you call spacetime in this context. You can see what you did do yesterday with an exact positioned mirror. But this explains not what now is in this position if you could see the present time there.


What's spacetime mean to you?  Its the past spacetime, matter and light?  I suppose its gone off into space like light and eventually dissipates like a puff of smoke.  People may say there is another time dimension for it, but how does one get evidence for that?  It sounds wacky just talking about it.



zaangalewa said:


> No idea what you speak about.





zaangalewa said:


> The facts which made everything what exists now.


I don't think we're talking about the same thing.  Read the definition of spacetime:

'PHYSICS
noun: *spacetime*

the concepts of time and three-dimensional space regarded as fused in a four-dimensional continuum.
"the curvature of space-time"'

So, do these dimensions just dissipate like a puff of smoke?  If it doesn't, then they would physically exist somewhere.  Can we travel there if we can go FTL?  I'll stop here until we get this straight.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> That power of expansion of the physical universe can't last forever.



What's wrong.



james bond said:


> We do not even know its source based on our current understanding of the universe.



¿Source? ... for the expansion of the space between galaxies where nearly nothing exists? What about a lack of something? Then it would be more clear why the space is accelerating expanding.



james bond said:


> This expansion power has the power to make galaxies collide.



No. It's exactly in the opposite.



james bond said:


> Next, is there the spacetime and matter of the past.  Does it exist or did it just dissipate like light?  If it did, then we have no past that we can go back to even if we could travel at FTL speeds.



?



james bond said:


> What's spacetime mean to you?  Its the past spacetime, matter and light?  I suppose its gone off into space like light and eventually dissipates like a puff of smoke.  People may say there is another time dimension for it, but how does one get evidence for that?  It sounds wacky just talking about it.



?



james bond said:


> I don't think we're talking about the same thing.  Read the definition of spacetime:
> 
> 'PHYSICS
> noun: *spacetime*
> 
> the concepts of time and three-dimensional space regarded as fused in a four-dimensional continuum.
> "the curvature of space-time"'
> 
> So, do these dimensions just dissipate like a puff of smoke?  If it doesn't, then they would physically exist somewhere.  Can we travel there if we can go FTL?  I'll stop here until we get this straight.



"Spacetime" - also called Minkowski space - is a simple trick of the mathematician Hermann Minkowski. He used just simple a 4 dimensional space with the coordinates (ct, x, y, z). (x, y, z) are the normal three dimensions and ct is lightspeed (=c) * time (=t). I guess if we would use a "timespace" with the coordinates (t, x/c, y/c, z/c) then this would be equivalent. In this case we would live in a universe with 4 time dimensions. Do we?


----------



## zaangalewa

Mac-7 said:


> Its idea behind godless evolution is very random
> 
> and impossible



The choice to make something wrong and to die is impossible? To have an accident and to die or to die because of a sickness is impossible?


----------



## abu afak

Mac-7 said:


> Its idea behind godless evolution is very random


Correct, and so is the rest of the universe.



Mac-7 said:


> and impossible


not at all
We await you proof.


*the OCD troll 'ding' is now on ignore due to endless stalking and gratuitous harassment of my threads/posts in Environment with repeat and already answered baits.
Recently even following me down here to the Sci section where he doesn't post, to do the same. ie,
Look at his 4/5 (now 40/50, and counting) vengeful out of control/No content snippets. Obsessed Mad Dog even taking third party swipes as well as nonsense one-line 'replies.'
Juvenile last-worder GOT to have his grudge sated.
`*


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> None seemed exactly right to me. I just figured it would be vert fast and non-zero depending upon mild steel's compressibility (or whatever the proper term is) and how much delay could possibly be introduced by standing wave vibration. Explaining how he had to rethink his own presumptions and keep making major adjustments was great. The idea of just using an alligator clip to eliminate the first sensor was brilliant.


Modulus of elasticity.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> Modulus of elasticity.


Yep, same thing. I'll add that, IIRC, he both described and showed images of crystal lattices with single fixed electrons supposedly holding the crystals apart / together. If so, that was some crock of shit. But I can't blame anyone simply for being indoctrinated with such crazy notions. Just like religious beliefs, that's what's still largely being taught. They got nowhere else to go!


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> Yep, same thing. I'll add that, IIRC, he both described and showed images of crystal lattices with single fixed electrons supposedly holding them apart / together. If so, that was some crock of shit. But I can't blame anyone simply for being indoctrinated with such crazy notions. Just like religious beliefs, that's what's still largely being taught.


I don't fault you for your crazy religious beliefs.  Just your laziness in exploring answers to the origin questions.


----------



## james bond

JoeBlow said:


> So you're saying that you know that throughout the whole universe it can't have happened because we haven't done it yet? Is that your final answer?


What more do you want than Pasteur's swan neck experiment that PROVES the start of any life can't happen from non-life.  If there is no life from non-life, then creation, the creation scientists and I win the argument and EVERYTHING.  The atheists and sinners LOSE everything.

The FINAL ANSWER is there is no life whatsoever elsewhere in the universe.  The only possibility left is panspermia from Earth, but the solar winds are too harsh so it's a very slim and none chance of that happening.  Just sit down and shut up when you have absolutely no argument and no evidence for your wishful thinking.


----------



## JoeBlow

james bond said:


> What more do you want than Pasteur's swan neck experiment that PROVES the start of any life can't happen from non-life.  If there is no life from non-life, then creation, the creation scientists and I win the argument and EVERYTHING.  The atheists and sinners LOSE everything.
> 
> The FINAL ANSWER is there is no life whatsoever elsewhere in the universe.  The only possibility left is panspermia from Earth, but the solar winds are too harsh so it's a very slim and none chance of that happening.  Just sit down and shut up when you have absolutely no argument and no evidence for your wishful thinking.


You can't know if there's life in the rest of the universe. Stop being a fucking imbecile.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Science never purports to "know" anything. Nothing is ultimately settled. We keep studying and learning endlessly. Those purporting to absolutely "know" anything are the truly "religious" ones. Atheists (agnostics included) are generally content with living in a world ruled by informed consensus because we know the truth is an ever moving target. The goal being to get closer, not to grab the damned thing.


----------



## Indeependent

Grumblenuts said:


> Science never purports to "know" anything. Nothing is ultimately settled. We keep studying and learning endlessly. Those purporting to absolutely "know" anything are the truly "religious" ones. Atheists (agnostics included) are generally content with living in a world ruled by informed consensus because we know the truth is an ever moving target. The goal being to get closer, not to grab the damned thing.


Atheists, as you have just demonstrated, are the most arrogant assholes on earth.


----------



## james bond

JoeBlow said:


> You can't know if there's life in the rest of the universe. Stop being a fucking imbecile.


LMAO, I have the scientific PROOF while you are just guessing.  Just sit out you dipshit.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> Science never purports to "know" anything. Nothing is ultimately settled. We keep studying and learning endlessly. Those purporting to absolutely "know" anything are the truly "religious" ones. Atheists (agnostics included) are generally content with living in a world ruled by informed consensus because we know the truth is an ever moving target. The goal being to get closer, not to grab the damned thing.


You're another wrong one who doesn't understand science and experimental proof.  Stick a roll of toilet paper in your mouth and shaddup you fool.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Indeependent said:


> Atheists, as you have just demonstrated, are the most arrogant assholes on earth.


No, that honor is all yours.


----------



## JoeBlow

james bond said:


> LMAO, I have the scientific PROOF while you are just guessing.  Just sit out you dipshit.


Some experiment that the guy couldn't make happen, like 100 years ago? You can't be serious, you must dream of sucking Jesus' trouser trout.


----------



## Indeependent

Grumblenuts said:


> No, that honor is all yours.


Try reading your posts.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Indeependent said:


> Try reading your posts.


Ad hom all you got? Read your own.


----------



## Indeependent

Grumblenuts said:


> Ad hom all you got? Read your own.


*That* was not ad hominem.
All your posts are ad hominems.


----------



## james bond

JoeBlow said:


> Some experiment that the guy couldn't make happen, like 100 years ago? You can't be serious, you must dream of sucking Jesus' trouser trout.


I knew you were an IDIOT and didn't belong in S&T by your comments.  Sorry, I can't make you smarter so you can understand the science (even though it isn't that hard).

Why don't you talk with the OP to commiserate in the DON'T UNDERSTAND SCIENCE section?


----------



## JoeBlow

james bond said:


> I knew you were an IDIOT and didn't belong in S&T by your comments.  Sorry, I can't make you smarter so you can understand the science (even though it isn't that hard).
> 
> Why don't you talk with the OP to commiserate in the DON'T UNDERSTAND SCIENCE section?


You can't know if there's life anywhere else in the universe. Don't be an ass. You just sound foolish.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Indeependent said:


> *That* was not ad hominem.
> All your posts are ad hominems.


Sure, sure. Whatever you say. Done yet?


----------



## james bond

JoeBlow said:


> You can't know if there's life anywhere else in the universe. Don't be an ass. You just sound foolish.


STFU lol.  If the experiment showed that bacteria still formed, then you would be right.  I would be smart enough to admit that life could be out there in the universe somewhere and most likely in our solar system.  IOW, I know and understand science and would agree with you.  However, the experiment showed this wasn't the case.  You can't have it both ways.


----------



## zaangalewa

Grumblenuts said:


> Science never purports to "know" anything. Nothing is ultimately settled. We keep studying and learning endlessly. Those purporting to absolutely "know" anything are the truly "religious" ones. Atheists (agnostics included)



An agnostics - like I for example - not knows whether god exists or not exists. Atheists "know" that god  is not existing - so it is impossible for an agnostics to be an atheist. Christians believe and trust in god - what also means sometimes they do not now whether god exists or not exists - but their belief leads to trust.



Grumblenuts said:


> are generally content with living in a world ruled by informed consensus because we know the truth is an ever moving target.



It is not. If you take a big stone and smash it on your foot then you will feel a terrible pain. And the doctor who repairs your broken bones in your foot should also know enough true things about how to do this job very best.



Grumblenuts said:


> The goal being to get closer, not to grab the damned thing.



Leibniz - one of the most intelligent human beings who ever had lived - said we live here in the best of all possible worlds. A best of all possible worlds contains always also the possibility to become a better world. But everything is also always able to go wrong. And if something goes totally wrong - what we all are absolutelly not able to understand only a little - then it's a very good thing nevertheless to be able to trust in god.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> An agnostics - like I for example - not knows whether god exists or not exists.


Would you accept that you are still a sinner if you are _wrong_ being an agnostic?

Here's why:

'The Bible tells us that we must accept by faith that God exists. Hebrews 11:6 says that without faith “it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.” God is spirit (John 4:24) so He cannot be seen or touched. Unless God chooses to reveal Himself, He is invisible to our senses (Romans 1:20). The Bible declares that the existence of God can be clearly seen in the universe (Psalm 19:1-4), sensed in nature (Romans 1:18-22), and confirmed in our own hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11).

Agnostics are unwilling to make a decision either for or against God’s existence. It is the ultimate “straddling the fence” position. Theists believe that God exists. Atheists believe that God does not exist. Agnostics believe that we should not believe or disbelieve in God’s existence, because it is impossible to know either way.

For the sake of argument, let’s throw out the clear and undeniable evidences of God’s existence. If we put the positions of theism and agnosticism on equal footing, which makes the most “sense” to believe in regards to the possibility of life after death? If there is no God, theists and agnostics alike all simply cease to exist when they die. *If there is a God, both theists and agnostics will have someone to answer to when they die. From this perspective, it definitely makes more “sense” to be a theist than an agnostic. If neither position can be proven or disproven, it seems wise to make every effort to thoroughly examine the position that may have an infinitely and eternally more desirable end resul*t.

It is normal to have doubts. There are many things in this world that we do not understand. Often, people doubt God’s existence because they do not understand or agree with the things He does and allows. However, as finite human beings we should not expect to be able to comprehend an infinite God. Romans 11:33-34 exclaims, “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! ‘Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?'

We must believe in God by faith and trust His ways by faith. God is ready and willing to reveal Himself in amazing ways to those who will believe in Him. Deuteronomy 4:29 proclaims, “But if from there you seek the Lord your God, you will find Him if you look for Him with all your heart and with all your soul.”'









						What is agnosticism? | GotQuestions.org
					

What is agnosticism? Why do agnostics believe that the existence of God cannot be proven?



					www.gotquestions.org


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> Would you accept that you are still a sinner if you are _wrong_ being an agnostic?
> 
> Here's why:
> 
> 'The Bible tells us that we must accept by faith that God exists. Hebrews 11:6 says that without faith “it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.” God is spirit (John 4:24) so He cannot be seen or touched. Unless God chooses to reveal Himself, He is invisible to our senses (Romans 1:20). The Bible declares that the existence of God can be clearly seen in the universe (Psalm 19:1-4), sensed in nature (Romans 1:18-22), and confirmed in our own hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11).
> 
> Agnostics are unwilling to make a decision either for or against God’s existence. It is the ultimate “straddling the fence” position. Theists believe that God exists. Atheists believe that God does not exist. Agnostics believe that we should not believe or disbelieve in God’s existence, because it is impossible to know either way.
> 
> For the sake of argument, let’s throw out the clear and undeniable evidences of God’s existence. If we put the positions of theism and agnosticism on equal footing, which makes the most “sense” to believe in regards to the possibility of life after death? If there is no God, theists and agnostics alike all simply cease to exist when they die. *If there is a God, both theists and agnostics will have someone to answer to when they die. From this perspective, it definitely makes more “sense” to be a theist than an agnostic. If neither position can be proven or disproven, it seems wise to make every effort to thoroughly examine the position that may have an infinitely and eternally more desirable end resul*t.
> 
> It is normal to have doubts. There are many things in this world that we do not understand. Often, people doubt God’s existence because they do not understand or agree with the things He does and allows. However, as finite human beings we should not expect to be able to comprehend an infinite God. Romans 11:33-34 exclaims, “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! ‘Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?'
> 
> We must believe in God by faith and trust His ways by faith. God is ready and willing to reveal Himself in amazing ways to those who will believe in Him. Deuteronomy 4:29 proclaims, “But if from there you seek the Lord your God, you will find Him if you look for Him with all your heart and with all your soul.”'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is agnosticism? | GotQuestions.org
> 
> 
> What is agnosticism? Why do agnostics believe that the existence of God cannot be proven?
> 
> 
> 
> www.gotquestions.org



What did you not understand when I said to you I am an agnostics? I am not right or wrong to be an agnostics. I am an agnostics: I don't know whether god exists or not exists. (A question in this context: _"Was god existing when he created existence?_") Agnosticism is a philosophy and not a belief. Your "arguments" are as stupid as to try to tell a baker it's impossible to bake bread and to be a Christian the same time - what's somehow true because a bakery is not a church and also wrong because god is everywhere - also in a bakery. If I would be god I would anyway prefer to be in a bakery instead to be in a church. The bread in a bakery is much better.

_It does not now seem to me that God understands because he exists, but rather that He exists because he understands._
*Meister Eckhart

*


----------



## JoeBlow

james bond said:


> STFU lol.  If the experiment showed that bacteria still formed, then you would be right.  I would be smart enough to admit that life could be out there in the universe somewhere and most likely in our solar system.  IOW, I know and understand science and would agree with you.  However, the experiment showed this wasn't the case.  You can't have it both ways.


Whatever it showed, that was 100 years ago. That you neglect ALL the science since then is telling. You should stop living in the past, we've recently found all the building blocks of life out in space ready to go...


----------



## Grumblenuts

zaangalewa said:


> Atheists "know" that god is not existing - so it is impossible for an agnostics to be an atheist.


Cut the crap. An atheist simply lacks belief in supernatural beings. How many times do you need to be schooled on this? Hey, here's an idea! Next time you're confused.. Look it up:

Oxford Languages Dictionary:


> _noun_
> 
> 
> a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> Cut the crap. An atheist simply lacks belief in supernatural beings. How many times do you need to be schooled on this? Hey, here's an idea! Next time you're confused.. Look it up:
> 
> Oxford Languages Dictionary:


If an atheist is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods, and an agnostic is a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena, then how are these not mutually exclusive?  Because I believe that was his point.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> What did you not understand when I said to you I am an agnostics? I am not right or wrong to be an agnostics. I am an agnostics: I don't know whether god exists or not exists. (A question in this context: _"Was god existing when he created existence?_") Agnosticism is a philosophy and not a belief. Your "arguments" are as stupid as to try to tell a baker it's impossible to bake bread and to be a Christian the same time - what's somehow true because a bakery is not a church and also wrong because god is everywhere - also in a bakery. If I would be god I would anyway prefer to be in a bakery instead to be in a church. The bread in a bakery is much better.
> 
> _It does not now seem to me that God understands because he exists, but rather that He exists because he understands._
> *Meister Eckhart
> 
> *


As usual, you could not answer a simple question of sin and how the Bible explained agnosticism.  Thus, I'll claim victory once more as I posted that you will have committed sin in the Bible by being an agnostic; It's just a nicer way to say it than you will lose everything.

As for your question, I _did_ understand when you stated you are agnostic.  You can believe that you are not right nor wrong being it.

However, I'm not stupid when the Bible and science backs me up.  This is the science section and creationists have creation science (which I've posted a youtube on already).  What do you have when YOU tell a baker it's impossible to bake bread and to be an agnostic at the same time?  I wouldn't ask such a dumb question nor make such a dumb point that your dumbass just did.  Your last point is saying exactly what you said _I_ was doing.

The point I would make is there is no relationship with agnosticism and evolution according to you.  To the OP, it has a relationship to atheism, but you state you do not agree.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> Atheists, as you have just demonstrated, are the most arrogant assholes on earth.


No, people making and insisting upon magical claims about eternity and afterlife and sky daddies with zero evidence are easily the most arrogant assholes on the planet. And it is not even close.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ding said:


> If an atheist is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods,


You're questioning the Oxford Languages Dictionary? Try the FFRF or Atheists International or whoever.. You have to at least start from a solid premise, accept some authoritative definition, while trying to make a rational argument. Also, try not finishing up with


ding said:


> Because I believe


Shirley you cannot be serious.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> You're questioning the Oxford Languages Dictionary? Try the FFRF or Atheists International or whoever.. You have to at least start from a solid premise, accept someone authoritative definition, when trying to make a rational argument. Also, try not finishing up with
> 
> Shirley you cannot be serious.


You parsed your way out of answering the question.   That's quite a talent.

If an atheist is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods, and an agnostic is a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena, then how are these not mutually exclusive? Because I believe that was his point.


----------



## abu afak

Grumblenuts said:


> Cut the crap. An atheist simply lacks belief in supernatural beings. How many times do you need to be schooled on this? Hey, here's an idea! Next time you're confused.. Look it up:
> 
> Oxford Languages Dictionary:


I am an atheist, and I suppose an Agnostic in a much lesser sense.
One CAN Be both.

I believe there is No god.
*Which is Not to say 1000% "there is no god'".
But logically, there is No Proof or even evidence of Any god, and All gods on which we have a verdict have been proven Bogus.*
Tens of Thousands of False Gods (Fire, Lightning, Fertility, etc) which have the Same bogus basis as the current necessarily Whittled Down gods (life, universe). IOW, we don't have an explanation so let's assign a god for it.

*Then there's the issue of WHICH "god".*
If, by some miracle, one happens to be correct, all the others are wrong.
So at least 3/4 of believers are Necessarily Wrong (99.8% if you're Jewish or Native American) even if the One stepped in it. *Macro-viewing Hundreds of cultures, all with their own deities, it's Obvious these are convenient local legends, NOT any universal truth/god.*
IOW, which 'god' the vast majorities believe in depends on a geographical/cultural Accident of birth, Not a discernible truth.

