How Much of a Theist or Atheist are You?

[james bond]

It's common sense,

It is not "common sense", what a ridiculous thing to say. When religious people use this term, it's always a safe bet that "common sense" = "anything in agreement with the religiois person's religiois beliefs".

You're taking it out of context. Has nothing to do with religion or the religious, but most people would agree. Something is greater than nothing. I got a $100 while you have nothing. That's common sense.

However, if Stephen Hawking were still alive, and you said something is greater than nothing, then he may disagree.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

but most people would agree. Something is greater than nothing.

You need to structure your sentences more well in order to articulate your meaning, because this is not what your comments conveyed as "common sense". I accept your self-correction.

 

[james bond]

but most people would agree. Something is greater than nothing.

You need to structure your sentences more well in order to articulate your meaning, because this is not what your comments conveyed as "common sense". I accept your self-correction.

Call the grammar police. This is why we have a forum. One can answer questions and explain what they meant if it wasn't clear.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

but most people would agree. Something is greater than nothing.

You need to structure your sentences more well in order to articulate your meaning, because this is not what your comments conveyed as "common sense". I accept your self-correction.

Call the grammar police. This is why we have a forum. One can answer questions and explain what they meant if it wasn't clear.

That wasnt grammar, it was syntax. So, maybe we should call the syntax police AND the dictionary police. Also, people should not be expected to ask others what they mean. The meaning should be clear from the commemts. If it is not, then the commenter should clarify.

By the way, I checked again.....not a shred of creation science has ever been produced.

 

[james bond]

but most people would agree. Something is greater than nothing.

You need to structure your sentences more well in order to articulate your meaning, because this is not what your comments conveyed as "common sense". I accept your self-correction.

Call the grammar police. This is why we have a forum. One can answer questions and explain what they meant if it wasn't clear.

That wasnt grammar, it was syntax. So, maybe we should call the syntax police AND the dictionary police. Also, people should not be expected to ask others what they mean. The meaning should be clear from the commemts. If it is not, then the commenter should clarify.

By the way, I checked again.....not a shred of creation science has ever been produced.

Who is we? It is just you. I should call the grammar police. Moreover, I should call the creation science police. The Waaah-ambulance is needed for you, too.

Seriously, you need better sources if you cannot find creation science. Not only is it in the dictionary, it has many credible websites explaining it. I recommend Answers in Genesis, Institute of Creation Research and CreationWiki.

Definition of CREATION SCIENCE

LMGTFY

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

but most people would agree. Something is greater than nothing.

You need to structure your sentences more well in order to articulate your meaning, because this is not what your comments conveyed as "common sense". I accept your self-correction.

Call the grammar police. This is why we have a forum. One can answer questions and explain what they meant if it wasn't clear.

That wasnt grammar, it was syntax. So, maybe we should call the syntax police AND the dictionary police. Also, people should not be expected to ask others what they mean. The meaning should be clear from the commemts. If it is not, then the commenter should clarify.

By the way, I checked again.....not a shred of creation science has ever been produced.

Who is we? It is just you. I should call the grammar police. Moreover, I should call the creation science police. The Waaah-ambulance is needed for you, too.

Seriously, you need better sources if you cannot find creation science. Not only is it in the dictionary, it has many credible websites explaining it. I recommend Answers in Genesis, Institute of Creation Research and CreationWiki.

Definition of CREATION SCIENCE

LMGTFY

Dont regurgitate your propaganda links, crybaby. Post ONE instance of creation science, summed up in your own words, with a link to a summary pf the published , scientific article.

ONE. Let's hope your grasp of this bizarre fetish is better than your grasp of linguistics.

And...go!

 

[BreezeWood]

Who is we?

never a substantive communication with bond, it is their inability to comprehend a finite angle of trajectory without changing course being a loop as the means for a cyclical BB, repetitious solidarities each a mirror image of the previous ... just refer to them as atheist to win their prize.

 

[james bond]

but most people would agree. Something is greater than nothing.

You need to structure your sentences more well in order to articulate your meaning, because this is not what your comments conveyed as "common sense". I accept your self-correction.

Call the grammar police. This is why we have a forum. One can answer questions and explain what they meant if it wasn't clear.

