Creationists

[Bill Angel]

When you see possessed people or walk in to a house and witnesses objects being throm across the room when appears to be empty or you here voices and no one is there.

The evidence of precision in nature is strong evidence over believing random chance produced the precision observed in nature.

The bible giving foreknowledge of things not known by man at the time is strong evidence it was inspired by this creator.

What makes you believe the origins of the universe and life was the product of random chance ?

Here is a section from a video, devoted to explaining the importance of the discovery of the Higgs boson, in which a physicist discusses why there is no life after death and also no validity to such assertions as biblical prophecy
TubeChop - Higgs Boson and the Fundamental Nature of Reality - Sean Carroll - Skepticon 5 (01:51)

They discovered the Higgs Boson??? Or a "Higgs Boson-like" particle to appease all the nitwits that wasted HUGE money on the Large Hardon Collider??

A recent report indicates that as more data is accumulated the discovered particle's behavior is falling into line with the Standard Model.
See: Higgs boson is too saintly and supersymmetry too shy - physics-math - 23 November 2012 - New Scientist

 

[Hollie]

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #276: Stephen Meyer

As we see so often with those shilling for Christian creationist ministries, they so frequently have no formal training in the area of science they presume to lecture others' about.

We've already discussed the qualifications of the author of this blog yet you still desperately continue to link to it like it has some credibility. You really are pathetic.

Actually, what you have repeatedly sidestepped is the issue of Christian creationists frequently having no formal training (such as Meyer), in the area of science they hope to denigrate.

Isn't it pathetic that you refuse to address facts that contradict your preconceptions?

 

[UltimateReality]

Two schools of thought exist: one right; the other merely a convenience, on all questions about the origins of the Universe:

1. We know some stuff, and other stuff we do not know. (right)

2. We know some stuff, and other stuff God does (convenience)

Problem with item 2: God is a diminishing entity with every new scientific discovery, when He is the answer for all shit we do not know. Ergo, He'll diminish to the zero point, eventually, when all or most is known.

Yeah, kind of like the universe that He caused. Your ignorance is astounding and devoid of actual scientific and theological implications. With each new scientific discovery we find MORE evidence for God. The big bang really rocked the science community, because at the time, even Einstein believed the universe was eternal. All the while Theists had been saying it had a beginning even though this was opposed to the current scientific thought at the time. Turns out the Bible was right all along and science was wrong. And this wasn't the only instance where the Atheist religion stifled science.

Atheism and the suppression of science - Conservapedia

I'm sure you're right. Good thinking.

Meanwhile, and merely a suggestion: Creationism isn't for us, since it tends to not hold up well to actual science. It's for ya'll, to help you resolve God in face of technology and scientific understanding that challenges many of the earlier myths, you now are moving away from. So I'm cool with it. Hell; it's an evolution in religious thinking, since I'm happy that ya'll are not ignoring entirely sicence and technology, as was hoped by Church leaders during the Age of Enlightenment. (Popes.)

So now, the folks who believe everything is destiny, and that all is God's will (don't go to docs when the kids are dying; fly planes into trade center towers, etc.) are comparitively rare, since once was a time that nearly all believed everything was His will: eclipses, earth quakes, floods, famines. etc. And worse, things like epilepsy were devil-possession, and a fast track to being stoned or burned to death.

Ya'll are coming along nicely. So I'm proud of you.

You're not coming along at all. You have no knowledge of my religious beliefs and by your statements above you have exposed you lack understanding of even the most basic concepts of theism, i.e., dualism, free will, etc. If you believe your reference to God's will above is a dig at my religion, you need to educated yourself quite a bit further. You see, Christianity teaches that God does not want anyone to perish without knowing him. It is his desire that all come to him. But he wanted humans to have the choice, because what good would it be if we chose him, but this was programmed into us like a robot. It is our free will, not God's will, that causes school shootings and planes flying into buildings. At it was our original choice to choose sin, that has resulted in nature groaning. Nature is disturbed and outside of God's will for now according to the Bible. This results in earthquakes, tornadoes, etc. So if you are going to argue a man's religion to him, you might want to find out what the tenets of that religion are.

