Disproving Creation: The Pope Admits He's Clueless About Evolution
Budikka666
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110423/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_easter_vigil_4
"If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place
on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or
might even be a chance of nature," he said. "But no, reason is there
at the beginning: creative, divine reason."
No, it's not random. The mutations are random; natural selection is
the polar opposite.
There's one hundred and fifty years of solid positive science all
pointing towards evolution.
Where's the pope's evidence that there is a creator or a soul?
Nowhere. It's all blind faith. You lose, Ratzi.
Budikka
Andrew
> Via Jerry Coyne:
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110423/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_easter_vigil_4
> "If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place
> on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or
> might even be a chance of nature," he said. "But no, reason is there
> at the beginning: creative, divine reason."
>
> No, it's not random. The mutations are random; natural selection is
> the polar opposite.
NS works to delete mutations and defects from the original. So it
is not a mechanism for your deception.
> There's one hundred and fifty years of solid positive science all
> pointing towards evolution.
Yet the evidence for creation existed since the very beginning of
time.
> Where's the pope's evidence that there is a creator or a soul?
> Nowhere. It's all blind faith. You lose, Ratzi.
You are obsessed with the Pope and the Creator. The Creator is
the One who loves you.
>
> Budikka
wf3h
wrote:
>"Budikka666" wrote in message news:b88f3397-dace-4ba9...@d28g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>> Via Jerry Coyne:
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110423/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_easter_vigil_4
>> "If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place
>> on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or
>> might even be a chance of nature," he said. "But no, reason is there
>> at the beginning: creative, divine reason."
>>
>> No, it's not random. The mutations are random; natural selection is
>> the polar opposite.
>
>NS works to delete mutations and defects from the original. So it
>is not a mechanism for your deception.
whatever this means
>
>> There's one hundred and fifty years of solid positive science all
>> pointing towards evolution.
>
>Yet the evidence for creation existed since the very beginning of
>time.
too bad that creationists cant tell us whoat it is.
Budikka666
*single* *time* you RUN from these questions and challenges. So by
all means, do keep running, because every time you and your ilk do
that, you prove my case for me.
Here's what you're shrinking from like a limp Peter at the Passion:
1. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours
exists
2. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours is
the only deity there is
3. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours
created the universe and life on Earth
4. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours is
not a figment of your imagination
Or keep running, you pathetic coward; it's what you do best, after
all.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Bible quotes in support of Bible claims do not
constitute objective evidence and they sure as hell are not positive
scientific evidence for a creation! LoL!
And that's not all: look at this case. On May 11th 2009, I asked
"Andrew-a-Blank", and later extended it to all Usenet creationists to
answer the following questions based on claims that "Andrew-a-Blank"
has made on Usenet. His response? He RAN AWAY and he's been running
ever since.
If you were in trouble and your friend ran instead of helping you,
would you consider that an example of friendship or love? Then how
can "Andrew-a-Blank" pretend he loves his god when he RUNS instead
ofwitnessing?
I've been chasing him for 18 months, and he keeps running like the
stinking diarrhea he is. Here's the list of unanswered questions.
And by unanswered, I mean that creationists have failed to answer
*and* *support* *their* *answer* with independent evidence which would
establish their claim to an impartial audience beyond a reasonable
doubt - just as evolutionists have established their position well
beyond any *reasonable* doubt with 150 years of solid science.
Ask "Andrew-a-Blank" why he's shrinking away like a limp Peter at the
passion instead of witnessing for this god. Obviously he is even
LYING about his love for this fake god of his!
Unmet challenge #1
The challenge I offered you in this thread:
on May 11th 2009, only to see you RUN AWAY.
Unmet challenge #2
Provide *positive*, *scientific* evidence *for* a creation. Not Bible
quotes. Not quotes from creationists or atheists or evolutionists.
Not divine revelation. Not juvenile unsupported ignorant assertions.
Not chants of 'no it isn't!'. Not counter challenges when you haven't
even met ours, but *positive*, *scientific* evidence *for* a creation.
Unmet challenge #3
Provide scientific evidence that shows how DNA is the work of a
creator. Show us this evidence and explain how it demonstrates a
creator.
Unmet Challenge #4
Provide scientific support for your claims that bacteria have never
arisen from anything other than bacteria/life has never arisen from
anything but life.
