15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[Indeependent]

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.

I will be honest and humble...
I know many scientists who know what they don't know and I know less than they do.
They know that no one on earth has mastered the required disciplines and then spent 50 years proving this "theory" to be true.
They all state that no one in history who hasn't been paid off can prove even an electron's worth of evidence for evolution.
I can watch pro-evolution on YouTube all day long and then watch one video that questions why dozens of points weren't discussed to prove anything.

I am a data analyst and I know if someone is bluffing when they ask for non-required data and when they're being honest.

Your search requires you to spend many years mastering the required sciences and documentation methods...
If your haven't begun this process yet...WHY NOT?

 

[Grumblenuts]

They know that no one on earth has mastered the required disciplines and then spent 50 years proving this "theory" to be true.

Scientists don't prove theories period. They test them, test them some more.., modify where apparently needed, rinse and repeat..

As the lady just said, you have yet to seriously begin testing your positive claim of supernatural intervention.

 

[Indeependent]

They know that no one on earth has mastered the required disciplines and then spent 50 years proving this "theory" to be true.

Scientists don't prove theories period. They test them, test them some more.., modify where apparently needed, rinse and repeat..

As the lady just said, you have yet to seriously begin testing your positive claim of supernatural intervention.

You have yet to prove there is a scientist on earth that has mastered 20+ sciences and spent 50 years proving his theory.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You are just being silly. Here's some light reading I was just perusing. Who knows, might cheer you up:

Contrary to previous predictions, powerful moralizing ‘big gods’ and prosocial supernatural punishment tend to appear only after the emergence of ‘megasocieties’ with populations of more than around one million people. Moralizing gods are not a prerequisite for the evolution of social complexity, but they may help to sustain and expand complex multi-ethnic empires after they have become established. By contrast, rituals that facilitate the standardization of religious traditions across large populations generally precede the appearance of moralizing gods. This suggests that ritual practices were more important than the particular content of religious belief to the initial rise of social complexity. Supernatural agents that punish direct affronts to themselves (for example, failure to perform sacrifices or observe taboos) are commonly represented in global history, but rarely are such deities believed to punish moral violations in interactions between humans. Recent millennia, however, have seen the rise and spread of several ‘prosocial religions’, which include either powerful ‘moralizing high gods’ (MHG; for example, the Abrahamic God) or more general ‘broad supernatural punishment’ (BSP) of moral transgressions

 

[Indeependent]

You are just being silly. Here's some light reading I was just perusing. Who knows, might cheer you up:

Contrary to previous predictions, powerful moralizing ‘big gods’ and prosocial supernatural punishment tend to appear only after the emergence of ‘megasocieties’ with populations of more than around one million people. Moralizing gods are not a prerequisite for the evolution of social complexity, but they may help to sustain and expand complex multi-ethnic empires after they have become established. By contrast, rituals that facilitate the standardization of religious traditions across large populations generally precede the appearance of moralizing gods. This suggests that ritual practices were more important than the particular content of religious belief to the initial rise of social complexity. Supernatural agents that punish direct affronts to themselves (for example, failure to perform sacrifices or observe taboos) are commonly represented in global history, but rarely are such deities believed to punish moral violations in interactions between humans. Recent millennia, however, have seen the rise and spread of several ‘prosocial religions’, which include either powerful ‘moralizing high gods’

And yet Atheism, a relatively new and "enlightened" belief system, has resulted in far more murders in the last 200 years than any religious system.

 

[Hollie]

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.

I will be honest and humble...
I know many scientists who know what they don't know and I know less than they do.
They know that no one on earth has mastered the required disciplines and then spent 50 years proving this "theory" to be true.
They all state that no one in history who hasn't been paid off can prove even an electron's worth of evidence for evolution.
I can watch pro-evolution on YouTube all day long and then watch one video that questions why dozens of points weren't discussed to prove anything.

I am a data analyst and I know if someone is bluffing when they ask for non-required data and when they're being honest.

