15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[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]

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]

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.

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.

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

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

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]

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.

`

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]

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.

`

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]

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.

`

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.''

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

 

[Indeependent]

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.

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.

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

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

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.

You realize that your post contains nothing to bolster evolution.

 

[Grumblenuts]

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]

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]

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.

`

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

`

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]

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]

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."

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.