Creationists

[daws101]

Another hit and miss coward to the rescue.

I just finished reading 50 of your over 500 posts and you managed to never really say anything.

Don't feed the trolls,the ideological atheists are not cooperating by answering a few questions.

false ! those few question have been answered.
you just don't like the out come.
your contestant repetition of them is a the definition for insanity

 

[Youwerecreated]

I just finished reading 50 of your over 500 posts and you managed to never really say anything.

Don't feed the trolls,the ideological atheists are not cooperating by answering a few questions.

false ! those few question have been answered.
you just don't like the out come.
your contestant repetition of them is a the definition for insanity

 

[daws101]

Here I will help you with the theories.

1. Catasrophism

2. Uniformitarianism

Now which one do you believe in go google them and get back to me.

neither and both!
get back to you for what, a private display of you ignorance!?

Neither and both explain.

just did.

 

[daws101]

Don't feed the trolls,the ideological atheists are not cooperating by answering a few questions.

false ! those few question have been answered.
you just don't like the out come.
your contestant repetition of them is a the definition for insanity

why yes you are!

 

[Youwerecreated]

neither and both!
get back to you for what, a private display of you ignorance!?

Neither and both explain.

just did.

So in other words you don't want to incriminate yourself through having your ignorance revealed. sorry but that has already been done by your stupid pointless posts.

 

[daws101]

Neither and both explain.

just did.

So in other words you don't want to incriminate yourself through having your ignorance revealed. sorry but that has already been done by your stupid pointless posts.

as always you're totally ******* wrong..
but it is fun to watch you trip over you dick by making erroneous assumptions based on FP'S LIKE THE ONE ABOVE.
I GOTTA GET SOME LUNCH..

 

[Youwerecreated]

false ! those few question have been answered.
you just don't like the out come.
your contestant repetition of them is a the definition for insanity

why yes you are!

Here twit I will give you something to chew on. I know your sides explanation for this but it just does not add up.

Malachite man or in other words Moab man. 10 modern day humans fossils found in the same strata as dinosaurs what ?!

All those reckless comments by the evolutionists why are humans fossils not found with dinosaur fossils uh oh.

I can't wait for your next copy and paste. If you believe in naturalism you have to believe in one of those theories

 

[Youwerecreated]

just did.

So in other words you don't want to incriminate yourself through having your ignorance revealed. sorry but that has already been done by your stupid pointless posts.

as always you're totally ******* wrong..
but it is fun to watch you trip over you dick by making erroneous assumptions based on FP'S LIKE THE ONE ABOVE.
I GOTTA GET SOME LUNCH..

At least I have one to trip over but not in the way you're insinuating.

 

[UltimateReality]

thanks for the fine example of the false premise rule in action.
1."false premise that God had a beginning." wrong! the FP here is assuming that god has always been. There is no evidence for that argument.
to make this short and sweet.
anything you base on the assumption " god has ALWAYS existed" like theories or speculation are also by definition false because the basic premise is false.
any argument you make from that premise is subjective and unsupportable.

Daws, you just proved what a huge idiot you really are!! Do you see the absurdity of your flawed logic in the post above?? Why aren't you attacking Hollie's infinite regression argument then??? You just proved me right you buffoon!! You just proved that Hollie is arguing from a false premise stupid. Do you hear your self? Hollie is not using a false premise because she is using a false premise.

What you missed in your utter and complete ignorance is that Hollie's argument is made from the assumption that God exists. In order for her to make her stupid argument, she has to first assume that God exists. Otherwise, how can she argue some other god made god? She is attempting to deny God by putting forth an argument whose basis is God exists. Of course we would expect you to miss this. My point is, if you are going to attack the concept of the Judeo-Christian God, then you can't make up your own Judeo-Christian theology. You can make a different argument to attack other mythological gods, but if you are going to assume the Judeo-Christian God exists as the basis of your argument, then you should also follow with the stated and commonly accepted theology that accompanies that basis, i.e., 1.) God has always existed 2.) God predates the Universe (Bible reference) 3.) God claims in the Bible there are no gods before him.

So according to you, Hollie's argument is based on a false premise of a false premise. YOU FAIL, THESPIDOUCHE!!! This is what happens when make your bed with a liar.

