Creationists suffer another legal defeat

[JakeStarkey]

Stop wasting your time arguing with the "light". He is so thoroughly brainwashed and yet he doesn't even have any proof that he's right. I always find that fascinating, people going through life in a conscious state of sleepwalking. Maybe that's why people go to church, for their weekly dose of hypnosis.
Doesn't even live up to his own code by always saying nasty shit. A total epic fail as a christian. Jesus would be so embarrassed to have the light explaining his teachings.

Jake. Hit and run personal attacks is all you have. You can't even come up with a sensable reply to my post.

You believe in evolution and you think the first life forms were god searching. An amoeba is searching for god?

Good fun, Hister. Light has us confused, which is OK, because he cannot give evidence that Creationism is science and that Evolution is not. His simple denials show how simplistic he is.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

King Solomon was the wisest man in documented history. The difference is, I seek my knowledge from G-d. You seek dark knowledge and pseudo science.

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
-Proverbs 1:7

Not surprisingly, some of the greatest scientists and inventors throughout history have been Christians and Jews.

Let me know when you arrive at a point. Are you saying that you actually believe Solomon was the wisest man in history? EVER?! From what documentation?! Oh right, your one source. What was his IQ? What was his education? That's what I thought.

You say fools despise wisdom, and yet you ignore all factual evidence. It appears that you turn a blind eye to fact and investigation to instead value some vague concept of "wisdom" which appears to have nothing to do with objective truth but rather subjective decisions.

We cannot "observe" the year 1860 or 2009 for that matter, and yet I'm strongly convinced they occurred too. You see when we ignore all evidence to embrace ignorance, it's easy to claim we can't observe anything at all. Turn away from the light, and all you're left with is blindness. You should know that, given your name.

We know they occurred because we have books to read from people that lived back in those times. Just like we have a Bible that tells us what happened 6000 years ago. And it wasn't a big bang by the way. The irony of your post is that you use a date numbering system of which points to Jesus Christ at reference year 1.

Yes, this culture uses that reference. Continuing that reference for basic communication skills does not stand as proof for your claims. Sorry. It just means I'm communicating "last year" to you in number format that you can understand. Please also look up the meaning of "irony", because you don't quite have it.

But your actual point returns to the stupidity you have exhibited countless times: you believe the only truth is found in books claiming to be history. Such a thought is just foolish. All the truths and inventions of modern times have had nothing to do with such documentation. Modern medicine, electricity, and even indoor plumbing have had no basis in books, but rather exploring the actual physical world, which you seem so enthusiastic to ignore. The Cat in the Hat is also a book. And yet you have no problem questioning its validity.

Getting impressed by things in nature called G-d.

But setting that aside for a minute. What makes you so sure that you have it right? I mean after all, those people who worshiped the sun were following their brains and logic and it led them to worshiping the sun. I'm glad you think you are just soooo smart. They did too.

You just exhibited the exact stupidity I outlined: claiming divinity in anything beautiful or not well understood. This is the only point of creationism: "we don't understand what's going on, so therefore it must be god". Well, even though YOU have no education in certain topics doesn't mean other people are just as ignorant. Nature IS beautiful. And that's great. But it doesn't indicate the divine, it indicates beauty. Similarly, parts of nature are gross.

But you compare me to some neanderthal worshiping the sun as if no knowledge and growth has occurred in the last several millennia. Once again you make blatantly incongruous comparisons because equal ones would show you to be completely nuts.

What makes me so sure I have it right that the sun is a burning ball of gas and not a deity? Do you really want to ask me that question? But you see I am willing to look at the facts at hand instead of just assuming something complex or beautiful or mysterious is divine. You're not. If you don't understand a topic, you simply write it off as god. Unfathomable. Not worth understanding further. This is true ignorance.

This is seen even in modern humans, in the form of defense mechanisms. Psychiatrists have studied these mechanisms extensively. But then again, I can't actually expect you to accept verified knowledge when you're so intent on shunning the "forbidden fruit".