 

[Koios]

Yeah, kind of like the universe that He caused. Your ignorance is astounding and devoid of actual scientific and theological implications. With each new scientific discovery we find MORE evidence for God. The big bang really rocked the science community, because at the time, even Einstein believed the universe was eternal. All the while Theists had been saying it had a beginning even though this was opposed to the current scientific thought at the time. Turns out the Bible was right all along and science was wrong. And this wasn't the only instance where the Atheist religion stifled science.

Atheism and the suppression of science - Conservapedia

I'm sure you're right. Good thinking.

Meanwhile, and merely a suggestion: Creationism isn't for us, since it tends to not hold up well to actual science. It's for ya'll, to help you resolve God in face of technology and scientific understanding that challenges many of the earlier myths, you now are moving away from. So I'm cool with it. Hell; it's an evolution in religious thinking, since I'm happy that ya'll are not ignoring entirely sicence and technology, as was hoped by Church leaders during the Age of Enlightenment. (Popes.)

So now, the folks who believe everything is destiny, and that all is God's will (don't go to docs when the kids are dying; fly planes into trade center towers, etc.) are comparitively rare, since once was a time that nearly all believed everything was His will: eclipses, earth quakes, floods, famines. etc. And worse, things like epilepsy were devil-possession, and a fast track to being stoned or burned to death.

Ya'll are coming along nicely. So I'm proud of you.

You're not coming along at all. You have no knowledge of my religious beliefs and by your statements above you have exposed you lack understanding of even the most basic concepts of theism, i.e., dualism, free will, etc. If you believe your reference to God's will above is a dig at my religion, you need to educated yourself quite a bit further. You see, Christianity teaches that God does not want anyone to perish without knowing him. It is his desire that all come to him. But he wanted humans to have the choice, because what good would it be if we chose him, but this was programmed into us like a robot. It is our free will, not God's will, that causes school shootings and planes flying into buildings. At it was our original choice to choose sin, that has resulted in nature groaning. Nature is disturbed and outside of God's will for now according to the Bible. This results in earthquakes, tornadoes, etc. So if you are going to argue a man's religion to him, you might want to find out what the tenets of that religion are.

Yes; very basic concepts, albeit today. But that's a fairly recent evolution in religious thinking.

 

[UltimateReality]

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #276: Stephen Meyer

As we see so often with those shilling for Christian creationist ministries, they so frequently have no formal training in the area of science they presume to lecture others' about.

We've already discussed the qualifications of the author of this blog yet you still desperately continue to link to it like it has some credibility. You really are pathetic.

Actually, what you have repeatedly sidestepped is the issue of Christian creationists frequently having no formal training (such as Meyer), in the area of science they hope to denigrate.

Isn't it pathetic that you refuse to address facts that contradict your preconceptions?

You're stupid. Darwin had no formal education in the field he wrote the book that you base your whole religion on. Your canned responses are getting tired.

Not to mention the fact that your statement above is a complete lie. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991 at the University of Cambridge. His doctoral dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies." His book, "Signature In The Cell", is about the origin of life you nitwit.

Are you happy now? There is your does of negative attention for the day you petulant child.

 

[UltimateReality]

I'm sure you're right. Good thinking.

Meanwhile, and merely a suggestion: Creationism isn't for us, since it tends to not hold up well to actual science. It's for ya'll, to help you resolve God in face of technology and scientific understanding that challenges many of the earlier myths, you now are moving away from. So I'm cool with it. Hell; it's an evolution in religious thinking, since I'm happy that ya'll are not ignoring entirely sicence and technology, as was hoped by Church leaders during the Age of Enlightenment. (Popes.)

So now, the folks who believe everything is destiny, and that all is God's will (don't go to docs when the kids are dying; fly planes into trade center towers, etc.) are comparitively rare, since once was a time that nearly all believed everything was His will: eclipses, earth quakes, floods, famines. etc. And worse, things like epilepsy were devil-possession, and a fast track to being stoned or burned to death.

Ya'll are coming along nicely. So I'm proud of you.

