15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[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.

Maimonides responds...

"...Whatever is formed of any matter receives the most perfect form possible in that species of matter ; in each individual case the defects are in accordance with the defects of that individual matter...."

MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Part 3, Chapter XII, Titled "Three Kinds of'Evil : (1) That caused by the Nature "of Man" ; (2) Caused by Man to Man ; (3) Caused by Man to himself" Page 267 - 272

Why should I give a fuck what that dude says?

You should always care what logic says, Taz.

He wears a towel wrapped around his head. That’s not logical.

 

[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.

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

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

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

I’m going to count to three....

I doubt you can.

How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.\
I can't answer this question because it didn't happen.

Well, you did write: “For the 21st and last time...”. And here you are, again.

The gods are not going to be happy about this.

God is not happy with your unwillingness to seek out an answer to a question.
There's nothing worse than a person who won't seek an answer to a question.

How do you know that god gives a shit?

Because you're still alive.

Tell us how to add to mankind's quality of life other than being a keyboard cynic.

Don’t believe in fairy tales.

They only seem like fairy tales to you because that's what you are looking for, Taz.

They aren’t based on science, just fairy tales. Virgin birth, flood, ...

 

[ding]

Man, you're slow! I developed it all at a snails pace.. and there ain't that much to it!

So you can't state your hypothesis?

I didn't think you would? Even you know how stupid it would sound.

Not at all, sparky pants. Alternatively, you could simply review the thread as I implied. But, no worries, I'll explain it more formally.. after getting my dinner ready..

I can't wait to read your hypothesis.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Wait.. just an aside first though,

If you can't figure out what garbage in equals garbage out, I'm afraid I can't help you. It's a common phrase that any one who claims to be enlightened by science should understand.

That's actually an old computer programming cliche, not something commonly related to "science" you pusillanimous pile of pontificating porcupine piss.

Ah, better.. now with that out of the way..

 

[ding]

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.

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

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

I’m going to count to three....

I doubt you can.

How did millions of asexual slime get together and decide to form, over hundreds of millions of years, into millions of male/female species.\
I can't answer this question because it didn't happen.

Well, you did write: “For the 21st and last time...”. And here you are, again.

The gods are not going to be happy about this.

God is not happy with your unwillingness to seek out an answer to a question.
There's nothing worse than a person who won't seek an answer to a question.

How do you know that god gives a shit?

Because you're still alive.

Tell us how to add to mankind's quality of life other than being a keyboard cynic.

Don’t believe in fairy tales.

They only seem like fairy tales to you because that's what you are looking for, Taz.

They aren’t based on science, just fairy tales. Virgin birth, flood, ...

The laws of nature say otherwise, Taz. As for your understanding of ancient man's allegorical account of historical events and his understanding of the answers to the origin questions, I don't believe you posses the intellect for that conversation.

 

[ding]

Wait.. just an aside first though,

If you can't figure out what garbage in equals garbage out, I'm afraid I can't help you. It's a common phrase that any one who claims to be enlightened by science should understand.

That's actually an old computer programming cliche, not something commonly related to "science" you pusillanimous pile of pontificating porcupine piss.

Ah, better.. now with that out of the way..

A physicist setting up an experiment on radiation, decides beforehand which of those sets of properties he will encounter. If he does a wave experiment, he gets a wave answer; from a particle experiment he gets a particle answer. If he were to conclude radiation was not a particle when he set up his experiment for a wave, that would be garbage in equals garbage out.

This is not an isolated example. In fact, it is the reason for peer reviews, to make sure there was no garbage in that yielded garbage out.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Okay, dingbat. Just for you:

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!

That's where it started. Testing LittleNipper's hypothesis, "I get my prayers answered, and I don't believe in coincidence." Now just one person (as in this case) reporting positive results does not mean their theory holds any water generally. So I went ahead and tested it foe myself, on myself, and got no result. Same analysis. Being just one person as well, my negative result means little to nothing in general. Indeed, may be doing it wrong. I may not be as qualified as others to perform the experiment. So, I invited others to repeat my experiment either to confirm or negate my results. Let's see.. Yep, so far, you still got nuthin'!

 

[ding]

Okay, dingbat. Just for you:

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!

That's where it started. Testing LittleNipper's hypothesis, "I get my prayers answered, and I don't believe in coincidence." Now just one person (as in this case) reporting positive results does not mean their theory holds any water generally. So I went ahead and tested it foe myself, on myself, and got no result. Same analysis. Being just one person as well, my negative result means little to nothing in general. Indeed, may be doing it wrong. I may not be as qualified as others to perform the experiment. So, I invited others to repeat my experiment either to confirm or negate my results. Let's see.. Yep, so far, you still got nuthin'!