It goes back to the unanswered question. Which scientists do you find to be valid: the ones that believe what you believe or the ones that don't?

And here is that ignorance portrayed yet again. You think that somehow the two sides of the argument are equal, as if my knowledge of the sun today is somehow equal to neanderthal worship of it, and it's just a matter of equal but differing opinions. That's not the case, neither about the sun, nor evolution. That fact that you think otherwise shows you don't actually understand how science, understanding verifiable evidence, or fact finding actually works.

I'm mildly amused by how people seem to think that a court decision settles facts. Quite often, the courts make completely wrong decisions. Take Dred Scott for example.

Personally, I've never really cared about the Evolution/Creation debate. The Lord hasn't revealed information about the creation indepth to me. I don't know how things were done. I just think it's amusing that people seem to think that legal battles determine the strength of their position. If your position is really that strong, you wouldn't need the Courts to prove it. It would be obvious.

It's true. Court cases can be very skewed, pitting two opposite opinions against one another as if they were equal instead of identifying the actual causes and expert consensus on the topic. Unfortunately for your stance, the expert consensus on this particular topic also agrees with the courts. Creationism has been debunked. Evolution has been confirmed, using standardized unbiased methods which you nor any creationist can actually contradict.

So either make a point, or show yourself out. Cuz whining about the court system is pretty useless.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Let me know when you arrive at a point. Are you saying that you actually believe Solomon was the wisest man in history? EVER?! From what documentation?! Oh right, your one source. What was his IQ? What was his education? That's what I thought.

What was his education? Puuuuleeez... don't give me your education crap.

You say fools despise wisdom, and yet you ignore all factual evidence. It appears that you turn a blind eye to fact and investigation to instead value some vague concept of "wisdom" which appears to have nothing to do with objective truth but rather subjective decisions.

What factual evidence? The fact that you said it so it must be so?

Yes, this culture uses that reference. Continuing that reference for basic communication skills does not stand as proof for your claims. Sorry. It just means I'm communicating "last year" to you in number format that you can understand. Please also look up the meaning of "irony", because you don't quite have it.

Yes, and the "last year" that you are communicating has been experienced and testified to by someone. There is no testimony from anyone as to billions of years.

But your actual point returns to the stupidity you have exhibited countless times: you believe the only truth is found in books claiming to be history. Such a thought is just foolish.

No, I never said that.

All the truths and inventions of modern times have had nothing to do with such documentation.

I just showed you as case were it was and you conviniently ignored it because it didn't fit your agenda.

Modern medicine, electricity, and even indoor plumbing have had no basis in books, but rather exploring the actual physical world, which you seem so enthusiastic to ignore.

I don't ignore that. I think exploring is great, but when we explore, we should keep an open mind. After all, we are exploring the information that came from nowhere and created us out of nothing.

The Cat in the Hat is also a book. And yet you have no problem questioning its validity.

I don't have to question its validity. I doesn't clame to be true.

You just exhibited the exact stupidity I outlined: claiming divinity in anything beautiful or not well understood.

I didn't say I claimed divinity in beauty. I claimed divinity in divinity. It is based on your preconceived assumption that we evolved from apes that you arrive at this claim.

This is the only point of creationism: "we don't understand what's going on, so therefore it must be god".

That is the montra fed to you by those dead set on evolutionism. It is actually quite the contrary. We understand most of what is going on and therefore understand that is just as G-d said it was.

Well, even though YOU have no education in certain topics doesn't mean other people are just as ignorant.

Nature IS beautiful. And that's great. But it doesn't indicate the divine, it indicates beauty. Similarly, parts of nature are gross.

But you compare me to some neanderthal worshiping the sun as if no knowledge and growth has occurred in the last several millennia.