You're not coming along at all. You have no knowledge of my religious beliefs and by your statements above you have exposed you lack understanding of even the most basic concepts of theism, i.e., dualism, free will, etc. If you believe your reference to God's will above is a dig at my religion, you need to educated yourself quite a bit further. You see, Christianity teaches that God does not want anyone to perish without knowing him. It is his desire that all come to him. But he wanted humans to have the choice, because what good would it be if we chose him, but this was programmed into us like a robot. It is our free will, not God's will, that causes school shootings and planes flying into buildings. At it was our original choice to choose sin, that has resulted in nature groaning. Nature is disturbed and outside of God's will for now according to the Bible. This results in earthquakes, tornadoes, etc. So if you are going to argue a man's religion to him, you might want to find out what the tenets of that religion are.

Yes; very basic concepts, albeit today. But that's a fairly recent evolution in religious thinking.

Really? (I'm not Jewish by the way, just using as a reference)

Dualism in Jewish History

Whether or not Isaiah 45:7 is a polemical reference to Persian dualism (see above), it is evident that dualistic tendencies asserted themselves in the Second Temple period and in the first centuries of the common era. These were of a neo-platonic, later also of a gnostic, character. In a general way it can be said that apart from the "heretical" dualistic doctrines of some gnostic sectarians (see *Minim), Judaism could accommodate a "mitigated dualism," i.e., doctrines and attitudes which express metaphysical or moral contrasts in a dualistic manner, but without attributing to them an ultimate character or calling in question the sovereignty of the one omnipotent and good Creator God. This mitigated dualism can be found in some of the biblical *Apocrypha (e.g., *Jubilees or the Testaments of the *Patriarchs) and especially in the writings of the Dead Sea sect, whose doctrines of the spirit and the flesh, of the spirits (or angels), of purity and impurity, i.e., of light and darkness, come as near to a dualistic system as Judaism could tolerate. Yet even these beliefs can be characterized as a "dualism under God," since the spirits of light and darkness were held to exist through God's inscrutable will and to be subject to him. The Platonic dualistic spirit-matter (i.e., the realm of ideas as against the material world) penetrated rabbinic Judaism in the form of the soul-body dualism (cf. Plato's Phaedo, 67), and the belief in the preexistence of the soul. The doctrine of the immortality of the (spiritual) soul reflects, in this respect, a more dualistic anthropology than the doctrine of the resurrection of the body (see *Eschatology, Immortality of *Soul, *Resurrection). Rabbinic theology in general tended to reject or at least to mitigate dualistic tendencies. Thus the doctrine of the good and evil yeẓer (see Good and Evil *Inclination) is a transposition onto a more psychological (and hence theologically more harmless) level of what, for the Qumran covenanters and others, were metaphysical opposites. Talmudic literature has many polemical references to those who believe in shetei reshuyyot ("two powers"). Other polemical references are directed at the gnostic distinction between the supreme God on the one hand, and the Creator-Lawgiver on the other. Thus the kofer ba-ikkar (one who denies the essence of the faith) is said to be one who denies his creator and the giver of the Law (cf. Tosef. Shav. 3:7).

Dualism

 

[UltimateReality]

NP, I noticed you have no comment on the Pray the Gay Away video by Lisa Ling? No abuse huh?

 

[Hollie]

We've already discussed the qualifications of the author of this blog yet you still desperately continue to link to it like it has some credibility. You really are pathetic.

Actually, what you have repeatedly sidestepped is the issue of Christian creationists frequently having no formal training (such as Meyer), in the area of science they hope to denigrate.

Isn't it pathetic that you refuse to address facts that contradict your preconceptions?

You're stupid. Darwin had no formal education in the field he wrote the book that you base your whole religion on. Your canned responses are getting tired.

Not to mention the fact that your statement above is a complete lie. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991 at the University of Cambridge. His doctoral dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies." His book, "Signature In The Cell", is about the origin of life you nitwit.

Are you happy now? There is your does of negative attention for the day you petulant child.

The angry fundie thing is so cute.

As usual, you're unable to reconcile the Christian creationist shills are so often ill prepared to address the academic fields of study they profess to understand. That is demonstrated by Meyer who seeks to address technical issues of cell development with a degree in history and philosophy. Thats why we also have Casey Luskin, a lawyer, co-authoring books on biology. It's just so silly.

