Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Youwerecreated]

Nonsense only ID'iots / fundies would propose.

At least you don't bother hiding your stupid bigotry, bitch

Oh my. I've noticed a pattern of behavior among the more excitable of the creationist. They get their limited knowledge of science from Christian fundamentalist websites.

Hollie why do you avoid the questions I ask you ? Yes a creationist have different presuppositions and they will interpret evidence differently because of these presuppositions but the key is who is interpreting the evidence correctly.

I was not always a creationist so like creationist and not all creationist mind you we have somewhat of a clue to ask you. When you avoid a perfectly legitimate question and make the comment pseudoscience or some other bigoted comment or try to attack the creationist credentials to avoid that question you just lost all your credibility.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Have you ever considered why it is that the entirety of your posting is derived from fundamentalist Christian ministries as opposed to reputable, peer reviewed science sources?

Uh maybe it's because I believe in creation and not naturalism.

Sure, which is why your (Christian fundamentalist arguments for magic), are utter failures.

The simple solution is to require the ID’iots to publish their work for peer review and to provide the relevant science community an opportunity to examine it thoroughly. As we have seen, creationist don’t provide such publications. What little they do publish amounts to reiteration of biblical tales and fables.

All the phony re-labeling of “creationism” as “ID” has been an total failure. The requirements for proving claims and assertions are a shared burden by both the science community and creationist. Christian fundies wish to grant themselves an exception / exemption from the standards of proof, convincing themselves that magical gawds fall under the “because I say so”, weasel. Creationist are not doing science by insisting that "the gawds did it" and then supplying nothing to support the contention of "gawd" at all. It's simply a dead end. And ID is the same dead end-- it's simply calling god something else.

I have told you I am a creationist not an intelligent design advocate though I do agree with intelligent design advocates in some areas I agree more with the creationist.

I am trying to get you to answer the same question how did naturalism take matter absent of life and produce life ? we Don't know How God did it but we can see purposeful design.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Have you ever considered why it is that the entirety of your posting is derived from fundamentalist Christian ministries as opposed to reputable, peer reviewed science sources?

Oh and Hollie this is a lie, I have spoken on mutations and what I observed in the lab. Hell I have even given you my own theory why we see change within a family and I believe the science community agrees with me and if you had taken much science you would have to. Where we disagree is on the large scale evolution which is called Macro-evolution.

Oh and YWC, I got a chuckle reading of your “observations” and your “theory”. Your observations and theories have been shown to be nothing more than cut and pasted “quotes” that you mine from Christian fundie websites and Harun Yahya. As you know, these “quotes” have been exposed by me as frauds, and lies.

What is laughable about the creationist argument is the insistence that materialistic theories of evolution can't account for the origination of new biological forms either during the period known as the Cambrian Explosion, or at any time in earth history and therefore the Christian gawds are proven. All of that is lies and falsehoods invented by creationist.

That term -- "materialistic" -- is what SCIENCE is founded upon. Magical creation by gawds is asserting something outside the realm of what science considers SCIENCE. We see with regularity that Christian fundies appeal only to ignorance and superstition in their claims to magical gawds, a 6,000 year old earth and their continued falsification and lies as they attempt to persuade the gullible and the ignorant. "Substandard", “lies” and “falsification” leaps out at me regarding the magical gawds argument -- and I simply have to read your arguments and the lies and falsehoods you have posted to confirm that.

It's very easy for creationists or ID’iots to pursue this matter in the proper way.

First, establish a solid theory for the idea of something outside of the "materialist" realm (i.e., the "supernatural"). Then, establish a theory that relies on the established theory and shows a correlation. Then the ID’iots / creationist will have something worth reviewing.

Personally, I for one would welcome it.

Evolution is a theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). ID’iosy asserts a supernatural cause and doesn't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of its own assertions:

A. If there is required an intelligent designer because existence displays a complex design, then doesn't the intelligent designer also require an intelligent designer to have designer it as well? (Translation: If your premise is: "X" needs a Designer because it's complicated, then the Designer needs a designer because it's even MORE complicated than "X", in order to have designed it in the first place.)

B. What are the characteristics of this "Designer"? Assume the "Designer" assertion is true -- why does this "Designer" become important at all? It may be long dead. It may have no vested interest. Is it at all demonstrable?

