Creationists' theory in detail

[Ringtone]

No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.

Proofs are for mathematicians. Evolution is a natural process, creation is a supernatural process. There are mechanisms proposed for evolution that conform to natural laws, no mechanisms are known for creationism beyond 'breathed life' or the like.

What a silly ass. There are absolutely no natural mechanisms that can possibly account for the existence of anything at all, least of all that of life.

There is absolutely no known natural law that requires all of life to be the product of a transformationally branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry either. None!

People who talk like you are narrow-minded, slogan-spouting fools, unwittingly presuppossing naturalism as if naturalism were science and not the stuff of metaphysics.

The hypothetical, Darwinian extrapolation from adaptive radiation is neither observed nor observable. It rests on nothing more than the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism.

There is absolutely nothing observable that contradicts the potentiality that all of biological history is a systematic series of creative events of distinct kinds over geological time that are thereafter subject to a circularly limited range of adaptive radiation.

 

[ding]

Not to worry, I wouldn't work for someone so clueless. Obviously the birth process works, just because you can't understand how it could develop naturally doesn't mean nobody can.

The birth process, as any obstetrician will tell you, makes no sense.

Neither does the human eye, yet both seem to work somehow. No intelligent designer would create either one.

Wrong bucko. It is a tremendously efficient design as evidenced by its success. YOU wouldnt create it that way...but you cant create an eye at all can you? So quiet down there in the peanut gallery.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

“...Physical reality is what physicists recognize to be real. One cannot separate the recognition of existence from existence. As Erwin Schrödinger put it: “The world is a construct of our sensations, perceptions, memories. It is convenient to regard it as existing objectively on its own. But it certainly does not become manifest by its mere existence.”

Let me give a simple example of the intervention of mind in physical observation: Most readers are probably aware that radiation -- light, indeed all elementary particles -- exhibits simultaneously the properties of waves and of particles, though those properties are altogether different -- indeed, mutually exclusive. This is the prime example of a widespread class of relationships that Neils Bohr brought together in his principle of complementarity, which notes that numbers of phenomena, in and out of physics, exhibit such mutually exclusive sets of properties; one just has to live with them.

Enter consciousness: the physicist, setting up an experiment on radiation, decides beforehand which of those sets of properties he will encounter. If he does a wave experiment, he gets a wave answer; from a particle experiment he gets a particle answer. To this degree, all physical observation is subjective.

It is primarily physicists who in recent times have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind. Arthur Eddington in 1928 wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff ... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time.... Recognizing that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

Von Weizsacker in 1971 states as “a new and, I feel, intelligible interpretation of quantum theory” what he calls his “Identity Hypothesis: Consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality.”

I like most of all Wolfgang Pauli’s formulation, from 1952: “To us . . . the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

What this kind of thought means essentially is that one has no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves.

As for this seeming a strange viewpoint for a scientist -- at least until one gets used to it -- as in so many other instances, what is wanted is not so much an acceptable concept as an acceptable rhetoric. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? -- virtually the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious...”

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

I think you are dealing with materialists rather than scientists here. And that’s always the problem. The culture milieu confuses materialism with science.

Consciousness can’t be explained by science.

And that is exactly Wald’s point.

 

[ding]

Natural forces such as plate tectonics, continental drift, uplift, etc., can explain deep oceans and mountains. There is no need to appeal to supernaturalism when naturalism provides answers.

That's creation science and it happens rapidly as we observe catastrophes today. There is nothing natural or supernatural that takes a million years to happen. Ofc, creation science would explain it and not the nonsensical long time, no origin, lack of detail, and ridiculous explanations of Satan's evolution.

Sure there is. It took 14 billion years for the universe to expand to it’s current size.

No it didn't. The rate of moon's recession tells us it's thousands of years.

Moreover, you can't adequately explain 95% of the universe so my theory is better.

The rate of the moons recession tells us the universe is only thousands of years?

no. Just no.

