Blowing up ID’iot creationism.

[BackAgain]

I know it's false, as I know you have trouble dealing with fact and evidence.

Your belief is misprinted by you as factual.

The our ongoing display of stupidity is amusing.

You don’t even know what a fact is.

Funny stuff.

 

[lafayette]

I believe in facts and evidence, you believe in what you believe, nothing more.

 

[BackAgain]

The term “Big Bang ” used to describe the beginning of the universe is an artifact of the theory of general relativity. Solving the math resolves to a null value as the equations “break down”.

It’s true (or so I’ve read) that the equations used in relation to advanced physics fail when physics contemplates the state of affairs.

The upshot to all of that is that the theories can’t be proved.

When they come up (based on extraordinary math) with a notion such as quantum physics and the “probabilistic” notion of an emergence of “something” out of a complete void, that happens to be outside of the realm of science. In order to accept it, one has to literally accept something beyond what we recognize as the laws which govern science. By definition, it is “supernatural.”

What makes one unprovable theory based on the supernatural more acceptable than some other unprovable theory based on the supernatural?

Why is there t so difficult for completely non-religious people to accept that perhaps “God” created everything and used the Big Bang and the laws of advanced physics (some of which we have been able to ascertain) to do the work of creating.

It so happens that my religious beliefs are paper thin. And I don’t claim that God did create everything. I concede the possibility that all of he cosmos came into being spontaneously via a probability bubble cropping up. I don’t believe it, but it’s possible.

What was it that caused that probability bubble, though?

 

[Hollie]

It’s true (or so I’ve read) that the equations used in relation to advanced physics fail when physics contemplates the state of affairs.

The upshot to all of that is that the theories can’t be proved.

When they come up (based on extraordinary math) with a notion such as quantum physics and the “probabilistic” notion of an emergence of “something” out of a complete void, that happens to be outside of the realm of science. In order to accept it, one has to literally accept something beyond what we recognize as the laws which govern science. By definition, it is “supernatural.”

What makes one unprovable theory based on the supernatural more acceptable than some other unprovable theory based on the supernatural?

Why is there t so difficult for completely non-religious people to accept that perhaps “God” created everything and used the Big Bang and the laws of advanced physics (some of which we have been able to ascertain) to do the work of creating.

It so happens that my religious beliefs are paper thin. And I don’t claim that God did create everything. I concede the possibility that all of he cosmos came into being spontaneously via a probability bubble cropping up. I don’t believe it, but it’s possible.

What was it that caused that probability bubble, though?

I can’t say I understand what a probability bubble is so can’t comment on that. As the most obvious explanation is the most likely, existence is natural, patterns form out of the exchange of energy, life evolved in some places, competition for that life implemented social structures, sentience ignited that social structure to a more and more complicated degree.

Everything 'came into existence' with the expansion of the universe. There is every reason to accept a naturalistic origin of the universe as opposed to any claimed supernatural origin. It is a pretty simple matter that the supernaturalists fail to comprehend; they need to provide some support for the existence of their supernatural gods before they can assign universe building tasks to them.

There is nothing to indicate that any gods caused the expansion.

The chemistry of the universe makes the building blocks of life abundant. Why would any gods make the universe so vast, put in place the chemical compounds that support life and then abandon it all by making the planet 6,000 years ago and supernaturally creating life on the planet?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Creationism is the only solution to the mysteries of the cosmos.

Only problem... it doesn't actually explain anything at all. It explains nothing and yields no useful predictions.

So all you have done is replace your ignorance with magical ignorance.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why is there t so difficult for completely non-religious people to accept that perhaps “God” created everything and used the Big Bang and the laws of advanced physics (some of which we have been able to ascertain) to do the work of creating.

It isn't difficult. Perhaps that is true.

And perhaps a mentally handicapped rainbow unicorn shit out our universe after having some bad anchovies.

These ideas go on the same shelf.

Maybe that will help you understand.

 

[BackAgain]

I can’t say I understand what a probability bubble is so can’t comment on that. As the most obvious explanation is the most likely, existence is natural, patterns form out of the exchange of energy, life evolved in some places, competition for that life implemented social structures, sentience ignited that social structure to a more and more complicated degree.

