Creationists

Status
Not open for further replies.

You don't understand that studies in progress are still viable, without being 100% proven.

In all my years in the field I have not seen enough evidence that makes any of the theories viable that I mentioned. I saw evidence that suggests design. hell it's all around us you don't have to look through a microscope as I did for many years.
 
The fact that you ask, is an admission that you're not very well versed on the study of the Universe, in general.

If you don't like reading, which a lot of people don't for some reason, I'd start with season 1 of "through the wormhole."

It's a docu-series and has like 6 or 7 seasons now.

The series hosts the most advanced men in the field of study to date, it explains their theories, findings, their methods, etc. in a very succinct way for you,

and it answers the question I bolded above.




But don't reject the sciences out of hand and at the same time admit that you've not even bothered to study much into any of them. That's just confirmation bias. Being more open minded makes you smarter, believe it or not. I learned that when I was like 22.

I never professed to be.

I am cursed with logic and reason which is something not acceptable in evolutionary science.

No liquid water has ever been found on any planet besides earth. That is a fact. Now they can speculate that other planets MAY have the right conditions for liquid water, but that's not any type of proof. It's theory and speculation and I'm not going to hang my hat on that nonsense.

Now it may very well be that one day they may find another planet with liquid water, but what does that prove exactly? It doesn't negate the idea that a creator was involved.

It doesnt negate that at all.

And there's a big difference between ignorant speculation and speculation based on something you proclaim to hold dear: logic and reason.

Men study this their entire lives, and are thus more qualified to speculate then....say, youwerecreated.

Not trusting their hypothesis is being ignorant?

Look these scientist have an agenda and they will manipulate data to reach a desired result. This is not an uncommon practice.
 
Religion says God requires faith.

That doesn't make it fact.

Yes it is a fact. It comes from the only book on the subject.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)

A book which requires faith to believe it is fact.

That's circular logic.

It's like using a word inside of its definition.

you werent cursed with logic and reason, I guess.

What do you think most do when they go to College or for that matter High School.
 
Religion says God requires faith.

That doesn't make it fact.

Yes it is a fact. It comes from the only book on the subject.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)

A book which requires faith to believe it is fact.

That's circular logic.

It's like using a word inside of its definition.

you werent cursed with logic and reason, I guess.

Thank you for agreeing with me that it requires faith.

Which was the point I made in the first damn place!
 
The theory of evolution is built on unseen evidence and circular explanations.

Your willful ignorance of evolutionary science, biology, chemistry, paleontology and the life sciences makes you ill equipped to comment. Making emphatic statements about that which you don't understand is reason to reject your comments as ridiculous.

You generally hope to paint all of science as a worldwide conspiracy and in doing so, you simply align yourself with so many of the dangerous and self-destructive religious cults / death cultists who have a peculiar habit of doing harm to themselves and others.

How many times must your arguments be shot down before you get it ? The only cultist here would be you and daws none of you have taken enough science to debate the issue nor has your new friend with the picture of the baby in the car seat.

This guy does know speculation from actual scientific fact and surely does not understand the scientific method.
Lashing out with emotional tirades does little to sway your appearance as a cultist. Your rejection of science, your revulsion for knowledge and your affinity for conspiracies does nothing at all to assist your arguments for supernaturalism and mysticism.

To suggest as you do that scientists and all the major teaching universities are deluded about evolution and are conspiring to further an agenda of "atheistic evolutionist" suggests that you are a cultist.
 
Yes it is a fact. It comes from the only book on the subject.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)

A book which requires faith to believe it is fact.

That's circular logic.

It's like using a word inside of its definition.

you werent cursed with logic and reason, I guess.

Thank you for agreeing with me that it requires faith.

Which was the point I made in the first damn place!

you called it fact.

faith is the belief with the absence of proof.

fact requires proof.
 
A book which requires faith to believe it is fact.

That's circular logic.