So in light of:
ALL the "I dunno it must be god"S on which we have a verdict being Bogus...
The incredible Lack of evidenceS of any gods...
The Many "only" "gods" which Negate each other, and make the vast majority of other contradictory ones false...
*I can say, for all Practical purposes (in addition to mere lack of belief), "there is no god", fully realizing Proving that Negative is Impossible.*

But if the stars all line up overhead one night and form the word "JESUS", *or ANY other Evidence comes to light, I would be glad - even 'thrilled' - to change my mind.*
Until and unless, Atheism is the most/only logical position.

'


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> I am and atheist, and I suppose an Agnostic in a much lesser sense.
> One CAN Be both.
> '


By the beard of Muhammed!

How can you be both?

You both firmly believe that there is no deity and also firmly believe that no one can know whether there is a deity?

If you believe in Santa, please ask him for a dictionary next year.


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> By the beard of Muhammed!
> 
> How can you be both?
> 
> You both firmly believe that there is no deity and also firmly believe that no one can know whether there is a deity?
> 
> If you believe in Santa, please ask him for a dictionary next year.


I just explained/elaborated how in detail.

Way over your 47 IQ head.

`


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> I just explained/elaborated how in detail.
> 
> Way over your 47 IQ head.
> 
> `


Just check your dictionary so you can stop embarrassing yourself.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> I am an atheist, and I suppose an Agnostic in a much lesser sense.
> One CAN Be both.
> 
> I believe there is No god.
> *Which is Not to say 1000% "there is no god'".
> But logically, there is No Proof or even evidence of Any god, and All gods on which we have a verdict have been proven Bogus.*
> Tens of Thousands of False Gods (Fire, Lightning, Fertility, etc) which have the Same bogus basis as the current necessarily Whittled Down gods (life, universe). IOW, we don't have an explanation so let's assign a god for it.
> 
> *Then there's the issue of WHICH "god".*
> If, by some miracle, one happens to be correct, all the others are wrong.
> So at least 3/4 of believers are Necessarily Wrong (99.8% if you're Jewish or Native American) even if the One stepped in it. *Macro-viewing Hundreds of cultures, all with their own deities, it's Obvious these are convenient local legends, NOT any universal truth/god.*
> IOW, which 'god' the vast majorities believe in depends on a geographical/cultural Accident of birth, Not a discernible truth.
> 
> So in light of:
> ALL the "I dunno it must be god"S on which we have a verdict being Bogus...
> The incredible Lack of evidenceS of any gods...
> The Many "only" "gods" which Negate each other, and make the vast majority of other contradictory ones false...
> *I can say, for all Practical purposes (in addition to mere lack of belief), "there is no god", fully realizing Proving that Negative is Impossible.*
> 
> But if the stars all line up overhead one night and form the word "JESUS", *or ANY other Evidence comes to light, I would be glad - even 'thrilled' - to change my mind.*
> Until and unless, Atheism is the most/only logical position.
> 
> '


This thread should be moved to the Rubber Room.  What science are you bringing to the table here, but your worthless atheist religion opinion that isn't backed up by science.  Evolution and atheism does not belong to the science forum..  I can accept it in the atheist religion forum.

All I can add here is what do you do when a _beautiful_ song like this comes on?  Do you have no soul and feeling?  Or do you just STFU and leave the room?  I can accept the latter always.


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> Just check your dictionary so you can stop embarrassing yourself.



Again:
*I firmly believe there is no god but leave open the tiny chance there is
ergo (and in light of the facts I elaborated in the post at the top) ""I Can say for all Practical purposes there is no god.""*

And I'm hardly alone
Perhaps the country's foremost Christianity/NT Scholar declares himself the same: BOTH.

A talk at FFRF/Freedom From Religion Foundation by one thee most renowned professor's of Religion/Christianity/NT, Bart Ehrman.
*99% of the time he is invited to speak to religious groups.
But, as it turns out, he's an "Agnostic and an Atheist."*
A good bit on his 'new' book, 'How Jesus became God' [2014]
​Wiki: "Bart D. Ehrman (1955) is an American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. *According to the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, he is one of North America's Leading scholars in his field, having written and edited 27 books, including Three College Textbooks.*​
*He has also achieved acclaim at the popular level, authoring five New York Times bestsellers.* Ehrman's work focuses on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the development of early Christianity.".."​

*

`*


----------



## themirrorthief

abu afak said:


> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
> Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> 
> Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [.....]
> 
> *1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
> So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> *In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..." *
> 
> `
> 
> .
> 
> 
> `.


yeah  a  million  years ago  a  fish  decided  to  grow  some  feet and  take  a  walk  on  dry  land   i  totally  get  it  it  all  makes  sense  now  just  let  me  hit  that  joint  again  and  i  am  sold


----------



## abu afak

themirrorthief said:


> yeah  a  million  years ago  a  fish  decided  to  grow  some  feet and  take  a  walk  on  dry  land   i  totally  get  it  it  all  makes  sense  now  just  let  me  hit  that  joint  again  and  i  am  sold


Hate to break this to you but There are still fish that, can move around on land with their pectoral fins and other means. (and many other dual land/water creatures)

`


----------



## themirrorthief

abu afak said:


> Again:
> *I firmly believe there is no god but leave open the tiny chance there is
> ergo (and in light of the facts I elaborated in the post at the top) ""I Can say for all Practical purposes there is no god.""*
> 
> And I'm hardly alone
> Perhaps the country's foremost Christianity/NT Scholar declares himself the same: BOTH.
> 
> A talk at FFRF/Freedom From Religion Foundation by one thee most renowned professor's of Religion/Christianity/NT, Bart Ehrman.
> *99% of the time he is invited to speak to religious groups.
> But, as it turns out, he's an "Agnostic and an Atheist."*
> A good bit on his 'new' book, 'How Jesus became God' [2014][/B]
> ​Wiki: "Bart D. Ehrman (1955) is an American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. *According to the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, he is one of North America's Leading scholars in his field, having written and edited 27 books, including Three College Textbooks.*​
> *He has also achieved acclaim at the popular level, authoring five New York Times bestsellers.* Ehrman's work focuses on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the development of early Christianity.".."​
> 
> *
> 
> `*


what  has  religion   got  to  do  with  God   the  fact  you  live  proves  God  is  real   religion  is  man  made if  you  want  to  see  god  look  in  the  mirror  you  do  gods  work  you  are  made  in  his  image  your  body  is  a  holy temple  meaning  god  lives  inside  you now  get  out  there  and  prove  it  by  doing  good  and  creating  love


----------



## themirrorthief

abu afak said:


> Hate to break this to you but There are still fish that, can move around on land with their pectoral fins and other means. (and many other dual land/water creatures)
> 
> `


how  many  can  fly  jet  planes  and  give  women  fake  tits


----------



## abu afak

themirrorthief said:


> what  has  religion   got  to  do  with  God   the  fact  you  live  proves  God  is  real   religion  is  man  made if  you  want  to  see  god  look  in  the  mirror  you  do  gods  work  you  are  made  in  his  image  your  body  is  a  holy temple  meaning  god  lives  inside  you now  get  out  there  and  prove  it  by  doing  good  and  creating  love


"" the  fact  you  live  proves  God  is  real"'

Maybe that empty platitude works for you but it is otherwise/of course Baseless.
got any links besides genesis?

And since you've got it down pat, please tell us which/witch god that is.

th-th-thx

`


----------



## james bond

If not the Rubber Room, can we move this thread to Religion and Ethics?  What science is in there?  There is no observations nor experiments.  Evolution are papers to promote atheism.  I'll accept banning abu afak again, too, for ruining the S&T forum.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> If not the Rubber Room, can we move this thread to Religion and Ethics?  What science is in there?  There is no observations nor experiments.  Evolution are papers to promote atheism.  I'll accept banning abu afak again, too, for ruining the S&T forum.


*The OP is an article from SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN!  *
Every one of the 15 points IS Science.
What's the matter. Your positions outed by the Article?
And It IS the main issue in the section.
Its certainly a more valid topic than the religious 'design'/ID, or YOUR ELEVEN Thousand god posts. .. your only source.
*YOU shouldn't be here! Citing scripture, sending people to hell, etc.*
You'd rather Creation. con. AnswersInGenesis.
What a kwazy censorial loser.


----------



## Grumblenuts

abu afak said:


> Again:
> *I firmly believe there is no god but leave open the tiny chance there is
> ergo (and in light of the facts I elaborated in the post at the top) ""I Can say for all Practical purposes there is no god.""*
> 
> And I'm hardly alone
> Perhaps the country's foremost Christianity/NT Scholar declares himself the same: BOTH.
> 
> A talk at FFRF/Freedom From Religion Foundation by one thee most renowned professor's of Religion/Christianity/NT, Bart Ehrman.
> *99% of the time he is invited to speak to religious groups.
> But, as it turns out, he's an "Agnostic and an Atheist."*
> A good bit on his 'new' book, 'How Jesus became God' [2014]
> ​Wiki: "Bart D. Ehrman (1955) is an American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. *According to the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, he is one of North America's Leading scholars in his field, having written and edited 27 books, including Three College Textbooks.*​
> *He has also achieved acclaim at the popular level, authoring five New York Times bestsellers.* Ehrman's work focuses on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the development of early Christianity.".."​
> 
> *
> 
> `*


That's an entertaining video. Ehrman identifies himself as an agnostic, but claims to be an atheist as well. He explains each a bit and obviously finds the two not mutually exclusive. He even mentions that lots of atheists (like half?) agree with me, i.e. that agnostics are just atheists who lack the balls to simply admit they're atheists. Attempting to apply deductive reasoning to what always seems an intractable semantic argument:


> A semantic dispute is a disagreement that arises if the parties involved disagree about the definition of a word or phrase, not because they disagree on material facts, but rather because they disagree on the definitions of a word essential to formulating the claim at issue. Wikipedia


Akin to FFRF in general, Ehrman appears to simply avoid further analysis as much as possible and chooses to be an agnostic rather than an atheist for no clear reason. I see atheism as the larger set, engulfing agnosticism entirely, rendering it logically redundant. Ehrman may see them the other way around or as simply distinct but not exclusive. I've never really cared that much to quibble, the gulf being so much wider between us and those explicitly identifying as religious. Seems petty by comparison. But I'd still find it interesting to explore further. For instance, agnostics might be logically accused of professing belief and (therefore?) being somewhat self-contradictory. Perhaps guilty of pushing god-of-the-gaps reasoning as well?..


----------



## zaangalewa

Grumblenuts said:


> Cut the crap. An atheist simply lacks belief in supernatural beings.



An atheist denies [the possibility of the existence of] god and denies normally also all forms of spiritual beliefs - except the own belief not to believe.



Grumblenuts said:


> How many times do you need to be schooled on this?



I'm not totally immune against brainwash so you have a chance to convince me from something what's wrong - but this not explains why you like to convince me from wrongness.



Grumblenuts said:


> Hey, here's an idea!



An ideal? That's also an English word? Astonishing. What is your ideal? To be noble, helpful and good as Goethe liked to be?



Grumblenuts said:


> Next time you're confuual sed.. Look it up:
> 
> Oxford Languages Dictionary:



Next time you still will be an idiot and I still will be an idiot from the ignorant, intrigant, arrogant and agressive species "homo sapiens sapiens" who destroys the own spiritual and real basis of the existence of all known life.


----------



## zaangalewa

JoeBlow said:


> Whatever it showed, that was 100 years ago. That you neglect ALL the science since then is telling. You should stop living in the past,



He said he decided 9 years ago to be a Christian.



JoeBlow said:


> we've recently found all the building blocks of life



What's nearly a total nonsense. The dynamic structures within a body are for example nearly totally unknown. We kill normally what we like to see.



JoeBlow said:


> out in space ready to go...



We are what? Earth and moon are a double planet system - we never left this system. And the cosm is some billion times bigger.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> As usual, you could not answer a simple question of sin



You are an ignorant fool, James Bond. I know why it is a sin to call someone a fool - but I do it here on reason to find a way to communicate with you. The Christian religion is not an ideology as you seem to think. Learn first what you like to teach others.



james bond said:


> and how the Bible explained agnosticism.



The bible explains what?



james bond said:


> Thus, I'll claim victory once more as I posted that you will have committed sin in the Bible by being an agnostic; It's just a nicer way to say it than you will lose everything.



You have absolutelly not any light idea what you try to speak about when you use the word "agnosticism" - but that's normal in the English speaking world.



james bond said:


> As for your question, I _did_ understand when you stated you are agnostic.  You can believe that you are not right nor wrong being it.



This has nothing to do with belief. I know that I don't know whether god exists or not exists. And I never discuss this with anyone else who has not the intellectual capacity to understand why I am a Christian.



james bond said:


> However, I'm not stupid



tralalala - I say nothing ... very loud ... isn't it?



james bond said:


> when the Bible and science backs me up.  This



...



james bond said:


> is the science section and creationists have creation science



Creation science is a nonsense expression. Use "natural science" - or "physics" - or "biology " and so on if you speak about natural science. Natural science knows only one scientific truth - and not many truthes.



james bond said:


> (which I've posted a youtube on already).  What do you have when YOU tell a baker it's impossible to bake bread and to be an agnostic at the same time?



Good grief.



james bond said:


> I wouldn't ask such a dumb question nor make such a dumb point that your dumbass just did.



I "love" such arguments.





james bond said:


> Your last point is saying exactly what you said _I_ was doing.
> 
> The point I would make is there is no relationship with agnosticism and evolution according to you.  To the OP, it has a relationship to atheism, but you state you do not agree.



Why for heavens sake do you say something at all?


----------



## zaangalewa

Sunsettommy said:


> What is preventing Churches from teaching Creationism?



What do you understand under "teaching creationism"?

¿This?:


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> No shkidding, Sherlock.
> 
> Since you chose to truncate my answer instead of replying to it like an adult, here it is again (link is provided):
> 
> I'll take this opportunity to add, "the conditions that existed on Earth during his lifetime" include relatively recently discovering the microscope, for example, without which Pasteur would have effectively been blind. Since Pasteur, our equipment and scientific understanding has again improved tremendously. Instead of embracing that, you choose to regress back to the time when people had no choice but to fear gods and spiritual nonsense. Enjoy. I prefer experiencing current reality, no matter how harsh, and helping to improve upon it.. instead of doing whatever you imagine you're doing.


I missed your personal opinion as it discusses the microscope which creation scientists invented -- Antony van Leeuwenhoek: Magnificent Microscopes.  No sh*t, Sherlock.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> You are an ignorant fool, James Bond. I know why it is a sin to call someone a fool - but I do it here on reason to find a way to communicate with you. The Christian religion is not an ideology as you seem to think. Learn first what you like to teach others.
> 
> 
> 
> The bible explains what?
> 
> 
> 
> You have absolutelly not any light idea what you try to speak about when you use the word "agnosticism" - but that's normal in the English speaking world.
> 
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with belief. I know that I don't know whether god exists or not exists. And I never discuss this with anyone else who has not the intellectual capacity to understand why I am a Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> tralalala - I say nothing ... very loud ... isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> Creation science is a nonsense expression. Use "natural science" - or "physics" - or "biology " and so on if you speak about natural science. Natural science knows only one scientific truth - and not many truthes.
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief.
> 
> 
> 
> I "love" such arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why for heavens sake do you say something at all?


I'm not the ignorant fool.  You are and I posted why and the truth.  It's because of that you are angry that you respond the way you do, but it's not my fault.  It's yours.  And I'm here to teach you the truth and I think I have, but it's not my fault that you didn't get nor understand the message.  I think it's because you don't understand or get the message (which most others do) that makes you an agnostic or not sure. 

The rest of your babble proves that you are the ignorant one.


----------



## JoeBlow

zaangalewa said:


> He said he decided 9 years ago to be a Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> What's nearly a total nonsense. The dynamic structures within a body are for example nearly totally unknown. We kill normally what we like to see.
> 
> 
> 
> We are what? Earth and moon are a double planet system - we never left this system. And the cosm is some billion times bigger.


Google it, scientists have found the building blocks of life in outer space. You don't have to be scared. everything will be ok.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> I'm not the ignorant fool.



Okay.



james bond said:


> You are







james bond said:


> and I posted why and the truth.  It's because of that you are angry



Angry? I? Sorry - but I am a German. What you call "angry" means in German "relaxed". I was not able to reach you - that's all. 



james bond said:


> that you respond the way you do, but it's not my fault.  It's yours.



Fault? What for heavens sake do you speak about? Take a look at your hand - and take a look at the hand of a gorilla - and you know that there is a bridge between both biological structures. This bridge is called "evolution".



james bond said:


> And I'm here to teach you the truth



Go to a doctor!



james bond said:


> and I think I have, but it's not my fault that you didn't get nor understand the message.  I think it's because you don't understand or get the message (which most others do) that makes you an agnostic or not sure.



You have not any little idea about what is agnosticism. But you have an opinion. And this opinion has a racist color. 



james bond said:


> The rest of your babble proves that you are the ignorant one.


----------



## zaangalewa

JoeBlow said:


> Google it, scientists have found the building blocks of life in outer space.



I do not waste my time with such a nonsense. I will discuss this with my dogs. They are experts in "life".



JoeBlow said:


> You don't have to be scared. everything will be ok.



I'm not sure what you think about now - but it's amusing.


----------



## ding

Grumblenuts said:


> That's an entertaining video. Ehrman identifies himself as an agnostic, but claims to be an atheist as well. He explains each a bit and obviously finds the two not mutually exclusive. He even mentions that lots of atheists (like half?) agree with me, i.e. that agnostics are just atheists who lack the balls to simply admit they're atheists. Attempting to apply deductive reasoning to what always seems an intractable semantic argument:
> 
> Akin to FFRF in general, Ehrman appears to simply avoid further analysis as much as possible and chooses to be an agnostic rather than an atheist for no clear reason. I see atheism as the larger set, engulfing agnosticism entirely, rendering it logically redundant. Ehrman may see them the other way around or as simply distinct but not exclusive. I've never really cared that much to quibble, the gulf being so much wider between us and those explicitly identifying as religious. Seems petty by comparison. But I'd still find it interesting to explore further. For instance, agnostics might be logically accused of professing belief and (therefore?) being somewhat self-contradictory. Perhaps guilty of pushing god-of-the-gaps reasoning as well?..


Atheism and agnosticism by definition are mutually exclusive.  Most who claim to be agnostic are in reality atheists.


----------



## ding

JoeBlow said:


> Google it, scientists have found the building blocks of life in outer space. You don't have to be scared. everything will be ok.


You mean... *hydrogen*, *carbon*, *oxygen* and *nitrogen?*

Yeah, that's a real shocker.


----------



## JoeBlow

zaangalewa said:


> I do not waste my time with such a nonsense. I will discuss this with my dogs. They are experts in "life".
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you think about now - but it's amusing.


You must try really hard to stay ignorant, Mein Fuhrer.

Life's Building Blocks 'Abundant in Space'


----------



## JoeBlow

ding said:


> You mean... *hydrogen*, *carbon*, *oxygen* and *nitrogen?*
> 
> Yeah, that's a real shocker.


Life's Building Blocks 'Abundant in Space'


----------



## ding

JoeBlow said:


> Life's Building Blocks 'Abundant in Space'


No shit.  That was my point.  It's not news.


----------



## JoeBlow

ding said:


> No shit.  That was my point.  It's not news.


-I wasn't talking to you it was that james bond retard.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> *The OP is an article from SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN!  *
> Every one of the 15 points IS Science.
> What's the matter. Your positions outed by the Article?
> And It IS the main issue in the section.
> Its certainly a more valid topic than the religious 'design'/ID, or YOUR ELEVEN Thousand god posts. .. your only source.
> *YOU shouldn't be here! Citing scripture, sending people to hell, etc.*
> You'd rather Creation. con. AnswersInGenesis.
> What a kwazy censorial loser.


