Creationists

[Hollie]

If you say so.

Reading your posts leads to that conclusion.

No they don't,I actually try to discuss things with you and Daws Hollie and try to get you to reason reality. Both of you possess a blind hatred and it's obvious. Your hatred prevents you to be rational thinking human beings.

Think about what you wrote. How does anyone reason reallity by posting supernaturalism and supermagical gawds?

What part does supernaturalism and supermagicalism play in reality?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Reading your posts leads to that conclusion.

No they don't,I actually try to discuss things with you and Daws Hollie and try to get you to reason reality. Both of you possess a blind hatred and it's obvious. Your hatred prevents you to be rational thinking human beings.

Think about what you wrote. How does anyone reason reallity by posting supernaturalism and supermagical gawds?

The evidence hollie of deliberate intent in nature.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Reading your posts leads to that conclusion.

No they don't,I actually try to discuss things with you and Daws Hollie and try to get you to reason reality. Both of you possess a blind hatred and it's obvious. Your hatred prevents you to be rational thinking human beings.

Think about what you wrote. How does anyone reason reallity by posting supernaturalism and supermagical gawds?

What part does supernaturalism and supermagicalism play in reality?

Do you need me to make a list of deliberate intent in nature hollie ? That requires thought.

 

[Hollie]

No they don't,I actually try to discuss things with you and Daws Hollie and try to get you to reason reality. Both of you possess a blind hatred and it's obvious. Your hatred prevents you to be rational thinking human beings.

Think about what you wrote. How does anyone reason reallity by posting supernaturalism and supermagical gawds?

What part does supernaturalism and supermagicalism play in reality?

Do you need me to make a list of deliberate intent in nature hollie ? That requires thought.

You should employ a bit of introspection and ask yourself that question.

There is no intent in nature. Much as you do with gawds, you are making nature emotive and it is not. A hurricane or tornado has no intent. Neither will decide to destroy one home or neighborhood vs. another. Slathering nature with human attributes Is silly and a waste of time. Similarly, why apply human attributes to an entity (gawds), which are beyond human comprehension? You make your gawds as little more than spoiled teenagers when you assign to them such human attributes as hate, anger, jealousy and disappointment.

 

[UltimateReality]

There is every reason to accept that the probability of just one cell coming in to existence on it's own through a natural means is 100%.

There is every reason to accept that the probability of it happening multiple times is 100%.

Evidence: the natural world.


Evidence that the gawds did it: 0%
(Especially your gawds.)

If this was the case, you would not have many authorative scientist dumbfounded over the origins question.

Science is the process of discovery which is threatening to religionis. Why are you so afraid of the truth?

No, but the truth obviously sends you into a state of total denial. This is a matter of perspective. New discoveries in science support ID theory, and continue to demolish the TOE DAILY. Brainwashed materialists just can't see or accept it.

 

[UltimateReality]

If you say so.

Reading your posts leads to that conclusion.

No they don't,I actually try to discuss things with you and Daws Hollie and try to get you to reason reality. Both of you possess a blind hatred and it's obvious. Your hatred prevents you to be rational thinking human beings.

 

[UltimateReality]

What Is dumbfounding is retreating into "the gawds did it" answer to address natural processes. The Christian church has a history of suppressing open inquiry as a means of defending dogma.

Science is the process of discovery which is threatening to religionis. Why are you so afraid of the truth?

Does truth threaten your emotional security blanket?

Mankind would be forever hopelessly mired in fear and superstition about our origins in the gawds environment.

This comment shows how utterly ignorant you are to history. Up until 1856, God fearing men made a plethora of scientific discoveries which most of modern science is still based on. In your ignorant worldview, you somehow think that your 150 year old materialist religion is responsible for the only science that was ever done. When in fact, most of the pseudo-science out there is the result of materilist "may haves" and "might haves" basis of so called facts.

100 years from now they will look back and wonder how so many intelligent people could have accepted the Darwinian myth as fact.

 

[Hollie]

If this was the case, you would not have many authorative scientist dumbfounded over the origins question.