You mean mountains of conjecture and poor assumptions. Your dating methods are flawed and that kills the theory by itself. You have no viable mechanism for evolution. Your fossil record is built on a vivid imagination. You can't follow the scientific method with this theory. That is just a few but major problems for your theory.

 

[Hollie]

At least you don't bother hiding your stupid bigotry, bitch

Oh my. I've noticed a pattern of behavior among the more excitable of the creationist. They get their limited knowledge of science from Christian fundamentalist websites.

Hollie why do you avoid the questions I ask you ? Yes a creationist have different presuppositions and they will interpret evidence differently because of these presuppositions but the key is who is interpreting the evidence correctly.

I was not always a creationist so like creationist and not all creationist mind you we have somewhat of a clue to ask you. When you avoid a perfectly legitimate question and make the comment pseudoscience or some other bigoted comment or try to attack the creationist credentials to avoid that question you just lost all your credibility.

I think you sweepingly miss the presentation of your ignorance. You don't ask questions as much as you cut and paste goofy conjecture from creationist hacks.

It’s always comical when creationist use melodrama in failed attempts to disguise their lack of training and qualifications in connection with science.

Suspicious Creationist Credentials

This is a consistent pattern we see with creationist. I’m always suspicious of “authors” who claim expertise in a subject yet have no formal training in that subject. The fact that you are forced to continually cut and paste from authors who frequently have no formal training in the subject matter they blather on about puts you in the position of being a mere cut and paster of creationist propaganda.

That further causes me to question your credibility as your willingness to take such a firm stand on a subject to which you admit ignorance is really… strange.

 

[Hollie]

Oh and Hollie this is a lie, I have spoken on mutations and what I observed in the lab. Hell I have even given you my own theory why we see change within a family and I believe the science community agrees with me and if you had taken much science you would have to. Where we disagree is on the large scale evolution which is called Macro-evolution.

Oh and YWC, I got a chuckle reading of your “observations” and your “theory”. Your observations and theories have been shown to be nothing more than cut and pasted “quotes” that you mine from Christian fundie websites and Harun Yahya. As you know, these “quotes” have been exposed by me as frauds, and lies.

What is laughable about the creationist argument is the insistence that materialistic theories of evolution can't account for the origination of new biological forms either during the period known as the Cambrian Explosion, or at any time in earth history and therefore the Christian gawds are proven. All of that is lies and falsehoods invented by creationist.

That term -- "materialistic" -- is what SCIENCE is founded upon. Magical creation by gawds is asserting something outside the realm of what science considers SCIENCE. We see with regularity that Christian fundies appeal only to ignorance and superstition in their claims to magical gawds, a 6,000 year old earth and their continued falsification and lies as they attempt to persuade the gullible and the ignorant. "Substandard", “lies” and “falsification” leaps out at me regarding the magical gawds argument -- and I simply have to read your arguments and the lies and falsehoods you have posted to confirm that.

It's very easy for creationists or ID’iots to pursue this matter in the proper way.

First, establish a solid theory for the idea of something outside of the "materialist" realm (i.e., the "supernatural"). Then, establish a theory that relies on the established theory and shows a correlation. Then the ID’iots / creationist will have something worth reviewing.

Personally, I for one would welcome it.

Evolution is a theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). ID’iosy asserts a supernatural cause and doesn't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of its own assertions:

A. If there is required an intelligent designer because existence displays a complex design, then doesn't the intelligent designer also require an intelligent designer to have designer it as well? (Translation: If your premise is: "X" needs a Designer because it's complicated, then the Designer needs a designer because it's even MORE complicated than "X", in order to have designed it in the first place.)

B. What are the characteristics of this "Designer"? Assume the "Designer" assertion is true -- why does this "Designer" become important at all? It may be long dead. It may have no vested interest. Is it at all demonstrable?

You mean mountains of conjecture and poor assumptions. Your dating methods are flawed and that kills the theory by itself. You have no viable mechanism for evolution. Your fossil record is built on a vivid imagination. You can't follow the scientific method with this theory. That is just a few but major problems for your theory.

There is no viable mechanism for evolution? So the fact of "evolution" is dismissed because of what, your goofy conspiracy theories?

Feel free to promote your uncompromising hatred of knowledge and science but don't expect others to accept your ignorance as anything but religious fanaticism.

As we see with regularity, you sidestep and dodge all challenges to creationist dogma. You retreat from addressing the science fact because absent cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya, you’re hopelessly inept at challenging the science data.

