Creationists

[Hollie]

Yes an argument against one's own theory isn't excused.

You can write it a hundred times it does not make it true. It's your opinion.

Fact is Darwin was troubled by the lack of transistional fossils and admitted this would be a huge problem. And it is.

Unfortunately, being a clone of the creationist ministries with an appalling lack of a science vocabulary, you're unable to understand the nonsense you promote as an enlightened view of evolutionary science.

The fact is, your "facts" are not facts at all but boilerplate creationist cut and paste. The creationist "transitional fosill" argument has long ago been debunked as nonsensical.

Stop projecting and please stop pretending you know anything about me. Your constant misrepresentation of my character is annoying. But seeing that's your only weapon I can see why you use it.

Your insults toward me does nothing for your credibility or lack thereof.

Please show me the millions of transitional fossils that have been found and while your at it show me proof that scientist created life out of nothing.

Answer these questions without your usual cut and paste crap:

Which evolved first, male or female?

If we all evolved from a common ancestor, why can’t all the different species mate with one another and produce fertile offspring?

Why is it that the very things that would prove Evolution (transitional forms) are still missing?

The "angry fundie" persona is not at all becoming. The answers to your cut and paste questions (obviously boilerplate cut and paste from crestionist ministries), have been addressed repeatedly in this thread. It's a common tactic of Christian creationists to ignore the data presented to them while launching into fits of conspiracy theory babble and seek ways to confuse themselves.

The difficult component in dealing with Christian creationists is their usual lack of exposure to a science curriculum and so even basic concepts such as definitions of "scientific theory" utterly escapes them. That was evident in your posts as despite the clearly delineated progression of sentence structure defying the concept of scientific theory, you gave yet to grasp that fairly simple description.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It's obvious you feel that your religious propaganda is under scrutiny and causes you to lash out. There's no need, really. You're entitled to belief in supernaturalism and magic that defines the spirit world of gods, jinn and supermagicalism, but bring those elements into a discussion of reason and rationality and your claims are taken as religious dogma.

I've made no mention of religion. Ah I see another strawman is being created or perhaps another lame attempt at pettifogging the issue.

Yet another failed attempt to conceal your religious agenda. It's a typical pattern of behavior where Christian creationists will go to extensive lengths to denigrate science in the hope that will somehow promote their gods. That is why fundies erect legions of strawman arguments proposing perceived flaws in Darwin's TOE while they can't seem to understand that the theory has been confirmed for the last century by science and experimentation.

Why do you insist on the same dull argument?

Face it, you do not know half of what you claim. You simply cannot answer a direct challenge instead you pettifog the issue or create strawman arguments.

I've laid out the facts, you choose to ignore them.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Unfortunately, being a clone of the creationist ministries with an appalling lack of a science vocabulary, you're unable to understand the nonsense you promote as an enlightened view of evolutionary science.

The fact is, your "facts" are not facts at all but boilerplate creationist cut and paste. The creationist "transitional fosill" argument has long ago been debunked as nonsensical.

Stop projecting and please stop pretending you know anything about me. Your constant misrepresentation of my character is annoying. But seeing that's your only weapon I can see why you use it.

Your insults toward me does nothing for your credibility or lack thereof.

Please show me the millions of transitional fossils that have been found and while your at it show me proof that scientist created life out of nothing.

Answer these questions without your usual cut and paste crap:

Which evolved first, male or female?

If we all evolved from a common ancestor, why can’t all the different species mate with one another and produce fertile offspring?

Why is it that the very things that would prove Evolution (transitional forms) are still missing?

The "angry fundie" persona is not at all becoming. The answers to your cut and paste questions (obviously boilerplate cut and paste from crestionist ministries), have been addressed repeatedly in this thread. It's a common tactic of Christian creationists to ignore the data presented to them while launching into fits of conspiracy theory babble and seek ways to confuse themselves.

