15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[abu afak]

Flops believes in ID, and beyond that a god. There is no rational/tangible evidence for any supernatural being.
He's a Fraud.
ie,
Post #352 in "More Strong Evidence for Evolution..." accidentally OUTING himself. (then lied about it)

More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

In the grand scheme of things there is still more evidence of creation than of evolution. :bow3: In the grander scheme of grand schemes, it hasn't gone unnoticed that the creationers offer no evidence to support their claims to supernatural creation.

www.usmessageboard.com

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?

Enjoy the page Seymour
`

 

[zaangalewa]

Jesus
"allow" as in {Oxford Dictionaries}:

, Your Tediousness.

That's a very special nice poetic use of the word "allow" - but you do not write poems. You write agitatoric atheistic nonsense - and no one else murdered so many people on Earth as atheists did do on reason of their belief - which they often say they don't have.

 

[zaangalewa]

Yeah, screw English. Here:

Urban Dictionary: allowness

uses similar to expressions like allow it and allow you

www.urbandictionary.com

Enjoy!

I use her "to allow" o snensof the ergman word "ERÖAUBERN

 

[zaangalewa]

Nothing.

We can see evidence of a designerin the apparent design of the pot.

If we would find a Martian xrkst we would not know what its and who made it.

We can see evidence of the designer in the apparent design of life on Earth,

No. We see life forms which "fit" to this planet and its biosphere. We believe - how pope Francis said it very nice - that "with every species which dies out we lose a voice of god"

which is far more complex and more impossible to come about without intelligent intervention than a pot.

This complexity is indeed an indicator that the other side of this what we call "fitness" in biology is not any simple answer.

But science requires falsifiability.

Yes and no. Also a scientits believes that a nail is able to cause pain without to have to make an experiment.

There's no experiment we can perform whose result might disprove that the pot was designed. Nor that the pot was designed.

I don't understand what you said here. We know what a pot is becae we learned it. But once was a first pot created who got "babies". In this case of "evolution" we leave the sphere of biology.

Because past events are not subject to experimentation.

True and not really true - we are connected with all times - depending on the information we get in the moment from everwhere and "everywhen" of the universe.

The same is true for Origin of Species and abiogenesis.

Do you miss a missing link betwen an H+ ion and an human being? I don't do this. Everyone and everything has always to do wtith each other. What not interacts is not existing. One of the most nice answers in context to one of the boring "misssing link" questions I heard from Konrad Lorenz when he was asked about a missing link beteween apes and human beings He answered: "The missing link between apes and human beings? That are we!"

We know they happened and we can use our common sense

I have a little German problem with this expression because I doubt the normal translation "gesunder Menschenverstand" has really something to do with "common sense".

to know that they did not happen randomly. But they happened in the past, so they are no more subject to experimentation than Darwinian evolution is.

I understand your desire that the universe makes sense.

¿Desire?

But your will to believe

¿will?

that they universe has a purpose is no more scientifically valid than Hollie and her desire to believe that there is no designer of the universe or of life on Earth.

Tell me why something exists at all and why not exists only noting. And tel me why you think science and atheism is the same. Atheism is a spiritual belief.

 

[Grumblenuts]

That's a very special nice poetic use of the word "allow" - but

No, it's really not - but it couldn't be just you - embarrassing yourself - in public - again.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I use her "to allow" o snensof the ergman word "ERÖAUBERN

That Google translates to "conquer" here. So

"Science gives not any allownesses conquering nor forbids science anything."

Slightly better - still not good.

"Science neither allows nor forbids anything."

Way better.

"Science allows everything." or "Science allows for everything."

Now you're getting somewhere.

"Science allows (or permits, or enables) us to study anything."

Now you're cooking with gas.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I have a little German problem with this expression because I doubt the normal translation "gesunder Menschenverstand" has really something to do with "common sense".

Common sense is sound, practical judgment concerning everyday matters, or a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge in a manner that is shared by nearly all people. The everyday understanding of common sense derives from historical philosophical discussion involving several European languages.

- Wikipedia

 

[Grumblenuts]

Atheism is a spiritual belief.

Atheism is lack of spiritual belief. Don't like it? Tough. At least deal with it honestly.

 

[Not a Monkeys Uncle]

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.

Answer this:: Where did all matter come from - or - how was all matter created, and what was there before all matter was created

Answer that definitively, or shut your bitch ass mouth.

You see, I can answer it and you cannot.

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

Pure bullshit. Evolution is a theory, not fact. You are a liar.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Answer this:: Where did all matter come from - or - how was all matter created, and what was there before all matter was created

Answer that definitively, or shut your bitch ass mouth.

Explain what is "material" about any sort of force or electromagnetic field? Are they things or "no things"? Gee, stumped already? No worries -- your atomistic idiot club will Shirley rule long into the future, virtually unchallenged. Your safety assured by the full faith and weight of the Modern Physics Establishment!

 

[Seymour Flops]

No, no, it's all you, buddy. Your weirdness. I'm really no match. See, one minute you're pretending to be some logic guru, the next you're moving your goalposts around like a crazed ref on crack.. Wow, just look at you go:


'Fraid Google has ruled the official term for that "aggravated backpedaling," sonny. Penalty --15 yards off a short pier.. Ooooh, darn.. Smack.. Right on the noggin'.. Not sure he'll be able to just walk that one off, Ed. Ewww, he's not even moving, Carl..