Your search requires you to spend many years mastering the required sciences and documentation methods...
If your haven't begun this process yet...WHY NOT?

I don’t have any way of knowing what scientists you may have contact with so I’m not clear what your comment about required disciplines and 50 years trying to prove a theory. Additionally, I would never suggest anyone learn science matters watching YouTube videos.


Biological complexity (and the evolution of greater complexity over immense time scales), is readily observed in the fosill and biological record.

While all of the mechanisms that allowed biological life on the planet to first spark to life are not understood, abiogenesis and then the mechanisms of evolution are fully consistent with natural processes.

Please identify how you account for supernatural processes and the various supernatural agents who managed those processes. Nature routinely finds suboptimal solutions that various gods would never choose. Nature is constrained by contingent history, gods are not. The consequences of the difference are obvious and compelling.

Furthermore the harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, the ugliness of competition, all of that contradicts the notion of "Beautiful, simple, unstoppable" gods directing the natural world.

 

[Indeependent]

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.

I will be honest and humble...
I know many scientists who know what they don't know and I know less than they do.
They know that no one on earth has mastered the required disciplines and then spent 50 years proving this "theory" to be true.
They all state that no one in history who hasn't been paid off can prove even an electron's worth of evidence for evolution.
I can watch pro-evolution on YouTube all day long and then watch one video that questions why dozens of points weren't discussed to prove anything.

I am a data analyst and I know if someone is bluffing when they ask for non-required data and when they're being honest.

Your search requires you to spend many years mastering the required sciences and documentation methods...
If your haven't begun this process yet...WHY NOT?

I don’t have any way of knowing what scientists you may have contact with so I’m not clear what your comment about required disciplines and 50 years trying to prove a theory. Additionally, I would never suggest anyone learn science matters watching YouTube videos.


Biological complexity (and the evolution of greater complexity over immense time scales), is readily observed in the fosill and biological record.

While all of the mechanisms that allowed biological life on the planet to first spark to life are not understood, abiogenesis and then the mechanisms of evolution are fully consistent with natural processes.

Please identify how you account for supernatural processes and the various supernatural agents who managed those processes. Nature routinely finds suboptimal solutions that various gods would never choose. Nature is constrained by contingent history, gods are not. The consequences of the difference are obvious and compelling.

Furthermore the harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, the ugliness of competition, all of that contradicts the notion of "Beautiful, simple, unstoppable" gods directing the natural world.

I'm glad you haven't been keeping up with how the fossil record has been proven to be a lie.
I'm also glad you don't realize that Biology is only one of the many sciences that must be mastered to prove evolution.

You're doing well.

There is only One God, not many.
The fact that you don't believe in God is your perogative.

I agree, why would a slime want to be a deer rather than a lion?
I guess all the slime got together and decided who would become Poison Ivy or one of a million varieties of Rose over the next several hundred million years.

Extinctions occur all the time.
Yet the next mass of slime doesn't become what just went extinct.
Life forms exist while they are needed.

 

[Hollie]

You are just being silly. Here's some light reading I was just perusing. Who knows, might cheer you up:

Contrary to previous predictions, powerful moralizing ‘big gods’ and prosocial supernatural punishment tend to appear only after the emergence of ‘megasocieties’ with populations of more than around one million people. Moralizing gods are not a prerequisite for the evolution of social complexity, but they may help to sustain and expand complex multi-ethnic empires after they have become established. By contrast, rituals that facilitate the standardization of religious traditions across large populations generally precede the appearance of moralizing gods. This suggests that ritual practices were more important than the particular content of religious belief to the initial rise of social complexity. Supernatural agents that punish direct affronts to themselves (for example, failure to perform sacrifices or observe taboos) are commonly represented in global history, but rarely are such deities believed to punish moral violations in interactions between humans. Recent millennia, however, have seen the rise and spread of several ‘prosocial religions’, which include either powerful ‘moralizing high gods’

And yet Atheism, a relatively new and "enlightened" belief system, has resulted in far more murders in the last 200 years than any religious system.

