Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Youwerecreated]

When you start responding to my questions we will continue.

I see. You exempt yourself from defending the nonsense you promote, (lies, falsehoods and unsupported claims), yet you expect to be taken seriously with your silly demands that others address your nonsensical conspiracy theories.

And you wonder why your creation ministries are a laughing stock?

I am eagerly awaiting your explanation on how randomly shaped and distributed chemicals were organized, and concentrated, and combined into the first living bacterial cell ? How can eukaryotic cells or cells with a nucleus could have come from bacteria ?

 

[Hollie]

Yes the bible gives an explanation of what sin brings.

So if everything experiences entropy why is that ?

Subject to which of the many different bibles you choose to read, you will get explanations for many things. Many of those explanations are comically wrong, inept or seriously flawed.

I for one am grateful that there are still some unsolved mysteries, because solving them is what causes science to gain credibility and to give its practitioners such great satisfaction.

But your position seems unable to account for all the mysteries that are no longer mysterious, or all the paradoxes that have been resolved. We actually know vast amounts about the universe that we didn’t know just a few decades ago. Oddly, so many of the mysteries of the natural world and of the universe have been solved by science. It is creationist who are promoting ignorance, fear and superstition as a means to defend their dogma.

You are among the more excitable wavers of your pom poms for promoting such ignorance, fear and superstition.

How's that working out for you?

Feeling lucky step up to the plate and put your big boy pants on.

We can cover;
1. Origins
2. Genetics
3. Biochemistry
4. Cells at the Molecular level

All of which covers origins through creation or naturalism.

Well honestly, you will need to cut and paste something from Harun Yahya that provides a reasonable argument for the existence for your gawds before you can make an argument (copy and paste one from Harun Yahya), regarding asupernatural "creation".

Identify the hierarchy of creator / designer gawds who created your gawds. I'm under no obligation to accept claims of supernatural gawds as a prerequisite for your claims to supernatural creation.

Or, just hurl a few more vulgarities as your argument crashes to the ground in flames.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Dinosaurs Unleashed - EvoWiki

Dinosaurs Unleashed: The True story of Dinosaurs and Humans is a young earth creationist publication written by Kyle Butt and Eric Lyons and published in 2004 by Apologetics Press. NOT a true story.

Rebuttal

This is to be more as Dinosaurs Unleashed: The UN-true Story of Dinosaurs and Humans than anything else because these men are lying here. If what the 2 YECs, Kyle Butt and Eric Lyons who made this newest fantasy book is exactly what they claim to be, then we would have seen evidences of dinosaurs and humans found mixed together in the fossil record along with skins and bones made into tools and jewelry, wagons, bridals, leashes, and barns big enough to house them, and real valid authentic images, writings and figures carved exactly by the ancients of long ago as seen in Dinotopia and other forms of science fiction literature, but none are found!

Knowing that dinosaurs poses a major problem for them and their teachings, they realized there are 3 options to consider.

1. Acknowledged and accept the true dinosaur record, which tells us that dinosaurs did lived and died before humans were around (Good Idea.).
2. Deny their existence (Bad idea).
3. Lie about them! Say that dinosaurs lived with man at one point in time (Even Worse.).

Unfortunately, YECs like Ham, Morris, and Hovind chose 3 as their option, Lie about them; Say that dinosaurs lived with man at one point in time and cram them all within their faulty interpretations of the Bible, falsely call them God's Word and tell it like it is. They would take certain verses, they think best fits dinosaurs, out of text, like they do in quotes and images, and twisted them around to fit their beliefs about it. If that's called sheer dishonesty as well as blasphemy when they used the Lord they deliberately put into a box as a pawn to help win converts to their group, then I don't know what it is.

Still evading ! have a good day butt sore.

So explain to us how, in the creationist model, humans and dinosaurs co-existed?

Defend a 6,000 year old earth... just spare us the cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.

A basic (and false) assumption you make is over the "argument from authority" style you are accustomed to spewing. The stereotypical creationist argument, as we see repeatedly from you is nothing more than: here is a one-liner quote from "scripture"; here is what it "obviously" means; now shut up, **** off, or go to hell. What a compelling argument!

Christian creationists are identical to Harun Yahya in the way they assume biologists treat academic papers as "scripture", and think they are accomplishing something by quoting a one-liner. Frequently, appeals to authority, such as infallible bibles, is a convenient shortcut if you don't care enough about a subject to perform some investigation for yourself: so I leave it up to you, to take the word of Harun Yahya as the ultimate authority regarding science.