Unmet challenge #5
Provide scientific evidence in support of the creationist claim that
information cannot be added to a genome, especially in light of the
fact that there is scientific proof that new information does indeed
enter the genome.
Unmet challenge #6
Define scientifically what the "genetic boundaries" ("kinds") are:
specifically what the mechanism is which (according to creationist
claims) prevents one "kind" from evolving into another species over
time.
Unmet Challenge #7
Provide your scientific evidence (as opposed to your LYING,
unsupported bullshit, which has been refuted repeatedly) to support
your creationist claim that life cannot arise from organic chemistry,
when scientists have repeatedly demonstrated that the truth is quite
to the contrary
Unmet Challenge #8
Demonstrate objectively that there's a god out there waiting to judge
me when I die. Otherwise you and your creationist fundie ilk are
nothing but pathetic LIARS and FRAUDS.
Unmet Challenge #9
Demonstrate that we have a soul. Demonstrate scientifically where it
is, how and when it gets into the body, how and when it leaves the
body and what its purpose is.
Unmet Challenge #10
Demonstrate, using independent scientific or objective evidence that
this fictional Jesus isn't fictional and that he literally lived, that
he was literally born of a virgin, that he was literally the son of a
god, that he performed miracles, that he literally died, and that he
came back to life and went to Heaven.
Budikka
Pepsi
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:b88f3397-dace-4ba9...@d28g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
I still, constantly, wonder why anyone listens to this brain washed lunatic.
Inertial
news:w5qdnSJjuskWtivQ...@earthlink.com...
> Yet the evidence for creation existed since the very beginning of
> time.
Its the same for both evolution and creation .. the data is there since the
beginning of time. The difference is that creation is unsupported dogma that
is not derived from evidence, whereas evolution is science.
Inertial
>"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>news:b88f3397-dace-4ba9...@d28g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>> Nowhere. It's all blind faith. You lose, Ratzi.
> lunatic.
who ,.. the Pope? I wonder too.
Kadaitcha Man
buck-toothed partaker of cries and tears, a money-grabbing crafty
swearing rascal, I do find thee spleeny and neutered. Ye whimpered:
> I still, constantly, wonder why anyone listens to this brain washed lunatic.
Pepsi's Admission: Pepsi constantly wonders why anyone listens to him, a
brain washed lunatic.
--
Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in alt.atheism.
Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk.
Andrew
> You and your fellow creationists admit there is no creator *every*
> *single* *time* you RUN from these questions and challenges. So by
> all means, do keep running, because every time you and your ilk do
> that, you prove my case for me.
>
>
>
> Here's what you're shrinking from like a limp Peter at the Passion:
>
> 1. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours
> exists
The whole Creation points to an all powerful Creator.. God.
> 2. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours is
> the only deity there is
"I am He: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be
after me." Isa 43:10
> 3. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours
> created the universe and life on Earth
"Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched
them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of
it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that
walk therein." Isa 42:5
"I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have
stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded."
Isa 45:12
> 4. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours is
> not a figment of your imagination
Then would you repent?
> Or keep running, you pathetic coward; it's what you do best, after
> all.
He is the One who loves you. Why are you running from Him?
Andrew
Andrew
Creation is an origins model. What you call evolution is the
adaption and variation which God has programmed into the
original creation.
What is your origins model? Is it not a fantasized dogma
clothed in 'scientific' garb?
Andrew
Andre Lieven
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:0eb371d5-88eb-4560...@p16g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> > You and your fellow creationists admit there is no creator *every*
> > *single* *time* you RUN from these questions and challenges. So by
> > all means, do keep running, because every time you and your ilk do
> > that, you prove my case for me.
>
> > Here's what you're shrinking from like a limp Peter at the Passion:
>
> > 1. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours
> > exists
>
> The whole Creation points to an all powerful Creator.. God.
-That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed
without evidence.-
> > 2. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours is
> > the only deity there is
>
> "I am He: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be
> after me." Isa 43:10
-That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed
without evidence.-
> > 3. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours
> > created the universe and life on Earth
>
> "Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched
> them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of
> it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that
> walk therein." Isa 42:5
-That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed
without evidence.-
> "I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have
> stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded."
> Isa 45:12
-That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed
without evidence.-
> > 4. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours is
> > not a figment of your imagination
>
> Then would you repent?
Until you provide the asked for objective evidence, you do not
get to say what might come afterwards.