That wasnt grammar, it was syntax. So, maybe we should call the syntax police AND the dictionary police. Also, people should not be expected to ask others what they mean. The meaning should be clear from the commemts. If it is not, then the commenter should clarify.

By the way, I checked again.....not a shred of creation science has ever been produced.

Who is we? It is just you. I should call the grammar police. Moreover, I should call the creation science police. The Waaah-ambulance is needed for you, too.

Seriously, you need better sources if you cannot find creation science. Not only is it in the dictionary, it has many credible websites explaining it. I recommend Answers in Genesis, Institute of Creation Research and CreationWiki.

Definition of CREATION SCIENCE

LMGTFY

Dont regurgitate your propaganda links, crybaby. Post ONE instance of creation science, summed up in your own words, with a link to a summary pf the published , scientific article.

ONE. Let's hope your grasp of this bizarre fetish is better than your grasp of linguistics.

And...go!

You don't understand, do you? How can there be something in Nature or Science or any other valid atheist publication from a creation scientist? For example, in what was there before the Big Bang question, there is no creation explanation because it is systematically rejected even though creation is a valid scientific explanation.

 

[james bond]

Who is we?

never a substantive communication with bond, it is their inability to comprehend a finite angle of trajectory without changing course being a loop as the means for a cyclical BB, repetitious solidarities each a mirror image of the previous ... just refer to them as atheist to win their prize.

I provided the fact that the chicken and rooster came before the egg. Otherwise, please explain how a fertilized egg just came to be.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31940392_The_chicken_came_first

 

[Cecilie1200]

but most people would agree. Something is greater than nothing.

You need to structure your sentences more well in order to articulate your meaning, because this is not what your comments conveyed as "common sense". I accept your self-correction.

"More well"?

I think the word you were looking for was "better".

 

[BreezeWood]

Who is we?

never a substantive communication with bond, it is their inability to comprehend a finite angle of trajectory without changing course being a loop as the means for a cyclical BB, repetitious solidarities each a mirror image of the previous ... just refer to them as atheist to win their prize.

I provided the fact that the chicken and rooster came before the egg. Otherwise, please explain how a fertilized egg just came to be.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31940392_The_chicken_came_first

.

I provided the fact that the chicken and rooster came before the egg.

Article in Nature 328(6130) · August 1987 with 4 Reads ...

can you do math bond, 4-1 = 3 : that is 3 other people read your article since 1987, 32 years ago ... and those 3 others including yourself are undoubtedly the last remaining flat earthers as well - birds of a feather flock together does say a lot about your mental state, do you ever read adult publications ....

 

[james bond]

Who is we?

never a substantive communication with bond, it is their inability to comprehend a finite angle of trajectory without changing course being a loop as the means for a cyclical BB, repetitious solidarities each a mirror image of the previous ... just refer to them as atheist to win their prize.

I provided the fact that the chicken and rooster came before the egg. Otherwise, please explain how a fertilized egg just came to be.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31940392_The_chicken_came_first

.

I provided the fact that the chicken and rooster came before the egg.

Article in Nature 328(6130) · August 1987 with 4 Reads ...

can you do math bond, 4-1 = 3 : that is 3 other people read your article since 1987, 32 years ago ... and those 3 others including yourself are undoubtedly the last remaining flat earthers as well - birds of a feather flock together does say a lot about your mental state, do you ever read adult publications ....

Stop. You're presenting a strawman. That's the data from ResearchGate, an archiver, reflecting views per year and not Nature. Nature and Science are the most widely respected and read magazines in atheist science. Now, please explain how one gets a fertilized egg with no chicken and rooster, but just an egg.

 

[james bond]

but most people would agree. Something is greater than nothing.

You need to structure your sentences more well in order to articulate your meaning, because this is not what your comments conveyed as "common sense". I accept your self-correction.

"More well"?

I think the word you were looking for was "better".

 

[BreezeWood]

Who is we?

never a substantive communication with bond, it is their inability to comprehend a finite angle of trajectory without changing course being a loop as the means for a cyclical BB, repetitious solidarities each a mirror image of the previous ... just refer to them as atheist to win their prize.

I provided the fact that the chicken and rooster came before the egg. Otherwise, please explain how a fertilized egg just came to be.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31940392_The_chicken_came_first

.