SA is an atheist science publication.  What does it back up?  Give me three examples.  It's you who shouldn't be here.  The Bible gives us real science in creation science.  It's observable and testable.  I provided several examples and one was testable with a swan neck flask that you can buy.

You just don't get it and never will because you're stuck on atheism and its evolutionary religion.  Evolution isn't based on any science.  There's nothing observable nor testable.  Why can't you figure this out?  Otherwise, you'd be giving me the answers and I'd be listening.  However, you got nothing but a worthless reference that science doesn't back up.  Thus, you will be going to _hell_ in the afterlife. The Bible tells us that there is an afterlife you atheist! Publications that you mentioned like creation.com and AIG gives us creation science and observable and testable evidence.

Finally, you are wrong about me being a loser.  To the contrary, I am the ultimate winner, will get Jesus as final Judge and I get EVERYTHING in the afterlife.  The Bible tells us the atheists, agnostics and sinners will get Jesus as the final Judge, the Wrath of God and their final destination of the Lake of Fire.


----------



## james bond

JoeBlow said:


> -I wasn't talking to you it was that james bond retard.


I'm not the retard.  I'm the one not talking to an ignorant retard like you because there's _no point_ in talking to an ignorant retard once you whip his ass in front of all the people in the science section lol. You have been schooled and can run along like a little retard. ding did the same.


----------



## JoeBlow

james bond said:


> I'm not the retard.  I'm the one not talking to an ignorant retard like you because there's _no point_ in talking to an ignorant retard once you whip his ass in front of all the people in the science section lol. You have been schooled and can run along like a little retard. ding did the same.


You're probably gay.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> Angry? I? Sorry - but I am a German. What you call "angry" means in German "relaxed". I was not able to reach you - that's all.


I thought you were angry about the Bible saying ags will go to hell.  Then it's fine with me.  It's your afterlife.



zaangalewa said:


> Fault? What for heavens sake do you speak about? Take a look at your hand - and take a look at the hand of a gorilla - and you know that there is a bridge between both biological structures. This bridge is called "evolution".


Yes, your fault for going against God and the Bible, i.e. being a sinner.

My hand looks like human hand and not a gorilla's.  As usual, you make a statement and provide nothing to back it up unlike a scientist would do.  Take a look at the gorilla's hand below and see how wrong you are.







First, it's got fur on the arms, wrist and no knuckles.  It also has opposable thumbs.  If their features are alike, then it's because God reused similar parts.  But they're not as their thumbs and fingers are short and stout.

As usual, I even provide the answers for your examples.  It's no wonder you're an ag as you do not understand even what you provide as examples nor are prepared to discuss.  Ho hum.  Boring.


----------



## james bond

JoeBlow said:


> You're probably gay.


Heh.  The last comment I made about gayness in the forum had to do with Brokeback Mountain.  Here's the final scene.


I figured the good ol' boys found out about Jack by using queer bait and he took the bait and got "reeled" in.  Those were the f*g bashing days using a baseball bat.

What do you have?  Just calling people names, dipshit?


----------



## james bond

Those were the good ol' days where they taught you good stuff in movies.  I suppose it's scientific to use queer bait for f*g bashing like it is with fishing.

Today, you get Scientific American which is just a magazine for atheists to bash creationists and their science.  It prolly doesn't discuss real science or what does the OP have to say about that?  When did he read it last?  This month's issue?  What is in that?  And please discuss what you find interesting.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> SA is an atheist science publication.  What does it back up?  Give me three examples.  It's you who shouldn't be here.  The Bible gives us real science in creation science.  It's observable and testable.  I provided several examples and one was testable with a swan neck flask that you can buy.


*Scientific American is a highly respected SCIENCE publication: the oldest Magazine in the USA.  
The Bible is a RELIGIOUS HOLY Book.
And you want Sciam in the Religion section.. and the Bible/YOU quoting Scripture in Science!

You LUNATIC. YOU and the BIBLE go in the Religion section.
YOU need to CONFINED to the Religion section. *

Always crazy, you are now completely gone.
`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> *Scientific American is a highly respected SCIENCE publication: the oldest Magazine in the USA.
> The Bible is a RELIGIOUS HOLY Book.
> And you want Sciam in the Religion section.. and the Bible/YOU quoting Scripture in Science!
> 
> You LUNATIC. YOU and the BIBLE go in the Religion section.
> YOU need to CONFINED to the Religion section. *
> 
> Always crazy, you are now completely gone.
> `


>>*You LUNATIC.<<*

Not I.  It's you.  You are a hateful, looney atheist.  Look at the title of your topics.  They should be Religion and Ethics or the Rubber Room forums.  Are you and some of the atheists here into bestiality?  I can't even discuss science with you, but have to be exposed to your sexual perversions and sexual perversion magazine.

"
The pro-evolution magazine the Scientific American on bestiality​
See also: Evolutionary belief and bestiality and Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation and Atheism and bestiality and Irreligion and superstition

Bestiality is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. The pro-evolution magazine the _Scientific American_ speciously made this unwarranted speculation via their blog on the aberrant practice of bestiality:



“After all, we are animals....
In any event, philosophical questions aside, I simply find it astounding — and incredibly fascinating from an evolutionary perspective — that so many people (as much as a full percent of the general population) are certifiable zoophiles. And scientific researchers appear to be slowly conceding that zoophilia may be a genuine human sexual orientation.[3]”

Concerning the aberrant practice of homosexuality, the licentious liberal community has more favorable views on homosexuality than conservatives plus has a history of inflating the number of people who are homosexuals.[4] In addition, liberals are more likely to believe in evolutionary pseudoscience.  Thus, it is not surprising the _Scientific American_ engaged in the above cited speculation.

For more information please see: Evolutionary belief and bestiality"





__





						Scientific American - Conservapedia
					






					www.conservapedia.com
				




"
*Evolutionary belief and bestiality*








The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University wrote: "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic".[1]

Bestiality is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal.  In addition to being repulsive and being a sexual taboo in societies, bestiality can cause harm to both animals and humans.[2]

Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists.[3]

The atheist philosopher Peter Singer defends the practice of bestiality (as well as abortion, infanticide and euthanasia).  Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-evolution academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at Princeton University.[4][5] Peter Singer was installed as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University in 1999 and in 2006 it was reported that he still worked part-time in that capacity.[6] In 2006, it was also reported that Singer worked part-time as Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics since 2005.[7]

The Bible says that bestiality is a perversion and, under the Old Testament Jewish Law, punishable by death (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: Atheism and morality and Atheism and deception)."





__





						Evolutionary belief and bestiality - Conservapedia
					






					www.conservapedia.com
				




"Sexual assault is no laughing matter - unless, of course, the would-be rapist isn't human. Who doesn't giggle when they see a small dog humping someone's leg? But what many people don't realize is that reverse bestiality - where an animal makes unwanted sexual advances on a person - is a true problem for scientists working in the field where the actions of wild animals are completely unpredictable."









						Observations: Reverse Bestiality
					






					blogs.scientificamerican.com
				




Just think if SA investigated homosexual perversions.  That should be up your alley if you know what I mean lol.

Moreover, you do not back up what you claim while I do.  I'm going to claim victory once again.  With all the wins I am scoring against you, you should go to the very deepest depths of the Lake of Fire.


----------



## Seymour Flops

james bond said:


> >>*You LUNATIC.<<*
> 
> Not I.  It's you.  You are a hateful, looney atheist.  Look at the title of your topics.  They should be Religion and Ethics or the Rubber Room forums.  Are you and some of the atheists here into bestiality?  I can't even discuss science with you, but have to be exposed to your sexual perversions and sexual perversion magazine.
> 
> "
> The pro-evolution magazine the Scientific American on bestiality​
> See also: Evolutionary belief and bestiality and Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation and Atheism and bestiality and Irreligion and superstition
> 
> Bestiality is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. The pro-evolution magazine the _Scientific American_ speciously made this unwarranted speculation via their blog on the aberrant practice of bestiality:
> 
> 
> 
> “After all, we are animals....
> In any event, philosophical questions aside, I simply find it astounding — and incredibly fascinating from an evolutionary perspective — that so many people (as much as a full percent of the general population) are certifiable zoophiles. And scientific researchers appear to be slowly conceding that zoophilia may be a genuine human sexual orientation.[3]”
> 
> Concerning the aberrant practice of homosexuality, the licentious liberal community has more favorable views on homosexuality than conservatives plus has a history of inflating the number of people who are homosexuals.[4] In addition, liberals are more likely to believe in evolutionary pseudoscience.  Thus, it is not surprising the _Scientific American_ engaged in the above cited speculation.
> 
> For more information please see: Evolutionary belief and bestiality"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific American - Conservapedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.conservapedia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "
> *Evolutionary belief and bestiality*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University wrote: "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic".[1]
> 
> Bestiality is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal.  In addition to being repulsive and being a sexual taboo in societies, bestiality can cause harm to both animals and humans.[2]
> 
> Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists.[3]
> 
> The atheist philosopher Peter Singer defends the practice of bestiality (as well as abortion, infanticide and euthanasia).  Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-evolution academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at Princeton University.[4][5] Peter Singer was installed as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University in 1999 and in 2006 it was reported that he still worked part-time in that capacity.[6] In 2006, it was also reported that Singer worked part-time as Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics since 2005.[7]
> 
> The Bible says that bestiality is a perversion and, under the Old Testament Jewish Law, punishable by death (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: Atheism and morality and Atheism and deception)."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific American - Conservapedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.conservapedia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Observations: Reverse Bestiality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, you do not back up what you claim while I do.  I'm going to claim victory once again.  With all the wins I am scoring against you, you should go to the very deepest depths of the Lake of Fire.


You make two very good points, here.

First, that Abu constantly makes threads on this science and technology forum which are nothing more than attempts to jam his atheist religious believes down the throats of non-believers.  He never provides a single bit of evidence for non-guided evolution, he just bolds and all-caps hoping people will somehow be afraid of that.

Second, this religious belief in humans as animals certainly is the driving force for the newly revived interest in bestiality on the part of Abu and his ilk.  Abu will never believe that it is an abomination before god, nor will he understand just how unhealthy his "trysts" with the neighbor's calf or sheep are.  

But it is a sign of his vileness that he never stops to think that any such sexual activity with an animal is rape on the face of it.  Animals cannot consent to sex with humans, nor to they have the instinct to copulate with humans as they do to copulate with animals of their kind.

I beseech you, Abu!  How old was the last animal that you raped?  Two years?  Three?


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> >>*You LUNATIC.<<*
> 
> Not I.  It's you.  You are a hateful, looney atheist.  Look at the title of your topics.  They should be Religion and Ethics or the Rubber Room forums.  Are you and some of the atheists here into bestiality?  I can't even discuss science with you, but have to be exposed to your sexual perversions and sexual perversion magazine.
> 
> "
> The pro-evolution magazine the Scientific American on bestiality​
> See also: Evolutionary belief and bestiality and Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation and Atheism and bestiality and Irreligion and superstition
> 
> Bestiality is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. The pro-evolution magazine the _Scientific American_ speciously made this unwarranted speculation via their blog on the aberrant practice of bestiality:
> 
> 
> 
> “After all, we are animals....
> In any event, philosophical questions aside, I simply find it astounding — and incredibly fascinating from an evolutionary perspective — that so many people (as much as a full percent of the general population) are certifiable zoophiles. And scientific researchers appear to be slowly conceding that zoophilia may be a genuine human sexual orientation.[3]”
> 
> Concerning the aberrant practice of homosexuality, the licentious liberal community has more favorable views on homosexuality than conservatives plus has a history of inflating the number of people who are homosexuals.[4] In addition, liberals are more likely to believe in evolutionary pseudoscience.  Thus, it is not surprising the _Scientific American_ engaged in the above cited speculation.
> 
> For more information please see: Evolutionary belief and bestiality"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific American - Conservapedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.conservapedia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "
> *Evolutionary belief and bestiality*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University wrote: "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic".[1]
> 
> Bestiality is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal.  In addition to being repulsive and being a sexual taboo in societies, bestiality can cause harm to both animals and humans.[2]
> 
> Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists.[3]
> 
> The atheist philosopher Peter Singer defends the practice of bestiality (as well as abortion, infanticide and euthanasia).  Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-evolution academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at Princeton University.[4][5] Peter Singer was installed as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University in 1999 and in 2006 it was reported that he still worked part-time in that capacity.[6] In 2006, it was also reported that Singer worked part-time as Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics since 2005.[7]
> 
> The Bible says that bestiality is a perversion and, under the Old Testament Jewish Law, punishable by death (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: Atheism and morality and Atheism and deception)."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Observations: Reverse Bestiality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, you do not back up what you claim while I do.  I'm going to claim victory once again.  With all the wins I am scoring against you, you should go to the very deepest depths of the Lake of Fire.


LOL
'Conservapedia.
I just read their entry on the *BBC:*  "anti-Christian," "anti-USA," and "Bigoted" too.

They have no problem with David Duke though!




__





						David Duke - Conservapedia
					






					www.conservapedia.com
				




LOFL.


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> You make two very good points, here.
> 
> First, that Abu constantly makes threads on this science and technology forum which are nothing more than attempts to jam his atheist religious believes down the throats of non-believers.  He never provides a single bit of evidence for non-guided evolution, he just bolds and all-caps hoping people will somehow be afraid of that.
> 
> Second, this religious belief in humans as animals certainly is the driving force for the newly revived interest in bestiality on the part of Abu and his ilk.  Abu will never believe that it is an abomination before god, nor will he understand just how unhealthy his "trysts" with the neighbor's calf or sheep are.
> 
> But it is a sign of his vileness that he never stops to think that any such sexual activity with an animal is rape on the face of it.  Animals cannot consent to sex with humans, nor to they have the instinct to copulate with humans as they do to copulate with animals of their kind.
> 
> I beseech you, Abu!  How old was the last animal that you raped?  Two years?  Three?



The Jimmy Swaggert groupies are on a Jihad.


----------



## abu afak

Seymour Flops said:


> You make two very good points, here.
> First, that Abu constantly makes threads on this science and technology forum which are nothing more than attempts to jam his atheist religious believes down the throats of non-believers.  *He never provides a single bit of Evidence for non-guided evolution, he just bolds and all-caps hoping people will somehow be afraid of that...*


He Flops again.
*I "Never provide a single bit of evidence for non-guided evolution"?*
Really?
You didn't see it? Post in it?

Evidence of Common Descent (LOTS, across the sciences)​





						Evidence of Common Descent (LOTS, across the sciences)
					

And now we await Evidence for Creationism, ID, the designER/god. Any evidence at all.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent Contents  1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry  1.1 Genetics 1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry  2...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				



Contents​
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
13 External links

`


----------



## james bond

Here's another article by Scientific American which sexual pervert abu afak claims is scientific.

"
Out of context, many of our behaviors—if limited to the mere veneer of plain description—would raise many an eyebrow. The most innocent of things can sound tawdry and bizarre when certain facts and details are omitted. Here’s a perfect example: I accidentally bit my dog Gulliver’s tongue recently.

Now you may be asking yourself what I was doing with his tongue in my mouth to begin with. But I would submit that that is perhaps a better question for Gulliver, since he’s the one that violated my busily masticating maw by inserting that long, thin, delicatessen-slice muscle of his while I was simply enjoying a bite of a very banal bagel. Shocked by the feel of human teeth chomping down on his tongue, he yelped—then scampered off. Fortunately, Gulliver showed no signs of lasting trauma and I was saved from having to explain to the vet how it came to be that I bit off my dog’s tongue; but for days after the “incident” Gulliver kept his prized possession sealed behind the vault of his own clamped jaw. This gave my partner, Juan, and me at least a temporary reprieve from Gulliver’s normally overindulgent use of that particular organ on our faces. The story was strange enough for me to share with friends, and this particular tale of man-bites-dog unleashed the predictable onslaught of humorous bestiality innuendos. And that, ladies and gentleman, is where the real story begins."









						Animal Lovers: Zoophiles Make Scientists Rethink Human Sexuality
					






					blogs.scientificamerican.com
				




Now, we know abu afak is a sex pervert into beastiality.  It's no wonder he didn't volunteer answers to my questions of what he read in the latest issue of SA.  The things you learn about liberals and their _infatuation_ with a science magazine.

"
Bestiality: The best kept secret in America​
Zoosexuality (also referred to as “bestiality” and “zoophilia”) is the sexual orientation of a human to an animal. For most individuals, the concept of humans having sex with animals is abhorrent or taboo. As a result, the topic is seldom researched, studied, or openly discussed. Abundant historical and anthropological evidence, however, suggests that such relationships have existed for millennia, and some studies estimate that zoosexuals comprise 3-8% of the general population. Bestiality is illegal throughout most of the United States and is considered a paraphilia, or sexual perversity, by the American Psychiatric Association. Each year an unknown number of animals and humans are traumatized, injured, or killed after aggressive or repeated sexual acts. Animals are frequently solicited, traded or sold specifically for sex. They are filmed having intercourse with their own species as well as with human partners. Far too often, they are found in pornography videos where children or adult couples are involved. While there are known links between animal cruelty and human violence, few studies have examined the link between bestiality and other forms of criminal behavior, including trespass, substance abuse, or sexual assault and exploitation of children and adults. The reported incidence of animal sexual abuse is growing at an alarming rate, presenting practical challenges for animal welfare, legal, medical, law enforcement, mental health and veterinary professionals. This presentation will highlight the spectrum of behavior exhibited by humans with a sexual attraction to non-human animals by using case examples, and preliminary results of a study of court cases in the US over a twenty-year period will be presented. This presentation discusses the rise in of zoosexualism in the United States, and its significance to the fields of criminology, law, social work, and medicine. Case examples of the link between human and animal cruelty are presented as well as preliminary results of a longitudinal study covering twenty-years of legal cases involving sexual contact between humans and animals. Understanding Zoosexuality: Prevalence, Impact, and Links to Criminal Behavior"



			https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298976988_Bestiality_The_best_kept_secret_in_America
		


I can't make this stuff up.  I would not trust a liberal atheist with any type of animals.

"
Atheism and bestiality​ 





 

The atheist philosopher Peter Singer defends the practice of bestiality (as well as abortion, infanticide and euthanasia).[1]

Despite holding these immoral views, Princeton University rewarded him with a bioethics chair.[2]

Bestiality is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. In addition to being repulsive and being a sexual taboo in societies, bestiality can cause harm to both animals and humans.[3]

_Vice News_, a global news channel which broadcasts documentaries about current topics, reported in 2014 about secular Europe: "Bestiality is having a weird renaissance in Europe. Perhaps ironically, it kicked off when activists succeeded in banning the practice in places like Germany and Norway. In the background, something else emerged simultaneously: an animal-sex-tourism industry, which has been blossoming in Denmark."[4]

A 2015 _Jerusalem Post_ article indicates "Copenhagen has for long been the bestiality capital of Europe and has attracted many tourists mainly visiting to have sex with animals. Legislation against this practice was only enacted this year."[5]

See also: Bestiality and secular Europe and Bestiality and various geographic areas

The atheist philosopher Peter Singer defends the practice of bestiality (as well as abortion, infanticide and euthanasia).  Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-evolution academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at Princeton University.[6]  Peter Singer was installed as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University in 1999 and in 2006 it was reported that he still worked part-time in that capacity.[7] In 2006, it was also reported that Singer worked part-time as Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics since 2005.[8]

Joe Carter's _First Things_ article entitled _The Dangerous Mind_ declares concerning Peter Singer:



 “ Singer has spent a lifetime justifying the unjustifiable. He is the founding father of the animal liberation movement and advocates ending “the present speciesist bias against taking seriously the interests of nonhuman animals.” He is also a defender of killing the aged (if they have dementia), newborns (for almost any reason until they are two years old), necrophilia (assuming it’s consensual), and bestiality (also assuming it’s consensual).[9] ”

See also: Atheism and sexuality"





__





						Atheism and bestiality - Conservapedia
					






					www.conservapedia.com


----------



## Seymour Flops

james bond said:


> Now, we know abu afak is a sex pervert into beastiality.  It's no wonder he didn't volunteer answers to my questions of what he read in the latest issue.
> 
> "


Good catch!  I had assumed that it was because Abu is illiterate.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> The Jimmy Swaggert groupies are on a Jihad.