The difficult component in dealing with Christian creationists is their usual lack of exposure to a science curriculum and so even basic concepts such as definitions of "scientific theory" utterly escapes them. That was evident in your posts as despite the clearly delineated progression of sentence structure defying the concept of scientific theory, you gave yet to grasp that fairly simple description.

You're the only that thinks I'm angry. Even after I assurd you I wasn't. But I suppose your constant ignoring of facts, it's to be expected.

I figured you wouldn't be able to answer the questions. You really do not have a clue as to what you're even defending. My grandchild has more knowledge about evolutionary theory than you do. And she's a much greater debater than you . She answers direct questions with specific answers and does not rely on saying the same thing over and over and over etc.......

I'm given the definition of "scientific theory". And to be honest the "theory of evolution" isn't really a theory it's a hypothesis.

 

[Hollie]

I've made no mention of religion. Ah I see another strawman is being created or perhaps another lame attempt at pettifogging the issue.

Yet another failed attempt to conceal your religious agenda. It's a typical pattern of behavior where Christian creationists will go to extensive lengths to denigrate science in the hope that will somehow promote their gods. That is why fundies erect legions of strawman arguments proposing perceived flaws in Darwin's TOE while they can't seem to understand that the theory has been confirmed for the last century by science and experimentation.

Why do you insist on the same dull argument?

Face it, you do not know half of what you claim. You simply cannot answer a direct challenge instead you pettifog the issue or create strawman arguments.

I've laid out the facts, you choose to ignore them.

The science of explaining the natural world is not at all dull. Christian creationists would prefer to dumb-down all of existence with the simple minded "the gods did it". But as we know, there are entirely natural explanations for existence that don't require the ignorance invoked by fear and superstition.

Creationist straw man arguments denigrating scientific knowledge with appeals to magic and supernaturalism are inherently constraining and only serve to further ignorance. This is why creationists cannot respond to direct challenges to present evidence of their gods.

The science community has addressed creationist claims to supernaturalism with rational answers that creationists have been forced to respond to with incredible claims, improbable scenarios and fantastical flights of imagination

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Yet another failed attempt to conceal your religious agenda. It's a typical pattern of behavior where Christian creationists will go to extensive lengths to denigrate science in the hope that will somehow promote their gods. That is why fundies erect legions of strawman arguments proposing perceived flaws in Darwin's TOE while they can't seem to understand that the theory has been confirmed for the last century by science and experimentation.

Why do you insist on the same dull argument?

Face it, you do not know half of what you claim. You simply cannot answer a direct challenge instead you pettifog the issue or create strawman arguments.

I've laid out the facts, you choose to ignore them.

The science of explaining the natural world is not at all dull. Christian creationists would prefer to dumb-down all of existence with the simple minded "the gods did it". But as we know, there are entirely natural explanations for existence that don't require the ignorance invoked by fear and superstition.

Creationist straw man arguments denigrating scientific knowledge with appeals to magic and supernaturalism are inherently constraining and only serve to further ignorance. This is why creationists cannot respond to direct challenges to present evidence of their gods.

The science community has addressed creationist claims to supernaturalism with rational answers that creationists have been forced to respond to with incredible claims, improbable scenarios and fantastical flights of imagination

Your entire argument is dull. You offer nothing but the same rehashed garbage.

The only one creating strawmen is you and once I called you out on it you try to turn it around as if I'm the one creating them. You can't even come up with your own argument, you have to copy mine! If it wasn't so sad, it'd be funny.

When you reach the age of maturity come back.

 

[UltimateReality]

"A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease." (wikipedia)

Before you criticize my source, wikipedia has been found to be as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica.

And I have some swamp land in Florida I can sell you.
Oh you poor dear. More bastardized pseudoscience from the NAS. So let me get this straight... The apple fell on Newton's head it was immediately proclaimed the law of gravity. You and Hollie need to lay of the NAS koolaid.