At least the man worshiping the sun did so with honest intentions much of the time. You worship the myriads of hoaxes developed by evolutionists such as "Neanderthal" in attempt to sustain their failure of a theory. If that is what you call growth then I'm not so sure you have really gone forward.

Once again you make blatantly incongruous comparisons because equal ones would show you to be completely nuts.

The only basis upon which you claim that my comparison is incorrect is that you feel that you are right and the sun worshiper was wrong. That sun worshiper had the same thought pattern as you. He thought he was right. So you claim my statement to be false by taking the exact position called out in my statement.

What makes me so sure I have it right that the sun is a burning ball of gas and not a deity? Do you really want to ask me that question?

That isn't the question. The question is where did the burning ball of gas come from? Your idea of a big bang is just a different version of "the sun created me." No, stupid, the sun didn't create you nor did a big bang 4.2 billion years ago.

But you see I am willing to look at the facts at hand instead of just assuming something complex or beautiful or mysterious is divine. You're not. If you don't understand a topic, you simply write it off as god. Unfathomable. Not worth understanding further. This is true ignorance.

No you aren't. You just are stuck trying to devise a way of saying "anything but G-d."

And here is that ignorance portrayed yet again. You think that somehow the two sides of the argument are equal, as if my knowledge of the sun today is somehow equal to neanderthal worship of it, and it's just a matter of equal but differing opinions. That's not the case, neither about the sun, nor evolution. That fact that you think otherwise shows you don't actually understand how science, understanding verifiable evidence, or fact finding actually works.

There you go again... I gave you another oportunity to answer the question and you completely dodge it.

 

[HUGGY]

Let me know when you arrive at a point. Are you saying that you actually believe Solomon was the wisest man in history? EVER?! From what documentation?! Oh right, your one source. What was his IQ? What was his education? That's what I thought.

What was his education? Puuuuleeez... don't give me your education crap.

You say fools despise wisdom, and yet you ignore all factual evidence. It appears that you turn a blind eye to fact and investigation to instead value some vague concept of "wisdom" which appears to have nothing to do with objective truth but rather subjective decisions.

What factual evidence? The fact that you said it so it must be so?



Yes, and the "last year" that you are communicating has been experienced and testified to by someone. There is no testimony from anyone as to billions of years.



No, I never said that.



I just showed you as case were it was and you conviniently ignored it because it didn't fit your agenda.



I don't ignore that. I think exploring is great, but when we explore, we should keep an open mind. After all, we are exploring the information that came from nowhere and created us out of nothing.



I don't have to question its validity. I doesn't clame to be true.




I didn't say I claimed divinity in beauty. I claimed divinity in divinity. It is based on your preconceived assumption that we evolved from apes that you arrive at this claim.




That is the montra fed to you by those dead set on evolutionism. It is actually quite the contrary. We understand most of what is going on and therefore understand that is just as G-d said it was.

At least the man worshiping the sun did so with honest intentions much of the time. You worship the myriads of hoaxes developed by evolutionists such as "Neanderthal" in attempt to sustain their failure of a theory. If that is what you call growth then I'm not so sure you have really gone forward.



The only basis upon which you claim that my comparison is incorrect is that you feel that you are right and the sun worshiper was wrong. That sun worshiper had the same thought pattern as you. He thought he was right. So you claim my statement to be false by taking the exact position called out in my statement.



That isn't the question. The question is where did the burning ball of gas come from? Your idea of a big bang is just a different version of "the sun created me." No, stupid, the sun didn't create you nor did a big bang 4.2 billion years ago.

But you see I am willing to look at the facts at hand instead of just assuming something complex or beautiful or mysterious is divine. You're not. If you don't understand a topic, you simply write it off as god. Unfathomable. Not worth understanding further. This is true ignorance.

No you aren't. You just are stuck trying to devise a way of saying "anything but G-d."