Science is the process of discovery which is threatening to religionis. Why are you so afraid of the truth?

No, but the truth obviously sends you into a state of total denial. This is a matter of perspective. New discoveries in science support ID theory, and continue to demolish the TOE DAILY. Brainwashed materialists just can't see or accept it.

That's a fabrication. There is nothing in science that supports supernaturalism.

Identify a single scientific discovery that promotes supernaturalism or supermagicalism as its source.

 

[Hollie]

Mankind would be forever hopelessly mired in fear and superstition about our origins in the gawds environment.

This comment shows how utterly ignorant you are to history. Up until 1856, God fearing men made a plethora of scientific discoveries which most of modern science is still based on. In your ignorant worldview, you somehow think that your 150 year old materialist religion is responsible for the only science that was ever done. When in fact, most of the pseudo-science out there is the result of materilist "may haves" and "might haves" basis of so called facts.

100 years from now they will look back and wonder how so many intelligent people could have accepted the Darwinian myth as fact.

As with so many of your religious claims, they're false.

There is no reason to believe that it was exclusively or even predominately gawd fearing men who made scientific discoveries.

Your second falsehood is materialism is a religion. Of course it is not.

Your third false claim is the most bizarre. Evolutionary science is only getting more exacting and better defined. The fact is, there are discoveries all the time of new fossil evidence that only serves to strengthen science and to lessen the need for your promotion of fear and superstition.

 

[Hollie]

Reading your posts leads to that conclusion.

No they don't,I actually try to discuss things with you and Daws Hollie and try to get you to reason reality. Both of you possess a blind hatred and it's obvious. Your hatred prevents you to be rational thinking human beings.

Actually, it is rational thinking and letting go of fear and superstition that had allowed Western civilization to claw its way out of the Dark Ages. It was good Christian folk like yourself who were the greatest impediment to the freer minds who wanted to explore and discover.

Not too many people these days being burned at the stake for predicting an eclipse or proposing a theory of gravity. A waning influence of the Christian church and people like you was like removing a yoke of oppression from humanity.

 

[daws101]

Is your name Hollie? Emoticons won't hide your ignorance of modern physics. You were lucky you even spelled singularity right.

answer the question! were Copernicus and Galileo wrong?
what you've quoted is not physics modern or ancient it's a willful misrepresentation of fact

let's take your lie apart:
1. the universe has no center or no edge, there is no way the the earth would be that center when none exists
2. our solar system including the earth is on the edge of a outer spiral arm of our Galaxy (the milky way) not even close to the center of it!
3.all planets in our solar system orbit the sun. making the sun the center of our solar system ,not the earth
4.expansion is happening everywhere all the time.
the way we know this is not from background radiation which remains constant, (not varying or moving ) that in itself makes it a useless tool to gage expansion.
the thing you are failing to describe is called red shift /blue shift.
red shift is visible light signature that stars give off when moving away from a giving point blue shift is the visible light signature given off when stars are moving toward a given point.
since the universe has no center and no edge the effect would be the same everywhere not just from an earth bound pov.
as always you've got it laughable wrong!

Daws, I said I was going to try and avoid putdowns so I will just ask you the question. You do realize the cosmology website I put up isn't a "creationist" website and represents the absolute latest thinking on physics? I'm guessing you didn't, because your answer seems to infer I was saying something I wasn't. It's not my lie and some of the points you made support the current thinking, although you show you can regurgitate facts without a real understanding of what you are cut and pasting.

For the record, I NEVER said the earth was the center of the solar system. So nice waste of time building up a strawman of things I did not claim. Your prejudice lense is flaring up again. What I said was, from our vantage point on the earth, every large body of matter appears to be moving away from us in every direction, so absent of the physics link I provided for you, it would appear that the earth was the physical location of the big bang, or the proverbial "center of the universe". Had you actually not automatically ASSumed the link was creationist, you would have noted I am not claiming a specific center, like you did. Your original post showed an incorrect line of thinking that the Big Bang occurred at a specific point in the universe. You totally misrepresented what Singularity really is saying. You must have missed these questions for you: "Is our earth at the original singularity point of the initial bang? Or is something else going on?" The answer is that the earth only appears to be at the center of the universe when viewing large collections of matter like galaxies, because everything is moving away from us equally in every direction. The objects farther away are moving faster.