A theory is used to describe "why" or "how" an observed phenomenon happens, not that it happens. A law is simply a description of something that does happen (ie, 2nd law of thermodynamics). Therefore, a theory and a law are categorically distinct, and one never becomes the other. Theories are often supported by laws. There could be a theory to describe why the 2nd law of thermodynamics exists, but this theory would never become a law, as this would be a categorical error.

The theory of gravity has not become a law. Newton's universal law of gravitation is a very specific mathematical description of gravity within certain parameters. It does not apply in all instances, such as where the general theory of relativity is concerned. So, it is not universally applicable, therefore, nor is it a law. It is called a law, because for what it describes, it is always true.

None of this actually matters, because it fails to address the most important point in all of this: Lonestar's use of the word "theory" is incompatabile with any use of the word "theory" in science.

The fact that you attack the NAS on your own subjective grounds is laughable. This is an ad hominem attack at its finest. The definition put forth by them is firmly operational.

Just keep repeating that over and over and maybe it will come true like it does in Hollie's world.

You have shown yourself to be a charlatan. You are not worth debating, and are guilty of every piece of ridicule you throw at others. For the record, I have never consulted nor was even familiar with NAS until now. But, even so, I can simply say you're rejection of its definition is an ad hominem attack. You don't address the actual definition, you just attack the organization who produced it, which is meaningless, considering this definition is not special in any way, and could be found any numbers of places, so you're attack on the NAS is moot in trying to defile this definition.

Once again, you don't address any of my actual points, because you can't. You just use emoticons and so "oh my poor dear" and laugh, just like a charlatan would. You only show yourself to be a complete snob who doesn't care what the other side is arguing. You ignore all counter-arguments, and continue on your merry way. As a creationists, I guess you have to, because you have no real arguments of your own. Just a bunch of vacuous attacks on evolution that demonstrate a total unwillingness to accept reality.

You have just demonstrated IRONY. Your whole response was an Ad Hominem attack.

 

[UltimateReality]

Nope. Did you read any of what I wrote? I guess I have to write it again, because you can't read.

It wouldn't matter what he thought about his own theory. This is an argument from authority.

The argument from authority isn't excused, simply because that authority is the author of his own theory, in this case, Darwin and the TOE. There is no such stipulation anywhere for this logical debate fallacy. If you can find it, let me know, otherwise, drop this point. It is fruitless.

I have to interject here. If is fairly common for someone "making up" a theory to think about all the objections that others might have for the theory and attempt to head them off with a rebuttal ahead of time. Darwin did this numerous times in his little fictional book. One of the mistakes he made was that he spoke of the future and his belief that science would develop and discover more evidence to support his theory. At the time he wrote OOTS, they had barely "scratched the surface" of the fossil record and they knew very little about the workings of the cell. Unfortunately for Darwin, hundreds of thousands of fossils later and there still is no more better evidence in the fossil record for his theory.

Except for the small fact that, from fossils, geology, and DNA, there is a lot of evidence that has been gotten since Darwin's' time, corroborating and strengthening his theory to the point where it is almost universally accepted amongst scientists. You can sit there and deny the evidence for evolution all day, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means you don't accept it because you don't want to, because it would hurt your little theory about a magic man in the sky willing things into existence.

I'm not sure what evidence you are looking at but genetic research has shredded Darwin's tree of life and the fossil evidence has shredded gradualism, giving rise to theories like punctuated equilibrium. You want to believe in Darwinism because it supports your anti-God agenda. It is pointless to argue with you, Hollie, Loki and Daws because it is not science that drives your hatred, it is your anti-God materialistic beliefs. Science is just a crutch you use to help you sleep at night. You are all total slaves to confirmation bias and you can't see it cause you're in it.

