Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I've noticed a consistent pattern of behavior with Christian creationist fundies. When their arguments are collapsing in front of them, they get frustrated, angry and lash out.When you're too befuddled to counter an argument, you should avoid babbling with spam.
Befuddled me ? Not by the arguments you present. You should take your own advice.
I've noticed a consistent pattern of behavior with Christian creationist fundies. When their arguments are collapsing in front of them, they get frustrated, angry and lash out.Befuddled me ? Not by the arguments you present. You should take your own advice.
I noticed the behavior of atheistic evolutionist that have very little knowledge of science.
YWC, this is for you since no one else actually watches info that would discount their world view. The speaker is WELL qualified and has received over 4.5 million in research grants.
Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube
Great video UR. I am a little guilty of accepting some things on blind faith. If I don't possess an answer for a question I should simply live it at I don't know. God has given us plenty of evidence to believe in him and that he exists.
I like how he touched on how essential things are for life whether from the universe or things in living organisms. There is no left over parts and all the parts must be present to function properly. Does not mean we can't get by because all parts are not present and funtion properly. That has been my argument many times when debating naturalism and design.
Naturalism fails explaining how these processes came into existence through chance or accidents. I agree with the Dr., that things were and are created for a purpose. That is the evidence for us to believe he exists. That is true at the end of expelled when stein and dawkins were talking,dawkins refused to let go of his view things must have evolved even though he has no explanation how it happened.
I believe as the science community uncovers more and more evidence there will still be no rational explanation for macroevolution and naturalism it's being contradicted by the current evidence.
YWC, this is for you since no one else actually watches info that would discount their world view. The speaker is WELL qualified and has received over 4.5 million in research grants.
Evidence for an Engineered Universe - YouTube
Great video UR. I am a little guilty of accepting some things on blind faith. If I don't possess an answer for a question I should simply live it at I don't know. God has given us plenty of evidence to believe in him and that he exists.
I like how he touched on how essential things are for life whether from the universe or things in living organisms. There is no left over parts and all the parts must be present to function properly. Does not mean we can't get by because all parts are not present and funtion properly. That has been my argument many times when debating naturalism and design.
Naturalism fails explaining how these processes came into existence through chance or accidents. I agree with the Dr., that things were and are created for a purpose. That is the evidence for us to believe he exists. That is true at the end of expelled when stein and dawkins were talking,dawkins refused to let go of his view things must have evolved even though he has no explanation how it happened.
I believe as the science community uncovers more and more evidence there will still be no rational explanation for macroevolution and naturalism it's being contradicted by the current evidence.
Dear YWC: This does not have to be framed as either/or one side vs. the other. It is possible to agree on how to work together in life, with one person believing there is a beginning and a creator and plan and purpose while another person believes that life and the universe have no beginning and no end but have always existed and any purpose or perception thereof depends on the people doing the action or having the perception. You can still have agreement on how to work together in the world, as long as people can forgive their differences and not let that get in the way. However, if people cannot forgive their differences without the divine intervention and grace that religions represent in Christ Jesus, that keeps fueling the debate over faith in God being required and not just an option.
When you're too befuddled to counter an argument, you should avoid babbling with spam.Goofy name-caller,
Thinking is difficult for you. We understand that.
I dont see that accepting reason as the criteria for perception is making oneself the center of ones own existence. That is one of the many goofy canards typically appearing on fundie religious websites.
We are part of nature, as is our reason, as are our perceptions. If we can count on nature to be relatively consistent, then we can also count on our reason and perceptions to be relatively consistent, and as we learn more and accumulate more data, we will narrow the definition of the word relatively. This doesnt mean that people generally behave as though their reason can be counted on as relatively consistent; in fact, they behave in just the reverse. But that too is knowledge, and it is not impossible to fix. Two ways I can think of is to stop inculcating in children (who lack any proper frame of reference) mystical mumbo-jumbo which is invariably backed up with the fundie christian precepts of self-deception, self-righteousness and implied threat. The second is to prioritize schooling of logical and critical thinking.
Do you and Daws copy and paste from pro evolutionist and atheist sites ? What is your point ? Most the time my posts are my own words,sometimes I don't feel like repeating myself and will copy and paste from sites on my side of the argument. I also quote people from your side as well. There are honest evolutionist out there and admit to the truths that many on your side are ignorant of.
I've noticed a consistent pattern of behavior with Christian creationist fundies. When their arguments are collapsing in front of them, they get frustrated, angry and lash out.When you're too befuddled to counter an argument, you should avoid babbling with spam.
Befuddled me ? Not by the arguments you present. You should take your own advice.
