15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[ding]

Grumblenuts , you have debunked jack shit. I could write pages of support for each sentence of what you refer to as "debunked gibberish." You haven't even attempted to debunk one sentence of it.

Still waiting for your first attempt at debunking my statements.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

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

www.scientificamerican.com

[.....]

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

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

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

`

.


`.

May the Force be with you.

 

[ding]

Speaking of which,

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

In computer science, garbage in, garbage out (GIGO) is the concept that flawed, or nonsense input data produces nonsense output or "garbage". In the UK the term sometimes used is rubbish in, rubbish out (RIRO).[1][2][3]

The principle also applies more generally to all analysis and logic, in that arguments are unsound if their premises are flawed.

Notice first that the phrase is still not "garbage in equals garbage out" as you idiotically asserted. Also that , as I indicated, it was first used in "computer science" and later applied "more generally to all analysis and logic" - not simply to your "science" in general assertion which further revealed you to be just a desperate, pathetic poser. A dancing fool.

You are desperate.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Physiologically speaking man is pretty much the same as he was 10,000 years ago. If you are trying to argue man has gotten less spiritual, you are doing a poor job of it.

Let me say this for the third time, evolution and a Creator are not mutually exclusive.

You're doing a desperate job of "trying to argue" alright. Here's an idea, try defining what you mean by "spiritual" if other than just "god-did-it," wimp.

 

[ding]

Physiologically speaking man is pretty much the same as he was 10,000 years ago. If you are trying to argue man has gotten less spiritual, you are doing a poor job of it.

Let me say this for the third time, evolution and a Creator are not mutually exclusive.

You're doing a desperate job of "trying to argue" alright. Here's an idea, try defining what you mean by "spiritual" if other than just "god-did-it," wimp.

Dude, the argument is over. You haven't debunked one statement. And I have given you every opportunity.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Physiologically speaking man is pretty much the same as he was 10,000 years ago. If you are trying to argue man has gotten less spiritual, you are doing a poor job of it.

Let me say this for the third time, evolution and a Creator are not mutually exclusive.

You're doing a desperate job of "trying to argue" alright. Here's an idea, try defining what you mean by "spiritual" if other than just "god-did-it," wimp.

Dude, the argument is over. You haven't debunked one statement. And I have given you every opportunity.

So you've got nothin' as usual. Your surrender noted. Bubbye!

 

[ding]

Physiologically speaking man is pretty much the same as he was 10,000 years ago. If you are trying to argue man has gotten less spiritual, you are doing a poor job of it.

Let me say this for the third time, evolution and a Creator are not mutually exclusive.

You're doing a desperate job of "trying to argue" alright. Here's an idea, try defining what you mean by "spiritual" if other than just "god-did-it," wimp.

Dude, the argument is over. You haven't debunked one statement. And I have given you every opportunity.

So you've got nothin' as usual. Your surrender noted. Bubbye!

pwned

 

[Grumblenuts]

pwned

puny widdle nobody exiting discussion.. upon being challenged to define his terms. Poor fella.

 

[ding]

pwned

puny widdle nobody exiting discussion.. upon being challenged to define his terms. Poor fella.

This is the extent of your capabilities.

 

[Grumblenuts]

pwned

puny widdle nobody exiting discussion.. upon being challenged to define his terms. Poor fella.

This is the extent of your capabilities.

More extensive than simply saying "pwned"

 

[ding]

pwned

puny widdle nobody exiting discussion.. upon being challenged to define his terms. Poor fella.

This is the extent of your capabilities.

More extensive than simply saying "pwned"

I was talking about the level of intellectual discourse.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I was talking about the level of intellectual discourse.

No kidding. So was I. Define "spiritual"..

 

[ding]

pwned

puny widdle nobody exiting discussion.. upon being challenged to define his terms. Poor fella.

This is the extent of your capabilities.

More extensive than simply saying "pwned"

You and your ilk can't objectively analyze the existence of a creator because you only analyze the worst possible perception of a creator. In fact, you have no real perception. You couldn't even offer a description of your perception. Your kind never does. You have never attempted to analyze the best possible perception of a creator.

Why do you care about being good?

 

[ding]

I was talking about the level of intellectual discourse.

No kidding. So was I. Define "spiritual"..

Not of the material or proceeding from the material. Incorporeal.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I was talking about the level of intellectual discourse.

No kidding. So was I. Define "spiritual"..

Not of the material or proceeding from the material. Incorporeal.

OMFG, finally! What made that so tough?

Incorporeal
ADJECTIVE

• 1 Not composed of matter; having no material existence.
  ‘ghostly presences and incorporeal beings’

So do you picture your god as some sort of a ghost?

 

[ding]

I was talking about the level of intellectual discourse.

No kidding. So was I. Define "spiritual"..

Not of the material or proceeding from the material. Incorporeal.

OMFG, finally! What made that so tough?

Incorporeal
ADJECTIVE

• 1 Not composed of matter; having no material existence.
  ‘ghostly presences and incorporeal beings’

So do you picture your god as some sort of a ghost?

I don't recall you asking and it should have been more than obvious what my perception of God is if you had actually read what I wrote.

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

 

[Grumblenuts]

Why do you care about being good?

Why wouldn't I? Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?

 

[ding]

Why do you care about being good?

Why wouldn't I? Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?

It's important to you. You wouldn't want to not be good. Why is that?

 

[ding]

I was talking about the level of intellectual discourse.

No kidding. So was I. Define "spiritual"..

Not of the material or proceeding from the material. Incorporeal.

OMFG, finally! What made that so tough?

Incorporeal
ADJECTIVE

• 1 Not composed of matter; having no material existence.
  ‘ghostly presences and incorporeal beings’

So do you picture your god as some sort of a ghost?

So let's hear your best possible perception of God.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Why do you care about being good?

Why wouldn't I? Were you raised to be a meanie or something otherwise?

It's important to you. You wouldn't want to not be good. Why is that?

Dodging simple questions is apparently your idea of good. So being good is evidently not very important to you. Why is that? I already indicated that I was raised well. That's why I care.