Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

If there's a designer, there's a designer, so what? Scientists are exploring your creator's creation, which unfortunately, makes a lot of stuff in the bible wrong, but so what? Isn't your creator's truth more important?

If there is a designer they will never get it right because they ruled out the designer. You will have theories like we do now full of gaps.

Blaise Pascal would be proud of this mind-numbing idiocy. It really shows the damage suffered by those instilled with fear and ignorance.

So, whether I'm right or wrong in my beliefs, I've got nothin' to lose. If I'm right, hooray for me and if I'm wrong, no loss.

Pascal's Wager-- the underlying threat of the theistic argument-- "Gamble that there are gawds on the chance they will not send you to an eternity of torture."

Fallacies:

a. What if you have chosen the wrong gawds? You will spend an eternity apart from your “real” gawds for making such an egregious error

b. "Betting" on gawds displays prideful ego and might anger the gawds, and you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error

c. Gawds might prefer courage of one's convictions instead of cowardice and self-deceit, in which case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error

d. What if the gawds deplore such self-serving narcissism and instead embraces the atheist for not succumbing to threats of a human nature? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.

e. What if the gawds are revolted by the very suggestion that there is something like an "eternal punishment"? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.

Hollie what is your explanation for living fossils with ancestors dated back as far as 325 million years or more and that very same organism today shows no evolutionary change ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Blaise Pascal would be proud of this mind-numbing idiocy. It really shows the damage suffered by those instilled with fear and ignorance.

So, whether I'm right or wrong in my beliefs, I've got nothin' to lose. If I'm right, hooray for me and if I'm wrong, no loss.

Pascal's Wager-- the underlying threat of the theistic argument-- "Gamble that there are gawds on the chance they will not send you to an eternity of torture."

Fallacies:

a. What if you have chosen the wrong gawds? You will spend an eternity apart from your “real” gawds for making such an egregious error

b. "Betting" on gawds displays prideful ego and might anger the gawds, and you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error

c. Gawds might prefer courage of one's convictions instead of cowardice and self-deceit, in which case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error

d. What if the gawds deplore such self-serving narcissism and instead embraces the atheist for not succumbing to threats of a human nature? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.

e. What if the gawds are revolted by the very suggestion that there is something like an "eternal punishment"? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.

Still no attempt at your assertion.

It needs no attempt.

The "precision in nature" is proof.

That is correct precision in nature is evidence of design.

 

[G.T.]

If there is a designer they will never get it right because they ruled out the designer. You will have theories like we do now full of gaps.

Blaise Pascal would be proud of this mind-numbing idiocy. It really shows the damage suffered by those instilled with fear and ignorance.

So, whether I'm right or wrong in my beliefs, I've got nothin' to lose. If I'm right, hooray for me and if I'm wrong, no loss.

Pascal's Wager-- the underlying threat of the theistic argument-- "Gamble that there are gawds on the chance they will not send you to an eternity of torture."

Fallacies:

a. What if you have chosen the wrong gawds? You will spend an eternity apart from your “real” gawds for making such an egregious error

b. "Betting" on gawds displays prideful ego and might anger the gawds, and you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error

c. Gawds might prefer courage of one's convictions instead of cowardice and self-deceit, in which case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error

d. What if the gawds deplore such self-serving narcissism and instead embraces the atheist for not succumbing to threats of a human nature? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.

e. What if the gawds are revolted by the very suggestion that there is something like an "eternal punishment"? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.

Hollie what is your explanation for living fossils with ancestors dated back as far as 325 million years or more and that very same organism today shows no evolutionary change ?

if you knew anything about evolution, you'd know the answer.

here, let me help:

a species that has survived 325 million years is quite obviously already in its optimum survival body type.

derp derp.

 

[G.T.]

Still no attempt at your assertion.

It needs no attempt.

The "precision in nature" is proof.

That is correct precision in nature is evidence of design.

you cant use precision in nature as evidence of design, obviously, and even if you were dumb enough to do so, you'd have to explain the areas where there's lack of precision.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Blaise Pascal would be proud of this mind-numbing idiocy. It really shows the damage suffered by those instilled with fear and ignorance.

So, whether I'm right or wrong in my beliefs, I've got nothin' to lose. If I'm right, hooray for me and if I'm wrong, no loss.

Pascal's Wager-- the underlying threat of the theistic argument-- "Gamble that there are gawds on the chance they will not send you to an eternity of torture."

