Original Science

[james bond]

I know you believe that but...

Non-believers can believe in the creation science as science backs it up. Practically all of the top scientists in history were creationists, so there is much credibility there.

You don't have to waste your quote as it applies to the evolutionists who believe in the atheist scientists.

 

[Hollie]

Non-believers can believe in the creation science as science backs it up. Practically all of the top scientists in history were creationists, so there is much credibility there.

You don't have to waste your quote as it applies to the evolutionists who believe in the atheist scientists.

Science does not 'back up' ID'iot creationerism. Religious extremism us not science.

 

[alang1216]

Practically all of the top scientists in history were creationists, so there is much credibility there.

True. But science progressed as it gained knowledge, today only a few top scientists are creationists. What does that tell you?

 

[Hollie]

Practically all of the top scientists in history were creationists, so there is much credibility there.

There is very little credibility there. The church was a ruthless, authoritarian boat anchor around the neck of humanity for centuries. During the Dark Ages, the Church would crush any dissent from its doctrine. The church would imprison and torture those who contradicted its propaganda. The false label "creationer science" you impose on people who never identified as such is just a reflection of the extremism and intolerance that defined the church for centuries.

 

[james bond]

Science does not 'back up' ID'iot creationerism. Religious extremism us not science.

I have provided the evidence to the atheists and especially you many times. You reached the point of not having the intellectual capacity many posts ago since you provide no counter argument.

 

[james bond]

True. But science progressed as it gained knowledge, today only a few top scientists are creationists. What does that tell you?

Heh. Where are your atheist scientists of today and their modern findings?

The atheist scientists have taken over due to their long time arguments and ignore the creation scientists -- Creation scientists - creation.com.

 

[Hollie]

Heh. Where are your atheist scientists of today and their modern findings?

The atheist scientists have taken over due to their long time arguments and ignore the creation scientists -- Creation scientists - creation.com.

Charlatans at extremist ministries should be ignored.

 

[Hollie]

I have provided the evidence to the atheists and especially you many times. You reached the point of not having the intellectual capacity many posts ago since you provide no counter argument.

You presented no credible evidence.

 

[alang1216]

Heh. Where are your atheist scientists of today and their modern findings?

The atheist scientists have taken over due to their long time arguments and ignore the creation scientists -- Creation scientists - creation.com.

Sorry but science follows the evidence. Scientists that don't get left behind. That is why 200 years ago most scientists were creationists, now we have evidence for natural forces, and no evidence for supernatural ones, so the proportion has changed dramatically.

 

[james bond]

Sorry but science follows the evidence. Scientists that don't get left behind. That is why 200 years ago most scientists were creationists, now we have evidence for natural forces, and no evidence for supernatural ones, so the proportion has changed dramatically.

The evidence backs creation. There are no evidence for modern evolution just as there was no evidence for past evolution. The sorry is with you and modern evolutionists. Whether you believe me or creationists today doesn't matter. Your punishment can wait until atheists and you die. Of course, no atheist can escape death and what is in store for them.

 

[Hollie]

The evidence backs creation. There are no evidence for modern evolution just as there was no evidence for past evolution. The sorry is with you and modern evolutionists. Whether you believe me or creationists today doesn't matter. Your punishment can wait until atheists and you die. Of course, no atheist can escape death and what is in store for them.

There is no evidence for supernatural / godly creation. That's exactly why you cut and paste the same phony claims stolen from creationer charlatans and run for the exits when you're tasked with supporting those phony claims.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Four months after offering this challenge to "Science, Science, Science" Hollie for her to present something, anything, she has shown all the science she knows. Nothing. Just as I predicted based on her profusion of inanities.

 

[surada]

The evidence backs creation. There are no evidence for modern evolution just as there was no evidence for past evolution. The sorry is with you and modern evolutionists. Whether you believe me or creationists today doesn't matter. Your punishment can wait until atheists and you die. Of course, no atheist can escape death and what is in store for them.

There certainly is evidence for evolution which is ongoing.