Your loathing for science causes you to make yourself quite the buffoon. As we know, the creationist argument revolves around stupid – there’s no other way to describe it – attempts to vilify and discredit science. In the twisted creationist mindset, denigrating science is seen as the mechanism to promote their gawds.

That is entirely a reflection on you. There is no reason to suspect that the rest of the world shares your limitations. Fear and superstition are generally not the most reliable motivations for good decision making. Neither of them is based on reason, instead relying on the baser human instincts and emotions rather than the higher human gifts of intellect.

If these were the methods the gawds wanted us to use in making decisions, they would have been better off making us cattle rather than human beings.

One cannot help but feel that since the actual concept of “gawds” is impossible to logically reconcile, the real motivation for “gawds as instruments of coercion is found elsewhere; It is the product of human beings trying to control other human beings with fear.

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Hollie]

Uh maybe it's because I believe in creation and not naturalism.

Sure, which is why your (Christian fundamentalist arguments for magic), are utter failures.

The simple solution is to require the ID’iots to publish their work for peer review and to provide the relevant science community an opportunity to examine it thoroughly. As we have seen, creationist don’t provide such publications. What little they do publish amounts to reiteration of biblical tales and fables.

All the phony re-labeling of “creationism” as “ID” has been an total failure. The requirements for proving claims and assertions are a shared burden by both the science community and creationist. Christian fundies wish to grant themselves an exception / exemption from the standards of proof, convincing themselves that magical gawds fall under the “because I say so”, weasel. Creationist are not doing science by insisting that "the gawds did it" and then supplying nothing to support the contention of "gawd" at all. It's simply a dead end. And ID is the same dead end-- it's simply calling god something else.

I have told you I am a creationist not an intelligent design advocate though I do agree with intelligent design advocates in some areas I agree more with the creationist.

I am trying to get you to answer the same question how did naturalism take matter absent of life and produce life ? we Don't know How God did it but we can see purposeful design.

You don’t really know what you are. Your silly " we can see purposeful design" comment is nonsense. Unless you're willing to acknowledge bad design, failed design, massive waste, absence of design, etc., as "design", you will need to peddle your conspiracy theories elsewhere.

Few fundies, even the most “fundamentalist of fundies” are very closely connected to the realities of science and knowledge. Their “foundations” can usually be found elsewhere in the form of parents, culture, or overriding fears and prejudices. The various fundie creation ministries are usually able to promote whatever propaganda they choose, put whatever spin they prefer on their falsified claims because they have an audience that is primarily “sold” on the snake oil that the fundie ministries are preaching. Fundies are happy to follow such direction as a sheep would follow a shepherd. In actuality, only a small fraction of them ever actually try for themselves to draw reasonable connections between the lies, conspiracy theories and falsifications promoted by their ministries and the verified science.

If they did so more often, there would be a lot more doubt.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh my. I've noticed a pattern of behavior among the more excitable of the creationist. They get their limited knowledge of science from Christian fundamentalist websites.

Hollie why do you avoid the questions I ask you ? Yes a creationist have different presuppositions and they will interpret evidence differently because of these presuppositions but the key is who is interpreting the evidence correctly.

I was not always a creationist so like creationist and not all creationist mind you we have somewhat of a clue to ask you. When you avoid a perfectly legitimate question and make the comment pseudoscience or some other bigoted comment or try to attack the creationist credentials to avoid that question you just lost all your credibility.

I think you sweepingly miss the presentation of your ignorance. You don't ask questions as much as you cut and paste goofy conjecture from creationist hacks.

It’s always comical when creationist use melodrama in failed attempts to disguise their lack of training and qualifications in connection with science.

Suspicious Creationist Credentials

This is a consistent pattern we see with creationist. I’m always suspicious of “authors” who claim expertise in a subject yet have no formal training in that subject. The fact that you are forced to continually cut and paste from authors who frequently have no formal training in the subject matter they blather on about puts you in the position of being a mere cut and paster of creationist propaganda.

That further causes me to question your credibility as your willingness to take such a firm stand on a subject to which you admit ignorance is really… strange.

You must be daws evade and use bigoted tactics. Screw you either respond to me as a person or stfu.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh and YWC, I got a chuckle reading of your “observations” and your “theory”. Your observations and theories have been shown to be nothing more than cut and pasted “quotes” that you mine from Christian fundie websites and Harun Yahya. As you know, these “quotes” have been exposed by me as frauds, and lies.

