Creationists

[daws101]

I haven't seen anyone on here claiming the earth was young. That's a strawman that your side created.

then your head must bee up your ass as it's ywc argument for creationism ....try to keep up!

I think you need another drink.

since I stopped drinking many years ago yours is a false assuption...

 

[UltimateReality]

lie. I called YWC out on that subject previously.

Now run along you creepy stalker.

Provide a link or get lost LIAR. You need to be able to back up you lying accusations or you have no credibility here.

I will be waiting for the link where I or YWC quoted Harun Yahya.

Oh my. Aren't you the angry fundie. The melodrama is so cute.

YWC is posting. Why don't you ask him?

Provide the link or get lost liar.

 

[daws101]

We can still pick up on the radiation caused by the big bang...

Oh boy let me educate you on this as well.


1st law of thermo dynamics.
The law of conservation of mass & energy: matter(energy) cannot be created nor destroyed.

So I need to ask you where did the ENERGY come from ? where did the energy come from to power my laptop ? or the lights in my home ? or to spin this planet ? or to power the sun ? or move the stars throughout the universe ?

Human Antiquity an introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. Kenneth L. Fader and Michael Alan Park 2001 4th edition pages 44 & 45. Quote from the textbook.

"in the beginning all the energy was condensed into an inconceivably tiny speck the laws of Physics can't account for this"

This goes agains't the laws of physics,so they can't logically account for the energy.

So where did all the matter come from to form all we see ?

Let's go back to the textbook. " the tiny speck began to expand by 3 minutes atomic nuclei appeared" They can't tell us if the Big Bang took place 6 billion years ago or 13 billion years ago or 20 billion years ago so its constantly changing,yet they are gonna tell us what happened at the 3 minute mark This doesn't make any sense what so ever. This is a religous belief it's not based on testable observable science.

I found this.

A letter signed by dozens of scientists that appeared in the New Scientist (Bucking the Big Bang,182(2448)20,May 22nd 2004) statements included.

"The Big Bang theory can't boast NO predictions that have been validated by observation. Claimed sucesses consist of retrospectively making observations fit by adding adjustable parameters."

Let's look at some of their adjustable parameters they added.

1. cosmic collisions are one of the magic wands which prop up the failed materialistic predictions.

Uranus is tilted over; Venus rotates the wrong direction; mars' atmosphere is too thin; Mercury is too dense; therefore,something collided with them to cause them not to fit the predictions !

The letter included statements such as :
The big bang relies on a groiwing number of never observed entities such as, inflation,dark matter,dark energy and can't survive without these fudge factors,in no other field of Physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical factors be accepted,its only accepted because it's a religous belief not observable testable science.

Another proof thrown out is red-shifted starlight.

Possible causes include :

1. Stellar motion. assumes stars are speeding outward from the big bang.

other examples of causes of red-shifted starlight.

1. Second order Doppler effect.
a light source moving at right angles to an observer always appears red-shifted,implying the universe is in a circular motion not expanding.

2. Gravitation. The star's gravity or the gravity of a galaxy may lengthen the wavelenglenth of the starlight. Light could be speeding toward or away from the earth.

3. Photon Interaction. That light waves lose energy while traveling across space,reddening its light.

4. other hypotheses include: the slowing of light or galaxies spiraling toward earth may cause the apparent red-shift.


So redshift is not evidence of the big bang.

Now getting to your comment.

They claim MBR is leftover energy from the supposed big bang. they leave out alot of problems with this, for instance, without hypothetical inflation the big bang does not predict the smooth cosmic background radiation.

Yet inflation requires a density 20 times larger than the big bang's explanation of the origin of the light elements implies ! The MBR is going in different directions not one direction, I believe the stars are the source of the MBR.

Also if the big bang took place billions of years ago,by now all of the matter in space should be evenly distributed but it's not. Stars are found in tightly wound up galaies or balls. This is called the winding up dilemma. The universe is to tightly wound up to be old.

Well Hell's Bells!! Why didn't you just say so?



What a maroon!

what's really funny is ywc besides being totally wrong about the first law of thermodynamics the earth and space are not a closed system.
all his so called info is from creationist sites making them invaild.

