15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[JoeBlow]

He said he decided 9 years ago to be a Christian.



What's nearly a total nonsense. The dynamic structures within a body are for example nearly totally unknown. We kill normally what we like to see.



We are what? Earth and moon are a double planet system - we never left this system. And the cosm is some billion times bigger.

Google it, scientists have found the building blocks of life in outer space. You don't have to be scared. everything will be ok.

 

[zaangalewa]

I'm not the ignorant fool.

Okay.

You are

and I posted why and the truth. It's because of that you are angry

Angry? I? Sorry - but I am a German. What you call "angry" means in German "relaxed". I was not able to reach you - that's all.

that you respond the way you do, but it's not my fault. It's yours.

Fault? What for heavens sake do you speak about? Take a look at your hand - and take a look at the hand of a gorilla - and you know that there is a bridge between both biological structures. This bridge is called "evolution".

And I'm here to teach you the truth

Go to a doctor!

and I think I have, but it's not my fault that you didn't get nor understand the message. I think it's because you don't understand or get the message (which most others do) that makes you an agnostic or not sure.

You have not any little idea about what is agnosticism. But you have an opinion. And this opinion has a racist color.

The rest of your babble proves that you are the ignorant one.

 

[zaangalewa]

Google it, scientists have found the building blocks of life in outer space.

I do not waste my time with such a nonsense. I will discuss this with my dogs. They are experts in "life".

You don't have to be scared. everything will be ok.

I'm not sure what you think about now - but it's amusing.

 

[ding]

That's an entertaining video. Ehrman identifies himself as an agnostic, but claims to be an atheist as well. He explains each a bit and obviously finds the two not mutually exclusive. He even mentions that lots of atheists (like half?) agree with me, i.e. that agnostics are just atheists who lack the balls to simply admit they're atheists. Attempting to apply deductive reasoning to what always seems an intractable semantic argument:

Akin to FFRF in general, Ehrman appears to simply avoid further analysis as much as possible and chooses to be an agnostic rather than an atheist for no clear reason. I see atheism as the larger set, engulfing agnosticism entirely, rendering it logically redundant. Ehrman may see them the other way around or as simply distinct but not exclusive. I've never really cared that much to quibble, the gulf being so much wider between us and those explicitly identifying as religious. Seems petty by comparison. But I'd still find it interesting to explore further. For instance, agnostics might be logically accused of professing belief and (therefore?) being somewhat self-contradictory. Perhaps guilty of pushing god-of-the-gaps reasoning as well?..

Atheism and agnosticism by definition are mutually exclusive. Most who claim to be agnostic are in reality atheists.

 

[ding]

Google it, scientists have found the building blocks of life in outer space. You don't have to be scared. everything will be ok.

You mean... hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen?

Yeah, that's a real shocker.

 

[JoeBlow]

I do not waste my time with such a nonsense. I will discuss this with my dogs. They are experts in "life".



I'm not sure what you think about now - but it's amusing.

You must try really hard to stay ignorant, Mein Fuhrer.

Life's Building Blocks 'Abundant in Space'

 

[JoeBlow]

You mean... hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen?

Yeah, that's a real shocker.

Life's Building Blocks 'Abundant in Space'

 

[ding]

Life's Building Blocks 'Abundant in Space'

No shit. That was my point. It's not news.

 

[JoeBlow]

No shit. That was my point. It's not news.

-I wasn't talking to you it was that james bond retard.

 

[james bond]

The OP is an article from SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN!
Every one of the 15 points IS Science.
What's the matter. Your positions outed by the Article?
And It IS the main issue in the section.
Its certainly a more valid topic than the religious 'design'/ID, or YOUR ELEVEN Thousand god posts. .. your only source.
YOU shouldn't be here! Citing scripture, sending people to hell, etc.
You'd rather Creation. con. AnswersInGenesis.
What a kwazy censorial loser.

SA is an atheist science publication. What does it back up? Give me three examples. It's you who shouldn't be here. The Bible gives us real science in creation science. It's observable and testable. I provided several examples and one was testable with a swan neck flask that you can buy.

You just don't get it and never will because you're stuck on atheism and its evolutionary religion. Evolution isn't based on any science. There's nothing observable nor testable. Why can't you figure this out? Otherwise, you'd be giving me the answers and I'd be listening. However, you got nothing but a worthless reference that science doesn't back up. Thus, you will be going to hell in the afterlife. The Bible tells us that there is an afterlife you atheist! Publications that you mentioned like creation.com and AIG gives us creation science and observable and testable evidence.

