Creationists

[M14 Shooter]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
Meh. It baffles me.

Believing in creation does not necessitate the belief that the earth is 6000yrs old.
That probably baffles you as well.

 

[daws101]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
Meh. It baffles me.

Believing in creation does not necessitate the belief that the earth is 6000yrs old.
That probably baffles you as well.

I'm not baffled in the least.!

 

[M14 Shooter]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
Meh. It baffles me.

Believing in creation does not necessitate the belief that the earth is 6000yrs old.
That probably baffles you as well.

I'm not baffled in the least.!

You arent the OP.

 

[daws101]

Believing in creation does not necessitate the belief that the earth is 6000yrs old.
That probably baffles you as well.

I'm not baffled in the least.!

You arent the OP.

right ....sorry

 

[M14 Shooter]

What verifiable evidence and/or valid logic do you have for asserting the objective reality of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" of yours?

And when you fail again to produce, I will again claim to have delivered yet another headshot to your superstitious creation myth.

Your claim is unsound, as absence of proof is not proof of absence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So magic is a reasonable argument, got it!

Perfectly reasonable considering mans limitations that there is a being out there that has abilities beyond our comprehension.

Life didn't create itself, it is irrational to think it could. That the planets perfectly alligned themselves and one planet that has everything to sustain life.

another series of famous false declarations by YWC.

"Life didn't create itself"..YWC
"the planets perfectly alligned themselves and one planet that has everything to sustain life"- YWC

"Perfectly reasonable considering mans limitations that there is a being out there that has abilities beyond our comprehension."YWC


YOU HAVE NO OBJECTIVE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THESE STATEMENTS ARE FACT.
AT BEST THEY ARE OPINION .

AT WORST THEY ARE confirmation bias : Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias, myside bias or verification bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in military, political, and organizational contexts.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IN OTHER WORDS, PEOPLE FIND WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR EVEN WHEN IT'S NOT THERE .

Exactly my point,many of of my beliefs are based in faith. If you want to call it opinion that is fine but that is what your views are based in.

That is exactly why I asked you to point out a trait in humans you can prove came from mutations. Then you need to prove that trait did not exist already in the gene pool.

If you can't then are your views based on empirical evidence or is it just an opinion based on no evidence ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?
Meh. It baffles me.

Believing in creation does not necessitate the belief that the earth is 6000yrs old.
That probably baffles you as well.

I'm not baffled in the least.!

Evidently you do since you used that argument against creation. One of your biggest problems you stereotype far too much. You stereotyped Newton.

You are trying to spin out of your assertion that Newton had no choice but to believe in creation. I posted a link to your favorite source saying that atheism beliefs have been around very long,long before Newton was born.

 

[HUGGY]

These something from nothing views without purpose and intent are hilarious.

What, Where or When is nothing supposed to be or supposed to have been? There is no such thing as "nothing". Small to infinitely small is still something.

Your delusions are the nearest thing to nothing as they have no form other than in the minds of the delusional.

 

[HUGGY]

Man you are thick. Look up the definition of belief. No one can force you to believe anything.

It was against the law to be an atheist during Newton's lifetime. Newton believed in Creation. Therefore, Newton believed in Creation because it was against the law to believe otherwise.

Youwerecreated for the steal... name that fallacy!!!!!

You are an idiot.

No one in THIS country at THIS time in our human history can make you believe in anything which is why religion is dying now as it should be. This was not the case thruout time. Sure people could always THINK what they wanted but most of the time that we as humans have been organized into society you could and would be killed for not publicly parroting the beliefs of those in power.

Dabs makes you look like a fool whether you see it or not.

From one mental giant to another.

Do you know what confirmation bias is???

My bad. I was REAL tired when I offered that post.

 

[Youwerecreated]

These something from nothing views without purpose and intent are hilarious.

What, Where or When is nothing supposed to be or supposed to have been? There is no such thing as "nothing". Small to infinitely small is still something.

Your delusions are the nearest thing to nothing as they have no form other than in the minds of the delusional.

When did time begin ?

 

[HUGGY]

These something from nothing views without purpose and intent are hilarious.