It's like using a word inside of its definition.

you werent cursed with logic and reason, I guess.

Thank you for agreeing with me that it requires faith.

Which was the point I made in the first damn place!

you called it fact.

faith is the belief with the absence of proof.

fact requires proof.

Please give me a fact that supports any of the theories I mentioned.

Bingo ! you hit the nail on the head.
 
You really don't unserstand conjecture do you ?

You don't understand that studies in progress are still viable, without being 100% proven.

In all my years in the field I have not seen enough evidence that makes any of the theories viable that I mentioned. I saw evidence that suggests design. hell it's all around us you don't have to look through a microscope as I did for many years.

And you're on a messageboard.

Not an accomplished scientist.

The vast majority of accomplished scientists accept evolution.

you're in a very tiny minority, *for a reason.*

It's called confirmation bias.

You have a big problem with that.

Your confirmation bias problem is evidenced when you look at something and consider it proof that it was created. That's not sound reasoning.
 
Last edited:
A book which requires faith to believe it is fact.

That's circular logic.

It's like using a word inside of its definition.

you werent cursed with logic and reason, I guess.

Thank you for agreeing with me that it requires faith.

Which was the point I made in the first damn place!

you called it fact.

faith is the belief with the absence of proof.

fact requires proof.

It is written (many times) in the only book on the subject that is a fact.

Don't believe me? Read the book!
 
Thank you for agreeing with me that it requires faith.

Which was the point I made in the first damn place!

you called it fact.

faith is the belief with the absence of proof.

fact requires proof.

It is written (many times) in the only book on the subject that is a fact.

Don't believe me? Read the book!
Total fiction, or can you prove the world was made in 6 days, that Noah was 600 years old, and that water covered the entire earth for 40 days then disappeared. And that's only the first fucking page!!!! :D
 
conjecture is saying the world was made in 6 days by an invisible superbeing.

You can't talk about a 'time' before time was created.

God, existing in an eternal present, created chronological time for the benefit of our human minds and existence.
 
you called it fact.

faith is the belief with the absence of proof.

fact requires proof.

It is written (many times) in the only book on the subject that is a fact.

Don't believe me? Read the book!
Total fiction, or can you prove the world was made in 6 days, that Noah was 600 years old, and that water covered the entire earth for 40 days then disappeared. And that's only the first fucking page!!!! :D

I can no more prove it than you can disprove it or that you can prove that life was created by chance.

It's called faith for a reason and you don't have any. I'll pray for you.
 
conjecture is saying the world was made in 6 days by an invisible superbeing.

You can't talk about a 'time' before time was created.

God, existing in an eternal present, created chronological time for the benefit of our human minds and existence.

Substitute The Easter Bunny for gawds in the statement above.

Now your statement makes sense.
 
It is written (many times) in the only book on the subject that is a fact.

Don't believe me? Read the book!
Total fiction, or can you prove the world was made in 6 days, that Noah was 600 years old, and that water covered the entire earth for 40 days then disappeared. And that's only the first fucking page!!!! :D

I can no more prove it than you can disprove it or that you can prove that life was created by chance.

It's called faith for a reason and you don't have any. I'll pray for you.

I can easily disprove your particular gawds. Can you disprove my claim?
 
Total fiction, or can you prove the world was made in 6 days, that Noah was 600 years old, and that water covered the entire earth for 40 days then disappeared. And that's only the first fucking page!!!! :D

I can no more prove it than you can disprove it or that you can prove that life was created by chance.

It's called faith for a reason and you don't have any. I'll pray for you.

I can easily disprove your particular gawds. Can you disprove my claim?

Eye for an eye ... so let's prove Evolution, using Creationist "logic."

1. Caine and Able could not produce offspring! PROOF of evolution.

2. Not all the earth's creatures could fit on an ark as small as the one Noah is claimed to have built, much less two of each, which btw is the very fucking definition of extinction (single breeding pair). PROOF of evolution.

Amen
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top