Finally, you are wrong about me being a loser. To the contrary, I am the ultimate winner, will get Jesus as final Judge and I get EVERYTHING in the afterlife. The Bible tells us the atheists, agnostics and sinners will get Jesus as the final Judge, the Wrath of God and their final destination of the Lake of Fire.

 

[james bond]

-I wasn't talking to you it was that james bond retard.

I'm not the retard. I'm the one not talking to an ignorant retard like you because there's no point in talking to an ignorant retard once you whip his ass in front of all the people in the science section lol. You have been schooled and can run along like a little retard. ding did the same.

 

[JoeBlow]

I'm not the retard. I'm the one not talking to an ignorant retard like you because there's no point in talking to an ignorant retard once you whip his ass in front of all the people in the science section lol. You have been schooled and can run along like a little retard. ding did the same.

You're probably gay.

 

[james bond]

Angry? I? Sorry - but I am a German. What you call "angry" means in German "relaxed". I was not able to reach you - that's all.

I thought you were angry about the Bible saying ags will go to hell. Then it's fine with me. It's your afterlife.

Fault? What for heavens sake do you speak about? Take a look at your hand - and take a look at the hand of a gorilla - and you know that there is a bridge between both biological structures. This bridge is called "evolution".

Yes, your fault for going against God and the Bible, i.e. being a sinner.

My hand looks like human hand and not a gorilla's. As usual, you make a statement and provide nothing to back it up unlike a scientist would do. Take a look at the gorilla's hand below and see how wrong you are.

First, it's got fur on the arms, wrist and no knuckles. It also has opposable thumbs. If their features are alike, then it's because God reused similar parts. But they're not as their thumbs and fingers are short and stout.

As usual, I even provide the answers for your examples. It's no wonder you're an ag as you do not understand even what you provide as examples nor are prepared to discuss. Ho hum. Boring.

 

[james bond]

You're probably gay.

Heh. The last comment I made about gayness in the forum had to do with Brokeback Mountain. Here's the final scene.



I figured the good ol' boys found out about Jack by using queer bait and he took the bait and got "reeled" in. Those were the f*g bashing days using a baseball bat.

What do you have? Just calling people names, dipshit?

 

[james bond]

Those were the good ol' days where they taught you good stuff in movies. I suppose it's scientific to use queer bait for f*g bashing like it is with fishing.

Today, you get Scientific American which is just a magazine for atheists to bash creationists and their science. It prolly doesn't discuss real science or what does the OP have to say about that? When did he read it last? This month's issue? What is in that? And please discuss what you find interesting.

 

[abu afak]

SA is an atheist science publication. What does it back up? Give me three examples. It's you who shouldn't be here. The Bible gives us real science in creation science. It's observable and testable. I provided several examples and one was testable with a swan neck flask that you can buy.

Scientific American is a highly respected SCIENCE publication: the oldest Magazine in the USA.
The Bible is a RELIGIOUS HOLY Book.
And you want Sciam in the Religion section.. and the Bible/YOU quoting Scripture in Science!

You LUNATIC. YOU and the BIBLE go in the Religion section.
YOU need to CONFINED to the Religion section.

Always crazy, you are now completely gone.
`

 

[james bond]

Scientific American is a highly respected SCIENCE publication: the oldest Magazine in the USA.
The Bible is a RELIGIOUS HOLY Book.
And you want Sciam in the Religion section.. and the Bible/YOU quoting Scripture in Science!

You LUNATIC. YOU and the BIBLE go in the Religion section.
YOU need to CONFINED to the Religion section.

Always crazy, you are now completely gone.
`

>>You LUNATIC.<<

Not I. It's you. You are a hateful, looney atheist. Look at the title of your topics. They should be Religion and Ethics or the Rubber Room forums. Are you and some of the atheists here into bestiality? I can't even discuss science with you, but have to be exposed to your sexual perversions and sexual perversion magazine.

