Evidence that universe created itself

[james bond]

Religious extremists would be best advised to let scientists deal with science matters. No wonder slaughtering livestock in the hopes of satiating angry gods is timewasting and messy.

Then you should know that Charles Darwin stole his origin of species ideas of natural selection from Matthew. What a thieving and lying scumbag he was. He should be knocked down from the position he holds among atheist scientists today.

Darwin’s Lies?

Sutton’s case Mike Sutton claims that he has “100% proven” that Darwin lied in some of his statements regarding Matthew. Sutton uses this claim as part of his broader claim that it is “more likely …

patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com

No religious extremists here except for those atheists who proselytize evolution. I would not call Darwin's book a science book, but a plagiarist one.

 

[james bond]

These religious fundies have spent so much time being gaslit and gaslighting each other

Haha. Isn't "gaslit" and "gaslighting" a term from the 1940s and 60s, grandpa?

 

[percysunshine]

What ya got?

Oprah Winfrey.

Your turn.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Curious as to what my Friend Flash was responding to (which he should not have), I clicked on the link to read the ignored material (which I should not have). All that the Ignorees had to say was insult and pretend that they have science credentials which they never EVER demonstrate.

Here is what I mean. Humans are made of about 10,000 proteins. The largest of these is 33,450 amino acid residues in length. Do any of the pretentious atheists know what an amino acid residue is? If so, please elaborate.
Do any of the atheist pretenders know about the issue of chirality? If so, please elaborate.
Do any of the atheist pretenders know of the insuperable statistics of original synthesis, much less the requirement of useful intermediary proteins REQUIRED for the Darwinian Magic of *Selection*? If so, please elaborate.
How about folding these extremely long proteins?

What is Richard Dawkins' statistical definition of "impossible"?
How does it compare with the probability of original synthesis of titin?
Elaborate or else stop lying about how much YOU pretend to know, and how little everyone else knows about science.

Not even an attempt to answer one question from any of the know-it-all atheists.
Zero. Even these questions are over their pretentious, mendacious heads.

 

[Hollie]

Not even an attempt to answer one question from any of the know-it-all atheists.
Zero. Even these questions are over their pretentious, mendacious heads.

Not even an attempt on your part to address responses to your ignorant nonsense. Such intellectual Sloth leaves you to commenting on your own cut and paste posts.

 

[Hollie]

Then you should know that Charles Darwin stole his origin of species ideas of natural selection from Matthew. What a thieving and lying scumbag he was. He should be knocked down from the position he holds among atheist scientists today.

Darwin’s Lies?

Sutton’s case Mike Sutton claims that he has “100% proven” that Darwin lied in some of his statements regarding Matthew. Sutton uses this claim as part of his broader claim that it is “more likely …

patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com

No religious extremists here except for those atheists who proselytize evolution. I would not call Darwin's book a science book, but a plagiarist one.

Jimmy Swaggert groupies would not be expected to understand science or technical matters.

 

[james bond]

Jimmy Swaggert groupies would not be expected to understand science or technical matters.

Jimmy Swaggert? I had to google him. Man, Hollie, you are old.

 

[Hollie]

Jimmy Swaggert? I had to google him. Man, Hollie, you are old.

Don’t be shy, You can confess to being one of his groupies.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So this is the "Alamo": "Who created the universe?"

"What if it created itself.."...i.e., just happened. No intelligence needed.

 

[zaangalewa]

So this is the "Alamo": "Who created the universe?"

"What if it created itself.."...i.e., just happened. No intelligence needed.

Why exist natural laws and why needs it fantasy, intuition and intelligence to discover them?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why exist natural laws and why needs it fantasy, intuition and intelligence to discover them?

I don't know why natural laws exist, or why determinism exists. But they do, and both concepts eliminate the space for and need for imaginary gods to explain things. So thanks for asking.

 

[james bond]

So this is the "Alamo": "Who created the universe?"

"What if it created itself.."...i.e., just happened. No intelligence needed.

The universe could not create itself because it needed the light. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed in our universe. Once light and dark was separated and matter present, then spacetime could start with the big bang.