 

[UltimateReality]

Omigosh!!! You did not just cut and paste this nonsense from the National Academy of Science!!! Typical materialistic propaganda. Don't be fooled by scientific revisionism. A theory becomes a law if the body of repeatable experiments supporting the theory becomes so large that the theory can be said to apply in every instance. The theory of gravity is now the law of gravity here on earth. It is not violated here EVER. However, on the astronomical level, there does appear to be observed instances where a more comprehensive theory of universal gravity is needed. The biggest joke of this foolish comparison is that we can actually set up experiments and test our predictions about the way gravity behaves. We can't set up experiments to test for natural selection because the TOE is a historical science. The events happened in the past and we can only look at evidence from a prior event and make deductions about the causes of that prior outcome. It is utterly foolish and silly when materialist attempt to compare the operational sciences with historical sciences and pretend they are somehow on the same level. Hollie, you really are so gullible that you fall for this nonsense and believe it hook, line and sinker. They got you brainwashed good.


The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, non-profit society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the public good.

"It is important for us to understand the mindset of the hierarchy of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) because they are the ones whose alleged expertise on “global warming” will justify the Democrats’ cap-and-tax legislation. Over the last 50 years, the NAS hierarchy has become one of the most poisonous organizations in America, a nest of atheists who base their pseudo-scientific dogma on the arbitrary rejection of God, and not upon empirical evidence and the scientific method."

The Atheist-Dominated National Academy of Sciences | Conservative News, Views & Books

It is really sad when organizations like this with an agenda actually gain so much influence that they are able to bastardize the legitimate sciences and force policies in public education that pukes out brainwashed zombies like Hollie and NP. They are so deep in it they don't yet realize the mind fu... dge that has been played on them.

"A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease." (wikipedia)

Before you criticize my source, wikipedia has been found to be as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica.

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica - CNET News


A theory never becomes a law. A theory is used to describe "why" or "how" an observed phenomenon happens, not that it happens. A law is simply a description of something that does happen (ie, 2nd law of thermodynamics). Therefore, a theory and a law are categorically distinct, and one never becomes the other. Theories are often supported by laws. There could be a theory to describe why the 2nd law of thermodynamics exists, but this theory would never become a law, as this would be a categorical error.

The theory of gravity has not become a law. Newton's universal law of gravitation is a very specific mathematical description of gravity within certain parameters. It does not apply in all instances, such as where the general theory of relativity is concerned. So, it is not universally applicable, therefore, nor is it a law. It is called a law, because for what it describes, it is always true.

None of this actually matters, because it fails to address the most important point in all of this: Lonestar's use of the word "theory" is incompatabile with any use of the word "theory" in science.

The fact that you attack the NAS on your own subjective grounds is laughable. This is an ad hominem attack at its finest. The definition put forth by them is firmly operational.

It's certainly predictable that a science loathing Christian creationist would react in panic to an organization that promotes science and learning. The greatest threat to fundies is knowledge and enlightenment. Promoting knowledge absolutely terrifies creationists because their need to further fear and ignorance is directly challenged.

This is why creationists react so negatively to science and understanding and why they are forced to attack science in the defense of their gods. In every instance, creationist supernaturalism is shown to be a litany of fallacious reasoning, describing impossible mechanics, tossing away and dismissing physical evidence, making meaningless comparisons, until finally when reason pushes them into a corner where their unsupported and unsupportable claims are again, no linger defendable, they escape into the "God did it" safety net.

We have no reason to believe any such gods or supermagical being or beings are necessary for existence, and to invoke one raises the question of evidence that the creationists are unable to present. So it is left for creationists to vilify science in failed attempts to justify their special pleadings for gods. That creationists arbitrarily stop at "a" point and don't ask what made god(s) is their choice to do, but its inconsistency, by definition, literally screams out as amateur.

Reality has all the earmarks of a naturally caused and functioning universe. We have no evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple millennia of theories and claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on. Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that a god exists (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even needed for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge.
That dynamic is displayed prominently by the screaming, hysterical fundies who see their gods being made unusable and unnecessary and so react with tirades, posting of gargantuan fonts and juvenile tirades.