Suspicious Creationist Credentials

Some Questionable Creationist Credentials




Texas Judge Rips Creationism Group in Science Degree Suit

Texas Judge Rips Creationism Group in Science Degree Suit Wall Street Journal ^ | June 23, 2010 | Clifford M. Marks

Posted on Thu Jun 24 2010 12:15:19 GMT-0400 (EDT) by tlb

Austin federal judge Sam Sparks dismissed a suit by the Dallas-based Institute of Creation Research, which seeks the right to grant a master’s degree in science from a biblical perspective. And by “dismissed,” we mean the judge tore it apart.

But first, a summary of the suit, as reported today by the San Antonio Express-News. The Institute seeks to offer a masters degree that critiques evolution and champions a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation. Texas’s higher education board nixed the group’s application, because of the proposed program’s creationist slant. This, the Institute contended, was a violation of its First Amendment Rights.

That claim was dismissed by Sparks in an opinion that criticized the Institute’s arguments as incoherent. At one point he writes that he will address the group’s concerns “to the extent [he] is able to understand them.” At another, he describes the group’s filings as “overly verbose,disjointed, incoherent, maundering and full of irrelevant information.” Click here for the judge’s opinion.

“Religious belief is not science,” Texas Commissioner of Higher Education Raymund Paredes said. “Science and religious belief are surely reconcilable, but they are not the same thing.”

 

[Hollie]

Yeah, kind of like the universe that He caused. Your ignorance is astounding and devoid of actual scientific and theological implications. With each new scientific discovery we find MORE evidence for God. The big bang really rocked the science community, because at the time, even Einstein believed the universe was eternal. All the while Theists had been saying it had a beginning even though this was opposed to the current scientific thought at the time. Turns out the Bible was right all along and science was wrong. And this wasn't the only instance where the Atheist religion stifled science.

Atheism and the suppression of science - Conservapedia

I'm sure you're right. Good thinking.

Meanwhile, and merely a suggestion: Creationism isn't for us, since it tends to not hold up well to actual science. It's for ya'll, to help you resolve God in face of technology and scientific understanding that challenges many of the earlier myths, you now are moving away from. So I'm cool with it. Hell; it's an evolution in religious thinking, since I'm happy that ya'll are not ignoring entirely sicence and technology, as was hoped by Church leaders during the Age of Enlightenment. (Popes.)

So now, the folks who believe everything is destiny, and that all is God's will (don't go to docs when the kids are dying; fly planes into trade center towers, etc.) are comparitively rare, since once was a time that nearly all believed everything was His will: eclipses, earth quakes, floods, famines. etc. And worse, things like epilepsy were devil-possession, and a fast track to being stoned or burned to death.

Ya'll are coming along nicely. So I'm proud of you.

You're not coming along at all. You have no knowledge of my religious beliefs and by your statements above you have exposed you lack understanding of even the most basic concepts of theism, i.e., dualism, free will, etc. If you believe your reference to God's will above is a dig at my religion, you need to educated yourself quite a bit further. You see, Christianity teaches that God does not want anyone to perish without knowing him. It is his desire that all come to him. But he wanted humans to have the choice, because what good would it be if we chose him, but this was programmed into us like a robot. It is our free will, not God's will, that causes school shootings and planes flying into buildings. At it was our original choice to choose sin, that has resulted in nature groaning. Nature is disturbed and outside of God's will for now according to the Bible. This results in earthquakes, tornadoes, etc. So if you are going to argue a man's religion to him, you might want to find out what the tenets of that religion are.

Gee whiz. I hadn't realized it was sin that caused earthquakes and tornadoes. Could someone email the USGS and National Weather Service?

In the meantime, Marshall Applewhite called last night. He's going to forward travel plans for anyone who is interested in a "cruise to nowhere". Jim Jones will be serving refreshments.