I provided the fact that the chicken and rooster came before the egg.

Article in Nature 328(6130) · August 1987 with 4 Reads ...

can you do math bond, 4-1 = 3 : that is 3 other people read your article since 1987, 32 years ago ... and those 3 others including yourself are undoubtedly the last remaining flat earthers as well - birds of a feather flock together does say a lot about your mental state, do you ever read adult publications ....

Stop. You're presenting a strawman. That's the data from ResearchGate, an archiver, reflecting views per year and not Nature. Nature and Science are the most widely respected and read magazines in atheist science. Now, please explain how one gets a fertilized egg with no chicken and rooster, but just an egg.

.

You're presenting a strawman.

your link does not provide the article you claim, no doubt it is creation science that was deemed unsuitable as a work of voodoo hysteria and deleted ...

... widely respected and read magazines in atheist science.

science is secular, it is you who demands to impose your will and forgeries onto others ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How can there be something in Nature or Science or any other valid atheist publication from a creation scientist?

Haha, you betray your own bullshit. Science is science. Good science will be published even -- really, ESPECIALLY -- if it upends existing scientific theory. So I think you understand fully that this "creation science" of which you speak is not actually science.
Face it: nobody attempts to publish that bullshit becuase it is bad science. I.e., NOT science.

 

[james bond]

How can there be something in Nature or Science or any other valid atheist publication from a creation scientist?

Haha, you betray your own bullshit. Science is science. Good science will be published even -- really, ESPECIALLY -- if it upends existing scientific theory. So I think you understand fully that this "creation science" of which you speak is not actually science.
Face it: nobody attempts to publish that bullshit becuase it is bad science. I.e., NOT science.

Meh. You didn't answer my question at all, but just regurgitated malarkey as your answer. Creation scientists have to peer review their own work. It usually won't be reviewed by the Nature and Science crowd. What you need to produce is credible evidence like that which I have to debunk humans evolving from apes as a common ancestor. All you have is your opinions on what happens to get something published in Nature or Science which is wrong.

"What do the fossils of a bird and of a "hominid," separated by almost 225 million years on the evolutionary time scale, have in common? Technically, not much, but they both have powerfully rattled the cages of evolutionists, springing new leaks in a rotting theory, already threatening to founder in the Arctic seas of cold, hard scientific facts. The "hominid" is an alleged 1.8-million-year-old fossil of a creature called Homo habilis, discovered in the Olduvai Gorge of Tanzania by an expedition headed by Donald Johanson, Director of the Institute of Human Origins, University of California, Berkeley. Evolutionists have always maintained that Homo habilis is intermediate between apes and man. The fossil bird was discovered in the "225-million-year-old" Dockum Formation near Post, Texas, by Sankar Chatterjee, a paleontologist at Texas Tech University. The article in Nature, a British science journal, announcing the discovery of the two fossilized birds 1 was headlined, "Fossil Bird Shakes Evolutionary Hypotheses," and the article in Science, an American science journal, discussing the discovery of the fossil "hominid" was entitled, "The Earliest 'Humans' Were More Like Apes." 2

Man (Homo sapiens) is the only living species within the family of man, the Hominidae. Creationists believe that Homo sapiens is the only species that has ever existed within the Hominidae. Evolutionists, on the other hand, believe that sometime (estimates vary from four to 30 million years ago), man and apes shared a common ancestor. Somehow, they believe, this ancestral population gave rise to two evolutionary lines, one leading to modern apes and the other leading to modern man. Evolutionists include all of the hypothetical intermediates in the line that led from ape to man in the family Hominidae, and all such supposed intermediates are called "hominids."