What is laughable about the creationist argument is the insistence that materialistic theories of evolution can't account for the origination of new biological forms either during the period known as the Cambrian Explosion, or at any time in earth history and therefore the Christian gawds are proven. All of that is lies and falsehoods invented by creationist.

That term -- "materialistic" -- is what SCIENCE is founded upon. Magical creation by gawds is asserting something outside the realm of what science considers SCIENCE. We see with regularity that Christian fundies appeal only to ignorance and superstition in their claims to magical gawds, a 6,000 year old earth and their continued falsification and lies as they attempt to persuade the gullible and the ignorant. "Substandard", “lies” and “falsification” leaps out at me regarding the magical gawds argument -- and I simply have to read your arguments and the lies and falsehoods you have posted to confirm that.

It's very easy for creationists or ID’iots to pursue this matter in the proper way.

First, establish a solid theory for the idea of something outside of the "materialist" realm (i.e., the "supernatural"). Then, establish a theory that relies on the established theory and shows a correlation. Then the ID’iots / creationist will have something worth reviewing.

Personally, I for one would welcome it.

Evolution is a theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). ID’iosy asserts a supernatural cause and doesn't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of its own assertions:

A. If there is required an intelligent designer because existence displays a complex design, then doesn't the intelligent designer also require an intelligent designer to have designer it as well? (Translation: If your premise is: "X" needs a Designer because it's complicated, then the Designer needs a designer because it's even MORE complicated than "X", in order to have designed it in the first place.)

B. What are the characteristics of this "Designer"? Assume the "Designer" assertion is true -- why does this "Designer" become important at all? It may be long dead. It may have no vested interest. Is it at all demonstrable?

You mean mountains of conjecture and poor assumptions. Your dating methods are flawed and that kills the theory by itself. You have no viable mechanism for evolution. Your fossil record is built on a vivid imagination. You can't follow the scientific method with this theory. That is just a few but major problems for your theory.

There is no viable mechanism for evolution? So the fact of "evolution" is dismissed because of what, your goofy conspiracy theories?

Feel free to promote your uncompromising hatred of knowledge and science but don't expect others to accept your ignorance as anything but religious fanaticism.

As we see with regularity, you sidestep and dodge all challenges to creationist dogma. You retreat from addressing the science fact because absent cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya, you’re hopelessly inept at challenging the science data.

Your loathing for science causes you to make yourself quite the buffoon. As we know, the creationist argument revolves around stupid – there’s no other way to describe it – attempts to vilify and discredit science. In the twisted creationist mindset, denigrating science is seen as the mechanism to promote their gawds.

That is entirely a reflection on you. There is no reason to suspect that the rest of the world shares your limitations. Fear and superstition are generally not the most reliable motivations for good decision making. Neither of them is based on reason, instead relying on the baser human instincts and emotions rather than the higher human gifts of intellect.

If these were the methods the gawds wanted us to use in making decisions, they would have been better off making us cattle rather than human beings.

One cannot help but feel that since the actual concept of “gawds” is impossible to logically reconcile, the real motivation for “gawds as instruments of coercion is found elsewhere; It is the product of human beings trying to control other human beings with fear.

Nothing more, nothing less.

What is your mechanism that is beyond reproach ?

Stay focused or stfu.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sure, which is why your (Christian fundamentalist arguments for magic), are utter failures.

The simple solution is to require the ID’iots to publish their work for peer review and to provide the relevant science community an opportunity to examine it thoroughly. As we have seen, creationist don’t provide such publications. What little they do publish amounts to reiteration of biblical tales and fables.

All the phony re-labeling of “creationism” as “ID” has been an total failure. The requirements for proving claims and assertions are a shared burden by both the science community and creationist. Christian fundies wish to grant themselves an exception / exemption from the standards of proof, convincing themselves that magical gawds fall under the “because I say so”, weasel. Creationist are not doing science by insisting that "the gawds did it" and then supplying nothing to support the contention of "gawd" at all. It's simply a dead end. And ID is the same dead end-- it's simply calling god something else.

I have told you I am a creationist not an intelligent design advocate though I do agree with intelligent design advocates in some areas I agree more with the creationist.

I am trying to get you to answer the same question how did naturalism take matter absent of life and produce life ? we Don't know How God did it but we can see purposeful design.