Let's look at some info contained in the link I provided, shall we?

"There is no centre of the universe because there is no edge of the universe. In a finite universe, space is curved so that if you could travel billions of light years in a straight line you would eventually finish back where you started. It is also possible that our universe is infinite. In both examples, groups of galaxies completely fill the universe and are moving apart at all points making the universe expand (see question 2)"

There is a common assumption that the Big Bang was an explosion that occured in empty space and that the explosion expanded into the empty space. This is wrong.

And finally, what you failed to grasp...

"The only answer to the question "Where did the Big Bang happen?" is that it occured everywhere in the Universe."

ARE YOU DONE DIGGING YOUR HOLE EVEN DEEPER .
SO YOU WERE LYING WHEN YOU POSTED THIS: "In fact, scientists scoffed at Christians for their belief the earth is at the center of the solar system. Turns out, the earth is at the center of the universe after all!!" UR....

 

[Youwerecreated]

No they don't,I actually try to discuss things with you and Daws Hollie and try to get you to reason reality. Both of you possess a blind hatred and it's obvious. Your hatred prevents you to be rational thinking human beings.

Actually, it is rational thinking and letting go of fear and superstition that had allowed Western civilization to claw its way out of the Dark Ages. It was good Christian folk like yourself who were the greatest impediment to the freer minds who wanted to explore and discover.

Not too many people these days being burned at the stake for predicting an eclipse or proposing a theory of gravity. A waning influence of the Christian church and people like you was like removing a yoke of oppression from humanity.

Being influenced by vivid imaginations allows you to let go of the evidence for design ?

 

[daws101]

You got one thing right many cells formed instantly by the designer. Can you imagine the probability of multiple cells forming at once,it's hard enough to think of just one cell forming completely on it's own and now you want to make even harder to believe.

You're a funny guy Daws.

"You got one thing right many cells formed instantly by the designer."YWC
THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS A LIE
nowhere is my post is a designer alleged, inferred,only a halfwit with a tenuous grip on reality and a hard on for his own myths would attempt to insert a false premise in to a post to cover his own lack of working Grey matter.

BTW, THIS IS THE only THING YOU GOT RIGHT:"it's hard enough to think"YWC

nuffsaid.!!

Never said you implied a creator,you implied that multiple cells came into existence on their own. Thought it would have given it away what was meant when I said the probability of just one cell coming in to existence on it's own through a natural means and can you imagine the probability of it happening multiple times.

Maybe it was you purposely spinning what I said once you realized you really did make it even harder to believe, by suggesting, more then one cell came into existence through a totally natural means.

REALLY ?SO THIS MUST BE A LIE:""You got one thing right many cells formed instantly by the designer."YWC
YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU IMPLIED NOTHING THAT WOULD BE FAR TOO SUBTLE ,INSTEAD YOU MADE A BIAS STATEMENT WITH NO FACT TO BACK IT UP.

"you implied that multiple cells came into existence on their own."YWC.
THAT STATEMENT IS ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE OF YOUR IGNORANCE.
im·ply verb \im-ˈplī\
im·pliedim·ply·ing
Definition of IMPLY
transitive verb
1obsolete : enfold, entwine
2: to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement
"did it ever occur to you that there was never "one" first cell.
it's almost as lame a concept as your "what system or body part developed first" nonsense.
nature does no do "one offs" there is not only one kind of one celled lifeforms.
there are billions..."daws...
to any one who has any real education the above is a direct statement.

I spun nothing .

as to this : "it's hard enough to think of just one cell forming completely on it's own and now you want to make even harder to believe." YWC
for you and people like like you that's a true statement.
but for anyone not desperately, obsessively trying to justify a non provable non scienctific pile of shit, it's really easy.