> > Or keep running, you pathetic coward; it's what you do best, after
> > all.
>
> He is the One who loves you.
-That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed
without evidence.-
> Why are you running from Him?
Tough to 'run' from that which does not exist...
Thank you for admitting that you have NO objective evidence
for any of your assertions.
Andre
Andre Lieven
lied:
> "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote in messagenews:4db67bab$0$29980$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote in messagenews:w5qdnSJjuskWtivQ...@earthlink.com...
> >> Yet the evidence for creation existed since the very beginning of
> >> time.
>
> > Its the same for both evolution and creation .. the data is
> > there since the beginning of time. The difference is that
> > creation is unsupported dogma that is not derived from
> > evidence, whereas evolution is science.
Completely correct.
> Creation is an origins model. What you call evolution is the
> adaption and variation which God has programmed into the
> original creation.
-That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed
without evidence.-
> What is your origins model? Is it not a fantasized dogma
> clothed in 'scientific' garb?
No. That would be 'ID'.
Andre
Inertial
news:G7ydndd3q92FSCvQ...@earthlink.com...
>
>"Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote in message
>news:4db67bab$0$29980$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote in message
>> news:w5qdnSJjuskWtivQ...@earthlink.com...
>>> Yet the evidence for creation existed since the very beginning of
>>> time.
>>
>> Its the same for both evolution and creation .. the data is there since
>> the beginning of time. The difference is that creation is
>> unsupported dogma that is not derived from evidence, whereas evolution is
>> science.
>
>Creation is an origins model. What you call evolution is the
>adaption and variation which God has programmed into the
>original creation.
So you believe evolution to be correct by the sounds of it .. seeing you
claim god programmed it. But where did the creation part happen? Was that
just the creation of the universe .. and then live and everything else came
from that? Or was there a creation of the first living organism, a then
evolution resulted in the various species? Or were each of the species
created and evolution is only within each species? Which of the many
possibilities you could lump together as 'creation' do you think is correct?
>What is your origins model? Is it not a fantasized dogma
>clothed in 'scientific' garb?
No, its not.
WangoTango
andrew....@usa.net says...
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:0eb371d5-88eb-4560...@p16g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> > You and your fellow creationists admit there is no creator *every*
> > *single* *time* you RUN from these questions and challenges. So by
> > all means, do keep running, because every time you and your ilk do
> > that, you prove my case for me.
> >
> >
> >
> > Here's what you're shrinking from like a limp Peter at the Passion:
> >
> > 1. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours
> > exists
>
> The whole Creation points to an all powerful Creator.. God.
>
> > 2. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours is
> > the only deity there is
>
> "I am He: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be
> after me." Isa 43:10
Strike two.
>
> > 3. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours
> > created the universe and life on Earth
>
> "Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched
> them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of
> it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that
> walk therein." Isa 42:5
Strike three, and as usual, you are OUT.
Mike
> Via Jerry Coyne:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110423/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_easter_vig...
> "If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place
> on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or
> might even be a chance of nature," he said. "But no, reason is there
> at the beginning: creative, divine reason."
>
> No, it's not random. The mutations are random; natural selection is
> the polar opposite.
>
> There's one hundred and fifty years of solid positive science all
> pointing towards evolution.
>
> Where's the pope's evidence that there is a creator or a soul?
> Nowhere. It's all blind faith. You lose, Ratzi.
>
> Budikka
But Budikka, the man is INFALLIBLE. We know that because the 1st
Vatican Council, which was not arrogant enough to consider ITSELF
infallible, took a vote and said so. :)
wf3h
wrote:
>"Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote in message news:4db67bab$0$29980$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote in message news:w5qdnSJjuskWtivQ...@earthlink.com...
>>> Yet the evidence for creation existed since the very beginning of
>>> time.
>>
>> Its the same for both evolution and creation .. the data is there since the beginning of time. The difference is that creation is
>> unsupported dogma that is not derived from evidence, whereas evolution is science.
>
>Creation is an origins model.
no, it's not. a model, by definition, has a testable mechanism that is
falsifiable
creationism does not meet this criterion.
What you call evolution is the
>adaption and variation which God has programmed into the
>original creation.