And here is that ignorance portrayed yet again. You think that somehow the two sides of the argument are equal, as if my knowledge of the sun today is somehow equal to neanderthal worship of it, and it's just a matter of equal but differing opinions. That's not the case, neither about the sun, nor evolution. That fact that you think otherwise shows you don't actually understand how science, understanding verifiable evidence, or fact finding actually works.

There you go again... I gave you another oportunity to answer the question and you completely dodge it.

Seriously dude... You are confused. No big bang? No neanderthals? I hope you don't saddle any children with your stupidity.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You continually state I am ignoring questions in your usual fashion, and as usual you don't actually point out what those questions are. Vague references might work in your world of blind stupidity, but here in the real world you need to specify things a bit more.

You continue to compare my knowledge of the sun to a neanderthal explanation. I am not seeking a conclusion that shows "anything but god", I am seeking a conclusion based on evidence, REGARDLESS of where that evidence leads. But you see my explanation turns out to be not-magic, whereas yours continually leaves you in ignorance assuming it's divine because you don't understand it. Yes, this is the basis of creationism. See "irreducible complexity" as strong supporting evidence.

Evidence. That word again. Once again I point out that you only rely on "testimony" as the ultimate proof, as if people don't readily lie every single day. I on the other hand need no such testimony. It can be helpful at times, but the ultimate truth is reproducible, regardless of who is testifying to it. You can't say the same about your knowledge. Because at the end of the day, if you walk outside your house to see your car has a huge dent in it, I don't need testimony to understand something physically hit it. That's called evidence. Similarly, I don't need testimony of what the sun is to study it. I know it's not a god, and so do you. The point is NOT "but who made it?". The point is that the sun itself is not god. We have completely debunked that idea, and so generally people don't worship the sun any more.

Evolution uses the same fact-based reasoning to identify something. That doesn't answer the question "well who made that?", as you can ALWAYS keep asking that question. But it does identify the process, just as we have identified the great mystery of the sun as not-magic.

So, what points am I dodging now?

 

[IanC]

science has trotted out some pretty good theories about what happened AFTER the big bang but it can't explain how things started. likewise evolution is pretty good at explaining some things about how life forms change but is totally insufficient to account for the first spark of life.

there is lots of room for the mystic, and there always will be.

 

[Hister]

science has trotted out some pretty good theories about what happened AFTER the big bang but it can't explain how things started. likewise evolution is pretty good at explaining some things about how life forms change but is totally insufficient to account for the first spark of life.

there is lots of room for the mystic, and there always will be.

In other words, if you're ignorant about something, it proves the existence of god. Hmmm.

 

[IanC]

science has trotted out some pretty good theories about what happened AFTER the big bang but it can't explain how things started. likewise evolution is pretty good at explaining some things about how life forms change but is totally insufficient to account for the first spark of life.

there is lots of room for the mystic, and there always will be.

In other words, if you're ignorant about something, it proves the existence of god. Hmmm.

actually, I am an atheist. how does YOUR ignorance disprove the existence of God?

 

[Hister]

science has trotted out some pretty good theories about what happened AFTER the big bang but it can't explain how things started. likewise evolution is pretty good at explaining some things about how life forms change but is totally insufficient to account for the first spark of life.

there is lots of room for the mystic, and there always will be.

In other words, if you're ignorant about something, it proves the existence of god. Hmmm.

actually, I am an atheist. how does YOUR ignorance disprove the existence of God?

Atheist are a totally deluded bunch, you believe in something (no god) that you have no hope of proving.

 

[Gadawg73]

science has trotted out some pretty good theories about what happened AFTER the big bang but it can't explain how things started. likewise evolution is pretty good at explaining some things about how life forms change but is totally insufficient to account for the first spark of life.

there is lots of room for the mystic, and there always will be.

Evolution never claims to account for the start of anything.
You know, EVOLVED.

 

[JakeStarkey]

science has trotted out some pretty good theories about what happened AFTER the big bang but it can't explain how things started. likewise evolution is pretty good at explaining some things about how life forms change but is totally insufficient to account for the first spark of life.

there is lots of room for the mystic, and there always will be.