You don’t really know what you are. Your silly " we can see purposeful design" comment is nonsense. Unless you're willing to acknowledge bad design, failed design, massive waste, absence of design, etc., as "design", you will need to peddle your conspiracy theories elsewhere.

Few fundies, even the most “fundamentalist of fundies” are very closely connected to the realities of science and knowledge. Their “foundations” can usually be found elsewhere in the form of parents, culture, or overriding fears and prejudices. The various fundie creation ministries are usually able to promote whatever propaganda they choose, put whatever spin they prefer on their falsified claims because they have an audience that is primarily “sold” on the snake oil that the fundie ministries are preaching. Fundies are happy to follow such direction as a sheep would follow a shepherd. In actuality, only a small fraction of them ever actually try for themselves to draw reasonable connections between the lies, conspiracy theories and falsifications promoted by their ministries and the verified science.

If they did so more often, there would be a lot more doubt.

No not bad design once you read the scriptures you will learn when man sinned entropy began simple explanation no ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sure, which is why your (Christian fundamentalist arguments for magic), are utter failures.

The simple solution is to require the ID’iots to publish their work for peer review and to provide the relevant science community an opportunity to examine it thoroughly. As we have seen, creationist don’t provide such publications. What little they do publish amounts to reiteration of biblical tales and fables.

All the phony re-labeling of “creationism” as “ID” has been an total failure. The requirements for proving claims and assertions are a shared burden by both the science community and creationist. Christian fundies wish to grant themselves an exception / exemption from the standards of proof, convincing themselves that magical gawds fall under the “because I say so”, weasel. Creationist are not doing science by insisting that "the gawds did it" and then supplying nothing to support the contention of "gawd" at all. It's simply a dead end. And ID is the same dead end-- it's simply calling god something else.

I have told you I am a creationist not an intelligent design advocate though I do agree with intelligent design advocates in some areas I agree more with the creationist.

I am trying to get you to answer the same question how did naturalism take matter absent of life and produce life ? we Don't know How God did it but we can see purposeful design.

You don’t really know what you are. Your silly " we can see purposeful design" comment is nonsense. Unless you're willing to acknowledge bad design, failed design, massive waste, absence of design, etc., as "design", you will need to peddle your conspiracy theories elsewhere.

Few fundies, even the most “fundamentalist of fundies” are very closely connected to the realities of science and knowledge. Their “foundations” can usually be found elsewhere in the form of parents, culture, or overriding fears and prejudices. The various fundie creation ministries are usually able to promote whatever propaganda they choose, put whatever spin they prefer on their falsified claims because they have an audience that is primarily “sold” on the snake oil that the fundie ministries are preaching. Fundies are happy to follow such direction as a sheep would follow a shepherd. In actuality, only a small fraction of them ever actually try for themselves to draw reasonable connections between the lies, conspiracy theories and falsifications promoted by their ministries and the verified science.

If they did so more often, there would be a lot more doubt.

Many creationist like myself have a strong background in science so stop your stupid comments address my questions or move along how fucking hard is that to comprehend.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie why do you avoid the questions I ask you ? Yes a creationist have different presuppositions and they will interpret evidence differently because of these presuppositions but the key is who is interpreting the evidence correctly.

I was not always a creationist so like creationist and not all creationist mind you we have somewhat of a clue to ask you. When you avoid a perfectly legitimate question and make the comment pseudoscience or some other bigoted comment or try to attack the creationist credentials to avoid that question you just lost all your credibility.

I think you sweepingly miss the presentation of your ignorance. You don't ask questions as much as you cut and paste goofy conjecture from creationist hacks.

It’s always comical when creationist use melodrama in failed attempts to disguise their lack of training and qualifications in connection with science.

Suspicious Creationist Credentials

This is a consistent pattern we see with creationist. I’m always suspicious of “authors” who claim expertise in a subject yet have no formal training in that subject. The fact that you are forced to continually cut and paste from authors who frequently have no formal training in the subject matter they blather on about puts you in the position of being a mere cut and paster of creationist propaganda.

That further causes me to question your credibility as your willingness to take such a firm stand on a subject to which you admit ignorance is really… strange.

You must be daws evade and use bigoted tactics. Screw you either respond to me as a person or stfu.

I suppose when your arguments are indefensible, you’re forced to behave like a child who has been scolded and sent to his room.