Even if the moon was kissing the Earth and started receding it still wouldn't be millions of years. Just more thousands. I have the evidence, you have nothing.

Furthermore, it's common sense. We can look at this historically and it's difficult to explain what happened 2500 years ago. Can you explain what happened 5000 years ago? 10,000? You didn't even know what happened in 70 AD and that was of great importance. Thus, the timeline that the evolutionists have of millions and billions of years of their important events is just impossible events they want their religion of no God to fulfill.

Stop basing science on the Bible. There is no need. Stop reading the Bible literally. There is no need

 

[ding]

Natural forces such as plate tectonics, continental drift, uplift, etc., can explain deep oceans and mountains. There is no need to appeal to supernaturalism when naturalism provides answers.

That's creation science and it happens rapidly as we observe catastrophes today. There is nothing natural or supernatural that takes a million years to happen. Ofc, creation science would explain it and not the nonsensical long time, no origin, lack of detail, and ridiculous explanations of Satan's evolution.

Sure there is. It took 14 billion years for the universe to expand to it’s current size.

No it didn't. The rate of moon's recession tells us it's thousands of years.

Moreover, you can't adequately explain 95% of the universe so my theory is better.

Yes. I can actually.

No you can't with a straight face. We all know much of what you write is baloney. You know it. I know it. We all know it. Some people just like to pontificate.

Admit it, you can make up any story, make it sound credible, and none of use could explain what the 95% is since no one knows. I can't think of his name right now, but I met an Asian theoretical physicist who can explain the 95%. It's that he can't nor anyone can state for certain what it is. He certainly makes it sound credible.

Yes. I can.

 

[ding]

Aquinas asks, "Why are there rules?" And he concludes "There are rules because there is something beyond Nature that is a Rulegiver. And that is what everybody means by God."

And of course, Aquina's logical proofs have never been honestly refuted, some dishonest tards, like Dawkins, always have to 're-define' his definitions and then pretend they refuted the argument, never mind all they did was refute their own definitions of terms. They're about as 'rational' as Spanky and Alfalfa are over Darlene.

Agreed.

 

[alang1216]

I was just pointing out that your original assertion was flawed because we can know God from what he created through reason and experience. No book needed. And we can use science to study what was created to inform our reason.

You know bias goes both ways, right?

No we can't know God though the natural world. We can then, through faith, say God created the natural world so what we see is what He wants. If that is true He wants us to suffer to various random degrees and is more concerned with our DNA than with us.

Facts go only one way.

So you reversed your position that we can know God exist using reason?

No I have not. Our confusion comes from what you mean by 'know God'. If you mean that, through reason, we can prove the existence of God, the answer is no. If you mean that if, through faith, we presuppose a God exists, then we can know something about Him through studying the natural world, then yes we can see what he has created and what he values.

 

[alang1216]

No we can't know God though the natural world. We can then, through faith, say God created the natural world so what we see is what He wants. If that is true He wants us to suffer to various random degrees and is more concerned with our DNA than with us.

Facts go only one way.

Facts go through the Bible as science backs it up. It does not back up evolution. Your mountain of facts is a lie as you could not explain that photo you posted. If it was explainable, then you would have done so. It should not be that difficult to convince someone with an open mind.

What is troublesome is you explain God only one way. What makes you think what you claimed? I've been telling you that God created our world as perfect, but Adam's sin made it imperfect, fallen, and we ended up as regular flesh and blood. It was Satan who took dominion of the world away from Adam. We had free will, so we have to accept the consequences and that is our death. However, there is a way to be saved through Jesus. Thus, Satan has tricked many into not believing in Jesus nor in God. Otherwise, how can evolutionary science of ToE and the rest come to contradict everything that is in the Bible?

I explained the photo, twice, you just couldn't or wouldn't understand it. That's on you.

Anyone who could write:

Facts go through the Bible ​

and then imply that you are

someone with an open mind​

is just not being honest with me or with themselves.