Gee whiz. Thumpie stalker is drooling.

Here's a bit of enlightenment for you: you make no sense - as usual.

Go thump (and stalk), elsewhere.

Daws gets totally owned for his total lack of logic and all he can do is thank Hollie for her typical incoherent response. That Hollie has a mad crush on Haran Yahhan.

 

[UltimateReality]

another fine example of a false premise in action.

The only False premise here is someone thinking you're intelligent.

another fine example of a false premise

Says the Thespidouche that can't even form a simple logical argument.

 

[UltimateReality]

Sorry I don't have time to match wits with the witless, run along and wait for your jesus

It wouldn't be matching wits at all

Dang you people don't even know what you believe.

Science is not a belief ...

To be ignorant of one's own ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.

 

[UltimateReality]

thanks for the fine example of the false premise rule in action.
1."false premise that God had a beginning." wrong! the FP here is assuming that god has always been. There is no evidence for that argument.
to make this short and sweet.
anything you base on the assumption " god has ALWAYS existed" like theories or speculation are also by definition false because the basic premise is false.
any argument you make from that premise is subjective and unsupportable.

Daws, you just proved what a huge idiot you really are!! Do you see the absurdity of your flawed logic in the post above?? Why aren't you attacking Hollie's infinite regression argument then??? You just proved me right you buffoon!! You just proved that Hollie is arguing from a false premise stupid. Do you hear your self? Hollie is not using a false premise because she is using a false premise.

What you missed in your utter and complete ignorance is that Hollie's argument is made from the assumption that God exists. In order for her to make her stupid argument, she has to first assume that God exists. Otherwise, how can she argue some other god made god? She is attempting to deny God by putting forth an argument whose basis is God exists. Of course we would expect you to miss this. My point is, if you are going to attack the concept of the Judeo-Christian God, then you can't make up your own Judeo-Christian theology. You can make a different argument to attack other mythological gods, but if you are going to assume the Judeo-Christian God exists as the basis of your argument, then you should also follow with the stated and commonly accepted theology that accompanies that basis, i.e., 1.) God has always existed 2.) God predates the Universe (Bible reference) 3.) God claims in the Bible there are no gods before him.

So according to you, Hollie's argument is based on a false premise of a false premise. YOU FAIL, THESPIDOUCHE!!! This is what happens when make your bed with a liar.

I love when you rationalize...
there is only one false premise and it yours :anything you base on the assumption " god has ALWAYS existed" like theories or speculation are also by definition false because the basic premise is false.
any argument you make from that premise is subjective and unsupportable.any argument you make from that assumption is false.

I get what you are saying. Hollie infinite regression argument is based on a false premise according to you. So what caused the Big Bang?

 

[UltimateReality]

No it don't if this was the case you're depending on volcanoes distributing these fossils on mountain tops and that is not the case.

Amazing World: Massive Whale Fossil Graveyard In Chile

Massive Dinosaur "Graveyard" Discovered in Spain

Joel kontinen: Huge Fossil Graveyard Found in China

Fossils - Truth That Matters

How do you explain these massive fossil graveyards world wide ? the walls are closing in daws.

3 out of the four sites you posted are not credible as they are based on the false premise that a great flood happened based on another false premise that god or an intelligent designer caused it. since the base premise is false ALL conclusions drawn from it are also false the natgeo site refutes all the others as it talks about millions of years not thousands.(The 70-million-year-old fossils show a stunning array of dinosaur diversity for a period that is very poorly known in Western Europe, said paleontologist José Luis Sanz of Autonomous University in Madrid.

"We are sure that in future, [once we have] studied the huge amount of fossil material recovered from the site, the diversity will increase," Sanz, who is in charge of the dig, said in an email.

The fossils date to some four million years before the dinosaurs went extinct, shedding new light "on these last European dinosaur ecosystems," Sanz said.)

proving YWC'S willful ignorance one post a at a time.
btw yes it's certain your walls are closing in.

Is it just me or is what daws posted full of conjecture ? oh and if there is more diversity that is more supporting of a graveyard due to catastrophe.

Daws has always been in way over his head in this thread. He is kind of like Obama without a teleprompter.