 

[UltimateReality]

First of all, this wouldn't be an ad hominem attack, so stop over-using this term. A personal attack is not synonymous with an ad hominem attack, unless that attack is used as a debate tactic, used to distract from the actual arguments. I am not trying to distract from the debate, but commenting on your behavior which itself, was an ad hominem attack. You don't just get to throw around "ad hominem" attack everytime someone insults you. That's such a cop out. Funny that you accuse me of an ad hominem when asking for education credentials would be the epitome of an ad hominem debate tactic. Their credentials have nothing to do with their arguments, and the same goes for them asking for your credentials. You didn't have to give it to them.

I see you insulting Daws and Hollie all the time, so don't cry "ad hominem." Also, I don't spend as much time here as some others, so I simply wasn't here when Daws or Hollie asked for your education credentials. I am not defending them, I am only commenting on what I see when I come here. Stop trying to make it seem like I am only picking on you because I disagree with you.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much!!! Curious you are not calling out Daws for his profanity and name calling or Hollie for her bigoted, hate campaign against Theists. What is any logical human being supposed to think?? You are incredibly transparent right now.

That is not the case. You are the only one I see doing it. Life is unfair sometimes.

You still missed the reason for me questioning her education level. It's like your ears are magically deaf to anything Hollie posts. I will not continue to try and explain the logic of it to you. You have failed to grasp the concept which has been explained to you twice. I will waste no more time with you on this.

me thinks the slapdick doth quote the bard out of context ...if any poster prostesth too much tis thou O URINAL ROT.
Daw's profanity is is well met in this debating forum as it fairly shouts of the many and foul ploys thou pretends in masked tosspotery.
as to the good Hollie HIS sex is vexing only to the envious dullards who's cod pieces are as small as the shrunked goo that sleeps in their tiny minds.
Hollie's campaigns are not of hate but of true knowledge that seeketh to Pierce the bloated and rotting falsehoods and fakery of the addled.

Well there you have it, right there in black and white folks. Daws is just as stupid his manlove interest Hollie.

 

[UltimateReality]

No, you don't seem to get it. That's all there is. Now, point out the flaw in my method. Are you going to tell me that light gets "tired"?

Light year is a measure of distance. not a measure of time.

wrong! are you really this ignorant...
a light YEAR is a measure of HOW FAR LIGHT TRAVELS IN A YEAR ..so by defintion it's a measure of time

Stupid. Stupid. It is a measure of distance using time. Nice try though.

 

[UltimateReality]

Light year is a measure of distance. not a measure of time.

wrong! are you really this ignorant...
a light YEAR is a measure of HOW FAR LIGHT TRAVELS IN A YEAR ..so by defintion it's a measure of time

It's both actually. Since light is a constant the time it travels in one year can be a measurement in miles. It is scientific shorthand as the distances it refers to are awkward numbers. It is clearly also a reference to time. That's why they call it a light YEAR.

Double stupid. Wow, there is one thing the last 10 pages have revealed is that the atheist haters on here need to spend less time on the forums and more time with their noise in a science book. It's getting really pathetic.

 

[UltimateReality]

Light year is a measure of distance. not a measure of time.

wrong! are you really this ignorant...
a light YEAR is a measure of HOW FAR LIGHT TRAVELS IN A YEAR ..so by defintion it's a measure of time

It's both actually. Since light is a constant the time it travels in one year can be a measurement in miles. It is scientific shorthand as the distances it refers to are awkward numbers. It is clearly also a reference to time. That's why they call it a light YEAR.

So Daws and Huggy, how can I use a light year to measure how much time has passed since your last post??? You both should really stick to theatre and drug smuggling.

 

[UltimateReality]

Here again, we see the fundie has a stalkers' obsession with me. I'm afraid the fundie is hoping to compensate for his own lack of education and inability to come to terms with his own failings.

Baiting again??? I'm coming to terms with the fact this is your clever way to disguise your own ignorance.

Come on fundie, let's see more of your posting in gargantuan fonts, trying desperately to pry personal information to placate your lurid obsession.

