Creationists

[Hollie]

This statement has be repeated over and over by Hollie but it is NOT a logical requirement of Theism. This atheist cut and paste argument in the fallacious application of the statement "A BEGINNING necessitates a CAUSE." However, the Christian form of Theism teaches that the Judeo-Christian God has always existed, and predates the Big Bang. Since the Judeo-Christian God exists eternally backwards and forwards, and has no beginning, there is no logical reason that He should require a cause, and therefore, he also does not require a creator. The Christian God has always existed and was never created. Atheists seem to ignore this fact continually. We are talking about religious theology. And these claims about God's pre-existence and having no beginning are outlined in the Christian Holy Book the Bible. So obviously, when atheist refer to a god that requires a creator, they cannot logically be referring to the Christian God as described in the Bible. This is what happens when folks on the internet cut and paste statements from atheist propaganda websites without a full understanding of the logic behind the arguments they are cutting and pasting.

The appeals to supernaturalism are cut and asted over and over by my stalker. He will make claims to his gods being uncaused, existing eternally, etc., etc., because it excuses the fundies from the discipline of reason and rationality.

Instead of the "christian god" as used by my stalker, substitute "The Easter Bunny".

According to my stalker, a "logical requirement" for "The Easter Bunny" flows along the lines of: Since "The Easter Bunny" exists eternally backwards and forwards, and has no beginning, there is no logical reason that He ("The Easter Bunny" -ed.) should require a cause, and therefore, he also does not require a creator. The "The Easter Bunny" has always existed and was never created.

It's all very logical in the weird and twisted world of "The Easter Bunny'ists"

I guess when you are in it, you don't see how foolish you really look. Your argument about a creator begetting a creator assumes a creator. So you choose to assume whose creator? If you are going to argue against the Christian Creator, then follow the common teachings about the Christian Creator, i.e., he has ALWAYS existed. This really isn't that hard. If you want to argue about the Easter Bunny, then you need to pick which Easter Bunny you are going to argue against and then for that Easter Bunny, attack the tenets and teachings widely accepted for that particular Easter Bunny. Please tell me you really aren't this stupid to apply the Easter Bunny logic to a Christian Creationist argument that you are attempting to dismantle? Your continued ignorance in this realm just shows your unfamiliarity with the four commonly accepted worldviews: Materialism, Theism, Deism, and Pantheism. Your creator of the creator argument can only logically be applied to Deism or Pantheism.

I just started to read Stephen Meyer's Signature In The Cell again and I am amazed at what a thoughtful and accurate account it is of the current schools of thought regarding origins. Again, what amazes me about you, Daws, and Loki is the fact that you are so brainwashed in your worldview that you don't take the time to actually read an opposing viewpoint. Your ramblings trying to tear down ID sound like a child, because you have never actually explored what it is you are fighting against. I study current evolutionary thought quite regularly, devoting as much time reading about it as I do reading about ID. I have embarrassed Loki with is ignorance of what modern evolutionary theory teaches. Like you, he is hopelessly left cutting and pasting from wiki and atheist websites, but isn't familiar with many new claims of current evolutionary thought. It's not surprising that he hasn't read a book on ID like Signature In The Cell. You and he rely on what others with an agenda have to say about it, and like sheep, you put your blind trust in internet atheist haters rather than exploring things on your own.

Pathetic.

Yes. That really was pathetic.

You still haven't resolved the obvious contradiction whereby you lead your argument with a falsehood and then continue to invent falsehoods built upon falsehoods.

So correct. That really was pathetic.

 

[Hollie]

if it doesnt hurt you why does it matter use a little empathy and dont be a douchebag how would you feel if creationists were the status quo and they were bashing on your evolution besides if you look real deep into science you will see godlike phenomina i forget why at the moment but ive known before im just tryna get to 15 posts so i can post this shit on the war on drugs with links cause that is seriously fucked. but i digress ... let it be it do you no harm you will only cause hate by ridiculing a minority thats all tight knit like creationalists

As you can see, stalking is a pathology.

My stalker is completely consumed with me, feverishly scouring the web in search of material he attributes to me. My stalker apparently posted elsewhere under the name Rugged Slut... yeah, I know it's strange but just look at the behavior of my stalker.