Atheists keep saying they want the evidence and here it is .

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The universe could not create itself because it needed the light. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed in our universe. Once light and dark was separated and matter present, then spacetime could start with the big bang.

Atheists keep saying they want the evidence and here it is .

Shaman Bond has spoken! I wonder why your evidence- and logic-free incantations don't make it into textbooks? Could it be they explain nothing whatsoever?

 

[Hollie]

The universe could not create itself because it needed the light. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed in our universe. Once light and dark was separated and matter present, then spacetime could start with the big bang.

Atheists keep saying they want the evidence and here it is .

You provided no evidence, just ID'iot creationer babble.

 

[james bond]

Shaman Bond has spoken! I wonder why your evidence- and logic-free incantations don't make it into textbooks? Could it be they explain nothing whatsoever?

The evidence has been provided, but you cannot accept it. OTOH, you give me organic molecules being synthesized in the early atmosphere or in primordial soup when experiments show it doesn't happen. It can happen only when organisms are already present. It takes life to make life. Science backs up creation.

 

[zaangalewa]

I don't know why natural laws exist, or why determinism exists. But they do, and both concepts eliminate the space for and need for imaginary gods to explain things. So thanks for asking.

This question had been a real question and you was not able to give a philosophically satisfying answer - what means you accept something without any will to try to find out what it really is what you prefer to believe instead to prefer to believe in god. Or with other words: what you say is tautological. You "say" you do not like to believe in god because you do not like to believe in god. That's all. That the existence of natural laws and determinism eliminates the belief in god is pure nonsense.

 

[james bond]

You provided no evidence, just ID'iot creationer babble.

You just do not understand real science . You are too liberal and fell for the lies of atheism and evolution. OTOH, the creationists have the language of the genetic code to show design with intelligence -- Genetic Code. This shows atheist science and atheism is farked up beyond belief.

 

[Hollie]

You just do not understand real science . You are too liberal and fell for the lies of atheism and evolution. OTOH, the creationists have the language of the genetic code to show design with intelligence -- Genetic Code. This shows atheist science and atheism is farked up beyond belief.

Religious extremists have only fantastic tales and fables.

 

[james bond]

Religious extremists have only fantastic tales and fables.

Look. Even your boy Darwin had his doubts. OTOH, creation science is on solid ground.

"That many and serious objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification, I do not deny. I have endeavoured to give them their full force. Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and instincts should have been perfected, not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor. Nevertheless, this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination insuperably great, cannot be considered real if we admit the following propositions, namely, — that gradations in the perfection of any organ or instinct which we may consider, either do now exist or could have existed, each good of its kind, — that all organs are, in ever so slight degree, variable, — and, lastly, that there is a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of each profitable deviation of structure or instinct. The truth of these propositions cannot, I think, be disputed."

In Darwin, the Descent of a PR Man | Evolution News

Darwin’s reiteration here and elsewhere of the phrase “we may confidently believe” veils the tenuous truth-value of what he proposes.

evolutionnews.org

 

[Hollie]

Look. Even your boy Darwin had his doubts. OTOH, creation science is on solid ground.

"That many and serious objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification, I do not deny. I have endeavoured to give them their full force. Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and instincts should have been perfected, not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor. Nevertheless, this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination insuperably great, cannot be considered real if we admit the following propositions, namely, — that gradations in the perfection of any organ or instinct which we may consider, either do now exist or could have existed, each good of its kind, — that all organs are, in ever so slight degree, variable, — and, lastly, that there is a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of each profitable deviation of structure or instinct. The truth of these propositions cannot, I think, be disputed."

In Darwin, the Descent of a PR Man | Evolution News

Darwin’s reiteration here and elsewhere of the phrase “we may confidently believe” veils the tenuous truth-value of what he proposes.

evolutionnews.org

Yours is more of the typical, creationer tactic of "quote mining". It's dishonest and fraudulent but that typifies the actions of the religious extremist. You simply cut and pasted an edited "quote" from a creationer website.

You're a proud Jimmy Swaggert groupie.