In other words, if you're ignorant about something, it proves the existence of god. Hmmm.

Yet JB and others have the problem you can't disprove the existence of God.

It's factual that it takes as much or more faith to be an atheist as a true believer.

 

[FA_Q2]

science has trotted out some pretty good theories about what happened AFTER the big bang but it can't explain how things started. likewise evolution is pretty good at explaining some things about how life forms change but is totally insufficient to account for the first spark of life.

there is lots of room for the mystic, and there always will be.

In other words, if you're ignorant about something, it proves the existence of god. Hmmm.

Yet JB and others have the problem you can't disprove the existence of God.

It's factual that it takes as much or more faith to be an atheist as a true believer.

Once again I have to post against this ignorant drivel as you attempt to label atheists with your world view. IT TAKES NO FAITH TO BE AN ATHEIST. As an atheist, I do NOT assert that god is impossible or cannot exist the same way a theist exerts that god MUST exist. I believe that god does not exists based simply on the fact that there is no evidence that shows me god exists or is even remotely necessary. Should that evidence or event occur then I will gladly accept that god exists. There are atheists that will come out and affirm that god is not possible and you can correctly claim they are taking a position of faith but that does not make all atheists people of faith. There are fundamental differences between atheists and those of the various theisms out there.

 

[Father Time]

science has trotted out some pretty good theories about what happened AFTER the big bang but it can't explain how things started. likewise evolution is pretty good at explaining some things about how life forms change but is totally insufficient to account for the first spark of life.

Yeah evolution only deals with life after it started, it was never supposed to be a catch-all for all of life's great mysteries.

 

[FA_Q2]

science has trotted out some pretty good theories about what happened AFTER the big bang but it can't explain how things started. likewise evolution is pretty good at explaining some things about how life forms change but is totally insufficient to account for the first spark of life.

there is lots of room for the mystic, and there always will be.

In other words, if you're ignorant about something, it proves the existence of god. Hmmm.

That tends to be the gist of those that are literalists with the bible like light.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

science has trotted out some pretty good theories about what happened AFTER the big bang but it can't explain how things started. likewise evolution is pretty good at explaining some things about how life forms change but is totally insufficient to account for the first spark of life.

there is lots of room for the mystic, and there always will be.

You're right, and that's fine. Not fully understanding what came before evolution in no way debunks or affects evolution. No matter WHAT the topic possibly is, you can always ask "and what made that?" or alternately "and what came before that?". There is always a BEFORE. Now science seeks to actually ask the question and find an answer based on what is known, pushing back the question one more step. When religion meets such a question however, it just stops and assumes divinity, regardless of whether the actual answer even exists or not.

Atheist are a totally deluded bunch, you believe in something (no god) that you have no hope of proving.

That's actually completely inaccurate, and shows you don't actually understand what atheism is. It is not a religion. It is not a belief system. It is in fact the exact opposite: a LACK of religious belief system. Similarly, scientific exploration ideally has no pre-concieved biases, and can be open to evidence which supports the divine. However, no such evidence has presented itself, and therefore scientists don't endorse information which has absolutely no supporting evidence. Science does not prove or claim god doesn't exist any more than atheism does. Let me know if you have questions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In other words, if you're ignorant about something, it proves the existence of god. Hmmm.

Yet JB and others have the problem you can't disprove the existence of God.

It's factual that it takes as much or more faith to be an atheist as a true believer.

Once again I have to post against this ignorant drivel as you attempt to label atheists with your world view. IT TAKES NO FAITH TO BE AN ATHEIST. As an atheist, I do NOT assert that god is impossible or cannot exist the same way a theist exerts that god MUST exist. I believe that god does not exists based simply on the fact that there is no evidence that shows me god exists or is even remotely necessary. Should that evidence or event occur then I will gladly accept that god exists. There are atheists that will come out and affirm that god is not possible and you can correctly claim they are taking a position of faith but that does not make all atheists people of faith. There are fundamental differences between atheists and those of the various theisms out there.