Everything 'came into existence' with the expansion of the universe. There is every reason to accept a naturalistic origin of the universe as opposed to any claimed supernatural origin. It is a pretty simple matter that the supernaturalists fail to comprehend; they need to provide some support for the existence of their supernatural gods before they can assign universe building tasks to them.

There is nothing to indicate that any gods caused the expansion.

The chemistry of the universe makes the building blocks of life abundant. Why would any gods make the universe so vast, put in place the chemical compounds that support life and then abandon it all by making the planet 6,000 years ago and supernaturally creating life on the planet?

I don’t see that aabrhebmoatbbvious explanation.

I do see it as one possibility.

Where did these energy fields come law come from?

 

[BackAgain]

It isn't difficult. Perhaps that is true.

And perhaps a mentally handicapped rainbow unicorn shit out our universe after having some bad anchovies.

These ideas go on the same shelf.

Maybe that will help you understand.

That was stupid even your tragically retarded standards.

 

[abu afak]

It’s true (or so I’ve read) that the equations used in relation to advanced physics fail when physics contemplates the state of affairs.

The upshot to all of that is that the theories can’t be proved.

When they come up (based on extraordinary math) with a notion such as quantum physics and the “probabilistic” notion of an emergence of “something” out of a complete void, that happens to be outside of the realm of science. In order to accept it, one has to literally accept something beyond what we recognize as the laws which govern science. By definition, it is “supernatural.”

What makes one unprovable theory based on the supernatural more acceptable than some other unprovable theory based on the supernatural?

Why is there t so difficult for completely non-religious people to accept that perhaps “God” created everything and used the Big Bang and the laws of advanced physics (some of which we have been able to ascertain) to do the work of creating.

It so happens that my religious beliefs are paper thin. And I don’t claim that God did create everything. I concede the possibility that all of he cosmos came into being spontaneously via a probability bubble cropping up. I don’t believe it, but it’s possible.

What was it that caused that probability bubble, though?

It might be god.
In fact, I might be god.
Until any EVIDENCE arises though we do know one thing...
Man Created Gods.. Thousands.
Thousands gone by the wayside.
and we also know at least 75% of people/religions/gods/creation myths are wrong even if one stepped in it. Not really encoraging at this point, especially for the Only One 95% of people here are squawking for.
`

 

[BackAgain]

It might be god.
In fact, I might be god.
Until any EVIDENCE arises though we do know one thing...
Man Created Gods.. Thousands.
Thousands are gone by the wayside.
and we also know at least 75% of people/religions/gods/creation myths are wrong even if one stepped in it. Not really encoraging at this point.
`

You’re far too simplistic to engage in this conversation, apu.

 

[abu afak]

You’re far too simplistic to engage in this conversation, apu.

IOW, you're full of shit and can't answer what I said.
You're mainly here to troll Libs, while I have put more meaty/solid material than anyone else in OPs and threads
So your excuse for losing doesn't look too smart.

Last Word Away sick little boy.
`

 

[BackAgain]

IOW, you're full of shit and can't answer what I said.

Wrong again. Belittling your stupidity is the only reply your crap deserves.

You're mainly here to troll Libs, while I have put more meaty/solid material than anyone else in OPs and threads

Grandiose delusions of your own self worth. Amusing to the rest of us.

So your excuse for losing doesn't look too smart.

First, it have to be the one losing. But, of course, that’s you.

Last Word Away sick little boy.
`

Ok, ilttle girl.


;

 

[abu afak]

Still Waiting for a Coherent reply (as opposed to your Idiotic broken thought POS above asd a Deflection.)

It’s true (or so I’ve read) that the equations used in relation to advanced physics fail when physics contemplates the state of affairs.

The upshot to all of that is that the theories can’t be proved.

When they come up (based on extraordinary math) with a notion such as quantum physics and the “probabilistic” notion of an emergence of “something” out of a complete void, that happens to be outside of the realm of science. In order to accept it, one has to literally accept something beyond what we recognize as the laws which govern science. By definition, it is “supernatural.”