I'm not asking for his hypothesis. I am asking for YOUR hypothesis.

 

[ding]

Yep, so far, you still got nuthin'!

I have you being unable to provide YOUR hypothesis. That's something.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Wait.. just an aside first though,

If you can't figure out what garbage in equals garbage out, I'm afraid I can't help you. It's a common phrase that any one who claims to be enlightened by science should understand.

That's actually an old computer programming cliche, not something commonly related to "science" you pusillanimous pile of pontificating porcupine piss.

Ah, better.. now with that out of the way..

A physicist setting up an experiment on radiation, decides beforehand which of those sets of properties he will encounter. If he does a wave experiment, he gets a wave answer; from a particle experiment he gets a particle answer. If he were to conclude radiation was not a particle when he set up his experiment for a wave, that would be garbage in equals garbage out.

This is not an isolated example. In fact, it is the reason for peer reviews, to make sure there was no garbage in that yielded garbage out.

Yes, and I'm telling you the notion came from programming you moron. It's likely that I was among the first thousand people to use the expression AS INTENDED. Now sit down, poser.

 

[ding]

Wait.. just an aside first though,

If you can't figure out what garbage in equals garbage out, I'm afraid I can't help you. It's a common phrase that any one who claims to be enlightened by science should understand.

That's actually an old computer programming cliche, not something commonly related to "science" you pusillanimous pile of pontificating porcupine piss.

Ah, better.. now with that out of the way..

A physicist setting up an experiment on radiation, decides beforehand which of those sets of properties he will encounter. If he does a wave experiment, he gets a wave answer; from a particle experiment he gets a particle answer. If he were to conclude radiation was not a particle when he set up his experiment for a wave, that would be garbage in equals garbage out.

This is not an isolated example. In fact, it is the reason for peer reviews, to make sure there was no garbage in that yielded garbage out.

Yes, and I'm telling you the notion came from programming you moron. In it's likely that I was among the first thousand people to use the expression AS INTENDED. Now sit down, poser.

And I am telling you its meaning is not limited to programming. It can be used in any situation where logic is tested.

Specifically, your belief that the purpose of prayer is to get stuff.

Still waiting on YOUR hypothesis BTW.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yep, so far, you still got nuthin'!

I have you being unable to provide YOUR hypothesis. That's something.

Wait, you just said it wasn't my hypothesis.. Go fish.

 

[ding]

Yep, so far, you still got nuthin'!

I have you being unable to provide YOUR hypothesis. That's something.

Wait, you just said it wasn't my hypothesis.. Go fish.

Like I said before, I didn't think YOU could provide one. I win. Again.

 

[Grumblenuts]

And I am telling you its meaning is not limited to programming.

No need to tell me, sparky. I knew more about it than you to begin with.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yep, so far, you still got nuthin'!

I have you being unable to provide YOUR hypothesis. That's something.

Wait, you just said it wasn't my hypothesis.. Go fish.

Like I said before, I didn't think YOU could provide one. I win. Again.

You're just scaring the fish is all.

 

[ding]

Grumblenuts has fallen into the trap of criticizing what he doesn't believe to arrive at what he does believe without ever actually testing what he believes.

It is the reason why Grumblenuts has never seriously considered why prayer exists in the first place. He has made an assumption that prayer is based upon fairytales. As such everything he sees is skewed to that result.

The problem with that is that according to natural selection prayer still exists because it provides a functional advantage. According to natural selection, if something does not provide a functional advantage it is eventually discarded.

Since prayer has existed since the beginning of man, clearly prayer provides functional advantage from a darwinian point of view.

 

[Indeependent]

And I am telling you its meaning is not limited to programming.

No need to tell me, sparky. I knew more about it than you to begin with.

Your post contents belie your knowledge.
AKA...you post like a simpleton.

 

[ding]

And I am telling you its meaning is not limited to programming.

No need to tell me, sparky. I knew more about it than you to begin with.

It doesn't seem that way to me as you literally were arguing against the reason peer reviews are performed.

Still waiting for YOUR hypothesis on prayer.

 

[ding]

Yep, so far, you still got nuthin'!

I have you being unable to provide YOUR hypothesis. That's something.

Wait, you just said it wasn't my hypothesis.. Go fish.

Like I said before, I didn't think YOU could provide one. I win. Again.

You're just scaring the fish is all.

I am winning the battle.

Still waiting on YOUR hypothesis on prayer.

 

[Grumblenuts]

And I am telling you its meaning is not limited to programming.

No need to tell me, sparky. I knew more about it than you to begin with.

Your post contents belie your knowledge.
AKA...you post like a simpleton.

Just making sure not to lose people like you and ding, clearly among the lowest common denominators here.

Seems an impossible task, but I try.