15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[zaangalewa]

Lol, no. It just means that you're still the same age while everyone else on Earth aged and it's a future time from the time you left.

You don't know why we can't time travel into the past?

I have some ideas about why this could be impossible - but I have also some ideas why it could be possible.

Hint: How fast would your space ship have to go?

If you like to warm up 3°K to 100°C then this is a difference of 370°. 370/3 = ~ 12500%. A growth of a mass from 1 kg to 125 kg needs ... about 0.999968% of the lightspeed ... if I calculated this in the right way - what I doubt because I am not a physicist. But if this is right I could say everyone who tries to travel 125 times faster into the future than all others around are doing would throw the own body into a cooking universe.

 

[zaangalewa]

Creationism is indeed unfalsifiable. ...

When you see a pot it was made from human beings. What to do with the word "unfalsifiable" in such an easily evident context?

The problem with our own creation and the creation of everything what we know - today we could call this in natural science also "the birth of the universe" - is totally different from any other problem which we know.

Let me tell you my biggest problem in this context: It's impossible for me - absolutelly impossible - to think that this universe here makes not any sense at all - although I don't know what the sense of this universe is.
This "sense" - whatever it is - decided - however this is possible - to create time and suddenly - whatever suddenly means now - existed time. But there had been never anything to sense before this had happened. ... And now tell me what to falsify or to verify in which way. Nothing what you and I are able to say about such a situation makes any sense at all.

But means this now I am able to believe that the existence of the universe makes not any sense? Still I am not able to believe this! And even if someone will murder me on a totally senseless reason for to show that nothing makes any sense at all - then I would nevertheless not be able to believe such things happen because this universe (=this plan of god) is senseless.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Do you have a suggestion on how to handle your unprovability problem. Maybe everyone should go their separate ways and not make futile arguments on a message board?
.

I suppose we could do that.

But I see such rigidity of personality, anger, and bitterness in many posters. I fear that if they did not have people like me making rational arguments for them to respond to with personal attacks, they would be kicking their dogs, beating their kids or lighting sleeping spouses on fire.

I'm happy to be a safety valve for them.

 

[abu afak]

I suppose we could do that.

But I see such rigidity of personality, anger, and bitterness in many posters. I fear that if they did not have people like me making rational arguments for them to respond to with personal attacks, they would be kicking their dogs, beating their kids or lighting sleeping spouses on fire.

I'm happy to be a safety valve for them.

You have not made any Rational arguments.
You believe in ID, and beyond that a god. There is no rational/tangible evidence for any supernatural being.
ie,
You said in THIS thread LIAR Boy: (then lied about it)
Post #352
in: More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

Seymour Flops said:
Who sent the Meteor that came right in time for the smart little rodent proto-mammals to be saved from the far less intelligent, but ravenously hunting dinosaurs?
Was that another co-inkie-dink?

`

 

[james bond]

abu afak

Are you not able to say what you think because you are not thinking at all?

abu afak and the atheists do not have any science from evolution to talk about. They are here to only voice their complaints about creationists. Will they be complaining about us forever?

Yes. "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7

I suppose we can remain whole longer if we are embalmed properly before burial -- After someone dies and has been embalmed, how long will their body last before you have to have the funeral?, but it doesn't matter even if we are creamated. I've heard it's better to be whole to be resurrected but the Bible states it doesn't matter. Some are watching too many Walking Dead shows lol.

"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life." Romans 6:3-4

 

[Seymour Flops]

You have not made any Rational arguments.
You believe in ID, and beyond that a god. There is no rational/tangible evidence for any supernatural being.
ie,
You said in THIS thread LIAR Boy: (then lied about it)
Post #352
in: More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges


`

Dude, you brought up the dino-busting meteor, not me. Click on your own link and see for yourself.

Wuwei you see what I mean about giving these unstable types an outlet to vent?

I doubt Abu has kids, but without me, I can easily picture him buying a half-dozen hamsters at a pet shop so he can stomp them one by one when he gets frustrated with life.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Creationism is indeed unfalsifiable. No experiment can be performed to determine whether it did or did not happen. So it is not science on any but a layman's inaccurate sense of the word.

But the sane is true for Darwinism. Any attempt to test what did happen can only at best show whether something might have happened.

Whether Darwinist, or creationist, or intelligent design theorist, if a person insists we must accept one unscientific theory and exclude other unscientific theories, they are guilty of special pleading, a common rhetorical fallacy.