 

[alang1216]

''god did it''
''it's in the bible ''

that's all folks--that's all they have...
I constantly ask for details and that's what I get
no theory, nothing ...

God created the possibility to make theories. So you are able to make a theory about the creation of the heavens and worlds. Tell me what had happened 15 billion years ago. What are we a able to say about this not existing time - except there was nothing? Absolutelly nothing - no idea what to say else about this not-time, not-space, ... . How was the universe be able to come from this nothing - not existing 15 billion years ago - and started "suddenly" to be in a first plank-time?

How did God start?

What means "start" in this context? Starts the being who/which creates everything? Starts someone or something what/which/who created/creates/will create time and eternity?

STFU dude. You can't answer a simple question...

No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.

Proofs are for mathematicians. Evolution is a natural process, creation is a supernatural process. There are mechanisms proposed for evolution that conform to natural laws, no mechanisms are known for creationism beyond 'breathed life' or the like.

What a silly ass. There are absolutely no natural mechanisms that can possibly account for the existence of anything at all, least of all that of life.

There is absolutely no known natural law that requires all of life to be the product of a transformationally branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry either. None!

People who talk like you are narrow-minded, slogan-spouting fools, unwittingly presuppossing naturalism as if naturalism were science and not the stuff of metaphysics.

The hypothetical, Darwinian extrapolation from adaptive radiation is neither observed nor observable. It rests on nothing more than the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism.

There is absolutely nothing observable that contradicts the potentiality that all of biological history is a systematic series of creative events of distinct kinds over geological time that are thereafter subject to a circularly limited range of adaptive radiation.

If you're saying creationism is not impossible, I agree. If you're saying that the natural world is not completely understood and explained by our current knowledge, I agree. If you weigh the evidence for creationism vs evolution and see creationism as more likely, I disagree. You can accept on faith what people tell you, I'll believe my eyes.

 

[Hollie]

No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.

Proofs are for mathematicians. Evolution is a natural process, creation is a supernatural process. There are mechanisms proposed for evolution that conform to natural laws, no mechanisms are known for creationism beyond 'breathed life' or the like.

What a silly ass. There are absolutely no natural mechanisms that can possibly account for the existence of anything at all, least of all that of life.

There is absolutely no known natural law that requires all of life to be the product of a transformationally branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry either. None!

People who talk like you are narrow-minded, slogan-spouting fools, unwittingly presuppossing naturalism as if naturalism were science and not the stuff of metaphysics.

The hypothetical, Darwinian extrapolation from adaptive radiation is neither observed nor observable. It rests on nothing more than the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism.

There is absolutely nothing observable that contradicts the potentiality that all of biological history is a systematic series of creative events of distinct kinds over geological time that are thereafter subject to a circularly limited range of adaptive radiation.

Well actually, natural mechanisms are what we know and actually do account for the existence of everything we know.

What magical / supernatural mechanisms can you identify which account for any element of anything we know?

 

[Hollie]

No we can't know God though the natural world. We can then, through faith, say God created the natural world so what we see is what He wants. If that is true He wants us to suffer to various random degrees and is more concerned with our DNA than with us.

Facts go only one way.

Facts go through the Bible as science backs it up. It does not back up evolution. Your mountain of facts is a lie as you could not explain that photo you posted. If it was explainable, then you would have done so. It should not be that difficult to convince someone with an open mind.

What is troublesome is you explain God only one way. What makes you think what you claimed? I've been telling you that God created our world as perfect, but Adam's sin made it imperfect, fallen, and we ended up as regular flesh and blood. It was Satan who took dominion of the world away from Adam. We had free will, so we have to accept the consequences and that is our death. However, there is a way to be saved through Jesus. Thus, Satan has tricked many into not believing in Jesus nor in God. Otherwise, how can evolutionary science of ToE and the rest come to contradict everything that is in the Bible?

