15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[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]

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?

What word of what gods?

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

 

[Hollie]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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"

Tell that to the evolutionists.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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”.

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]

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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

Is that your final answer?

 

[Taz]

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"

Tell that to the evolutionists.

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.

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.

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.

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

So everything is god. How quaint.

 

[LittleNipper]

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[esalla]

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"

Tell that to the evolutionists.

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.

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.

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.

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

So everything is god. How quaint.

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

Do you disagree?

 

[esalla]

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”.

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.

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

 

[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.

Why can't I believe in both?

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

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.

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.

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

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

Is that your final answer?

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

 

[Grumblenuts]

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]

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!

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]

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"

Tell that to the evolutionists.

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.

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.

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.

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

So everything is god. How quaint.

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

Do you disagree?

Intelligence doesn’t make deformed and retarded babies.