So why don't you share? Where did you go to college? If you actually had any formal education, you would answer the question. To remain silent is to give an answer.

 

[UltimateReality]

Nope. Did you read any of what I wrote? I guess I have to write it again, because you can't read.

It wouldn't matter what he thought about his own theory. This is an argument from authority.

The argument from authority isn't excused, simply because that authority is the author of his own theory, in this case, Darwin and the TOE. There is no such stipulation anywhere for this logical debate fallacy. If you can find it, let me know, otherwise, drop this point. It is fruitless.

Yes an argument against one's own theory isn't excused.

You can write it a hundred times it does not make it true. It's your opinion.

Fact is Darwin was troubled by the lack of transistional fossils and admitted this would be a huge problem. And it is.

Unfortunately, being a clone of the creationist ministries with an appalling lack of a science vocabulary, you're unable to understand the nonsense you promote as an enlightened view of evolutionary science.

The fact is, your "facts" are not facts at all but boilerplate creationist cut and paste. The creationist "transitional fosill" argument has long ago been debunked as nonsensical.

You just keep repeating the slogans over and over

and it is obvious from your silence on the topic, you never went to college.

 

[UltimateReality]

Yet another failed attempt to conceal your religious agenda. It's a typical pattern of behavior where Christian creationists will go to extensive lengths to denigrate science in the hope that will somehow promote their gods. That is why fundies erect legions of strawman arguments proposing perceived flaws in Darwin's TOE while they can't seem to understand that the theory has been confirmed for the last century by science and experimentation.

Why do you insist on the same dull argument?

Face it, you do not know half of what you claim. You simply cannot answer a direct challenge instead you pettifog the issue or create strawman arguments.

I've laid out the facts, you choose to ignore them.

The science of explaining the natural world is not at all dull. Christian creationists would prefer to dumb-down all of existence with the simple minded "the gods did it". But as we know, there are entirely natural explanations for existence that don't require the ignorance invoked by fear and superstition.

Creationist straw man arguments denigrating scientific knowledge with appeals to magic and supernaturalism are inherently constraining and only serve to further ignorance. This is why creationists cannot respond to direct challenges to present evidence of their gods.

The science community has addressed creationist claims to supernaturalism with rational answers that creationists have been forced to respond to with incredible claims, improbable scenarios and fantastical flights of imagination

You just keep repeating the slogans over and over

Hollie believes that all of science started with the printing of the OOTS. She has chosen to ignore the other 4000 years of scientific inquiry done by people who believed in God. Her pathetic ignorance would be funny if it wasn't so sad. She is a historical revisionist in the worst sense of the word. Her days are spent vomiting out her misplaced hate for her evangelical, gay-hating, parents. She wants to believe I'm a fundie like mom and dad so she can unload on me like she wishes she could do to her parents. What she continues to ignore is that I am not a fundamentalist Christian in the stereotypical sense. Our church welcomes gay people, just like we welcome couples that are living together. We condemn the sin, not the person, and our congregation loves on them while continuing to gently espouse God's Truth for an abundant life.

 

[daws101]

Yes, this quote was taken out of context. You just put it in context, so thank you.

This common quote mine is irrelevant, even if Darwin meant it in the way that creationists wish he did. This would constitute an argument from authority. It doesn't matter that it was Darwin's own theory. If he expressed doubt about it, it doesn't hurt the theory. Theory stands or falls under the weight of its own evidence. It has been standing strong for 150 years. Darwin could have turned around and denounced his entire theory and screamed at the top of his lungs how his own theory was false. It would have been too late.

But, this doesn't even matter, because Darwin was not doubting his entire theory. He was just expressing problems with the theory he saw at the time. He was just being honest. To Creationists, they see this as self-defeat on his part. It's a mischaracterization of why he was saying what he did.

Strawman.