 

[Hollie]

Let's do a little fact check and look at Darwin's guess:

“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.” Charles Darwin in a letter to Joseph Hooker-1871

Says who? Modern Atheist? The scientists of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries certainly didn't view them as such.

"The problem of the nature of life and the problem of its origin have become inseparable." Aleksandr Oparin


This statement has be repeated over and over by Hollie but it is NOT a logical requirement of Theism. This atheist "cut and paste" argument is the fallacious application of the statement "A BEGINNING necessitates a CAUSE." However, the Christian form of Theism teaches that the Judeo-Christian God has always existed, and predates the Big Bang. Since the Judeo-Christian God exists eternally backwards and forwards, and has no beginning, there is no logical reason that He should require a cause, and therefore, he also does not require a creator. The Christian God has always existed and was never created. Atheists seem to ignore this fact continually. We are talking about religious theology. And these claims about God's pre-existence and having no beginning are outlined in the Christian Holy Book the Bible. So obviously, when atheist refer to a god that requires a creator, they cannot logically be referring to the Christian God as described in the Bible. This is what happens when folks on the internet cut and paste statements from atheist propaganda websites without a full understanding of the logic behind the arguments they are cutting and pasting.

Cut and paste? Those are MY words. Get over yourself you self aggrandizing little putz. I aimed that statement at people MUCH wiser than you but thanks for your repetitive, sophomoric input none-the-less.:clap
The funny part is you missed the entire point.

Whatever Hollie. Are you talking about the point where you blatantly misrepresented two very important historical facts in order to prove it? Or the fact that your ad hominem attack against me says nothing about how your statements about Darwin and origins are totally made up?

I'm afraid my stalker is descending even further into his lurid fantasy world.

 

[ima]

I think UR and hollie should rent a room , get naked, and slobber all over each other for a night.

 

[CandySlice]

Cut and paste? Those are MY words. Get over yourself you self aggrandizing little putz. I aimed that statement at people MUCH wiser than you but thanks for your repetitive, sophomoric input none-the-less.:clap
The funny part is you missed the entire point.

Whatever Hollie. Are you talking about the point where you blatantly misrepresented two very important historical facts in order to prove it? Or the fact that your ad hominem attack against me says nothing about how your statements about Darwin and origins are totally made up?

I'm afraid my stalker is descending even further into his lurid fantasy world.

If you really want to piss off a stalker you ignore him. As far as I'm concerned Ultimate Embarassment adds nothing to any conversation and is easily relegated to the dust bin. AND as an extra added bonus it cleans up the thread rather nicely.

 

[UltimateReality]

Whatever Hollie. Are you talking about the point where you blatantly misrepresented two very important historical facts in order to prove it? Or the fact that your ad hominem attack against me says nothing about how your statements about Darwin and origins are totally made up?

I'm afraid my stalker is descending even further into his lurid fantasy world.

If you really want to piss off a stalker you ignore him. As far as I'm concerned Ultimate Embarassment adds nothing to any conversation and is easily relegated to the dust bin. AND as an extra added bonus it cleans up the thread rather nicely.

Whatever Hollie. When all else fails and you can't present a logical rebuttal to the argument, just resort to ad hominem attacks and maybe no one will notice your epic FAIL. You still haven't addressed the historical facts you REVISED to make your argument.

 

[UltimateReality]

The appeals to supernaturalism are cut and asted over and over by my stalker. He will make claims to his gods being uncaused, existing eternally, etc., etc., because it excuses the fundies from the discipline of reason and rationality.

Instead of the "christian god" as used by my stalker, substitute "The Easter Bunny".

According to my stalker, a "logical requirement" for "The Easter Bunny" flows along the lines of: Since "The Easter Bunny" exists eternally backwards and forwards, and has no beginning, there is no logical reason that He ("The Easter Bunny" -ed.) should require a cause, and therefore, he also does not require a creator. The "The Easter Bunny" has always existed and was never created.

It's all very logical in the weird and twisted world of "The Easter Bunny'ists"

I guess when you are in it, you don't see how foolish you really look. Your argument about a creator begetting a creator assumes a creator. So you choose to assume whose creator? If you are going to argue against the Christian Creator, then follow the common teachings about the Christian Creator, i.e., he has ALWAYS existed. This really isn't that hard. If you want to argue about the Easter Bunny, then you need to pick which Easter Bunny you are going to argue against and then for that Easter Bunny, attack the tenets and teachings widely accepted for that particular Easter Bunny. Please tell me you really aren't this stupid to apply the Easter Bunny logic to a Christian Creationist argument that you are attempting to dismantle? Your continued ignorance in this realm just shows your unfamiliarity with the four commonly accepted worldviews: Materialism, Theism, Deism, and Pantheism. Your creator of the creator argument can only logically be applied to Deism or Pantheism.