What makes one unprovable theory based on the supernatural more acceptable than some other unprovable theory based on the supernatural?

Why is there t so difficult for completely non-religious people to accept that perhaps “God” created everything and used the Big Bang and the laws of advanced physics (some of which we have been able to ascertain) to do the work of creating.

It so happens that my religious beliefs are paper thin. And I don’t claim that God did create everything. I concede the possibility that all of he cosmos came into being spontaneously via a probability bubble cropping up. I don’t believe it, but it’s possible.

What was it that caused that probability bubble, though?

It might be god.
In fact, I might be god.
Until any EVIDENCE arises though we do know one thing...
Man Created Gods.. Thousands.
Thousands gone by the wayside.
and we also know at least 75% of people/religions/gods/creation myths are wrong even if one stepped in it. Not really encoraging at this point, especially for the Only One 95% of people here are squawking for.
`

 

[BackAgain]

Still Waiting for a Coherent reply (as opposed to your Idiotic broken thought POS above asd a Deflection.)



It might be god.
In fact, I might be god.
Until any EVIDENCE arises though we do know one thing...
Man Created Gods.. Thousands.
Thousands gone by the wayside.
and we also know at least 75% of people/religions/gods/creation myths are wrong even if one stepped in it. Not really encoraging at this point, especially for the Only One 95% of people here are squawking for.
`

You have not even the slightest ability to recognize coherence. You certainly offer nothing coherent.
;


;

 

[abu afak]

Still Waiting for a Coherent reply (as opposed to your deflection re my pointing out some facts and probabilities.)

It’s true (or so I’ve read) that the equations used in relation to advanced physics fail when physics contemplates the state of affairs.
The upshot to all of that is that the theories can’t be proved.,,,,
Why is there t so difficult for completely non-religious people to accept that perhaps “God” created everything and used the Big Bang and the laws of advanced physics (some of which we have been able to ascertain) to do the work of creating.

It so happens that my religious beliefs are paper thin. And I don’t claim that God did create everything. I concede the possibility that all of he cosmos came into being spontaneously via a probability bubble cropping up. I don’t believe it, but it’s possible.

What was it that caused that probability bubble, though?

It might be god.
In fact, I might be god.
Until any EVIDENCE arises though we do know one thing...
Man Created Gods.. Thousands.
Thousands gone by the wayside.
and we also know at least 75% of people/religions/gods/creation myths are wrong even if one stepped in it. Not really encouraging at this point, especially for the Only One 95% of people here are squawking for.
`

 

[abu afak]

""Intelligent design (ID) is a Pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1]

Although the phrase intelligent design had featured previously in theological discussions of the argument from design,[10] its first publication in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People,[11][12] a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was Substituted into drafts of the book, directly Replacing references to creation science and creationism, after the 1987 Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds.[13] From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute,[14] advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula.[7] This led to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, which found that intelligent design was Not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and that the public school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. [15]

ID presents two main arguments against evolutionary explanations: irreducible complexity and specified complexity, asserting that certain biological and informational features of living things are too complex to be the result of natural selection. Detailed scientific examination has rebutted several examples for which evolutionary explanations are claimed to be impossible.
[....]

Intelligent design - Wikipedia​

`

 

[Hollie]

I suspect for many creationers, even a perfectly preserved chain of fossil evidence for every intermediary species of every species that ever existed would not meet their standard of evidence. Not without the magical hands of their gods somehow involved.

The re-branding of what was once “Biblical Creationism" which became “Scientific Creationism”, later changed to “Intelligent Design Creationism”, later becoming “Intelligent Design” has always been a product of fundamentalist Christianity.

You can take the fundamentalist out of the church but you can’t take the church out of the fundamentalist.

 

[Hollie]

I'm not the one beating their chest about what she believes. I get it, your ego and "Narcissism" demand that you swear that you are the smartest little girl in the room, have at it. I am content in your need for self delusion.

Such an angry little girl.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Such an angry little girl.

Yes you are.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That was stupid even your tragically retarded standards.

Maybe you're too big a sissy for this section.

These are big boy ideas.

Try again please.