What, Where or When is nothing supposed to be or supposed to have been? There is no such thing as "nothing". Small to infinitely small is still something.

Your delusions are the nearest thing to nothing as they have no form other than in the minds of the delusional.

When did time begin ?

Many of the brightest minds believe that time started with the big bang. Before THAT? Who knows? Who could know? Our minds may not be wired to make any sense of what if anything or any "when" before that any better than a cow could understand the moon landing.

Giving up and assigning all things not understood to "god" won't do though. That's lazy stinking thinking.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What, Where or When is nothing supposed to be or supposed to have been? There is no such thing as "nothing". Small to infinitely small is still something.

Your delusions are the nearest thing to nothing as they have no form other than in the minds of the delusional.

When did time begin ?

Many of the brightest minds believe that time started with the big bang. Before THAT? Who knows? Who could know? Our minds may not be wired to make any sense of what if anything or any "when" before that any better than a cow could understand the moon landing.

Giving up and assigning all things not understood to "god" won't do though. That's lazy stinking thinking.

So if time had a beginning,at one point there was no matter no matter what size it was. You can't have matter absent of time. So nothing blew up and created all we see. You are saying I'm suffering from delusions because because I believe before time there was no matter following laws of science ?

 

[Duped]

What, Where or When is nothing supposed to be or supposed to have been? There is no such thing as "nothing". Small to infinitely small is still something.

Your delusions are the nearest thing to nothing as they have no form other than in the minds of the delusional.

When did time begin ?

Many of the brightest minds believe that time started with the big bang. Before THAT? Who knows? Who could know? Our minds may not be wired to make any sense of what if anything or any "when" before that any better than a cow could understand the moon landing.

Giving up and assigning all things not understood to "god" won't do though. That's lazy stinking thinking.

Many of the brightest minds believe God is tangible!

 

[HUGGY]

When did time begin ?

Many of the brightest minds believe that time started with the big bang. Before THAT? Who knows? Who could know? Our minds may not be wired to make any sense of what if anything or any "when" before that any better than a cow could understand the moon landing.

Giving up and assigning all things not understood to "god" won't do though. That's lazy stinking thinking.

Many of the brightest minds believe God is tangible!

Really? Compared to who? Name them and thier relative brightness.

 

[UltimateReality]

try actually comprehending what you read :"he was a man of his time ..eveyone was indoctrinated in religion.(by default everyone believed in creation.)
your blatant intentional misrepresentation of history is not only a logical fallacy, it's arguing from ignorance and appealing to a non existent authority ."

in other: WORDS NEWTON HAD NO CHOICE OTHER THAN TO BELIEVE IN CREATION AS IT WAS AGAINST THE LAW AT THE TIME. YOU ASS CLOWN.
IF NEWTON HAD THE SAME ACCESS TO THE SAME INFO THAT DARWIN HAD AND NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BEING HUNG FOR HERESY MY GUESS IS HIS BELIEF WOULD BE DIFFERENT...
also NEWTON was a practitioner of the" black arts" not good advertising for your fairy tale.

btw it's you who has no clue....

Man you are thick. Look up the definition of belief. No one can force you to believe anything.

It was against the law to be an atheist during Newton's lifetime. Newton believed in Creation. Therefore, Newton believed in Creation because it was against the law to believe otherwise.

Youwerecreated for the steal... name that fallacy!!!!!

I never mentioned force in your desperation you grasp at straws: Notes on Religion in 16th Century Europe


Atheism
The word "atheist" in the 1500s was commonly used to denote a libertine rather to claim that one did not believe in God. To be described as an atheist was an insult. As the French historian Lucien Febve wrote, there were "conceptual difficulties" in the 1500s in denying the existence of God. "Every activity of the day ... was saturated with religious beliefs and institutions." And asking someone whether he believed in God was to suggest the possibility that he did not and must have been as insulting as asking if he were a sodomite or murderer. Peter Watson in his book Ideas agrees with Febve. Watson writes that "One reason Montaigne never really doubted that there was a God was because to do so in his lifetime was next to impossible."