 

[Koios]

You're not coming along at all. You have no knowledge of my religious beliefs and by your statements above you have exposed you lack understanding of even the most basic concepts of theism, i.e., dualism, free will, etc. If you believe your reference to God's will above is a dig at my religion, you need to educated yourself quite a bit further. You see, Christianity teaches that God does not want anyone to perish without knowing him. It is his desire that all come to him. But he wanted humans to have the choice, because what good would it be if we chose him, but this was programmed into us like a robot. It is our free will, not God's will, that causes school shootings and planes flying into buildings. At it was our original choice to choose sin, that has resulted in nature groaning. Nature is disturbed and outside of God's will for now according to the Bible. This results in earthquakes, tornadoes, etc. So if you are going to argue a man's religion to him, you might want to find out what the tenets of that religion are.

Yes; very basic concepts, albeit today. But that's a fairly recent evolution in religious thinking.

Really? (I'm not Jewish by the way, just using as a reference)

Dualism in Jewish History

Whether or not Isaiah 45:7 is a polemical reference to Persian dualism (see above), it is evident that dualistic tendencies asserted themselves in the Second Temple period and in the first centuries of the common era. These were of a neo-platonic, later also of a gnostic, character. In a general way it can be said that apart from the "heretical" dualistic doctrines of some gnostic sectarians (see *Minim), Judaism could accommodate a "mitigated dualism," i.e., doctrines and attitudes which express metaphysical or moral contrasts in a dualistic manner, but without attributing to them an ultimate character or calling in question the sovereignty of the one omnipotent and good Creator God. This mitigated dualism can be found in some of the biblical *Apocrypha (e.g., *Jubilees or the Testaments of the *Patriarchs) and especially in the writings of the Dead Sea sect, whose doctrines of the spirit and the flesh, of the spirits (or angels), of purity and impurity, i.e., of light and darkness, come as near to a dualistic system as Judaism could tolerate. Yet even these beliefs can be characterized as a "dualism under God," since the spirits of light and darkness were held to exist through God's inscrutable will and to be subject to him. The Platonic dualistic spirit-matter (i.e., the realm of ideas as against the material world) penetrated rabbinic Judaism in the form of the soul-body dualism (cf. Plato's Phaedo, 67), and the belief in the preexistence of the soul. The doctrine of the immortality of the (spiritual) soul reflects, in this respect, a more dualistic anthropology than the doctrine of the resurrection of the body (see *Eschatology, Immortality of *Soul, *Resurrection). Rabbinic theology in general tended to reject or at least to mitigate dualistic tendencies. Thus the doctrine of the good and evil yeẓer (see Good and Evil *Inclination) is a transposition onto a more psychological (and hence theologically more harmless) level of what, for the Qumran covenanters and others, were metaphysical opposites. Talmudic literature has many polemical references to those who believe in shetei reshuyyot ("two powers"). Other polemical references are directed at the gnostic distinction between the supreme God on the one hand, and the Creator-Lawgiver on the other. Thus the kofer ba-ikkar (one who denies the essence of the faith) is said to be one who denies his creator and the giver of the Law (cf. Tosef. Shav. 3:7).

Dualism

Jewish religion is a relative new-comer, and highly evolved religious thinking. (monotheism) Religion goes back much further.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That dead horse has been beaten to a liquid. How about instead the mechanisms of creation?

Ok you now want to discuss precision in nature and the intelligence which is the mechanism for design ?

Nature is the opposite of precise. In fact, only about 1% of species still exist today. The other 99% were failures.

We don't know how many species are extinct. They said organisms went extinct hundreds of millions of years ago and they have been discovered.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That dead horse has been beaten to a liquid. How about instead the mechanisms of creation?

Ok you now want to discuss precision in nature and the intelligence which is the mechanism for design ?

Nature is the opposite of precise. In fact, only about 1% of species still exist today. The other 99% were failures.

One more thing you don't believe there is precision in biological organisms ? How bout the cell ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ok you now want to discuss precision in nature and the intelligence which is the mechanism for design ?

Nature is the opposite of precise. In fact, only about 1% of species still exist today. The other 99% were failures.

In fact, consider the inpresicion in modern humans: we're very delicate creatures who live only within a very unique set of environmental circumstances. Even slight changes due to sever volcanic activity or a larger impact could wipe us out. And our offsping, while pretty reliable, are far from precise. Many are miscarried or still-born. Others have defects. Many have gender ambiguity, or even both sex organs. Others die young of childhood diseases. It's entirely random, and all over the map.