 

[UltimateReality]

I just finished reading 50 of your over 500 posts and you managed to never really say anything.

Don't feed the trolls,the ideological atheists are not cooperating by answering a few questions.

false ! those few question have been answered.
you just don't like the out come.
your contestant repetition of them is a the definition for insanity

So you and Hollie are insane? You are the king and drag queen of repetition. Your job is to figure out which person I'm referring to in the second sentence.

 

[t_polkow]

DISPATCHES FROM JESUS LAND: IT’S A DUMB EARTH AFTER ALL


"I think it’s important to realize that this is not funny “ha-ha” because we’re talking about some idiot rube. Instead, it’s funny “ha-ha-****-pour-me-a-drink”, because this is sad and sickening. You have to realize the incredible arrogance of a person who can baldly declare the work of tens of thousands of brilliant men and women–work that has often been proven mathematically or supported by mountains of physical evidence–to be wrong, and himself right."

Dispatches from Jesus Land: It?s a Dumb Earth After All | A Semiliterate Take on Life, Science and Politics...

Another hit and miss coward to the rescue.

rescue? from who or what?
somebody should rescue you from yourself.

Any wonder why christian fundamentalism is going to be classified as a mental illness

 

[itfitzme]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

Anything is believable. It just depends on what information you have obtained.

 

[itfitzme]

Another hit and miss coward to the rescue.

I just finished reading 50 of your over 500 posts and you managed to never really say anything.

Don't feed the trolls,the ideological atheists are not cooperating by answering a few questions.

You make a lot of unrealized assumption.

 

[itfitzme]

Any wonder why christian fundamentalism is going to be classified as a mental illness

I'm not sure what you mean to say/ask. Taken literally, assumimg a question, it states that the psychiatric community currently expects to add "christian fundamentalism" to the DMS and you are asking if there is any wonder about this.

Actually, some of the behaviors displayed by some christian fundamentalists is a diagnostic indicator of psychosis.

 

[itfitzme]

*I have produced evidence and I will produce more. You still have not named the theory you believe in.

Like I said, I read fifty of your over five hundred posts and you never presented any evidence of anything.

Would you mind pointing out a few of them?


UPDATE: I found one, "land bridges". That is one in 51 counted.

 

[daws101]

why yes you are!

Here twit I will give you something to chew on. I know your sides explanation for this but it just does not add up.

Malachite man or in other words Moab man. 10 modern day humans fossils found in the same strata as dinosaurs what ?!

All those reckless comments by the evolutionists why are humans fossils not found with dinosaur fossils uh oh.

I can't wait for your next copy and paste. If you believe in naturalism you have to believe in one of those theories

more creationist bullshit based on the false premise of humans and dinosaurs living at the same time.

In the late 1980's some of the bones were dated by a UCLA lab, yielding an age of 210 +/- 70 years (Berger and Protsch, 1989). Shortly thereafter Arthur Strahler (1989) published his book Science and Earth History, a chapter of which recounted the Moab Man saga. Later carbon dating tests on more recent excavations from the mine in the early 1990's yielded dates of 1450 +/- 90, with a calibrated one-sigma date range of AD 540 to AD 670, suggesting that the mine had been used by native Americans for at least several hundred years. (Coulam and Schroedl, 1995). However, the dates are consistent with intrusive burials, and contradict claims that the bones were part of the Mesozoic, Dakota Sandstone host rock, dated at approximately 100 million years by mainstream geology. Further corroboration of Marwitt's analysis is found in a draft of a book by researchers Eckert and Eckert (1979), who were dismayed by the failure of Burdick and other creationists to depict the Moab Man evidence fairly and accurately. For several years afterward the case seemed to be largely abandoned by most creationists.


Conclusions:

The Moab Man/Malachite Man bones represent a number of intrusive burials in the Dakota Sandstone, and are not integral parts of the host formation. The bones evidently represent intentional or accidental entombments of native Americans in a mining environment. As reported by a number of conventional workers and even some creationist authors, the bones are largely unfossilized and of essentially modern appearance, except for the greenish stain. There is no foundation for the claims of a few creationists that the bones contradict mainstream geology or support dinosaur/human cohabitation.
Moab Man and Malachite Man

thanks for the after lunch story time.