I guess English is a second language for you "and" Hollie?

Those two statements you quoted mean the same thing. The second uses a double negative which can confuse the simple minded. My bad.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Flops believes in ID, and beyond that a god. There is no rational/tangible evidence for any supernatural being.
He's a Fraud.
ie,
Post #352 in "More Strong Evidence for Evolution..." accidentally OUTING himself. (then lied about it)

More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

In the grand scheme of things there is still more evidence of creation than of evolution. :bow3: In the grander scheme of grand schemes, it hasn't gone unnoticed that the creationers offer no evidence to support their claims to supernatural creation.

www.usmessageboard.com

Enjoy the page Seymour
`

Yeah, I outed myself as a poster who asks questions that Abu can't answer.

 

[Hollie]

I guess English is a second language for you "and" Hollie?

Those two statements you quoted mean the same thing. The second uses a double negative which can confuse the simple minded. My bad.

At least for me, it's second nature (<------- see what I did there?), to see threads opened by creationers whose only goal is to attack science, knowledge and the striving for understanding that defines so much of humanity.

You folks are entirely predictable.

 

[zaangalewa]

No, it's really not - but it couldn't be just you - embarrassing yourself - in public - again.

A question which I ask me sometimes in such contextes: Why are nearly all US-Americans always only ignorant, intrigant, arrogant and aggressive assholes when they try to speak with other people in the world? Do you learn to be so in your schools? Is this an educated mentality?

 

[zaangalewa]

Atheism is lack of spiritual belief.'

That's what you believe. You believe not to believe.

Don't like it? Tough. At least deal with it honestly.

I never deal with anything.

 

[Seymour Flops]

At least for me, it's second nature (<------- see what I did there?), to see threads opened by creationers whose only goal is to attack science, knowledge and the striving for understanding that defines so much of humanity.

You folks are entirely predictable.

It's second nature to you to see a post you disagree with but cannot express why, to pretend that it is something it's not and then argue against that false interpretation.

Even then, your argument is lame.

 

[zaangalewa]

- Wikipedia

My problem is that I never trust in any form of common sense because of my "gesunder Menschenverstand" (="sane human kind"). Or with other words: All mankind is also able to be totally wrong while only one human being is perhaps right. How to know without to think? I remember for example when the USA made their "preemptive strike" (=war of agression) against the Iraq under Saddam Husein. When you was on this warpath it was absolutelly impossible to speak with only one US-American in a reasonable way. In the end this had been one of the most stupid wars the USA ever had done. Now in the last days you killed a leader of ISIS in Syria - an ISIS which never had existed if you had not made this war. And what the world made and makes in Syria is a shame for all mankind.

 

[zaangalewa]

That Google translates to "conquer" here. So

"Science gives not any allownesses conquering nor forbids science anything."

Slightly better - still not good.

What about: "Science neither permits nor prohibits anything." - but it is really not any motivation for me to try to learn to speak English in a better way. This single sentence was not an important part of my message to you.

"Science neither allows nor forbids anything."

Way better.

"Science allows everything." or "Science allows for everything."

Now you're getting somewhere.

"Science allows (or permits, or enables) us to study anything."

Now you're cooking with gas.

 

[Hollie]

It's second nature to you to see a post you disagree with but cannot express why, to pretend that it is something it's not and then argue against that false interpretation.

Even then, your argument is lame.

You might want to coordinate your posted comments with the other folks using your account.

I disagree with your conspiracy theories because you define some unnamed, unidentified cabal of "they" as somehow manipulating fossil evidence. You cannot offer anything more than conspiracy theories to support that claim.


You (or someone else), posted: "...pretend that it is something it's not and then argue against that false interpretation".

Coherent sentences would go a long way toward inviting a response.

Are you under the impression that your railing against evilutionist atheist science is any different from the creationers who opened threads similar to yours? The terms you use and even the profound ignorance of science matters is not just similar to earlier creationer rants, they're identical.

 

[Grumblenuts]

My problem is that I never trust in any form of common sense because of my "gesunder Menschenverstand" (="sane human kind"). Or with other words: All mankind is also able to be totally wrong while only one human being is perhaps right. How to know without to think? I remember for example when the USA made their "preemptive strike" (=war of agression) against the Iraq under Saddam Husein. When you was on this warpath it was absolutelly impossible to speak with only one US-American in a reasonable way. In the end this had been one of the most stupid wars the USA ever had done. Now in the last days you killed a leader of ISIS in Syria - an ISIS which never had existed if you had not made this war. And what the world made and makes in Syria is a shame for all mankind.

Well, you didn't ask me along with many others, including my wife, kids, and friends. Adding insult to injury, this time we managed to kill ten women and children out of thirteen supposed enemies and called it "success." A drone could have easily done that well horribly without all the self-risk, expense, and political fanfare. That's how Obama did it. Not all of us lack common sense here either. It was as much BS back then as it is now. We're not a monolith. You should well know that a critical mass of Brownshirts is all the MIC needs to ensure that our senseless warring remains endless. You'd be stuck in the same loop if you hadn't got your ass kicked.