15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[Grumblenuts]

That's a lot of very crude circular reasoning amounting to bupkis.

And you can reply directly to my posts. You don't have to be afraid of me. I don't bite.

I know. But you'll soon just take your ball and go home again. Chicken.

 

[ding]

That's a lot of very crude circular reasoning amounting to bupkis.

How so?

For example:

But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation. God, who creates and conserves all things by his Word, provides men with constant evidence of himself in created realities. Wishing to open up the way to heavenly salvation - he manifested himself from the very beginning. This revelation was not broken off by the fall. God buoyed hope of salvation by promising redemption. He has never ceased to show his solicitude for the human race. For he wishes to give eternal life to all those who seek salvation by patience in well-doing.

If your god really wanted "man" to appreciate his alleged presence, plans, and good will toward us.. he sure chose incredibly roundabout and risky ways of doing it. Nothing apparent stopping him from dropping by to give us weekly updates on his doings, how he feels regarding this COVID-19 pandemic, and so forth. But, y'know, everyone's entitled to their delusions. You wanna spend the balance of your short existence here making up excuses and hoping not to just be worm food when you die, be my guest. I think I've got better things to do.

That's not an explanation of circular logic, Einstein. Please try again.

That's just you thinking you know better what God should and shouldn't do.

 

[ding]

That's a lot of very crude circular reasoning amounting to bupkis.

And you can reply directly to my posts. You don't have to be afraid of me. I don't bite.

I know. But you'll soon just take your ball and go home again. Chicken.

That hasn't been the case in the past. Do you believe it is wrong to buy and sell people? And is that just a personal opinion or is there a logical reason for that belief?

 

[ding]

That's a lot of very crude circular reasoning amounting to bupkis.

How so?

For example:

But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation. God, who creates and conserves all things by his Word, provides men with constant evidence of himself in created realities. Wishing to open up the way to heavenly salvation - he manifested himself from the very beginning. This revelation was not broken off by the fall. God buoyed hope of salvation by promising redemption. He has never ceased to show his solicitude for the human race. For he wishes to give eternal life to all those who seek salvation by patience in well-doing.

If your god really wanted "man" to appreciate his alleged presence, plans, and good will toward us.. he sure chose incredibly roundabout and risky ways of doing it. Nothing apparent stopping him from dropping by to give us weekly updates on his doings, how he feels regarding this COVID-19 pandemic, and so forth. But, y'know, everyone's entitled to their delusions. You wanna spend the balance of your short existence here making up excuses and hoping not to just be worm food when you die, be my guest. I think I've got better things to do.

An example of circular logic is like when you said right and wrong was determined by what you were taught and when I pointed out that people had been taught that it was OK for men to have sex with children and if you had been taught that you would have believed it was right for men to have sex with children you argued you would have been taught better. That's circular logic, dummy.

 

[Grumblenuts]

you argued you would have been taught better. That's circular logic, dummy.

No, that's just you lying to yourself again, dummy.

 

[ding]

An example of circular logic is like when you said right and wrong was determined by what you were taught and when I pointed out that people had been taught that it was OK for men to have sex with children and if you had been taught that you would have believed it was right for men to have sex with children you argued you would have been taught better. That's circular logic, dummy.

No, that's just you lying to yourself again, dummy.

Seems like you are the one who is lying to himself. You believe right is what gets taught instead of being based upon logical reasons. You will lose this argument every time.

What did I lie about exactly? That you believe right is what gets taught?

 

[ding]

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.



If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to exist existed before space and time were created because the laws of nature existed before space and time.

Due to the symmetry of particles and anti-particles, the universe should have been created with equal amounts of particles and anti-particles through the quantum tunneling event which led to the creation of space and time and left a universe filled only with radiation.

Instead for every 1,000,000,000 anti particles there existed 1,000,000,001 particles. So that when all the mutual annihilation had happened, there remained over that one particle per billion, and that now constitutes all the matter in the universe -- all the galaxies, the stars and planets, and of course all life.

That's some mighty fine tuning.



If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to exist existed before space and time were created because the laws of nature existed before space and time.

Both protons and neutrons have masses almost two thousand times the mass of an electron so virtually the whole mass of an atom is in its nucleus. Hence the atom is hardly disturbed at all by the motions of its electrons, and an atom can hold its position in a molecule, and molecules their positions in larger structures. Only that circumstance permits molecules to hold their shapes, and solids to exist.

If on the contrary the protons and neutrons were closer in mass to the electrons, whether light or heavy, then the motions of the electrons would be reflected in reciprocal motions by the others. All structures composed of such atoms would be fluid; in such a universe nothing would stay put. There could not be the fitting together of molecular shapes that permits not only crystals to form, but living organisms.

That's some mighty fine tuning.



If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to exist existed before space and time were created because the laws of nature existed before space and time.

How does it come about that elementary particles so altogether different otherwise as the proton and electron possess the same numerical charge?

How is it that the proton is exactly as plus-charged as the electron is minus-charged?

Any difference at all in electric charge would be enough to make all the matter in the universe charged; plus or minus. Since like charges repel one another, all the matter in the universe would repel all the other matter and overwhelm the forces of gravitation that bring matter together. There would be no stars, no galaxies -- and of course no life.

That's some mighty fine tuning.



If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to exist existed before space and time were created because the laws of nature existed before space and time.

Of the 92 natural elements, ninety-nine percent of the living matter we know is composed of just four: hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and carbon (C). These are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations (i.e., those mimicking the inert gases) by gaining respectively one, two, three, and four electrons. Gaining electrons, in the sense of sharing them with other atoms, is the mechanism of forming chemical bonds, hence molecules. The lightest elements make not only the tightest bonds, hence the most stable molecules, but introduce a unique property crucial for life: of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further.