Facts don’t go through the Bibles. Material facts contradict much of what is in the bibles. There are means and methods available to examine the natural world. How does anyone examine your imagined immaterial or supernatural realms?

I'm not clear why you’re blaming an entity you call “Satan” for anything. If your gods are so weak that they can’t control the “Satan” character, convert to a different religion that won’t cause you such angst.

 

[Picaro]

No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.

Proofs are for mathematicians. Evolution is a natural process, creation is a supernatural process. There are mechanisms proposed for evolution that conform to natural laws, no mechanisms are known for creationism beyond 'breathed life' or the like.

What a silly ass. There are absolutely no natural mechanisms that can possibly account for the existence of anything at all, least of all that of life.

There is absolutely no known natural law that requires all of life to be the product of a transformationally branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry either. None!

People who talk like you are narrow-minded, slogan-spouting fools, unwittingly presuppossing naturalism as if naturalism were science and not the stuff of metaphysics.

The hypothetical, Darwinian extrapolation from adaptive radiation is neither observed nor observable. It rests on nothing more than the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism.

There is absolutely nothing observable that contradicts the potentiality that all of biological history is a systematic series of creative events of distinct kinds over geological time that are thereafter subject to a circularly limited range of adaptive radiation.

Well actually, natural mechanisms are what we know and actually do account for the existence of everything we know.

What magical / supernatural mechanisms can you identify which account for any element of anything we know?

lol @ Hollie, waving around the magic wand of Babbling.

 

[Hollie]

No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.

Proofs are for mathematicians. Evolution is a natural process, creation is a supernatural process. There are mechanisms proposed for evolution that conform to natural laws, no mechanisms are known for creationism beyond 'breathed life' or the like.

What a silly ass. There are absolutely no natural mechanisms that can possibly account for the existence of anything at all, least of all that of life.

There is absolutely no known natural law that requires all of life to be the product of a transformationally branching, evolutionary process of speciation from a common ancestry either. None!

People who talk like you are narrow-minded, slogan-spouting fools, unwittingly presuppossing naturalism as if naturalism were science and not the stuff of metaphysics.

The hypothetical, Darwinian extrapolation from adaptive radiation is neither observed nor observable. It rests on nothing more than the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism.

There is absolutely nothing observable that contradicts the potentiality that all of biological history is a systematic series of creative events of distinct kinds over geological time that are thereafter subject to a circularly limited range of adaptive radiation.

Well actually, natural mechanisms are what we know and actually do account for the existence of everything we know.

What magical / supernatural mechanisms can you identify which account for any element of anything we know?

lol @ Hollie, waving around the magic wand of Babbling.

Your flaming does little to shield your lack of ability to offer a coherent comment.

 

[ding]

I was just pointing out that your original assertion was flawed because we can know God from what he created through reason and experience. No book needed. And we can use science to study what was created to inform our reason.

You know bias goes both ways, right?

No we can't know God though the natural world. We can then, through faith, say God created the natural world so what we see is what He wants. If that is true He wants us to suffer to various random degrees and is more concerned with our DNA than with us.

Facts go only one way.

So you reversed your position that we can know God exist using reason?

No I have not. Our confusion comes from what you mean by 'know God'. If you mean that, through reason, we can prove the existence of God, the answer is no. If you mean that if, through faith, we presuppose a God exists, then we can know something about Him through studying the natural world, then yes we can see what he has created and what he values.

They are one in the same.

I submit that you have never truly considered the possibility that God exists. You can prove me wrong by telling me what your perception of God is. Because that will demonstrate the level of your consideration. Mind you, you should limit your perception to what you can observe through nature and not what any specific religious text tells you. Because I am not asking you what religion thinks God is, I am asking you what you think God is.

 

[james bond]

That's creation science and it happens rapidly as we observe catastrophes today. There is nothing natural or supernatural that takes a million years to happen. Ofc, creation science would explain it and not the nonsensical long time, no origin, lack of detail, and ridiculous explanations of Satan's evolution.