Your hope has always been (and still is) to hold up the argument of your designer gawds as a genuine syllogism of a claim worthy of intellectual merit, in spite of the fact that it has not been taken seriously by the relevant science community. The fact that you hold on to the lies, deceit and demonstrably false arguments of creationist, in spite of its intellectual worthlessness is most easily attributable to some emotional comfort it provides you.

You want it to be useful, even though it sadly is not.

You insist that you know with certainty that your gawds, exclusively, are responsible for all of the natural world we know. I’ll take you at your word regarding your intent. I try never to attribute to malice that which is more easily explained by ignorance.

 

[hobelim]

No not bad design once you read the scriptures you will learn when man sinned entropy began simple explanation no ?

Simple explanation? Perhaps, but one that only a simpleton could accept.


All living things that have ever existed and will ever exist on this planet are born and die.

It has always been this way.

The death consequent to sin described in the fairy tale is the inability to produce a coherent and rational thought so perfectly displayed by you in your obstinate stupidity against accepting all the available facts related to the irrefutable evidence of the geological record of the evolution of all species..

The sweat of your brow, thinking, produces only thorns and thistles.

If you do not cleanse your mind of every trace of falsehood you will never know what it is to be a living being.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I think you sweepingly miss the presentation of your ignorance. You don't ask questions as much as you cut and paste goofy conjecture from creationist hacks.

It’s always comical when creationist use melodrama in failed attempts to disguise their lack of training and qualifications in connection with science.

Suspicious Creationist Credentials

This is a consistent pattern we see with creationist. I’m always suspicious of “authors” who claim expertise in a subject yet have no formal training in that subject. The fact that you are forced to continually cut and paste from authors who frequently have no formal training in the subject matter they blather on about puts you in the position of being a mere cut and paster of creationist propaganda.

That further causes me to question your credibility as your willingness to take such a firm stand on a subject to which you admit ignorance is really… strange.

You must be daws evade and use bigoted tactics. Screw you either respond to me as a person or stfu.

I suppose when your arguments are indefensible, you’re forced to behave like a child who has been scolded and sent to his room.

Your hope has always been (and still is) to hold up the argument of your designer gawds as a genuine syllogism of a claim worthy of intellectual merit, in spite of the fact that it has not been taken seriously by the relevant science community. The fact that you hold on to the lies, deceit and demonstrably false arguments of creationist, in spite of its intellectual worthlessness is most easily attributable to some emotional comfort it provides you.

You want it to be useful, even though it sadly is not.

You insist that you know with certainty that your gawds, exclusively, are responsible for all of the natural world we know. I’ll take you at your word regarding your intent. I try never to attribute to malice that which is more easily explained by ignorance.

Pointless post again.

 

[Hollie]

I have told you I am a creationist not an intelligent design advocate though I do agree with intelligent design advocates in some areas I agree more with the creationist.

I am trying to get you to answer the same question how did naturalism take matter absent of life and produce life ? we Don't know How God did it but we can see purposeful design.

You don’t really know what you are. Your silly " we can see purposeful design" comment is nonsense. Unless you're willing to acknowledge bad design, failed design, massive waste, absence of design, etc., as "design", you will need to peddle your conspiracy theories elsewhere.

Few fundies, even the most “fundamentalist of fundies” are very closely connected to the realities of science and knowledge. Their “foundations” can usually be found elsewhere in the form of parents, culture, or overriding fears and prejudices. The various fundie creation ministries are usually able to promote whatever propaganda they choose, put whatever spin they prefer on their falsified claims because they have an audience that is primarily “sold” on the snake oil that the fundie ministries are preaching. Fundies are happy to follow such direction as a sheep would follow a shepherd. In actuality, only a small fraction of them ever actually try for themselves to draw reasonable connections between the lies, conspiracy theories and falsifications promoted by their ministries and the verified science.

If they did so more often, there would be a lot more doubt.

Many creationist like myself have a strong background in science so stop your stupid comments address my questions or move along how fucking hard is that to comprehend.

Many creationist are simply religious zealots with no formal training in the subject matter they blather on about.

You are the stereotypical example of someone with no background in the sciences you hope to denigrate. Your cutting and pasting from such hacks as Harun Yahya and the various creation ministries is an example of that.

Would you care to explain how Kyle Butt is qualified to provide a comprehensive explanation of carbon / radiometric dating methods?