I just started to read Stephen Meyer's Signature In The Cell again and I am amazed at what a thoughtful and accurate account it is of the current schools of thought regarding origins. Again, what amazes me about you, Daws, and Loki is the fact that you are so brainwashed in your worldview that you don't take the time to actually read an opposing viewpoint. Your ramblings trying to tear down ID sound like a child, because you have never actually explored what it is you are fighting against. I study current evolutionary thought quite regularly, devoting as much time reading about it as I do reading about ID. I have embarrassed Loki with is ignorance of what modern evolutionary theory teaches. Like you, he is hopelessly left cutting and pasting from wiki and atheist websites, but isn't familiar with many new claims of current evolutionary thought. It's not surprising that he hasn't read a book on ID like Signature In The Cell. You and he rely on what others with an agenda have to say about it, and like sheep, you put your blind trust in internet atheist haters rather than exploring things on your own.

Pathetic.

Yes. That really was pathetic.

You still haven't resolved the obvious contradiction whereby you lead your argument with a falsehood and then continue to invent falsehoods built upon falsehoods.

So correct. That really was pathetic.

What's pathetic is you missed the entire point. Your argument supposedly rests on the claims of Christian Theism yet you strawman those claims so you can appear to be right. So correct, REALLY pathetic. By the way...

Where did you go to college??

 

[Hollie]

I'm afraid my stalker is descending even further into his lurid fantasy world.

If you really want to piss off a stalker you ignore him. As far as I'm concerned Ultimate Embarassment adds nothing to any conversation and is easily relegated to the dust bin. AND as an extra added bonus it cleans up the thread rather nicely.

Whatever Hollie. When all else fails and you can't present a logical rebuttal to the argument, just resort to ad hominem attacks and maybe no one will notice your epic FAIL. You still haven't addressed the historical facts you REVISED to make your argument.

The fundies paranoid delusions are deepening.

 

[Hollie]

I guess when you are in it, you don't see how foolish you really look. Your argument about a creator begetting a creator assumes a creator. So you choose to assume whose creator? If you are going to argue against the Christian Creator, then follow the common teachings about the Christian Creator, i.e., he has ALWAYS existed. This really isn't that hard. If you want to argue about the Easter Bunny, then you need to pick which Easter Bunny you are going to argue against and then for that Easter Bunny, attack the tenets and teachings widely accepted for that particular Easter Bunny. Please tell me you really aren't this stupid to apply the Easter Bunny logic to a Christian Creationist argument that you are attempting to dismantle? Your continued ignorance in this realm just shows your unfamiliarity with the four commonly accepted worldviews: Materialism, Theism, Deism, and Pantheism. Your creator of the creator argument can only logically be applied to Deism or Pantheism.

I just started to read Stephen Meyer's Signature In The Cell again and I am amazed at what a thoughtful and accurate account it is of the current schools of thought regarding origins. Again, what amazes me about you, Daws, and Loki is the fact that you are so brainwashed in your worldview that you don't take the time to actually read an opposing viewpoint. Your ramblings trying to tear down ID sound like a child, because you have never actually explored what it is you are fighting against. I study current evolutionary thought quite regularly, devoting as much time reading about it as I do reading about ID. I have embarrassed Loki with is ignorance of what modern evolutionary theory teaches. Like you, he is hopelessly left cutting and pasting from wiki and atheist websites, but isn't familiar with many new claims of current evolutionary thought. It's not surprising that he hasn't read a book on ID like Signature In The Cell. You and he rely on what others with an agenda have to say about it, and like sheep, you put your blind trust in internet atheist haters rather than exploring things on your own.

Pathetic.

Yes. That really was pathetic.

You still haven't resolved the obvious contradiction whereby you lead your argument with a falsehood and then continue to invent falsehoods built upon falsehoods.

So correct. That really was pathetic.