These four elements, Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, also provide an example of the astonishing togetherness of our universe. They make up the “organic” molecules that constitute living organisms on a planet, and the nuclei of these same elements interact to generate the light of its star. Then the organisms on the planet come to depend wholly on that starlight, as they must if life is to persist. So it is that all life on the Earth runs on sunlight.

The structure of matter is hardwired to produce life. That's some mighty fine tuning.

 

[Grumblenuts]

An example of circular logic is like when you said right and wrong was determined by what you were taught and when I pointed out that people had been taught that it was OK for men to have sex with children and if you had been taught that you would have believed it was right for men to have sex with children you argued you would have been taught better. That's circular logic, dummy.

No, that's just you lying to yourself again, dummy.

Seems like you are the one who is lying to himself. You believe right is what gets taught instead of being based upon logical reasons. You will lose this argument every time.

What did I lie about exactly? That you believe right is what gets taught?

Again, "{...} you argued you would have been taught better." That's you lying. Dummy.

 

[ding]

An example of circular logic is like when you said right and wrong was determined by what you were taught and when I pointed out that people had been taught that it was OK for men to have sex with children and if you had been taught that you would have believed it was right for men to have sex with children you argued you would have been taught better. That's circular logic, dummy.

No, that's just you lying to yourself again, dummy.

Seems like you are the one who is lying to himself. You believe right is what gets taught instead of being based upon logical reasons. You will lose this argument every time.

What did I lie about exactly? That you believe right is what gets taught?

Again, "{...} you argued you would have been taught better." That's you lying. Dummy.

Then I guess you would have believed it was right for men to have sex with kids if that's what you had been taught.

Whereas I would have used reason and logic to know better.

 

[Grumblenuts]

when you said right and wrong was determined by what you were taught

That's not what I said either.

 

[Grumblenuts]

An example of circular logic is like when you said right and wrong was determined by what you were taught and when I pointed out that people had been taught that it was OK for men to have sex with children and if you had been taught that you would have believed it was right for men to have sex with children you argued you would have been taught better. That's circular logic, dummy.

No, that's just you lying to yourself again, dummy.

Seems like you are the one who is lying to himself. You believe right is what gets taught instead of being based upon logical reasons. You will lose this argument every time.

What did I lie about exactly? That you believe right is what gets taught?

Again, "{...} you argued you would have been taught better." That's you lying. Dummy.

Then I guess you would have believed it was right for men to have sex with kids if that's what you had been taught.

Whereas I would have used reason and logic to know better.

Said the oblivious dancing fool.. continuing to fool only himself..

 

[ding]

when you said right and wrong was determined by what you were taught

That's not what I said either.

Sure it is. Because you believe there is no such thing as a universal good independent of man. You believe in moral relativity.

 

[ding]

An example of circular logic is like when you said right and wrong was determined by what you were taught and when I pointed out that people had been taught that it was OK for men to have sex with children and if you had been taught that you would have believed it was right for men to have sex with children you argued you would have been taught better. That's circular logic, dummy.

No, that's just you lying to yourself again, dummy.

Seems like you are the one who is lying to himself. You believe right is what gets taught instead of being based upon logical reasons. You will lose this argument every time.

What did I lie about exactly? That you believe right is what gets taught?

Again, "{...} you argued you would have been taught better." That's you lying. Dummy.

Then I guess you would have believed it was right for men to have sex with kids if that's what you had been taught.

Whereas I would have used reason and logic to know better.

Said the oblivious dancing fool.. continuing to fool only himself..

You shit your pants every time you see an alert from me.

 

[ding]

 

[ding]

when you said right and wrong was determined by what you were taught

That's not what I said either.

If you need to work out what is good because you had bad teachers, let me know and I'll show you how to work through it using logic and reason.

 

[Grumblenuts]

when you said right and wrong was determined by what you were taught

That's not what I said either.

Sure it is. Because you believe there is no such thing as a universal good independent of man. You believe in moral relativity.

Well, if I said it then it stands to reason that you'd simply quote me doing so by now.. but just keep making an ass of yourself here instead

 

[Grumblenuts]

when you said right and wrong was determined by what you were taught

That's not what I said either.

If you need to work out what is good because you had bad teachers, let me know and I'll show you how to work through it using logic and reason.

Why, because you can't rely upon your gods to help with that anymore?

 

[ding]

when you said right and wrong was determined by what you were taught

That's not what I said either.

Sure it is. Because you believe there is no such thing as a universal good independent of man. You believe in moral relativity.

Well, if I said it then it stands to reason that you'd simply quote me doing so by now.. but just keep making an ass of yourself here instead

Feel free to state what you believe.

 

[ding]

when you said right and wrong was determined by what you were taught

That's not what I said either.

If you need to work out what is good because you had bad teachers, let me know and I'll show you how to work through it using logic and reason.

Why, because you can't rely upon your gods to help with that anymore?

God is logic, dummy.

 

[Grumblenuts]

when you said right and wrong was determined by what you were taught

That's not what I said either.

Sure it is. Because you believe there is no such thing as a universal good independent of man. You believe in moral relativity.

Well, if I said it then it stands to reason that you'd simply quote me doing so by now.. but just keep making an ass of yourself here instead

Feel free to state what you believe.

I believe it ain't anywhere near the rocket science you and many religionists seem to think it is. We are born with some sense of right and wrong which is then influenced, for better or worse, by our interactions with others or lack thereof.