>
>What is your origins model? Is it not a fantasized dogma
>clothed in 'scientific' garb?
evolution is testable. observable
creationism is not. it's magic
>
>
>Andrew
>
>
wf3h
wrote:
>"Budikka666" wrote in message news:0eb371d5-88eb-4560...@p16g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>> You and your fellow creationists admit there is no creator *every*
>> *single* *time* you RUN from these questions and challenges. So by
>> all means, do keep running, because every time you and your ilk do
>> that, you prove my case for me.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here's what you're shrinking from like a limp Peter at the Passion:
>>
>> 1. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours
>> exists
>
>The whole Creation points to an all powerful Creator.. God.
no it doesnt
see. it's easy to assert an idea without proof
Andrew
How can there be a ~Creation~ with no ~Creator~ involved?
"Since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal
power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood
from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
Rom 1:20
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote in message news:G7ydndd3q92FSCvQ...@earthlink.com...
>>"Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote in message news:4db67bab$0$29980$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com...
>>> "Andrew" wrote in message news:w5qdnSJjuskWtivQ...@earthlink.com...
>>>> Yet the evidence for creation existed since the very beginning of time.
>>>
>>> Its the same for both evolution and creation .. the data is there
>>> since the beginning of time. The difference is that creation is
>>> unsupported dogma that is not derived from evidence, whereas
>>> evolution is science.
>>
>>Creation is an origins model. What you call evolution is the
>>adaption and variation which God has programmed into the
>>original creation.
>
> So you believe evolution to be correct by the sounds of it .. seeing
> you claim god programmed it.
Absolutely yes, within the 'genetic limits' which God has so ordained.
> But where did the creation part happen? Was that just the creation of
> the universe .. and then live and everything else came from that? Or was
> there a creation of the first living organism, a then evolution resulted in
> the various species? Or were each of the species created and evolution is
> only within each species?
Yes to your last sentence.
> Which of the many possibilities you could lump together as 'creation' do
> you think is correct?
See above.
>>What is your origins model? Is it not a fantasized dogma
>>clothed in 'scientific' garb?
>
> No, its not.
So you are unable to describe it. Perhaps you are still in the process
of formulating it in your mind. We each have to pursue our journey
of truth, and not to blindly accept all that we have been told.
Andrew
As an "origins model"? Explain.
Jimbo
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:b88f3397-dace-4ba9...@d28g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> > Via Jerry Coyne:
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110423/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_easter_vig...
> > "If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place
> > on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or
> > might even be a chance of nature," he said. "But no, reason is there
> > at the beginning: creative, divine reason."
>
> > No, it's not random. The mutations are random; natural selection is
> > the polar opposite.
>
> NS works to delete mutations and defects from the original. So it
> is not a mechanism for your deception.
>
> > There's one hundred and fifty years of solid positive science all
> > pointing towards evolution.
>
> Yet the evidence for creation existed since the very beginning of
> time.
What evidence? Post your empirical, objective scientific evidence
right here ------------->
Jimbo
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:0eb371d5-88eb-4560...@p16g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> > You and your fellow creationists admit there is no creator *every*
> > *single* *time* you RUN from these questions and challenges. So by
> > all means, do keep running, because every time you and your ilk do
> > that, you prove my case for me.
>
> > Here's what you're shrinking from like a limp Peter at the Passion:
>
> > 1. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours
> > exists
>
> The whole Creation points to an all powerful Creator.. God.
Nonsense.
Jimbo
> >> Yet the evidence for creation existed since the very beginning of
> >> time.
>
> > Its the same for both evolution and creation .. the data is there since the beginning of time. The difference is that creation is
> > unsupported dogma that is not derived from evidence, whereas evolution is science.
>
> Creation is an origins model.
Again, nonsense. There is no scientifically functioning model for a
creation. Creation is "POOF!" there you go. It is not even remotely
science.
Andrew
- What evidence? Post your empirical, objective scientific evidence
- right here ------------->
The entire universe including
all of it's dimensions and all
life therein.. <-------------
AllSeeing-I
> "wf3h" <w...@comcast.net> wrote in messagenews:uemer6935um80o58s...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 07:22:00 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> >>"Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:0eb371d5-88eb-4560...@p16g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> >>> You and your fellow creationists admit there is no creator *every*
> >>> *single* *time* you RUN from these questions and challenges. So by
> >>> all means, do keep running, because every time you and your ilk do
> >>> that, you prove my case for me.
>
> >>> Here's what you're shrinking from like a limp Peter at the Passion:
>
> >>> 1. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours
> >>> exists
>
> >>The whole Creation points to an all powerful Creator.. God.