Fallacies:

a. What if you have chosen the wrong gawds? You will spend an eternity apart from your “real” gawds for making such an egregious error

b. "Betting" on gawds displays prideful ego and might anger the gawds, and you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error

c. Gawds might prefer courage of one's convictions instead of cowardice and self-deceit, in which case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error

d. What if the gawds deplore such self-serving narcissism and instead embraces the atheist for not succumbing to threats of a human nature? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.

e. What if the gawds are revolted by the very suggestion that there is something like an "eternal punishment"? In that case you might spend eternity apart from them for making such an egregious error.

Hollie what is your explanation for living fossils with ancestors dated back as far as 325 million years or more and that very same organism today shows no evolutionary change ?

if you knew anything about evolution, you'd know the answer.

here, let me help:

a species that has survived 325 million years is quite obviously already in its optimum survival body type.

derp derp.

So you are gonna rely on theory to attempt to explain this problem. Wrong answer because these organisms are still subject to environmental pressures and they still experience mutations,whatever derp derp means.

 

[G.T.]

Hollie what is your explanation for living fossils with ancestors dated back as far as 325 million years or more and that very same organism today shows no evolutionary change ?

if you knew anything about evolution, you'd know the answer.

here, let me help:

a species that has survived 325 million years is quite obviously already in its optimum survival body type.

derp derp.

So you are gonna rely on theory to attempt to explain this problem. Wrong answer because these organisms are still subject to environmental pressures and they still experience mutations,whatever derp derp means.

they still experience mutations?

didnt your question say:

same organism today shows no evolutionary change ?[/B]

My god you're dense.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It needs no attempt.

The "precision in nature" is proof.

That is correct precision in nature is evidence of design.

you cant use precision in nature as evidence of design, obviously, and even if you were dumb enough to do so, you'd have to explain the areas where there's lack of precision.

How do you get precision in nature from chaos ? The answer for a creationist is that things are no longer precise because of the punishment for origional sin handed down by God.

 

[Youwerecreated]

if you knew anything about evolution, you'd know the answer.

here, let me help:

a species that has survived 325 million years is quite obviously already in its optimum survival body type.

derp derp.

So you are gonna rely on theory to attempt to explain this problem. Wrong answer because these organisms are still subject to environmental pressures and they still experience mutations,whatever derp derp means.

they still experience mutations?

didnt your question say:

same organism today shows no evolutionary change ?[/B]

My god you're dense.

Are you that dense and don't understand these are your mechanisms for evolution ?

 

[G.T.]

That is correct precision in nature is evidence of design.

you cant use precision in nature as evidence of design, obviously, and even if you were dumb enough to do so, you'd have to explain the areas where there's lack of precision.

How do you get precision in nature from chaos ? The answer for a creationist is that things are no longer precise because of the punishment for origional sin handed down by God.

How can you get precision from chaos?

Really? That's what you'd hang your hat on?

First of all, there's (no precision!).

All species decay.

Even fucking trees.

All stars eventually fizzle out, read about supernovae.

There is no precision.

 

[G.T.]

So you are gonna rely on theory to attempt to explain this problem. Wrong answer because these organisms are still subject to environmental pressures and they still experience mutations,whatever derp derp means.

they still experience mutations?

didnt your question say:

same organism today shows no evolutionary change ?[/B]

My god you're dense.

Are you that dense and don't understand these are your mechanisms for evolution ?

No no, I understand that completely.

It was you who said "show no evolutionary changes"

and then in the next post said

"they experience mutations"

A complete contradiction, derp derp.

 

[ima]

That is correct precision in nature is evidence of design.

you cant use precision in nature as evidence of design, obviously, and even if you were dumb enough to do so, you'd have to explain the areas where there's lack of precision.

How do you get precision in nature from chaos ? The answer for a creationist is that things are no longer precise because of the punishment for origional sin handed down by God.

That's possibly the dumbest statement I've read here so far. And that's saying something!

 

[Youwerecreated]

you cant use precision in nature as evidence of design, obviously, and even if you were dumb enough to do so, you'd have to explain the areas where there's lack of precision.

How do you get precision in nature from chaos ? The answer for a creationist is that things are no longer precise because of the punishment for origional sin handed down by God.

How can you get precision from chaos?

Really? That's what you'd hang your hat on?

First of all, there's (no precision!).

All species decay.

Even fucking trees.

All stars eventually fizzle out, read about supernovae.

There is no precision.

The big bang began from a state of chaos but then settled down and produced precison in nature ?

Evidently you don't understand the precision of the formation of a cell nor the precision of this planet and how it can sustain life.