Atheism is not a belief system.There is no real atheist asserted philosophy, all of atheismtends to be a critique of theist assertions. Even the Big Bang doesn't address god issues. Maybe god is behind the Big Bang, who knows? Atheism is really a philosophical rejection of the assertions of theism as undemonstrated and fallacious, nothing more.

If you are looking for an “ouch context” regarding cause of death over the last 200 years, it seems you’re arbitrarily hoping to exclude the atrocities of religion. The other mistake you’re making is to equate the Marxist/Leninist/ communist atrocities with atheism. They are political ideologies and the atrocities of those ideologies were a result of psychopaths.

Religions don’t have quite the excuse of political ideology to hand-wave off their infliction of suffering and death.

 

[Hollie]

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.

I will be honest and humble...
I know many scientists who know what they don't know and I know less than they do.
They know that no one on earth has mastered the required disciplines and then spent 50 years proving this "theory" to be true.
They all state that no one in history who hasn't been paid off can prove even an electron's worth of evidence for evolution.
I can watch pro-evolution on YouTube all day long and then watch one video that questions why dozens of points weren't discussed to prove anything.

I am a data analyst and I know if someone is bluffing when they ask for non-required data and when they're being honest.

Your search requires you to spend many years mastering the required sciences and documentation methods...
If your haven't begun this process yet...WHY NOT?

I don’t have any way of knowing what scientists you may have contact with so I’m not clear what your comment about required disciplines and 50 years trying to prove a theory. Additionally, I would never suggest anyone learn science matters watching YouTube videos.


Biological complexity (and the evolution of greater complexity over immense time scales), is readily observed in the fosill and biological record.

While all of the mechanisms that allowed biological life on the planet to first spark to life are not understood, abiogenesis and then the mechanisms of evolution are fully consistent with natural processes.

Please identify how you account for supernatural processes and the various supernatural agents who managed those processes. Nature routinely finds suboptimal solutions that various gods would never choose. Nature is constrained by contingent history, gods are not. The consequences of the difference are obvious and compelling.

Furthermore the harshness of Natural Selection -- all the mass extinctions, the ugliness of competition, all of that contradicts the notion of "Beautiful, simple, unstoppable" gods directing the natural world.

I'm glad you haven't been keeping up with how the fossil record has been proven to be a lie.
I'm also glad you don't realize that Biology is only one of the many sciences that must be mastered to prove evolution.

You're doing well.

There is only One God, not many.
The fact that you don't believe in God is your perogative.

I agree, why would a slime want to be a deer rather than a lion?
I guess all the slime got together and decided who would become Poison Ivy or one of a million varieties of Rose over the next several hundred million years.

Extinctions occur all the time.
Yet the next mass of slime doesn't become what just went extinct.
Life forms exist while they are needed.

Conspiracy theories about the fossil record being proven to be a lie are less entertaining than they used to be. While you have some odd notions of biology, I can’t help but notice a certain lack of support for the conspiracy theories.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yep, before it was

I'd like you to point me to a YouTube video that explains how millions of species evolved in concert with each other over hundreds of millions of years without dying out.

Now it's

Extinctions occur all the time.

 

[Indeependent]

You are just being silly. Here's some light reading I was just perusing. Who knows, might cheer you up:

Contrary to previous predictions, powerful moralizing ‘big gods’ and prosocial supernatural punishment tend to appear only after the emergence of ‘megasocieties’ with populations of more than around one million people. Moralizing gods are not a prerequisite for the evolution of social complexity, but they may help to sustain and expand complex multi-ethnic empires after they have become established. By contrast, rituals that facilitate the standardization of religious traditions across large populations generally precede the appearance of moralizing gods. This suggests that ritual practices were more important than the particular content of religious belief to the initial rise of social complexity. Supernatural agents that punish direct affronts to themselves (for example, failure to perform sacrifices or observe taboos) are commonly represented in global history, but rarely are such deities believed to punish moral violations in interactions between humans. Recent millennia, however, have seen the rise and spread of several ‘prosocial religions’, which include either powerful ‘moralizing high gods’

And yet Atheism, a relatively new and "enlightened" belief system, has resulted in far more murders in the last 200 years than any religious system.