How does it feel to be on the same side as a beastialitist such as abu afak which I just learned about?  He could not help revealing himself by supporting Scientific American.  It is one of the ultimate eww's of sex perversion.

Here is the liberal atheist scientist with his views on beastiality, abortion and more.  Atheism is a mental illness.


----------



## zaangalewa

ding said:


> Atheism and agnosticism by definition are mutually exclusive.



Atheism is a belief - in this case that god (and not "a god") is not existing. But agnosticism is a philosophy. In context of this philosophy is a sentence like "I believe in god" a true statement if someone believes in god. And agnosticism is also not a scale from 0% - 100% for a chance whether god could exist or not exist. Such a mixed logic is even able to be dangerous because it is able to undermine our logic at all. Who believes for example that god exists with 50% and not exists with 50% believes somehow that god is existing and not existing the same time. No problem for god - he's allmighty - but a problem for us to think so. If we believe god exists and not exists the same time (and again: although this is able to be true) then such a contradiction leads to always only true results. Somehow forces agnosticism to make a choice and/or to be extremely carefully by using logic and god - although god is logos. .




ding said:


> Most who claim to be agnostic are in reality atheists.



Exactly. In the English speaking world agnosticism is often only used in sense of atheism. The winner of the Nobel price for superidiocy - Richard Dawkins - is perhaps a main factor for all this nonsense. If Richard Dawkins had been an agnostics (philosophy) and atheist (belief) then he had said "I believe god not exists".  But he never said so as far as I heard. He expects that every scientist has always only to be an atheist as far as I heard. This is a totally wrong interpretation of the paradigma of natural science not to use "god" for any scientific knowledge about the "opus dei", the work of god, the creation, the nature. Short: God is in physics not a constant, not a variable nor any subject or object of physics. But - and this but is a very big "but" - all people from all religions are able to study physics and able to be physicists - or to study any other natural science and to be a natural scientist. And not only "god" should not  be used as a paradigma in natural science - also"not-god" should not be used in natural science for explanations - but some exceptions may perhaps also exist and confirm such rules. No one needs scissors in the own thoughts.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> ... My hand looks like human hand and not a gorilla's. ...



Sure, maybug.


----------



## Seymour Flops

abu afak said:


> He Flops again.
> *I "Never provide a single bit of evidence for non-guided evolution"?*
> Really?
> You didn't see it? Post in it?
> 
> Evidence of Common Descent (LOTS, across the sciences)​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence of Common Descent (LOTS, across the sciences)
> 
> 
> And now we await Evidence for Creationism, ID, the designER/god. Any evidence at all.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent Contents  1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry  1.1 Genetics 1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry  2...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contents​
> 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
> 13 External links
> 
> `


Evidence of common descent =/= evidence for Darwinism.

Fail.


----------



## Hollie

Seymour Flops said:


> Evidence of common descent =/= evidence for Darwinism.
> 
> Fail.


Actually, the fail is on the part of ID'iot creationerism. It is obvious that ID'iot creationerism isn't a Theory, doesn’t make predictions and literally offers nothing but vacuous pleading. It doesnt present anything at all i.e. it has no content. In terms of  ‘content’ we refer to a rational body of propositions and determinate principles. By ‘principle’ we refer to a proposition of rational, connected ideas central to the theory that follow a rational nexus.

It's comedy gold seeing the ID'iot creationers suggest that ID'iot creationerism is a "theory" when the ID'iot creationers can't begin to describe determinate principles of magic and supernaturalism.


----------



## ding

JoeBlow said:


> -I wasn't talking to you it was that james bond retard.


Right.  I was talking to you because you still don't seem to understand that the building blocks of life are *hydrogen*, *carbon*, *oxygen* and *nitrogen.*


----------



## JoeBlow

ding said:


> Right.  I was talking to you because you still don't seem to understand that the building blocks of life are *hydrogen*, *carbon*, *oxygen* and *nitrogen.*


Read the fucking link you moron.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> Atheism is a belief - in this case that god (and not "a god") is not existing. But agnosticism is a philosophy. In context of this philosophy is a sentence like "I believe in god" a true statement if someone believes in god. And agnosticism is also not a scale from 0% - 100% for a chance whether god could exist or not exist. Such a mixed logic is even able to be dangerous because it is able to undermine our logic at all. Who believes for example that god exists with 50% and not exists with 50% believes somehow that god is existing and not existing the same time. No problem for god - he's allmighty - but a problem for us to think so. If we believe god exists and not exists the same time (and again: although this is able to be true) then such a contradiction leads to always only true results. Somehow forces agnosticism to make a choice and/or to be extremely carefully by using logic and god - although god is logos. .


I follow your logic, but do not agree because there's no _faith_ in it.  Sure, faith is the key part of religion but we realize its truth when we are able to confirm it.  Thus, our faith goes deeper.  I guess it works for atheism the same way from those who put faith in evolution and then atheism.  Or maybe its faith in atheism and then they discovered evolution.  Regardless, it doesn't matter.  

However, with agnosticism, where is the faith?  It doesn't seem to have any.  But more to do with rationalization which you think is logic.


----------



## ding

JoeBlow said:


> Read the fucking link you moron.


Thumb nail it for me.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> Sure, maybug.


Do you know what a gorilla hands are like?  I know you said it out of ignorance.

I don't have the fur on my arms and back of hands nor opposable thumbs.  My fingers aren't as stout and longer.  I also have knuckles and my hands aren't made to walk on like a gorillas.  His hands are really black or dark while mine are of flesh color.

I think the important part is we both exist at the same time as _separate_ species. Thus, he isn't an ancestor from the past like you believe.


----------



## JoeBlow

james bond said:


> Do you know what a gorilla hands are like?  I know you said it out of ignorance.
> 
> I don't have the fur on my arms and back of hands nor opposable thumbs.  My fingers aren't as stout and longer.  I also have knuckles and my hands aren't made to walk on like a gorillas.  His hands are really black or dark while mine are of flesh color.
> 
> I think the important part is we both exist at the same time as _separate_ species. Thus, he isn't an ancestor from the past like you believe.


"We share *about 96 percent of our DNA* with gorillas". You, maybe more.

How much DNA do humans and gorillas share?


----------



## abu afak

While primitive in some respects, the face, skull, and teeth show enough modern features to justify H. naledi's placement in the genus Homo. Artist Gurche spent some 700 hours reconstructing the head from bone scans, using bear fur for hair.
PHOTOGRAPH BY MARK THIESSEN, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC

[.....]
"...Delezene’s own fossil pile contained 190 teeth—a critical part of any analysis, since teeth alone are often enough to identify a species. But these teeth weren’t like anything the scientists in the “tooth booth” had ever seen. *Some features were astonishingly humanlike—the molar crowns were small, for instance, with five cusps like ours. But the premolar roots were weirdly primitive.* “We’re not sure what to make of these,” Delezene said. “It’s crazy.”

The same schizoid pattern was popping up at the other tables.* A fully modern hand sported wackily curved fingers, fit for a creature climbing trees. The shoulders were apish too, and the widely flaring blades of the pelvis were as primitive as Lucy’s—but the bottom of the same pelvis looked like a modern human’s. The leg bones started out shaped like an australopithecine’s but gathered modernity as they descended toward the ground. The feet were virtually indistinguishable from our own.*

“You could almost draw a line through the hips—primitive above, modern below,” said Steve Churchill, a paleontologist from Duke University. “If you’d found the foot by itself, you’d think some Bushman had died.”...
[.....]









						This Face Changes the Human Story. But How?
					

Homo naledi, discovered in a cave near Johannesburg, is a human ancestor unlike any species previously known. The find is arguably one of the most important discoveries in human origins research in half a century. It’s also the most perplexing.




					www.nationalgeographic.com
				




`


----------



## james bond

JoeBlow said:


> "We share *about 96 percent of our DNA* with gorillas". You, maybe more.
> 
> How much DNA do humans and gorillas share?


I heard it was with chimpanzees, but whatever.  Even if you have the 96% DNA sharing, then where is this ape-human ancestor?  We can check what the ape-human has.

What about we still have chimps, gorillas and other monkeys/apes?  So why aren't the ape-humans around?


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> While primitive in some respects, the face, skull, and teeth show enough modern features to justify H. naledi's placement in the genus Homo. Artist Gurche spent some 700 hours reconstructing the head from bone scans, using bear fur for hair.
> PHOTOGRAPH BY MARK THIESSEN, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC
> 
> [.....]
> "...Delezene’s own fossil pile contained 190 teeth—a critical part of any analysis, since teeth alone are often enough to identify a species. But these teeth weren’t like anything the scientists in the “tooth booth” had ever seen. *Some features were astonishingly humanlike—the molar crowns were small, for instance, with five cusps like ours. But the premolar roots were weirdly primitive.* “We’re not sure what to make of these,” Delezene said. “It’s crazy.”
> 
> The same schizoid pattern was popping up at the other tables.* A fully modern hand sported wackily curved fingers, fit for a creature climbing trees. The shoulders were apish too, and the widely flaring blades of the pelvis were as primitive as Lucy’s—but the bottom of the same pelvis looked like a modern human’s. The leg bones started out shaped like an australopithecine’s but gathered modernity as they descended toward the ground. The feet were virtually indistinguishable from our own.*
> 
> “You could almost draw a line through the hips—primitive above, modern below,” said Steve Churchill, a paleontologist from Duke University. “If you’d found the foot by itself, you’d think some Bushman had died.”...
> [.....]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This Face Changes the Human Story. But How?
> 
> 
> Homo naledi, discovered in a cave near Johannesburg, is a human ancestor unlike any species previously known. The find is arguably one of the most important discoveries in human origins research in half a century. It’s also the most perplexing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nationalgeographic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> `


So, where is the living ape-human?  We still got all the other ones.

If you can't provide the ape-human, then humans didn't come from apes and its a big blow against evoluton and atheism.  Regardless, it doesn't destroy creationism.

You see why you're full of nonsense in order to back evolution and atheism?  You got no real evidence.  All you have is those atheist scientists' papers that I mentioned.  Nothing to see here.  Move along folks lol.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> *So, where is the living ape-human?  We still got all the other ones.*
> 
> If you can't provide the ape-human, then humans didn't come from apes and its a big blow against evoluton and atheism.  Regardless, it doesn't destroy creationism.
> 
> You see why you're full of nonsense in order to back evolution and atheism?  You got no real evidence.  All you have is those atheist scientists' papers that I mentioned.  Nothing to see here.  Move along folks lol.


Extinct. Out-competed at some point.
Like Neanderthals and Denisovans.
That's why we have/NEED ..... FOSSILS!
Numerous 'tweeners!

and evo was Not a straight line.
There was plethora/WEB of Man/apes, hominids, etc. who, as you know, would Hump/**** anything.
So all manner of results were possible... and we keep finding them.
*NO Design obviously, just a trial and error F***-fest for a few million years.
and we are still evolving, our brain cavities getting bigger, and more.*

and were it not for modern travel, the human subspecies/races would have gotten more and more distinct and become separate species.
That's how it happens.
And that's what we see on other less mobile species that get truly blocked by rivers, mountains, or oceans.

`


----------



## Grumblenuts

james bond said:


> scientists' papers


Whoa, in the Science & Technology section!


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Extinct. Out-competed at some point.
> Like Neanderthals and Denisovans.
> That's why we have/NEED ..... FOSSILS!
> Numerous 'tweeners!


Buh, buh, buh we still got those monkeys.  It means the ape-human should still be around, but no one is looking for it.  They never found its fossils either.

I think you and your scientists have had enough time, so can I just assume the ape-human never existed and that's why you can't find one today even though its other ancestors are living today.  Besides, some other people believe that there are prehistoric creatures alive today and have found them.  That fits the theory that the fossil layers are the locations of where the poor animals died and not time.  The long time was another atheist science paper that someone made up.  Can you produce that one?


----------



## Grumblenuts

abu afak said:


> Extinct. Out-competed at some point.
> Like Neanderthals and Denisovans.
> That's why we have/NEED ..... FOSSILS!
> Numerous 'tweeners!
> 
> and evo was Not a straight line.
> There was plethora/WEB of Man/apes, hominids, etc. who, as you know, would Hump/**** anything.
> So all manner of results were possible... and we keep finding them.
> *NO Design obviously, just a trial and error F***-fest for a few million years.
> and we are still evolving, our brain cavities getting bigger, and more.*
> 
> and were it not for modern travel, the human subspecies/races would have gotten more and more distinct and become separate species.
> That's how it happens.
> And that's what we see on other less mobile species that get truly blocked by rivers, mountains, or oceans.
> 
> `


Ah, the good old days.. I remember them well.. Back then the gods just said, _"Bee like the fruit fly. Go forth, stinger thrust proudly forward, and multiply!"_


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Buh, buh, buh we still got those monkeys.  It means the ape-human should still be around, but no one is looking for it.  They never found its fossils either.
> 
> *I think you and your scientists have had enough time, so can I just assume it never existed and that's why you can't find one today even though its other ancestors are living today. * Besides, some other people believe that there are prehistoric creatures alive today and have found them.  That fits the theory that the fossil layers are the locations of where the poor animals died and not time.  The time was another athiest science paper that they made up.  Can you produce that one?


Again you in-denial Freak, we have the actual Fossils of their bodies.
Like Neanderthals, Denisovans, but they are not alive either.

From #3 of the title article!

"....These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in the Grants' studies of evolving beak shapes among Galpagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms—such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization—can drive profound changes in populations over time.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. *Yet in the historical sciences* (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), *hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. 
For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans *(roughly five million years old) *and the appearance of anatomically modern humans* (about 200,000 years ago), *one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows.*
But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly."..."

`


----------



## james bond

Heh.  I just got my biggest critic to admit that he has no observable evidence for macroevolution while the chimps, gorillas and chimps being alive today back up creation.  He won't be able to produce a paper relating the ape-human to long time either because there is/was no ape-human and no long time.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> From #3 of the title article!
> 
> "....These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in the Grants' studies of evolving beak shapes among Galpagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms—such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization—can drive profound changes in populations over time.


Ad hominem attacks.  A sure sign that the poster is _lying_ through his teeth!

He just backed up my theory that ape-humans aren't around anymore.  They never were.  On the creation side, we were able to produce the early ancestors are still around.  Thus, the missing link isn't really missing.  Observable evidence that you've all seen my friends.

Otherwise, can some other evo/atheist explained what happened to the missing link, i.e. what evidence do we have for it?  I keep saying evolution has nothing observable nor testable.  At least, find me the paper that explains the long time.  Even an article that made you *believe* in the long time.  Do you see how they were able to pull over the fools' eyes?


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Ad hominem attacks.  A sure sign that the poster is _lying_ through his teeth!
> 
> He just backed up my theory that ape-humans aren't around anymore.  They never were.  On the creation side, we were able to produce the early ancestors are still around.  Thus, the missing link isn't really missing.  Observable evidence that you've all seen my friends.
> 
> Otherwise, can some other evo/atheist explained what happened to the missing link, i.e. what evidence do we have for it?  I keep saying evolution has nothing observable nor testable.  At least, find me the paper that explains the long time.  Even an article that made you *believe* in the long time.  Do you see how they were able to pull over the fools' eyes?


So you immediately took FAUX offense so you didn't have to answer the bolded, meaty rest... and didn't quote it either you in denial Freak:
How DISHONEST.
Try again:

"""The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. *Yet in the historical sciences* (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), *hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to Verifiable Predictions about future discoveries.
For instance, Evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans *(roughly Five Million years old) *and the appearance of anatomically modern humans* (about 200,000 years ago), *one should find a Succession of hominin creatures with features progressively Less apelike and More modern, which is Indeed what the Fossil Record shows.*
But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly."..."

`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> While primitive in some respects, the face, skull, and teeth show enough modern features to justify H. naledi's placement in the genus Homo. Artist Gurche spent some 700 hours reconstructing the head from bone scans, using bear fur for hair.
> PHOTOGRAPH BY MARK THIESSEN, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC
> 
> [.....]
> "...Delezene’s own fossil pile contained 190 teeth—a critical part of any analysis, since teeth alone are often enough to identify a species. But these teeth weren’t like anything the scientists in the “tooth booth” had ever seen. *Some features were astonishingly humanlike—the molar crowns were small, for instance, with five cusps like ours. But the premolar roots were weirdly primitive.* “We’re not sure what to make of these,” Delezene said. “It’s crazy.”
> 
> The same schizoid pattern was popping up at the other tables.* A fully modern hand sported wackily curved fingers, fit for a creature climbing trees. The shoulders were apish too, and the widely flaring blades of the pelvis were as primitive as Lucy’s—but the bottom of the same pelvis looked like a modern human’s. The leg bones started out shaped like an australopithecine’s but gathered modernity as they descended toward the ground. The feet were virtually indistinguishable from our own.*
> 
> “You could almost draw a line through the hips—primitive above, modern below,” said Steve Churchill, a paleontologist from Duke University. “If you’d found the foot by itself, you’d think some Bushman had died.”...
> [.....]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This Face Changes the Human Story. But How?
> 
> 
> Homo naledi, discovered in a cave near Johannesburg, is a human ancestor unlike any species previously known. The find is arguably one of the most important discoveries in human origins research in half a century. It’s also the most perplexing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nationalgeographic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> `


Creationists and many scientists think _Homo_ Naledi was a monkey because of its lack of nose, the sloped ape-like face, the jaw, the shoulder, the curved fingers and toes, the rib cage, and flared pelvis. IOW, it should not have the "homo" designation. These are all consistent with an ape variant. This time you natural selection has done you in abu afak.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> So you immediately took FAUX offense so you didn't have to answer the bolded, meaty rest... and didn't quote it either you in denial Freak:
> How DISHONEST.
> Try again:


I just did.  Your _homo_ was an ape variant.  I have ape variants alive today and can find a "homo" naledi.  It should just be a Naledi haha.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> An atheist denies [the possibility of the existence of] god and denies normally also all forms of spiritual beliefs - except the own belief not to believe.


Just wrong. The only requirement for atheism is not accepting belief in gods.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Creationists and many scientists think _Homo_ Naledi was a monkey because of its lack of nose, the sloped ape-like face, the jaw, the shoulder, the curved fingers and toes, the rib cage, and flared pelvis. IOW, it should not have the "homo" designation. These are all consistent with an ape variant. This time you natural selection has done you in



Hey Goofy!
*The OP article was written in 2002, BEFORE NALEDI was found!
There are Numerous OTHER Tweeners as the article says.*

3. So you've now Dodged it TWICE you DISHONEST POS.

4. AND... I also answered you on  your fallacious "why they aren't around now." (Neither are Neanderthals or Denisovans)

Try/DODGE it Again you FRAUD.