And while you're lecturing people on "logic", please tell us how logic is used to delineate your supernatural world of gawds and demons.

You can start by reading the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas. His arguments for the existence of God are based on logic and reasoning, something which is very foreign to you and I would not expect you to recognize.

I have, and and you are right but
with all it's logic and reasoning it's false, as Aquinas's assumptions are unprovable he ,just like you have no tangible, testable, objective, quantifiable evidence to corroborate it.

Thanks but no one asked for your irrelevant answers that weren't part of the original question. Hollie wanted to know how logic is used to delineate the supernatural world.

 

[UltimateReality]

lie. I called YWC out on that subject previously.

Now run along you creepy stalker.

Provide a link or get lost LIAR. You need to be able to back up you lying accusations or you have no credibility here.

I will be waiting for the link where I or YWC quoted Harun Yahya.

WHERE DO YOU GET THE IDEA THAT YOUR RAVINGS ARE CREDIBLE ?
The only corroboration you can provide is pseudoscience and the opinions of people who suffer from the same delusional thinking you do.
in short, you have no credibilty now ,will have none in the future.

You always have trouble staying on topic. No need to come to your man love's defense here.

 

[HUGGY]

These yahoo's get much of their "information" from the people that run The Discovery Institute based in Seattle. I had the fortune to meet these morons in person on a christian related project I was working on about a dozen years ago.

Discovery Institute - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

They are totally whackadoodle. I don't think they really believe in their own bullshit themselves.. I think they are just taking adavantage of some really stupid people so they can make money.

 

[UltimateReality]

me thinks the slapdick doth quote the bard out of context ...if any poster prostesth too much tis thou O URINAL ROT.
Daw's profanity is is well met in this debating forum as it fairly shouts of the many and foul ploys thou pretends in masked tosspotery.
as to the good Hollie HIS sex is vexing only to the envious dullards who's cod pieces are as small as the shrunked goo that sleeps in their tiny minds.
Hollie's campaigns are not of hate but of true knowledge that seeketh to Pierce the bloated and rotting falsehoods and fakery of the addled.

Huh?

it's a Elizabethan (aka) Shakespearian shot at Ur's out of context use of Shakespeare..

Wow, all those years in theatre and you still don't grasp Shakespeare??? You really did ride the shortbus didn't you? I know exactly the context it was used in. NP was going overboard trying to say he wasn't attacking me because he disagrees with me when that is exactly what he was doing.

 

[daws101]

Methinks the lady doth protest too much!!! Curious you are not calling out Daws for his profanity and name calling or Hollie for her bigoted, hate campaign against Theists. What is any logical human being supposed to think?? You are incredibly transparent right now.

You still missed the reason for me questioning her education level. It's like your ears are magically deaf to anything Hollie posts. I will not continue to try and explain the logic of it to you. You have failed to grasp the concept which has been explained to you twice. I will waste no more time with you on this.

me thinks the slapdick doth quote the bard out of context ...if any poster prostesth too much tis thou O URINAL ROT.
Daw's profanity is is well met in this debating forum as it fairly shouts of the many and foul ploys thou pretends in masked tosspotery.
as to the good Hollie HIS sex is vexing only to the envious dullards who's cod pieces are as small as the shrunked goo that sleeps in their tiny minds.
Hollie's campaigns are not of hate but of true knowledge that seeketh to Pierce the bloated and rotting falsehoods and fakery of the addled.

Well there you have it, right there in black and white folks. Daws is just is stupid his manlove interest Hollie.

what you would you be blathering about?
"daws is just"- ur I'll take that as a complement ,
your answer proves you have a comp problem and the many and foul ploys thou pretends in masked tosspotery.

 

[UltimateReality]

Oh boy let me educate you on this as well.


1st law of thermo dynamics.
The law of conservation of mass & energy: matter(energy) cannot be created nor destroyed.

So I need to ask you where did the ENERGY come from ? where did the energy come from to power my laptop ? or the lights in my home ? or to spin this planet ? or to power the sun ? or move the stars throughout the universe ?