I have stated I have no Idea how old the earth is. Now respond to my questions.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Subject to which of the many different bibles you choose to read, you will get explanations for many things. Many of those explanations are comically wrong, inept or seriously flawed.

I for one am grateful that there are still some unsolved mysteries, because solving them is what causes science to gain credibility and to give its practitioners such great satisfaction.

But your position seems unable to account for all the mysteries that are no longer mysterious, or all the paradoxes that have been resolved. We actually know vast amounts about the universe that we didn’t know just a few decades ago. Oddly, so many of the mysteries of the natural world and of the universe have been solved by science. It is creationist who are promoting ignorance, fear and superstition as a means to defend their dogma.

You are among the more excitable wavers of your pom poms for promoting such ignorance, fear and superstition.

How's that working out for you?

Feeling lucky step up to the plate and put your big boy pants on.

We can cover;
1. Origins
2. Genetics
3. Biochemistry
4. Cells at the Molecular level

All of which covers origins through creation or naturalism.

Well honestly, you will need to cut and paste something from Harun Yahya that provides a reasonable argument for the existence for your gawds before you can make an argument (copy and paste one from Harun Yahya), regarding asupernatural "creation".

Identify the hierarchy of creator / designer gawds who created your gawds. I'm under no obligation to accept claims of supernatural gawds as a prerequisite for your claims to supernatural creation.

Or, just hurl a few more vulgarities as your argument crashes to the ground in flames.

Dodge !

 

[Hollie]

When you start responding to my questions we will continue.

I see. You exempt yourself from defending the nonsense you promote, (lies, falsehoods and unsupported claims), yet you expect to be taken seriously with your silly demands that others address your nonsensical conspiracy theories.

And you wonder why your creation ministries are a laughing stock?

I am eagerly awaiting your explanation on how randomly shaped and distributed chemicals were organized, and concentrated, and combined into the first living bacterial cell ? How can eukaryotic cells or cells with a nucleus could have come from bacteria ?

What is a "randomly shaped chemical"?

I am eagerly awaiting your development of some basic understanding of science and biology before you post terms you are clueless about.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hollie why do you waste so much time let's take a look at the facts and see if design or naturalism is a more viable theory.

 

[Hollie]

Feeling lucky step up to the plate and put your big boy pants on.

We can cover;
1. Origins
2. Genetics
3. Biochemistry
4. Cells at the Molecular level

All of which covers origins through creation or naturalism.

Well honestly, you will need to cut and paste something from Harun Yahya that provides a reasonable argument for the existence for your gawds before you can make an argument (copy and paste one from Harun Yahya), regarding asupernatural "creation".

Identify the hierarchy of creator / designer gawds who created your gawds. I'm under no obligation to accept claims of supernatural gawds as a prerequisite for your claims to supernatural creation.

Or, just hurl a few more vulgarities as your argument crashes to the ground in flames.

Dodge !

I knew it would be.

You have never offered a reasonable and verifiable explanation for how the creators of your designer gawds created your particular gawds.

You insist that your gawds are presumed true and thus, your claims to supernaturalism are true.

That may work with those... ignorant and superstitious folks just like you but in the rational world where arguments are required to be defended with facts, you're just the stereotypical fundie.

 

[hobelim]

Simpleton ? you see entropy all around you dumbshit.

Then you can respond to my questions otherwise you can take a hike as well. I am tired of morons coming in and speaking from their ass.

Shit or get off the pot.

Defend your faith or **** off.

Yes simpleton.

You are the one who associated entropy with the concept of sin related to a bronze age fairy tale intended to educate bronze age children whose level of intelligence seems to have been far above yours.


Grow up or **** off yourself.

Yes the bible gives an explanation of what sin brings.

So if everything experiences entropy why is that ?

yes, scripture teaches that sin brings death and the subject of that death has nothing whatever to do with biological death or entropy but everything to do with the inability of the deceived mind to produce a rational thought.

Why does everything experience entropy?

Who can say? But one thing for sure is that it isn't because a talking snake deceived two naked and gullible people into eating the fruit of a forbidden tree.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie why do you waste so much time let's take a look at the facts and see if design or naturalism is a more viable theory.

You consistently avoid providing any mechanism whereby we can validate your claims to supernatural gawds.

How is magic a viable theory for anything?