"""The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. *Yet in the historical sciences* (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), *hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to Verifiable Predictions about future discoveries.*​*For instance, Evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans *(roughly Five Million years old) *and the appearance of anatomically modern humans* (about 200,000 years ago), *one should find a Succession of hominin creatures with features progressively Less apelike and More modern, which is Indeed what the Fossil Record shows.*​But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly."..."​

You're a Preposterous Dodging FRAUD
OUTED for the 1000th time.

`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Again you in-denial Freak, we have the actual Fossils of their bodies.
> Like Neanderthals, Denisovans, but they are not alive either.


I'm not a denial freak.  The atheists know I am fair except you because science does not support your brand of evolution.  Maybe they are against me because I point out the Bible sends atheists, ags and sinners to the Lake of Fire.  

Evolution does not allow for creation science.  Right away, I know that evo is a lie and not science.  Even the intelligence in the design of creation science shows that God is behind it.  The Bible proves it as science backs it and creation up and we find intelligence behind God's design. 

What I don't see is "Homo" Naledi.  Some of your fossils are apes such as Judy the chimp.  The creationists have found that Judy was most likely a chimpanzee.  This is a huge blow to evos, especially atheist evos.  Thus, it is you that is a DENIAL FREAK and MOFO.  Otherwise, there isn't anything for me to deny, but evolution with no observable nor testable evidence.  It also has some wrong fossils.  Evolution doesn't present any history of humans.  This makes it deniable.  I wouldn't expect a history of birds from dinos, but creationists found birds living at the same time as dinosaurs.  The fossil record backs this up, so half of macroevolution has been proved WRONG.  It means you were WRONG, you denialist.  Otherwise, show me the history after Judy.  Humans who can think will have a history.

I don't think I have to go on about humans from monkeys as the evolutionists have not made their case.  I already destroyed half of macraoevolution.  This is fact and shows I am a WINNER.  That makes you a loser.  Sorry.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I'm not a denial freak.  The atheists know I am fair except you because science does not support your brand of evolution.  Maybe they are against me because I point out the Bible sends atheists, ags and sinners to the Lake of Fire.
> 
> Evolution does not allow for creation science.  Right away, I know that evo is a lie and not science.  Even the intelligence in the design of creation science shows that God is behind it.  The Bible proves it as science backs it and creation up and we find intelligence behind God's design.
> 
> What I don't see is "Homo" Naledi.  Some of your fossils are apes such as Judy the chimp.  The creationists have found that Judy was most likely a chimpanzee.  This is a huge blow to evos, especially atheist evos.  Thus, it is you that is a DENIAL FREAK and MOFO.  Otherwise, there isn't anything for me to deny, but evolution with no observable nor testable evidence.  It also has some wrong fossils.  Evolution doesn't present any history of humans.  This makes it deniable.  I wouldn't expect a history of birds from dinos, but creationists found birds living at the same time as dinosaurs.  The fossil record backs this up, so half of macroevolution has been proved WRONG.  It means you were WRONG, you denialist.  Otherwise, show me the history after Judy.  Humans who can think will have a history.
> 
> I don't think I have to go on about humans from monkeys as the evolutionists have not made their case.  I already destroyed half of macraoevolution.  This is fact and shows I am a WINNER.  That makes you a loser.  Sorry.


I think atheists and religious people alike understand you’re a dangerous extremist.

There is no such thing as creationer science.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Just wrong. The only requirement for atheism is not accepting belief in gods.


And it's a little more what Christians believe than only not to believe in gods. By the way: Did you know that the early Christians were often called "atheists"?


----------



## zaangalewa

Hollie said:


> I think atheists and religious people alike understand you’re a dangerous extremist.
> 
> There is no such thing as creationer science.



I guess he decided to call himself "Christian" because before he did do so never anyone did listen to his obscure ideas about natural science. But now find the believers in science (believers in science are not scientists!) a "Christian" who shows that their own belief in science seems to be better than his belief in science. "Creation" and "nature" are by the way the same. So "evolution" (=biological evolution) - like any other natural law - had been created and existed since the very first moment of the universe. But it also had to "freeze out" first like for example also the 4 known natural forces froze out once. But our problem is that we did find up to now only a very little place where life exists - and it is indeed possible that this little place is in the moment indeed the only place in the whole universe where life exists.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> I follow your logic,



¿¿My? logic?



james bond said:


> but do not agree because there's no _faith_ in it.



Idiots say idiotic things, isn't it?



james bond said:


> Sure, faith is the key part of religion but we realize its truth when we are able to confirm it.  Thus, our faith goes deeper.  I guess it works for atheism the same way from those who put faith in evolution and then atheism.  Or maybe its faith in atheism and then they discovered evolution.  Regardless, it doesn't matter.



What for heavens sake doesn't matter? People die on totally stupid reasons - also in wars which are made on totally stupid reasons.



james bond said:


> However, with agnosticism, where is the faith?



Always nice to hear a good joke!



james bond said:


> It doesn't seem to have any.  But more to do with rationalization which you think is logic.



Your logic is true logos - but the logic of anyone else is nonsense. Ever thought about what's the difference between hope and vanity or narcissism?


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> Do you know what a gorilla hands are like?  I know you said it out of ignorance.



What about first to read something - and afterwards to try to think about what was said - and not to turn always again and again and again around the own ideas about something what never anyone said to you?


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> Do you know what a gorilla hands are like?  I know you said it out of ignorance.
> 
> I don't have the fur on my arms and back of hands nor opposable thumbs.  My fingers aren't as stout and longer.  I also have knuckles and my hands aren't made to walk on like a gorillas.  His hands are really black or dark while mine are of flesh color.
> 
> I think the important part is we both exist at the same time as _separate_ species. Thus, he isn't an ancestor from the past like you believe.



Much more worse and much more concrete: You and the blade of gras here with the name "Mathilda" have a common ancestor.


----------



## JoeBlow

james bond said:


> I heard it was with chimpanzees, but whatever.  Even if you have the 96% DNA sharing, then where is this ape-human ancestor?  We can check what the ape-human has.
> 
> What about we still have chimps, gorillas and other monkeys/apes?  So why aren't the ape-humans around?


There are plenty of common ancestors, but you'd have to believe in evolution, which you probably don't.

Personally, I think that around a few of hundred thousand years ago, aliens upgraded our DNA, which made us the only species that have our level of intelligence. But that I don't pretend to be proven, just speculation on my part... for now.


----------



## zaangalewa

JoeBlow said:


> There are plenty of common ancestors, but you'd have to believe in evolution, which you probably don't.
> 
> Personally, I think that around a few of hundred thousand years ago, aliens upgraded our DNA, which made us the only species that have our level of intelligence.






JoeBlow said:


> But that I don't pretend to be proven, just speculation on my part... for now.


----------



## JoeBlow

zaangalewa said:


>


I don't watch videos here. Make your point and support it with the video. Much better, especially for a kraut.


----------



## zaangalewa

JoeBlow said:


> I don't watch videos here. Make your point and support it with the video. Much better, especially for a kraut.



Oh by the way: When you will destroy the pipeline Nord Stream 2 and as a reaction we will destroy  all other pipelines which transport natural gas from Russia to Europe - is this okay for "you" (=your "we")  or do you nuke middle Europe in this case and end 50,000 years history of human beings here in Germany, chimp, US-American one?


----------



## JoeBlow

zaangalewa said:


> Oh by the way: When you will destroy the pipeline Nord Stream 2 and as a reaction we will destroy  all other pipelines which transport natural gas from Russia to Europe - is this okay for "you" (=your "we")  or do you nuke middle Europe in this case and end 50,000 years history of human beings here in Germany, chimp, US-American one?


Man, Krauts sure are nowhere for being around for 50,000 years. And buying gas from Russia is part of the problem. The Hun are just too stupid.


----------



## james bond

JoeBlow said:


> There are plenty of common ancestors, but you'd have to believe in evolution, which you probably don't.
> 
> Personally, I think that around a few of hundred thousand years ago, aliens upgraded our DNA, which made us the only species that have our level of intelligence. But that I don't pretend to be proven, just speculation on my part... for now.


Your first sentence still has no evidence to present.  You couldn't even answer why apes and monkeys are still around if there was an ape-human ancestor.  Usually, the ancestors die off and you get the better species.  It's "survival of the fittest," but you don't get this.  This goes to show me and others here that you're not a _smart_ science person.

You're not the one who presented Homo Naledi.  I can't argue against it because people with those types of skeletal features still live today.  They were humans from the get go.  Apes and humans are separate species despite their similarities.  That fact already destroys evolution.

Bottom line is that I showed there were or are no common ape-human ancestor.  You nor anyone else was able to come up with what I was asking for.  Otherwise, they would still be around since we still have the previous ancestors.


----------



## james bond

JoeBlow said:


> Personally, I think that around a few of hundred thousand years ago, aliens upgraded our DNA, which made us the only species that have our level of intelligence. But that I don't pretend to be proven, just speculation on my part... for now.


Bwahahahahahahahahahaha.  Case closed on your science credibility.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> Much more worse and much more concrete: You and the blade of gras here with the name "Mathilda" have a common ancestor.


So you think gorilla hands are evidence of apes to humans.  My explaining the differences did not dissuade you.

"Darwin contended that in nature the weaker varieties of animals and plants are ‘killed off’ by the stronger varieties due to their better ability to compete for food or withstand environmental change. This is what is referred to today as survival of the fittest or natural selection."

...

"Natural selection acts as a breeder and eliminates all the dark haired bears from the Artic environment; we are left with only white haired bears. Still, we are left with bears and only bears. No new species, no new animals. Bears are still bears and the white haired varieties are called polar bears, which apart from the color of their hair are almost identical to their brown haired brethren."





__





						Natural Selection - Creation Studies Institute
					





					www.creationstudies.org
				




Then, please explain why gorillas, others apes and monkeys are still living?  We have established a history of common ancestors die off with natural selection and survival of the fittest.


----------



## JoeBlow

james bond said:


> Your first sentence still has no evidence to present.  You couldn't even answer why apes and monkeys are still around if there was an ape-human ancestor.  Usually, the ancestors die off and you get the better species.  It's "survival of the fittest," but you don't get this.  This goes to show me and others here that you're not a _smart_ science person.
> 
> You're not the one who presented Homo Naledi.  I can't argue against it because people with those types of skeletal features still live today.  They were humans from the get go.  Apes and humans are separate species despite their similarities.  That fact already destroys evolution.
> 
> Bottom line is that I showed there were or are no common ape-human ancestor.  You nor anyone else was able to come up with what I was asking for.  Otherwise, they would still be around since we still have the previous ancestors.


The evolutionary tree branches off into new species. Apes and humans have a common ancestor that doesn’t exist any more. Humans evolved into the different races, otherwise, where do all the races come from?


----------



## Grumblenuts

The Addam's Family.


----------



## JoeBlow

james bond said:


> Bwahahahahahahahahahaha.  Case closed on your science credibility.


Hey, at least I’m open to new ideas. You have a closed mind.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> So you think gorilla hands are evidence of apes to humans.  My explaining the differences did not dissuade you.
> 
> "Darwin contended that in nature the weaker varieties of animals and plants are ‘killed off’ by the stronger varieties due to their better ability to compete for food or withstand environmental change. This is what is referred to today as survival of the fittest or natural selection."
> 
> ...
> 
> "Natural selection acts as a breeder and eliminates all the dark haired bears from the Artic environment; we are left with only white haired bears. Still, we are left with bears and only bears. No new species, no new animals. Bears are still bears and the white haired varieties are called polar bears, which apart from the color of their hair are almost identical to their brown haired brethren."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Selection - Creation Studies Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.creationstudies.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then, please explain why gorillas, others apes and monkeys are still living?  We have established a history of common ancestors die off with natural selection and survival of the fittest.



Getting your science from charlatans at fundamentalist ministries is the reason for your profound ignorance of science matters.

''Creation studies institute''

Is that a subsidiary of the Harun Yahya institute of silliness?


----------



## james bond

JoeBlow said:


> The evolutionary tree branches off into new species. Apes and humans have a common ancestor that doesn’t exist any more. Humans evolved into the different races, otherwise, where do all the races come from?


LMAO, Joe because you believe in fairy tales of atheism. Yours is not a true religion, but a delusion.

The common ancestor NEVER existed because no one has ever seen it, those people never wrote down any history such as their names, where they lived and who they were related to.  They do not have a history of what they did and what kind of civilization they built and lived under.  Thus, anyone who describes evolution is a BIG FAT LIAR.  Your atheist scientists are LIARS!  Otherwise, they would have the hard evidence and we'd see the actual evidence in museums.  Mostly, it's made up exhibits.  I wouldn't pay money to see that.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Getting your science from charlatans at fundamentalist ministries is the reason for your profound ignorance of science matters.
> 
> ''Creation studies institute''
> 
> Is that a subsidiary of the Harun Yahya institute of silliness?


You do not read nor visit these websites, so how can you know?  It isn't I who is ignorant, but you as science backs up God, creation and the Bible.  It is you who subscribes to the fairy tales of atheist evolutionists who wanted to get fame and funding by writing these papers and articles on evolution.  They didn't actually observe anything real.  Moreover, I destroyed birds from dinosaurs macroevolution by showing birds lived at the same time as dinosaurs.  There were many fossils found to back this up.  There was footprint and cultural evidence, too, of humans and dinosaurs living together.  Thus, I am 2/3 of the way of destroying evolution forever.  Maybe I'll be famous one day.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> You do not read nor visit these websites, so how can you know?  It isn't I who is ignorant, but you as science backs up God, creation and the Bible.  It is you who subscribes to the fairy tales of atheist evolutionists who wanted to get fame and funding by writing these papers and articles on evolution.  They didn't actually observe anything real.  Moreover, I destroyed birds from dinosaurs macroevolution by showing birds lived at the same time as dinosaurs.  There were many fossils found to back this up.  There was footprint and cultural evidence, too, of humans and dinosaurs living together.  Thus, I am 2/3 of the way of destroying evolution forever.  Maybe I'll be famous one day.



Why would I read or visit extremist websites? The ''cretin studies 'tutes'' is just another extremist Christian website where charlatans find a small, but winning audience of the weak and gullible.

Yes. You and a cabal of Flat Earthers are going to destroy evolution. You can be famous like Jim Jones.


----------



## james bond

JoeBlow said:


> Hey, at least I’m open to new ideas. You have a closed mind.


Why can't you admit Homo Naledi is part of today's humans then?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Why would I read or visit extremist websites? The ''cretin studies 'tutes'' is just another extremist Christian website where charlatans find a small, but winning audience of the weak and gullible.
> 
> Yes. You and a cabal of Flat Earthers are going to destroy evolution. You can be famous like Jim Jones.


All I can do is present the creation science, how science backs it up, what the Bible says and God's warnings.  God warns us in a sin-filled world while Satan tempts.  I don't think you understand creation science from the weirdo comments you like to make.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> All I can do is present the creation science, how science backs it up, what the Bible says and God's warnings.  God warns us in a sin-filled world while Satan tempts.  I don't think you understand creation science from the weirdo comments you like to make.


You Flat Earthers are funny.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> You Flat Earthers are funny.


Now, you're back to talking about and promoting your Flat Earth friends and needs.  It really is strange what atheists are attracted to such as beastiality.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Now, you're back to talking about and promoting your Flat Earth friends and needs.  It really is strange what atheists are attracted to such as beastiality.



Be sure to cc us when you destroy evilutionist atheist science. I'll skip the ceremony where you and your Flat Earth cabal pass around the Kool-Aid.


----------



## zaangalewa

JoeBlow said:


> Man, Krauts sure are nowhere for being around for 50,000 years. ,,,,



What's totally wrong, uneducated idiot. Here in the near for example live some people nearly in the same place where their biological ancestors had lived here 20,000 years ago too - and in general human beings live in central Europe since about 52-58 thousand years - a long time they lived together with the homo neanderthaliensis. The same had been for example in Bohemia where "you" (=your "we" including your allies of world war 2) murdered  and displaced nearly all Germans - except of the Germans who "you" forced to be slaves of the reason of state of the Czechs. And the worst absurdity in this context: Never Germany had done anything bad to the USA what's the main reason why learned hate on Germany is very popular in the USA. What do you hate when you hate Germany? - Your own evil deeds? - Your own war crimes? - Yout own genocides or fratricides?

Tell me why you hate Germans including whole Europe and what are the US-American plans in the East of Europe - if anyone here will survive the military nonsense which you and the Russians are doing in the moment.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> So you think gorilla hands are evidence of apes to humans. ...



Read what I wrote.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Be sure to cc us when you destroy evilutionist atheist science. I'll skip the ceremony where you and your Flat Earth cabal pass around the Kool-Aid.


You can continue to call it evilution and evilutionists for the atheists who believe in it.  That sounds too right for some reason.

Have you heard this riddle:
What was Hitler's favorite drink?
Concentrated Jews.

Ah yes.  You forgot to bring the Kool-Aid.  That is necessary to have a great party isn't it.


----------



## zaangalewa

Hollie said:


> You Flat Earthers are funny.



Christians never believed in a flat Earth.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> You can continue to call it evilution and evilutionists for the atheists who believe in it.  That sounds too right for some reason.
> 
> Have you heard this riddle:
> What was Hitler's favorite drink?
> 
> Concentrated Jews. ...



I guess this expresses your racist hate against me and my Jewish ancestors who had been Germans.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> Read what I wrote.


You don't know what you wrote?  I know what God wrote about atheists, ags and sinners.

How can I put it in scientific terms?

While there are significant differences between atheists and ags, the end result is the same according to Scripture.  The rejection of Jesus and eternity in hell.

*The problem can be traced back to the educational system.*

When God was unceremoniously kicked out of schools in 1963, the educational system did not remain neutral.  It became decidedly agnostic.  Over time this agnosticism changed.  As students continued their education into high school, and especially college, that agnosticism morphed into atheism.

Today, the atheism is more brazen.  If religion is discussed in the classroom in a positive light, then cults and world religions are given more time and better marks than true Christianity.

If creation science can be taught in public schools, then I think creationism will be able to make a comeback.  The scientific evidence is with them.  Yet, it has been a hard road as creationism hasn't had a chance in public schools as atheist scientists took power.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> ... Then, please explain why gorillas, others apes and monkeys are still living?  ...



 Because "we" - the godless fools who call themselves homo sapiens sapiens -  still did not wipe them out.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> You don't know what you wrote? ,..



Read it and you know that I was right to say so. Why you deny a simple truth is one of your worst problems. Every child is able to see that the hand  of a gorilla and the hand of a human being are more similar than the paws of a human and the paws of a dog, maybug. Some structures of paws are more near - others are more far. Evolution is a modular system. 

Or with other words. We are creation like our sisters and brothers gorillas and dogs.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> You don't know what you wrote?  I know what God wrote about atheists, ags and sinners. ...



You "know" you are a good man who will come alone into his own heaven because you are the only one who is right. But this is not written in the bible.


----------



## zaangalewa

JoeBlow said:


> The evolutionary tree branches off into new species. Apes and humans have a common ancestor that doesn’t exist any more. Humans evolved into the different races,



Biologically exists only one human race on this planet.



JoeBlow said:


> otherwise, where do all the races come from?



From idiotic thoughts and some unimportant visible differences - specially in the color of the skin. About 70,000 years ago our all ancestors died nearly out. We all come from less than a population of 1000 individuals who had survived. That's why we have a very small genetical bandwidth.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> And it's a little more what Christians believe than only not to believe in gods. By the way: Did you know that the early Christians were often called "atheists"?


Who cares what they believe? Words have meaning. They can use a different word, then. 

The vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Who cares what they believe? Words have meaning. They can use a different word, then.
> 
> The vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists.