Human Antiquity an introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. Kenneth L. Fader and Michael Alan Park 2001 4th edition pages 44 & 45. Quote from the textbook.

"in the beginning all the energy was condensed into an inconceivably tiny speck the laws of Physics can't account for this"

This goes agains't the laws of physics,so they can't logically account for the energy.

So where did all the matter come from to form all we see ?

Let's go back to the textbook. " the tiny speck began to expand by 3 minutes atomic nuclei appeared" They can't tell us if the Big Bang took place 6 billion years ago or 13 billion years ago or 20 billion years ago so its constantly changing,yet they are gonna tell us what happened at the 3 minute mark This doesn't make any sense what so ever. This is a religous belief it's not based on testable observable science.

I found this.

A letter signed by dozens of scientists that appeared in the New Scientist (Bucking the Big Bang,182(2448)20,May 22nd 2004) statements included.

"The Big Bang theory can't boast NO predictions that have been validated by observation. Claimed sucesses consist of retrospectively making observations fit by adding adjustable parameters."

Let's look at some of their adjustable parameters they added.

1. cosmic collisions are one of the magic wands which prop up the failed materialistic predictions.

Uranus is tilted over; Venus rotates the wrong direction; mars' atmosphere is too thin; Mercury is too dense; therefore,something collided with them to cause them not to fit the predictions !

The letter included statements such as :
The big bang relies on a groiwing number of never observed entities such as, inflation,dark matter,dark energy and can't survive without these fudge factors,in no other field of Physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical factors be accepted,its only accepted because it's a religous belief not observable testable science.

Another proof thrown out is red-shifted starlight.

Possible causes include :

1. Stellar motion. assumes stars are speeding outward from the big bang.

other examples of causes of red-shifted starlight.

1. Second order Doppler effect.
a light source moving at right angles to an observer always appears red-shifted,implying the universe is in a circular motion not expanding.

2. Gravitation. The star's gravity or the gravity of a galaxy may lengthen the wavelenglenth of the starlight. Light could be speeding toward or away from the earth.

3. Photon Interaction. That light waves lose energy while traveling across space,reddening its light.

4. other hypotheses include: the slowing of light or galaxies spiraling toward earth may cause the apparent red-shift.


So redshift is not evidence of the big bang.

Now getting to your comment.

They claim MBR is leftover energy from the supposed big bang. they leave out alot of problems with this, for instance, without hypothetical inflation the big bang does not predict the smooth cosmic background radiation.

Yet inflation requires a density 20 times larger than the big bang's explanation of the origin of the light elements implies ! The MBR is going in different directions not one direction, I believe the stars are the source of the MBR.

Also if the big bang took place billions of years ago,by now all of the matter in space should be evenly distributed but it's not. Stars are found in tightly wound up galaies or balls. This is called the winding up dilemma. The universe is to tightly wound up to be old.

Well Hell's Bells!! Why didn't you just say so?



What a maroon!

what's really funny is ywc besides being totally wrong about the first law of thermodynamics the earth and space are not a closed system.
all his so called info is from creationist sites making them invaild.

Oh the old closed system stupid atheist argument. So where did all the massive chaos go to balance out all the order on earth. Did it leave on a spaceship?

 

[daws101]

Baiting again??? I'm coming to terms with the fact this is your clever way to disguise your own ignorance.


You can start by reading the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas. His arguments for the existence of God are based on logic and reasoning, something which is very foreign to you and I would not expect you to recognize.

I have, and and you are right but
with all it's logic and reasoning it's false, as Aquinas's assumptions are unprovable he ,just like you had no tangible, testable, objective, quantifiable evidence to corroborate it.

Thanks but no one asked for your irrelevant answers that weren't part of the original question. Hollie wanted to know how logic is used to delineate the supernatural world.

and I just showed that it can't as the susernatural world is not logical.
so your protest is unwaranted, irrelevant and bitchy

 

[UltimateReality]

me thinks the slapdick doth quote the bard out of context ...if any poster prostesth too much tis thou O URINAL ROT.
Daw's profanity is is well met in this debating forum as it fairly shouts of the many and foul ploys thou pretends in masked tosspotery.
as to the good Hollie HIS sex is vexing only to the envious dullards who's cod pieces are as small as the shrunked goo that sleeps in their tiny minds.
Hollie's campaigns are not of hate but of true knowledge that seeketh to Pierce the bloated and rotting falsehoods and fakery of the addled.