Sorry, no. Pseudoscience is:

noun

1. a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

"Creationism" intentionally defies logic and by definition:

noun

1. the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

Science:

noun

1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Belief:

noun

1. 1.
   an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

Faith:

noun

1. 1.
   complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Science has allowed us to evolve beyond having to rely upon belief and faith.

 

[abu afak]

Dude, you brought up the dino-busting meteor, not me. Click on your own link and see for yourself.

Wuwei you see what I mean about giving these unstable types an outlet to vent?

I doubt Abu has kids, but without me, I can easily picture him buying a half-dozen hamsters at a pet shop so he can stomp them one by one when he gets frustrated with life.

I brought it up as a geological, evolution-changing fact, because it is.
YOU suggested GodDidIt and it was "No co-inkie-dinkie."

You are a Religious crackpot who got caught/outed.
You have no rational argument.
`

 

[Seymour Flops]

Sorry, no. Pseudoscience is:

"Creationism" intentionally defies logic and by definition:

Science:

Belief:

Faith:

Science has allowed us to evolve beyond having to rely upon belief and faith.

True, but the study of the origin of life on Earth is not science.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I brought it up as a geological, evolution-changing fact, because it is.
YOU suggested GodDidIt and it was "No co-inkie-dinkie."

You are a Religious crackpot who got caught/outed.
You have no rational argument.
`

I did not suggest any such thing. I asked a question.

If my questions make you uncomfortable, blame the lies you've taken comfort in.

Then go stomp your hamster.

 

[Grumblenuts]

So what did Pasteur actually prove / refute / demonstrate with his "Swan neck" experiments?:

In 1862, the great French scientist Louis Pasteur tested the validity of a widely held belief in spontaneous generation.

{...}

Pasteur thus refuted the notion of spontaneous generation.

{...}

Pasteur's experiment showed that microbes cannot arise from nonliving materials under the conditions that existed on Earth during his lifetime. But his experiment did not prove that spontaneous generation never occurred. Eons ago, conditions on Earth and in the atmosphere above it were vastly different. Indeed, conditions similar to those found on primitive Earth may have existed, or may exist now, on other bodies in our solar system and elsewhere. This has led scientists to ask whether life has originated on other bodies in space, as it did on Earth.

I would simply add that his use of scientific method to refute "a widely held belief" or "notion" clearly does not help a Creationist's cause at all. In fact, quite the contrary.

That's why I poked fun at that notion earlier.

 

[james bond]

Do you have a suggestion on how to handle your unprovability problem. Maybe everyone should go their separate ways and not make futile arguments on a message board?

I've provided plenty of scientific evidence for God, but the atheists still do not believe.

I've also suggested to have faith in God which is a sure fire winner.

However, the atheists here appear to have their own faith in Darwin, evolution even without any evidence for macroevolution and no God/gods. If I'm wrong, then what do the atheists have in terms of evidence or experiments to show evolution?

Thus, my final absolute proof in spite your faith in atheism is death. It is also my reward for my faith.

 

[james bond]

So what did Pasteur actually prove / refute / demonstrate with his "Swan neck" experiments?

He used broth that would quickly become contaminated with bacteria if left in the open air. He put the contaminated broth in a open flask and boiled it to kill the bacteria. He left it sitting and it became contaminated again.

Next he designed a swan neck flask and put the uncontaminated boiled broth in there and let it sit in the open air. It did not become contaminated.

This showed that spontaneous generation/abiogenesis did not happen. What does it show to the atheists?

 

[james bond]

I have some ideas about why this could be impossible - but I have also some ideas why it could be possible.



If you like to warm up 3°K to 100°C then this is a difference of 370°. 370/3 = ~ 12500%. A growth of a mass from 1 kg to 125 kg needs ... about 0.999968% of the lightspeed ... if I calculated this in the right way - what I doubt because I am not a physicist. But if this is right I could say everyone who tries to travel 125 times faster into the future than all others around are doing would throw the own body into a cooking universe.

It's impossible to time travel back into the past because they would have to travel faster than light.

I just laugh at these atheist scientists who think they can travel at FTL speeds -- Faster than light travel is possible, scientist claims. What do you think? Am I assuming too harshly?

Creation scientists have their own light travel time problem -- Solving the Light Travel Time Problem.

Here's my new hypothesis in regards to our spacetime universe expanding. It isn't from the big bang and our current universe. I started to think there isn't enough energy to keep our current universe expanding. Thus, what we see expanding is our spacetime past and that somewhere out in spacetime our current universe changes to our past spacetime expansion. Thus, we can hypothetically travel to our past (assuming our past exists in past spacetime and light).

 

[Wuwei]

I suppose we could do that.