What's pathetic is you missed the entire point. Your argument supposedly rests on the claims of Christian Theism yet you strawman those claims so you can appear to be right. So correct, REALLY pathetic. By the way...

Where did you go to college??

What "point" are you pretending that you made?

 

[UltimateReality]

If you really want to piss off a stalker you ignore him. As far as I'm concerned Ultimate Embarassment adds nothing to any conversation and is easily relegated to the dust bin. AND as an extra added bonus it cleans up the thread rather nicely.

Whatever Hollie. When all else fails and you can't present a logical rebuttal to the argument, just resort to ad hominem attacks and maybe no one will notice your epic FAIL. You still haven't addressed the historical facts you REVISED to make your argument.

MY paranoid delusions are deepening.

Wow, the stalker must have me on auto response. It took her all of one minute to spew more useless verbiage to my post.

 

[Hollie]

Whatever Hollie. When all else fails and you can't present a logical rebuttal to the argument, just resort to ad hominem attacks and maybe no one will notice your epic FAIL. You still haven't addressed the historical facts you REVISED to make your argument.

The fundies paranoid delusions are deepening.

Wow, the stalker must have me on auto response. It took her all of one minute to spew more useless verbiage to my post.

You made no coherent post to respond to.

 

[UltimateReality]

Yes. That really was pathetic.

You still haven't resolved the obvious contradiction whereby you lead your argument with a falsehood and then continue to invent falsehoods built upon falsehoods.

So correct. That really was pathetic.

What's pathetic is you missed the entire point. Your argument supposedly rests on the claims of Christian Theism yet you strawman those claims so you can appear to be right. So correct, REALLY pathetic. By the way...

Where did you go to college??

What "point" are you pretending that you made?

If you can't hold a thought in your prejudice, hating noggin' for more than a page that really isn't my job to help you understand. I try to write at a 3rd grade reading level but apparently that still doesn't help you.

 

[Hollie]

What's pathetic is you missed the entire point. Your argument supposedly rests on the claims of Christian Theism yet you strawman those claims so you can appear to be right. So correct, REALLY pathetic. By the way...

Where did you go to college??

What "point" are you pretending that you made?

If you can't hold a thought in your prejudice, hating noggin' for more than a page that really isn't my job to help you understand. I try to write at a 3rd grade reading level but apparently that still doesn't help you.

The "angry fundie" thing is so cute.

Does it come with a jingle?

 

[UltimateReality]

The fundies paranoid delusions are deepening.

Wow, the stalker must have me on auto response. It took her all of one minute to spew more useless verbiage to my post.

You made no coherent post to respond to.

So then why did you respond??

 

[Hollie]

Wow, the stalker must have me on auto response. It took her all of one minute to spew more useless verbiage to my post.

You made no coherent post to respond to.

So then why did you respond??

Respond to what?

 

[UltimateReality]

You made no coherent post to respond to.

So then why did you respond??

Respond to what? Which way did he go George??

 

[Hollie]

So then why did you respond??

Respond to what? Which way did he go George??

Insightful.

 

[UltimateReality]

You and your other screen name CS have dragged this thread into the toilet. Your continual ad hominem attacks, repetitive references to ICR and Haran Yahya, and your non-relevant cut and pastes make it un-enjoyable for everyone viewing. I am putting you and Candyslice (you) on ignore. If you can actually post up a coherent thought of your own, I might respond, but we will just have to wait and see.

 

[Hollie]

You and your other screen name CS have dragged this thread into the toilet. Your continual ad hominem attacks, repetitive references to ICR and Haran Yahya, and your non-relevant cut and pastes make it un-enjoyable for everyone viewing. I am putting you and Candyslice (you) on ignore. If you can actually post up a coherent thought of your own, I might respond, but we will just have to wait and see.

If you're putting me on ignore, how you will you know if I've responded?

Silly 12 year old!

 

[ima]

You and your other screen name CS have dragged this thread into the toilet. Your continual ad hominem attacks, repetitive references to ICR and Haran Yahya, and your non-relevant cut and pastes make it un-enjoyable for everyone viewing. I am putting you and Candyslice (you) on ignore. If you can actually post up a coherent thought of your own, I might respond, but we will just have to wait and see.

If you're putting me on ignore, how you will you know if I've responded?

Silly 12 year old!

C'mon you two, admit it, you'd like to lick each other's wrinkly skin.