I posted videos that provided evidence of precision in nature. The finely tuned universe you deny exists even though scientists on your side of the argument admit to this fact ?

 

[Koios]

Nature is the opposite of precise. In fact, only about 1% of species still exist today. The other 99% were failures.

In fact, consider the inpresicion in modern humans: we're very delicate creatures who live only within a very unique set of environmental circumstances. Even slight changes due to sever volcanic activity or a larger impact could wipe us out. And our offsping, while pretty reliable, are far from precise. Many are miscarried or still-born. Others have defects. Many have gender ambiguity, or even both sex organs. Others die young of childhood diseases. It's entirely random, and all over the map.

I posted videos that provided evidence of precision in nature. The finely tuned universe you deny exists even though scientists on your side of the argument admit to this fact ?

Can you find evidence of children being born blonde and female? They have that, too.

But what you willingly ignore is that nature is rife with, nay nearly always is, wrong. Most of the random shit in nature, fails. No kidding.

 

[Youwerecreated]

In fact, consider the inpresicion in modern humans: we're very delicate creatures who live only within a very unique set of environmental circumstances. Even slight changes due to sever volcanic activity or a larger impact could wipe us out. And our offsping, while pretty reliable, are far from precise. Many are miscarried or still-born. Others have defects. Many have gender ambiguity, or even both sex organs. Others die young of childhood diseases. It's entirely random, and all over the map.

I posted videos that provided evidence of precision in nature. The finely tuned universe you deny exists even though scientists on your side of the argument admit to this fact ?

Can you find evidence of children being born blonde and female? They have that, too.

But what you willingly ignore is that nature is rife with, nay nearly always is, wrong. Most of the random shit in nature, fails. No kidding.

Creationist also have an explanation for the imperfection that we see it is punishment for the origional sin. We are not living in a perfect world any longer but we can still see work of the creator.

 

[Koios]

In fact, consider the inpresicion in modern humans: we're very delicate creatures who live only within a very unique set of environmental circumstances. Even slight changes due to sever volcanic activity or a larger impact could wipe us out. And our offsping, while pretty reliable, are far from precise. Many are miscarried or still-born. Others have defects. Many have gender ambiguity, or even both sex organs. Others die young of childhood diseases. It's entirely random, and all over the map.

I posted videos that provided evidence of precision in nature. The finely tuned universe you deny exists even though scientists on your side of the argument admit to this fact ?

Can you find evidence of children being born blonde and female? They have that, too.

But what you willingly ignore is that nature is rife with, nay nearly always is, wrong. Most of the random shit in nature, fails. No kidding.

Case in point: 2 planets fit what we think ideal for supporting life, in terms of size, distance from the star and large outter planets protecting them from most impacts. The're venus and mars. Venus is about as close to hell as it gets. Caustic atmosphere, and burning hot. Meanwhile, Mars is an arid wasteland, with cooler temps, circa -200 F. Colder than any place on earth.

Where's the precision in that?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I posted videos that provided evidence of precision in nature. The finely tuned universe you deny exists even though scientists on your side of the argument admit to this fact ?

Can you find evidence of children being born blonde and female? They have that, too.

But what you willingly ignore is that nature is rife with, nay nearly always is, wrong. Most of the random shit in nature, fails. No kidding.

Case in point: 2 planets fit what we think ideal for supporting life, in terms of size, distance from the star and large outter planets protecting them from most impacts. The're venus and mars. Venus is about as close to hell as it gets. Caustic atmosphere, and burning hot. Meanwhile, Mars is an arid wasteland, with cooler temps, circa -200 F. Colder than any place on earth.

Where's the precision in that?

Maybe because the creator only intended for life to be on this planet ? You're making a very poor argument to move away from the precision in nature that is observed.

I think by now you would have asked yourself why only this planet is set up for life to exist and to sustain life.

 

[Koios]

I posted videos that provided evidence of precision in nature. The finely tuned universe you deny exists even though scientists on your side of the argument admit to this fact ?