Come on. Hurl some more juvenile vulgarities. It makes your arguments just that more laughable.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I see. You exempt yourself from defending the nonsense you promote, (lies, falsehoods and unsupported claims), yet you expect to be taken seriously with your silly demands that others address your nonsensical conspiracy theories.

And you wonder why your creation ministries are a laughing stock?

I am eagerly awaiting your explanation on how randomly shaped and distributed chemicals were organized, and concentrated, and combined into the first living bacterial cell ? How can eukaryotic cells or cells with a nucleus could have come from bacteria ?

What is a "randomly shaped chemical"?

I am eagerly awaiting your development of some basic understanding of science and biology before you post terms you are clueless about.

Polar spherical triangle for one.

 

[Hollie]

Still evading ! have a good day butt sore.

So explain to us how, in the creationist model, humans and dinosaurs co-existed?

Defend a 6,000 year old earth... just spare us the cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.

A basic (and false) assumption you make is over the "argument from authority" style you are accustomed to spewing. The stereotypical creationist argument, as we see repeatedly from you is nothing more than: here is a one-liner quote from "scripture"; here is what it "obviously" means; now shut up, **** off, or go to hell. What a compelling argument!

Christian creationists are identical to Harun Yahya in the way they assume biologists treat academic papers as "scripture", and think they are accomplishing something by quoting a one-liner. Frequently, appeals to authority, such as infallible bibles, is a convenient shortcut if you don't care enough about a subject to perform some investigation for yourself: so I leave it up to you, to take the word of Harun Yahya as the ultimate authority regarding science.

I have stated I have no Idea how old the earth is. Now respond to my questions.

On the contrary, you actually have stated what you believe the age of the planet is.

This is the problem you face: you lie from page to page of the thread, forgetting what you have previously posted.

Where is the evidence for a young planet? Where is the evidence that refutes the verifiable science pointing to an old planet?

There is a segment of the world (primarily fundie Christians) who will forever insist that such evidence does not exist, regardless of the evidence itself.

The relevant segment of the science community consists of those who are intimately familiar with the actual evidence. These include the overwhelming majority of practicing scientists in all fields related to biology, paleontology and other physical sciences. And they consider a 4.5+/- billion year old earth to be a demonstrated fact. They have the evidence that supports this

So let's not pretend that you creationist clowns have any rebuttal to the science and the evidence.

 

[Hollie]

I am eagerly awaiting your explanation on how randomly shaped and distributed chemicals were organized, and concentrated, and combined into the first living bacterial cell ? How can eukaryotic cells or cells with a nucleus could have come from bacteria ?

What is a "randomly shaped chemical"?

I am eagerly awaiting your development of some basic understanding of science and biology before you post terms you are clueless about.

Polar spherical triangle for one.

"Magical processes" being the other.

 

[Hollie]

Yes simpleton.

You are the one who associated entropy with the concept of sin related to a bronze age fairy tale intended to educate bronze age children whose level of intelligence seems to have been far above yours.


Grow up or **** off yourself.

Yes the bible gives an explanation of what sin brings.

So if everything experiences entropy why is that ?

yes, scripture teaches that sin brings death and the subject of that death has nothing whatever to do with biological death or entropy but everything to do with the inability of the deceived mind to produce a rational thought.

Why does everything experience entropy?

Who can say? But one thing for sure is that it isn't because a talking snake deceived two naked and gullible people into eating the fruit of a forbidden tree.

I think fruit theft is a viable explanation for talking snakes... but that's just me.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes simpleton.

You are the one who associated entropy with the concept of sin related to a bronze age fairy tale intended to educate bronze age children whose level of intelligence seems to have been far above yours.


Grow up or **** off yourself.

Yes the bible gives an explanation of what sin brings.

So if everything experiences entropy why is that ?

yes, scripture teaches that sin brings death and the subject of that death has nothing whatever to do with biological death or entropy but everything to do with the inability of the deceived mind to produce a rational thought.

Why does everything experience entropy?

Who can say? But one thing for sure is that it isn't because a talking snake deceived two naked and gullible people into eating the fruit of a forbidden tree.

God chose a way to hand down the punishment for sin which is death. Everything experiences Entropy.

Gradual decline to disorder is what is seen in nature whether it be planets or living organisms.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So explain to us how, in the creationist model, humans and dinosaurs co-existed?

Defend a 6,000 year old earth... just spare us the cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.