>
> > no it doesnt
>
> How can there be a ~Creation~ with no ~Creator~ involved?
>
> "Since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal
> power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood
> from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
I do not know about those few that post here but MOST of the people in
the world understand Rom.1.20
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mike Jones
> We each have to pursue our journey of truth,
No we don't.
Quit making up rules for other people.
Shithead.
Mike Jones
[...]
>> evolution is testable. observable
>
> As an "origins model"? Explain.
We'd have to start with a primer on how to use Wikipedia first, as you're
clearly that dumb you can't research the available data to date, and
would rather invest in the idea some fantasy alpha-male made everything
just for you.
Y'see, sitting on your fat stoopid ass and demanding everything is
brought to you covered in whipped cream is not an argument, its just you
being a useless dumb fuckwit playing the stroppy infant routine.
Grow the fuck up, then you might just get taken seriously. 'K? Ta.
Colanth
wrote:
>"wf3h" <wf...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1dmer654tuv4fiahn...@4ax.com...
>> evolution is testable. observable
>
>As an "origins model"? Explain.
>
>> creationism is not. it's magic
Try http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
--
"I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and
reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything,
no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The
wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more
solid the evidence will have to be." - Isaac Asimov
thomas p.
news:GYSdnWQT28CZKirQ...@earthlink.com...
No, that is evidence for Harold the giant penguin.
thomas p.
> "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote in message
> news:4db6f3da$0$29986$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote in message
>> news:G7ydndd3q92FSCvQ...@earthlink.com...
>>>"Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote in message
>>>news:4db67bab$0$29980$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com...
>>>> "Andrew" wrote in message
>>>> news:w5qdnSJjuskWtivQ...@earthlink.com...
>>>>> Yet the evidence for creation existed since the very beginning of
>>>>> time.
>>>>
>>>> Its the same for both evolution and creation .. the data is there
>>>> since the beginning of time. The difference is that creation is
>>>> unsupported dogma that is not derived from evidence, whereas
>>>> evolution is science.
>>>
>>>Creation is an origins model. What you call evolution is the
>>>adaption and variation which God has programmed into the
>>>original creation.
>>
>> So you believe evolution to be correct by the sounds of it .. seeing
>> you claim god programmed it.
>
> Absolutely yes, within the 'genetic limits' which God has so ordained.
Have you mentioned your findings to the world's biologists? Clearly you
know much more than they do. Andrew you are so incredibly silly. You can
tell us the truth now; your posts are meant to be funny, right?
thomas p.
The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain origins, and your
"model" has absolutely no testable evidence to support it. How many times
has this been pointed out to you? Why do you keep lying?
Andrew
>
>> We each have to pursue our journey of truth,
>
>
> No we don't.
>
> Quit making up rules for other people.
Andre Lieven
> "Mike Jones" wrote in messagenews:ip907f$82s$7...@dasteem.eternal-september.org...
-That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed
without evidence.-
Especially when it comes from such a willfully ignorant and
illiterate git.
Andre
Mike Jones
> destruction.<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0
> Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type> <META
> name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19046"> <STYLE></STYLE>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY background="" bgColor=#ffffff>
> <DIV><FONT size=4 face=Arial>"Mike Jones" wrote in message <A
> href="news:ip907f$82s$7...@dasteem.eternal-september.org">news:ip907f$82s
$7...@dasteem.eternal-september.org</A>...</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=4 face=Arial>> Responding to: Andrew<BR>>
> <BR>>> We each have to pursue our journey of truth,<BR>>
> <BR>> <BR>> No we don't.<BR>> <BR>> Quit making up rules for
> other people.<BR><BR><BR>Those who don't, will just follow the
> croud to their destruction.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML> "Mike Jones"
> destruction.<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0
> Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type> <META
> name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19046"> <STYLE></STYLE>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY background="" bgColor=#ffffff>
> <DIV><FONT size=4 face=Arial>"Mike Jones" wrote in message <A
> href="news:ip907f$82s$7...@dasteem.eternal-september.org">news:ip907f$82s
$7...@dasteem.eternal-september.org</A>...</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT size=4 face=Arial>> Responding to: Andrew<BR>>
> <BR>>> We each have to pursue our journey of truth,<BR>>
> <BR>> <BR>> No we don't.<BR>> <BR>> Quit making up rules for
> other people.<BR><BR><BR>Those who don't, will just follow the
> croud to their destruction.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
And your devastating response is a text-based fart like this?