Apologetics Press | Bible Contradiction |

Kyle Butt is a graduate of Freed-Hardeman University, where he earned a B.A. with a double major in Bible and communications, and an M.A. in New Testament. Currently, he serves in the Bible department at Apologetics Press and as editor of Discovery magazine. He speaks frequently around the country at youth rallies, lectureships, Gospel meetings, etc.


What a joke.



Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Kyle Butt

As you’d expect, Butt is an ludicrously insane young earth creationist who claims to have (conclusive) evidence for the flood. Unfortunately, Butt’s ability to distinguish evidence from imagination is less than fully developed, and his reasoning skills are not quite impeccable either.

Here is his own argument that since science has made mistakes before – giving one example of a (putative) mistake that science itself corrected – the Bible is an accurate portrayal of verifiable reality, and “the idea that scientific ’findings’ trump every other source of information is simply false.” As he so eloquently puts it: “information in science books changes from year to year. […] Yet the biblical text has stood for centuries. Its integrity has surpassed that of any book ever printed. And the scientific information in it coincide perfectly with all factual data.” Assigning the (putative) unchanging commands of the Bible to dogma and confirmation bias in the face of falsifying evidence apparently doesn’t cross his mind. And all gaps in knowledge are evidence for the existence of God. There are some comments on his work here, and here.


Together with one Eric Lyons, Butt wrote “Dinosaurs Unleashed: A True Story Of Dinosaurs And Humans”, which is, needless to say, not a true story. It is picked apart in some detail here. Butt has also penned an interesting treatise; see comment 18 in this link) called “Defending the Bible’s Position on Slavery.”

 

[Youwerecreated]

No not bad design once you read the scriptures you will learn when man sinned entropy began simple explanation no ?

Simple explanation? Perhaps, but one that only a simpleton could accept.


All living things that have ever existed and will ever exist on this planet are born and die.

It has always been this way.

The death consequent to sin described in the fairy tale is the inability to produce a coherent and rational thought so perfectly displayed by you in your obstinate stupidity against accepting all the available facts related to the irrefutable evidence of the geological record of the evolution of all species..

The sweat of your brow, thinking, produces only thorns and thistles.

If you do not cleanse your mind of every trace of falsehood you will never know what it is to be a living being.

Simpleton ? you see entropy all around you dumbshit.

Then you can respond to my questions otherwise you can take a hike as well. I am tired of morons coming in and speaking from their ass.

Shit or get off the pot.

Defend your faith or fuck off.

 

[Hollie]

You must be daws evade and use bigoted tactics. Screw you either respond to me as a person or stfu.

I suppose when your arguments are indefensible, you’re forced to behave like a child who has been scolded and sent to his room.

Your hope has always been (and still is) to hold up the argument of your designer gawds as a genuine syllogism of a claim worthy of intellectual merit, in spite of the fact that it has not been taken seriously by the relevant science community. The fact that you hold on to the lies, deceit and demonstrably false arguments of creationist, in spite of its intellectual worthlessness is most easily attributable to some emotional comfort it provides you.

You want it to be useful, even though it sadly is not.

You insist that you know with certainty that your gawds, exclusively, are responsible for all of the natural world we know. I’ll take you at your word regarding your intent. I try never to attribute to malice that which is more easily explained by ignorance.

Pointless post again.

What's noted is you inability to offer a rebuttal.

Such are the failings of creationist who, absent a handy cut and paste from Harun Yahya, are left to wallow in their own incompetence and ineptitude.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You don’t really know what you are. Your silly " we can see purposeful design" comment is nonsense. Unless you're willing to acknowledge bad design, failed design, massive waste, absence of design, etc., as "design", you will need to peddle your conspiracy theories elsewhere.

Few fundies, even the most “fundamentalist of fundies” are very closely connected to the realities of science and knowledge. Their “foundations” can usually be found elsewhere in the form of parents, culture, or overriding fears and prejudices. The various fundie creation ministries are usually able to promote whatever propaganda they choose, put whatever spin they prefer on their falsified claims because they have an audience that is primarily “sold” on the snake oil that the fundie ministries are preaching. Fundies are happy to follow such direction as a sheep would follow a shepherd. In actuality, only a small fraction of them ever actually try for themselves to draw reasonable connections between the lies, conspiracy theories and falsifications promoted by their ministries and the verified science.