Can you find evidence of children being born blonde and female? They have that, too.

But what you willingly ignore is that nature is rife with, nay nearly always is, wrong. Most of the random shit in nature, fails. No kidding.

Creationist also have an explanation for the imperfection that we see it is punishment for the origional sin. We are not living in a perfect world any longer but we can still see work of the creator.

They used to be able to easily explain shit away. Poor crop? Must be god's not happy. Sacrifice a virgin, or 12, and it'll be okie doke.

Today they have a harder time, since new knowledge comes along and then proves obvious to all ... i.e that foolish Chuck Darwin fella. From apes??? How stupid is that???

Oops. Seems there are similarities, not to mention that Lucy bitch they dug up in East Africa. Mutherfucker.

But don't tell me the creepy crawly things became us!!! That's just fucking lunacy!!! Oops. Septapods do have a common ancestor, and DNA shows when we branched off. So yeah; that tree thing might be right.

But no big bang!!! That's just made up shit by retards who don't know God did it by power of just wanting it, and us!!! Oops. Background radiation? Fuck. Okay; big bang happened.

But no way we could have anything as perfect as the human eye without some really, really smart god making us!!! And those retards drinking the science koolaid cannot show where eyes, PROOF OF GOD'S PERFECTION!!!, evolved. Well goddamnit! Fuck me with a King James Version, they have that too.

Well, and this is final, and so fucking obvious even kids in Sunday School can tell ya: Nature is perfect. Never makes a mistake, and follows a divine order that only a REALLY, REALLY,REALLY,REALLY,REALLY, smart God could do. Get a clue you suckers of Satan's cock science assholes!!!

WHAT???? Quantum Mechanics?????? Now the "order" is maybe just one tiny part of it all??????

Well YES!!! Of course. We've been telling you it all along. This shit is fucking complicated. So only God knows, and by the way, he loves us, unless we're black, a child and in Darfur; and then some horseback-riding asshold lops off the kid's arms. Pray until the yacks come home, but God will not grow that arm back!!! For one thing, it's black, which has to be some kind of evil.

But bygod, Uncle Bob, being a good Methodist, survived cancer because we prayed, praise babyjesus!!!

 

[Koios]

Can you find evidence of children being born blonde and female? They have that, too.

But what you willingly ignore is that nature is rife with, nay nearly always is, wrong. Most of the random shit in nature, fails. No kidding.

Case in point: 2 planets fit what we think ideal for supporting life, in terms of size, distance from the star and large outter planets protecting them from most impacts. The're venus and mars. Venus is about as close to hell as it gets. Caustic atmosphere, and burning hot. Meanwhile, Mars is an arid wasteland, with cooler temps, circa -200 F. Colder than any place on earth.

Where's the precision in that?

Maybe because the creator only intended for life to be on this planet ? You're making a very poor argument to move away from the precision in nature that is observed.

I think by now you would have asked yourself why only this planet is set up for life to exist and to sustain life.

Okay. Stick around around to find out if you're right ... since we're real close in finding the life that once lived on Mars. I'd say we're at most 2 to 5 years away. But it was a failure, obviously, as was about 99% of the species on this planet. Whoops.

 

[Hollie]

Nature is the opposite of precise. In fact, only about 1% of species still exist today. The other 99% were failures.

In fact, consider the inpresicion in modern humans: we're very delicate creatures who live only within a very unique set of environmental circumstances. Even slight changes due to sever volcanic activity or a larger impact could wipe us out. And our offsping, while pretty reliable, are far from precise. Many are miscarried or still-born. Others have defects. Many have gender ambiguity, or even both sex organs. Others die young of childhood diseases. It's entirely random, and all over the map.

I posted videos that provided evidence of precision in nature. The finely tuned universe you deny exists even though scientists on your side of the argument admit to this fact ?

Did you ever hear of Shoemaker-Levy? I didn't see that in any of your videos falsely claiming this 'precision" that emanates from the fundie cabal.

What about that little dalliance that occurred on this planet 65 million years ago? Was that the gawds just keeping in practice? A practice run at planet-wiping to punish sinners, no doubt.

Cultists live in a dark and dangerous place I'm happy not to be in.