Of course it does. You can't prove that God does not exist; ergo, . . . can you hear me now? Good.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

One does not need negative exclusionary proof to deny a positive. In other words, he doesn't need to prove god doesn't exist to believe it, so much as have no supporting evidence that god does exist. Similarly, I don't need to prove pigs don't fly to believe it. I can just base that conclusion on the fact that there is no supporting evidence that they don't fly.

 

[THE LIGHT]

One does not need negative exclusionary proof to deny a positive. In other words, he doesn't need to prove god doesn't exist to believe it, so much as have no supporting evidence that god does exist. Similarly, I don't need to prove pigs don't fly to believe it. I can just base that conclusion on the fact that there is no supporting evidence that they don't fly.

Which you can say for pigs because they dwell in the same dimensionality as you but the same cannot be said for G-d.

Mr. and Mrs. flat don't see you so you don't exist?

Besides, we are talking about existence and not flying here. Existence must be proven in either direction.

If I asked "Are there any pigs in the barn?" you would go out and search every square inch of the barn (or at least so I would hope) after which you would return and tell me yes or no. That would be a pretty easy assignment and something I would expect any mentally stable person to be able to accomplish. Next, we can make it a bit harder and ask "Are there any termites in the barn?" Barring the use of thermal imaging, you would look for signs of damage left by the termites but let's say you found no signs of termites. Does that mean that there aren't any termites in the building? NO, it just means you didn't find any. Unless you pulverized every last board in the barn and had really good eyesight you could not tell me that there were definitely NO termites in the barn.

Similarly, have you ever bought a bag of grass seed? Most of them will state that they are 99% weed free. Why? because they understand this very concept that unless you check every single seed in the bag you CANNOT be 100% sure that there is no weed. Unless you search every square cm of our universe you cannot state that there is no god. Even if you could search every sq. cm that doesn't guarantee that the god you are looking for exists in the dimensionality in which you are searching.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Yet JB and others have the problem you can't disprove the existence of God.

It's factual that it takes as much or more faith to be an atheist as a true believer.

Once again I have to post against this ignorant drivel as you attempt to label atheists with your world view. IT TAKES NO FAITH TO BE AN ATHEIST. As an atheist, I do NOT assert that god is impossible or cannot exist the same way a theist exerts that god MUST exist. I believe that god does not exists based simply on the fact that there is no evidence that shows me god exists or is even remotely necessary. Should that evidence or event occur then I will gladly accept that god exists. There are atheists that will come out and affirm that god is not possible and you can correctly claim they are taking a position of faith but that does not make all atheists people of faith. There are fundamental differences between atheists and those of the various theisms out there.

Of course it does. You can't prove that God does not exist; ergo, . . . can you hear me now? Good.

Johnny was sleeping in class. The teacher called out to Johnny but heard no response. Therefore Johnny didn't exist? I'm not saying G-d is sleeping. I'm just saying you cannot come to rational scientific conclusions based on that type of thinking.

 

[THE LIGHT]

science has trotted out some pretty good theories about what happened AFTER the big bang but it can't explain how things started. likewise evolution is pretty good at explaining some things about how life forms change but is totally insufficient to account for the first spark of life.

there is lots of room for the mystic, and there always will be.

Evolution never claims to account for the start of anything.
You know, EVOLVED.

But the fact that life cannot come from nothing deals a big punch to the stomach of the concept of everything evolving from a single cell that grew on the back side of a rock. If you cannot get life to start then there is only one alternative which explains the origin of life and that is the Bible. I'm not saying that this is the reason that the Biblical account is true. I am just stating that it is a serious difficulty with macro-evolution and the reason they so desperately try to ignore the beginning of life and belittle the Bible. Because they have no answer.