Atheism is not a belief system.There is no real atheist asserted philosophy, all of atheismtends to be a critique of theist assertions. Even the Big Bang doesn't address god issues. Maybe god is behind the Big Bang, who knows? Atheism is really a philosophical rejection of the assertions of theism as undemonstrated and fallacious, nothing more.

If you are looking for an “ouch context” regarding cause of death over the last 200 years, it seems you’re arbitrarily hoping to exclude the atrocities of religion. The other mistake you’re making is to equate the Marxist/Leninist/ communist atrocities with atheism. They are political ideologies and the atrocities of those ideologies were a result of psychopaths.

Religions don’t have quite the excuse of political ideology to hand-wave off their infliction of suffering and death.

The Big Bang is in complete accordance with the Torah's first verse; even professional atheist admit such.
It's also mentioned in the Talmud.
You should acquaint yourself via YouTube with professional atheists.
There is no professional atheist who doesn't claim to be a Bible expert, even though in practice they misquote and make up verse as they lecture.

 

[Indeependent]

Yep, before it was

I'd like you to point me to a YouTube video that explains how millions of species evolved in concert with each other over hundreds of millions of years without dying out.

Now it's

Extinctions occur all the time.

But you still haven't addressed...
How millions of species evolved in concert with each other over hundreds of millions of years.
Why did the slime prefer to be the prey rather than the King of The Jungle.
Did they have a meeting?
Why did the bee not decide to become a wasp?

 

[Hollie]

You are just being silly. Here's some light reading I was just perusing. Who knows, might cheer you up:

Contrary to previous predictions, powerful moralizing ‘big gods’ and prosocial supernatural punishment tend to appear only after the emergence of ‘megasocieties’ with populations of more than around one million people. Moralizing gods are not a prerequisite for the evolution of social complexity, but they may help to sustain and expand complex multi-ethnic empires after they have become established. By contrast, rituals that facilitate the standardization of religious traditions across large populations generally precede the appearance of moralizing gods. This suggests that ritual practices were more important than the particular content of religious belief to the initial rise of social complexity. Supernatural agents that punish direct affronts to themselves (for example, failure to perform sacrifices or observe taboos) are commonly represented in global history, but rarely are such deities believed to punish moral violations in interactions between humans. Recent millennia, however, have seen the rise and spread of several ‘prosocial religions’, which include either powerful ‘moralizing high gods’

And yet Atheism, a relatively new and "enlightened" belief system, has resulted in far more murders in the last 200 years than any religious system.

Atheism is not a belief system.There is no real atheist asserted philosophy, all of atheismtends to be a critique of theist assertions. Even the Big Bang doesn't address god issues. Maybe god is behind the Big Bang, who knows? Atheism is really a philosophical rejection of the assertions of theism as undemonstrated and fallacious, nothing more.

If you are looking for an “ouch context” regarding cause of death over the last 200 years, it seems you’re arbitrarily hoping to exclude the atrocities of religion. The other mistake you’re making is to equate the Marxist/Leninist/ communist atrocities with atheism. They are political ideologies and the atrocities of those ideologies were a result of psychopaths.

Religions don’t have quite the excuse of political ideology to hand-wave off their infliction of suffering and death.

The Big Bang is in complete accordance with the Torah's first verse; even professional atheist admit such.
It's also mentioned in the Talmud.
You should acquaint yourself via YouTube with professional atheists.
There is no professional atheist who doesn't claim to be a Bible expert, even though in practice they misquote and make up verse as they lecture.

A couple of points. There is nothing to indicate that any holy text is in "accordance'' with the expansion of the universe. That's a rather common claim that is utterly unsupported. Another common claim is that the genesis fable is also in ''accordance'' with science but I have found no indication that such a fable, to include talking serpents, is in ''accordance'' with science.