I've noticed a consistent pattern of behavior with Christian creationist fundies. When their arguments are collapsing in front of them, they get frustrated, angry and lash out.
I noticed the behavior of atheistic evolutionist that have very little knowledge of science.
More of your childish lashing out.
When you're too befuddled to counter an argument, you should avoid babbling with spam.Do you and Daws copy and paste from pro evolutionist and atheist sites ? What is your point ? Most the time my posts are my own words,sometimes I don't feel like repeating myself and will copy and paste from sites on my side of the argument. I also quote people from your side as well. There are honest evolutionist out there and admit to the truths that many on your side are ignorant of.
Wow!! This coming from the she man that hasn't presented a single logical argument on their own since he/she started posting here.
I noticed the behavior of atheistic evolutionist that have very little knowledge of science.
More of your childish lashing out.
More of your name calling.
I noticed the behavior of atheistic evolutionist that have very little knowledge of science.
More of your childish lashing out.
More of your name calling.
I noticed the behavior of atheistic evolutionist that have very little knowledge of science.
More of your childish lashing out.
More of your name calling.
I get it since you have no proof you make shit up or believe made up shit ......what evidence might that be?..... chicken fuckingNo,I have seen evidence that makes it reasonable to believe in a creator. It comes down to who is properly interpreting evidence. That is no contest you have no evidence for your theory about life.
proper interpretation of evidence is only possible when objectivity is present.
a skill or quality you have no concept of .
once again belief is not proof.
rea·son·able adj \ˈrēz-nə-bəl, ˈrē-zən-ə-bəl\
Definition of REASONABLE
1a : being in accordance with reason <a reasonable theory> b : not extreme or excessive <reasonable requests> c : moderate, fair <a reasonable chance> <a reasonable price> d : inexpensive
2a : having the faculty of reason b : possessing sound judgment <a reasonable man.
nothing you have posted meets the definition posted above.
Already answered you many times and you still don't get it.
and your interpertation is erroneous. "my side" is looking for fact "your's" has already settled on a false premise answer.they are empirical only in that they exist. it is not however proof that they were caused to happen by a god for a purpose. no matter how much you wish they were.Really, molecular machines are not empirical evidence ? The cell is not empirical evidence ? the sun,moon,and our atmosphere is not empirical evidence ? I can point to many more empirical evidences but this is enough.
No and it does not prove they came into existence on their own. I interpret this evidence as having been designed your side is still looking for an answer.
bullshit :I have heard creationists claim on multiple occasions that the Cambrian explosion disproves evolution. For example, Lee Strobel in this video claims that the all the phyla appeared at once, independently, and therefore they were created.The cambrian explosion is definitely evidence against the theory of evolution. No Organism can survive that many mutations or DNA information change in that short in that short span.
It better supports a creation event where the diversity of life appeared suddenly. Low change over time did not happen with the cambrian explosion.
First we have to understand what the Cambrian explosion is. The Cambrian explosion occurred about 530 million years ago and lasted around 80 million years. (EDIT: Quasar brought to my attention that the exact length of time of the Cambrian explosion is under dispute. However, the lowest estimate is still around 5 million years.) During this time, many of the phyla or general body types first appeared for animals. Before the Cambrian explosion, very few fossils exist of multicellular creatures, and life appears to be mainly composed of single cell organisms.
However, not all phyla made their appearance during the Cambrian explosion. Land-based life such as flowers, ferns, etc... developed much later.
While fossils from the Cambrian explosion and Precambrian are rare, evidence exists that all these body types did not evolve completely independently. All animal phyla, for example, share many common characteristics. They are all triploblastic (the embryo forms in 3 layers), bilatteral (have left and right halves) coelomates (have internal body organs). Therefore, evidence of common ancestry is suggested in the formation of these early phyla groups.
More importantly, geologists found fossils predating the Cambrian explosion of burrows which require a digging mechanism and multicellular creatures. So the idea that creatures found in the Cambrian explosion arose without precedent is simply untrue. Life had been developing into more complex, multicellular forms in the Precambrian.
The easiest way to explain the Cambrian explosion is through the theory of punctuated equilibrium. According to the theory, the evolution of most sexually-reproducing creatures occurs in short bursts followed by long stretches of few changes.
While the theory of punctuated equilibrium may have been over-sold, the idea that changes to the environment spur evolutionary development is well understood by biologists. After all, the information for evolution comes from the environment - change the environment, change the creature.
It just so happens that the amount of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere dramatically rose during the time of the Cambrian explosion, giving animals more oxygen to work with. This extra oxygen could have enabled creatures to grow larger than ever before without suffocating their body parts due to a lack of oxygen.