Red Herring. The emboldened sections have little to do with the point I am trying to make. I could have omitted both emboldened sentences, and it would not detract from my argument here.

speaking of EMBOLDING, ALTERING OR FUCKING AROUND OF ANY KIND WITH A POST EVEN IN A REPLY IS GROUNDS TO GET TOSSED OFF THIS BOARD....

 

[Hollie]

Why do you insist on the same dull argument?

Face it, you do not know half of what you claim. You simply cannot answer a direct challenge instead you pettifog the issue or create strawman arguments.

I've laid out the facts, you choose to ignore them.

The science of explaining the natural world is not at all dull. Christian creationists would prefer to dumb-down all of existence with the simple minded "the gods did it". But as we know, there are entirely natural explanations for existence that don't require the ignorance invoked by fear and superstition.

Creationist straw man arguments denigrating scientific knowledge with appeals to magic and supernaturalism are inherently constraining and only serve to further ignorance. This is why creationists cannot respond to direct challenges to present evidence of their gods.

The science community has addressed creationist claims to supernaturalism with rational answers that creationists have been forced to respond to with incredible claims, improbable scenarios and fantastical flights of imagination

You just keep repeating the slogans over and over

Hollie believes that all of science started with the printing of the OOTS. She has chosen to ignore the other 4000 years of scientific inquiry done by people who believed in God. Her pathetic ignorance would be funny if it wasn't so sad. She is a historical revisionist in the worst sense of the word. Her days are spent vomiting out her misplaced hate for her evangelical, gay-hating, parents. She wants to believe I'm a fundie like mom and dad so she can unload on me like she wishes she could do to her parents. What she continues to ignore is that I am not a fundamentalist Christian in the stereotypical sense. Our church welcomes gay people, just like we welcome couples that are living together. We condemn the sin, not the person, and our congregation loves on them while continuing to gently espouse God's Truth for an abundant life.

In your lurid fantasies of begging for attention, you managed to get everything wrong, except for the part of you being a stereotypical fundie. You're completely stereotypical.

 

[Hollie]

And I have some swamp land in Florida I can sell you.
Oh you poor dear. More bastardized pseudoscience from the NAS. So let me get this straight... The apple fell on Newton's head it was immediately proclaimed the law of gravity. You and Hollie need to lay of the NAS koolaid.



Just keep repeating that over and over and maybe it will come true like it does in Hollie's world.

You have shown yourself to be a charlatan. You are not worth debating, and are guilty of every piece of ridicule you throw at others. For the record, I have never consulted nor was even familiar with NAS until now. But, even so, I can simply say you're rejection of its definition is an ad hominem attack. You don't address the actual definition, you just attack the organization who produced it, which is meaningless, considering this definition is not special in any way, and could be found any numbers of places, so you're attack on the NAS is moot in trying to defile this definition.

Once again, you don't address any of my actual points, because you can't. You just use emoticons and so "oh my poor dear" and laugh, just like a charlatan would. You only show yourself to be a complete snob who doesn't care what the other side is arguing. You ignore all counter-arguments, and continue on your merry way. As a creationists, I guess you have to, because you have no real arguments of your own. Just a bunch of vacuous attacks on evolution that demonstrate a total unwillingness to accept reality.

You have just demonstrated IRONY. Your whole response was an Ad Hominem attack.

There's no irony regarding your inability to address topics that you can't respond to without cutting and pasting from creationist ministries.

 

[daws101]

So you wouldn't think it was food and eat it.

Lots of animals eat other animals poo, let alone that a lot of food smells pretty poo-ish.

Please try again.

So your comparing irrational animal behavior to rational behavoir of man?

Do you beleive the two to be homogenous?

since man is an animal (mammal) Definition of MAMMAL
: any of a class (Mammalia) of warm-blooded higher vertebrates (as placentals, marsupials, or monotremes) that nourish their young with milk secreted by mammary glands, have the skin usually more or less covered with hair, and include humans .
eating shit by "lower" animals is not an irrational act it is caused by decease or extreme hunger. as they appear not to posses the power of reason...
humans are the only creatures that can be irrational.
fun fact http://www.thedailysheeple.com/there-is-a-staggering-amount-of-feces-in-our-food_102012

 

[daws101]

So you wouldn't think it was food and eat it.