If they did so more often, there would be a lot more doubt.

Many creationist like myself have a strong background in science so stop your stupid comments address my questions or move along how fucking hard is that to comprehend.

Many creationist are simply religious zealots with no formal training in the subject matter they blather on about.

You are the stereotypical example of someone with no background in the sciences you hope to denigrate. Your cutting and pasting from such hacks as Harun Yahya and the various creation ministries is an example of that.

Would you care to explain how Kyle Butt is qualified to provide a comprehensive explanation of carbon / radiometric dating methods?

Apologetics Press | Bible Contradiction |

Kyle Butt is a graduate of Freed-Hardeman University, where he earned a B.A. with a double major in Bible and communications, and an M.A. in New Testament. Currently, he serves in the Bible department at Apologetics Press and as editor of Discovery magazine. He speaks frequently around the country at youth rallies, lectureships, Gospel meetings, etc.


What a joke.



Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Kyle Butt

As you’d expect, Butt is an ludicrously insane young earth creationist who claims to have (conclusive) evidence for the flood. Unfortunately, Butt’s ability to distinguish evidence from imagination is less than fully developed, and his reasoning skills are not quite impeccable either.

Here is his own argument that since science has made mistakes before – giving one example of a (putative) mistake that science itself corrected – the Bible is an accurate portrayal of verifiable reality, and “the idea that scientific ’findings’ trump every other source of information is simply false.” As he so eloquently puts it: “information in science books changes from year to year. […] Yet the biblical text has stood for centuries. Its integrity has surpassed that of any book ever printed. And the scientific information in it coincide perfectly with all factual data.” Assigning the (putative) unchanging commands of the Bible to dogma and confirmation bias in the face of falsifying evidence apparently doesn’t cross his mind. And all gaps in knowledge are evidence for the existence of God. There are some comments on his work here, and here.


Together with one Eric Lyons, Butt wrote “Dinosaurs Unleashed: A True Story Of Dinosaurs And Humans”, which is, needless to say, not a true story. It is picked apart in some detail here. Butt has also penned an interesting treatise; see comment 18 in this link) called “Defending the Bible’s Position on Slavery.”

Ok you are just to stupid to see the sources the guy used which were from your side comical yes.

Hollie take me on , I am the one challenging you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I suppose when your arguments are indefensible, you’re forced to behave like a child who has been scolded and sent to his room.

Your hope has always been (and still is) to hold up the argument of your designer gawds as a genuine syllogism of a claim worthy of intellectual merit, in spite of the fact that it has not been taken seriously by the relevant science community. The fact that you hold on to the lies, deceit and demonstrably false arguments of creationist, in spite of its intellectual worthlessness is most easily attributable to some emotional comfort it provides you.

You want it to be useful, even though it sadly is not.

You insist that you know with certainty that your gawds, exclusively, are responsible for all of the natural world we know. I’ll take you at your word regarding your intent. I try never to attribute to malice that which is more easily explained by ignorance.

Pointless post again.

What's noted is you inability to offer a rebuttal.

Such are the failings of creationist who, absent a handy cut and paste from Harun Yahya, are left to wallow in their own incompetence and ineptitude.

Explain how matter absent of life produces life then try to convince me it's a view not held by faith.

 

[Hollie]

No not bad design once you read the scriptures you will learn when man sinned entropy began simple explanation no ?

Simple explanation? Perhaps, but one that only a simpleton could accept.


All living things that have ever existed and will ever exist on this planet are born and die.

It has always been this way.

The death consequent to sin described in the fairy tale is the inability to produce a coherent and rational thought so perfectly displayed by you in your obstinate stupidity against accepting all the available facts related to the irrefutable evidence of the geological record of the evolution of all species..

The sweat of your brow, thinking, produces only thorns and thistles.

If you do not cleanse your mind of every trace of falsehood you will never know what it is to be a living being.

Simpleton ? you see entropy all around you dumbshit.

Then you can respond to my questions otherwise you can take a hike as well. I am tired of morons coming in and speaking from their ass.

Shit or get off the pot.

Defend your faith or fuck off.

Such are the dangers of fundamentalist creationist. Their arguments have failed, they have no challenge to science fact and so are left behave like petulant children.

So, aside from your juvenile potty mouth, you're really just hopelessly unable to offer a coherent thought.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You people are to fucking stupid to defend the theory you hold dear.