Fossils of ape-like creatures, given the genus name of Australopithecus, have been found in Africa, including A. africanus in South Africa by Raymond Dart, A. bosei in East Africa by Louis Leakey, and A. afarensis in Ethiopia by Donald Johanson. Louis Leakey discovered fossils of creatures in the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania which he claimed were more "advanced" than the australopithecines—sufficiently advanced to place them in the same genus as man. He designated these creatures Homo habilis ("handy man"), believing that they had formed primitive tools. 3 Many paleonanthropologists argue, however, that these creatures were simply variants of the australopithecines. It has long been maintained by most evolutionists that the australopithecines, although grossly ape-like, had teeth somewhat more man-like than those found in modern apes, and that they walked upright, essentially, in a human manner. They were thus supposedly on their way to becoming people, and are called "hominids." Some evolutionists, on the other hand, such as Lord Zuckerman and Charles Oxnard, strongly dispute this view, maintaining that the australopithecines did not walk upright in the human manner and were not intermediate between ape and man.4

The discovery of a more complete fossil skeleton of Homo habilis, although still quite fragmentary, considerably strengthens the contention of creation scientists that these creatures, while not the same as any one of the modern apes, were, nevertheless, simply apes, in no way related to man. The fossil remains were discovered by Tim White of the Johanson team and are described in a recent Nature article. 5 Several important features of this creature took evolutionists by surprise. The first shock was its tiny stature. The fossil is of an adult female that stood only about three feet tall. This is as short, or shorter, than that of "Lucy," the alleged 3.8-million-year-old adult female, A. afarensis, discovered in Ethiopia by Johanson. Furthermore, the postcranial skeleton (that portion of the skeleton below the skull) was every bit as primitive, or ape-like, as that of "Lucy," who is supposedly two million years older than this allegedly 1.8-million-year-old adult female, H. habilis. Recovery of the remains of the arm of this H. habilis fossil revealed the fact that, just as is true of apes, it had very long arms, with finger tips reaching almost down to the knees.

All of the species of Australopithecus and Homo habilis had long curved fingers and long curved toes. Creatures with such anatomical features use them for only one purpose—swinging from branch to branch in the trees. So much for the supposed human-like upright locomotion of Homo habilis and Australopithecus, including "Lucy."

Hardly more than a year ago, Alan Walker, of Johns Hopkins University, and Richard Leakey, son of Louis and Mary Leakey and Director of the National Museums of Kenya, announced the discovery of the fossilized remains of a 12-year-old male on the western shore of Lake Turkana in Kenya. 6 Its height was 5'6", and Walker and Leakey estimated that if he had lived to adulthood, he would have been six feet tall, Walker declared that its postcranial skeleton was so similar to that of modern man he doubted whether an average pathologist could tell the difference. Furthermore, he said that when they placed the jaw on the skull, it looked similar to Neanderthal Man. In spite of the fact that Neanderthal Man is classified as fully human Homo sapiens, and that the postcranial skeleton of this 12-year-old male was essentially identical to that of modern man. Walker and Leakey classified him as Homo erectus, a sub-human species, rather than Homo sapiens. No doubt one of the major reasons for this is the fact that the fossil was dated at 1.6 million years, supposedly 1.5 million years older than Homo sapiens."

Startling Discoveries Support Creation

The bottom line is these fossils do not add up to evolution, but supports creation. However, these findings were ignored by the Nature and Science crowd. Thus, the BS of Lucy as the first ape-man continues. Richard Leakey, a paleonanthropologist listed in the article, thinks Lucy is comprised of several species and not just australopithecus afarensis.

 

[james bond]

Who is we?

never a substantive communication with bond, it is their inability to comprehend a finite angle of trajectory without changing course being a loop as the means for a cyclical BB, repetitious solidarities each a mirror image of the previous ... just refer to them as atheist to win their prize.

I provided the fact that the chicken and rooster came before the egg. Otherwise, please explain how a fertilized egg just came to be.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31940392_The_chicken_came_first

.

I provided the fact that the chicken and rooster came before the egg.

Article in Nature 328(6130) · August 1987 with 4 Reads ...

can you do math bond, 4-1 = 3 : that is 3 other people read your article since 1987, 32 years ago ... and those 3 others including yourself are undoubtedly the last remaining flat earthers as well - birds of a feather flock together does say a lot about your mental state, do you ever read adult publications ....

Stop. You're presenting a strawman. That's the data from ResearchGate, an archiver, reflecting views per year and not Nature. Nature and Science are the most widely respected and read magazines in atheist science. Now, please explain how one gets a fertilized egg with no chicken and rooster, but just an egg.

.

You're presenting a strawman.

your link does not provide the article you claim, no doubt it is creation science that was deemed unsuitable as a work of voodoo hysteria and deleted ...

