15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[Indeependent]

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.

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]

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.

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

 

[Grumblenuts]

And,.. still nothing..

 

[Indeependent]

And,.. still nothing..

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

 

[Hollie]

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

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

 

[Indeependent]

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

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

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]

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.

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]

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

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

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.

What is Slime Scheme?

Is that something you study at your madrassah?

 

[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.

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.

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.

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

 

[Indeependent]

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

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

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.

What is Slime Scheme?

Is that something you study at your madrassah?

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]

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.

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

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]

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.

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

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?

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

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

 

[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

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

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.

What is Slime Scheme?

Is that something you study at your madrassah?

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.

So how did all the different animals come about?

 

[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.

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

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?

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

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

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

 

[Indeependent]

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

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

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.

What is Slime Scheme?

Is that something you study at your madrassah?

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.

So how did all the different animals come about?

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]

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.

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

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?

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

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

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

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]

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

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

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.

What is Slime Scheme?

Is that something you study at your madrassah?

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.

So how did all the different animals come about?

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.

What study? Make sense for crissakes.

 

[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.

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

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?

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

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

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

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.

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

 

[Hollie]

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

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

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.

What is Slime Scheme?

Is that something you study at your madrassah?

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.

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

 

[Hollie]

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.

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

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?

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

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

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

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.

“way older than 6,000 of our years”.

How many in dog years?