 

[Youwerecreated]

they still experience mutations?

didnt your question say:

same organism today shows no evolutionary change ?[/B]

My god you're dense.

Are you that dense and don't understand these are your mechanisms for evolution ?

No no, I understand that completely.

It was you who said "show no evolutionary changes"

and then in the next post said

"they experience mutations"

A complete contradiction, derp derp.

Because mutations don't do as evolutionist claim which has been my argument all along.

 

[LittleNipper]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

"Someone" actually realizes that there is something bigger, greater, more powerful, wiser, stronger, and an eternity beyond the intelligence of man.

 

[G.T.]

How do you get precision in nature from chaos ? The answer for a creationist is that things are no longer precise because of the punishment for origional sin handed down by God.

How can you get precision from chaos?

Really? That's what you'd hang your hat on?

First of all, there's (no precision!).

All species decay.

Even fucking trees.

All stars eventually fizzle out, read about supernovae.

There is no precision.

The big bang began from a state of chaos but then settled down and produced precison in nature ?

Evidently you don't understand the precision of the formation of a cell nor the precision of this planet and how it can sustain life.

It's not precision when there's decay.

Decay is not precision in design.

Also - it's not settled down. The Universe is still expanding out. The rate of which is actually increasing, making the formation of new life on other planets difficult over time.

But to call our conditions precision is asinine. We decay, that's a flaw in design.

Also - we are one of trillions of planets, and we haven't even picked up one piece of sand yet, of all the grains of sand on all the beaches on earth - - - - in terms of ability to explore other planets out there and see what type of life they may or may not have.

 

[Youwerecreated]

you cant use precision in nature as evidence of design, obviously, and even if you were dumb enough to do so, you'd have to explain the areas where there's lack of precision.

How do you get precision in nature from chaos ? The answer for a creationist is that things are no longer precise because of the punishment for origional sin handed down by God.

That's possibly the dumbest statement I've read here so far. And that's saying something!

I have stated before there are things in nature that exhibit precision but not all things exhibit precision got it ?

 

[G.T.]

Are you that dense and don't understand these are your mechanisms for evolution ?

No no, I understand that completely.

It was you who said "show no evolutionary changes"

and then in the next post said

"they experience mutations"

A complete contradiction, derp derp.

Because mutations don't do as evolutionist claim which has been my argument all along.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahah.

The fact that you don't know

when you show how little you actually understand about a subject

is great comedy.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How can you get precision from chaos?

Really? That's what you'd hang your hat on?

First of all, there's (no precision!).

All species decay.

Even fucking trees.

All stars eventually fizzle out, read about supernovae.

There is no precision.

The big bang began from a state of chaos but then settled down and produced precison in nature ?

Evidently you don't understand the precision of the formation of a cell nor the precision of this planet and how it can sustain life.

It's not precision when there's decay.

Decay is not precision in design.

Also - it's not settled down. The Universe is still expanding out. The rate of which is actually increasing, making the formation of new life on other planets difficult over time.

But to call our conditions precision is asinine. We decay, that's a flaw in design.

Also - we are one of trillions of planets, and we haven't even picked up one piece of sand yet, of all the grains of sand on all the beaches on earth - - - - in terms of ability to explore other planets out there and see what type of life they may or may not have.

The decay humans experience is a cycle but absent of biological precision we would have never existed.

 

[G.T.]

The big bang began from a state of chaos but then settled down and produced precison in nature ?

Evidently you don't understand the precision of the formation of a cell nor the precision of this planet and how it can sustain life.

It's not precision when there's decay.

Decay is not precision in design.

Also - it's not settled down. The Universe is still expanding out. The rate of which is actually increasing, making the formation of new life on other planets difficult over time.

But to call our conditions precision is asinine. We decay, that's a flaw in design.

Also - we are one of trillions of planets, and we haven't even picked up one piece of sand yet, of all the grains of sand on all the beaches on earth - - - - in terms of ability to explore other planets out there and see what type of life they may or may not have.

The decay humans experience is a cycle but absent of biological precision we would have never existed.

The death is the absence of biological precision.

The existence, to begin with, is chaotic.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No no, I understand that completely.

It was you who said "show no evolutionary changes"

and then in the next post said

"they experience mutations"

A complete contradiction, derp derp.

Because mutations don't do as evolutionist claim which has been my argument all along.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahah.

The fact that you don't know

when you show how little you actually understand about a subject

is great comedy.

You would be surprised at the amusement I get from watching you squirm as you try to come up with an answer to logical questions.