Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

asked and answerd and you got your ass handed to you.

BTW YWC plagiarized those questions from a creationist site Three Devastating Questions To Ask Evolutionists & Three Points Which Destroy The Theory Of Evolution And Show That Intelligent Design Is A Reality
and is attempting to perpetrate a fraud..

Somebody is getting it handed to them.

When I origionally posted those questions I linked the site

But I did ask similar questions in another thread that were my own.

Post
#5314

Well, that was predictable. When I followed your link, I was confronted with Malcolm Muggeridge, a journalist and convert to Christianity.

As is the case so frequently with the creationist crowd, the references you cite have a consistent lack of training, study or background in the subject they comment on.

I don't care what you think of the source I care about your responses. You can't save Daws from his stupidity.

 

[Hollie]

Fully fertile eggs come from sexual reproduction from a male and female or hen and rooster.

How can evidence get any stronger ?

evidence of what? that chickens make eggs ?
wow!
that's a ground breaking obsevation!
you forget that chickens were not the first creatures to lay eggs.
also you conveniently left out asexual reproducing!
either way it's no proof of god.

So give me proof of any creature that has laid an egg and a new family was born ?

Prove any new family came through sexual reproduction the burden of proof is on you since you admitted how chicken eggs are produced.

Your question makes no sense.

 

[Hollie]

Somebody is getting it handed to them.

When I origionally posted those questions I linked the site

But I did ask similar questions in another thread that were my own.

Post
#5314

Well, that was predictable. When I followed your link, I was confronted with Malcolm Muggeridge, a journalist and convert to Christianity.

As is the case so frequently with the creationist crowd, the references you cite have a consistent lack of training, study or background in the subject they comment on.

I don't care what you think of the source I care about your responses. You can't save Daws from his stupidity.

You're getting frothy over chickens laying eggs?

 

[daws101]

Fully fertile eggs come from sexual reproduction from a male and female or hen and rooster.

How can evidence get any stronger ?

evidence of what? that chickens make eggs ?
wow!
that's a ground breaking obsevation!
you forget that chickens were not the first creatures to lay eggs.
also you conveniently left out asexual reproducing!
either way it's no proof of god.

So give me proof of any creature that has laid an egg and a new family was born ?

Prove any new family came through sexual reproduction the burden of proof is on you since you admitted how chicken eggs are produced.

so chickens fuck ? that's not an admission it's fact.
what do you mean by "family" species or individuals ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

still wrong: agnosticefinition of AGNOSTIC
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>


proving ywc's willfull ignorance one post at a time.

Lookie here you are exposing your own ignorance.


a·the·ist
&#8194; &#8194;[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA

noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1565–75; < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ist

Related forms
an·ti·a·the·ist, noun, adjective

pro·a·the·ist, noun, adjective


Can be confused: &#8194;1. agnostic, atheist (see synonym note at the current entry ); 2. atheist, theist, deist.


Synonyms
Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.


I love debating a dummy.

then you must be the dummy :agnosticefinition of AGNOSTIC
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics> the definitions are virtually the same!

either way they are both not christians!

proving ywc's willfull ignorance one post at a time.

You can't be this ignorant.

You have only showed yourself to be clueless. I never said he was a Christian and you know that,getting desperate are you ?

 

[daws101]

Only the chicken and the egg question. You pasted an answer that is based on nothing more than an assumption. My opinion can be proven through direct observation you lose again.

of what? chickens fucking? fly vagina's?

Oh someone is getting frustrated.

must be you I'm having a great time watching you make an ass of yourself.

 

[Youwerecreated]

evidence of what? that chickens make eggs ?
wow!
that's a ground breaking obsevation!
you forget that chickens were not the first creatures to lay eggs.
also you conveniently left out asexual reproducing!
either way it's no proof of god.

So give me proof of any creature that has laid an egg and a new family was born ?

Prove any new family came through sexual reproduction the burden of proof is on you since you admitted how chicken eggs are produced.

Your question makes no sense.

If you can't keep up with the thread not my fault.

 

[Hollie]

Somebody is getting it handed to them.

When I origionally posted those questions I linked the site

But I did ask similar questions in another thread that were my own.

Post
#5314

Well, that was predictable. When I followed your link, I was confronted with Malcolm Muggeridge, a journalist and convert to Christianity.

As is the case so frequently with the creationist crowd, the references you cite have a consistent lack of training, study or background in the subject they comment on.

I don't care what you think of the source I care about your responses. You can't save Daws from his stupidity.

You're hoping to discredit the science of evilution by using a journalist as your source.

Do you not see that as being in an indefensible position.

 

[Youwerecreated]

of what? chickens fucking? fly vagina's?

Oh someone is getting frustrated.

must be you I'm having a great time watching you make an ass of yourself.

You are a bad liar to.