But I see such rigidity of personality, anger, and bitterness in many posters. I fear that if they did not have people like me making rational arguments for them to respond to with personal attacks, they would be kicking their dogs, beating their kids or lighting sleeping spouses on fire.

I'm happy to be a safety valve for them.

If that's what you want, have fun. I used to show easy to understand science to them about the impossibilities of the Genesis but when they have no answer they just blow up. They can't think outside the box. Logic does not work.
.

 

[Grumblenuts]

He used broth

No shkidding, Sherlock.

This showed that spontaneous generation/abiogenesis did not happen. What does it show to the atheists?

Since you chose to truncate my answer instead of replying to it like an adult, here it is again (link is provided):

In 1862, the great French scientist Louis Pasteur tested the validity of a widely held belief in spontaneous generation.
{...}
Pasteur thus refuted the notion of spontaneous generation.
{...}
Pasteur's experiment showed that microbes cannot arise from nonliving materials under the conditions that existed on Earth during his lifetime. But his experiment did not prove that spontaneous generation never occurred. Eons ago, conditions on Earth and in the atmosphere above it were vastly different. Indeed, conditions similar to those found on primitive Earth may have existed, or may exist now, on other bodies in our solar system and elsewhere. This has led scientists to ask whether life has originated on other bodies in space, as it did on Earth.

I'll take this opportunity to add, "the conditions that existed on Earth during his lifetime" include relatively recently discovering the microscope, for example, without which Pasteur would have effectively been blind. Since Pasteur, our equipment and scientific understanding has again improved tremendously. Instead of embracing that, you choose to regress back to the time when people had no choice but to fear gods and spiritual nonsense. Enjoy. I prefer experiencing current reality, no matter how harsh, and helping to improve upon it.. instead of doing whatever you imagine you're doing.

 

[zaangalewa]

abu afak and the atheists do not have any science from evolution to talk about. They are here to only voice their complaints about creationists. Will they be complaining about us forever?

Yes. "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7

I suppose we can remain whole longer if we are embalmed properly before burial -- After someone dies and has been embalmed, how long will their body last before you have to have the funeral?, but it doesn't matter even if we are creamated. I've heard it's better to be whole to be resurrected but the Bible states it doesn't matter. Some are watching too many Walking Dead shows lol.

"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life." Romans 6:3-4

?

 

[zaangalewa]

It's impossible to time travel back into the past because they would have to travel faster than light.

But you don't know why you say so, isn't it?

I just laugh at these atheist scientists who think they can travel at FTL speeds -- Faster than light travel is possible, scientist claims. What do you think? Am I assuming too harshly?

Creation scientists have their own light travel time problem -- Solving the Light Travel Time Problem.

Here's my new hypothesis in regards to our spacetime universe expanding. It isn't from the big bang

¿It isn't from a first beginning?

and our current universe. I started to think there isn't enough energy to keep our current universe expanding.

It expands

Thus, what we see expanding is our spacetime past and that somewhere out in spacetime our current universe changes to our past spacetime expansion.

Sounds weird.

Thus, we can hypothetically travel to our past (assuming our past exists in past spacetime and light).

So you seem to think where and when was yesterday still today this where and when exists and our universe is there. But what if there is nothing in this position now? No space, no time, no energy - only nothing?

 

[Hollie]

True, but the study of the origin of life on Earth is not science.

Biology isn't science?

I'm not clear that screeching ''the gods did it'' will ever allow us to learn much. You folks spent 800 years during the Dark Ages squashing human discovery and intellect.

 

[zaangalewa]

...

Science has allowed us to evolve beyond having to rely upon belief and faith.

A nice short form of some of the most weird prejudices.

"Science has allowed us"

Science gives not any allownesses nor forbids science anything. Established scientists are perhaps doing such things - but this is a sociological problem of power structures and has nothign to do with science on its own. Hundreds and thousands of scientists in the past tried for example to construct perpetua mobilia before Julius Robert von Mayer and Rudolf Clausius showed that such systems are theoretically impossible - what doesn't mean they did allow or forbid something. It makes just simple not any sense to try to construct a perpetuum mobile.

"allowed us to evolve"

Evolution is not any process who depends on human beings. Evolution is part of the nature - like gravity is for example part of the nature. No one allows gravity or forbids gravity to do or not to do what gravity is doing. Same with evolution. And it exists not any direction of evolution. "To evolve" is also able to mean "to degenerate".

"beyond having to rely upon belief and faith."

Max Plank for example relied upon the Christian belief and faith. And in general is atheism also only a form of spiritual belief.