So while much remains to be learned about the Cambrian explosion, the idea that it somehow proves that omnipotent deity magically created life on Earth is a very much unwarranted.
Debunked by Debunkey Monkey at 8:02 PM
The Debunkey Monkey: Debunking Cambrian Explosion Myths
btw my post was about the lies told in the film expelled, but as always you missed the point completely...and proved wrong.
The fairytale and myth is saying that rapid diversification of multicellular animal life appeared rapidly over millions of years through a natural process, No way Jose.
what place do you think you put me in.?do you always intentionaly mis paraphrase the BB theory.Do you believe that nothing collided with nothing and created something?
Does E=mc2?
it never states some thing from nothing.
what it does state is ALL THE MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE WAS COMPACTED IN TO AN INFINITESIMALLY SMALL SPACE .
EITHER WAY BELIEVING IS NOT PROOF.
NEVER HAS BEEN NEVER WILL BE
Put your dunce hat on
I love putting you in your place. So where did the matter come from since time did not exist ?
another no answer you have no evidence god either..just a wish.No and it does not prove they came into existence on their own. I interpret this evidence as having been designed your side is still looking for an answer.
Of course, your answer is "the gods did it". That is pure speculation and science has already made you gods obsolete. As time goes on the gods will be more and more superfluous when it comes to explainig the natural world.
Supernaturalism is not an answer for anything because it is ultimately lazy and dishonest. While it does relieve you of the burdensome task of having to make decisions and take responsibility for them, belief in gods is a religious claim and thus removes you from science claims. Appeals to the gods is pure speculation on your part. Even if we were to accept your undemonstrated claims of gods, it still gives us no solid reason to believe any supernatural causation is the result of your god(s) and not some other gods.
See? This is the risk you face when trying to twist religious traditions delineated in fundie dogma to fit the natural world. It demands mis-statements and speculation.
I can't think of anyone able to design them here on this planet
Rugged Hollie, methinks you quoted out of context. Are you a man or a woman? The sad truth is that he is talking about you. You have made yourself the center of your own existence.
Goofy name-caller,
Thinking is difficult for you. We understand that.
I dont see that accepting reason as the criteria for perception is making oneself the center of ones own existence. That is one of the many goofy canards typically appearing on fundie religious websites.
We are part of nature, as is our reason, as are our perceptions. If we can count on nature to be relatively consistent, then we can also count on our reason and perceptions to be relatively consistent, and as we learn more and accumulate more data, we will narrow the definition of the word relatively. This doesnt mean that people generally behave as though their reason can be counted on as relatively consistent; in fact, they behave in just the reverse. But that too is knowledge, and it is not impossible to fix. Two ways I can think of is to stop inculcating in children (who lack any proper frame of reference) mystical mumbo-jumbo which is invariably backed up with the fundie christian precepts of self-deception, self-righteousness and implied threat. The second is to prioritize schooling of logical and critical thinking.
Do you and Daws copy and paste from pro evolutionist and atheist sites ? What is your point ? Most the time my posts are my own words,sometimes I don't feel like repeating myself and will copy and paste from sites on my side of the argument. I also quote people from your side as well. There are honest evolutionist out there and admit to the truths that many on your side are ignorant of.
I get it since you have no proof you make shit up or believe made up shit ......what evidence might that be?..... chicken fucking
proper interpretation of evidence is only possible when objectivity is present.
a skill or quality you have no concept of .
once again belief is not proof.
rea·son·able adj \ˈrēz-nə-bəl, ˈrē-zən-ə-bəl\
Definition of REASONABLE
1a : being in accordance with reason <a reasonable theory> b : not extreme or excessive <reasonable requests> c : moderate, fair <a reasonable chance> <a reasonable price> d : inexpensive
2a : having the faculty of reason b : possessing sound judgment <a reasonable man.
nothing you have posted meets the definition posted above.
Already answered you many times and you still don't get it.
and your interpertation is erroneous. "my side" is looking for fact "your's" has already settled on a false premise answer.they are empirical only in that they exist. it is not however proof that they were caused to happen by a god for a purpose. no matter how much you wish they were.
No and it does not prove they came into existence on their own. I interpret this evidence as having been designed your side is still looking for an answer.
what place do you think you put me in.?do you always intentionaly mis paraphrase the BB theory.
it never states some thing from nothing.
what it does state is ALL THE MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE WAS COMPACTED IN TO AN INFINITESIMALLY SMALL SPACE .
EITHER WAY BELIEVING IS NOT PROOF.
NEVER HAS BEEN NEVER WILL BE
Put your dunce hat on
I love putting you in your place. So where did the matter come from since time did not exist ?
since you answerd a question I never asked that makes you the dunce and an asshole with reading comp troubles.