I have no knowledge of what a ''professional atheist'' is. Further, I have no indication that you are the spokesperson for professional atheism.

Lastly, you seem to spend way too much time watching youtube as opposed to actually studying.

 

[Grumblenuts]

But you still haven't addressed...
How millions of species evolved in concert with each other over hundreds of millions of years.
Why did the slime prefer to be the prey rather than the King of The Jungle.

Evolution acts to help species survive their environment. It's not about preferences, votes, or planning. If there's a niche, nature is apt to fill it.

 

[Indeependent]

But you still haven't addressed...
How millions of species evolved in concert with each other over hundreds of millions of years.
Why did the slime prefer to be the prey rather than the King of The Jungle.

Evolution acts to help species survive their environment. It's not about preferences, votes, or planning. If there's a niche, nature is apt to fill it.

Wow!
Slime spent hundreds of millions of years in an environment of pure chaos evolving into the planet we now inhabit.

Do you feel stupid yet?

 

[Indeependent]

You are just being silly. Here's some light reading I was just perusing. Who knows, might cheer you up:

Contrary to previous predictions, powerful moralizing ‘big gods’ and prosocial supernatural punishment tend to appear only after the emergence of ‘megasocieties’ with populations of more than around one million people. Moralizing gods are not a prerequisite for the evolution of social complexity, but they may help to sustain and expand complex multi-ethnic empires after they have become established. By contrast, rituals that facilitate the standardization of religious traditions across large populations generally precede the appearance of moralizing gods. This suggests that ritual practices were more important than the particular content of religious belief to the initial rise of social complexity. Supernatural agents that punish direct affronts to themselves (for example, failure to perform sacrifices or observe taboos) are commonly represented in global history, but rarely are such deities believed to punish moral violations in interactions between humans. Recent millennia, however, have seen the rise and spread of several ‘prosocial religions’, which include either powerful ‘moralizing high gods’

And yet Atheism, a relatively new and "enlightened" belief system, has resulted in far more murders in the last 200 years than any religious system.

Atheism is not a belief system.There is no real atheist asserted philosophy, all of atheismtends to be a critique of theist assertions. Even the Big Bang doesn't address god issues. Maybe god is behind the Big Bang, who knows? Atheism is really a philosophical rejection of the assertions of theism as undemonstrated and fallacious, nothing more.

If you are looking for an “ouch context” regarding cause of death over the last 200 years, it seems you’re arbitrarily hoping to exclude the atrocities of religion. The other mistake you’re making is to equate the Marxist/Leninist/ communist atrocities with atheism. They are political ideologies and the atrocities of those ideologies were a result of psychopaths.

Religions don’t have quite the excuse of political ideology to hand-wave off their infliction of suffering and death.

The Big Bang is in complete accordance with the Torah's first verse; even professional atheist admit such.
It's also mentioned in the Talmud.
You should acquaint yourself via YouTube with professional atheists.
There is no professional atheist who doesn't claim to be a Bible expert, even though in practice they misquote and make up verse as they lecture.

A couple of points. There is nothing to indicate that any holy text is in "accordance'' with the expansion of the universe. That's a rather common claim that is utterly unsupported. Another common claim is that the genesis fable is also in ''accordance'' with science but I have found no indication that such a fable, to include talking serpents, is in ''accordance'' with science.

I have no knowledge of what a ''professional atheist'' is. Further, I have no indication that you are the spokesperson for professional atheism.

Lastly, you seem to spend way too much time watching youtube as opposed to actually studying.

Thanks for admitting you never read and studied the 1st chapter of Genesis.
I spend way more time studying than watching YouTube.
It doesn’t take too many videos to realize the farce of evolution.