What's English nonsense. An agnostics who is an atheist would say "I am not believing in god" or "I believe god not exists". But most atheists know that god not exists and the people who believe in god are mad and not able to be taken serios. They have not any idea about how someone is able to be so unbelievable stupid to believe in god.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> An agnostics who is an atheist would say "I am not believing in god" or "I believe god not exists".


No. An agnostic atheist would say that maybe gods exist, but they don't accept belief in any gods.

A gnostic atheist would assert that there are no gods.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No.



¿No?



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And agnostic atheist would say that maybe God's exist but they don't accept belief in any gods.



You are now  in a so called "devil's circle" (circulus vitiosus) . You start always again from the same point in the hope one day you will get your result - but this day will never come.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> A gnostic atheist would assert that there are no gods.



Again: It's Jews, Christians and Muslims for example who don't believe in gods. And only Muslims (¿and atheists?) don't accept the belief in any gods as far as I know. Jews and Christians just simple don't believe in gods on their own.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> It's Jews, Christians and Muslims for example who don't believe in gods.


Sure they do. You can parse the plural all you want, you are wastingyour time. The point remains the same, and you are still wrong.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> Because "we" - the godless fools who call themselves homo sapiens sapiens - still did not wipe them out.


For what reason would _you_ want to "wipe them out?"  The apes did nothing or did they?


















						World’s most horrific chimp attacks as apes rip off people’s faces & genitals
					

CHIMPANZEES may share almost 99 per cent of our DNA – but there is one thing that clearly sets them apart from humans: pure brute strength. Humans have suffered horrific injuries at the hands…




					www.the-sun.com
				




Here's a different chimp story:

Chimp Raised by Humans Killed by Fellow Chimps After Trying to Integrate

What you claim would be an interesting topic if it were true.  What is going to wipe the dinosaurs out?  They would be the king of beasts during you so-called prehistoric times, no?


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> Every child is able to see that the hand of a gorilla and the hand of a human being are more similar than the paws of a human and the paws of a dog, maybug. Some structures of paws are more near - others are more far. Evolution is a modular system.


Why can't you see a gorilla is a gorilla and a human a human?  They're much different and you do not seem to realize how a gorilla uses his hands.  You didn't know a gorilla uses his hands for walking -- a knuckle walker.  I would hope the creationist kids would say something like that.  Besides, it was an ape-human that was our common ancestor, so even evolution contradicts you.  Does evilution say it was a gorilla?  I don't think so.  And you didn't answer my question of why apes and monkeys are still around.  It means I win again because evolution didn't explain it, no?



zaangalewa said:


> You "know" you are a good man who will come alone into his own heaven because you are the only one who is right. But this is not written in the bible.


I'm not only one who is right.  Where did I say that?  I did say what the Bible said would happen to atheists, ags and sinner.  You have some wacky thoughts and ideas about Christianity.  I think mostly I discuss creation science here.  Also, that evolution is wrong and a lie.


----------



## james bond

Grumblenuts said:


> No shkidding, Sherlock.
> 
> Since you chose to truncate my answer instead of replying to it like an adult, here it is again (link is provided):
> 
> I'll take this opportunity to add, "the conditions that existed on Earth during his lifetime" include relatively recently discovering the microscope, for example, without which Pasteur would have effectively been blind. Since Pasteur, our equipment and scientific understanding has again improved tremendously. Instead of embracing that, you choose to regress back to the time when people had no choice but to fear gods and spiritual nonsense. Enjoy. I prefer experiencing current reality, no matter how harsh, and helping to improve upon it.. instead of doing whatever you imagine you're doing.


>>*under the conditions that existed on Earth during his lifetime. But his experiment did not prove that spontaneous generation never occurred.<<*

It never occurred because you have no evidence nor experiment to show spontaneous generation/abiogenesis.

The science backs me up as we found no life whatsoever besides on Earth.  Science has also found what we need for the basics of life and what could destroy it.  It also has found there is intelligence behind the design of living organisms.  Atheists such as you only have fake science papers used to get funding for the atheist scientists who wrote it.

It goes to show atheists do not accept scientific evidence from experiment and have nothing to scientifically back their religious beliefs.  IOW, their mythical religious beliefs override real science.

ETA:  Humans lived with dinosaurs, so that destroys your fake evolutionary beliefs.  Richard Dawkins has admitted as much -- Implications of Dino-human coexistence: EVOLUTION OBLITERATED!!!.

I guess I win the overall argument of creation vs evolution once again.  Let's face it.  I am the winner.  You are the loser.  That's how science works when tow opponents do not agree on a science matter.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sure they do. ...



No!


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> For what reason would _you_ want to "wipe them out?" ...



I (= all human beings) - wipe out other species because of the own suicidal egocentrism and a deep lack of understanding of all real structures of the world. You are a good example for an "unreal" and "untrue"  human being who speaks out a lot of superflous unreasonable bullshit about natural science and about the Christian religion (=rebound in god). If you would take serios god's creation then you would feel to be responsible for all living species of the whole living creation of god.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> Why can't you see a gorilla is a gorilla and a human a human?  They're much different and you do not seem to realize how a gorilla uses his hands.  You didn't know a gorilla uses his hands for walking -- a knuckle walker.  I would hope the creationist kids would say something like that.  Besides, it was an ape-human that was our common ancestor, so even evolution contradicts you.  Does evilution say it was a gorilla?  I don't think so.  And you didn't answer my question of why apes and monkeys are still around.  It means I win again because evolution didn't explain it, no?
> 
> 
> I'm not only one who is right.  Where did I say that?  I did say what the Bible said would happen to atheists, ags and sinner.  You have some wacky thoughts and ideas about Christianity.  I think mostly I discuss creation science here.  Also, that evolution is wrong and a lie.


no comment


----------



## JoeBlow

james bond said:


> LMAO, Joe because you believe in fairy tales of atheism. Yours is not a true religion, but a delusion.
> 
> The common ancestor NEVER existed because no one has ever seen it, those people never wrote down any history such as their names, where they lived and who they were related to.  They do not have a history of what they did and what kind of civilization they built and lived under.  Thus, anyone who describes evolution is a BIG FAT LIAR.  Your atheist scientists are LIARS!  Otherwise, they would have the hard evidence and we'd see the actual evidence in museums.  Mostly, it's made up exhibits.  I wouldn't pay money to see that.


So because it's not written down in a book of fiction, it never existed? That's a pretty ignorant comment. Evolution exists and I'll prove it to you. Just look at houses and clothes from 300 years ago, everything was smaller, you can see that fr yourself in old building and historical clothes. Meaning that as man goes forward in time, he's getting taller. That's man evolving into a taller being.


----------



## JoeBlow

james bond said:


> Why can't you admit Homo Naledi is part of today's humans then?


I don't know what that means. Please explain, maybe a link?


----------



## zaangalewa

JoeBlow said:


> So because it's not written down in a book of fiction, it never existed? That's a pretty ignorant comment. Evolution exists and I'll prove it to you. Just look at houses and clothes from 300 years ago, everything was smaller, you can see that fr yourself in old building and historical clothes. Meaning that as man goes forward in time, he's getting taller. That's man evolving into a taller being.



The homo erectus had hundreds of thousands of years about the same size as we have today - he was very big: 1.45-1.80 meter = 1.6-2 yards! That human beings had been often smaller in the past is an effect of a lack of food (and/or a bad quality of food)  and not really an effect of the biological evolution of the homo sapiens.


----------



## JoeBlow

zaangalewa said:


> The homo erectus had hundreds of thousands of years about the same size as we have today - he was very big: 1.45-1.80 meter = 1.6-2 yards! That human beings had been often smaller in the past is an effect of a lack of food (and/or a bad quality of food)  and not really an effect of the biological evolution of the homo sapiens.


And that's part of evolution, our food evolves to better quality and so do our bodies. THAT'S THE VERY DEFINITION OF EVOLUTION.


----------



## JoeBlow

abu afak said:


> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
> Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> 
> Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [.....]
> 
> *1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
> So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> *In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..." *
> 
> `
> 
> .
> 
> 
> `.


Evolution exists and I'll prove it to you. Just look at houses and clothes from 300 years ago, everything was smaller, you can see that for yourself in old building and historical clothes. Meaning that as man goes forward in time, he's getting taller. That's man evolving into a taller being. That's what evolution is.


----------



## zaangalewa

JoeBlow said:


> And that's part of evolution,



No! One problem with many atheists who argue in the name of evolution is it that they don't know how to seperate their beleif and their knowledge. The evolution of the homo erectus is different. People had been smaller in former times just simple because of an inadequate form of food and/or a lack of food.



JoeBlow said:


> or food evolves



Stupid idea! We need for example proteins, carbohydrates, minerals and so on and so on.



JoeBlow said:


> to better quality and so do our bodies.



What we eat exists much longer than our own evolution had been.



JoeBlow said:


> THAT'S THE VERY DEFINITION OF EVOLUTION.



That's your idea about this what you call "evolution" - but this fits not with real science.


----------



## JoeBlow

zaangalewa said:


> No! One problem with many atheists who argue in the name of evolution is it that they don't know how to seperate their beleif and their knowledge. The evolution of the homo erectus is different. People had been smaller in former times just simple because of an inadequate form of food and/or a lack of food.
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid idea! We need for example proteins, carbohydrates, minerals and so on and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> What we eat exists much longer than our own evolution had been.
> 
> 
> 
> That's your idea about this what you call "evolution" - but this fits not with real science.


Our food evolves in the sense that we went from hunter gatherers to farming and raising livestock, because our brains evolved to be bigger.


----------



## zaangalewa

JoeBlow said:


> Our food evolves



Not really - compared with our very young species. It is Larifari what you say here ... one moment: no "Larifari" evolved not into the English language. You still near yourselve from nonsense.



JoeBlow said:


> in the sense that we went from hunter gatherers to farming and raising livestock, because our brains evolved to be bigger.



That's also nonsense. The hunter and gatherers had been perhaps more intelligent than we are now. For sure we don't have a very good idea how they had been able to build the first temples of mankind in Göbekli Tepe. I guess as a result of this unbelievable buildings and because more and more people liked to live in the near of their temples and their gods slowly agriculture and stock farming was developed. So first had existed religion and a high culture - then civilisation followed. To call this process "evolution" is relativelly insignificant. Evolution is more a kind of sorcerer who shakes his wand and in only some million years dinos become birds.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> I (= all human beings) - wipe out other species because of the own suicidal egocentrism and a deep lack of understanding of all real structures of the world. You are a good example for an "unreal" and "untrue"  human being who speaks out a lot of superflous unreasonable bullshit about natural science and about the Christian religion (=rebound in god). If you would take serios god's creation then you would feel to be responsible for all living species of the whole living creation of god.


So, you're agreeing to a sin-filled world of humans only looking out for themselves as "survival of the fittest."  We already had examples of it with social Darwinism, eugenics, and Hitler with the Holocaust.  It usually means the atheists are to blame for their lack of education in believing in fake science such as evolution.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> So, you're agreeing to a sin-filled world of humans only looking out for themselves as "survival of the fittest."  We already had examples of it with social Darwinism, eugenics, and Hitler with the Holocaust.  It usually means the atheists are to blame for their lack of education in believing in fake science such as evolution.


no comment


----------



## james bond

JoeBlow said:


> So because it's not written down in a book of fiction, it never existed? That's a pretty ignorant comment. Evolution exists and I'll prove it to you. Just look at houses and clothes from 300 years ago, everything was smaller, you can see that fr yourself in old building and historical clothes. Meaning that as man goes forward in time, he's getting taller. That's man evolving into a taller being.


Of course, atheism and agnosticism is in the Holy Bible.  You're the one who doesn't know because you're an ignorant POS.

Moreover, you're moronically ignorant as creationists and their creation science know that God created natural selection.  No one is denying or arguing against that.  We understand what causes the beaks of birds to be different.  Why a chimpanzees hands are different from a gorilla.  What's important is we know that God created humans, birds, and dinosaurs as separate species.  They could not evolve from natural selection.  We also know that a global flood caused a big change of the Earth and its inhabitants.  Those who do not believe in God can't understand why the changes happened to the Earth and its inhabitants and made up evolution.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> no comment


Silence is acceptance.  Your evilution was easily defeated from the Louis Pasteur's swan neck experiment.  That and the global flood is why abu afak has gone bonkers in not being able to admit his defeat.


----------



## james bond

Basically, all the creationists want to do is teach the global flood in public schools.  No mention of God nor creation has to happen.  However, the global flood brings forth a new explanation of the way the Earth is in regards to many of the sciences related to the Earth such as all the dinosaurs died from it.  It wasn't an asteroid or meteor from space.  Thus, it will be a great contradiction to evolution.


----------



## surada

T





james bond said:


> LMAO, Joe because you believe in fairy tales of atheism. Yours is not a true religion, but a delusion.
> 
> The common ancestor NEVER existed because no one has ever seen it, those people never wrote down any history such as their names, where they lived and who they were related to.  They do not have a history of what they did and what kind of civilization they built and lived under.  Thus, anyone who describes evolution is a BIG FAT LIAR.  Your atheist scientists are LIARS!  Otherwise, they would have the hard evidence and we'd see the actual evidence in museums.  Mostly, it's made up exhibits.  I wouldn't pay money to see that.


They just found another transitional link in Israel.


----------



## JoeBlow

zaangalewa said:


> Not really - compared with our very young species. It is Larifari what you say here ... one moment: no "Larifari" evolved not into the English language. You still near yourselve from nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> That's also nonsense. The hunter and gatherers had been perhaps more intelligent than we are now. For sure we don't have a very good idea how they had been able to build the first temples of mankind in Göbekli Tepe. I guess as a result of this unbelievable buildings and because more and more people liked to live in the near of their temples and their gods slowly agriculture and stock farming was developed. So first had existed religion and a high culture - then civilisation followed. To call this process "evolution" is relativelly insignificant. Evolution is more a kind of sorcerer who shakes his wand and in only some million years dinos become birds.


Whether we were smarter before and evolved to be dumber, it’s still evolution.


----------



## JoeBlow

james bond said:


> Of course, atheism and agnosticism is in the Holy Bible.  You're the one who doesn't know because you're an ignorant POS.
> 
> Moreover, you're moronically ignorant as creationists and their creation science know that God created natural selection.  No one is denying or arguing against that.  We understand what causes the beaks of birds to be different.  Why a chimpanzees hands are different from a gorilla.  What's important is we know that God created humans, birds, and dinosaurs as separate species.  They could not evolve from natural selection.  We also know that a global flood caused a big change of the Earth and its inhabitants.  Those who do not believe in God can't understand why the changes happened to the Earth and its inhabitants and made up evolution.


Man, you really are ignorant. Have fun.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> So, you're agreeing to a sin-filled world of humans only looking out for themselves as "survival of the fittest."  We already had examples of it with social Darwinism, eugenics, and Hitler with the Holocaust.  It usually means the atheists are to blame for their lack of education in believing in fake science such as evolution.


There’s no reason to project your self-hate on others. Yes, you believe you are a sinner, evil, base and born with sins to be heaped on all humanity.

Not everyone shares your sociopathy.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Basically, all the creationists want to do is teach the global flood in public schools.  No mention of God nor creation has to happen.  However, the global flood brings forth a new explanation of the way the Earth is in regards to many of the sciences related to the Earth such as all the dinosaurs died from it.  It wasn't an asteroid or meteor from space.  Thus, it will be a great contradiction to evolution.


Basically, you are dishonest.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> T
> They just found another transitional link in Israel.


What was it?  I'm not a mind reader.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> There’s no reason to project your self-hate on others. Yes, you believe you are a sinner, evil, base and born with sins to be heaped on all humanity.
> 
> Not everyone shares your sociopathy.


I don't have any self-hate to project, but must've hit a nerve with you as your response is over the top.  How am I dishonest?  I must be telling facts, history and scientific truth if the atheists and ags cannot respond.

>> james bond:

The common ancestor NEVER existed because no one has ever seen it, those people never wrote down any history such as their names, where they lived and who they were related to. They do not have a history of what they did and what kind of civilization they built and lived under.<<

You still cannot provide what happened after Lucy.  My take is Lucy was a chimp.











If you look at the no nose, small braincase, very short height (~3 ft), arms are longer than legs and past the knee, face protrudes beyond the top of the skull and more.  It's okay that you and JoeBlow know none of this.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Basically, you are dishonest.


No, just want the global flood taught in public schools.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> No, just want the global flood taught in public schools.


You're Going to have to give a date/year/decade or century for that fantasy if you want it taught.
Not to mention adding all the impossible Noah and Animal details. It's a laugher.

`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> You're Going to have to give a date/year/decade or century for that fantasy if you want it taught.
> Not to mention adding all the impossible Noah and Animal details. It's a laugher.
> 
> `


It isn't fantasy as the creationists know that it is through education that evolution was able to get a toehold.  Prior to that there was a bigger majority of those who did not subscribe to evolutionary lies.  The creationists still have a sizable majority holding to what is truth, but we would like to clear this creation science vs evolution lies through education once and for all.  Then, we can start eliminating the atheist scientists as people would make fun of them just like we make fun of you and your weird beliefs.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> You're Going to have to give a date/year/decade or century for that fantasy if you want it taught.
> Not to mention adding all the impossible Noah and Animal details. It's a laugher.
> 
> `


Lol, you're the one who believes monkeys became humans, dinosaurs turned into birds and who knows what other looney tunes.  Talk about impossible.

I showed above that Lucy was a chimpanzee lol.  Thus, there is no evidence of an ape-human or a common ancestor coming into existence.  Moreover, your side still has no explanation of why we still have monkeys and apes if they "evolved" into humans unless you want to go with what idiot Joe Blow said.  Those are the facts.  It goes to show evolution didn't happen.  

The Earth sciences shows evidence for a global flood.  That's real science.  Evolutinists came later to try and explain it using evolutionary lies.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I don't have any self-hate to project, but must've hit a nerve with you as your response is over the top.  How am I dishonest?  I must be telling facts, history and scientific truth if the atheists and ags cannot respond.
> 
> >> james bond:
> 
> The common ancestor NEVER existed because no one has ever seen it, those people never wrote down any history such as their names, where they lived and who they were related to. They do not have a history of what they did and what kind of civilization they built and lived under.<<
> 
> You still cannot provide what happened after Lucy.  My take is Lucy was a chimp.
> 
> View attachment 600673
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you look at the no nose, small braincase, very short height (~3 ft), arms are longer than legs and past the knee, face protrudes beyond the top of the skull and more.  It's okay that you and JoeBlow know none of this.



I see you’re getting defensive.

Are the skeletal remains from Noah’s Ark (that never was)?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> No, just want the global flood taught in public schools.


No. You want to subject public schools to your extremist beliefs.

Sorry. The Christian Taliban are not going to be allowed in the school system.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> Silence is acceptance.



What a nonsense. Someone says something and no one gives any answer is not any acceptance - it's a painful silence. "Silence" not exists in the internet.



james bond said:


> Your evilution was easily defeated from the Louis Pasteur's swan neck experiment.  That and the global flood is why abu afak has gone bonkers in not being able to admit his defeat.



no comment


----------



## zaangalewa

Hollie said:


> No. You want to subject public schools to your extremist beliefs.
> 
> Sorry. The Christian Taliban are not going to be allowed in the school system.



In Germany exist nearly only public schools which are much better than private schools in very most cases. And in all schools exists also religious education. As a result of this the very most extremist pseudo-religious idiocies come from other countries to Germany -  for example from the USA or from Muslim countries. And by the way: Also the theory of evolution is a totally normal subject in German schools - in biology.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> Basically, all the creationists want to do is teach the global flood in public schools.



Who are this creationists?


----------



## zaangalewa

JoeBlow said:


> Whether we were smarter before and evolved to be dumber, it’s still evolution.