 

[daws101]

First, to have a stimulating conversation you have to be able to be taught and have some kind of scientific background to have this discussion.

Both you and Daws have a problem accepting the views of authorities on this issue that are very educated people on your side that admit they have no clue how life could have started spontaneously completely on it's own.

you have a problem understanding the authorities in any scientific discipline are not always correct.
and unlike your myth makers they welcome a challenge to the evidence to keep it up to date and learn something new.

what you truly fail on is the concept that in science it not just acceptable "not to have a clue" (misnomer) but necessary.
unlike yourselves who believe they have all the answers,when in reality you have no proof.

They are not wrong daws,they don't have a clue how it could have happened.

more proof you have reading comp problems

 

[Youwerecreated]

"You got one thing right many cells formed instantly by the designer."YWC
THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS A LIE
nowhere is my post is a designer alleged, inferred,only a halfwit with a tenuous grip on reality and a hard on for his own myths would attempt to insert a false premise in to a post to cover his own lack of working Grey matter.

BTW, THIS IS THE only THING YOU GOT RIGHT:"it's hard enough to think"YWC

nuffsaid.!!

Never said you implied a creator,you implied that multiple cells came into existence on their own. Thought it would have given it away what was meant when I said the probability of just one cell coming in to existence on it's own through a natural means and can you imagine the probability of it happening multiple times.

Maybe it was you purposely spinning what I said once you realized you really did make it even harder to believe, by suggesting, more then one cell came into existence through a totally natural means.

REALLY ?SO THIS MUST BE A LIE:""You got one thing right many cells formed instantly by the designer."YWC
YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU IMPLIED NOTHING THAT WOULD BE FAR TOO SUBTLE ,INSTEAD YOU MADE A BIAS STATEMENT WITH NO FACT TO BACK IT UP.

"you implied that multiple cells came into existence on their own."YWC.
THAT STATEMENT IS ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE OF YOUR IGNORANCE.
im·ply verb \im-ˈplī\
im·pliedim·ply·ing
Definition of IMPLY
transitive verb
1obsolete : enfold, entwine
2: to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement
"did it ever occur to you that there was never "one" first cell.
it's almost as lame a concept as your "what system or body part developed first" nonsense.
nature does no do "one offs" there is not only one kind of one celled lifeforms.
there are billions..."daws...
to any one who has any real education the above is a direct statement.

I spun nothing .

as to this : "it's hard enough to think of just one cell forming completely on it's own and now you want to make even harder to believe." YWC
for you and people like like you that's a true statement.
but for anyone not desperately, obsessively trying to justify a non provable non scienctific pile of shit, it's really easy.

You turned the focus on God and did not proceed with multiple cells forming in a natural unguided process.

Daws you did spin it to take it off your comment.

 

[daws101]

They are not wrong daws,they don't have a clue how it could have happened.

There's nothing wrong with science not having every answer.

What's remarkable is the pitiable state of affairs for the fundie crowd. Their last remaining claim to the gods is that science has not yet made a discovery that will answer the question of how life began.

As layer after layer of fear and superstition promoted by the christian hierarchy has been peeled back by science, the gawds have become less and less relevant and their duties have become more and more superfluous.

What we see in post after post by the fundies is a desperate attempt to vilify science as they believe that will allow their gawds some meaning or relevance. The fundies are left with abandoning any attempt at positive claims for their gawds (as there are none), but are forced to desperately seek some alleged lack in scientific knowledge as a window for their gawds to peek through.

Answers to key questions of the theory of naturalism is the problem.

how that ? nature is here and it works so any problems are minor.

 

[Youwerecreated]

you have a problem understanding the authorities in any scientific discipline are not always correct.
and unlike your myth makers they welcome a challenge to the evidence to keep it up to date and learn something new.

what you truly fail on is the concept that in science it not just acceptable "not to have a clue" (misnomer) but necessary.
unlike yourselves who believe they have all the answers,when in reality you have no proof.