Well there you have it, right there in black and white folks. Daws is just is stupid his manlove interest Hollie.

what you would you be blathering about?
"daws is just"- ur I'll take that as a complement ,
your answer proves you have a comp problem and the many and foul ploys thou pretends in masked tosspotery.

No need to defend your man crush. Hollie can go either way you want. Need a little Rugged Touch do you?

Wow. Look where this thread has gone. No opposer can actually put up a logical rebuttal so as the old saying goes... if you can't join 'em beat 'em.

 

[daws101]

Provide a link or get lost LIAR. You need to be able to back up you lying accusations or you have no credibility here.

I will be waiting for the link where I or YWC quoted Harun Yahya.

WHERE DO YOU GET THE IDEA THAT YOUR RAVINGS ARE CREDIBLE ?
The only corroboration you can provide is pseudoscience and the opinions of people who suffer from the same delusional thinking you do.
in short, you have no credibilty now ,will have none in the future.

You always have trouble staying on topic. No need to come to your man love's defense here.

your delusion is acting up, the point of this post is your imagined authority to question another poster's credibility.. so it's spot on topic.
BTW you can end the I'm following the rules farce.

 

[Hollie]

Baiting again??? I'm coming to terms with the fact this is your clever way to disguise your own ignorance.


You can start by reading the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas. His arguments for the existence of God are based on logic and reasoning, something which is very foreign to you and I would not expect you to recognize.

I have, and and you are right but
with all it's logic and reasoning it's false, as Aquinas's assumptions are unprovable he ,just like you have no tangible, testable, objective, quantifiable evidence to corroborate it.

Thanks but no one asked for your irrelevant answers that weren't part of the original question. Hollie wanted to know how logic is used to delineate the supernatural world.

Actually, Hollie was commenting that your silly suggestion toward using logic to delineate a supernatural world was as pointless as your other claims to supermagicalism.

 

[UltimateReality]

WHERE DO YOU GET THE IDEA THAT YOUR RAVINGS ARE CREDIBLE ?
The only corroboration you can provide is pseudoscience and the opinions of people who suffer from the same delusional thinking you do.
in short, you have no credibilty now ,will have none in the future.

You always have trouble staying on topic. No need to come to your man love's defense here.

your delusion is acting up, the point of this post is your imagined authority to question another poster's credibility.. so it's spot on topic.
BTW you can end the I'm following the rules farce.

If someone makes outright lies about me personally in a post, that calls their credibility into question. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

 

[UltimateReality]

I have, and and you are right but
with all it's logic and reasoning it's false, as Aquinas's assumptions are unprovable he ,just like you have no tangible, testable, objective, quantifiable evidence to corroborate it.

Thanks but no one asked for your irrelevant answers that weren't part of the original question. Hollie wanted to know how logic is used to delineate the supernatural world.

Actually, Hollie was commenting that your silly suggestion toward using logic to delineate a supernatural world was as pointless as your other claims to supermagicalism.

Provide the link to mine and YWC Harun Yahya cut and pastes liar or beat it.

 

[Hollie]

Well there you have it, right there in black and white folks. Daws is just is stupid his manlove interest Hollie.

what you would you be blathering about?
"daws is just"- ur I'll take that as a complement ,
your answer proves you have a comp problem and the many and foul ploys thou pretends in masked tosspotery.

No need to defend your man crush. Hollie can go either way you want. Need a little Rugged Touch do you?

Wow. Look where this thread has gone. No opposer can actually put up a logical rebuttal so as the old saying goes... if you can't join 'em beat 'em.

My creepy stalkers behavior is typical for stalkers whose every advance has been refused. He's an emotional basketcase who has only to lash out in frustration and anger. When stalkers are refused and get angry is when their a danger to themselves and others.