E-x-a-c-t-l-y! Evolution has not any plan. It's as "senseless" as the natural power gravity. But why exists this all and why makes this all together what exists telepaths who communicate with thoughts (language) and invented mathematics (logic) for to describe parallel universes which could be real - what we on the other side never will be able to know? Any explanation for this, atheist?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I see you’re getting defensive.
> 
> Are the skeletal remains from Noah’s Ark (that never was)?


What's there to be defensive about when one has the truth?  It's the evilutionists who are defensive about God's warnings.  Anyway, I don't think the Ark has been found.  It may never be, but there's still hope as it would be great to show in a museum!  Just think of the exhibits.  I'd travel to see it.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> In Germany exist nearly only public schools which are much better than private schools in very most cases. And in all schools exists also religious education. As a result of this the very most extremist pseudo-religious idiocies come from other countries to Germany -  for example from the USA or from Muslim countries. And by the way: Also the theory of evolution is a totally normal subject in German schools - in biology.


Do they teach humans from apes and birds from dinosaurs with evolution?


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> Who are this creationists?


Those who believe God created the universe, Earth and everything in it in 6 days as per the Bible -- Days of Creation.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> What's there to be defensive about when one has the truth?  It's the evilutionists who are defensive about God's warnings.  Anyway, I don't think the Ark has been found.  It may never be, but there's still hope as it would be great to show in a museum!  Just think of the exhibits.  I'd travel to see it.


Why so defensive?

Threatening others with your gods is cowardly.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Lol, you're the one who believes monkeys became humans, dinosaurs turned into birds and who knows what other looney tunes.  Talk about impossible.
> 
> I showed above that Lucy was a chimpanzee lol.  Thus, there is no evidence of an ape-human or a common ancestor coming into existence.  Moreover, your side still has no explanation of why we still have monkeys and apes if they "evolved" into humans unless you want to go with what idiot Joe Blow said.  Those are the facts.  It goes to show evolution didn't happen.
> 
> The Earth sciences shows evidence for a global flood.  That's real science.  Evolutinists came later to try and explain it using evolutionary lies.


There is no evidence for a global flood. The story is a take off on a flood of the Euphrates river basin in 2900 bc


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Those who believe God created the universe, Earth and everything in it in 7 days as per the Bible.


Your cheap, street corner proselytizing is in the wrong forum.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Why so defensive?
> 
> Threatening others with your gods is cowardly.


smh.  I can see your delusions about the Bible and creationists have made you bonkers.  You can't even read and comprehend adequately anymore.  I'll let you rest, i.e. put you on ignore for a week.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> There is no evidence for a global flood. The story is a take off on a flood of the Euphrates river basin in 2900 bc


Jeez, the evidence is everywhere.  So much for you science acumen let alone Bible acumen.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> Those who believe God created the universe, Earth and everything in it in 6 days as per the Bible -- Days of Creation.



So much more than 90% of all Christians who "believe" that a natural law with the name evolution exists are no Christians because you decided 9 year ago to call yourselve "Christian" and Jews, Christians and Muslims "Creationists" while you intentionally ignore what you are able to see with your own eyes all around you?


----------



## flack

james bond said:


> Basically, all the creationists want to do is teach the global flood in public schools.  No mention of God nor creation has to happen.  However, the global flood brings forth a new explanation of the way the Earth is in regards to many of the sciences related to the Earth such as all the dinosaurs died from it.  It wasn't an asteroid or meteor from space.  Thus, it will be a great contradiction to evolution.


There is not now or ever was enough water on the planet to flood the whole planet.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> So much more than 90% of all Christians who "believe" that a natural law with the name evolution exists are no Christians because you decided 9 year ago to call yourselve "Christian" and Jews, Christians and Muslims "Creationists" while you intentionally ignore what you are able to see with your own eyes all around you?


You're entitled to your opinion, but you're REALLY WRONG about me "intentionally ignore what you are able to see with your own eyes all around you?"  What I see is THE EVIDENCE of the global flood and not evolution.  Evolution doesn't have any observable nor testable evidence and has been disproved.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> smh.  I can see your delusions about the Bible and creationists have made you bonkers.  You can't even read and comprehend adequately anymore.  I'll let you rest, i.e. put you on ignore for a week.


What delusions? I can see the sociopathic behavior of the hyper-religious in this forum.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> What delusions? I can see the sociopathic behavior of the hyper-religious in this forum.


That's a good example of what I mean.  You see the hyper-religious in this forum, but they are creationists into science and creation.  They see intelligence behind the design of the creator and the MASSIVE EVIDENCE of the global flood such as the Himalayas and Mt. Everest forming from the fountains of the deep.  The creation scientists dominate throughout history as they have the GREATEST SCIENTISTS such as Alfred Wegener discovering plate tectonics and the fountains of the deep.

OTOH, all you can see is your weak atheist scientists try to find evidence of evolution, but there is none.  They tried to show the universe and Earth are billions of years old and FAILED MISERABLY.  It is amazing to me that the atheists here continue to see this delusion when no evidence backs it up.  Heck, our planet would be like Mars that had water on the surface, but its MAGNETIC FIELD DISSIPATING destroyed it with global warming.  Our MF is dissipating now.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> That's a good example of what I mean.  You see the hyper-religious in this forum, but they are creationists into science and creation.  They see intelligence behind the design of the creator and the MASSIVE EVIDENCE of the global flood such as the Himalayas and Mt. Everest forming from the fountains of the deep.  The creation scientists dominate throughout history as they have the GREATEST SCIENTISTS such as Alfred Wegener discovering plate tectonics and the fountains of the deep.
> 
> OTOH, all you can see is your weak atheist scientists try to find evidence of evolution, but there is none.  They tried to show the universe and Earth are billions of years old and FAILED MISERABLY.  It is amazing to me that the atheists here continue to see this delusion when no evidence backs it up.  Heck, our planet would be like Mars that had water on the surface, but its MAGNETIC FIELD DISSIPATING destroyed it with global warming.  Our MF is dissipating now.


There is no evidence of a global flood. That’s why you ID creationers present none.

Pretty simple concept.

On the other hand, ID’iot creationers denying the evidence for evolution is typical for the hyper-religious.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Jeez, the evidence is everywhere.  So much for you science acumen let alone Bible acumen.


Sorry. You are beating a dead horse. You reduce scripture to children's stories


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Sorry. You are beating a dead horse. You reduce scripture to children's stories


A dead horse is a great description for you.  You claim to read the Bible, but remain STUPID AS SHIT!

The Bible is not a children's story when it comes to the global flood.  It killed even the innocent as the sinful outnumbered the good and the sinful would've killed the innocent.  Today, we have the atheists, agnostics and evolution and I think it will bring about the second coming and death by global fire.  I mean for God to be replaced by something IDIOTIC such as evolution would make our supernatural creator ANGRY.   Evolution is a lie and the STUPIDEST THING I've ever heard, so God must be really ANGRY!

I feel sad for you as the global flood is the prime example of God's wrath against sin and humans.  Jesus will come the second time as we are all doomed.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> There is no evidence of a global flood. That’s why you ID creationers present none.
> 
> Pretty simple concept.
> 
> On the other hand, ID’iot creationers denying the evidence for evolution is typical for the hyper-religious.


Science backs up the global flood.  We see the evidence everywhere.  Just recently a civilization was found underwater.  The atheist scientists can't explain it.  Probably because it does not back up evolution lmao.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> A dead horse is a great description for you.  You claim to read the Bible, but remain STUPID AS SHIT!
> 
> The Bible is not a children's story when it comes to the global flood.  It killed even the innocent as the sinful outnumbered the good and the sinful would've killed the innocent.  Today, we have the atheists, agnostics and evolution and I think it will bring about the second coming and death by global fire.  I mean for God to be replaced by something IDIOTIC such as evolution would make our supernatural creator ANGRY.   Evolution is a lie and the STUPIDEST THING I've ever heard, so God must be really ANGRY!
> 
> I feel sad for you as the global flood is the prime example of God's wrath against sin and humans.  Jesus will come the second time as we are all doomed.


The global flood is just another borrowed myth to teach with.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Science backs up the global flood.  We see the evidence everywhere.  Just recently a civilization was found underwater.  The atheist scientists can't explain it.  Probably because it does not back up evolution lmao.


Science does not back up the biblical flood. There is no evidence to support it. That explains your lack of evidence to support it. 

Civilizations do not live underwater.


----------



## surada

Hollie said:


> Science does not back up the biblical flood. There is no evidence to support it. That explains your lack of evidence to support it.
> 
> Civilizations do not live underwater.


Off the coast of Sweden, but no evidence for a flood.


----------



## Hollie

surada said:


> Off the coast of Sweden, but no evidence for a flood.


Just having a little fun with the boy. It was thought to be a Stone Age site which might clash with a biblical timeframe.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> The global flood is just another borrowed myth to teach with.


Haha.  You have zero evidence for that while what I have could fill a state.  What a cuckoo bird!

I know what happens to the good guys when they head into the horizon, but what happens to you?

Answer:  We ALL get judged.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Civilizations do not live underwater.


Yep, until the global flood -- Mysterious Underwater Cities Discovered All Around the World.

They got even a Top 10:








						Top 10 Underwater Ruins Of Lost Civilizations - Listverse
					

There are underwater ruins almost everywhere around the world. However, some stand out more than others due to the suggestion that they might prove lost




					listverse.com
				




I'll have to find a cuckoo bird site that you can live with.  Here's one that can go on forever -- 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Jeez, I thought most people accepted the global flood, but what a revelation lol.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Haha.  You have zero evidence for that while what I have could fill a state.  What a cuckoo bird!
> 
> I know what happens to the good guys when they head into the horizon, but what happens to you?
> 
> Answer:  We ALL get judged.


Sadly you turn people away from faith. We are not living in the bronze age.
...


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Sadly you turn people away from faith. We are not living in the bronze age.


I couldn't stand to die as an atheist.  Then I'd see _stupid_ people EVERYWHERE!!!  AGGGHHH!!!  AGGGHHH!!!  AGGGHHH!!!  Lol.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> I couldn't stand to die as an atheist.  Then I'd see _stupid_ people EVERYWHERE!!!  AGGGHHH!!!  AGGGHHH!!!  AGGGHHH!!!  Lol.


You reject science and education, but Christians aren't required to be stupid.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Yep, until the global flood -- Mysterious Underwater Cities Discovered All Around the World.
> 
> They got even a Top 10:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top 10 Underwater Ruins Of Lost Civilizations - Listverse
> 
> 
> There are underwater ruins almost everywhere around the world. However, some stand out more than others due to the suggestion that they might prove lost
> 
> 
> 
> 
> listverse.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll have to find a cuckoo bird site that you can live with.  Here's one that can go on forever --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeez, I thought most people accepted the global flood, but what a revelation lol.



I see you have not tried to defend the biblical flood myth.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> You reject science and education, but Christians aren't required to be stupid.


The Christians and I aren't stupid as the global flood was backed up.  It's you and the stupid atheists who reject HARD EVIDENCE, science and education by believing in DUMB SHIT like evolution.  This is why I keep saying we need to teach CREATION SCIENCE in ALL schools.  Then we won't have stupid mofos like you who can't accept the global flood.  What will you do when the global fire comes?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I see you have not tried to defend the biblical flood myth.


I just demonstrated some REAL SCIENCE and end up as a WINNER.  It's you who had nothing and end up as the BIG L.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Sadly you turn people away from faith. We are not living in the bronze age.
> ...


It goes to show that you're a BAD loser.  smh.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I see you have not tried to defend the biblical flood myth.


I challenge you, surada and the other atheists here to explain the underwater cities around the world.  When people start making top ten lists, then they're really something and a lot of them.  If it was a movie, then it would be sci-fi or some cheap evilution flick, but these are real.  They're facts.  I got acts and facts.









						84 Confirmed Facts in the Last 16 Chapters of the Book of Acts - The Poached Egg Christian Worldview and Apologetics Network
					

84 Confirmed Facts in the Last 16 Chapters of the Book of Acts Truthbomb Apologetics Scholar and historian Colin Hemer has identified 84 facts in the last 16 chapters of the Book of Acts that have been confirmed by historical and/or archaeological research. They are as follows: 1. the natural...




					www.thepoachedegg.net


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> I challenge you, surada and the other atheists here to explain the underwater cities around the world.  When people start making top ten lists, then they're really something and a lot of them.  If it was a movie, then it would be sci-fi or some cheap evilution flick, but these are real.  They're facts.  I got acts and facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 84 Confirmed Facts in the Last 16 Chapters of the Book of Acts - The Poached Egg Christian Worldview and Apologetics Network
> 
> 
> 84 Confirmed Facts in the Last 16 Chapters of the Book of Acts Truthbomb Apologetics Scholar and historian Colin Hemer has identified 84 facts in the last 16 chapters of the Book of Acts that have been confirmed by historical and/or archaeological research. They are as follows: 1. the natural...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thepoachedegg.net


Are you kidding me? What asinine reasoning.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> You're entitled to your opinion, but you're REALLY WRONG about me "intentionally ignore what you are able to see with your own eyes all around you?"



I don't know why you do this but who likes to be a natural scientist has first of all to be a good observer and measurer of the things which are all around. Your agitatoric political form to argue - which is by the way not wrong when you attack Nazis and other so called "Darwinists" (=racists) - has nevertheless not a lot to do with natural science and is a totally wrong form for a Christian when it is used to defame others.



james bond said:


> What I see is THE EVIDENCE of the global flood and not evolution.



What I see is that such a sentence makes not a big sense or did you never think about which "flood" of fire, dirt and ice killed the Dinos or which "floods" of pestilences killed so many human beings or what a virus like "Corona" is able to teach us? But the flood of the bible is another thing because it was caused from god. In an analogy of natural history: 70,000 years ago we had been as intelligent as we are today. Nevertheless we died nearly out, because we did not fit any longer to god's creation, to the nature around. All mankind was lost - but something changed and very few people survived. Let me call them here now "the people of the tribe of Noah". And now? Today? Exist as many human beings as stars we see in the sky. ... Both stories which I combined here are totally different - but both stories teach us that we all should not be arrogant but thankful for our existence.



james bond said:


> Evolution doesn't have any observable nor testable evidence and has been disproved.



What's wrong. But this is not a problem of the Christian religion. If someone lives in fear of people who argue in the name of Darwinism which transports the racism of the English empire then this is not any problem. But to "believe" or "not to believe" in evolution (or natural science at all) is not the faith of Christians. Truth is always true - independent from the person who speaks out this trtuth.


_If the only prayer
We said, was thank you
That would be enough_
*Meister Eckhart*


----------



## zaangalewa

flack said:


> There is not now or ever was enough water on the planet to flood the whole planet.



There were times in the natural history of our planet when it rained continously for thousands of years everywhere all over the planet. So  I doubt this.
It seems to be plausible that the most water is under the Earth. Our oceans came once from a single ocean and scientists think about 130 oceans - but for sure a minimum of 23 oceans (22 without the oceans which we are able to see) - are between the earth's core and earth's crust.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> Science backs up the global flood.  We see the evidence everywhere.  Just recently a civilization was found underwater.



Eh? Never heard anything about - except from science fiction authors.



james bond said:


> The atheist scientists can't explain it.  Probably because it does not back up evolution lmao.


----------



## Colin norris

james bond said:


> Science backs up the global flood.


You are a liar. Science has never written one word supporting any of the bullshit in the bible. Why do you say these things and you know it's not true. Grow up. 


james bond said:


> We see the evidence everywhere.  Just recently a civilization was found underwater.


Really? What is the name of the civilisation  and exactly where does it live? 
There us no evidence of and God nor is There a reason for one.  Everything  is s explained. 



james bond said:


> The atheist scientists can't explain it.  Probably because it does not back up evolution lmao.


Science has explained everything. The problem is You won't accept fact. 
Evolution is a fact and can be proven by DNA and fossils and chromosomes.  
You can't be so stupid to think all that work was done just to get up your nose. 
Laugh your arse off at that you nutter.


----------



## Colin norris

zaangalewa said:


> There were times in the natural history of our planet when it rained continously for thousands of years everywhere all over the planet. So  I doubt this.
> It seems to be plausible that the most water is under the Earth. Our oceans came once from a single ocean and scientists think about 130 oceans - but for sure a minimum of 23 oceans (22 without the oceans which we are able to see) - are between the earth's core and earth's crust.


I have not seen one piece of  evidence to support one word of that fantastic rubbish. Where do you get this shit from? 
You must be crazy.


----------



## surada

Colin norris said:


> You are a liar. Science has never written one word supporting any of the bullshit in the bible. Why do you say these things and you know it's not true. Grow up.
> 
> Really? What is the name of the civilisation  and exactly where does it live?
> There us no evidence of and God nor is There a reason for one.  Everything  is s explained.
> 
> 
> Science has explained everything. The problem is You won't accept fact.
> Evolution is a fact and can be proven by DNA and fossils and chromosomes.
> You can't be so stupid to think all that work was done just to get up your nose.
> Laugh your arse off at that you nutter.











						Archaeology breakthrough as 1.5 million-year-old fossil discovered
					

A NEW STUDY has identified a major archaeology breakthrough as a 1.5 million-year-old human fossil has been discovered in Israel.




					www.express.co.uk


----------



## Colin norris

surada said:


> Archaeology breakthrough as 1.5 million-year-old fossil discovered
> 
> 
> A NEW STUDY has identified a major archaeology breakthrough as a 1.5 million-year-old human fossil has been discovered in Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.express.co.uk


1.5 million years ago??? 
Didn't God create humans only 6000 years ago? 
You're not real good at numbers son.


----------



## Colin norris

Colin norris said:


> You are a liar. Science has never written one word supporting any of the bullshit in the bible. Why do you say these things and you know it's not true. Grow up.
> 
> Really? What is the name of the civilisation  and exactly where does it live?
> There us no evidence of and God nor is There a reason for one.  Everything  is s explained.
> 
> 
> Science has explained everything. The problem is You won't accept fact.
> Evolution is a fact and can be proven by DNA and fossils and chromosomes.
> You can't be so stupid to think all that work was done just to get up your nose.
> Laugh your arse off at that you nutter.


Come on big mouth.  You made some ridiculous claims. Prove it or apologise .


----------



## buttercup

Colin norris said:


> Science has explained everything.



^ That statement is either purposely dishonest, or woefully ignorant. Not sure which. There are a number of things that are outside the realm of science.  The fact that you don't seem to realize that is very telling… but maybe it shouldn't be surprising, because if you _did_ realize that, then you would have a modicum of humility, as opposed to being so prideful, unreasonable and militant in your unbelief.


----------



## Colin norris

buttercup said:


> ^ That statement is either purposely dishonest, or woefully ignorant. Not sure which. There are a number of things that are outside the realm of science.  The fact that you don't seem to realize that is very telling… but maybe it shouldn't be surprising, because if you _did_ realize that, then you would have a modicum of humility, as opposed to being so prideful, unreasonable and militant in your unbelief.


Put it another way. 
You name me one instance in your bible or religious beliefs that can be irrefutably independently verified as being a direct result of  the God. 

Not bullshit scriptures or psalms. Not your belief or faith.  Just raw facts. Start with immaculate conceptions. 
See how you go with that.


----------



## buttercup

Colin norris said:


> Put it another way.
> You name me one instance in your bible or religious beliefs that can be irrefutably independently verified as being a direct result of  the God.
> 
> Not bullshit scriptures or psalms. Not your belief or faith.  Just raw facts. Start with immaculate conceptions.
> See how you go with that.



You're changing the subject. Focus. You said science explains everything. That is simply false.  If you can't admit that, then you are either dishonest or ignorant. Either way it doesn't matter to me, I made my point and you had no reply. Good night!