Atheism was little more tolerated in the late 1600s, as indicated by the Enlightenment's John Locke claiming that atheism was “not at all to be tolerated” because, “promises, covenants and oaths, which are the bonds of human societies, can have no hold upon an atheist.”

Nice verbage to detract from your initial logical fallacy. Still doesn't change the fact that your argument about Newton was WRONG.

 

[UltimateReality]

So magic is a reasonable argument, got it!

Perfectly reasonable considering mans limitations that there is a being out there that has abilities beyond our comprehension.

Life didn't create itself, it is irrational to think it could. That the planets perfectly alligned themselves and one planet that has everything to sustain life.

another series of famous false declarations by YWC.

"Life didn't create itself"..YWC
"the planets perfectly alligned themselves and one planet that has everything to sustain life"- YWC

"Perfectly reasonable considering mans limitations that there is a being out there that has abilities beyond our comprehension."YWC


YOU HAVE NO OBJECTIVE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THESE STATEMENTS ARE FACT.
AT BEST THEY ARE OPINION .

AT WORST THEY ARE confirmation bias : Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias, myside bias or verification bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in military, political, and organizational contexts.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IN OTHER WORDS, PEOPLE FIND WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR EVEN WHEN IT'S NOT THERE .

Way to go Daws!!! Did you happen to notice I mentioned confirmation bias 5 posts above yours. Nice technique. See it in my post, go look it up and figure out what it means, and then turn it back on us. Doh!!!

 

[UltimateReality]

Giving up and assigning all things not understood to "god" won't do though. That's lazy stinking thinking.

Lazy thinking, or the best explanation for the evidence at hand. I find it so funny that folks can believe in magical multiple universes but they can't believe in an alien being that is so advanced, it exists outside of space, time, matter and energy. At least with the latter theory, we can look at the digital code and see evidence for implentation by an intelligent agent. What evidence do we have for multiple universes??? Other than a rebuttal to the Creationist's argument for fine tuning???

 

[UltimateReality]

"Science cannot know all the alternative explanations for the origin of the species. When evolutionists conclude evolution is a fact via the process of elimination, they are making a subtle but crucial non scientific assumption—that they know all the alternative explanations.

So all of these powerful evolutionary arguments for the fact of evolution are non scientific. In other words, evolution has extremely powerful and compelling arguments, but the cost of building such a powerful case is that the idea is not scientific.

Without these powerful proofs, evolution would lie exposed to the many scientific problems and contradictions. The idea that the world, and all of biology, spontaneously arose is, from a strictly scientific perspective, extremely unlikely. But evolution is shielded from such problems by its powerful non scientific proofs."

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/05/evolution-for-dummies-in-750-words.html

 

[Montrovant]

Giving up and assigning all things not understood to "god" won't do though. That's lazy stinking thinking.

Lazy thinking, or the best explanation for the evidence at hand. I find it so funny that folks can believe in magical multiple universes but they can't believe in an alien being that is so advanced, it exists outside of space, time, matter and energy. At least with the latter theory, we can look at the digital code and see evidence for implentation by an intelligent agent. What evidence do we have for multiple universes??? Other than a rebuttal to the Creationist's argument for fine tuning???

Why must one believe either?

I think it's ironic that you post about evolutionists incorrectly using the process of elimination to prove the ToE, right after you seem to assume everyone must believe either in god or multiple universes.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Giving up and assigning all things not understood to "god" won't do though. That's lazy stinking thinking.

Lazy thinking, or the best explanation for the evidence at hand. I find it so funny that folks can believe in magical multiple universes but they can't believe in an alien being that is so advanced, it exists outside of space, time, matter and energy. At least with the latter theory, we can look at the digital code and see evidence for implentation by an intelligent agent. What evidence do we have for multiple universes??? Other than a rebuttal to the Creationist's argument for fine tuning???

Why must one believe either?

I think it's ironic that you post about evolutionists incorrectly using the process of elimination to prove the ToE, right after you seem to assume everyone must believe either in god or multiple universes.

Are you saying time and matter are eternal ?