 

[Hollie]

You are just being silly. Here's some light reading I was just perusing. Who knows, might cheer you up:

Contrary to previous predictions, powerful moralizing ‘big gods’ and prosocial supernatural punishment tend to appear only after the emergence of ‘megasocieties’ with populations of more than around one million people. Moralizing gods are not a prerequisite for the evolution of social complexity, but they may help to sustain and expand complex multi-ethnic empires after they have become established. By contrast, rituals that facilitate the standardization of religious traditions across large populations generally precede the appearance of moralizing gods. This suggests that ritual practices were more important than the particular content of religious belief to the initial rise of social complexity. Supernatural agents that punish direct affronts to themselves (for example, failure to perform sacrifices or observe taboos) are commonly represented in global history, but rarely are such deities believed to punish moral violations in interactions between humans. Recent millennia, however, have seen the rise and spread of several ‘prosocial religions’, which include either powerful ‘moralizing high gods’

And yet Atheism, a relatively new and "enlightened" belief system, has resulted in far more murders in the last 200 years than any religious system.

Atheism is not a belief system.There is no real atheist asserted philosophy, all of atheismtends to be a critique of theist assertions. Even the Big Bang doesn't address god issues. Maybe god is behind the Big Bang, who knows? Atheism is really a philosophical rejection of the assertions of theism as undemonstrated and fallacious, nothing more.

If you are looking for an “ouch context” regarding cause of death over the last 200 years, it seems you’re arbitrarily hoping to exclude the atrocities of religion. The other mistake you’re making is to equate the Marxist/Leninist/ communist atrocities with atheism. They are political ideologies and the atrocities of those ideologies were a result of psychopaths.

Religions don’t have quite the excuse of political ideology to hand-wave off their infliction of suffering and death.

The Big Bang is in complete accordance with the Torah's first verse; even professional atheist admit such.
It's also mentioned in the Talmud.
You should acquaint yourself via YouTube with professional atheists.
There is no professional atheist who doesn't claim to be a Bible expert, even though in practice they misquote and make up verse as they lecture.

A couple of points. There is nothing to indicate that any holy text is in "accordance'' with the expansion of the universe. That's a rather common claim that is utterly unsupported. Another common claim is that the genesis fable is also in ''accordance'' with science but I have found no indication that such a fable, to include talking serpents, is in ''accordance'' with science.

I have no knowledge of what a ''professional atheist'' is. Further, I have no indication that you are the spokesperson for professional atheism.

Lastly, you seem to spend way too much time watching youtube as opposed to actually studying.

Thanks for admitting you never read and studied the 1st chapter of Genesis.
I spend way more time studying than watching YouTube.
It doesn’t take too many videos to realize the farce of evolution.

Your juvenile "...thanks for admitting'' comment is rather pointless. You offered nothing to support your specious claim so why get defensive when it's called out as phony?

Your juvenile ''...farce of evolution'', is rather pointless as biological evolution is among the best supported theories in science with supported evidence.

Leave youtube for a bit and learn some terms and definitions that will help you understand science.

 

[bripat9643]

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."..."

`

.


`.

I will never understand why atheists try to disprove religions with scientific arguments.

Creationism is unfalsifiable. The people who declare themselves the champions of science ought to understand from the get-go that this puts the concept beyond the capacity of science to prove or disprove, so why bother?

When you say, "That magic wand isn't real! It doesn't even have any batteries in it!" your initial point may be correct, but your reasoning is irrelevant to that point.

Actually, it doesn't. Creationists often contradict themselves, and their excuses go against accepted scientific truths.

 

[Grumblenuts]

But you still haven't addressed...
How millions of species evolved in concert with each other over hundreds of millions of years.
Why did the slime prefer to be the prey rather than the King of The Jungle.

Evolution acts to help species survive their environment. It's not about preferences, votes, or planning. If there's a niche, nature is apt to fill it.

Wow!
Slime spent hundreds of millions of years in an environment of pure chaos evolving into the planet we now inhabit.

Do you feel stupid yet?

Not at all and chaos is in the eye of the beholder. Things like temperature range, pressure, available moisture, minerals, and air quality limit the abundance and variety of lifeforms possible during any time period.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

That's not an argument. That's a statement.

Obviously he is not familiar with your low level of intellect and should not have requested a formal argument from you.