Your name is Wile E. Coyote and I claim my five dollars!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-hahahaha! %)
Ralph
Andrew, you're back. That's too bad, I was hoping you were hit by a truck.
wf3h
wrote:
>"wf3h" <wf...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1dmer654tuv4fiahn...@4ax.com...
yeah. the origin of species
ever hear of it?
wf3h
wrote:
>"wf3h" <wf...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:uemer6935um80o58s...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 07:22:00 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>>>"Budikka666" wrote in message news:0eb371d5-88eb-4560...@p16g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>>>> You and your fellow creationists admit there is no creator *every*
>>>> *single* *time* you RUN from these questions and challenges. So by
>>>> all means, do keep running, because every time you and your ilk do
>>>> that, you prove my case for me.
>>>>
>>>> Here's what you're shrinking from like a limp Peter at the Passion:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours
>>>> exists
>>>
>>>The whole Creation points to an all powerful Creator.. God.
>>
>> no it doesnt
>
>How can there be a ~Creation~ with no ~Creator~ involved?
1. because the history of humanity is littered with invocations of
creators for natural processes
they've ALWAYS been wrong
2. we dont know HOW creation got started. so you're invoking a useless
idea
>
>"Since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal
> power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood
> from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
> Rom 1:20
>
>
>
no one cares what romans said.
wf3h
almost none of them have read it
and truth is not determned by popular vote
Conan the bacterium
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:b88f3397-dace-4ba9...@d28g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> > Via Jerry Coyne:
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110423/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_easter_vig...
> > "If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place
> > on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or
> > might even be a chance of nature," he said. "But no, reason is there
> > at the beginning: creative, divine reason."
>
<>
> > No, it's not random. The mutations are random; natural selection is
> > the polar opposite.
>
> NS works to delete mutations and defects from the original. So it
> is not a mechanism for your deception.
Mutations AND defects?
No.
Defects, yes.
The great majority of mutations are selection-neutral.
The average newborn human comes along with 100-200
mutations. If you were correct, the human race would
be extinct.
>
> > There's one hundred and fifty years of solid positive science all
> > pointing towards evolution.
//
> Yet the evidence for creation existed since the very beginning of
> time.
And you know this...how, exactly?
conan
>
> > Where's the pope's evidence that there is a creator or a soul?
> > Nowhere. It's all blind faith. You lose, Ratzi.
>
> You are obsessed with the Pope and the Creator. The Creator is
> the One who loves you.
>
>
>
> > Budikka
Conan the bacterium
> "wf3h" <w...@comcast.net> wrote in messagenews:uemer6935um80o58s...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 07:22:00 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> >>"Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:0eb371d5-88eb-4560...@p16g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> >>> You and your fellow creationists admit there is no creator *every*
> >>> *single* *time* you RUN from these questions and challenges. So by
> >>> all means, do keep running, because every time you and your ilk do
> >>> that, you prove my case for me.
>
> >>> Here's what you're shrinking from like a limp Peter at the Passion:
>
> >>> 1. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours
> >>> exists
>
> >>The whole Creation points to an all powerful Creator.. God.
>
> > no it doesnt
>
<>
> How can there be a ~Creation~ with no ~Creator~ involved?
Excellent point: you have dishonestly front-loaded the discussion
by using the word "Creation".
That's formally known as "Assuming the conclusion",
and is recognized as a fallacious -- and dishonest, if
consciously employed -- type of argumentation.
conan
Conan the bacterium
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:0eb371d5-88eb-4560...@p16g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> > You and your fellow creationists admit there is no creator *every*
> > *single* *time* you RUN from these questions and challenges. So by
> > all means, do keep running, because every time you and your ilk do
> > that, you prove my case for me.
>
> > Here's what you're shrinking from like a limp Peter at the Passion:
>
> > 1. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours
> > exists
>
<>
> The whole Creation points to an all powerful Creator.. God.
And not one of you proselytizers here has ever been able
to answer when asked: even if we accept that, what in the
world would ever convince us that your tribal god of a small
nomadic Bronze age band was that "all powerful Creator"?