How Finches Helped Darwin Develop His Theory of Evolution

Explaining Charles Darwin's finches and how the study of them on the Galapagos Islands and South American mainland led to the theory of evolution.

www.thoughtco.com

 

[Hollie]

Four months after offering this challenge to "Science, Science, Science" Hollie for her to present something, anything, she has shown all the science she knows. Nothing. Just as I predicted based on her profusion of inanities.

I couldn't help but notice you failed to respond to my comments addressing your cut and paste nonsense.

Your usual tactic of spamming threads with gargantuan / bolded text is a rather cowardly tactic.

 

[james bond]

There certainly is evidence for evolution which is ongoing.

How Finches Helped Darwin Develop His Theory of Evolution

Explaining Charles Darwin's finches and how the study of them on the Galapagos Islands and South American mainland led to the theory of evolution.

www.thoughtco.com

It's been shown that the difference in Darwin's finches was interbreeding, i.e. produces variety within a single species, and not evolution. If that's all you have, then evolution didn't happen.

 

[Hollie]

It's been shown that the difference in Darwin's finches was interbreeding, i.e. produces variety within a single species, and not evolution. If that's all you have, then evolution didn't happen.

It's been shown you spend way too much time trolling through creationer ministries.

 

[surada]

It's been shown that the difference in Darwin's finches was interbreeding, i.e. produces variety within a single species, and not evolution. If that's all you have, then evolution didn't happen.

You haven't read the information. Adaptation drives evolution.

Evolution of Darwin's finches and their beaks

Darwin's finches, inhabiting the Galapagos archipelago and Cocos island, constitute an iconic model for studies of speciation and adaptive evolution. A team of scientists has now shed light on the evolutionary history of these birds and identified a gene that explains variation in beak shape...

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[ReinyDays]

So ... your "original science" is based on a new form of math ... I'm sorry ... in the Real World™, even 10^-600 ≠ 0, thus your fanciful logic does NOT provide impossible results ... in fact, there's an infinite amount of real numbers between 10^-600 and zero ... meaning that 10^-600 isn't all that small of a number ... plenty of numbers much much smaller ...

I know you're a city-slickin' flat-lander, so you don't know how farmers get seed in the Spring ... pagan and heathen farmers save the seed in the Fall from their best most productive plants for planting the next Spring, evolutionary thought at it's best ... and you already know that Jewish, Muslim and Christian farmers save the seeds from their second best plants, evolutionary thought at it's second best ... the best going to the Temple in Jerusalem per God's Law ...

Folks figured this out in the Paleolithic ... why can't you? ...

 

[ChemEngineer]

So ... your "original science" is based on a new form of math ... I'm sorry ... in the Real World™, even 10^-600 ≠ 0, thus your fanciful logic does NOT provide impossible results ... in fact, there's an infinite amount of real numbers between 10^-600 and zero ... meaning that 10^-600 isn't all that small of a number ... plenty of numbers much much smaller ...

You're not very good at science, logic or numbers. That is obvious.
Richard Dawkins, your *god* of evolution and atheism SAYS "10 to the -40th probability is IMPOSSIBLE.

10 to the 50th grains of sand would fill fifteen spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto.
Imagine a space ship capable of maneuvering through sand, navigating through any one of those 15
spheres in search of one unique grain and finding it on the first and ONLY try.
THAT is the definition of 1 chance in 10 to the -50. Whoosh, there it goes right over your head.

There are only~10^80 fundamental particles in the universe.
Those seeds you are talking about are all in the cuffs of your bib overalls.

 

[Hollie]

You're not very good at science, logic or numbers. That is obvious.
Richard Dawkins, your *god* of evolution and atheism SAYS "10 to the -40th probability is IMPOSSIBLE.

10 to the 50th grains of sand would fill fifteen spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto.
Imagine a space ship capable of maneuvering through sand, navigating through any one of those 15
spheres in search of one unique grain and finding it on the first and ONLY try.
THAT is the definition of 1 chance in 10 to the -50. Whoosh, there it goes right over your head.

There are only~10^80 fundamental particles in the universe.
Those seeds you are talking about are all in the cuffs of your bib overalls.

Your god Jimmy Swaggert will tell you whatever you want to hear. Just keep putting cash into the collection tray.