 

[Hollie]

So give me proof of any creature that has laid an egg and a new family was born ?

Prove any new family came through sexual reproduction the burden of proof is on you since you admitted how chicken eggs are produced.

Your question makes no sense.

If you can't keep up with the thread not my fault.

I'm current with the thread. Your evidence for gods has some connection with chickens, eggs and a journalist named Malcolm Muggeridge

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well, that was predictable. When I followed your link, I was confronted with Malcolm Muggeridge, a journalist and convert to Christianity.

As is the case so frequently with the creationist crowd, the references you cite have a consistent lack of training, study or background in the subject they comment on.

I don't care what you think of the source I care about your responses. You can't save Daws from his stupidity.

You're hoping to discredit the science of evilution by using a journalist as your source.

Do you not see that as being in an indefensible position.

Can you respond to the questions ? I have provided my own similar questions in another thread just can't remember which one. It points out the madness of your theory.

 

[Hollie]

I don't care what you think of the source I care about your responses. You can't save Daws from his stupidity.

You're hoping to discredit the science of evilution by using a journalist as your source.

Do you not see that as being in an indefensible position.

Can you respond to the questions ? I have provided my own similar questions in another thread just can't remember which one. It points out the madness of your theory.

What theory is suffering from madness?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your question makes no sense.

If you can't keep up with the thread not my fault.

I'm current with the thread. Your evidence for gods has some connection with chickens, eggs and a journalist named Malcolm Muggeridge

Oh boy, I could of had a V-8 moment.

 

[daws101]

Lookie here you are exposing your own ignorance.


a·the·ist
&#8194; &#8194;[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA

noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1565–75; < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ist

Related forms
an·ti·a·the·ist, noun, adjective

pro·a·the·ist, noun, adjective


Can be confused: &#8194;1. agnostic, atheist (see synonym note at the current entry ); 2. atheist, theist, deist.


Synonyms
Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.


I love debating a dummy.

then you must be the dummy :agnosticefinition of AGNOSTIC
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics> the definitions are virtually the same!

either way they are both not christians!

proving ywc's willfull ignorance one post at a time.

You can't be this ignorant.

You have only showed yourself to be clueless. I never said he was a Christian and you know that,getting desperate are you ?

really ? then why did you post virtually the same definition that I did (after I did)?
what point are you trying to make?
that being an agnostic is somehow better than being an atheist?
or do you like arguing minutia ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're hoping to discredit the science of evilution by using a journalist as your source.

Do you not see that as being in an indefensible position.

Can you respond to the questions ? I have provided my own similar questions in another thread just can't remember which one. It points out the madness of your theory.

What theory is suffering from madness?

Macroevolution, are you serious ?

 

[daws101]

Somebody is getting it handed to them.

When I origionally posted those questions I linked the site

But I did ask similar questions in another thread that were my own.

Post
#5314

Well, that was predictable. When I followed your link, I was confronted with Malcolm Muggeridge, a journalist and convert to Christianity.

As is the case so frequently with the creationist crowd, the references you cite have a consistent lack of training, study or background in the subject they comment on.

I don't care what you think of the source I care about your responses. You can't save Daws from his stupidity.

awwww. getting your ass kicked...

 

[Youwerecreated]

then you must be the dummy :agnosticefinition of AGNOSTIC
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics> the definitions are virtually the same!

either way they are both not christians!

proving ywc's willfull ignorance one post at a time.

You can't be this ignorant.

You have only showed yourself to be clueless. I never said he was a Christian and you know that,getting desperate are you ?

really ? then why did you post virtually the same definition that I did (after I did)?
what point are you trying to make?
that being an agnostic is somehow better than being an atheist?
or do you like arguing minutia ?

It very clearly explained the difference between an atheist and agnostic. Enough schooling for the day I have things to do.

 

[Hollie]

If you can't keep up with the thread not my fault.

I'm current with the thread. Your evidence for gods has some connection with chickens, eggs and a journalist named Malcolm Muggeridge

Oh boy, I could of had a V-8 moment.

... could have had...

You could have had an opportunity to offer more than a journalist as someone to corroborate your claims to gods... via chickens and eggs.

 

[daws101]

Oh someone is getting frustrated.

must be you I'm having a great time watching you make an ass of yourself.

You are a bad liar to.

how am I lying?
you are doing a fine job of making an ass of yourself.

 

[daws101]

You can't be this ignorant.

You have only showed yourself to be clueless. I never said he was a Christian and you know that,getting desperate are you ?

really ? then why did you post virtually the same definition that I did (after I did)?
what point are you trying to make?
that being an agnostic is somehow better than being an atheist?
or do you like arguing minutia ?

It very clearly explained the difference between an atheist and agnostic. Enough schooling for the day I have things to do.

you just keep telling yourself that.
for all practical purposes there is no difference...