"

The pro-evolution magazine the Scientific American on bestiality​

See also: Evolutionary belief and bestiality and Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation and Atheism and bestiality and Irreligion and superstition

Bestiality is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. The pro-evolution magazine the Scientific American speciously made this unwarranted speculation via their blog on the aberrant practice of bestiality:

“

After all, we are animals.... In any event, philosophical questions aside, I simply find it astounding — and incredibly fascinating from an evolutionary perspective — that so many people (as much as a full percent of the general population) are certifiable zoophiles. And scientific researchers appear to be slowly conceding that zoophilia may be a genuine human sexual orientation.[3]

”

Concerning the aberrant practice of homosexuality, the licentious liberal community has more favorable views on homosexuality than conservatives plus has a history of inflating the number of people who are homosexuals.[4] In addition, liberals are more likely to believe in evolutionary pseudoscience. Thus, it is not surprising the Scientific American engaged in the above cited speculation.

For more information please see: Evolutionary belief and bestiality"

Scientific American - Conservapedia

www.conservapedia.com

"
Evolutionary belief and bestiality






The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University wrote: "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic".[1]

Bestiality is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. In addition to being repulsive and being a sexual taboo in societies, bestiality can cause harm to both animals and humans.[2]

Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists.[3]

The atheist philosopher Peter Singer defends the practice of bestiality (as well as abortion, infanticide and euthanasia). Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-evolution academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at Princeton University.[4][5] Peter Singer was installed as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University in 1999 and in 2006 it was reported that he still worked part-time in that capacity.[6] In 2006, it was also reported that Singer worked part-time as Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics since 2005.[7]

The Bible says that bestiality is a perversion and, under the Old Testament Jewish Law, punishable by death (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: Atheism and morality and Atheism and deception)."

Evolutionary belief and bestiality - Conservapedia

www.conservapedia.com

"Sexual assault is no laughing matter - unless, of course, the would-be rapist isn't human. Who doesn't giggle when they see a small dog humping someone's leg? But what many people don't realize is that reverse bestiality - where an animal makes unwanted sexual advances on a person - is a true problem for scientists working in the field where the actions of wild animals are completely unpredictable."

Observations: Reverse Bestiality

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Just think if SA investigated homosexual perversions. That should be up your alley if you know what I mean lol.

Moreover, you do not back up what you claim while I do. I'm going to claim victory once again. With all the wins I am scoring against you, you should go to the very deepest depths of the Lake of Fire.

 

[Seymour Flops]

>>You LUNATIC.<<

Not I. It's you. You are a hateful, looney atheist. Look at the title of your topics. They should be Religion and Ethics or the Rubber Room forums. Are you and some of the atheists here into bestiality? I can't even discuss science with you, but have to be exposed to your sexual perversions and sexual perversion magazine.

"

The pro-evolution magazine the Scientific American on bestiality​

See also: Evolutionary belief and bestiality and Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation and Atheism and bestiality and Irreligion and superstition

Bestiality is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. The pro-evolution magazine the Scientific American speciously made this unwarranted speculation via their blog on the aberrant practice of bestiality:

“

After all, we are animals.... In any event, philosophical questions aside, I simply find it astounding — and incredibly fascinating from an evolutionary perspective — that so many people (as much as a full percent of the general population) are certifiable zoophiles. And scientific researchers appear to be slowly conceding that zoophilia may be a genuine human sexual orientation.[3]

”

Concerning the aberrant practice of homosexuality, the licentious liberal community has more favorable views on homosexuality than conservatives plus has a history of inflating the number of people who are homosexuals.[4] In addition, liberals are more likely to believe in evolutionary pseudoscience. Thus, it is not surprising the Scientific American engaged in the above cited speculation.

For more information please see: Evolutionary belief and bestiality"

Scientific American - Conservapedia

www.conservapedia.com

"
Evolutionary belief and bestiality






The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University wrote: "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic".[1]

Bestiality is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. In addition to being repulsive and being a sexual taboo in societies, bestiality can cause harm to both animals and humans.[2]

Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists.[3]

The atheist philosopher Peter Singer defends the practice of bestiality (as well as abortion, infanticide and euthanasia). Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-evolution academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at Princeton University.[4][5] Peter Singer was installed as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University in 1999 and in 2006 it was reported that he still worked part-time in that capacity.[6] In 2006, it was also reported that Singer worked part-time as Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics since 2005.[7]

The Bible says that bestiality is a perversion and, under the Old Testament Jewish Law, punishable by death (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: Atheism and morality and Atheism and deception)."

Scientific American - Conservapedia

www.conservapedia.com

Observations: Reverse Bestiality

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Moreover, you do not back up what you claim while I do. I'm going to claim victory once again. With all the wins I am scoring against you, you should go to the very deepest depths of the Lake of Fire.