Lots of animals eat other animals poo, let alone that a lot of food smells pretty poo-ish.

Please try again.

Humans aren't animals. They are created in the image of God.

bullshit !

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Lots of animals eat other animals poo, let alone that a lot of food smells pretty poo-ish.

Please try again.

So your comparing irrational animal behavior to rational behavoir of man?

Do you beleive the two to be homogenous?

since man is an animal (mammal) Definition of MAMMAL
: any of a class (Mammalia) of warm-blooded higher vertebrates (as placentals, marsupials, or monotremes) that nourish their young with milk secreted by mammary glands, have the skin usually more or less covered with hair, and include humans .
eating shit by "lower" animals is not an irrational act it is caused by decease or extreme hunger. as they appear not to posses the power of reason...
humans are the only creatures that can be irrational.
fun fact http://www.thedailysheeple.com/there-is-a-staggering-amount-of-feces-in-our-food_102012

Well if you think eating shit is rational behavoir. Then don't let me stop you.

 

[daws101]

Hollie, if you believe it happened then it must have happened. Don't let a little think like providing proof stop you. Oh and pay no mind to the nice gentlemen in the white coats approaching your front door.

There is proof of evolution.

There is no proof of your gods.

Don't let a little thing like credibility crowd out your ignorance and superstitions.

No, there is perceived proof of evolution.

There is proof, but in order to witness it there are things you first must do. Accept Jesus Christ as your Savior would be one of the first steps.

major bullshit ! real evidence is is self evident, it has dimension, weight and is measurable, quantifiable.it needs no accepting of a god to see.
what you laughingly call proof is subjective, illusory ( based on or producing illusion : deceptive) and is based entirely on a total misperceived POV.


"No, there is perceived proof of evolution." -lonestar
wrong! there is misperceived proof of god....

 

[daws101]

So your comparing irrational animal behavior to rational behavoir of man?

Do you beleive the two to be homogenous?

since man is an animal (mammal) Definition of MAMMAL
: any of a class (Mammalia) of warm-blooded higher vertebrates (as placentals, marsupials, or monotremes) that nourish their young with milk secreted by mammary glands, have the skin usually more or less covered with hair, and include humans .
eating shit by "lower" animals is not an irrational act it is caused by decease or extreme hunger. as they appear not to posses the power of reason...
humans are the only creatures that can be irrational.
fun fact There Is A Staggering Amount Of Feces In Our Food

Well if you think eating shit is rational behavoir. Then don't let me stop you.

as always missed the point completely....
hint: making false comparisons!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

There is proof of evolution.

There is no proof of your gods.

Don't let a little thing like credibility crowd out your ignorance and superstitions.

No, there is perceived proof of evolution.

There is proof, but in order to witness it there are things you first must do. Accept Jesus Christ as your Savior would be one of the first steps.

major bullshit ! real evidence is is self evident, it has dimension, weight and is measurable, quantifiable.it needs no accepting of a god to see.
what you laughingly call proof is subjective, illusory ( based on or producing illusion : deceptive) and is based entirely on a total misperceived POV.


"No, there is perceived proof of evolution." -lonestar
wrong! there is misperceived proof of god....

There is no "real" evidence.

 

[daws101]

The questions have not been answered.

Face the fact, you cannot answer any of these questions. You can only cut and paste from sources you believe has the answer.

Inadequacy is your strong suit. not mine.

The questions have been answered.

Your inadequacy toward making a case for your gods is not my problem.

My God does not need me to make a case for Him. He as done that himself. You simply choose to ignore it.

nothing to ignore...you have no proof of god..
just a belief ....and that proves nothing but belief