... widely respected and read magazines in atheist science.

science is secular, it is you who demands to impose your will and forgeries onto others ...

Sure, according to Nature. If you won't accept that due to not being able to retrieve the article, here's another one explaining how the British scientists came up with it.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/anie.201000679

The scientific method supports the creationist view as science backs up the Bible.

I did find there was a reply by Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Twitter about three years later to explain what happened. Even Bill Nye chimes in. There is no scientific method that supports the evolutionary view of a funky chicken that laid the first chicken egg, so Tyson and Nye have egg on his face as usual ha ha.

Neil deGrasse Tyson on Twitter

Internet atheist just eat the Twitter chicken poop up .

 

[BreezeWood]

never a substantive communication with bond, it is their inability to comprehend a finite angle of trajectory without changing course being a loop as the means for a cyclical BB, repetitious solidarities each a mirror image of the previous ... just refer to them as atheist to win their prize.

I provided the fact that the chicken and rooster came before the egg. Otherwise, please explain how a fertilized egg just came to be.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31940392_The_chicken_came_first

.

I provided the fact that the chicken and rooster came before the egg.

Article in Nature 328(6130) · August 1987 with 4 Reads ...

can you do math bond, 4-1 = 3 : that is 3 other people read your article since 1987, 32 years ago ... and those 3 others including yourself are undoubtedly the last remaining flat earthers as well - birds of a feather flock together does say a lot about your mental state, do you ever read adult publications ....

Stop. You're presenting a strawman. That's the data from ResearchGate, an archiver, reflecting views per year and not Nature. Nature and Science are the most widely respected and read magazines in atheist science. Now, please explain how one gets a fertilized egg with no chicken and rooster, but just an egg.

.

You're presenting a strawman.

your link does not provide the article you claim, no doubt it is creation science that was deemed unsuitable as a work of voodoo hysteria and deleted ...

... widely respected and read magazines in atheist science.

science is secular, it is you who demands to impose your will and forgeries onto others ...

Sure, according to Nature. If you won't accept that due to not being able to retrieve the article, here's another one explaining how the British scientists came up with it.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/anie.201000679

The scientific method supports the creationist view as science backs up the Bible.

I did find there was a reply by Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Twitter about three years later to explain what happened. Even Bill Nye chimes in. There is no scientific method that supports the evolutionary view of a funky chicken that laid the first chicken egg, so Tyson and Nye have egg on his face as usual ha ha.

Neil deGrasse Tyson on Twitter

Internet atheist just eat the Twitter chicken poop up .

.

Sure, according to Nature. If you won't accept that due to not being able to retrieve the article ...

- is it possible to comment on a subject that is deliberately not made available ....

... these simulations suggest a catalytic cycle that explains the role of ovocleidin‐17 in the first stages of eggshell formation

obviously, you haven't least a phony article supporting your claim, even for the illiterate one you have chosen - no wonder such people as Tyson and Nye fly so far above your head.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You didn't answer my question at all,

I did answer your question. Pay attention, crybaby. Any of those publications could publish ANY good scinece from a creationist, because the quality of the science will have NOTHING to do with whether or not the author is a creationist or a freaking witch.

How are you not getting this?

By the way: there has never been one shred of "creation science" produced. Not one single study. That is why, despite your little two step and word salads, you will never, not EVER,produce a single example of this.

 

[james bond]

You didn't answer my question at all,

I did answer your question. Pay attention, crybaby. Any of those publications could publish ANY good scinece from a creationist, because the quality of the science will have NOTHING to do with whether or not the author is a creationist or a freaking witch.

How are you not getting this?

By the way: there has never been one shred of "creation science" produced. Not one single study. That is why, despite your little two step and word salads, you will never, not EVER,produce a single example of this.

Facts are facts. The chicken came before the egg. We'll see who the crybaby is. You'll be crying a river, but someone else will have to call the Whaaaambulance. I'm not lifting a finger.

Today, we have the late Stephen Hawking releasing his Multiverse hypothesis. How does a parallel universe even work? One atheist commenter asked, "Is that the universe where I get laid?" He rather live in another universe that this one. You can't criticize me for that bundle of nonsense. It's all atheist scientists trying to get over the fine tuning facts by claiming multiverses.