Even if someone were aching to find such a Creator
to believe in, and were to read the Pentateuch for the
first time in his life, he' quickly conclude that the hot-tempered
bloody-handed grudge-holding genocidal and all-too-human
god portrayed there was no more up to the job than
Raven or Coyote or Pangu (who Created Everything
by smashing the Cosmic Egg open with His broadax)
conan
>
> > 2. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours is
> > the only deity there is
>
> "I am He: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be
> after me." Isa 43:10
>
> > 3. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours
> > created the universe and life on Earth
>
> "Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched
> them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of
> it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that
> walk therein." Isa 42:5
>
> "I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have
> stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded."
> Isa 45:12
>
> > 4. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours is
> > not a figment of your imagination
>
> Then would you repent?
>
> > Or keep running, you pathetic coward; it's what you do best, after
> > all.
>
> He is the One who loves you. Why are you running from Him?
>
> Andrew
Conan the bacterium
> > "Andrew" wrote in messagenews:w5qdnSJjuskWtivQ...@earthlink.com...
> >> time.
>
> > unsupported dogma that is not derived from evidence, whereas evolution is science.
>
> adaption and variation which God has programmed into the
> original creation.
<>
> What is your origins model? Is it not a fantasized dogma
> clothed in 'scientific' garb?
Beg pardon? You are thinking that someone, somewhere merely
sat down an fantasized a scheme consisting of the Big Bang,
nucleosynthesis, inflation, a cosmic microwave background,
then wrote up a few papers establishing this as a convenient dogma.
Sort of slept through ninety years of astronomical research,
did you?
conan
>
> Andrew
Conan the bacterium
MOST?
An odd claim...given that at least half the world's people
don't believe in your Bible.
conan
AllSeeing-I
> Via Jerry Coyne:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110423/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_easter_vig...
> "If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place
> on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or
> might even be a chance of nature," he said. "But no, reason is there
> at the beginning: creative, divine reason."
>
> No, it's not random. The mutations are random; natural selection is
> the polar opposite.
>
> pointing towards evolution.
>
> Nowhere. It's all blind faith. You lose, Ratzi.
>
There is textual evidence, recorded eye witness accounts, and ancient
tradition.
AllSeeing-I
Your lack of knowledge is showing. They have their own version of
Rom1.20
Devils Advocaat
Simply writing about something doesn't prove that it exists.
Eye witness testimony is frequently unreliable.
Just because a thing is traditional doesn't mean it is right.
wf3h
given the fact that many buddhists dont believe in god
and many hindus have thousands of gods
'romans' is not believed by most people
sorry, creationists.
wf3h
all of which show evolution is a fact
and we have eyewitnesses TODAY in labs across the world showing the
mechanism of evolution is a fact
yet you ignore that
Conan the bacterium
> On Apr 27, 7:14 pm, Conan the bacterium
>
>
>
> <deinococcus0radiodur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 27, 12:05 am, AllSeeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 27, 12:20 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> > > > "wf3h" <w...@comcast.net> wrote in messagenews:uemer6935um80o58s...@4ax.com...
> > > > > On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 07:22:00 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> > > > >>"Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:0eb371d5-88eb-4560...@p16g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> > > > >>> You and your fellow creationists admit there is no creator *every*
> > > > >>> *single* *time* you RUN from these questions and challenges. So by
> > > > >>> all means, do keep running, because every time you and your ilk do
> > > > >>> that, you prove my case for me.
>
> > > > >>> Here's what you're shrinking from like a limp Peter at the Passion:
>
> > > > >>> 1. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours
> > > > >>> exists
>
> > > > >>The whole Creation points to an all powerful Creator.. God.
>
> > > > > no it doesnt
>
> > > > How can there be a ~Creation~ with no ~Creator~ involved?
>
> > > > "Since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal
> > > > power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood
> > > > from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
> > > > Rom 1:20- Hide quoted text -
>
<>
> > > I do not know about those few that post here but MOST of the people in
> > > the world understand Rom.1.20
..
> > MOST?
..
> > An odd claim...given that at least half the world's people
> > don't believe in your Bible.
..
> Your lack of knowledge is showing. They have their own version of
> Rom1.20
Oh? Well then, kindly enlighten me -- what is the
Shinto version of Romans 1:20? Where in
Buddhism do we find the same sentiment set down?
Is it somewhere in the Eddas, too? Do the Inuit
have no excuse? How about the ancient Aztecs,
where did they express this?
Thanks in advance.
conan