You make two very good points, here.

First, that Abu constantly makes threads on this science and technology forum which are nothing more than attempts to jam his atheist religious believes down the throats of non-believers. He never provides a single bit of evidence for non-guided evolution, he just bolds and all-caps hoping people will somehow be afraid of that.

Second, this religious belief in humans as animals certainly is the driving force for the newly revived interest in bestiality on the part of Abu and his ilk. Abu will never believe that it is an abomination before god, nor will he understand just how unhealthy his "trysts" with the neighbor's calf or sheep are.

But it is a sign of his vileness that he never stops to think that any such sexual activity with an animal is rape on the face of it. Animals cannot consent to sex with humans, nor to they have the instinct to copulate with humans as they do to copulate with animals of their kind.

I beseech you, Abu! How old was the last animal that you raped? Two years? Three?

 

[abu afak]

>>You LUNATIC.<<

Not I. It's you. You are a hateful, looney atheist. Look at the title of your topics. They should be Religion and Ethics or the Rubber Room forums. Are you and some of the atheists here into bestiality? I can't even discuss science with you, but have to be exposed to your sexual perversions and sexual perversion magazine.

"

The pro-evolution magazine the Scientific American on bestiality​

See also: Evolutionary belief and bestiality and Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation and Atheism and bestiality and Irreligion and superstition

Bestiality is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. The pro-evolution magazine the Scientific American speciously made this unwarranted speculation via their blog on the aberrant practice of bestiality:

“

After all, we are animals.... In any event, philosophical questions aside, I simply find it astounding — and incredibly fascinating from an evolutionary perspective — that so many people (as much as a full percent of the general population) are certifiable zoophiles. And scientific researchers appear to be slowly conceding that zoophilia may be a genuine human sexual orientation.[3]

”

Concerning the aberrant practice of homosexuality, the licentious liberal community has more favorable views on homosexuality than conservatives plus has a history of inflating the number of people who are homosexuals.[4] In addition, liberals are more likely to believe in evolutionary pseudoscience. Thus, it is not surprising the Scientific American engaged in the above cited speculation.

For more information please see: Evolutionary belief and bestiality"

Scientific American - Conservapedia

www.conservapedia.com

"
Evolutionary belief and bestiality






The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University wrote: "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic".[1]

Bestiality is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. In addition to being repulsive and being a sexual taboo in societies, bestiality can cause harm to both animals and humans.[2]

Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists.[3]

The atheist philosopher Peter Singer defends the practice of bestiality (as well as abortion, infanticide and euthanasia). Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-evolution academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at Princeton University.[4][5] Peter Singer was installed as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University in 1999 and in 2006 it was reported that he still worked part-time in that capacity.[6] In 2006, it was also reported that Singer worked part-time as Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics since 2005.[7]

The Bible says that bestiality is a perversion and, under the Old Testament Jewish Law, punishable by death (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: Atheism and morality and Atheism and deception)."

Observations: Reverse Bestiality

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Moreover, you do not back up what you claim while I do. I'm going to claim victory once again. With all the wins I am scoring against you, you should go to the very deepest depths of the Lake of Fire.

LOL
'Conservapedia.
I just read their entry on the BBC: "anti-Christian," "anti-USA," and "Bigoted" too.

They have no problem with David Duke though!

David Duke - Conservapedia

www.conservapedia.com

LOFL.

 

[Hollie]

You make two very good points, here.

First, that Abu constantly makes threads on this science and technology forum which are nothing more than attempts to jam his atheist religious believes down the throats of non-believers. He never provides a single bit of evidence for non-guided evolution, he just bolds and all-caps hoping people will somehow be afraid of that.

Second, this religious belief in humans as animals certainly is the driving force for the newly revived interest in bestiality on the part of Abu and his ilk. Abu will never believe that it is an abomination before god, nor will he understand just how unhealthy his "trysts" with the neighbor's calf or sheep are.

But it is a sign of his vileness that he never stops to think that any such sexual activity with an animal is rape on the face of it. Animals cannot consent to sex with humans, nor to they have the instinct to copulate with humans as they do to copulate with animals of their kind.

I beseech you, Abu! How old was the last animal that you raped? Two years? Three?

The Jimmy Swaggert groupies are on a Jihad.