Sure there is. It took 14 billion years for the universe to expand to it’s current size.

No it didn't. The rate of moon's recession tells us it's thousands of years.

Moreover, you can't adequately explain 95% of the universe so my theory is better.

The rate of the moons recession tells us the universe is only thousands of years?

no. Just no.

Even if the moon was kissing the Earth and started receding it still wouldn't be millions of years. Just more thousands. I have the evidence, you have nothing.

Furthermore, it's common sense. We can look at this historically and it's difficult to explain what happened 2500 years ago. Can you explain what happened 5000 years ago? 10,000? You didn't even know what happened in 70 AD and that was of great importance. Thus, the timeline that the evolutionists have of millions and billions of years of their important events is just impossible events they want their religion of no God to fulfill.

Stop basing science on the Bible. There is no need. Stop reading the Bible literally. There is no need

You are speaking blasphemy to my ears. That qualifies you for the lowest levels of hell. 24/7 of constant burning pain.

 

[james bond]

That's creation science and it happens rapidly as we observe catastrophes today. There is nothing natural or supernatural that takes a million years to happen. Ofc, creation science would explain it and not the nonsensical long time, no origin, lack of detail, and ridiculous explanations of Satan's evolution.

Sure there is. It took 14 billion years for the universe to expand to it’s current size.

No it didn't. The rate of moon's recession tells us it's thousands of years.

Moreover, you can't adequately explain 95% of the universe so my theory is better.

Yes. I can actually.

No you can't with a straight face. We all know much of what you write is baloney. You know it. I know it. We all know it. Some people just like to pontificate.

Admit it, you can make up any story, make it sound credible, and none of use could explain what the 95% is since no one knows. I can't think of his name right now, but I met an Asian theoretical physicist who can explain the 95%. It's that he can't nor anyone can state for certain what it is. He certainly makes it sound credible.

Yes. I can.

You didn't get it. The Asian theoretical physicist makes money explaining it and explains a complex subject in ways we can understand.. With you, we'd all be bored with a page of gobbledy gook that you love.

 

[ding]

Sure there is. It took 14 billion years for the universe to expand to it’s current size.

No it didn't. The rate of moon's recession tells us it's thousands of years.

Moreover, you can't adequately explain 95% of the universe so my theory is better.

The rate of the moons recession tells us the universe is only thousands of years?

no. Just no.

Even if the moon was kissing the Earth and started receding it still wouldn't be millions of years. Just more thousands. I have the evidence, you have nothing.

Furthermore, it's common sense. We can look at this historically and it's difficult to explain what happened 2500 years ago. Can you explain what happened 5000 years ago? 10,000? You didn't even know what happened in 70 AD and that was of great importance. Thus, the timeline that the evolutionists have of millions and billions of years of their important events is just impossible events they want their religion of no God to fulfill.

Stop basing science on the Bible. There is no need. Stop reading the Bible literally. There is no need

You are speaking blasphemy to my ears. That qualifies you for the lowest levels of hell. 24/7 of constant burning pain.

Did you just condemn me to hell?

you aren’t God.

 

[BreezeWood]

Aquinas asks, "Why are there rules?" And he concludes "There are rules because there is something beyond Nature that is a Rulegiver. And that is what everybody means by God."

And of course, Aquina's logical proofs have never been honestly refuted, some dishonest tards, like Dawkins, always have to 're-define' his definitions and then pretend they refuted the argument, never mind all they did was refute their own definitions of terms. They're about as 'rational' as Spanky and Alfalfa are over Darlene.

.

And of course, Aquina's logical proofs have never been honestly refuted, some dishonest tards, like Dawkins, always have to 're-define' his definitions and then pretend they refuted the argument, never mind all they did was refute their own definitions of terms. They're about as 'rational' as Spanky and Alfalfa are over Darlene.

theirs and that in sicko's mind as an endorsement of the 4th century christian bible and an affirmation for all three desert religions - using the crucifixion in the 1st century for their own personal behalf against the actual religion of antiquity they all have abandoned. and the actual reason for the untimely, unwarranted death of an innocent individual.