----------



## Colin norris

buttercup said:


> You're changing the subject. Focus. You said science explains everything. That is simply false.  If you can't admit that, then you are either dishonest or ignorant. Either way it doesn't matter to me, I made my point and you had no reply. Good night!


I suggest you do say goodnight too.  
I asked for one instance and you failed. You have nothing but your filthy bible and delusions. 

After science and physics, everything is just opinion. 
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and you have nothing but your hideous faith which equates to nothing. 

How those  immaculate conceptions going old darling? You failed at the first hurdle. 
Every time you reply I get another whack at you.  Have another go. See how good you are.


----------



## zaangalewa

Colin norris said:


> I have not seen one piece of  evidence to support one word of that fantastic rubbish. Where do you get this shit from?
> You must be crazy.



My source in this case: Das meiste Wasser ist nicht auf, sondern unter der Erde | MDR.DE

I hope you understrand that they speak about 130 times (or 22 times) the same amount of water which is in all of our oceans when they call this water also "oceans". In German this is clear. The form in which this water exists are not oceans. The scientists who reported this in the newspaper "nature" are from China, Great Britain and Norway.

And  I'm by the way absolutelly not astonished about your bad behavor. That's normal in your world.

(PS: The story about thousands of years rain on Earth I heard some decades ago in a serios scientific TV broadcast. )


----------



## buttercup

Colin norris said:


> I suggest you do say goodnight too.
> I asked for one instance and you failed. You have nothing but your filthy bible and delusions.
> 
> After science and physics, everything is just opinion.
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and you have nothing but your hideous faith which equates to nothing.
> 
> How those  immaculate conceptions going old darling? You failed at the first hurdle.
> Every time you reply I get another whack at you.  Have another go. See how good you are.



Total projection. You were the one who completely dodged my point by trying to change the subject.  You made a statement. It was false. You said science explains everything.  And then after you dodged my point, you accuse me of failing to answer your dodge? lol. Sorry, but that's not the way a sincere discussion works. First you need to address what I said, and once that is addressed you can bring up a different subject.

I won't hold my breath though.


----------



## Colin norris

zaangalewa said:


> Source: Das meiste Wasser ist nicht auf, sondern unter der Erde | MDR.DE



That is not evidence to correspond with dates. 
Try Again with your silly fairy tales.


----------



## zaangalewa

Colin norris said:


> 1.5 million years ago???
> Didn't God create humans only 6000 years ago?
> You're not real good at numbers son.



1.5 million years ago the oldest campfire was found - perhaps campfires existed since 2 million years - what's nearly 6 seconds xor 6 trillion years for god.

And 6000 years was the first approximation from a protestant pastor who calculated this on his own instead to ask some Jews. Nevertheless this had been a new first step into a new way. This pastor liked to replace the quality "long long ago" with a concrete quantity, a concrete number. The current approximation (since we found the god damned Higgs particle) is 13.8 billion years for the age of the universe. Perhaps in some years or decades or centuries it will be for example only 10.5 billion years - if a possibility of natural laws is true which some physicists calculated. But only because physicists think always also about whatelse could be a possibility in the natural laws - we call this "research" - makes this the 13.8 billion years now not untrue. This is what we know today.


----------



## zaangalewa

Colin norris said:


> That is not evidence to correspond with dates.
> Try Again with your silly fairy tales.



You disqualified yourselve with this words. I gave you a serios source, wrangler.


----------



## zaangalewa

Colin norris

PS: Oh by the way. When someone said in former times "1000" then they understood this 1000 as "everlasting". 6000 years had the quality 6 "eternities" (unimaginable long time). So 6 days of creation 6000 years ago makes in a spiritual context qualitative sense. Now we think about the first milli- or nanoseconds 13.8 billion years ago and get problems with our leading physical theories (quantum theory and theory of relativity) while we are still not able to say what's wrong. We get different results with both theories. And now comes indeed a monotheistic parameter: _"But it exists only one common truth."_ We are not able "to live" with different results - that's why we think something is wrong.


----------



## james bond

Colin norris said:


> You are a liar. Science has never written one word supporting any of the bullshit in the bible. Why do you say these things and you know it's not true. Grow up.


I just showed you the underwater cities around the world that proves the global flood.  There are marine fossils on top of Mt. Everest.  

You couldn't find a monkey or gorilla that talks, walks and can function at pre-school or elementary.  Instead, they act like monkeys and apes, so they haven't changed.   Humans from apes is one of the most stupidest hypothesis I ever heard.  I believe you are stupider than a monkey and prolly look like a chimp with hairy arms and legs that look like fur, but that doesn't mean you came from one.  It just means that you have a small cranial cavity, can pass for a monkey and people treat you like you should belong in a zoo.


----------



## surada

Have you n





james bond said:


> I just showed you the underwater cities around the world that proves the global flood.  There are marine fossils on top of Mt. Everest.
> 
> You couldn't find a monkey or gorilla that talks, walks and can function at pre-school or elementary.  Instead, they act like monkeys and apes, so they haven't changed.   Humans from apes is one of the most stupidest hypothesis I ever heard.  I believe you are stupider than a monkey and prolly look like a chimp with hairy arms and legs that look like fur, but that doesn't mean you came from one.  It just means that you have a small cranial cavity, can pass for a monkey and people treat you like you should belong in a zoo.


Have you ever heard of plate tectonics or sea level rise or glaciers? Even a basic course in geology would benefit you.


----------



## james bond

Colin norris said:


> Put it another way.
> You name me one instance in your bible or religious beliefs that can be irrefutably independently verified as being a direct result of the God.


I just proved the global flood and God had people write his autobiography or the Bible for Him.  That's why it's called the Holy Bible, fool.  The Christians also have the greatest scientists and physicists in history due to knowing God and how He did things.  You couldn't name the top ten atheist scientists.


----------



## surada

Are





james bond said:


> I just proved the global flood and God had people write his autobiography or the Bible for Him.  That's why it's called the Holy Bible, fool.  The Christians also have the greatest scientists and physicists in history due to knowing God and how He did things.  You couldn't name the top ten atheist scientists.


 Are you drinking?


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Have you n
> Have you ever heard of plate tectonics or sea level rise or glaciers? Even a basic course in geology would benefit you.


Lol.  I was the one of the first who brought it up with creation scientist Alfred Wegener.  You didn't know besides plate tectonics, there were the fountains of the deep which created the Himalayas and Mt. Everest.  Thus, there are marine fossils on top of Everest.  We have the White Cliffs of Dover, Grand Canyon, the layered seafloor and deep underground due to the flood.  If you read the name of the layers, it gives you the location.  There isn't any long time associated with the layers of Earth where fossils are found.  Creation scientists also found the oceans below the surface and thus, we need to find a planet with oceans underground.  Also, a magnetic field.

We learned about the oceans beneath the seafloor, too, that provided part of the water of the fountains of the deep..


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Are
> Are you drinking?


I'm not an alkie like you and some of the atheists here.  It explains the foolish talk here from you and some atheists.


----------



## surada

James, you don't know the difference between poetic language and science.. and you don't have a clue about the white cliffs of Dover.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> I just proved the global flood and God had people write his autobiography or the Bible for Him.  That's why it's called the Holy Bible, fool.  The Christians also have the greatest scientists and physicists in history due to knowing God and how He did things.  You couldn't name the top ten atheist scientists.



I suggest Richard Feynman for this list.

_Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts._
*Richard Feynman*


----------



## Grumblenuts

zaangalewa said:


> I suggest Richard Feynman for this list.


AKA *Dick* Feynman.






						List of atheists in science and technology - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## zaangalewa

Grumblenuts said:


> AKA *Dick* Feynman. ...



Why not "Richard"? 

And this list is by the way wrong. Not far from Richard Feynman is written "Gustav Theodor Fechner" - he's one of the men who impressed me most in my life. A true genius. Gustav Theodor Fechner believed that everything is full of spirit.


----------



## surada

Alfred Wegner ties continental drift to Noah's flood. He ignores the fact that continental drift took place over millions of years.


----------



## Cellblock2429

abu afak said:


> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
> Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
> 
> 
> Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [.....]
> 
> *1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
> So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> *In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..." *
> 
> `
> 
> .
> 
> 
> `.


/----/ According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), how many genders are there?


----------



## surada

Cellblock2429 said:


> /----/ According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), how many genders are there?


What does that have to do with creation science?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I just showed you the underwater cities around the world that proves the global flood.  There are marine fossils on top of Mt. Everest.
> 
> You couldn't find a monkey or gorilla that talks, walks and can function at pre-school or elementary.  Instead, they act like monkeys and apes, so they haven't changed.   Humans from apes is one of the most stupidest hypothesis I ever heard.  I believe you are stupider than a monkey and prolly look like a chimp with hairy arms and legs that look like fur, but that doesn't mean you came from one.  It just means that you have a small cranial cavity, can pass for a monkey and people treat you like you should belong in a zoo.


You proved nothing about underwater cities. 

You can't find snakes that talk.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> I just showed you the underwater cities around the world that proves the global flood.  There are marine fossils on top of Mt. Everest.
> 
> You couldn't find a monkey or gorilla that talks, walks and can function at pre-school or elementary.



But you can take a look at their front paws and take a look at your own hand - and say: _"Oops? Nearly the same? How comes"?_



james bond said:


> Instead, they act like monkeys and apes, so they haven't changed.



It's perhaps a little more complex. It's said from some people we overtook the social behavior of wolves when the dogs decided to make us to their servants about 20,000 years ago. But our dogs seem not to be wolves any longer too.



james bond said:


> Humans from apes is one of the most stupidest hypothesis I ever heard.



Then you heard not a lot. U-n-b-e-l-i-e-v-a-b-l-e with what kind of stupid things some people waste their own lifes and cause problems for others - specially for all Christians.



james bond said:


> I believe you are stupider than a monkey and prolly look like a chimp with hairy arms and legs that look like fur, but that doesn't mean you came from one.  It just means that you have a small cranial cavity, can pass for a monkey and people treat you like you should belong in a zoo.


----------



## Grumblenuts

zaangalewa said:


> Why not "Richard"?


Why not *Dick!*?


----------



## zaangalewa

Grumblenuts said:


> Why not *Dick!*?



Hmm - you make now a mistake in reasoning.

Also a counterquestion: What means "Dick" in case of Prof. em. Dr. Richard Feynman?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Lol.  I was the one of the first who brought it up with creation scientist Alfred Wegener.  You didn't know besides plate tectonics, there were the fountains of the deep which created the Himalayas and Mt. Everest.  Thus, there are marine fossils on top of Everest.  We have the White Cliffs of Dover, Grand Canyon, the layered seafloor and deep underground due to the flood.  If you read the name of the layers, it gives you the location.  There isn't any long time associated with the layers of Earth where fossils are found.  Creation scientists also found the oceans below the surface and thus, we need to find a planet with oceans underground.  Also, a magnetic field.
> 
> We learned about the oceans beneath the seafloor, too, that provided part of the water of the fountains of the deep..


It seems really dishonest for you to attach labels such as "creationer scientist" to individuals who never identified themselves as such.


----------



## Grumblenuts

zaangalewa said:


> Hmm - you make now a mistake in reasoning.
> 
> Also a counterquestion: What means "Dick" in case of Prof. em. Dr. Richard Feynman?


Read the link, Genius. Also, AKA means "also known as", Einstein.


----------



## surada

Hollie said:


> It seems really dishonest for you to attach labels such as "creationer scientist" to individuals who never identified themselves as such.


This is a canned presentation from James bond. Strictly parrot stuff.


----------



## PoliticalChic

buttercup said:


> Total projection. You were the one who completely dodged my point by trying to change the subject.  You made a statement. It was false. You said science explains everything.  And then after you dodged my point, you accuse me of failing to answer your dodge? lol. Sorry, but that's not the way a sincere discussion works. First you need to address what I said, and once that is addressed you can bring up a different subject.
> 
> I won't hold my breath though.




The Left needs Darwin's theory to be correct to give a veneer to their Marxism....Marx actually said that.
There is no proof of the theory of course, even though government school suggests it is a fact.

The Democrats claim to be the party of science.....but:


----------



## surada

Do





PoliticalChic said:


> The Left needs Darwin's theory to be correct to give a veneer to their Marxism....Marx actually said that.
> There is no proof of the theory of course, even though government school suggests it is a fact.
> 
> The Democrats claim to be the party of science.....but:
> 
> View attachment 601225
> [/QUOTE. Don't  you know what Marxism is?


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> The Left needs Darwin's theory to be correct to give a veneer to their Marxism....Marx actually said that.
> There is no proof of the theory of course, even though government school suggests it is a fact.
> 
> The Democrats claim to be the party of science.....but:
> 
> View attachment 601225


That populations evolve over time due to environmental changes and biological adaptation, yeah, that proven.

Home skoolurs can be stunted in their knowledge of the sciences so it's important to lend them a helping hand.


----------



## Cellblock2429

surada said:


> What does that have to do with creation science?


/----/ Sorry, I should have spelled it out. My bad.
Genesis 5:2
*He created them male and female*, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created.

Source: 31 Bible verses about Adam And Eve


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> I suggest Richard Feynman for this list.
> 
> *Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
> Richard Feynman*


You and surada should listen to what he said lmao.



			https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/04/richard-feynman-how-scientists-can-believe-in-god.html
		


Next.


----------



## james bond

I can see why zaangalewa thinks his way with Feynman.  Mathematics is supposed to give us the truth and proofs, no?

Watch this video on 3x + 1.


I never said I can prove God, but science backs up the Bible and faith plays a HUGE part.  This is why I am 100% POSITIVE.

So what Feynman said in his noon time lecture is truth.


----------



## abu afak

PoliticalChic said:


> I'm a grad of Columbia University, and have recently finished a remote course at Yale.
> 
> When you completed your work at
> Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Clown College....​
> ...did they give you a diploma, or just that big red nonse?


And is that where you learned to be a Biblical Literalist/Young Earth Creationist wack job?
Because your Cult defies many areas/disciplines of science, not just biology.
`


----------



## PoliticalChic

abu afak said:


> And is that where you learned to be a Biblical Literalist/Young Earth Creationist wack job?
> Because your Cult defies many areas/disciplines of science, not just biology.
> `




The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE?” But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder.                                                                                                                                         David Mamet
“…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, or vice versa?” Ben Shapiro


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> No reason to google you.  You're a worthless POS.
> 
> But RE:  what you said...  Nice.  It's awesome your namesake died under Muhammad.  Are you expecting the same of you?


When I first started posting I was a bit of a crusader and posting mainly pro-Israel. Fairly expert on that conflict. (as I did here from 2006 -2012.. and some a bit later.. with this handle).
I figured my earlier yahoo handle 'murdered-by-Islamic-gunmen' was too long (and perhaps offensive), and they called me 'mbig' for short. (another later handle).

Then I loved 'abu afak' second (now turns out, 4th, but most famous) named victim of Big Mo. (First was a female, Asma bint Marwan). Afak started an internet riot when I used it on many Islamic/arab message boards.
I Fully intended it to! :^)
It created a battle of info/history on the net. Many Islamic websites started making up ****.
Wiki didn't know what to do.
First they changed the entry to [current] Islamic apologetics denying the person/history. (I disputed it there)
But ALL we know about a-a, in fact, came from several IsIamic sources. (incl the esteemed Ibn Ishaq's Bio of Mo). There is/was no other history of him.
So finally they changed the Wiki entry back to the approximate truth.

The unvarnished truth is (and was 20 years ago) best presented by (Christian website) Answering-Islam:
MUHAMMAD AND THE MURDER OF ABU AFAK

`


----------



## abu afak

james bond PoliticalChic other Fundies.
Let's get my position more fully elaborated.

A Christian Fundamentalist is a Missionary, a Muslim Fundamentalist kills him.

Unfortunately we don't have any Koranic literalists here to straighten out, but I can and have done that too.

`


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> When I first started posting I was a bit of a crusader and posting mainly pro-Israel. Fairly expert on that conflict. (as I did here from 2006 -2012.. and some a bit later.. with this handle).
> I figured my earlier yahoo handle 'murdered-by-Islamic-gunmen' was too long (and perhaps offensive), and they called me 'mbig' for short. (another later handle).
> 
> Then I loved 'abu afak' second (now turns out, 4th, but most famous) named victim of Big Mo. (First was a female, Asma bint Marwan). Afak started an internet riot when I used it on many Islamic/arab message boards.
> I Fully intended it to! :^)
> It created a battle of info/history on the net. Many Islamic websites started making up ****.
> Wiki didn't know what to do.
> First they changed the entry to [current] Islamic apologetics denying the person/history. (I disputed it there)
> But ALL we know about a-a, in fact, came from several IsIamic sources. (incl the esteemed Ibn Ishaq's Bio of Mo). There is/was no other history of him.
> So finally they changed the Wiki entry back to the approximate truth.
> 
> The unvarnished truth is (and was 20 years ago) best presented by (Christian website) Answering-Islam:
> MUHAMMAD AND THE MURDER OF ABU AFAK
> 
> `


Interesting.  Are you against Christianity with the same fervor?  If you are, the maybe you're better off in the religion forum as I haven't seen much from you in terms of science.  

For example, there are no experiments for evolution that are presented here.  If one can make a new species, then artificial breeding should be able to create a new species; Not just natural selection.  

Now, if you're going to want a million or billion years BS, then you have no experiment.  This is what I get here.  Thus, evos have no common ancestor to present nor experimental artificial breeding.  I guess one can breed some strange mutations just with natural selection.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Interesting.  Are you against Christianity with the same fervor?  If you are, the maybe you're better off in the religion forum as I haven't seen much from you in terms of science.
> 
> For example, there are no experiments for evolution that are presented here.  If one can make a new species, then artificial breeding should be able to create a new species; Not just natural selection.
> 
> Now, if you're going to want a million or billion years BS, then you have no experiment.  This is what I get here.  Thus, evos have no common ancestor to present nor experimental artificial breeding.  I guess one can breed some strange mutations just with natural selection.


LOL @sshole.
No none has posted more relevant to the topical science than me.
In a landslide.
Of course, you consider the Bible science, and science a religion. :^)
So WTF cares what you think/preach?

The evidence for Evo is Overwhelming, physical, observational, and grows every year with new fossils and every new science of relevance, (DNA, Isotopic dating, etc) which all have helped confirm it.

`


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I can see why zaangalewa thinks his way with Feynman.  Mathematics is supposed to give us the truth and proofs, no?
> 
> Watch this video on 3x + 1.
> 
> 
> I never said I can prove God, but science backs up the Bible and faith plays a HUGE part.  This is why I am 100% POSITIVE.
> 
> So what Feynman said in his noon time lecture is truth.


Science 'backs up' nothing in the Bible.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> james bond PoliticalChic other Fundies.
> Let's get my position more fully elaborated.
> 
> A Christian Fundamentalist is a Missionary, a Muslim Fundamentalist kills him.
> 
> Unfortunately we don't have any Koranic literalists here to straighten out, but I can and have done that too.
> 
> `


What does this have to do with science?  VTB.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> LOL @sshole.
> No none has posted more relevant to the topical science than me.
> In a landslide.
> Of course, you consider the Bible science, and science a religion. :^)
> So WTF cares what you think/preach?
> 
> The evidence for Evo is Overwhelming, physical, observational, and grows every year with new fossils and every new science of relevance, (DNA, Isotopic dating, etc) which all have helped confirm it.
> 
> `


That's what you claim, but why don't you post a link to the evidence or experiment so I can look at it.


----------



## flacaltenn

*Thread had a good run. But the last few pages were a 5 way brawl including the Oposter. So -- it's time to close.  About 20 posts deleted. Several warnings issued. *


----------