A basic (and false) assumption you make is over the "argument from authority" style you are accustomed to spewing. The stereotypical creationist argument, as we see repeatedly from you is nothing more than: here is a one-liner quote from "scripture"; here is what it "obviously" means; now shut up, **** off, or go to hell. What a compelling argument!

Christian creationists are identical to Harun Yahya in the way they assume biologists treat academic papers as "scripture", and think they are accomplishing something by quoting a one-liner. Frequently, appeals to authority, such as infallible bibles, is a convenient shortcut if you don't care enough about a subject to perform some investigation for yourself: so I leave it up to you, to take the word of Harun Yahya as the ultimate authority regarding science.

I have stated I have no Idea how old the earth is. Now respond to my questions.

On the contrary, you actually have stated what you believe the age of the planet is.

This is the problem you face: you lie from page to page of the thread, forgetting what you have previously posted.

Where is the evidence for a young planet? Where is the evidence that refutes the verifiable science pointing to an old planet?

There is a segment of the world (primarily fundie Christians) who will forever insist that such evidence does not exist, regardless of the evidence itself.

The relevant segment of the science community consists of those who are intimately familiar with the actual evidence. These include the overwhelming majority of practicing scientists in all fields related to biology, paleontology and other physical sciences. And they consider a 4.5+/- billion year old earth to be a demonstrated fact. They have the evidence that supports this

So let's not pretend that you creationist clowns have any rebuttal to the science and the evidence.

I have stated between 6,000 to 12,000 and I base that from the bible not scientific explanations. It's only an opinion just like the opinion of 4.5 billion years old it's only opinion.

 

[Surfer]

I have no concrete proof that God exists but I believe in my heart and soul that he does.

 

[Hollie]

I have stated I have no Idea how old the earth is. Now respond to my questions.

On the contrary, you actually have stated what you believe the age of the planet is.

This is the problem you face: you lie from page to page of the thread, forgetting what you have previously posted.

Where is the evidence for a young planet? Where is the evidence that refutes the verifiable science pointing to an old planet?

There is a segment of the world (primarily fundie Christians) who will forever insist that such evidence does not exist, regardless of the evidence itself.

The relevant segment of the science community consists of those who are intimately familiar with the actual evidence. These include the overwhelming majority of practicing scientists in all fields related to biology, paleontology and other physical sciences. And they consider a 4.5+/- billion year old earth to be a demonstrated fact. They have the evidence that supports this

So let's not pretend that you creationist clowns have any rebuttal to the science and the evidence.

I have stated between 6,000 to 12,000 and I base that from the bible not scientific explanations. It's only an opinion just like the opinion of 4.5 billion years old it's only opinion.

As noted, you suffer from confusion (more likely just lie) as to what you have previously written.

Your usual attempts at conspiracy theories regarding the age of the planet aren't going to help you. There is verifiable evidence for an ancient planet.

Where is the verifiable evidence for your gawds?

 

[Hollie]

I have no concrete proof that God exists but I believe in my heart and soul that he does.

Others believe similarly about their particular gawds.... and others about belief in Bigfoot, space aliens and Leprechauns.

 

[Youwerecreated]

On the contrary, you actually have stated what you believe the age of the planet is.

This is the problem you face: you lie from page to page of the thread, forgetting what you have previously posted.

Where is the evidence for a young planet? Where is the evidence that refutes the verifiable science pointing to an old planet?

There is a segment of the world (primarily fundie Christians) who will forever insist that such evidence does not exist, regardless of the evidence itself.

The relevant segment of the science community consists of those who are intimately familiar with the actual evidence. These include the overwhelming majority of practicing scientists in all fields related to biology, paleontology and other physical sciences. And they consider a 4.5+/- billion year old earth to be a demonstrated fact. They have the evidence that supports this

So let's not pretend that you creationist clowns have any rebuttal to the science and the evidence.

I have stated between 6,000 to 12,000 and I base that from the bible not scientific explanations. It's only an opinion just like the opinion of 4.5 billion years old it's only opinion.

As noted, you suffer from confusion (more likely just lie) as to what you have previously written.

Your usual attempts at conspiracy theories regarding the age of the planet aren't going to help you. There is verifiable evidence for an ancient planet.

Where is the verifiable evidence for your gawds?

I will say it again not a conspiracy theory just flawed assumptions.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I have no concrete proof that God exists but I believe in my heart and soul that he does.

Others believe similarly about their particular gawds.... and others about belief in Bigfoot, space aliens and Leprechauns.

Typical response from an ignorant Ideologue.