 

[james bond]

No we can't know God though the natural world. We can then, through faith, say God created the natural world so what we see is what He wants. If that is true He wants us to suffer to various random degrees and is more concerned with our DNA than with us.

Facts go only one way.

Facts go through the Bible as science backs it up. It does not back up evolution. Your mountain of facts is a lie as you could not explain that photo you posted. If it was explainable, then you would have done so. It should not be that difficult to convince someone with an open mind.

What is troublesome is you explain God only one way. What makes you think what you claimed? I've been telling you that God created our world as perfect, but Adam's sin made it imperfect, fallen, and we ended up as regular flesh and blood. It was Satan who took dominion of the world away from Adam. We had free will, so we have to accept the consequences and that is our death. However, there is a way to be saved through Jesus. Thus, Satan has tricked many into not believing in Jesus nor in God. Otherwise, how can evolutionary science of ToE and the rest come to contradict everything that is in the Bible?

Facts don’t go through the Bibles. Material facts contradict much of what is in the bibles. There are means and methods available to examine the natural world. How does anyone examine your imagined immaterial or supernatural realms?

I'm not clear why you’re blaming an entity you call “Satan” for anything. If your gods are so weak that they can’t control the “Satan” character, convert to a different religion that won’t cause you such angst.

Facts are facts. We can all use facts to reach our conclusions. One thing about the Bible is that it's an auto-biography. A supernatural being explains how he did it. Thus, it's written in the past tense. His story can't change. He gave his testimony. Now, Satan did the same thing with his Antibible. It is a story of his being like God. Except his story can change now because its fake science with no God. Maybe soon the billions and millions of years theory will collapse as less people begin to believe it. Then the atheist scientists will make up another story to fit evolution.

 

[ding]

Sure there is. It took 14 billion years for the universe to expand to it’s current size.

No it didn't. The rate of moon's recession tells us it's thousands of years.

Moreover, you can't adequately explain 95% of the universe so my theory is better.

Yes. I can actually.

No you can't with a straight face. We all know much of what you write is baloney. You know it. I know it. We all know it. Some people just like to pontificate.

Admit it, you can make up any story, make it sound credible, and none of use could explain what the 95% is since no one knows. I can't think of his name right now, but I met an Asian theoretical physicist who can explain the 95%. It's that he can't nor anyone can state for certain what it is. He certainly makes it sound credible.

Yes. I can.

You didn't get it. The Asian theoretical physicist makes money explaining it and explains a complex subject in ways we can understand.. With you, we'd all be bored with a page of gobbledy gook that you love.

Then let me simplify it. 14 billion years ago, space and time were created from nothing. Since that time the laws of nature which existed before space and time predestined beings that know and create would arise according to the Creator.

 

[ding]

Aquinas asks, "Why are there rules?" And he concludes "There are rules because there is something beyond Nature that is a Rulegiver. And that is what everybody means by God."

And of course, Aquina's logical proofs have never been honestly refuted, some dishonest tards, like Dawkins, always have to 're-define' his definitions and then pretend they refuted the argument, never mind all they did was refute their own definitions of terms. They're about as 'rational' as Spanky and Alfalfa are over Darlene.

.

And of course, Aquina's logical proofs have never been honestly refuted, some dishonest tards, like Dawkins, always have to 're-define' his definitions and then pretend they refuted the argument, never mind all they did was refute their own definitions of terms. They're about as 'rational' as Spanky and Alfalfa are over Darlene.

theirs and that in sicko's mind as an endorsement of the 4th century christian bible and an affirmation for all three desert religions - using the crucifixion in the 1st century for their own personal behalf against the actual religion of antiquity they all have abandoned. and the actual reason for the untimely, unwarranted death of an innocent individual.

Hobelim? Is that you?