They are not wrong daws,they don't have a clue how it could have happened.

more proof you have reading comp problems

Look you can post all the theories on abiogenesis you want there are about 12 of them. None of them are unanimously supported by the science community that is why there are so many theories on the issue.

We have quoted many on your side saying they have no idea how Abiogenesis could of happened.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There's nothing wrong with science not having every answer.

What's remarkable is the pitiable state of affairs for the fundie crowd. Their last remaining claim to the gods is that science has not yet made a discovery that will answer the question of how life began.

As layer after layer of fear and superstition promoted by the christian hierarchy has been peeled back by science, the gawds have become less and less relevant and their duties have become more and more superfluous.

What we see in post after post by the fundies is a desperate attempt to vilify science as they believe that will allow their gawds some meaning or relevance. The fundies are left with abandoning any attempt at positive claims for their gawds (as there are none), but are forced to desperately seek some alleged lack in scientific knowledge as a window for their gawds to peek through.

Answers to key questions of the theory of naturalism is the problem.

how that ? nature is here and it works so any problems are minor.

The biggest and most obvious question is how life began. So which theory of Abiogenesis do you believe happened Daws ?

What put life into motion Daws ?

 

[daws101]

Actually, it is rational thinking and letting go of fear and superstition that had allowed Western civilization to claw its way out of the Dark Ages. It was good Christian folk like yourself who were the greatest impediment to the freer minds who wanted to explore and discover.

Not too many people these days being burned at the stake for predicting an eclipse or proposing a theory of gravity. A waning influence of the Christian church and people like you was like removing a yoke of oppression from humanity.

Being influenced by vivid imaginations allows you to let go of the evidence for design ?

you have no evidence for design..
for someone who proclaims loudly and often the he doesn't have a vivid imagination, the claim of a designer or god made entropy to punish us for sin and is controlling our junk genes ...oh yeah Noah ,the devil, young earth chicken ******* etc..seem highly vivid to me,. and I'm in show biz where I get paid to think up outrageous stuff...

 

[daws101]

Never said you implied a creator,you implied that multiple cells came into existence on their own. Thought it would have given it away what was meant when I said the probability of just one cell coming in to existence on it's own through a natural means and can you imagine the probability of it happening multiple times.

Maybe it was you purposely spinning what I said once you realized you really did make it even harder to believe, by suggesting, more then one cell came into existence through a totally natural means.

REALLY ?SO THIS MUST BE A LIE:""You got one thing right many cells formed instantly by the designer."YWC
YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU IMPLIED NOTHING THAT WOULD BE FAR TOO SUBTLE ,INSTEAD YOU MADE A BIAS STATEMENT WITH NO FACT TO BACK IT UP.

"you implied that multiple cells came into existence on their own."YWC.
THAT STATEMENT IS ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE OF YOUR IGNORANCE.
im·ply verb \im-ˈplī\
im·pliedim·ply·ing
Definition of IMPLY
transitive verb
1obsolete : enfold, entwine
2: to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement
"did it ever occur to you that there was never "one" first cell.
it's almost as lame a concept as your "what system or body part developed first" nonsense.
nature does no do "one offs" there is not only one kind of one celled lifeforms.
there are billions..."daws...
to any one who has any real education the above is a direct statement.

I spun nothing .

as to this : "it's hard enough to think of just one cell forming completely on it's own and now you want to make even harder to believe." YWC
for you and people like like you that's a true statement.
but for anyone not desperately, obsessively trying to justify a non provable non scienctific pile of shit, it's really easy.

You turned the focus on God and did not proceed with multiple cells forming in a natural unguided process.

Daws you did spin it to take it off your comment.

still trying to bullshit you way out of your own ignorance.
show me where "I turned the focus on god?" here's what I said: "did it ever occur to you that there was never "one" first cell.
it's almost as lame a concept as your "what system or body part developed first" nonsense.
nature does no do "one offs" there is not only one kind of one celled lifeforms.
there are billions..."daws...

there was no need to proceed the facts are self evident.